How to fix F1?

[Adam43]

Yes his point is the engine is great, but not suitable for road use.

So while Vettel is my favorite driver I am not sure I agree with him about the need to be road relevant.

But wnut makes a reasonable point that perhaps should be a consideration and many think like this, the future road car engines and environmental credentials are important and perhaps F1 should adopt them.. More EV output would be a start.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Yes his point is the engine is great, but not suitable for road use.

So while Vettel is my favorite driver I am not sure I agree with him about the need to be road relevant.

But wnut makes a reasonable point that perhaps should be a consideration and many think like this, the future road car engines and environmental credentials are important and perhaps F1 should adopt them.. More EV output would be a start.

That's what Vettel is saying. Asked if he thinks the sport could die out, Vettel told Motorsport Total: “Sure, and I think it‘s valid because Formula 1 is not green.''

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Yes his point is the engine is great, but not suitable for road use.

So while Vettel is my favorite driver I am not sure I agree with him about the need to be road relevant.

But wnut makes a reasonable point that perhaps should be a consideration and many think like this, the future road car engines and environmental credentials are important and perhaps F1 should adopt them.. More EV output would be a start.

Socially and politically relevant might be what is required.

Governments around the world have banned two strokes for recreation purposes so as the move to zero emission vehicles gains momentum I expect that similar bans will be enforced for all sorts of reasons. While not impacting F1 directly the money tree that drives it will be impacted via the sponsors not willing to fund ICE racing. All speculation at this time but it seems like a reasonable outcome. Hardly a week goes by without companies around the world announcing withdrawing from carbon producing projects.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That's what Vettel is saying. Asked if he thinks the sport could die out, Vettel told Motorsport Total: “Sure, and I think it‘s valid because Formula 1 is not green.''

What is environmentally green may not be politically green.
And what is green is often a matter of opinion between people and at a variance with the facts
There is a discord between the two, so what does Vettel MEAN when he says F1 is not 'Green'
I'm often amused by some perceptions that what governments choose is always the best and wisest choice/decision when it is obviously not, even when its democratically determined.

[S griffin]

Obviously Vettel has been the one who has spoken out on a lot of issues this year, whether it's the environment, LGBTQ rights or the F1 calendar and I applaud him for that

This environmental issiue is very complicated and maybe Vettel has a point when he says Hybrids may not be the best thing for the environment. After all there's other alternative fuels out there. However I do agree with those that say F1 shouldn't need to be road relevant. It's always been a sport in it's own right, not a road car technology demonstration

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That's what Vettel is saying. Asked if he thinks the sport could die out, Vettel told Motorsport Total: “Sure, and I think it‘s valid because Formula 1 is not green.''

No matter what one's opinion is about what constitutes a green philosophy, F1 is far, far away from being green, and although I am a petrol head and very far from being a tree hugger, I also think that we do need to take climate change more seriously than at present.

F1 cars are not the real problem; the twenty cars only run for about 4 hours every other weekend. It's everything else that spews out all the nasty stuff to maintain having those cars going around every other weekend.

Whilst in Europe, we have goodness knows how many heavy goods trucks going from place to place, many of them stuffed with the portable gin palaces that F1 seems to have to have to entertain the hangers on and groupies, as well as decorating their pit garages which in reality is just for vanity's sake.

Meanwhile, for the fly away races, F1 requires about 4 or 5 747s to carry just what they cannot put in to containers and ship to the various circuits. And then there are the tyres which do go into containers and which are shipped months in advance.

But the problem there is that ships are probably the largest "polluters" of the lot and in our quest to buy more and more goods from the Far East, the shipping companies are building more and more container ships. Just in the USA, in the last few days, there were more than 50 container ships queuing outside just two of their ports waiting to unload cargoes, some waiting not hours, not days but in some cases weeks to get alongside the gantries.

And then there are the F1 guests and the spectators. The vast majority of the spectators will have travelled by car, some for many hours to get to the circuits. As for the guests, a number will have been flown to the country where the GP takes place in their private jets and then, with other guest, transfer to the circuits by helicopter alongside some of the drivers. Did you know that the record for the most air traffic movements to take place on a single day into one place in the UK is held by Silverstone on a Sunday for a GP?

So, all in all, and I've only touched on a sliver of F1, Vettel is quite right. And there is also the road relevance which is very important to especially Renault and possibly VAG in the future, but also to a great extent Mercedes and Honda; they need to be seen to be behaving pretty ethically from a PR perception point of view.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

No matter what one's opinion is about what constitutes a green philosophy, F1 is far, far away from being green, and although I am a petrol head and very far from being a tree hugger, I also think that we do need to take climate change more seriously than at present.

F1 cars are not the real problem; the twenty cars only run for about 4 hours every other weekend. It's everything else that spews out all the nasty stuff to maintain having those cars going around every other weekend.

Whilst in Europe, we have goodness knows how many heavy goods trucks going from place to place, many of them stuffed with the portable gin palaces that F1 seems to have to have to entertain the hangers on and groupies, as well as decorating their pit garages which in reality is just for vanity's sake.

Meanwhile, for the fly away races, F1 requires about 4 or 5 747s to carry just what they cannot put in to containers and ship to the various circuits. And then there are the tyres which do go into containers and which are shipped months in advance.

But the problem there is that ships are probably the largest "polluters" of the lot and in our quest to buy more and more goods from the Far East, the shipping companies are building more and more container ships. Just in the USA, in the last few days, there were more than 50 container ships queuing outside just two of their ports waiting to unload cargoes, some waiting not hours, not days but in some cases weeks to get alongside the gantries.

And then there are the F1 guests and the spectators. The vast majority of the spectators will have travelled by car, some for many hours to get to the circuits. As for the guests, a number will have been flown to the country where the GP takes place in their private jets and then, with other guest, transfer to the circuits by helicopter alongside some of the drivers. Did you know that the record for the most air traffic movements to take place on a single day into one place in the UK is held by Silverstone on a Sunday for a GP?

So, all in all, and I've only touched on a sliver of F1, Vettel is quite right. And there is also the road relevance which is very important to especially Renault and possibly VAG in the future, but also to a great extent Mercedes and Honda; they need to be seen to be behaving pretty ethically from a PR perception point of view.

All very true Mike, and the problem will be even worse with the 2022 calendar with races zig-zagging all over The World instead of moving far more sensibly from region to region. It's the age old problem of 'Do as I say and don't do as I do'. The powers that be are making a big hoo-ha about 'being green & reducing their carbon footprint' whereas in actual fact they are creating more problems.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

No matter what one's opinion is about what constitutes a green philosophy, F1 is far, far away from being green, and although I am a petrol head and very far from being a tree hugger, I also think that we do need to take climate change more seriously than at present.

F1 cars are not the real problem; the twenty cars only run for about 4 hours every other weekend. It's everything else that spews out all the nasty stuff to maintain having those cars going around every other weekend.

Whilst in Europe, we have goodness knows how many heavy goods trucks going from place to place, many of them stuffed with the portable gin palaces that F1 seems to have to have to entertain the hangers on and groupies, as well as decorating their pit garages which in reality is just for vanity's sake.

Meanwhile, for the fly away races, F1 requires about 4 or 5 747s to carry just what they cannot put in to containers and ship to the various circuits. And then there are the tyres which do go into containers and which are shipped months in advance.

But the problem there is that ships are probably the largest "polluters" of the lot and in our quest to buy more and more goods from the Far East, the shipping companies are building more and more container ships. Just in the USA, in the last few days, there were more than 50 container ships queuing outside just two of their ports waiting to unload cargoes, some waiting not hours, not days but in some cases weeks to get alongside the gantries.

And then there are the F1 guests and the spectators. The vast majority of the spectators will have travelled by car, some for many hours to get to the circuits. As for the guests, a number will have been flown to the country where the GP takes place in their private jets and then, with other guest, transfer to the circuits by helicopter alongside some of the drivers. Did you know that the record for the most air traffic movements to take place on a single day into one place in the UK is held by Silverstone on a Sunday for a GP?

So, all in all, and I've only touched on a sliver of F1, Vettel is quite right. And there is also the road relevance which is very important to especially Renault and possibly VAG in the future, but also to a great extent Mercedes and Honda; they need to be seen to be behaving pretty ethically from a PR perception point of view.

Yes, the background noise is huge but the headline is the F1 cars themselves even if they emit only a tiny fraction of the total emissions for a race meeting. I never realised so many 747 freighters were used, that is simply embarrassing to see all that for twenty race cars and F1 should be ashamed of itself in every respect.

[P38 in workshop]

I wouldn't be too hard on ships playing a part in the world economy as they are, by a considerable margin,the most efficient way to move goods.Maybe its time to "encourage" fewer people to do their jobs from the circuit and remain at the factory.Now that the cars use fewer engines in a season that used to be the case for a single race weekend at least some of the stuff that used to be shipped no longer is.Maybe there is a good case for nudging the teams to achieve as much with a smaller pile of hardware.The real business of top level racers is to find a better way than the rest and if that means including a better use of resources and transport then they have the people and mindset to achieve the outcome.



I would still contend that one GP will cause a lot less pollution that a single weekend of British professional football.If you doubt the position then just add up the total number of spectators and then the cost of shipping players,officials,commentators,media crews and security staff.It also happens several dozen times a year.

[Mike Harte]

P38, it's all about the perception that cars are a dirty thing and they have to be got ridden of. However, there was some condemnation on the BBC website only yesterday for one football (soccer) team that flew by private plane just 100 miles for their match over this weekend.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Casper

Yes, the background noise is huge but the headline is the F1 cars themselves even if they emit only a tiny fraction of the total emissions for a race meeting. I never realised so many 747 freighters were used, that is simply embarrassing to see all that for twenty race cars and F1 should be ashamed of itself in every respect.

And just one of them is solely for the TV cameras and production equipment that is required to film each GP. When it was first used after it was introduced by Mr E, it was named Baker's Village, so called because the first producer/director was a chap called Baker, as it took up so much space at each venue.

[S griffin]

Of course sometimes you can't help using those type of aircraft, but it does make you think that they need one just to get the TV equipment there. Maybe Bernie's idea wasn't the best, let's face it digital coverage never really took off did it? But hey, live and learn

[NaBUru38]

Maybe F1 could borrow local TV equipment.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

No matter what one's opinion is about what constitutes a green philosophy, F1 is far, far away from being green, and although I am a petrol head and very far from being a tree hugger, I also think that we do need to take climate change more seriously than at present.

F1 cars are not the real problem; the twenty cars only run for about 4 hours every other weekend. It's everything else that spews out all the nasty stuff to maintain having those cars going around every other weekend.

Whilst in Europe, we have goodness knows how many heavy goods trucks going from place to place, many of them stuffed with the portable gin palaces that F1 seems to have to have to entertain the hangers on and groupies, as well as decorating their pit garages which in reality is just for vanity's sake.

Meanwhile, for the fly away races, F1 requires about 4 or 5 747s to carry just what they cannot put in to containers and ship to the various circuits. And then there are the tyres which do go into containers and which are shipped months in advance.

But the problem there is that ships are probably the largest "polluters" of the lot and in our quest to buy more and more goods from the Far East, the shipping companies are building more and more container ships. Just in the USA, in the last few days, there were more than 50 container ships queuing outside just two of their ports waiting to unload cargoes, some waiting not hours, not days but in some cases weeks to get alongside the gantries.

And then there are the F1 guests and the spectators. The vast majority of the spectators will have travelled by car, some for many hours to get to the circuits. As for the guests, a number will have been flown to the country where the GP takes place in their private jets and then, with other guest, transfer to the circuits by helicopter alongside some of the drivers. Did you know that the record for the most air traffic movements to take place on a single day into one place in the UK is held by Silverstone on a Sunday for a GP?

So, all in all, and I've only touched on a sliver of F1, Vettel is quite right. And there is also the road relevance which is very important to especially Renault and possibly VAG in the future, but also to a great extent Mercedes and Honda; they need to be seen to be behaving pretty ethically from a PR perception point of view.

The real answer to all this is to put it in a real life perspective.
As long as you focus on the numbers they can be manipulated (and are ) to produce fear and panic for political purposes and to provide a narrative that continually bombards people to believe that everything is going to collapse within the next decade or two.

The fact is it is not going to happen like that.
Putting things in perspective realistically means looking at the predictions in terms of real movement over the last decade and then comparing that with the real change from 50years and 100 years ago. The movement of predicted change suddenly becomes quite small but they don't use that because they are trying to get people to change and take hold of what they believe is a concern.

But what currently is happening in major industrial nations? Either industries that were major producers 50 years ago have declined or advanced in technology. Or some nations continue to spew at crazy rates with no no change.

How much is the total amount produced by F1 transport use in the aviation sector against the total of freight and passenger movement in aviation?
Fractional. Less than 0.0001 of of one percent.
That is less than 1/10000 of one percent (1 millionth) of all the the tons produced in aviation.
I know its about perception but until you start getting real about it the activists will carry the day with distortion of the real basic causes.

A teenage activist started a campaign against cows in a dairy farming nation of only 5 million people producing methane by its dairy cows.
Until the farmers pointed out that the methane produced by wild animals in Africa, and by the amount of methane in her home nation far exceeded by many times the amount of methane produced by dairy cows in one small nation. The campaign stopped immediately.

Truth has to come to the fore and be expressed in global terms before you will have ay real balance in the arguments and its is a global problem that has to be done globally with all nations taking an equal responsibility to clean up its own garden. Allowing nations to continue trading off its spillage by buying and planting forests in far off nations to buy carbon credits and dim their consciences will not change anything.

[wnut]

Going back to the actual mundane racing.

Time to get rid of sausage kerbs once and forever.

Eaton suffers compression fracture of lower back after running over COTA sausage kerb.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/moto...?ocid=msedgntp

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wnut

Going back to the actual mundane racing.

Time to get rid of sausage kerbs once and forever.

Eaton suffers compression fracture of lower back after running over COTA sausage kerb.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/moto...?ocid=msedgntp

I'm obviously sorry for whoever Eaton is, but the curb is there to stop drivers taking liberties with track limits; he/she went over them trying to gain an advantage.

You don't expect drivers on our roads to hit street furniture, so why should racing drivers drive over curbs that could cause them serious injuries or, as in the case of some of our club racing in the UK, hit tyre stacks that are placed to stop drivers abusing track limits.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I'm obviously sorry for whoever Eaton is, but the curb is there to stop drivers taking liberties with track limits; he/she went over them trying to gain an advantage.

You don't expect drivers on our roads to hit street furniture, so why should racing drivers drive over curbs that could cause them serious injuries or, as in the case of some of our club racing in the UK, hit tyre stacks that are placed to stop drivers abusing track limits.

Let's just start planting trees then shall we.


I think that she had no intention of running over the kerb.

If you want to enforce track limits there are better and safer ways than sausage kerbs.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wnut

Let's just start planting trees then shall we.


I think that she had no intention of running over the kerb.

If you want to enforce track limits there are better and safer ways than sausage kerbs.

I'm sorry, but as I wrote on another thread about tyre stacks, if modern racing drivers wish to play chicken with immovable, solid and hard objects, then they need to accept the potential consequences. It's not as though they don't know that they are there, and that these objects suddenly appear or jump out.

As for trees, I did race on tree lined circuits, and also ones with wooden sleepers on the apex of corners, and you quickly learnt to respect them, knowing that they will not get out of your way.

[Plantagenet]

Like many others, I too am frustrated by blatant breaches of track limits - and this is at at all levels of the sport.
This may be an ignorant suggestion - but could they not make the run off areas sticky/slower/with more resistance. This to me would ensure that there would be no advantage to be had but also that no cars or drivers have serious issues if they are pushed or run wide.
Disclaimer - I know nothing about tarmac/sub-base etc.........

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I'm sorry, but as I wrote on another thread about tyre stacks, if modern racing drivers wish to play chicken with immovable, solid and hard objects, then they need to accept the potential consequences. It's not as though they don't know that they are there, and that these objects suddenly appear or jump out.

As for trees, I did race on tree lined circuits, and also ones with wooden sleepers on the apex of corners, and you quickly learnt to respect them, knowing that they will not get out of your way.

I get what you are saying Mike, but its not always your fault.
Here is Wolwend getting forced wide in the next race with the same result apparently, crushed vertebral fracture,
instant retirement and months of rehab.

At 1min 7 here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA6b11Yp_HQ

Really not an acceptable result.

Gravel would be better.

[Mike Harte]

I have some sympathy for your view regarding the above incident. However, the problem is that the fault lies in this case with a driver causing an avoidable accident forcing another driver to leave the track.

It may seem harsh but that driver should have his racing licence withdrawn for a period, much the same way that, in the real world, a driver on the road would lose his licence for a period for dangerous driving.

The problem stems from the fact that the ruling authorities, whether that be the FIA or local MSAs don't lean harder on racers to moderate their driving antics.

[Greem]

If all circuits had a barrier (TecPro, Armco, SAFER, whatever) a car's width from the white line then drivers would change their approach - they'd be slower into the turns and far more respectful of each other. They'd be less likely to put themselves in situations where they could push or be pushed wide. It's never going to happen though, so how do we address the endless controversy of track limits? [rhetorical question really]

I do agree that those broadside-on sleeping policemen things are a danger, mind you.

Some interesting things have been tried at Donington this year. At the Esses, they trialled smaller bolt-down pieces, each one being progressively thicker than the last the further away from the kerb a car got. I'm not sure how successful they were over all or whether they'll be used again.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I have some sympathy for your view regarding the above incident. However, the problem is that the fault lies in this case with a driver causing an avoidable accident forcing another driver to leave the track.

It may seem harsh but that driver should have his racing licence withdrawn for a period, much the same way that, in the real world, a driver on the road would lose his licence for a period for dangerous driving.

The problem stems from the fact that the ruling authorities, whether that be the FIA or local MSAs don't lean harder on racers to moderate their driving antics.

Hmmm .. 1 st lap of GP, same corner after the sausage kerbs were removed

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...DENwcJZ6r.html

[S griffin]

The circuits need less tarmac run off. Then we wouldn't keep having this problem. I don't have too much of a problem with tarmac problem, but only if it's in a place where there isn't going to be a debate about track limits. If there is going to be a debate about track limits, replace it with grass or gravel or whatever

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by S griffin

The circuits need less tarmac run off. Then we wouldn't keep having this problem. I don't have too much of a problem with tarmac problem, but only if it's in a place where there isn't going to be a debate about track limits. If there is going to be a debate about track limits, replace it with grass or gravel or whatever

Is it possible to make these sort of changes at all circuits though?

I don't just mean street layouts, but what about those circuits that aren't just there for F1.