F1 Green Hypocrisy

[ChrisM40]

It doesnt really matter how fast the cars are or are not, or how good or bad the racing is, the green credentials dont add up either way.

The 'greenness' of road hybrids and fully electric cars is pretty much a lie because of the resources need for and the toxicity of the battery manufacturing and disposal process. All they really do is move the pollution to a different area and generate different pollution. Much is made of carbon emissions, and on that alone it might just be in the hybrids favour (IF you swap a car doing less than 30mpg for a hybrid), but toxins generated by the manufacturing process are far worse than any carbon.

Translating that to 22 cars (and potentially 110 battery packs) that save just 30kg or so of petrol each every other week and its laughable. The pollution generated by F1 this year, as a whole, will be much higher than in years before Kers, and somewhat more than in the Kers era.

[autogyro]

Same circular argument.
Electric cars are the future, not because of any improvements in pollution but because the energy infra structure with electric cars is far more efficient and allows development of centralised energy production at far higher efficiencies.

Half of the oil burnt to achieve a liquid fueled vehicle system is burnt by the fuel delivery system.
There isnt such a system for electrical energy.

I wish the motor head greed merchants would stop clinging on with their finger nails its not ladylike.

[ChrisM40]

Same circular argument.
Electric cars are the future, not because of any improvements in pollution but because the energy infra structure with electric cars is far more efficient and allows development of centralised energy production at far higher efficiencies.

Half of the oil burnt to achieve a liquid fueled vehicle system is burnt by the fuel delivery system.
There isnt such a system for electrical energy.

I wish the motor head greed merchants would stop clinging on with their finger nails its not ladylike.

Hybrids do nothing for this, and as I said the fixation on carbon as the only pollution measure is disingenuous and even less 'ladylike'..

Electrical distribution and storage has significant losses as well, current electrical distribution and generation methods do not save that much carbon, getting the power to an electric car, and the losses involved in transmission, charging and discharging are about 25%. Sounds like its still twice as good as fuel burning cars, but its not really, not given that most electricity is still generated by burning carbon based fuel.

[Richard]

It's only hypocrisy if you take the marketing spin literally. When was the last time any top level sport was actually been about the fans?

They have replaced 7 year old engine designs with something that transfers more energy from the fuel into power at the wheels than ever before. What they have achieved is technologically advanced, albeit arbitrary. Mind you every sport is arbitrary, why have open wheels, why have 11 people in a soccer or or cricket team, why are runners obsessed by 42.195km?

[beelsebob]

Same circular argument.
Electric cars are the future, not because of any improvements in pollution but because the energy infra structure with electric cars is far more efficient and allows development of centralised energy production at far higher efficiencies.

Half of the oil burnt to achieve a liquid fueled vehicle system is burnt by the fuel delivery system.
There isnt such a system for electrical energy.

I wish the motor head greed merchants would stop clinging on with their finger nails its not ladylike.

Hybrids do nothing for this, and as I said the fixation on carbon as the only pollution measure is disingenuous and even less 'ladylike'..

Of course they do. Some hybrids (which amount to simply petrol cars with regenerative breaking) do very little, because their battery is too small to store a substantial amount from the grid. Others, with substantially larger batteries do a very significant amount towards this. A hybrid that can do 30 miles (many of them) on batteries alone will do a really surprising amount here, simply because most people's commute to work is 10 miles or less. That means that during a typical week the car will burn no fuel at all.

Electrical distribution and storage has significant losses as well, current electrical distribution and generation methods do not save that much carbon

Yes, they really do. The cost is actually a very good indicator here. The cost of electricity is pretty much directly proportional to the cost of the hydrocarbons they burn to generate it. The fact that you can get energy in the form of electricity substantially cheaper than you can get energy in the form of hydrocarbons shows you just how much difference there is here.

getting the power to an electric car, and the losses involved in transmission, charging and discharging are about 25%. Sounds like its still twice as good as fuel burning cars, but its not really, not given that most electricity is still generated by burning carbon based fuel.

That depends very much on the location, and again, the point here is not necessarily that it solves the problem now, but that it makes it a tractable problem in the future. We can not replace all cars with solar powered ones - we simply do not have the tech to make usable solar cars. What we can do though (theoretically) is replace all our power generation with renewable or nuclear sources. This though only works if the cars are already running off electricity.

[ChrisM40]

I dont agree with that. Being 'green' is not arbitrary or a anything to do with the rules of a sport. Being green is a measure thats external to F1, it either is or it isnt. These hybrids are not, no hybrid really is.

[ChrisM40]

Same circular argument.
Electric cars are the future, not because of any improvements in pollution but because the energy infra structure with electric cars is far more efficient and allows development of centralised energy production at far higher efficiencies.

Half of the oil burnt to achieve a liquid fueled vehicle system is burnt by the fuel delivery system.
There isnt such a system for electrical energy.

I wish the motor head greed merchants would stop clinging on with their finger nails its not ladylike.

Hybrids do nothing for this, and as I said the fixation on carbon as the only pollution measure is disingenuous and even less 'ladylike'..

Of course they do. Some hybrids (which amount to simply petrol cars with regenerative breaking) do very little, because their battery is too small to store a substantial amount from the grid. Others, with substantially larger batteries do a very significant amount towards this. A hybrid that can do 30 miles (many of them) on batteries alone will do a really surprising amount here, simply because most people's commute to work is 10 miles or less. That means that during a typical week the car will burn no fuel at all.

You need to use an ICE to generate that power, hybrids cannot run if you dont charge the battery up with the engine! All they do is reduce the amount of fuel used, but plenty of diesels exceed the mileage you can get from hybrids.

I am aware you can charge some hybrid up off the grid, but thats only an option if you can. Many people who live in cities cannot plug their car in because they cant park it on their property. I couldn't do it, no one I know with one can.

[beelsebob]

You need to use an ICE to generate that power, hybrids cannot run if you dont charge the battery up with the engine!

Incorrect. Many (most?) hybrids can be plugged in to be charged, as well as generating power with the ICE.

All they do is reduce the amount of fuel used, but plenty of diesels exceed the mileage you can get from hybrids.

The implication of which is that you can design an even better hybrid by using a diesel engine and an electrical transmission

[ChrisM40]

You need to use an ICE to generate that power, hybrids cannot run if you dont charge the battery up with the engine!

Incorrect. Many (most?) hybrids can be plugged in to be charged, as well as generating power with the ICE.

All they do is reduce the amount of fuel used, but plenty of diesels exceed the mileage you can get from hybrids.

The implication of which is that you can design an even better hybrid by using a diesel engine and an electrical transmission

Thats fine IF you can plug your car in. Not everyone, in fact few people in reality, actually could. The vast majority of people cannot park their cars on their own property, or near their own property.

These diesels only do it because of lower weight, add the batteries and motors and you lose the advantage, indeed most hybrids already use efficient engines, but still use more fuel in the real world.

Like most things in this world they might make sense under absolutely perfect conditions, but few will be used under those conditions. One example of this in the past is EGR systems on diesels. Designed to reduce emissions of NOx they work, but only for a short time. They quickly clog up, and hardly ever, if ever at all get serviced (most manufacturers dont even include them on the service schedule), once clogged they make the situation worse by filling the inlet tract with sticky carbon gunk that chokes the engine and reduces economy and increases all emissions.

Either way I wouldn't be surprised if the sum total of all the carbon saved by all of F1 this year by burning less fuel in the ICE is less than the amount emitted by the production of just one teams hybrid system.

[QinetiQ]

Am I the only one who finds the turbo spools sexy as hell? Personally I don't mind if they run 1.2 EcoBoost engines if racing is going to be as exciting as it was in Bahrain a couple of weeks ago. That coming from a Ferrari fan

[Sombrero]

Well, we'll see the TV rating at the end of the season.

I don't understand why FiA has now two championship for hybrid prototypes... That could be only counter-productive for both F-1 and WEC. This will end in tears, I fear...

[flyboy2160]

Ok, here's the first warning: this thread is about F1's "green" path, not about "green" in general or about how road car hybrids work. So please relate the posts somehow to F1.

[QinetiQ]

Well, we'll see the TV rating at the end of the season.

I don't understand why FiA has now two championship for hybrid prototypes... That could be only counter-productive for both F-1 and WEC. This will end in tears, I fear...

Personally, on race weekends I'm waking up as eager as ever to watch the races. I'm not too sure rating will be THAT low

[ChrisM40]

Ok, here's the first warning: this thread is about F1's "green" path, not about "green" in general or about how road car hybrids work. So please relate the posts somehow to F1.

They arent separate things since the reason they are going hybrid is because of its relevance to road cars. The hypocrisy is relevant to the entire hybrid family so we need to discuss road cars.

F1 going 'green' isnt really about it going green at all, since its not green in the least, its about attracting money from manufacturers and 'sexing up' otherwise dull road hybrids.

[Richard]

its about attracting money from manufacturers and 'sexing up' otherwise dull road hybrids.

Where's hypocrisy in that?

The have adopted fantastically complex engine, so tick in the box for saying F1 has the most complex technology. If anything the last few years with their relatively old engines have been hypocritical.

The technology that has been adopted happens to use words like turbo and hybrid get happen to suit manufacturers PR agenda. Another tick in the box.

The new engine firm is has attracted a new engine supplier. Another tick in the box.

It all seems rather straightforward to me. I suspect you are getting caught up on the word "green" and extrapolating it way beyond the scope of engines convert more fuel energy into propulsion.