F1 Protestors.

We all know that F1 today has so many critics, "the race is boring", "new tracks are crap", "commercialism", etc etc I can go on and on.

What do you think of the growing number of protestors that want the sport banned because it is a total waste of energy resourses which are becoming ever more scarce. They havn't really had much exposure yet regarding their cause but they are growing in numbers and as far as I'm aware they have disrupted the French GP for the last 2 years and other GP's on a smaller scale.

I'm a big fan of F1 and although I agree with some of the criticisms I've mentioned above I can still see over that and enjoy most races, but what I cannot ignore is the fact that F1 is a terrible waste of a valuable resource. I cant think of any other sport that is so wasteful, they are targeting all Motorsport but consider F1 to be the main culprit.

Their argument is that it is a sport mainly practiced by a few (multi)millionaires who are blind to the fact that Oil isn't on a never ending tap.

I'm no "tree hugger" but I'm scared to admit that I agree with them, they have a valid argument which will only gain further support each year.

What do you think ? are they a bunch of eco-friendly anoraks.

For the last 10 years or so F1 has definitely been boring. However it slowly seems to be coming more interesting lately.

As far as a waste of fuel goes..... It is a bit like saying that Australia is a major Greenhouse gas emitter....yes we do put out a lot per person but all of us combined only put out a whole 1% of the worlds total green house gas. If Australia stopped emitting any greenhouse gas it would make no bloody difference.

The same goes for F1. If we stopped F1 racing it would make absolutely no difference at all to fuel reserves .

The Green lobby wants use to go back to the stone age...

But I would hate to see a planet with 6 billion people using "enviromentally friendly" wood fires

When the Green lobby has some genuine solutions, that are not just a load of wind, I will be listening .

Originally Posted by ASCARI

What do you think of the growing number of protestors that want the sport banned because it is a total waste of energy resourses which are becoming ever more scarce.

I think these protestor would be better off using their energy resourses to protest at George Bush - he is a much bigger threat to the planet than F1 cars could ever be.

Originally Posted by Pascs

I think these protestor would be better off using their energy resourses to protest at George Bush - he is a much bigger threat to the planet than F1 cars could ever be.

In his last speech he urged Americans to buy hybrid cars and use alternative fuel in order to break the US addiction to oil. His advisers and writers are finally getting the message??

Oh and i agree with stori but i think that they will be able to switch to some sort of hybrid engines without losing preformance in the future of course

I suppose we'd better cancel ALL sporting events... at the end of the day they encourage millions of people to travel (by car, plane etc) to somewhere they don't HAVE to visit.

And all air travel... Watch the holiday programs on your (solar-powered) t.v. instead.

And pop-concerts... buy the CD!

And leisure activities... visiting the folks.. any travelling at all. Ban all of it.

And heating your house...? What's all that about? Put on some extra pully's! Grow a beard.....

Washing. Waste of resources. Have you seen how much water and detergent you use, not to mention hot water...

Hospitals.. Waste of time. Let the sick die, rather than paying millions of pounds making them live longer. What for? Everyone dies sometime...

Old people.. what's the point? They just use resources but what do they contribute?

It's a slippery slope dudes... let the circus burn up as much oil as they can afford, I say. The show MUST go on.


Ralf S.

Originally Posted by PeterWolf

In his last speech he urged Americans to buy hybrid cars and use alternative fuel in order to break the US addiction to oil. His advisers and writers are finally getting the message??

Uh, depends. If you consider that US lobbies seriously push the use of gasoline as the "stabilized distribution medium" for hydrogen - which would then be extracted through solar-powered electrolysis at existing gas stations - then no, his advisers are certainly not getting the message. And their vision of the "hydrogen economy" does not cut the strategic dependency on oil-producing countries.

Now, it might be possible to use biogas as the hydrogen source, but as far as I know, the Bush administration has not pushed for biogas at all, except for potential use to support rural collectivities.

And then what do you do of the carbon collected after electrolysis, I do not know.

To solve this issue, the hydrogen-extracting electrolysis would be applied to water instead, in which case, there would be no rejected carbon, only oxygen (O2, not O hopefully ).

So if western economies started implementing better water-collecting/recycling systems now, they could use water electrolysis soon, while water-less oil-producing countries could still use gasoline or gasoline electrolysis for their energy needs.

Sounds like a pretty good phase-out strategy, but then widening water distribution to the proper scale sure wouldn't be easy.

Another solution, centralize energy production (and pollution filtering) and standardize most or all energy-consuming devices to a clean-use energy through a scalable, supported pre-existing distribution grid. To me, that would mean electric cars. Sorry guys.

Originally Posted by pierre_samanni

To me, that would mean electric cars. Sorry guys.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention, think of the accelerations and performances electric cars can provide... The Venturi Fetish does 0-60kph in 4.5s. AC Propulsion's TZero does 0-60kph in 3.6s.

Now in the meantime we can still do common-rail dual turbos diesel hybrids, of course.

Originally Posted by pierre_samanni

Uh, depends. If you consider that US lobbies seriously push the use of gasoline as the "stabilized distribution medium" for hydrogen - which would then be extracted through solar-powered electrolysis at existing gas stations - then no, his advisers are certainly not getting the message. And their vision of the "hydrogen economy" does not cut the strategic dependency on oil-producing countries.

Now, it might be possible to use biogas as the hydrogen source, but as far as I know, the Bush administration has not pushed for biogas at all, except for potential use to support rural collectivities.

And then what do you do of the carbon collected after electrolysis, I do not know.

To solve this issue, the hydrogen-extracting electrolysis would be applied to water instead, in which case, there would be no rejected carbon, only oxygen (O2, not O hopefully ).

So if western economies started implementing better water-collecting/recycling systems now, they could use water electrolysis soon, while water-less oil-producing countries could still use gasoline or gasoline electrolysis for their energy needs.

Sounds like a pretty good phase-out strategy, but then widening water distribution to the proper scale sure wouldn't be easy.

Another solution, centralize energy production (and pollution filtering) and standardize most or all energy-consuming devices to a clean-use energy through a scalable, supported pre-existing distribution grid. To me, that would mean electric cars. Sorry guys.

What I meant by the comment was simply that finally his "crew" figured that they should put different topics in his speeches instead always discussing evil doers, terrorists and try to divert focus from Iraq, massive budget blowouts(US), Iran etc.etc. Not in one moment I meant that they were getting serious about phasing out oil dependence or advocating/pursuing green energy/fuel. When they show the "president" at his ranch he always drives a massive Ford pick up from tree to tree to cut them down. And I’m sure that any technology that will filter to f1 the boys will make it as fast as anything we've seen so far

Originally Posted by ASCARI

We all know that F1 today has so many critics, "the race is boring", "new tracks are crap", "commercialism", etc etc I can go on and on.

What do you think of the growing number of protestors that want the sport banned because it is a total waste of energy resourses which are becoming ever more scarce. They havn't really had much exposure yet regarding their cause but they are growing in numbers and as far as I'm aware they have disrupted the French GP for the last 2 years and other GP's on a smaller scale.

I'm a big fan of F1 and although I agree with some of the criticisms I've mentioned above I can still see over that and enjoy most races, but what I cannot ignore is the fact that F1 is a terrible waste of a valuable resource. I cant think of any other sport that is so wasteful, they are targeting all Motorsport but consider F1 to be the main culprit.

Their argument is that it is a sport mainly practiced by a few (multi)millionaires who are blind to the fact that Oil isn't on a never ending tap.

I'm no "tree hugger" but I'm scared to admit that I agree with them, they have a valid argument which will only gain further support each year.

What do you think ? are they a bunch of eco-friendly anoraks.

Yes.....


We would still be dying in accidents if it wasnt for racing cars realising the effect of G-forces...created safety zones and crumple zones.

ABS Braking systems

Traction control

Then there are the nice bits, Cruise controls

Paddle switched Autos's

On board Telemetry...


The list is endless....

The stuff that gets advanced on F1 cars, in some way or form helps create better production cars.



Chris

venturi fetish? does that have black PVC seats instead of leather

if it wasnt for NASCAR and indycar, F1 would be the dullest motorsport on the planet

Originally Posted by jabberwocky

venturi fetish? does that have black PVC seats instead of leather

if it wasnt for NASCAR and indycar, F1 would be the dullest motorsport on the planet

Oh, indycar is so exciting I can barely watch it. Or was it IRL. Never mind…same BS.

...it must be me in my old age feeling too concious about some issues like this. Of course I'm aware that when you look at the big picture banning a few car races isn't going to stop global warning.

The main issue is the developing 3rd world, China and India for example, we in the developed West have no right to stop their advancement, they want what we have but its going to come at a price. They go on about us being 3deg. away from catastrophe, 50 years time the sea levels will be 27 ft higher !!!! Britain will lose 1/6th of its land mass etc etc and we are doing virtually nothing to slow it down.

They better be quick in their efforts to Terra-form Mars, coz we'll be going there quicker than we thought.

Originally Posted by ASCARI

...it must be me in my old age feeling too concious about some issues like this. Of course I'm aware that when you look at the big picture banning a few car races isn't going to stop global warning.

The main issue is the developing 3rd world, China and India for example, we in the developed West have no right to stop their advancement, they want what we have but its going to come at a price. They go on about us being 3deg. away from catastrophe, 50 years time the sea levels will be 27 ft higher !!!! Britain will lose 1/6th of its land mass etc etc and we are doing virtually nothing to slow it down.

They better be quick in their efforts to Terra-form Mars, coz we'll be going there quicker than we thought.

Alternatively the whole thing could stop the North Atlantic Conveyor, plunging the northern hemisphere in to a severe "cold spell"


Alternatively when Yellewstone nation park supervolcano goes up we will be in a nuclear winter for several years and billions will die of starvation.

Alternatively religious fanatics will try to bring on the next coming of their saviour by staring a nuclear war...billions will die


Yes we must do something about reducing the human footprint on this planet.
This could be achieved by Developed countries helping developing countries move through the massive polution stage. It could come by improving transport systems etc. It could come by developing new energy systems etc

But it is unlikely to come by trying to "beggar" the developed countries by using inappropriate and expensive technologies.

And with religions bent of getting their followers to the "eternal promised land" when the only promised land we will get is the earth, and others who see only profit wherever they look, well it does not seem to promising to me !


Unintellegently designed humans...you have a lot to answer for!!!!!

Originally Posted by chrisd_b

Yes.....


We would still be dying in accidents if it wasnt for racing cars realising the effect of G-forces...created safety zones and crumple zones.

ABS Braking systems

Traction control

Then there are the nice bits, Cruise controls

Paddle switched Autos's

On board Telemetry...


The list is endless....

The stuff that gets advanced on F1 cars, in some way or form helps create better production cars.



Chris

Not to mention the fuel efficiency that's also sought after. That, in the end, will benefit MILLIONS of car engines that will burn less fuel while at the same time being more efficient. All thanks to motorsports. Vtec and all it's different names is just one example.

Originally Posted by chrisd_b

Yes.....


We would still be dying in accidents if it wasnt for racing cars realising the effect of G-forces...created safety zones and crumple zones.

ABS Braking systems

Traction control

Then there are the nice bits, Cruise controls

Paddle switched Autos's

On board Telemetry...


The list is endless....

The stuff that gets advanced on F1 cars, in some way or form helps create better production cars.



Chris

Looks like my original reply was lost in the database crash, so here we go again!

The first production car to feature crumple zones was the 'Ponton' Mercedes, introduced in 1953, long before F1 considered safety to be of any importance.

ABS is banned in F1; traction control would be banned if it could be policed effectively.

Cruise control in F1? I don't think so!

F1 engineering is now so far removed from normal road car technology that its use as a development tool must be dubious - I suspect that road cars would have evolved in exactly the same way without F1.