Did F1 need a greener engine formula?

[zeph]

The argument about semi-auto gearboxes is silly. It is sole raison d'etre is enthusiast drivers, who want the convenience of an auto in traffic but the sense of control that a shifter gives.

I have a shiftable 5-speed auto, and I never use it. The auto does things just fine, no need for me to get involved. On long downhill slopes I may stick it in one gear to improve engine braking, but that is about it. I am just an average driver, but truth is, modern auto boxes are so darn good, they do a better job than I do.

For all the other average drivers like me, my conservative estimation is 95% of the public, semi-autos have absolutely no value.

[zeph]

Maybe I have been living under a rock, but nowhere have I seen F1 or its various branches promote or advertise the new formula as 'green'.

Only on the forums there is this assumption that it is all about putting an environmentally friendly face on the business.


Look at it this way: F1 needed change, and I think all the changes are sensible ones (although I hate the noses). This is all about increasing efficiency.
2014 cars burn up 100kg of fuel in 90 minutes as 'green'. 130 liters over 300km translates to about 2,3km to the liter.No one in his right mind would consider that 'green'. The general public is not that dumb.

That's the point I've been trying to make. There may be philosophical benefits as a by-product, but by and large it's about efficiency.

The green argument has been advanced more by detractors as it is fairly easy to knock down.

Exactly.

[diffuser]

...
A truly noble gesture from F1.

I'm fairly certain that it will be perceived that way by one or two with limited knowledge of Formula 1,
such as local pub-oracles and automotive board members.

We are at the start of this. It is up to us the fans to push the sport where we want it. Let us give it a chance before we shoot it down. Already we are burning about 25% less fuel than last year. it is a start. Lets see where we are at the end of the year.



I'm not a Big Button fan but kudos to him for telling it the way it is. http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/form ... 3--f1.html Telling Vettel and RB where to stick it the obvious fuel sensor overture.

[diffuser]

Maybe I have been living under a rock, but nowhere have I seen F1 or its various branches promote or advertise the new formula as 'green'.

Only on the forums there is this assumption that it is all about putting an environmentally friendly face on the business.


Look at it this way: F1 needed change, and I think all the changes are sensible ones (although I hate the noses). This is all about increasing efficiency.
2014 cars burn up 100kg of fuel in 90 minutes as 'green'. 130 liters over 300km translates to about 2,3km to the liter.No one in his right mind would consider that 'green'. The general public is not that dumb.

That's the point I've been trying to make. There may be philosophical benefits as a by-product, but by and large it's about efficiency.

The green argument has been advanced more by detractors as it is fairly easy to knock down.

Exactly.

Agreed.

[GitanesBlondes]

...
A truly noble gesture from F1.

I'm fairly certain that it will be perceived that way by one or two with limited knowledge of Formula 1,
such as local pub-oracles and automotive board members.

We are at the start of this. It is up to us the fans to push the sport where we want it. Let us give it a chance before we shoot it down. Already we are burning about 25% less fuel than last year. it is a start. Lets see where we are at the end of the year.



I'm not a Big Button fan but kudos to him for telling it the way it is. http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/form ... 3--f1.html Telling Vettel and RB where to stick it the obvious fuel sensor overture.

You do know the fans don't matter anywhere near as much as you would like to believe right?

If fan input did matter in any real meaningful sense, they'd still be running V10's, Bernie Ecclestone would have been removed, double points in Abu Dhabi would have been scrapped, F1 wouldn't be running races in third world countries with human rights violations out of the ass...

Oh and regarding Button...have you noticed, the guys speaking most favorably about the new engines happen to be those driving for, or involved with teams currently supplied with Mercedes engines? Were I capable of critically thinking, I might be inclined to think they are happy with whatever advantage Mercedes is providing at this moment...

[zeph]

[...]
Its better than not making an effort at all.

Respectfully, no. I think this does more harm than good, because it further trivializes an issue that, for some, is of grave concern, and it leads to complacency when it comes to actually addressing that issue.

"It's better than not making an effort at all..." This is doing nothing at all.

I get it, you're green. I respect that. I realize that I not gonna convert a "Greenpeace type person". So I'm gonna stop trying but that type of person's belief's would be in direct conflict with the f1 sport. So why do you come to f1 technical ?

I know this wasn't aimed at me, but since I consider myself fairly environmentally conscious, I'll respond anyway.

I try to live responsibly, I understand that 21st-century consumerist behavior is the biggest problem of our time. I try to do my part in various ways, but I don't kid myself and think I am making much of a dent, nor do I condemn others who choose to live differently.

The reason I come to F1Technical is simple: I love F1, am fascinated by the technology, and find that this forum -unlike many others- has an unusually high number of knowledgeable participants (I am not one of them, really). That is why.

Now, I could ask the conservative wing here the same question: the new formula is technologically a lot more interesting than the old one, so I would think that people who frequent a forum called F1Technical would be excited about all the new tech!

[mantaque]

Technically, yes, 2014 Formula 1 is interesting, especially in engineering terms. But that was always the case, wasn't it?

But for me, as a fan (also fan of engineering one), Formula 1 is more than technology, fuel efficiency, tire saving, more enviroment friendly solutions. It's racing, getting drivers and to their very limits and even beyond them. It's about overtaking, accidents, failures, mistakes, loses and wins. I'm seeing it as a sport, so it's all about rivalry.

But there are also darker sides. Rules are changing, that's good in overall meaning, for me though they are changing in wrong direction. Honestly, we don't need smaller engines and silly lack of proper noise. Look back at WEC rules. They've changed the engine maximum displacement, Toyota now increased from 3,4 to 3,7 and Audi increased from 3,7 to 4,0 liter. Toyota is running a hybrid of almost 1000hp is which nearly 450hp is from ERS. And it will be loud as hell. I mean, why F1 cannot take an example?

Why we need proper noise in F1? Because we see it as pinnacle of motorsport, with best drivers and fastest cars. And pinnacle should be spectacular, noisy, shouty, dangerous yet fascinating. Just like my ex

[bhall]

I get it, you're green. I respect that. I realize that I not gonna convert a "Greenpeace type person". So I'm gonna stop trying but that type of person's belief's would be in direct conflict with the f1 sport. So why do you come to f1 technical ?

Nah, man. You haven't read what I've written.

But, if I ever needed more evidence of just how tenuous marketing claims tend to be when held under any scrutiny, here it is:

This whole discussion is missing the point. I believe what we gain from the new power unit is a new way of doing things. A new technology, that the companies involved can take back and use in road cars (relevance). So we're redirecting the energy that F1 was using in creating vehicles with little hope of the technology making our vehicles more efficient, to pushing the envelope in that direction. If they keep reducing the max amount of fuel per race in future years as they have stated they will, then we truly have a chance of making a difference. What's 20 races a year compared to the millions of cars driving around the planet? A truly noble gesture from F1.

That's the point I've been trying to make. There may be philosophical benefits as a by-product, but by and large it's about efficiency.

The green argument has been advanced more by detractors as it is fairly easy to knock down.

Exactly.

Agreed.

So, in a span of about three hours, we've gone from the bold assertion that the new rules represent a "truly noble gesture from F1" to merely an agreement that there "...may be philosophical benefits as a by-product..." of those rules.

This is precisely what happens when someone's position is informed by what other people say it should be, and that is the very definition of marketing.

[stephenwh]

But it is not a fact that "semi-auto transmissions are for dullards and require no skill to use", is it? What a joke.

[Lycoming]

it's called technology, and technology is what F1 is about, not nostalgia

That's debatable.

For example, if it's not about nostalgia, why do we still have open wheels when it's a known fact that wheel fenders will reduce lift and drag? why do we require exactly 4 wheels?

As for technology... well, why don't we have variable valve timing? traction control? ABS? Launch control? active suspension? road cars have all of these things, so why not F1 cars? or is it enough to just make everything from carbon fiber?

Long, long ago, it may have been the case that F1 was about technology. It has not been the case in a very long time.

[stephenwh]

"The (V8) technology is dated, it's not what's going on out in the real world and I think it's a major, major barrier to bringing in new partners and growing the sport." - Adam Parr, 2011.

[Agerasia]

it's called technology, and technology is what F1 is about, not nostalgia

That's debatable.

For example, if it's not about nostalgia, why do we still have open wheels when it's a known fact that wheel fenders will reduce lift and drag? why do we require exactly 4 wheels?

As for technology... well, why don't we have variable valve timing? traction control? ABS? Launch control? active suspension? road cars have all of these things, so why not F1 cars? or is it enough to just make everything from carbon fiber?

Long, long ago, it may have been the case that F1 was about technology. It has not been the case in a very long time.

Nearly all those things have at some point existed in F1, it was the FIA dullards that banned them.
The FIA is hellbent on destroying any relevant technology and promoting useless fake ones.

[stephenwh]

There is nothing useless and fake about a flywheel KERS system that then ends up in a Porsche race car and is the basis of a new company that sells it into the commercial segment, and flywheel KERS has never run in F1. Things get introduced into F1, then banned, all part of the evolution of the sport...it's about the development of new tech - not the longevity of it...

[GitanesBlondes]

"The (V8) technology is dated, it's not what's going on out in the real world and I think it's a major, major barrier to bringing in new partners and growing the sport." - Adam Parr, 2011.

Right, and how many new partners did the V6 switch bring in?

It took Cosworth right out of the sport.

[GitanesBlondes]

But what this all comes down to at the end of the day is that the V6 engines we now have, are an expensive exercise in how to waste money as they serve no real purpose. They can't be developed in any meaningful sense as time goes by, nor do they have any practical technology for every day cars. They do not benefit the environment in any real sense, nor do they save fuel in any meaningful sense.

The only upside of them as best as I can see to date (this could change) is that the FIA has managed to mobilize the dreaded fanboy contingent to go forth to spread their gospel about green energy, efficiency, and some vague benefit to the planet while being transported about in fuel burning jumbo jets...