Comments on: Green F1: Right idea, wrong approach

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:26:50 +0000

What Happened to the FIA’s tree planting programme that offset its contibution to Co2 emmisions. If this is still progressing then the need to go green for racing is negated!

By: Steve Johnston

Steve Johnston — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 05:00:56 +0000

Formula 1 has to cut back on technology so that the drivers have time to react to the tracks that stay the same as their cars get faster every year. A formula 1 car also is made to turn about 5 times faster than any Bugatti Veyron will ever dream of. The formula one car also has a engine that is smaller than 3 liters If the same engine in a formula 1 car was modified for economics it would get about 70 MPG and that is the Point of formula one.

By: Eugenio Perez-Maldonado

Eugenio Perez-Maldonado — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:17:30 +0000

Forget about pollution direcly generated by the cars. Formula 1 pollutes in it’s development and logistics. A F1 engine is so fine tunned and clean inside out, that you could brew an expresso straight out of a cylinder after a race.. damn good one by the way. 20 F1 cars can generate the same amount of exhaust harmful particles than a single road car.

The FIA can go “green” simply by controlling the use of wind tunnels. These babies pollute as much as ariplanes.. in the ground. These have an increase activity during the winter when the new F1 models are developed. Pollution is trigered this time of year because of the greenhouse-effect in cold weather. An option is to operate these tunnels with alternative energies.

F1 travels too much. Imagine going from a race to Asia to a test in Europe back to race in America, back to test again… moving all your team by air every week. The FIA can do a better job in the F1 calendar. Whats the use in going twice to Europe, and Asia every year??? Do all European races at a time and then all Asian ones, etc.. The FIA can also control the amount of testing during the season like they did a couple of years ago.

The FIA could also be more vigilant on recycling. My guess is that F1 teams travel with drained cars. Where do all coolants and lubricants go after races in each track??

By: Ian

Ian — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 15:36:29 +0000

My solution to the whole debacle is a horsepower limit, not an engine dev freeze. Manufacturers will be forced to find gains in economy. They could use any kind of engine they wanted. One would hope that this leads f1 towards alternative energy sources. F1 seems much more interesting when you have truly different ideas competing with each other.

By: Number 38

Number 38 — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:02:14 +0000

Hey! I’ve got the ultimate “green Tech” car…….
a great huge clockworks motor,
wound by hand of course, no fuel required; and a gimmick on the brake pedal that engages great rubber bands and winds them up during braking and launches me forward when the pedal is released; and a turbine like propeller spun by the driver pedalling a bicycle crank; and; and; and;
You might be laughing but I’m not, this is what f1 is coming to. F1 is no place for “green technology”. Period!

By: Mattmagrat

Mattmagrat — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:08:16 +0000

My friends and I think we have the solution; simply have a restriction on the total fuel available to each car at each circuit and every year the total amount of fuel will go down by an agreed amount, say 5%. Then remove any engine restirctions ensuring that teams have the chance to design alternative ways of maximising performance. The manufacturers are free to do whatever they like to make up the performance. Just think of the various solutions that could be tried: elecric motors with energy recovery systems, large diesel engines (as it has more potential power for a given volume than petrol) versus little tiny petrol engines turbo/supercharged to the max. Maybe an ultra efficient gas turbine charging batteries of an electric engine backed up with solar panels… Ultimately, as everyone has the same amount of fuel the ptoential power is identical, which even the current heavily restricted engine regs does not do.

This arrangement would also benfefit the non-manufacturing teams as they could licence the developed technology back out to industry if (when) they come up with something ground breaking and patent it.

By: Ratboy

Ratboy — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:30:48 +0000

The eighties and early nineties were great you different looking cars with different sized engines with different specification on each car, now all that is different today is the colour schemes, let the engineers do their job and make some of the beautiful F1 cars come back, Plus I would love to see VW come into F1 with a turbo diesel just imagine all the black smoke at the start it would be like wacky racers

By: Number 38

Number 38 — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:07:01 +0000

I’m an oldie from the early years of F1 when F1 was real racing and involved SPORT. Today it has deteriorated into a perverted business and is now being invaded by political ploys, the most obvious, the sudden need to “go green”. I am not against any of this “image building” and that’s all it really is, but to legislate through ONLY MadMax Mosley’s view is ridiculous. The part that concerns me is some of my friends seem to be caught up in the rush to “go green” and have
lost perspective of what F1 is.
Mr. chunter (above) I applaud your interest to “open the specifications of Formula 1″ but that’s not going to happen, MadMax has already concocted wierd regs to the year 2011 and they are the opposite of what you would like to see, there is talk of limited horsepower, 770hp was the figure and 10,000 rev limit also. Several folks think banning re-fueling is a viable idea but I ask how long is the race? 150 miles will require at least 60-70 gallons….now we’re racing tank trucks! And 3 mpg is 3 mpg whether you fill a large tank once or a small tank several times. That’s NOT an environmental alternative.
And one more piece of information for your consideration…….just because “every other series” is moving in that direction doesn’t make it right. WHO is the leader?
Is F1 subserviant to GP2 or A1?
ALL of this “green technology” stuff is commercial image building and has no place in F1 motor racing. And about ‘chunter’s’ solar panel, that would best be mounted on a stick and used as a sail. Now THERE’S inovation….TWO benefits from one device!
It’s Sunday afternoon……an idle mind at work . Enjoy the humor, it’s free.

By: Johnny

Johnny — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 04:44:44 +0000

Interesting piece. I think it would be good for F1 if the manufacturers were able to compete with different green techs and innovation was a bigger part of the sport again. It would add an interesting dynamic to F1 and maybe even shuffle the running order. As far as the green debate in racing, it seems like every series is moving in that direction so at least there is some small hope that F1 can do it in a more interesting way than just having cars that run on biofuel.

By: chunter

chunter — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 03:43:12 +0000

All-in-all, this is a good piece.

I agree that this is a solid opportunity to open the specifications of Formula 1; if the worry is safety, I say the rules should specify only two requirements of a car’s power plant, the first being a cap on emitions, and the second being a cap on horsepower. All cars must be homologated before first practice of a gran prix, where they can be put on a dyno and tested.

The other opportunity is that the cars can prove fuel economy by banning physical refueling. (That means solar panels are okay.)