F1 heading for the ‘museum to the combustion engine’ – climate change leader
Posted By: James Allen  |  09 Jan 2018   |  4:40 pm GMT  |  444 comments

Formula 1 and all other forms of motorsport which rely on the internal combustion engine are destined for the museum – and soon – according to Christiana Figueres, one of the architects of the 2015 Paris convention on climate change.

Figueres is now co-chair of the new advisory board for Formula E, along with Alain Prost, four times world F1 champion. She sees her role as being to challenge and to spur the series on to transform the automotive and transport world to decarbonise.

Speaking at the launch of the new title sponsorship by tech giant ABB of the Formula E electric racing series in London today, Figures challenged both Formula E boss Alejandro Agag and ABB CEO Ulrich Spiesshofer to bring about the “museum to the combustion engine” and to put a date on when it would happen.

“We have a lot to thank it (IC engine) for, it got us where we are today,” she said, but noted,”I challenge you to put a date on it (when the IC engine would be history).

“We are now in a race to the future, to decarbonise the world. It is unstoppable, it’s just a question of when.”

Asked by this site after the event whether this meant that Formula 1 as the pinnacle of motorsport would have to become electric or become obsolete, she agreed.

The Costa Rican, who has been Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change since 2010, suggested that racing involving internal combustion engines would have a future as an entertainment, a retro series, given that there are many beautiful cars from the last 100 years that people would want to see – and hear – race.

But as a global sporting business and as a technology leader for the automotive industry there was no question of a long term for a series which uses hybrid or any other form of fossil fuel power units.

Ross Brawn

Speaking to Popular Science Editor Joe Brown at the end of 2017, F1 managing director motorsports Ross Brawn was asked about F1 having an electric future and responded, ““I don’t see it in the next five to 10 years. I can’t see that.

“We have some tough questions to ask ourselves.”

For the short term, he added, the new owners’ view is that what F1 needs is that “The show has to be the number-one priority. The racing, the drivers, the history, the noise, the smell, the atmosphere.”

Mercedes is reputed to be building a new V6 hybrid engine for this new F1 season, with 1,000hp from just 1.6 litres. But Mercedes is also entering Formula E and F1 team boss Toto Wolff says, “The reason for us joining is that our road cars are gonna go electric — that’s a fact.”

There is an hourglass running on Formula 1’s future as a fossil fuel powered series. As governments increasingly set dates to call time on sales of petrol and diesel engined cars, the waist aperture of that hourglass opens up.

The question, as Figures says, is how long?

What do you think of these suggestions? Leave your comments in the section below

Featured Innovation
Share This:
Posted by:

Add comment

E-mail is already registered on the site. Please use the login form or enter another.

You entered an incorrect username or password

Sorry, you must be logged in to post a comment.


by Oldest
by Best by Newest by Oldest

I agree, but the timeframe is probably a long way into the future. In my lifetime? Sure. Within 5 years? No way. If I had to put a number on it I’d say 30 years. I look forward to arguing with you all about Hamilton then.


Why give the time of day to these climate change fools?


Could not have said it better.

F1, as stated by LM, is about the show, hence bring back the noise and leave the petrol engines in (show), unlike Formula E (marketing only today).

I'm familiar with the automotive industry, Autonomous cars, electric vehicles, are quite a long way to become massive, and in any case does anyone think the Ferraris or Porsches of the world will vanish and switch entirely to electric?, or could it be the case that they'd become even more high end for rich people who can afford them?. F1 should revert to petrol, bigger the better, and abandon this suicidal course with the Hybrids.


Turns out the oil companies have their internal reports confirming it. And now those reports will be used against them.



No that’s not what that report says, they did NOT have their own ‘internal’ reports, they were GIVEN a report which they were ‘expected’ to believe, they of course, did not. READ the article in your link!


"Disregarding the findings of their own internal scientists and scientific consultants, Defendants re-committed themselves to fossil fuel exploration, production, marketing, and sales over the ensuing decades," the suit claims. "The significant majority of emissions resulting from fossil fuels produced and marketed by Defendants occurred after Defendants became aware of the consequences of climate change."

To back this up, the suit cites the now-extensive documentation that several companies, notably Exxon, were aware of the growing scientific consensus about the role of carbon dioxide in the climate and even sponsored their own research that came to the same conclusions. The suit notes that all five defendants were members of the American Petroleum Institute, and thus received copies of an expert report that warned of "GLOBALLY CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS" this century and that "'THERE IS NO LEEWAY' in the time for acting." The science was so widely accepted within the companies, the suit argues, that they started designing and modifying their infrastructure to protect against the consequences of climate change, such as sea-level rise.


Do you see the words “the suit claims”?

It’s aleged, not fact. Again, READ!

Besides that, there never have been, not for one second in time, any “scientific” consensus. This can so easily be proved in a court of law one can hardly wait for proceedings to begin!


You clearly do have no idea of how science works. Scientific understanding does become facts through a legal process. Court rooms are only involved when someone tries to avoid responsibility of acting against sound consideration.


Please READ. I did not say that a court would determine any scientific viewpoint, I very clearly said that the non existence of any scientific consensus could easily be proved in court.


Climate change deniers are the fools and idiots.


Professor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics: "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"



Freeman, you mean to refer to Ivar Giaever - the Nobel Winning Physicist (won back in 1973) and Climate Pseudoscientist?

We often see scientists from non-climate fields who believe they have sufficient expertise to understand climate science despite having done minimal research on the subject; William Happer, Fritz Vahrenholt, and Bob Carter, for example. As he admits in his own words, Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever fits this mold perfectly:

"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case."

That quote comes from the presentation you refer to that Giaever gave to the 62nd Meeting of Nobel Laureates in 2012, for some unknown reason on the subject of climate change for which he has no background. As Giaever notes at the beginning of his talk, he has become more famous for his contrarian views on global warming than for his Nobel Prize, which have made him something of a darling to the climate contrarian movement and climate denial enablers.

You have numerous well documented scientific proofs against the claims made by Giaever in his talk, showing that his contrarian climate opinions come from a position of extreme ignorance on the subject, as Giaever admits himself. Giaever personifies the classic stereotype of the physicist who thinks he understands all scientific fields of study. (source of illustration: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/physicists.png)


Cyber, you have fundamentally mixed the point Giaever and others such a Freeman Dyson are making.


These HIGHLY esteemed scientists are looking at the LACK of actually scientific process being applied in the so called 'science' being used to back the theory of Global Warming.

Let me explain: You would like us to believe that because these genuine scientists are not 'climate scientists' they therefore can't comment on the intricacies of the subject, because of "extreme ignorance on the subject". Even if that were true, they can AND DO comment on the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS or rather the complete lack thereof, that is and has always been applied by the so called 'climate scientists'.

Giavever and Dyson rightfully point out, 'climate science' is pseudo science. The 'climate scientists' have started with the conclusion and have then set out to provide the evidence. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE!

Lets put this into racing terms. Dyson and Giavere are former F1 World Champions, looking at a newly formed carting series. They see that the 'winners' are picked out before the race and then the race is being staged so that these 'winners' do in fact finish in the order pre-determined by the 'Organiser'. Our two F1 World Champions are looking at this and saying, THIS IS NOT RACING!

You and others are trying to say that the F1 World Champions can't comment, since they have not actually driven in this formula....


The fact that you've used the phrase "climate change deniers" tells me that your brain is running on programming not of your own making.

You've got two choices: either take back possession of your own brain, or allow it to be posessed by somebody else.


@ Luke C.... I am a 'climate change' acceptor. We live in a dynamic universe and the weather is subject to constant change on an hourly basis. What i don't accept is that 'change' is being led by anthropomorphic activities. I do agree with your sentiments entirely. There is a significant body of scientists that don't buy this proposition either. There is nothing wrong with cleaning up our act where it is appropriate but to succumb to the likes of the paranoid pushers of climate change is to simply abrogate any vestige of critical thinking.


If by "Significant body" you mean < .1% of the people who have spent their lives studying and learning about the issue then by all means carry on.

But if by "Significant Body" you meant a statistically meaningful portion of climate scientist, like say 10-15%, you are completely mistaken.


As Alan Jones would say, what a load of old bow locks!

That's a point, last year Australia exported a record amount of coal to China, Japan, South Korea and India who seemingly can't get enough of the "black dust." Good news for Malcolm Turnbull I guess and the Australian economy certainly, but if Mr Patel in Mumbai or Mr Woo in Hong Kong buy a Tesla, it's effectively being powered by Australian coal? Doesn't sound very environmentally friendly to me...........

Very much a case of self righteous, deluded Western academics thinking they can save the planet while Malcolm Turnbull counts his dollars as India and China consume record amounts of Australian coal! Bit of a conflict of interest there me thinks.......


Ricciardo Aficionado

Did you get AJ's memoirs and hence your obviously vast knowledge of Australian geopolitical foreign affairs, for Christmas?


Hey Gaz, are you enjoying this 50C Sydney weather, or is Random 79 alone on this treat?


Thankfully yours is an outdated view that is becoming rarer by the day...


no it’s not..although climate change is happening, there isn’t a shred of evidence to support the idea that it’s caused by. rabin dioxide. carbon dioxide gas is denser than nitrogen and oxygen yet they claim carbon dioxide hangs high up in the atmosphere to trap the sun’s energy. all lies. carbon dioxide sinks in air because it is denser than oxygen and nitrogen...



No actually quite the opposite is true, more and more people are realising that the last two decades have not warmed As predicted and that the so called science behind the theory of global warming is actually rubbish science.


True. Unfortunately many people are still afraid to express their man-made climate change skepticism because they erroneously believe that support for the GW propaganda is the majority populist view.

The global warmists seem to have such a grip on the cognitive maps of some people that to be branded a climate change denier is tantamount to being labelled a rapist. And that's why no discourse is allowed to to exist on this particular matter.


Why is it outdated? Because you say so?

And whether it's becaming rarer or not is irrelevant as far as the truth value of his view is concerned.


'Global warming' is a scam and if you only did some research instead of watching TV you'd know it too


Why give the time of day to fools who think oil is infinite?


Different subject, finite oil and global warming are not the same thing at all. F1 can race for thousands of years on the current oils reserves, F1 has no need whatsoever to change on the grounds of oil running out....


Um... let me see. Climate does change. Yep. That's what it does. Been doing it for, well, forever.
Hardly new, is it?
So let's look for an alternative to the multi-billion dollar oil and petroleum industry. Ah, elephant in the room anyone?


The Earth has warmed slightly more than 1 degree celius in the last 125 years.

Every other time in Earth''s history that has happened it has taken at least 4000 years. (asteroids and other catastrophic anomalies excluded)

but no everything is comepletely normal


According to the Nobel prize winning physicist, Ivar Giaever, the earth has only warmed 0.8 of a degree Celsius in the last 125 years.

He's actually absolutely astonished that the temperature has remained so constant in the last 125 years given what we know about the history of climate on this planet, and especially now given the natural (not man-made) variables that affect climate.


The thermometer was only invented in 1612 so how can one MEASURE global temperatures retrospectively from that point? You can only use biological indicators (eg growth - like tree rings) or other approximations. You certainly cannot MEASURE within +/- 1 degree without an appropriately calibrated measuring device . So where do you find such reliable data sets on global temperatures going back thousands of years. And by the way, please compare apples with apples... if you see a rise that you are concerned about over a 125 year period then you need to compare blocks of 125 years throughout the retrospective 4000 year period (or whatever). Some time chunks may see a rise, some may see a fall -and an overall average measurement over 4000 years is meaningless in this context. I am a scientist and work with internationally renowned scientists in a Russell group university ..many amongst the community are honest - some are desperately deluded, some are plain dishonest (ie a reasonable cross section of humanity perhaps) . When you combine this with the pressure (dismissal) to produce at least 3x 3 to 5 star papers of international significance per annum then you have to develop a sense of scepticism and perspective on that data... and everything is subject to interpretation (opinion).


how much oil is there on earth andvwhen will it all run out?
oil is being discovered by the week.



Exactly all these hypothetical there is X amount of this resource left. Until more is found that is and not like we can't figure how to engineer oil in the same way we are creating GMO foods. I also believe oil companies are using algae to create fuels.

I don't understand the reason to use the ICE as the villain in this as a broad generalization of the cause of global warming. Similar to how all muslims are terrorist. They don't argue that the consumption of cows is so high that their methane is also causing climate or the fact that the Amazon in Brazil is being cut down to house cattle destroying animals habitats and reducing the trees which by the way convert the CO2 we breathe out into Oxygen we breathe in. One solution is to plant as many trees as possible reduce the amount of beef produced annually. Yet here we are making the ICE the main antagonist in this story. Why because there is money to be made as opposed to lost by reducing beef consumption. F1's impact can't be that big to be relevant but since its such a great marketing platform why not use it right. I wonder what the news was like prior to the ice age and the claimed causes.


rightly so, the idea that internal combustion engines will be extinct is a misconception..


Because oil is more infinite than lithium.


... and the coal and natural gas that are used to generate most of our electricity...


Ha Ha.
Energy Density of Petrol = 34.2 MJ/L (Source: Wiki)

Energy Density of Lithium Ion Batter = 0.9 - 4.32 MJ/L (Source: Wiki)


Based on our limited current battery technology.

Also, electrolytes have been developed already, which allow us to go back to lithium batteries and double density already.

Finally, how many times can you burn fuel? Because they have electrolytes now that allow 500,000 cycles on a battery. So what's 500,000 x 4.32 MJ/L vs. 1 x 34.2 MJ/L ?


Where does the electricity for the batteries come from?

Ricciardo Aficionado

I charge all my lithium-Ion tool batteries at home from the solar panels on my roof.


That wouldn't work here, good excuse for not doing any work though.....


So you never use your tools at night?


Fantastic, JAF1 readers debating climate change and making smart arse comments like this..... the new season can't come quicker..........


from the solar panels on my roof.

That's all well and good, but the solar panels don't grow wild in the valley. They require energy and resources to manufacture - don't forget to take that into account when looking at the overall equation. Nothing is for nothing as they say.


i said so already c63.


yes but in the long run the amount of energy harvested from salad pannels far exceeds their cost of manufacture..


I don't claim to be any sort of expert on the economics of solar panels. But, answer me this: if they are so crash hot why did the Gov't need to massively incentivise (by way of subsidies) in order to get people to have them? And since the subsidy has been withdrawn/reduced why has the demand fallen?


come on c63...you and i know that there wasn’t a rush to install solar. if there was a rush, at least 30% of properties would have that installed by now. as it stands, less than 1% of properties nationwide have installed solar


you and i know that there wasn’t a rush to install solar

If you say so Aveli....


@ C63'''Somewhere in the mix there is a 'quid pro quo'. My solar system allow me to sell back into the grid the same average that i use daily over and above that amount. The amount i pay back to the energy supplier is vastly reduced. The problem is that the sell rate and the buy rate variances are substantial but overall i will effectively pay for the system in around 60 months. The system is top drawer componentry with 'battery adaptation' an option should they ever become viable. The decision was entirely based on economics but if it has any effect on the overall well being of the nation then that is a positive.


I don't know how it works in your neck of the woods kenneth, but over here the Gov't offered substantial subsidies for people to have solar panels on their roof. Personally I don't like the look of them, I think they are ugly, so I passed - but I know several people who had them installed. The point is, the Gov't pretty quickly used up the funds allocated for the subsidy and then they stopped offering it - and the stampede of people having them fitted has slowed to a trickle and the entrepreneurs who got into the solar panel business have shut up shop. That tells me that the equation doesn't stack up yet. Not saying it won't ever, and I'm sure one day they will make sense. But here in the UK, just now, they don't.


@C63....Subsidies are still paid here as the benefits of solar outweigh the negatives. The excess being fed into the grid cumulates into substantial gains for the interco trading to meet peaks in extreme weather situations and the subsequent drawdowns at ridiculous trade pricing!!! Here in Australia we have an aging generation of supply vehicles and sooner rather than later this will need to be addressed. The fact that we either go nuclear of clean coal tech is a very hot debate and the solutions are far away...renewables are not a viable alternative. In the meantime some cities have experienced serious blackouts!!! As for your personal distaste of panels, yes, they can look ugly but i have a two story flat roof property so they are well hidden behind parapets..thankfully. With the current 14 day 30C+ heat we are experiencing i can run my aircon for almost zero and i have five separate A/C units! That is a great benefit when we get extreme weather conditions.


Batteries magically fill with energy?

Just wait. You'll head to your local recharge station to fill your car batteries. They'll have efficient ICEs running generators in the back to meet your needs.


ICE=electric motor
fuel tank=battery

When will the greens recognise that energy does not come from a battery, it comes from a power generator. The greens hate everything that produces the level of energy necessary to support a modern economy and lifestyle. They need to get real and stop behaving like latter-day Luddites.


They don’t care Richard. They’ve got their agenda and they’re sticking to it. Open debate means not a thing. They have nailed their colours to the mast and no person, organisation, entity or event short of the Second Coming of Christ is going to change that. In fact I think the pointless debate is actually producing many tonnes of unneeded CO2. Perhaps that’s the idea, a kind of self fulfilling prophecy...


Remember that we're not yet at wide adoption where generation is a challenge. However, beside the ever growing deployment of solar on houses, and the fact that most car charging happens off-peak at night, I recommend that you read up on molten salt reactors, coming 2020 and onto wide use by 2030 or before, when the world will be truly electric.

Also note that utilization rate of car fleet today is 4%! Talk about waste. If we double utilization and then double it again thanks to autonomous cars, it will still be only 16%! Meaning cars will still not move 84% of the time, and more importantly the potential to remove 75% of cars off the roads exist with just this impovement of car fleet utilization.

How? By not allowing cars with 1 passenger into the city center at peak for one. That will happen eventually, I believe. Just as not allowing diesel or charging high fees for it to drive into city centers has happened already.


Have you seen the public uproar every time someone starts talking about building a nuclear facility? Or designate a place to store the nuclear waste?


I’ve no idea where you got the car utilisation figures from (they seem ridiculously low) but they almost certainly don’t take into account peak utilisation - for example almost everyone is going to want to use their car to get to/from work at the same time - eliminating 75% of the car fleet isn’t going to solve that.


Did I give you the link to the car use data? In case I didn't, here is but one source.




Peak time, look around at how under utilized the cars are. Just stand on an overpass and look at all the single occupant cars below you. Imagine there was an autonomous car service that would put a butt in each of those empty seats. Imagine that it would drop people off at the door of their work or home and drive away. They would save 10 minutes on parking task, and 75% of cars could be removed from the roads in the morning traffic. That's possible with system optimization. But it can only happen with software, autonomous cars, and incentive. The incentive will be, faster transit time, time free while in transit to read email, or watch videos content, play games, maybe a morning quickie with your mate in that autonomous minivan. No maintenance, insurance, ownership, charging or fuel costs, just pay per ride at fraction of the cost because cost efficiencies can be realized in such a system.

Priority for cars on highways for those cars as well. Example - 4 lane highway? 3 lanes dedicated to car-pool autonomous cars, and if you want to drive yourself, be stuck in the slow lane on the right side. How long before you download the app and join the pool? 2 round trips driving yourself and watching the car-pool lane cars fly by you while people take a power nap? 3 days?

Congestion, quality of life, time wasted commuting are serious problems, and require serious solutions. Enough with these crap excuses all about "me, me, me". You don't need to drive a 2 ton car to work by yourself because you're special. Neither do I. You want inefficiency? Consider how much mass each of us moves to get ourselves to work? We need to reduce that weight significantly, like by a factor of 4, and then we're getting somewhere.


Yes communism was always sold as being “more efficient” and “for the common good” mean time in the lands of freedom if something is really good people will choose it all by themselves.


Nahh...we tend to be quite selfish and there are many rules and laws that exist to interrupt our selfishness for greater good.

Examples? Let's start with the traffic light. Mandatory recycling by-laws that carry fees and fines. Many others.


Man's desire to own a fancier car than his neighbour - and to enjoy it all on his own, will not disappear when electrification comes....


That's the reason for most Tesla owners.


That assumes that there'll be an equal distribution of origin and destination points, which isn't true. I travel 20 miles to work every morning, I doubt it's going to be the work of a moment to automatedly carpool with 4 people going to roughly the same location at the same time every day, certainly not enough to offset the time saved parking, in traffic etc (both of which for me are minimal). The idea of it being a fraction of the cost is fairly debatable as well, especially if car operators (or whoever they are) have an effective monopoly. That's before you get into having to share a car with random people day in, day out.

It might well happen, and it might well need to happen, but the idea that it's some kind of panacea for everyone doesn't ring true to me.


That's before you get into having to share a car with random people

The scheme (or a version of it already exists) - Uber offer car sharing when you book a cab in exchange for a discount on the ride. It'd be interesting to know how popular an option that is - certainly I've never taken them up on it and nor has anyone I know. If I wanted to share the ride with someone else I'd get a bus.


C63. That's the problem with all these new ideas isn't it? As you say the multiple occupancy car already exists and is called a bus. We already have cars you don't have to drive yourself, they are called taxis, and we already have cars that you only use when you need it, hire cars! The bold new world will, in my opinion look very similar to the boring old current one.


The bold new world will.....

Lol - But it will be electric, or hybrid, or hydrogen cell or dilithium crystals. Actually dilithium crystals would be really good - apparently they can travel faster than light using them 🙂


C63, all the sci fi films I watched as a kid confidently predicted that we would all have flying cars by now, and yet we are driving around in vehicles that are mechanically very similar to the ones that were around then! I really don't understand why electrification will also usher in a new era of multiple occupancy, self driving on demand cars! People will still want their own car, with their own stuff in it, parked outside their house, ready for use whenever they want it.


Exactamundo Tim - nail hit firmly on the head.


You don't need a self-driving car for that. Just catch P+R. Remind me, why aren't you doing it right now? Ah, yeah. The guy next to you did not have shower this morning, the next one is enjoying his burger, another one is chewing the gum loud. And so on...


Congratulations, Seebee, for completely missing the point of a comparison of energy densities.


What about engine vs elec motor efficiency.

Yeah. Let's let 75% of the energy dissipate... Or spend millions to get it up to 50%


Or billions on "molten salt reactors".


Consider all the idling that is done each day alone! Or the slow motion inefficient teaffic movement. When it comes to commuting with traffic volume, electric, by not idling and having all torque available instantly has huge efficiency advantages. And these efficiencies improve significantly with quality of generation and elimination of production of fuel in the front end.


sounds like an advert for hybrid cars


@ Sebee...My car doesn't idle unless i want it to. Stop/start tech is coming to many different makes and models...


It's bloody annoying though. First thing I do is turn it off in my Megane RS. Drives me nuts.


@ Ben M...Yes, at first i had that reaction but now it is just another function that occurs and i never really take any notice. With a DSG transmission it cannot be faulted in acceleration away from a standstill.


He didn't miss it; he just couldn't respond to facts and logic so he had no choice but to obfuscate the matter. Happens all time with fantasy world dwellers when presented with the harsh reality of any given situation.


Do you know how much inefficient exists in extracting this one time usable "dense fuel"? How front loaded petrol is? How much efficiency is going to be gained? I mean...people are putting panels on their roofs to charge their electric cars with already.


there is an argument to say that petrol is a bydroduct of the plastics industry. Whether you buy that or not will not change the fact that oil will still be extracted from the ground to supply all the other uses hydrocarbons have.
i guess we could burn the unused parts of the crude oil such as petrol in order to generate electricity, which we then send down the grid to charge the cars that used to burn the petrol in the first place.


You're missing the point again, Sebee. High energy density fuel is important because it allows for long ranges and small light, agile vehicles. This is an especially desirable quality for long-distance vehicles such as trucks and aircraft, and for vehicles that must operate for long periods of time, nonstop, such as busses. Heck, it's even desire for the humble family car, and no amount of excuses will obfuscate these facts.


This objection is being adressed by denser batteries and fast charging for starters.

Very few vehicles require this feature. If you were to look at lives of cars you'd find that easily 90% of cars are candidates for replacement even with today's technologies. Should 90% of cars remain petrol because maybe 5% or 10% of cars have a requirement that they can't address?

Tesla today is is in 300 mile range territory. Who drives this long without stopping for some food and a bathroom break...and a supercharger stop?


Sebee, you're missing the point once again. My road car can reach 280 Kph. Who drives at 280 kph on the road? I certainly never have, not even on a freeway.

The point is that the Darwinian free-market forces select that which is the most able, and the most impressive and that which is able to meet the consumer's needs most efficiently and at the lowest cost.

My position is clear. Let the electric tech compete with the ICE on equal terms. That means no bans, no tax incentives, or disincentives, no global warming propaganda, no taxpayer funded subsidies, and no nonsense about how electric is going to give us all a utopia, because it won't.

At the end of the day we are talking about a car here, which in the case of electric is about as exciting as a washing machine and which has been around since the 1830s and which has failed to impress, and which continues to fail to impress in 2017.


LukeC, it is you who are missing the point my friend. And C63 is so blinded by his passive aggressive digs at me he's willing to go down the road with you.

It is nice to talk about free-market and other lovely things...except, the ICE has had significant help over the decades, or century. From being first to market, to having strong lobbies in support of it, to having wars fought over the oil to power them, ICE and the infrastructure that is built around it are entrenched, and looking at market share - clearly a monopoly.

For any technology to have a chance to challenge, it has to overcome significant interests and hurdles.

I hate to use civil rights as a comparison for ICE, but clearly there are parallels we need to draw on. There has been oppression of human right based on sex or race, and this has resulted in some being way behind in the game. This is why laws related to equal pay and equal rights were needed, because otherwise parity had no chance. This was a needed boost to do what is right, because clearly we weren't willing to put our selfish interest aside in the interest of greater good.

So it's nice of you to argue that challengers to ICE should blossom from thin air, but as Musk is proving, it requires a lot of faith and investment. And still the forces working against him are huge. Going as far as not allowing Tesla to sell the cars direct to consumers. He has so many lobbies to fight against, it's unbelievable that he's up to the fight to be honest. Look at who killed the electric car movie for a glimpse.

Anyone who looks at the decentralized emissions of ICE engines, and the clear exploitation of the emissions rules as illustrated so beautifully to us recently by VW, VW Group, Audi, Porsche, etc. and says that centralizing CO2 emissions at point of generation for capture of efficiency improvements is a flawed path is simply blind to the potential of that alone.

Anyone who looks at statistics of car emissions shaving 4 years of life span for people living in cities and while living in suburbia drives in each day and says "screw those non-commuting city dwellers" is ignorant.

Anyone who looks at the ICE, the lobby and marketing machine behind it and 97%+ market share monopoly and says that alternate technologies don't need a boost to be given a fair chance at changing our habbits and our future are plain wrong and selfish.

Anyone who looks at PU or Hybrid and thinks this is the future, rather than extension of fossil fuel status quo with ICE at centre of it, is being distracted by marketing.

And anyhow, why are you so entrenched in the ICE? It's not a technology that will last regardless. We will run out of oil at some point LukeC. Wouldn't it be nice to preserve the resource for those applications which absolutely cannot be replaced by alternatives? You can be sure there will be some.


You bet the ICE has received financial support over the years and so it should, because it is the superior product and people needed and still do need affordable and convenient transportation.

Electric, in contrast, is the inferior product and therefore does not deserve to have its inferiority masked by subsidies and by artifical measures introduced to create the illusion that it is fact superior.

At the end of the day the ev is not a very good product and that's why Tesla is going out of business.

Plus the ev is more toxic than the ICE and all it will do is replace wars for oil with wars over lithium and other precious materials needed to manufacture those highly toxic batteries.

In other words, it will not improve anyone's quality of life at all, in fact it will make it worse. All it will do is channel money away from oil and into the pockets of people like Elon Musk and Al Gore. That's what it's all about; it's not about creating a utopia for you by reducing the amount of fumes you will smell on your way to work.


You left out the bit about Musk being a drug taking hippy. Is that relevant? Well it’s not a noble enterprise so then neither is his electric car, which was, incidentally conceived on the Playa at Burning Man.. Probably not relevant but I found it added some human interest which is singularly lacking from this ‘debate’.


although a complete waste of your time

Don't say I didn't warn you Luke 🙂
Sebee will cheerfully argue black is white and that day is night, and when he is proven to be completely wrong he will tell you he was right all along.......


@ Luke C...excellent post.


Sebee, barriers in the way of selling Teslas? If you but a Tesla in the UK the government wil pay £4500 of the bill for you, let you drive sround the London congestion zone for free, not charge you any road tax which would be around £500 per year for an equivalent petrol engine car and if it's going to be a company car, then you can have a huge discount on your company car tax as well. Some barriers!


Plus they're trying to ban the ICE. How much more of a leg up do you need? Not to mention the billions of dollars the Obama administration had channeled into renewables.

This nonsense that there is some massive conspiracy against the electric car simply cannot be entertained any longer. It's now clear as daylight that the ev has failed simply because it's not a very good product and cannot compete with the ICE.


Well said Luke - although a complete waste of your time, no amount of rationale or logical explanation will have the slightest impact on Sebee or his rants - but well said all the same 🙂


c63....you know very well that people don't like change. the idea of using photo voltaic cells makes economic sense. those who have it rave about it while those who don't have it can't see what they are all raving about. if government said it was compulsory, people wouldn't complain about being forced to have solar. they are simply comfortable as they are and aren't willing to change.
that's all it is.


they are simply comfortable as they are and aren't willing to change.

Then why was there such a rush to change when the subsidies were still in place? Why wasn't the sole objection - 'that people don't like change' - a problem then?
As for whether people wouldn't complain if it was compulsory - seriously?


The problem with Sebee is that he's Canadian.

He does make some good points about the current PU situation in f1 though.


is that he's Canadian

Steady on - I'm half Canadian. Nothing wrong with people from Canada imo.


@ C63...hahahah...That admission helps to explain a lot of things.


That admission

What admission? I've not kept it secret - I was chatting to KRB about it the year before last. While you're at it, what does it explain?


I meant this:


Isn't Sebee the exact opposite of that characterisation? Which reminds me of a joke - if a tree fell in the forrest and no one was there, would a Canadian still apologise 🙂


Nice one.

But what I meant is that Canadians have a reputation for being too trusting and generally not very good at dissenting to "governements" and the so called leaders and so called authorities. And as you know a lot of "governements" and "authorities" are pushing this climate change and "renewables" propaganda.


Maple syrup makes me....logical?


You should try some Sebee......


The issue is weight, both with the status quo and with batteries. F=MA, Ke = 1/2MV^2
And all other comparisons I see on this page are pointless because they don’t consider energy efficiency and pollution broadly defined for a vehicle over its full cycle, from the ground to the junkyard, and don’t consider energy consumed (or CO2 and other pollution produced) from the well/mine to the wheels, rather focusing on the meaningless tank and tailpipe only. Real analysis is out there, you just have to know where to find it. Take a look at the work by Arthur D. Little


I did. It's interesting, but not surprising, that the findings show that electric vehicles produce 3 times more toxins than the ICE vehicles.

ICE vehicles produce 25% more CO2 emissions, which help plants grow faster.

Now it becomes clear why the peddlers of electric vehicles, and renewables in general, have been trying to vilify CO2 so aggressively.

This is actually a very significant finding. I wonder why we haven't been bombarded with it by the media in the same way that we were being bombarded by propaganda about how the ice caps would melt by 2017 and how polar bears would go extinct shortly before that happened.


@ Luke C...hahaha Tim Flannery the guru of global warming has been totally discredited. What an ASS of a man.


All of those clowns have been discredited long ago. I pity the fools who still give those clowns the time of day.


@ Luke C Sometimes it does one a world of good to revisit Prof. Flannery's predictions. As chairman pf the Copenhagen Climate Council he told us that there will be no Arctic ice caps by 2014. In 2005 he told us that Syd/Brisbane and Adelaide dams would be bone dry within 18/24 months! They are averaging 80% capacity! There are a host of other gems too numerous to contemplate. He also stated that sea levels would rise by 6 metres by 2100. At the current rate of 2.4mm per annum the 6 metres will be achieved in approx another 2000 years! So many unknowns. I would love to see the sceptics receive the same amount of $ subsidies that the alarmists get so that they could afford to prosecute their arguments on an equally funded level. Then we may see a more balanced debate!!!


Gasoline cars are quite demanding for manufacture as well. Then consider how much more maintenance, parts, oils, filters, etc. fossil fuel cars require vs. electrics which are incredibly low maintenance by comparison. There are many factors. But there is little doubt that the efficiency gains on the table for electric cars are significant. Form generation, to life cycle, to battery life, to maintenance to ease of recyclability due to fewer and simpler component count.


If electric cars are demanding on the environment as well, plus 8 times more expensive than their ICE counterparts, what incentive do we have to turn the entire automotive industry on its head and bin that which works extremely well in favour of a more costly option? It makes no sense.


For one, oil supply isn't endless.


Nice try there Sebee, but that's not really an incentive because lithium isn't infinite either, and nobody is really sure about the oil because the earth is constantly making new oil, and new oil is being discovered virtually on a weekly basis.

The peddlers of electric and renawables know this, which is why they are trying to ban the ICE. They know that without a ban they have no chance of competing bacause they have the inferior product, and always will.


Lithium is recyclable.

Who says lithium is the only battery type?

We thought the nuclear plants we had were the only possible type. The new learn that all this time MSR was an option and the technology existed for a long time.

Too many goals are aligned on the electric car at this point. Don't worry LukeC, you have a little bit of time to come to terms with that reality.


Ok Sebee, it's very clear that you're very enthusiastic about this whole electric car fantasy and you're clearly very well-versed in all the electric car propaganda that's being put out in volumes.

I, and many others, have made a very sound argument as to why electric has failed and will continue to fail so let's just leave it there and stop boring people.


First, you know that I've been saying that future is electric on this site for some time, to the repeated challenges of some on here. I still honestly believe that Formula 1 is entertainment first, and a V10 engine is incredibly entertaining. Period.

I don't agree with the assessment that there is no room on the planet for a type of "analog" machine-as-extension-of-human V10 based driving skill series. I understand some of the objections, but I point those objections to the level of entertainment those cars provide. Then I say, use that as an outlet for our fossil fuel powered lust while we as humanity change to electric in our daily drivers. The fact that our entertainment is derived from a fossil fuel powered series is environmentally meaningless in light of the entire world's fleet going electric. Fossil fuelled series has the potential to be automotive "porn" entertainment for the electric autonomous driving masses. And last I checked, porn is 30% of all internet traffic.

One V10 car, alone on the track...
....and yet, so entertaining?

F1 needs to be contrarian here. Because to electrify is to go towards what Formula E already is as we all know. So...they go left, you have to go right. Or of course walk the line down the middle into equal irrelevance.

I have to say, I find Figueres abrasive with her opinion because of the obvious and immediate conflict of interest. I know there is truth to what she's saying, but boy, do I ever hate an opinion with a conflict of interest.

All that said, can we talk about Bernie and CVC once more? Geniuses of timing or what?


Agree 100%

I wrote a post before reading this and put it far less eloquently.

The future is electric. ICEs how we know them will die out... accept it folks. But F1 can live on, perfectly happily, as a sport for the sake of pleasure.

Let me tell you this, in 1950 F1 had zero road relevance. It doesn't need to have any connection to the cars we drive. Drop that and you free us from any shackles. If that means we lose the manufacturers, I will open the door to my beloved Ferrari myself and kick their sorry a**es on the way out.



The future is hydrogen cell, not electric. Most car company CEOs know it


What an epic sound!! That alone is entertainment.


Sebee totally agree with yiour views. I think though F1 moving back to v10 is wishful thinking, too much politics at the top. F1 is not a test bed for toyota prius anyway...A lot of the super cars are now hybrid, I wouldnt mind seeing a bigger engine, (v8 and hybrid) atleast that way we can have better noise. V10s used to burn out in the race as they were revving up to 16k+ rpms now engines are running at energy saving mode. Its just silly, F1 makes really silly rules to be honest. Whatever the commentators might say seriously these hybrids have been awfully bad for F1. A good solution needs to be worked. F1 needs to entertainment first but these big companies don't want to lose their advantage and waste more money in designing a new engine. So no one will change anything, all we get is adhoc changes. And if Todt is so scared of driver safety just make the AI drive these machines. I bet no one will be tuning in when that happens. Moving with tech is kind of silly. F1 needs to decide what it wants to be in the coming decade.


Well, Brundle challenged Wolff on engines in Abu Dhabi, and that video was removed from the interwebs interestingly enough. Wolff had his tail handed to him.

Funny thing, I asked opinion about what F1 engine sounded best ever. Someone said BRM V16, so I looked into it. You want to know the funny thing? The V16 was 1.5L! Smaller than this PU V6 displacement wise.

Why can't they do a 1.6L V10? Keep the displacement, but what's this hangup with cylinders?



I think you mean the frankly awful H16 - it was a three litre engine Sebee. It won a single race with Lotus and Jim Clark.

Essentially two V8 stuck together thus the H.

Yes it sounded wonderful, I listened and watched one race in the 60s for a few laps before it broke. You could not have read much because it was an absolute disaster that pretty much finished BRM.

I am pretty sure no one wants to do similar.

By the way there is no advantage to additional cylinders unless you are able to rev to dissy heights (take a look at the multiple cylinder 25k but just 50cc engines from Honda in the 60’s) with a turbo there is just no point and it will sound no different.

After all no one moans about the straight four and v6 turbo engines (1.5) from the 80s do they? Different engines different cylinder configuration and actually not a lot noisier. It is just people like to moan about anything these days.

I just wish the none engineer luddites would do a little more than wear rose tinted glasses, complain about sound (on their telly no less)and go on and on reading wiki and thinking they know everything.


Drg, please don't take my corrections as disrespectful, because I don't know the engine and all I know about it is what I read and what I saw on youtube. Never saw it like you.


"The potential of the engine was illustrated in 1968 when Graham Hill drove the car in a demonstration in South Africa, the car being fitted with the original, larger, Rolls-Royce supercharger inlet. Hill revved the engine to 13,000rpm, at which point Rudd thought the engine would have been producing around 780 bhp."

Apparently it is 1.5L, and it did become reliable after their ironed out the issues. And WE DO want F1 engines to rev to high heaven! Let parts in the engine break the sound barrier they move so fast - that's impressive! Let the whole engine glow red like V10s did.

Plus it was complex effort for the time, but they got it going. However, we know how to do this now and it wouldn't be such a mechanical disaster. Bentley does something similar to this, just stacked V8s, right? And we know so much about V10 layouts, vibration, etc. Plus, V8s sounded good enough for most. We could just go to a 1.6L V8 for example, supercharged perhaps, revving to high heaven. Something that's not as complex as this PU, but more spectacular and visceral. Fresh one each Grand Prix too to kill off these penalties.

If F1 went to try and suck out crazy power from small displacement V8 or V10 setup like that pushing the limits, people would watch that technology. Just to see if the engine makes the distance would be exciting. Can you look away? If you aren't sure if the car will make it? Isn't that drama in itself? Survival of the machine? Now the machines fail in a very lame way too...there is nothing exciting about a PU failure.

I understand you point about complaining. We do that. I certainly do it. You just complained about the complainers. 🙂 But the voices are loud and there are many who are in this cap. The product has taken a huge step back in fan experience, and more and more control has been gained by engineers at the cost of drivers contribution to the package, drivers making a difference, overall drama. These rules with complexity of PU and endurance type restrictions - it's a pure engineering exercise that has no relevance in the real world, and we've let them become too important. Engineering for engineering sake. Sure the engineers like it, but do we?

...THIS is how an engine should fail in F1!


...Bugatti, not Bentley, with the W16.


Well said Dr G - I miss your comments.


Thanks C63

Love a V8 by the way, prefer a straight six but if someone offers me a V6 hybrid with that kind of power..?

I am first in line regardless of whether Ferrari can get it right or Seb can drive it or not!


After all no one moans about the straight four and v6 turbo engines (1.5) from the 80s do they?

But they sounded a lot better than these underwhelming power units didn't they.

I don't think it is 'rose tinted' to prefer everything a V10 offers to these overly complex dull nerd engines.


Actually Nick, they really don’t sound very different. I have heard the lot. Up close and personal and on track. The worst being the V8 (and V10) live if you value a life without a pretty crippling thing called tinnitus . The tv coverage is the issue and the microphones used kill the current sound for entirely political reasons I suspect. The likes of Brundle moaning about such just makes me laugh because the current engines are very little less noisy than the 80’s engines. I guess you have to do something to remain current and ‘on point’ when your an ancient driver/tv pundit is trying to stay ‘current’ by means of clicks and comments.

Seabee - no offence intended or considered. How many races did the V16 run in F1 and how many races did it win? Was it supercharged in a time where the V8 3ltr ford ruled the roost? Forced induction supercharged (ie using engine power to create boost) 1.5ltr never had a chance at that time. They would have made torque not high power revs. I know, as I developed a rotex( least friction) supercharger installation on a v6 ford engine in a Sierra 4x4 that was the fastest ford of the 80’s in road trim. Power engineering made the car as a commercial proposition. (Cover picture Sierra Kat Fast ford -1988) huge torque - it pulled away in 5th gear and doubled standard engine power outpu but as revs rose its efficiency became a negative. Hence the figures you mention mean a supercharger that was not working until around 11000 rpm and thus an engine that would barely pull away without killing a clutch let alone produce 750bhp.

By the way - 60s dynos - had a bit of an accuracy issue....

Again - read some of the more realistic stuff.

Particularly as even then the regulations made it an impossible proposition. Happy to discuss this at length another time but bluntly, more cylinders equals more friction and fewer power strokes that are meaningful past certain points.

At the end of the day anyone ignoring a 100% jump in efficiency within three years compared to the century of previous development “cos it don’t sound right” should just watch NASCAR.

Your audible enjoyment lies there.

Our appropriate power levels lie elsewhere.


@Drg Fair enough my friend, your knowledge and obvious experience in the field far exceeds mine! Interesting points.

I still feel however that what we have at the moment isn't the golden ticket and some compromises to aid the show can still be found.


NickH, did they? Did they really......?


Nope - once the rpm came under a cap - they really did not....

On the telly however....


On the telly however....

I also suspect that the TV coverage was deliberately made to sound worse with the new PU's - Bernie hated them, and he controlled the coverage. Personally I don't find it difficult to imagine someone like him doing that. In all honesty, unless someone is actually track side I just don't see what they care about the sound - it's just in the background on the TV.


Tim from what little footage / demonstrations I have seen from 80's turbo cars, yes! Yes they did!


NickH, I went to the Goodwood festival of speed many years ago. A whole host of F1 machinery went up the hill in quick succession, giving me a great comparison of the sound they made. The old dfv stuff sounded great, but were not that loud. The eighties turbos were significantly quieter, and had no pleasant tone. The then current Toyota V10 was ear splitting, but the tone was lost somewhat in the decibel count. I would need to go back to compare the current PUs, but I have heard them at Silverstone, and the tone was goid, but they are a bit quiet.


I'd be interested to watch that interview.

A lot of the regular posters on here say the people complaining are only complaining because their favourite driver isn't winning. Playground argument. I'm sure that's the case for some but it is sad they can't see the bigger picture.

Brundle loves Hamilton but has been very vocal in his criticism of the current engine regs, especially last season. So what do they say to him I wonder.


i have only heard Brundle say good things about the engines, he still goes on about his drive in the Merc.
I thought his complaints were directed at the ridiculous penalty system, no surprise really as he is a racing driver and just wants to see drivers race


Well Jake you clearly haven’t heard all that he has said about them then. E.g the interview with Wolff that we are discussing. Or go and read his end of season Abu Dhabi report.


No didn’t catch that interview,
I wonder where Brudle really sits on the PU debate. I have definitely heard him big up these PUs many times.
Was he perhaps just asking the questions that some fans are asking, I mean, that is his job as a journalist.
I will hunt down the interview and try to fathom it out.
I normally respect what Brundle has to say, but now I am confused.


He is paid a lot of money by Sky to promote their product, he can't exactly slag it off constantly can he?

But sometimes he can't hold back and his true feelings spill out, line in Abu Dhabi.


It was a great interview. kenneth told me about it. It was up on youtube for a while, and then Sky took it down.

Brundle fired on all cylinders. The sound. The cost. The complexity. The 6 jumbo-jets moving heavy hardware around the world. The non-applicability to the road. I swear, I would have hugged Brundle after that interview if I was there! Wolff was on the ropes. "So much efficiency. The engines are so efficient. So much power from only 1.6L." He had nothing left but his Arnoldesque voice, which was cracking! They took it down. I almost downloaded it. If someone has 2017 Abu Dhabi on their PVR, shoot it with you phone and post it please!


@ Sebee...i wasn't aware that the interview had been 'disappeared'!!!! As i said, it was classic, and embodied almost to tee what so many posters here have reiterated 1000's of times. I was overjoyed to see those points being put to Wolff on a public platform and watching him try, unsuccessfully, to avoid them. Brundle deserved the 'ears and the tail' for bravery in the 'bull ring'. I very much doubt that Brundle would be welcome in the Mercedes tent after that little doozy.


Oh you could tell in that interview Brundle was fed up at having to pedal these PUs and talk about how great they are. It just all came up. Huge amount of credibility back to Brundle after that one.

Hey, if Intel made a processor, like something super duper high end, and it was blazingly fast, but could only sustain that performance for 33s at a time or less, do you think this would be mentioned in the reviews and specification or any articles about how powerful the processor is?

Don't you find it interesting that in EVERY SINGLE article about how PUs are coming up on 1000HP, no one EVER mentions that it's for 33s maximum potentially, or likely less that this maximum power is available? And if you don't hit the brakes sometime right after that time limit to try to recapture the energy applied to the mass that is the F1 car, you will not have max power at any time after that time? And if you don't recapture that energy the efficiency of the PU goes to the crapper away form those other 50% efficiency claims?

I find that "accidental" oversight by F1 media fascinating.


Sebee, maybe that's because F1 cars (just like road cars) do use the brakes! Your theoretical world where they just keep droning on forever without stopping, doesn't exist.


Brundle loves Hamilton

Seriously? He hides it well 😉


Haha definitely a fan.


Cristiana Figueres is simply using a warming planet to further her political ideology, see


Make up your own mind whether the world should regress to her vision of reality.


That's what democracy is basically, right?

Politicians lying to us, and then once we give away our decision making rights to them, a.k.a. vote, they flip and do what's best for them.


I've been saying this for quite some time now here on JA on F1, but judging by resoponses those comments have received, many people were hurt by what I had said, some have even questioned my sanity.

Therefore it's good to hear it from the horse's mouth, as it were.


I couldn’t agree more! The fact that a source of entertainment is powered by fossil fuels is indeed irrelevant. What is environmentally relevant is transportation decarbonising. Hence also the urgent need to push the ‘road relevance’ agenda


If we complain about the engines then we might as well complain about the entire F1 carbon footprint in general. Transporting all the equipment all round the world. The wattage spent on the night races just to satisfy the European organisers. Is F1 itself even credible from an environmental perspective!

The environmental footprint of putting stand alone V10 or V12 units into the back of 16 F1 cars is surely minuscule in comparison to everything else and all this does is destroy the whole F1 product. So what's the point of it all.


Sebee, nobody has ever challenged you on the furure being electric, everyone knows this. You have been challenged on your claims that it will all happen next week, and that there will be a miolten salt reactor on every street corner though....
P.S, would you watch F1 without Ferrari? That's what your V10 F1 would be.


f1 will remain as it is, hybrid, after all f1 has enough money to hire the best lawyers to stay the course of any legal battle. those talking about an electric revolution need to look at the facts.
we don’t even fully understand the exact causes of magnetism and what effects being exposed to such powerful magnetic fields for prolonged periods would have on the body...
most people don’t even like or want electric cars. the electric car has long been sent to the museum by the internal combustion engine. long may it stay there.


Are you talking about the 1909 Baker electric that Jay Leno still uses as a daily driver? One heck of an electric car, ain't it. If I remeber right, it still has the original batteries that work?


exactly sebee


Internal combustion engine racing will not end because an environmentalist demands it. The grand National horse race has not ended because animal rights group demand it. Yes F1 may need to adapt and improve PR but it will only end when public support ends.


I disagree. F1 won't be F1 if it doesn't move to electric. F1's brand is about being the pinnacle of motorsport technology. Like it or not the future is electric. At some point they'll have no choice. Or as the article says it will become a historic racing series - which will mean a shrinking audience as unlike horse racing it doesn't have the driver of gambling to keep it going. Once all us old codgers are gone the younguns won't care about the series.


Horse racing is big in the Middle East and gambling is illegal.
Some people just like racing horses.


#benm so we agree then ..as I said. “ It will only end when public support ends” but at least the public will have a choice of sticking with some sort of ICE or watching it morph into formula e.


Exactly. We still have archery, javelin, horse racing, etc.. competitions, and other outdated modalities as sport/entertainment. It is a nice headline blurb, but a bit unrealistic to believe that because the future is electric vehicles, anything other than that needs to disappear on a certain timetable.


Absolutely, that was the analogy I was going to use. Horses were outdated as a method of transport around 100 years ago, we still have horse races because people like watching and taking part.


Fully agree. Although I dread the day when the noise of fossil fuel powered cars and the smell of grease and lubricants cease to exist in competitive Motorsport..it will indeed be a very sad day.
On a slightly different note, I find Figueres' argument quite ridiculous (not least because of a clear conflict of interest). Extending her rationale for demanding an end to ICEs in Motorsport, will she (or someone like her) come along tomorrow and demand an end to humans driving the cars just because the future on the roads is driver less?


Pick up this episode of Ted's Notebook at 16:25 marker



Sebee..great video and the GP 2 noise is probably the best you will ever get it on TV. No sound engineer will do justice to the roar and only trackside do you get the full blast of all the sound. For example the noise of the tyres going over a saw tooth kerb being louder than the engine for an instant.

The Grape Unwashed

But as a global sporting business and as a technology leader for the automotive industry there was no question of a long term for a series which uses hybrid or any other form of fossil fuel power units.

With the industry moving to driverless electric cars, F1 needs to define what's in its DNA. It was never designed as a series for consumer car companies to develop road relevant technology, nor was it a free-for-all where any and all technologies could compete to be the fastest over a race distance. From the start it was a series which specified what sort of engines could be entered; as aero developments and safety improvements were made, these too came under the aegis of the FIA.

F1 has always been the FIA's fastest open wheeler series and the rules have always been defined to encourage a large field of competitors. It seems to me that these two points are the defining features of the sport. The fastest open wheel cars require the best drivers, so at heart F1 is -

(1) the fastest open wheel road course formula specified by the FIA;
(2) with (necessarily) the best drivers;
(3) an affordable sport for specialist sports car manufacturers.

I guess most fans want to see the best drivers competing in the fastest open wheel cars on challenging circuits. I know that's why I watch, the technology is secondary, I want to see tough competition at a very high level. Formula-E doesn't interest me: second rate drivers, slow cars and rubbish circuits - it's the opposite of everything which makes F1 great.

There should be no problem with motorsport using fossil fuels: all the amateur go-karters, the sports car racers and the open wheel racers combined only emit a microscopic carbon footprint - it's consumer cars that are the real villains; decarbonise transport, energy and industry and leave motorsport as an enjoyable pastime, which is just as it should be. Sure, it won't be relevant to the modern world, but then discus? archery? javelin? When has relevance ever been the concern of sport?


will they ban all planes and ships?


Some very interesting points and I think you have nailed it. Sadly, the manufacturers have a very firm grip on current proceedings.
Also - do you predict the revenues and fanbase/influence of F1 would grow or reduce under your proposal?


manufacturers will only make more electric cars if they sold. they will never make more electric cars if they don’t sell..

The Grape Unwashed

@Richard M

Thanks, I think Ross Brawn has the right plan: make the sport attractive to smaller entrants and there will be a queue of performance car manufacturers and very wealthy patrons wanting to field teams. He wants to make F1 both affordable and more competitive by imposing budget caps, which will bring the cost of running the sport down - which will mean more money is available for the smaller teams, FTA broadcasting, the circuits, etc. And more competitive means more entertaining for the fans.

If Brawn can achieve all that, why wouldn't audience numbers grow? The soul of F1 is the teams who are wedded to it: Williams, McLaren, Sauber, Force India and Haas; these teams aren't in it for the marketing value, it's these teams which the sport needs to concentrate on. As Red Bull (and Toro Rosso) aren't fixated on engine technology, they're likely to continue for the time being, so that's seven teams. Brawn will need another three to sign up for 2021 and aim to build to twelve teams as soon as possible.

I can really see a bright future for F1 if Brawn can implement his plan.


Sport definition:

an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.

...notice, it doesn't say for greenery or environmental purposes.


Start from the bottom up. Pick one of the feeding series as make it all-electrical, no-noise series. Run it for a couple of years to see how the public (and sponsors) react to it. Re-evaluate the whole thing when that series fails due to lack of public interest.

See, people love air shows for the noise, raw power, and the feeling the pilots are on the ragged-edge trying to tame the wild beasts. People don't go to air shows to watch electric drones fly past. The same logic applies to F1.

The US folks who run NASCAR understand this. The folks in Australia who run the super V8s understand this. F1 folks don't...


Totally agree. I go to RIAT every year to hear the noise of fighter jets and feel the ground shaking, I wouldn't go to see gliders and drones.


And don't forget NHRA in the USA. Completely ridiculous really, but an insane amount of fun to be around and experience first hand.


On the subject of Australian Supercars; recently Neil Crompton, Mark Larkham and Brad Jones were discussing the blueprint for Supercars beyond 2017 and they used F1 as an example of what not to do.

Let that sink in for a while; the supposed pinnacle of Motorsport is now being used as an example of what not to do.


You would think that Ross Brawn would be pragmatic enough to take this on board...


Like Aussie Supercars have any clue. The only ‘rules’ they were looking at is hybrid propulsion and it doesn’t take a bsc in Engineering to realise this is the wrong way for mototsports in general. Supercar V8’s the series that decided to neuter competition between brands by forcing manufacturers to run chassis components and configurations designed by their competitors. Ford engine a bit too strong for you? No worries, we’ll just stuff ‘em with another 25mm air restrictor! Nissan not running too well? Just keep that Nitrous hidden in the roll cage mate! Supercar V8’s that have manipulated BOP characteristics for years to make the competition seem fairer and it’s not all made public.. The list goes on.. F1 rules? This lot wouldn’t know what to do with them. I was an out an out fan of Supercar V8’s back in the day and then the rule makers got at it. Do people think F1 is stuffed up? Take a look at V8’s Supercars as what NOT to do with a winning series..


What on earth are you on about? Supercars is, and has been for over a decade now, all about parity and balancing performance. That's what's made it such a spectacular series, with such close racing and where virtually anyone can win a race and 6-8 drivers are theoretically in with a shot at the championship every year.

From a purely sporting and spectacle point of view Supercars is a far superior product than F1, so how you've arrived at the conclusion that it's an example of what not to do is beyond my comprehension.


I arived at this conclusion because I watched the premier Australian tin top series for many decades and stopped when they started fiddling with the manunufacturer designed characteristics to even out performance. A Ford was never born with a double 'A' arm and a Holden never saw the light of day with a Macpherson Strut so why mess with the basic characteristics of the cars? Supercar V8's is now a silhouttte series and we remember well what happened to those in Europe don't we? DTM is heading i the same direction. I very much enjoyed the battle of makes in most series because every maker brought something different to the party. Now all they need to bring is a spare body to fit almost any of the "different" cars. Supercar V8's even took it one further and permitted cars in the racing that didn't even feature a V8 in the mode line-up. That's when I turned off. In fact, it's funny that V8 Supercars was mentioned because it is a now series who's racing closely emulates F1: processional. BOP shenanigans & politics have all but desroyed the LMS and the American Rolex Series because it's now artificial to a large degree. Ford was 'engineered' it's 'wins' last year through BOP manipulation. I don't know what it is, but it ain't racing.


"a Holden never saw the light of day with a Macpherson Strut"
This only applied up until 1978. Holdens have used struts since that time.


Motorsport is supposed to be a sport, and sport is artifical. Football, baseball, cricket etc are all artificial, so I don't understand why you would have a problem with that. I can see how manufacturers who use Motorsport as a marketing channel could have a problem with it, but not someone who wants to see a sporting contest and a spectacle.

Based on the lessons we've learned from F1 in recent years it seems like we have a choice: we can either have a sporting contest and a spectacle, or we can have marketing channel for manufacturers. To have both seems to be a massive challenge, and we might have to eventually accept that it's not possible to have both.


No surprises there

Last few years there were many poor decisions made


James, what according to you were poor decisions...can you elaborate on it ? What;s your opinion on hybrids and those token rules?


I can do it for you Tarun. It's not hard.

Here they are:

1. PUs.
2. Fuel rationing.
3. PU rationing
4. Thong
5. PU related grid penalties.

And there's a few more minor ones.


6. Not curtailing the aero, which is probably the biggest black hole for $$ in F1, as well as negatively affecting the on-track action.


Understatement of the day.

V8s already had KERS. Good enough!


I've liked F1 more than ever over the last few years, but I'm an engineer. I can see why fans of the 'spectacle' would dislike the changes.


Indeed. It's almost as if there is someone on the inside deliberately trying to make the sport as unappealing as possible to gently make it go away and open the way for a competitor.

I don't believe that this is really the case, but it honestly does come across that way.


F1 without an ice is not f1 and I would stop watching after 27yrs.
Look at formula e. What a joke that is.
Let road cars go hybrid etc or fully electric. Leave f1 alone.


I wonder what the fan casualty count will be in the Halo.




Good to see you’re leaping into the new year with your own particular brand of optimism. What a joy!


It's the happy jolly ones we really have to keep an eye on Baron!


Zero. It won't make an ounce (28.349 grams) of difference. Fans won't even see the flamin' halo after a few races, only the media will. Most insignificant and over talked about change to F1 ever.


You do know that Halo means the F1 cars are now absolutely closed cockpit? Just with windows rolled down and sunroof opened.

I think that fans will accept it because there is no alternate product. No choice. However, the halo will certainly take away from the spectacle and from the danger perception - which is another loss to F1 image.

I believe fans will turn away. It will not be a huge wave, but defiantly a noticeable a trickle.

I also wonder if some scripting of "excitement" is taking place already as a diversion and distraction way from the halos in 2018. I'm thinking the answer to that is YES! Maybe intentionally, maybe the FIA tried to ensure it quietly by "pushing" that guy with all the secrets to Renault. He single handedly can move 3 teams forward with Renault, McLaren and Red Bull.

After all, what's better with an introduction of such a hideous device than commentators talking about how much "excitement" there is on track. I guess we have no choice but to wait and see how it plays out.


Maybe but still a needless and bad decision in the first place.


That's a very risky prediction.


Capt Risky, good point well made.


When the new cars launch, are they even going to have the Halo on them?


Got to be in the 2030's as before that would probably be too early and after 2040 would be seen as being too late. Although I hope I am wrong and they hold off until the 2050s as by then I will be so old I will probably have other things to worry about!


I don't think F1 will need to worry about this, as by the time everything's electrified, the TV pay walls will have reduced the audience to a point where hardly anyone watches it anyways.


There will always be the affluent (effluent?) like me that can afford to pay for TV. The poor can always catch up on forums.


Hello everyone and Happy New Year
I've been reading and watching videos on electric cars recently, the big hype on Tesla and how Rimac beat all the competition from super and hyper-cars on a drag race. It's just a matter of time before batteries get better and better.
New car models will be launched with 300 miles (500 kms) range.
However, there are 3 questions that I do not see answered:
1) most of electric power comes from fossil fuel (e.g. coal and diesel) being burnt - so looks to me that we are just transferring pollution from cars to power plants. Maybe nuclear will be the solution, but no government wants to discuss that;
2) what's the plan to collect and recycle millions of batteries - I read that maximum life of a battery will be 10 years;
3) when electric cars heavily crash, batteries can (will) catch fire. Is it just a matter of time before someone gets hurt or killed and bad publicity fills the news pages?
Having said this and going back to F1: Ross Brawn is a very smart and experienced man. He says F1 will not go electric in the next 10 years. That takes us to 2030, and after that, that will be the way. Is Mercedes preparing to jump ship to electric?


Beating a supercar to a quarter mile is garbage. Can it beat it to a mile, on a track or for top speed? Hell NO!


Do you see the irony in having a fear of batteries burning, which is highly unlikely, versus driving around a 60-80 litre tank of highly flammable petroleum?


Richard, the difference between a fuel tank catching fire and a battery pack doing the same is the time and effort required to extinguish it. A burning fuel tank can be put out in a matter of minites by one fire crew, a battery pack requires many more fire fighters, huge amounts of water and several hours, it then needs to be monitored for 48 hours with a thermal imaging camera to ensure it doesn't reignite.


f1 will never turn electric. there aren’t batteries that would last a race distance at f1 pace and most f1fans don’t like electric motoracing...


Oh it will, eventually, but not because a politicin says so. It will be at the moment that electric cars will actually outperform petrol cars (if and when????). It would be strange if your own car would be better than an F1 car wouldn't it? So it will happen, but it will take quiet some time.


It won't happen in your lifetime and we'll all be dead then, so who cares..


there is no evidence of your claims.
f1 rules and regulations are drawn up by the fia and the teams, not politicians..


1. Read up in Molten Salt Reactors.

2. Battery tech is improving quite a bit. Recently electrolytes were discovered that allow 500,000 recharge cycles. Do the math. 7,8,9 decades.

3. Again new electrolytes make batteries safe. Check out the PBS documentary about this on youtube. Safe batteries thay can't explode ni matter what are here. 0


f1 doesn’t have the ambition to go electric so it won’t go electric.


Anyone wishing to read up on molten salt reactirs, should probably read this. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nanalyze.com/2017/02/molten-salt-reactor-when/amp/. There's a US company which claims it will have one up and running in the 2020s, although the 15 million they have raised so far isn't nearly enough, and they describe themselves as being at the start of the regulationary actions required. The most realistic project is French government backed, and they are a bit more realistic in their projection of being operational in the 2050s. Although having said that the latest French built traditionally fueled nuclear power station was supposed to take five and a half years and cost 3.3 billion Euros, but it cost 10.5 billion and took eleven years instead!


So we will have molten salt reactors in about 2100 then. I think it's safe to say that is will have expired by then, and so will everyone on this forum, including Sebee.


We don't need to be waiting for Gen IV reactors - current Gen III and planned III+ reactors are much better than the previous generations that make up over 80% of current nuclear capacity. They are more efficient, reduce fuel waste, are cheaper to build, are passively safe, and have load following capabilities.


Hopefully we leave the place better than we found it.


This is what pisses me off about your misinformation TimW. You pretend to read all my comments, but clearly you missed the 2 dozen times I told you that China and not US is at the forefront of MSR. So please, spare us the examples of how behind US is on MSR with the powerful nuclear lobby. There is a readon why Bill Gates went to China to work on MSR, and welcomed with open arms.

Then there is the fact that renewable energy, specifically solar is gaining significant traction. So while MSR hold significant promise, including ridding the world of stock pikes of nuclear waste from current nuclear plants, solar will certainly play a role. As will decentralized power grid and people generating and storing power in their houses.


Eh, Sebee, lets get our facts straight. You're right about China being at the forefront (or thereabouts) of developing MSR, but it has nothing to do with Bill Gates.

Gates is chairman and one of the backers of TerraPower, a Washington based company, that happens to have won a contract to build a prototype in China. The technology is American, not Chinese, and by the way its not an MSR.

China is investing heavily in advanced nuclear, and probably at the more innovative end of the spectrum, including thorium based liquid and solid fuelled thermal reactors and fast reactors. At a state level they seem to be hedging their bets, exploring different technology avenues, which non-state organizations cannot afford to do. This includes technology being developed in other countries, but with initial deployment (prototypes) operating in China.

No doubt its a smart strategy, and with all likelihood China will be pioneering deployment of Gen IV commercial reactors.


NAILED IT redline!

Exactly right.

Those thorium reactors are versions of MSR technology, are they not?


Both are MSR. As I understand it, one is solid fuelled single-pass cycle, and the other is liquid with reprocessing and recycle.


Sebee. Surely nobody reads ALL of your comments! China has two small scale prototype molten salt reactors currently under construction in the Gobi desert. These should be up and running some time in the next decade, and if it goes well then they will move to large scale commercial reactor construction. The technology is interesting, I have never denied that, but it is much further away than you like to claim. One of us is spreading misinformation Sebee, but it aint the guy with the links.https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/china-spending-us3-3-billion-on-molten-salt-nuclear-reactors-for-faster-aircraft-carriers-and-in-flying-drones.html/amp


So...MSR will be ready for commercial deployment by 2030 or slightly before? Just when the world will really go electric?

Interesting coincidence.

Nice of you to finally put 2 and 2 together TimW.


Sebee, what on earth are you talking about?! Lets recap, the French project is estimated to be up and running in the 2050s, the US one hasn't even started yet and the Chinese one should have a small scale prototype reactor running sometime in the 2020s. If the Chinese get it to work, if the government still has the will, if it will make money and if they can still afford it, then large scale commercial construction might begin towards the end of the next decade.


If Bill Gates is involved, chances are MSR is not going to be good for you or me. It will be good for Bill Gates.


This this point Bill is more giving. I wonder if he's in it more for the financial win in this point, considering he's in the process of giving his fortunes away?

I think the win in this for Bill is in leaving something significant and meaningful behind. Perhaps Gates is like Alonso and Musk is like Lewis. Gates is a bit envious about the new star CEO, and wants some spotlight back on himself to show the old dog is not out of tricks just yet. Perhaps...


Don't be naive Sebee; this is bill gates that we're talking about here.


Yeah...the guy who's going away his fortune for years?


He is? Funny, he never gave me a cent. How much did you get from him?

Come on Sebee, don't make the mistake of thinking that somebody who gives money away, or pretends to, has no Interest in making more. Everyone always wants to make more, to keep, to give away, to create the appearance of giving away, or whatever.


You know what's funny LukeC? Thinking that piles of money brings some type of fulfillment and is the magic bullet to happiness. You only realize that it isn't so once you've been through it.

Hoarding money is no different from hoarding dead cats in freezers. It's a mental illness, and smart people realize that parallel. Bill knows that only the most shallow will idolize him for his piles of money. But if he brings the world clean power while ridding the world of nuclear waste they will name schools after him.


Ohhhh poor sebee! This is gonna send him in the red zone!😄


If only F1 was running to the red...line, there would be less issues.

Sebee didn't just pay however many billions to buy Formula 1. So no, Sebee isn't gonna be in the red zone at all.

It's just a matter of time before this silence of the engines is converted into branding sounds. With each shift...Sheeeeelllll, Sheeeeelll....Aaaaa, Mmmmm, Gggggg. The marketing opportunity of silence is priceless - we can hear more ads and marketing...as engine sounds. So much less tacky than the USGP Pre-race festivities.


never will f1 become that. which battery would lowe f1 cars over a grand prix distance to break lap records?
that woman needs to get her husband some viagra to help her make more noise at home..


Good report - topical and accurate. So many countries have plans to ban the ICE in the next 20-30 years. F1 has to stay relevant, cars are going to be electric.
This is not something any enthusiast wants but the writing is on the wall.
My estimate is that the changeover to only electric motors plus add-ons will happen at the next change of specifications - 2027/2028. Maybe 2030.
Question is will the insane but silent acceleration of the electric motor offset the loss of the smells and the noise. For oldies like me - definitely no but for the young coming to the F1 weekend it’s showtime - an event. Leaves me cold.
James - it would be great to have a poll for the date of the changeover at the bottom of the article - a few dates and yes or no and maybe older or younger?


they can never ban f1 or internal combustion engines in f1. never!


it is not very wise to ban something without having an alternative. people should be allowed to choose their mode of transport. they should look carefully into the human rights laws before considering any bans.


It strikes me that Christiana Figueres and people like her don't understand sport. Even if transportation for 100% electric worldwide, nothing precludes a racing series with internal combustion engines. People still race horses you know...


Yep, electrify all the transport to and from the track, cut the amount of planes used, electrify the marshall's scooters, the safety car, the medical car, dim the night race lights a bit but stay away from the racing on track, stay away from marketing that destroys competition, stay away from sport!


That Popular Science linked piece is a good read.

“That’s the slightly embarrassing thing,” Ross Brawn, Formula One’s managing director of motorsports, tells me later that day from a hermetically white hospitality room two buildings and a road removed from the circuit. “Everyone remembers how great the cars used to sound.” Another V-8 screams down the track, its wail piercing our air-conditioned sanctum, and he fights a smile. Brawn, who has been working with F1 cars since the late 1970s, recalls a louder time. “We used to have engines that were ear-piercing,” he says. Then hybrids arrived, and, “suddenly you could have a conversation next to a ­running car,” he says.

Here’s one: What if F1 were just a sport, with no real-world analog. Armies don’t fight with spears ­anymore, and yet Olympians still win medals for throwing javelins. Why couldn’t 24 petrol-powered cars racing around a track be part of our all-electric (or nuclear or hydrogen or whatever) future? “Transportation can become a commodity; it doesn’t need to trigger any emotions within you,” says Wolff. “Motor racing—the danger and the technology—that triggers emotions. I can definitely see the two not ­being aligned all the time.”

That Sunday in Austin, at the race weekend’s main event, Mercedes’ Lewis Hamilton doesn’t make a great start and finds himself in second place behind his Ferrari rival. Five laps later, though, Hamilton charges down that three-quarters-of-a-mile main straight at more than 200 miles per hour, and, right in front of the turn 12 grandstands, passes the Ferrari. He takes the lead. He clinches the championship. The roar of the crowd is all you can hear.


You sure it was a roar? It could have been a collective groan!


Check out this last lap at Spa 2004 when Schumi wins his 7th. Notice the horns and the fans screaming...then comes a V10 onto the scene.



Whatever it was, there was no trademark Formula 1 sound present behind it. Fans cheering were never "powerful enough" to drown out an F1 car, until PUs.


Yes Sebee, the new engines are quieter than the old ones, we get it.....


As someone working in the Auto industry , and a mass manufacturer that is also pursuing global electric ambitions , I find the push towards electric amusing and somewhat alarming. This report is irresponsible and fails (like many others) to address where will the electricity to power future powertrains come from ? Where is that question debated ? And what are the facts? Whose purpose does going electric serve? What will confine F1 to the museum of time will not only be its irrelevance to society , but it’s failure to entertain , failure to address the competitive landscape.

Tornillo Amarillo

As of May 2017, the People's Republic of China has 37 nuclear reactors operating with a capacity of 32.4 GW and 20 under construction with a capacity of 20.5 GW



One more fact the well to wheel efficiency of electric vehicles is far higher than even fuel cell vehicles


Hmmmm.... that's over simplistic. It depends a great deal on the energy mix that generates the charging electricity, as well as the reference cycle. There are any number of studies out there that show differing results.

Perhaps most importantly, the WtW analysis is not fully representative of overall impact. Arguably a better measure is the full life-cycle energy footprint. If you consider the energy usage and green-house gas emissions in the mining, processing and production of Lithium batteries, the conclusions are no where near as clear as the electrification lobbyists portray.....


It seems the recent conclusions only get clearer and clearer. See for instance this:


@ Cochonou... good paper - thanks for sharing. But I can show you at least half a dozen with differing conclusions.... as is acknowledged on the first page of your paper: "the key question is how to make robust policy decisions when vehicle-LCA literature consists sometimes of divergent results"

None the less, it seems to take a wider view than most, which is refreshing, but being euro-centric the primary focus is on GHGs, with only a cursory reference to air quality. Its disingenuous to ignore air quality when looking at the overall impact of vehicle electrification, because so much of our electricity comes from coal fired power stations (Europe excepted).


Hello I work for an automobile company and these myths have been addressed by numerous studies. Even if all the cars in the world were to be suddenly electric today their electricity consumption will be a fraction of the total electricity generated. The exact figures I don't have on hand but will reference them if you want. Similarly concerns about rare metals are unfounded


Love to sit down with you guys over a glass of wine and debate the future of electric cars.
I purchased a new diesel last year and ( my life span willing) by the time I sell it I suspect there will not be many diesel options available. Electric cars are going to dominate and as petrol stations start to close it will become harder to keep a gasoline car on the road.
However just because the car park at monza will be full of plug in cars on recharge it does not mean that inside the track will not be a fest of gas guzzling speed, noise, smell, thrills and a few spills.


ref the rare metals - you mean concerns about availability or the overall impact of turning these into batteries?


their electricity consumption will be a fraction of the total electricity generated

That may be true - but surely the question is whether there is sufficient spare capacity?


In the UK the minimum estimate is 10% extra required, and demand is increasing every year anyway!


I read somewhere (can't remember where off hand) that if the UK switched overnight to electric cars it would approximate to the equivalent of peak winter usage if they all recharged at the same time. What would happen with the peak winter usage on top wasn't discussed. The same article also said that the amount of power used in the US to light Christmas decorations was roughly equivalent to the energy consumed by some smaller nations in an entire year. Maybe they should concentrate on that sort of usage - easier and quicker to fix I would have thought.


I think it is like the early days of mass motoring. There was a massive amount of new refinery capacity brought on line to to meet the post war boom in demand.
Reading a report by the French government they feel that extra generating capacity will not be the problem but how you get it to where it is needed is not so easy. Most rural supply grids can not take the extra charging points predicted. So imagine a trip into the country to find you need a recharge but the only two public points are tied up with a queue of cars for the rest of the day. This infrastructure upgrade that is required will be the limiting factor on the uptake of electric cars. More charging points or quicker charging both are currently some way off.


More charging points or quicker charging both are currently some way off.

I agree. I'm not sure where you live, but here in the UK the Gov't recently announced they will be banning the sale of new petrol/diesel powered cars from 2040. As is usual the news broadcasters then wheel out some sort of expert on the matter to offer a few words. The spokesperson speaking on behalf of the electric car lobby was not in the least bit optimistic about new batteries that won't require charging so often, or increased ranges. He just said people will have to get used to planning their journeys around charging requirements, eg stop for lunch or take a couple of days for a journey that used to be done in one go (quite where everyone who will then be obliged to stop for lunch will do so wasn't made clear). If he is right and they cannot replicate the convenience of an ICE in an electric car, then I see the take up being much, much slower. Cars represent convenience and not many people will sign up for inconvenience voluntarily in my experience. Time will tell I guess.


#C63 Sadly you may well be right. l live in France but read the UK report in British press. Just to add to the woes of recharging. Here in France there has been a push to fit charging points in villages and major supermarkets along with the Tesla points on motorways. All of them are out in the open and none of the non motorway ones have any sorts of facilities. So park up for an hour by the dustbins in the middle of nowhere in the pouring rain to connect up and have your well earned break. Plus that one hour recharge will not get you full range. ...Remember when motoring was fun?


So park up for an hour by the dustbins in the middle of nowhere

That is exactly the problem with electric cars right there. Unless they can replicate the convenience of an ICE refuelling, or achieve sufficient ranges between charges that recharging is not an issue, then they are going to struggle to gain a foothold in the market. I just cannot see the masses opting for something which is less convenient than what they already have.


what do you do at home when the battery in your hand tool runs out in the middle of a job.
Do you put it on charge while hanging around for an hour, or do you swap it for the spare battery that is already charged and get back to work?
Why should a car be any different?


C63, hybrids will still be allowed after 2040, or buy a 2039 car and run it forever....


or buy a 2039 car and run it forever....

Lol - that's assuming the ban is actually imposed. There's a lot of water to run under the bridge between now and 2040. I'm a bit sceptical about Gov'ts announcing something that will happen in 20+ years time.


C63, maybe we will elect a Trump style prime minister who will rip up all these pledges! Nigel Farage maybe, or Jeremy Clarkson?


JC could not be worse than the current incumbent!


DRG, I think he would be worse than Trump! May seems a bit out of her depth, but at least she knows when to keep her trap shut.


The reason why the electricity consumption would be a fraction of total generated electricity is because 3/4 of the world's population who currently own a car would no longer be able to own one. There would be less traffic but a lot of people would be deprived of mobility.

And yes, please do post the exact figures, but don't forget the most important parts: the source of the figures, and the methodology used to arrive at those figures.


First question is if we even own those electric autonomous cars in the future.

Second is how we use cars in the future.

Current utilization rate for car fleet is 4%! Yeah...mind blown. Factor in seat capacity and it is 1%! Wow. You double car utilization to just 8% and you can remove 1/2 the cars off the roads. Double again to 16% utilization thanks to autonomous and you have 1/4 of current cars on the road. And they still stand unused 84% of the time!

If you go by seat occupancy thanks to autonomous car rides the numbers are even more mind blowing. Just look at all the single occupants in traffic each morning.


Le me get this straight. So basically anybody who was unfortunate enough to be born after 1980 in the west is now unable to own a roof over his or head, so now let's take it further and make it so that people are no longer even able to own their own vehicles, thus making the landlord/owner - occupier/slave model even more all-encompassing.

Seriously Sebee, unless you are a landlord/slave owner I really don't see why you would support such an arrangement. In fact, you should be doing your best to resist it.


No one says the won't be able to. The point is, if financial (cost of ownership) and time (of commute) incentives exist with an autonomous intelligent auto-mobile transit system - because effectively, that is what it will be, then the people will come to it.

Honestly, think about it right now. I choose to live in the city to be close to my job and not have to have a car. I make green choices. What is my reward? I have to smell the fumes of all the cars coming in from the suburbs. My air quality and my health is taken from me by those who choose to drive their cars by themselves in their nice SUVs that are such hot sellers. I have to listen to the noise. I have to deal with the traffic. If I choose to ride a bike, I put my safety at significant risk during those peak hours.

So...when people make the choice to own a car, drive it into the city, who is paying for their choice - unwillingly. How selfish is that? How is that acceptable really? And what is the benefit? So that those from outside the city can move their bodies to the city. Well...if we can do that better, safer, more efficiently, quicker...where is the objection except from selfishness?


You still don't get Sebee. No incentives will exist. If you get rid of fossil fuels and replace it with this renewable electric nonsense you will drive up he cost of everything by such a significant margin that you will change the entire social and economic dynamic.

And if you enforce this renewable nonsense in the poorer, still developing parts of the world you will effectively be committing murder on such a hitherto unprecedented scale that you'll make Hiler seem like an altar boy. This is what it's all about; social control on a global scale. It's not about creating a comfortable utopic existence for you. If they wanted to create a comfortable utopic existence or us, they could have done it long ago, and they could have done it without renewables and without the electric car.

And if breathing a few fumes on your way to work is your biggest concern consider yourself lucky. There are literally billions of people around the world with much bigger problems than yours and nobody cares and nobody, no politician, no corporation wants to help them. They all seem to want to help you to not breathe in fumes though. I wonder why that is?


China is adopting electric because there are economic and social benefits. In terms if adoption volume they are top of the list for some time.

China is into MSR also because of the potential and need to charge the electric cars as well as remove emissions and improve air quality.

Finally incentives WILL exist. In huge improvements in efficiency of our car fleet by optimization and capacity maximization with intelligence. Through time saved on the commute thanks to that optimization removing 50% or more of cars off the road. Through air quality improvements.

Put your child in the city knowing that their life will be 4 years shorter because you want to drive your fossil car for ever.

Done deal?


Yeah right, my child's life will be 4 years shorter because of ICE, and the polar ice caps will melt by 2017.

I'm done with their lies and scare tactics designed to channel money away from from fossils and into Elon Musk's and Al Gore's coffers instead.


Bang on! An electrical battery needs to get it's energy from somewhere. Coal powered electricity? Nuclear power? Enormous plant that scars the landscape?

That said, I'll be intrigued when solar power does considerably more than provide a back-up for a calculator! 😉


The energy mix is highly location dependent. The impact in Germany would look very different to China.

A recent study uses Beijing as an example, where over 90% of electricity is generated by coal. If all vehicles circulating in Beijing were switched to grid powered electric vehicles, it would increases coal use by 137-556% over the current conventional vehicles.


they talk without understanding what they're talking about.
climate change would continue if all powerstations shut down and all humans migrated to jupiter.


Then people would be blamed for the climate change on Jupiter.

Tornillo Amarillo

Do you mean climate change in Jupiter?


where on earth did they get her from? has she never heard of demand and supply? the markets dictate the rise and fall of a business, not politics. they can make as many rules against internal combustion engines as they like if fans want to go and see those cars race, they will go to see them. it's her business if she thinks f1 is retro. f1 will ignore her and we will carry on enjoying our sport. i wish she thought it through before opening her mouth. she would've realise that you can force anyone to watch what they don't want to watch. i bet she doesn't understand that apart from water, most of her body is carbon. carbon has always existed on earth. it was never introduced to earth by internal combustion engines. it has always been here and will carry on being here long after she's gone. unless some of her moustache follicles have grown into her nostrils up into her brain to influence her thought process.


You seem to conveniently ignore the fact that F1 is nothing to the vast majority of Earthlings, it's a ridiculous waste of resources in the eyes of most.
Your carbon argument is just plain stupid. I wish you had thought it through before striking your keyboard.


how will container ships and airliners function?


Wind for ships, there’s plenty of it around.


that technology made its way to the museums a long time ago.


Sadly if supply and demand were the measure of success or failure we would stop the massive tax subsidies we reward the giant corporations that explore for hydro-carbons.

The challenge for electric engine is simply the efficiency of the current internal combustion engine. However, that is a simple scientific problem. Eventually someone or somebody will break the technological logjam and this last major riddle of the 20th century industrial revolution will be solved. If you doubt that just look at how technology revolutionized communication in less than a decade.


"The challenge for electric engine is simply the efficiency of the current internal combustion engine"

No - this is limited thinking. Tank to Wheel is a meaningless metric in the grand scheme of things, and only concerns the consumer. You have to look at the entire life-cycle impact, including extracting and processing the fuel (oil or electricity) as lithium for the batteries for EV's.


Doesn't the current instability of Lithium Ion batteries count as part of its inefficiency?

It appears to me even basic devices like cell phones are still unable to find the right balance between size vs demand vs capacity.


carbon has always existed on earth

Nuclear fission also happens naturally in nature, namely in stars. Yet, this doesn't prevent me from not wanting it anywhere near me. By the way, Aveli, how's your moustache doing?


a little more research will show you that all the carbon on earth has always been on earth. we have not braught any carbon to earth from outside of earth..we are not pumping carbon into the earth..


what are you talking about rafa?
how is the existence of carbon of earth got to do with nuclear fission in space?
nuclear fusion takes stars, not fission. hydrogen fuse to become helium.
secondly climate change is a natural evolution of the earth. nothing she can ban can stop climate change. got it?


Oh dear.

Aveli, nuclear fission occurs in stars, as does fussion.

I was pointing out that saying "carbon occurs in nature" or "we are made of carbon" are true statements that do nothing to advance the argument at hand. In fact it is the measure of things which is important, and if we pump more carbon than nature may absorb, we trigger a quite "natural" effect I suppose, because it happens in nature, of climate change. Actually extintions are also natururally ocurring events, and that might soothe you no end, but to me it's scary.


they cannot ban the use of internal combustion engines on the roads let alone on racing circuits.


They can and they will if they have enough support.

That's why for us as consumers it's really important to understand what their aims really are in this regard, and how the world will change if they get their way. That way you'll be able to make an informed decision in terms whether you'll consent or dissent.

Personally I always dissent to any ideology that is not based on facts and evidence, but rather on logical fallacies such as appeals to emotion.

And I especially dissent to any ideology that is forced down people's throats by the law in the form of bans and through taxation.


Haha - someone needs to tell the hippies that their dog has a bigger carbon footprint than a 4WD!


she should start by banning people from drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes.