New engine regs for 2013

[Bagwan]

The carbon footprint is indeed huge, but then, look at the carbon emissions of having the luxury produce we all love in our supermarkets every day - flown in from every corner of the earth.

As I understand it, the FIA has, for some years now, offset the estimated or calculated CO2 emissions associated with F1.

Carbon credits are simply a way to make it look good while being bad for the planet .

Limitting the amount of fuel used is something they all do as a matter of course anyway , as nobody wants to carry any more than they have to , as it costs lap time .

As has been said here , restrictions on which plant should be used should come naturally , with technology moving toward the engine most suited to the conditions .

Lose the wings entirely , and give them whatever engine they wish .
It'll slow them down , but it'll also show which drivers can drive .

[Bagwan]

Me too, but how to extract the Hydrogen without the need to use disproportunate amounts of fossil fuels? And we know what burning fossil fuels create, don't we? Catch 22.....

Honda are working on this on their 'hydrogen island', using hydroelectric power to extract the hydrogen. Not everyone has an island handy though, do they.......?

You are right that hydrogen costs too much power to create .

Ballard , the creator of the hydrogen fuel cell , suggested that the power be created by reactors when in over-production situations , basically every night .
We pay to dump power when it could be stored as potential energy in hydrogen .
It's dumb .

It's also really friggin dangerous ; too much so for the regular public .

[Mark]

Ballard , the creator of the hydrogen fuel cell , suggested that the power be created by reactors when in over-production situations , basically every night .
We pay to dump power when it could be stored as potential energy in hydrogen .
It's dumb .

Coal stations also have "spinning reserve", in that they need to be producing power even when it's not needed. However in the UK to a large extent this is used to reverse pump hydro-electric stations so they are ready for the next peak.

It's also really friggin dangerous ; too much so for the regular public .

I fear this is the major problem, but of course you can say the same of petrol.

[SGWilko]

It's also really friggin dangerous ; too much so for the regular public .

If the hydrogen tank were to rupture, would the hydrogen react with oxygen without any catalyst and explode, or would there need to be an ignition source?

Now, if every house in the UK had;

1. A wind turbine
2. A ground source heat pump
and
3. Solar panels, we could all potentially store our own energy, charge up our electric cars, heat and light our homes for free. Power stations would be required only to power streetlighting (which ought to be replaced with low energy consuming LED's) and public transport.

Now, is there a government party that currently exists with the testicles to push such legislation through?

Sorry, I'm just scratching my head wondering wtf my rambling has to do with F1......

[Bagwan]

If the hydrogen tank were to rupture, would the hydrogen react with oxygen without any catalyst and explode, or would there need to be an ignition source?

Now, if every house in the UK had;

1. A wind turbine
2. A ground source heat pump
and
3. Solar panels, we could all potentially store our own energy, charge up our electric cars, heat and light our homes for free. Power stations would be required only to power streetlighting (which ought to be replaced with low energy consuming LED's) and public transport.

Now, is there a government party that currently exists with the testicles to push such legislation through?

Sorry, I'm just scratching my head wondering wtf my rambling has to do with F1......

Hydrogen does need an ignition source , but if that is provided , you produce water ......very , very violently .
I remember the science class experiment , where once you had the required ratio of oxygen to hydrogen in the metal flask , you had a very distinct ringing in your ears for several days .

I am currently building an off-grid house .
I am about to install 2.8kw of solar .
My research told me to stay away from ground-source heat pumps . They ulitize a compressor to extract the temperature variance , so , off-grid , you would need a lot of power , and that costs money .

Better to use solar thermal for heat , backed up by a non-fossil fuel source . That would be a wood stove , in my case , but better would be to use a digester to produce methane for back-up .
We're all full of it , and it should be a resource , rather than a waste , as methane is roughly ten times as bad as a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide .

Small wind can work in the countryside , but wind turbulence in a city would make it useless in most cases , due to cost .
And , large or small wind generation requires the use of a storage system , as the wind does not blow on demand .

And , the sun doesn't shine that way either . It inconveniently decides to rise and set each day , also making storage a must .


So , how do we relate this to F1 ?

First , we could drop the price for the venues if they got off the grid .
The additional press that Bernie could derive from such a move , potentially effecting a green change in all the countries that F1 visits would be astounding .

All the transport , short of the air travel , could be mandated as driven with non-fossil methane .
They'd soon realize that a factory with 500 employees would likely produce all the fuel they need for the season .
That could lead them to realize that the fuel they had left over could heat the factory as well .
And , that could lead them to realize that such a simple system could also be enlarged to neighbourhood , and then small town size .
Maybe then they'd see that all bergs , villages , towns , and cities already have most of the necessary infrastructure to retrofit methane capture into the game , making the pumping of any more fossil sourced natural gas cease completely , due to cost .

Now , I am sure you thought to yourself , when I suggested that Bernie drop the price for the venues , that it would never happen , and perhaps laughed , and rolled on the floor holding your belly .
If the venues holding races incorporated these standards , they would actually make more money .
They could also likely get more money from governments for support , as green initiatives are all the rage .

If you've got some guys that owe you money , and they keep whining about having none , you work out a way to have them make more , so they can afford to pay you more .

[mstillhere]

Indeed, but your average Jo Public does not want to pay a fortune every 4 weeks for an engine rebuild...

....and this is where F1 needs to allign itself more for road car relevance, and the transfer of technology.

Well Ferrari and Mercedes dont really cater to the every day Joe

[mstillhere]

More efficiency = more speed. If they limited fuel usage the engineers would be compelled to develop more environmentally friendly and economical solutions, because they'd also be faster. No need to mandate KERS or 4-pots, because they'd get used anyway, or the engineers would come up with something even more beneficial.

The FIA (or whichever "working group" is responsible for framing the rules), by setting these restrictions in the rules (e.g. on KERS boost usage, engine architecture and so on) are actually holding back the progress of these technologies, not promoting them. Am I right in remembering that McLaren developed a form of energy recovery some time ago, only to see it promptly banned before it could race?

Not to mention the "freeze" on all engine developements

[call_me_andrew]

Well Ferrari and Mercedes dont really cater to the every day Joe

Well Mercedes is owned by Diamler who builds this:



And Ferrari is owned by Fiat who builds this:

[Malbec]

Besides that, I hardly believe we should see F1, or for that matter any motor racing sport, from an enviromental friendly perspective. That's not the nature of motor racing. Not to mention that over the years the F1 engines have become cleaner and more reliable without compromising the original nature of the sport.
F1 has always been about high technology and high speeds.

Thats a fair attitude to have, why compromise the sport?

The reason is that the biggest problem F1 faces today is that it lacks cash. Many of the mid- and back of the grid teams are up for sale. Everyone bar the top 3 lacks sponsors. Many of the car makers have left and taken their money with them, its pretty clear that for most car makers the environment is THE priority in terms of product right now.

Honda and Toyota barely have any sports cars left in their product line-up but plenty of hybrids. BMW are introducing efficient dynamics across their entire range. All the German makers are downsizing engines and slapping turbos on them to keep the power and torque but slash emissions and consumption. Nissan/Renault are going electric. FIAT are going for simple but effective small capacity engines. Even Ferrari are talking about slashing weight and cutting engine capacity to offer the same speed but cleaner while Porsche are talking hybrids.

So why should these car makers want to return to a sport which is all about more power obtained through burning more fuel? How does that fit into their brand realignment?

And its not just carmakers, plenty of other brands are desperate to appear green.

F1 needs to reinvent itself to get back these sponsors, to appear green to look as if its part of the solution by being the test ground for new green technologies like KERS. Getting 4 cylinder turbos is all part of this process. Otherwise it just looks like the sport is part of the environmental problem.

If you want F1 to keep its big V8s then find an alternative cash source that doesn't rely on sponsorship...

[V12]

Not to mention the "freeze" on all engine developements

Is that going to remain after the new regs come in?

If so, I think that closes the book for me - officially a PR exercise and nothing more.

Here's hoping not though.