The One and Only
Spa 2014
Belgian Grand Prix
FOTA aims to slash carbon emissions within three years
News
FOTA aims to slash carbon emissions within three years
Posted By: James Allen  |  30 Jun 2010   |  1:41 pm GMT  |  74 comments

The Formula One Teams Association (FOTA) has unveiled a raft of changes aimed at reducing the sport’s carbon footprint.

Regenerating heat energy is a key strand of F1's next step (Darren Heath)


The teams have long been under pressure from sponsors who want to be associated with a ‘green’ product and following the results of an environmental research analysis conducted by Trucost, FOTA believes it can cut emissions by over 12 per cent before 2012.

According to the report, Formula One teams’ CO2 emissions hit 215,588 tonnes in 2009 of which 0.3 per cent came from fuel emissions during racing and testing.

“It has already been possible to reduce Formula One’s total carbon emissions,” said FOTA Chairman and McLaren team boss Martin Whitmarsh. “Moreover, building on what we have already achieved, and extrapolating what is now being planned, we anticipate that by 2012 Formula One will have reduced its total carbon emissions by 12.4% compared with 2009.

“In addition, the FIA and FOTA are already working together to tailor the 2013 technical regulations to ensuring that all engines and powertrains used in Formula One by that date will showcase, and provide a platform for the ongoing development of, technologies designed to enhance fuel efficiency.

“This is a very exciting time for Formula One, and I am delighted that our sport has been able to take a global environmental lead in this way.”

The 2013 engine regulations are a fantastic opportunity for the sport to take a fork in the road and make itself relevant for the future. The engines are likely to be small capacity turbos, with additional boost from heat energy regeneration systems, harnessed to braking as well as from engine braking. The FIA has been talking about this for some time now.

FOTA have stressed that it is important to find a balance between pushing for a greener future and ensuring Formula One continues to be the world’s best motor racing series.

“Formula One is, and must always be, the pinnacle of world motor sport,” said a FOTA statement. “Equally, Formula One cars have traditionally provided an exciting and productive development platform for new automotive technologies, and must continue to do so. Many of those new technologies have ultimately been introduced into consumer production cars.

“Turbocharging, fuel injection, variable valve timing and kinetic energy recovery systems [KERS] have all been developed within Formula One, and it is the intention of FOTA, in collaboration with the FIA, that Formula One should continue to pioneer technologies that are appropriate to the challenges faced by society today and in the future, and that are applicable to products that will benefit mankind in the longer term.”

The FIA welcomed the announcement, “The programme highlights the important role that new technologies will play in reducing emissions over the coming years and the leadership role of our sport in developing efficiency solutions for the wider automobile sector,” said a statement.

F1 and the environment is one of the topics under discussion tomorrow at the FOTA Fans Forum, powered by Santander, which JA on F1 is organising in London. You can follow the discussions from 1pm UK time on Forum Live

Video chapters from the discussions will be uploaded soon after the event via You Tube and will be posted here on JA on F1.

Featured News
MORE FROM JA ON F1...
Share This:
Posted by:
Category:
74 Comments
  1. PaulL says:

    No go for biofuels? I gather it would rob some nations of food

    1. MartinWR says:

      No go for bio-fuels? Perhaps because bio-fuels are a disaster and make no kind of economic sense. Ethanol production from corn requires, in the final analysis, the input of more energy than the actual fuel produced. Rain forests (and their peoples) are devastated as they are demolished for bio-fuel production. Switching land to bio-fuel crops has led to large increases in the cost of food staples worldwide. As hundreds of millions already live on the bread-line that can only mean many have starved.

      Bio-fuels for F1? Forget it, please, it’s just another disastrous lunacy originated by the AGW water melons (green on the outside, red on the inside).

      1. PaulL says:

        A fine response – I had no idea and was genuinely asking.

        Maybe hydrogen f1 cars for the future.

      2. JohnBt says:

        Re-cycling of paper is no longer promoted because it causes more emissions. So is bio-fuels. It’s been overhyped for quite awhile.

      3. Neil says:

        I run a car on bio produced from crop waste. It would otherwise be burnt. I can’t see this is driving up prices or destroying rainforest. It also works out cheaper than diesel.

        Of course, it won’t scale. There isn’t enough waste. But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just becase it’s not a conmplete solution doesn’t mean it’s not part of the solution.

        Neil.

      4. Nick F says:

        Also there are a new generation of bio fuels round the corner. there are many different types. genetically engineered bacteria, algae, cellulosic ethanol etc. I’m not an expert and i don’t know how far along they are at the moment. I just wanted to make the point that there is a lot going on in this field. certainly ethanol from corn is probably not great and there has been some cutting down of rain forest to to i think get palm oil. also there is the problem of using lots of water and energy to make the fuel.

      5. Nick F says:

        I’d like the cars to be able to recover energy from any source they can think of. beyond brakes and heat i think they should also be allowed to get it from the suspension. I also hope they don’t restrict KERS in the future. If on a lap a team can recover N amount of energy, then they should be able to use that energy. they should be allowed to use it whenever they want in the race. no silly 6 second rules.

  2. James W says:

    What about streamlining the racing calender? It seems silly making two trips to Asia and the Middle East at opposite ends to the season. If it was done in one go, it would save a lot of time, effort and money – as well as reducing the carbon footprint of the sport. Perhaps have the Canadian, American and Brazilian GP to finish the season following the European section of the season.

    Can somebody please ask this in the forum tomorrow? Will be interesting to see the response to this question

    1. Phil Bishop says:

      I think that would be very hard on the teams. They are away from their homes & family for the best part of a month as it is.

    2. Kedar says:

      Ya and how about calculating how much carbon is emitted for having Day-Night, Night races?
      May be it would be a good idea to install solar Panels in the race track and Generate power round the year (since they are in pretty warm places anyway) so that they are Carbon Neutral on a yearly basis

    3. Henry says:

      I have seen it suggested a few times before – and I agree it makes very good sense, the vast majority of the carbon emissions are used carting all the teams and kit around the world! However, Many of the teams will go back to the factories in between races if they are more than a week apart, as it makes sense to have the personnel and cars there to work on, etc. So it might not, in fact, change much. But say bahrain and abu dhabi are following one another with one week gap , that really would save costs, carbon, fuel, etc.

  3. Peter Freeman says:

    Why can’t we just stand up and say “hey, there is clearly no such thing as AWG, we are about racing” and tell the UN to go peddle their lies somewhere else?

    Ok, I know the sponsors are unable to avoid the TAX mongers who are making all this rubbish up, but really I think the FIA should make a stand for what is right, just because its RIGHT!

  4. HowardHughes says:

    This is a sop basically. Pure marketing nonsense. Figures show that the vast, vast majority of carbon emissions that emanate from a motor race do so from the ‘footprint’ created by the spectators, less so from the transport infrastructure and still much less from the on track circulation.

    Sure they can try and develop energy-saving / regeneration technology that’ll hopefully eventually trickle down to road cars, but the entire sport creates a tiny fraction of the annual output of a single barely-heard of Chinese or Indian energy station.

    Marketing ploy, pure and simple…

    1. RickeeBoy says:

      Agree 100% – plus Bernie wants another 2+ races on the calendar to make more money – It’s all just a smokescreen so the papers cant have a go at F1.

  5. Stephen Pattenden says:

    Typical!

    That’s kind of answered my question for tomorrow! :-)

    Great insight as ever James.

    PS – Who’s the FIA representative on the panel tomorrow?

    1. James Allen says:

      Not on the panel, but will be in the hall

  6. Henry says:

    I knew that the fuel used by the cars during racing a testing was a tiny fraction of the whole, but 0.3%, wow! interesting article, I am very much looking forward to the new engine regulations when they come out, could be very exciting.

  7. Brian M says:

    Nonsense… this is just for good PR.

  8. Nilesh says:

    Quoting James: “Formula One teams’ CO2 emissions hit 215,588 tonnes in 2009 of which 0.3 per cent came from fuel emissions during racing and testing.”

    I wouldn’t be surprised if a major part of the remaining 99.7% comes from moving the equipment between the race venues. I’m all for F1 going green but I’m afraid the sport might end up with more ‘greenwashing’ measures that the sponsors can tout rather than actual technologies that positively impact the environment.

    Reminds me of Richard Branson’s recycling spin: http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=372980&FS=F1

  9. Jamie Norman says:

    just a bit of ancient history

    didn’t the gearbox from the Maclaren Peugots end up in the road car, and didn’t the low friction technology that Jaguar F1 engine used, end up in the Ford Ztech engines

  10. N. Machiavelli says:

    ““Turbocharging, fuel injection, variable valve timing and kinetic energy recovery systems [KERS] have all been developed within Formula One …”

    F1 has used the above technologies, but NONE of them originated in F1.

    The idea that F1 is a breeding ground for technology which will have a useful transfer to road cars is a fantasy. Look at the requirements for F1 cars vs. the
    requirements for road cars; you may as well be comparing a hawk with an ostrich.

    Advanced road cars can be developed in absence of knowledge derived from F1, and in fact they are.
    Just ask Toyota whether the Prius used any “F1 tech”.
    Or ask VW whether the “1L” car used any “F1 tech”.

    This is purely an effort in public relations, and I’d rather see them admit that F1 is entertainment, than have my intelligence insulted by this sort of propaganda.

    1. DC says:

      I thought Anti lock brakes came from F1…

      it’s a bit like the myth that velcro came from the NASA space programme…

      Maybe the tech was enhanced thanks to F1 funding, i’m sure the manufuactuers must learn something from the tech they use…

      1. N. Machiavelli says:

        “I thought Anti lock brakes came from F1…”

        For good reason, much advanced mechanical tech appears first in aerospace.

        Anti lock braking systems were first used in aircraft,
        and were first developed by the British. Google “Dunlop Maxaret”, if you want to know more. Some of you probably recall that Dunlop was the first to use disc brakes on a car, as well.

        Look back to WWII see the world’s first
        high speed stealth fighter : the Dehavilland Mosquito,
        which was built almost entirely of sandwich-construction plywood, the first use of which would not surface in cars until years later, though in that case it was as “Mallite” which was a sandwich of
        ally and end-grain balsa. The McLarens used in the Can-Am series used this material, if memory
        serves, as did F1 cars during the era when James Hunt
        drove.

        Velcro was first conceived in the early 1900s by a man who studied the way brambles attached themselves to his tweed jacket.

        The word “velcro” is a contraction of the two French words velour and crochet. But it took modern plastics technology for velcro to reach the mass market, and for that we have Dupont to thank.

    2. michael grievson says:

      I agree with n.Machiavelli.

      It’s like the arguemet about f1 tires and road cars. If they want to reduce waste let’s have tires that last 12000 miles.

      If less than one percent of F1 carbon footprint is from the cars why put so much effort into reducing the car emissions? I wonder how much waste is produced from carting those motor homes about?

    3. J. Potocki says:

      If I’m not mistaken you can add radial (tubeless) tires, independent suspension and tiptronic gear shifting to the list of F1 developments.

  11. Alper B says:

    I think this is much more beneficial to the automotive industry than to F1 itself. Cutting emissions and fuel consumption simultaneously on road cars is a massive challange these days and I can see a lot of new technologies stemming from F1 down to the road cars. As an automotive engineer, I think this is a good move but as an F1 fan I don’t think so!

  12. Travis Berry says:

    That’s funny, those race cars don’t create enough emissions to worry about. Now the team transporters, ferry rides, airplanes, and all the fans traveling to races by plane, train, automobile, and ferry, now that might create some emissions. F1 cars are not street cars and don’t relate to street cars at all except for having 4 tires and a steering wheel. F1 needs to relearn that fact, it’s about the racing not the car manufactures advertising needs.

  13. Jonathan says:

    “According to the report, Formula One teams’ CO2 emissions hit 215,588 tonnes in 2009 of which 0.3 per cent came from fuel emissions during racing and testing.”

    this shows the cars aren’t really responsible of the problem. What they are trying to do is to make F1 LOOKS green, instead of BEING actually green.

    What formula one should do is to group all the asia races and europe races together. For example, when F1 was in asia early this season for the Chinese and Malaysian GP, why didn’t they have the Singaporean, Japanese and Korean GP around the same time instead of having it at the end of the season, making F1 flying tons of equipment from Europe to Asia again? If they grouped the GP together, they would have saved a lot of carbon emission.

    1. tobi-wan says:

      Exactly. PR guff if ever I heard it.

  14. Matt says:

    Green tech in the cars is exciting and the flow down effect on road cars will be as good as it has always been.

    But come on, the carbon produced from the actual racing is nothing. Drop one team, all their transport costs and the like and you’ve saved your 12% – and made the racing better (if it’s a new team)!

  15. drplix says:

    Off topic: James, any chance of mentioning in a main article this video of Lewis and JB in Senna’s car…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tQCXE7DDuc

    I’m sure others would like to see it.

    McLaren are definitely doing a great job of being more open and user-friendly. Please pass on compliments to Martin at the forum.

  16. S.J.M says:

    “The teams have long been under pressure from sponsors who want to be associated with a ‘green’ product”

    So why are they sponsoring F1 teams and not some other racing category such as athletics which is more “Green”. Wasnt there a survey recently (FOTA issued?) that asked about how F1 supporters feel about being green/emission cutting etc, or am i thinking of something else? Is this descion at all related to the feedback from it?

    Anyway, if the racing isnt detracted from making the sport greener, then its ok but thats it. Im fairly certain that F1 engines are so much more ecomonic then your average road car, if it wasnt for the Aero on the cars and the high revs they go to, which drastically cuts down the economy.

  17. BillDay says:

    Want to slash carbon emissions? Have all the races in Europe.

    1. Matt says:

      Where it just so happens 90% of the good tracks are.

      1. BillDay says:

        Not to mention 90% of the fans.

  18. Tom (London) says:

    I think this is good news, being a mostly a TV spectator I’m not bothered about the noise of the engines.

    I think there is more to this than just green washing, the whole industry knows that it has to make a real effort to clean up.

    Well done FOTA.

  19. Dan Smith says:

    0.3%…

    just think about this for a second. This means that if you make an f1 car twice as efficient energy wise, you reduce the amount of pollution generated by a quite simply miniscule amount.

    fact is, none of FOTA’s proposals address the other 99.7% of emissions, its all greenwash.

    If you really wanted to be green, you’d stop expanding the calender and forcing the teams to fly halfway around the world every couple of weeks.

    1. James B says:

      If you read the article I’m pretty sure the emissions reductions do include the whole carbon footprint of the sport, not just the emissions from the F1 cars.

      Martin Whitmarsh: “we anticipate that by 2012 Formula One will have reduced its total carbon emissions by 12.4% compared with 2009.”

      I’m guessing “F1′s total carbon emissions” is exactly what it says on the tin – and refers to haulage etc as well.

      Though this seems to mean that the entire advance could just be one of logistics, without any new technology being involved at all.

    2. monktonnik says:

      This is the point I was going to make.

      Also; how is this being audited? If 0.3% is the contribution made by the race/test fuel how does the other 99.7% breakdown.

      If they intend to make a 12.4% cut in emissions by 2012, and the new engine technology is going to come in for 2013, where exactly is this 12.4% coming from. I would like to hear some of the ideas they have to address the issue in 2010 and 2011.

      I don’t see how they can achieve their aim without rescheduling the races so there are fewer miles flown, and by running their factories on renewable energy.

      However, if they can show an audited reduction of even close to 12.4% then they should be appluaded. How many of us as individuals are working towards any kind or personal goals?

  20. Frankie says:

    Major car manufacturers will not get involved in F1 because it contradicts so much of the green image many of it’s customers want.The only possible way F1 can be significantly greener is by ceasing to exist. All the green initiatives from F1, whether from race consumption or development is a totally wasteful method of going green. There is only one real green improvement F1 can perform, cease to exist.

    By all means pay lip service to the green aspect but not at the expense of racing. All you will do is erode the current fan base for a non existent one. F1 is that luxury in life driven by excitement and spectacle that we pay a price for, not the BP economy challenge.

  21. JR says:

    Kinetic energy recovery systems were used in some buses long before they appeared in F1. Having said that, I think that any initiative that encourages teams to improve the efficiency of burning fossil fuels is a good move. Let’s face it, in the current climate (pun intended)if F1 cannot claim to justify its existence by providing a platform for outstanding new technology with environmental applications, it could be in for a lot of flak in future years.

  22. Chris says:

    Hello James,

    First post so got to say really like the blog, check pretty much daily since I found it.

    Whilst I agree to some extent that efforts should be made to reduce emissions across the board I really hope that F1 does not lose it’s primary focus of being at the cutting edge of racing. I read elsewhere that even 4 cylinder engines are being discussed as part of this. I hope that this is not the route taken as F1 just wouldn’t feel like F1 if the cars were powered by 1.5 litre straight 4′s.

    Chris.

  23. Pierre says:

    Whatever FOTA and FIA decide to slash Carbon emissions, this is a great news and a fantastic move as it shows Formula 1 is not disconnected from the rest of the world. Involved into the eco-friendly business for years, I do not know any other industry or company which would be able to 1/ announce such a short time target 2/ would be able to reach it, which I think they will.
    Have a nice FOTA forum tomorrow.

    1. Brace says:

      Is Bono from U2 your favorite rock star?

      1. Pierre says:

        No, why ?

  24. John Player says:

    “Formula One is, and must always be, the pinnacle of world motor sport,” said a FOTA statement.
    Very funny. The cars are still bloody fast, indeed. But they cant even make unambiguous regulations, the stewards make questionable decisions race after race…

    Going “green” is a nice idea. I would like to see the whole package becoming environmentally friendlier, not only teams and drivers working their butts of to cover 300 km with less gas.

    Firstly, get rid of this night race nonsense. Not to use sunlight is unreasonable. Even if the energy is produced by renewable resources, it still means losses.
    Well, in addition to that,some countries that F1 visits have bigger ecological footprint than the other. But still, we see races held
    in China for example. They get all the positive publicity(that even todays f1 still offers). How can this “green” F1 tolerate that?

    1. David says:

      I think the Carbon footprint of night races is mic harder than that to quantify if you want the true overall total carbon footprint!

      Remember lots (perhaps still a majority?) of fans will watch the race from Europe. If the race would oterwise be at night for them it could be (without knowing the ratios of fans to location I don’t know!) that night races save carbon overall!

      I’m not trying to argue for or against night racing here! Merely stating that unless you see the overall picture it’s hard to make a judgement.

      Likewise arguably one should take account of what other activities watching F1 displaces and whether they use more or less CO2 per head compared with f1.

      In practice the whole thing is a minefield wheee you need be very careful as to what you do to avoid thinking you are improving things when in fact you’re making them worse!

  25. Robert S says:

    As long as f1 remain at the top of motorsport and has the biggest and most powerful engines i dont mind.

    saying that most of f1 carbon emissions comes from travelling to races not the cars, so maybe focus on that 1st rather than the cars!

    1. JR says:

      If you include the carbon emissions of fans travelling to support their teams, football is ten times more carbon-intensive than F1.

      That’s a guess, not a scientific fact — but it would be excellent if some statistician could do the research and publish the data.

  26. Nick says:

    Of course the emissions from the F1 cars themselves are a tiny part of the total generated by F1, but that’s not the point. This is about developing and promoting the use of more efficient engine technology, which has to be a good thing.

    Actually, might it be that the FIA are also trying to reduce those other emissions too, by holding more races in places like China and Turkey, that nobody actually goes to ;-) ?

  27. Stuart the old geezer says:

    If most of the F1 ‘carbon footprint’. comes from moving the teams around plus the spectators’ contribution, how can the 0.3 per cent coming from racing and testing be reduced in any way that is meaningful to the rest of society? This looks like a bit of PR window dressing just to make the sponsors feel righteous. F1 engines are incredibly fuel efficient anyway, but as several of your contributors have pointed out, it is difficult to transfer this technology to road cars.

  28. the_vostok says:

    What is going on??!! Is this Formula 1 or is it an expensive economy run?

    FOTA harps on about engaging the fans but we keep getting more and more complex rules each year without fail…..it’s really baffling.

    Back to basics, I say.

  29. Bob Q says:

    What a load of horse pucky.

    1. MartinWR says:

      First sensible comment I’ve seen on this topic!

  30. Bollo says:

    As F1 has such a high profile and so much corporate involvement (which obvioulsy is its life blood) it is at the mercy of greater public opinion and whatever the media and high profile tree hugging organisations are making the most noise about.

    We do have to get smarter about resources and effeciency but there are so many other ways that this can be done rather then adding technolgies to a few cars that have a single purpose – to go fast. The cost of all these great sounding technolgies will cripple half the field and to what end? Heavier, slower vehicles with an even bigger margin performance between the teams. Is that what the soul of F1 is really about?

  31. Banjo says:

    As a motor sport fan I am really not fussed about how green the F1 calendar is but I do appreciate the need for manufacturers to invest time and money in green technologies. F1 should be show casing these technologies in all their glory as well as helping to develop them. As for the rest of the 99.7%, well, you don’t get FIFA worrying how football fans get to matchs and their carbon footprint and they have 38+ matchs a year. So why should f1 worry about the fans footprint?

    1. mtb says:

      Perhaps F1 should lead the way, and show other sports and forms of entertainment how it should be done?

      Rightly or wrongly, F1 is an easier target than other forms of sport/entertainment.

  32. James B says:

    Since most of the emissions come from haulage and transporting the teams, surely this will just be solved by better logistics, no “new technology” or cutting edge advances by the sport’s brains.

    Not exactly super exciting stuff. I’m a lover of the sport, I’ll just ignore the green gimmickry and focus on the next race thank you very much!

  33. chris says:

    Perhaps instead of a monetary budget cap the teams could have to comply with a carbon emissions cap.
    On another note I seem to recall that the ‘green looking’ Tour de France produces more carbon than a whole season of F1, but then again I might have read it on Wikipedia :-)

  34. Alberto Dietz says:

    Sponsors associated with green products stinks to high heavens of massive govt subsidies.

    The event should require the presence of Lord Monckton, as the last thing we need is F1 (and the entire world) to become unrecognisable at the wrong end of a carbon emmission scam.

    Carbon tax is fraud is aggression and not long ago in the not so wild wild west fraudsters were surely and deservedly met with a generous dose of defensive lead.

    1. MartinWR says:

      Alberto, you nailed it. Great!

  35. John says:

    Turbocharging developed by F1? That’s news to the whole world; especially Alfred Büchi who took credit for the invention and had the nerve to apply for a patent in 1905.

  36. JohnBt says:

    F1 fuel forms just a tiny fraction of emissions. The transportation of equipment by air far exceeds the emissions caused during the race weekend.

    Just a thought, what happens when electric F1 cars are possible.
    Then we don’t need earplugs and we’ll be able to hear the whizzing of aerodynamics. Can be interesting.

    But we want that macho audio don’t we. LOUD! It’s the horse power. 800 horses running at full speed will surely be loud.

  37. Rich C says:

    Just total rubbish. Who do they think they’re fooling? Just a cynical marketing ploy.

    Lets make a new rule: everybody has to walk to F1 races. That’ll save more than messing about with the cars.

    Or how about this: all us racing fans hold our breaths for as long as possible at high noon before each race. That should save up enough CO2 to pay for the race. Especially if it included all the pr flacks.

    1. MartinWR says:

      Install wind turbines at all the F1 circuits. Then have the petrolheads blow on them to generate eco-loony-friendly electricity. You know it makes sense. Or at least as much sense as AGW!

  38. Phil says:

    Can’t say that I’m impressed.

    I don’t care who wins the race with the least carbons expended, and the figures quoted show that the bulk of carbon expenditure is in external factors anyway. Focusing on the cars seems like a complete idiocy, except to try to attract new manufacturers… and manufacturers have historically been quite fickle on the F1 front.

    By all means tweak the engine formula. But what happened to cost containment? Will development of green technology allow some amount of overspend?

    Bah. Whole thing seems silly.

    1. MartinWR says:

      Maybe it seems silly because it’s merely another example of the sport trying to suck up to the eco-loonies.

  39. Robert Powers says:

    Racing has always been the place for automotive manufacturers to show their car building acumen.Under the gun,nose to nose with other car companies.

    It is a new age,with new realities and challenges.F1 provides a testbed for as yet unknown technologies.Winners will have found an advantage in their own interpretation of the rules.

    There is nothing wrong with trying to clean up our transportation system.Maybe they can “develop” noisemakers in F1 as well,to satiate those who complain about the quietness of the new propulsion systems.

  40. Jonathan says:

    Nice gesture… but that’s all it is.

    If climate change is as serious as the green lobby says it is, the whole world is doomed anyway. People are never going to make the enormous lifestyle changes required to cut carbon emissions by as much as they say is needed.

    If climate change is not as serious as the green lobby says it is, why not focus on more important things like poverty and nuclear disarmament?

    Either way, token gestures like this will make no difference.

  41. Mick says:

    I agree with the majority of what has been written here: streamlining the logistics on the race calendar and improving emissions from the haulage fleet would do more than messing with the race cars’ engines.

    F1 sometimes comes across (to me, at least) as trying to be all things to all people. By all means put forth “green” initiatives for better allocation of resources, but messing with the race cars’ engine and drivetrain just looks like they are trying to please the big corporate sponsors and thus, a larger audience beyond the core one who may or may not care about F1 beyond its image.

    0.3% of whatever sum suggests that any given work rate towards emissions improvement is better applied in places other than the F1 cars themselves.

    I find it a bit sad that the race cars have become the poster boys for green whipping just because they’re the most visible.

  42. Craig says:

    Surprised they didn’t make more of the idea of ‘carbon offsetting’ over this. Ie “We use a lot of carbon for F1 but its offset massively by the benefit we bring to road cars..” Might not actually be true but its certainly more believable than suggesting tiny improvements just within F1.

    If they really wanted to save all their carbon used they would just race round Silverstone against a blue screen and project pretty pictures of deserts etc on it. Added benefit that you can pretend more people go to Turkey while no one at all is actually there, masterstroke ;).

    I do hope the larger rims does finally come in with the new engines as it probably is a change that would be meaningful for Pirelli.

  43. OppositeLock says:

    Oooo! 12 whole percent! Be still my heart. F1 equals green? Well, maybe greenbacks.

    I agree a new technology such as KERS may be a good thing for F1 and other applications. However 12 percent is not going to fill anyone with admiration for the sport and how ecologically friendly it is. What will FOM promote? Our cars are 12 percent more efficient than we were three years ago? Yawn.
    Yes they’ve gone from 2.3 miles per gallon to 2.6. Woo hoo!

    Or, the KERS syatems we helped pioneer and refine are being used in transportation systems, such as buses, trains, trucks and autos worldwide. The amount of fuel saved is umpteen million barrels of oil a day. All of our trucks incorporate it. Our hospitality centers use solar power and our carbon footprint has been cut by 25 percent in just three years?

  44. HiJames
    Perhaps you would like a copy of the official paper I put before the FIA AEC early this year on electric racing.
    If you email me I will send you a pdf of both this and a patented new generation KERS item.
    I have a new incentive in train for F1 which I am certain you will find very interesting.

    Keith

LEAVE A COMMENT

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Top Tags
SEARCH News
JA ON F1 In association with...
Download the chequered flag podcast today
Download the chequered flag podcast today
Multi award winning Formula One photographer
Multi award winning Formula One photographer