2026 F1 Cars - General Thread

[FittingMechanics]

All this rhetoric about the "50/50" power split and "sustainable fuels", that was literally the point behind all of it, a marketing exercise.

Which reminds me about a question I had when I came to know about F1 using 'sustainable fuels' and had forgotten to ask :

How is 'sustainable fuel' produced in a lab/factory purely from chemicals, 'helping to achieve carbon neutrality' ? It goes against entropy, doesn't it ? Unless we are talking of nuclear fuel, the amount of energy needed to break a bunch of chemical bonds from 'stable' raw materials and then create another bunch of chemical bonds and form a 'stable' product, in addition to the energy needed to 'extract' the raw materials from nature, all combined , has to be lesser than the 'oxidising exothermic chemical bond energy' present in the final product itself, for us to be even saying 'using an energy source'.
For fossil fuels, the 'raw materials' were already created by gravity and time. The same (to an extent) applies to biofuels created by bacteria and time, on animal/human/kitchen waste. So they are 'free'. In case of synthetic fuels, where does the raw material come from ? Shouldn't it be 'created as well' by spending energy in turn, by some factory ? (if that's not the case, all human knowledge about entropy will break).
So why is 'synthetic fuel' considered a savior of humanity ? I am unable to connect the dots and understand the meaning of 'sustainable'.

Idea is that you for these new fuels you can generate energy needed through renewable means (wind, hydro, solar, geothermal, ...) and then use that energy to create fuel. You are not using an expendable source as source of energy for the creation of the fuel and you could in theory be carbon neutral.

If you had infinite energy you could make all the fuel you wanted (in theory).

[dialtone]

The point is that the fuels are CO2 neutral, not that they are renewable energy.

There is no such thing as renewable energy from something you burn and is emptied out. There is no cycle that takes the exhaust gases and recombines the original fuel.

However the sport isn’t producing new waste if they use CO2 from environment or waste products from other industries, e.g. used oils and so on.

Like it or not, that’s the direction they took, I don’t mind it particularly and it’s surely more sustainable than having to pump fossil fuels from the ground.

[Badger]

All this rhetoric about the "50/50" power split and "sustainable fuels", that was literally the point behind all of it, a marketing exercise.

Which reminds me about a question I had when I came to know about F1 using 'sustainable fuels' and had forgotten to ask :

How is 'sustainable fuel' produced in a lab/factory purely from chemicals, 'helping to achieve carbon neutrality' ? It goes against entropy, doesn't it ? Unless we are talking of nuclear fuel, the amount of energy needed to break a bunch of chemical bonds from 'stable' raw materials and then create another bunch of chemical bonds and form a 'stable' product, in addition to the energy needed to 'extract' the raw materials from nature, all combined , has to be lesser than the 'oxidising exothermic chemical bond energy' present in the final product itself, for us to be even saying 'using an energy source'.
For fossil fuels, the 'raw materials' were already created by gravity and time. The same (to an extent) applies to biofuels created by bacteria and time, on animal/human/kitchen waste. So they are 'free'. In case of synthetic fuels, where does the raw material come from ? Shouldn't it be 'created as well' by spending energy in turn, by some factory ? (if that's not the case, all human knowledge about entropy will break).
So why is 'synthetic fuel' considered a savior of humanity ? I am unable to connect the dots and understand the meaning of 'sustainable'.

I guess the argument is that if you use a renewable energy source for the synthesising process, in theory you aren't emitting any carbon. So even if you put more energy into the synthesis of the fuel than you get back at combustion, it doesn't matter as much since the renewable energy source is practically infinite.

In reality this is stupid though, as renewable energy is expensive to produce and any energy that you spend on making "sustainable fuel" could probably be spent more efficiently on something else, something that doesn't require the conversion of electricity to fuel which is inherently energy inefficient.

[dialtone]

In reality this is stupid though, as renewable energy is expensive to produce and any energy that you spend on making "sustainable fuel" could probably be spent more efficiently on something else, something that doesn't require the conversion of electricity to fuel which is inherently energy inefficient.

This might be a biblically wrong level take.

If you replace the etanol corn fields in the US (about 30% of total corn fields) with solar panels you will make 85% more energy than the US needs daily, measured as using the efficiency of panels in the Chicago area, so quite north.

Solar panels are 97% glass, aluminum and silicon. The remaining 3% is lead and glue and probably other resins.

Solar power is practically unlimited, can easily be used to produce any fuel that F1 needs at the cheapest price of any source of electricity. It also doesn’t need to be active all the time, this isn’t providing energy to a country.

[Badger]

In reality this is stupid though, as renewable energy is expensive to produce and any energy that you spend on making "sustainable fuel" could probably be spent more efficiently on something else, something that doesn't require the conversion of electricity to fuel which is inherently energy inefficient.

This might be a biblically wrong level take.

If you replace the etanol corn fields in the US (about 30% of total corn fields) with solar panels you will make 85% more energy than the US needs daily, measured as using the efficiency of panels in the Chicago area, so quite north.

Solar panels are 97% glass, aluminum and silicon. The remaining 3% is lead and glue and probably other resins.

Solar power is practically unlimited, can easily be used to produce any fuel that F1 needs at the cheapest price of any source of electricity. It also doesn’t need to be active all the time, this isn’t providing energy to a country.

This is a fantasy take, I'm talking about the world as it is. We don't have energy abundance nevermind renewable energy abundance, we don't have solar farms the size of countries. That means that renewable energy that could be spent on making an e-fuel is (in most cases) better spent as normal electricity, it's more efficient.

[mzso]

So why is 'synthetic fuel' considered a savior of humanity ? I am unable to connect the dots and understand the meaning of 'sustainable'.

You take the CO2 from the air create fuel from it using a lot of energy then burn it in a car. With maybe 10% efficiency for the whole chain. Makes sense...

[dialtone]

This is a fantasy take, I'm talking about the world as it is. We don't have energy abundance nevermind renewable energy abundance, we don't have solar farms the size of countries. That means that renewable energy that could be spent on making an e-fuel is (in most cases) better spent as normal electricity, it's more efficient.

It’s not a fantasy take, it’s data. There’s plenty of energy if you make the investment.

Not making the investment based on your reasoning is ridiculous.

[dialtone]

To be clear you are advocating for prioritizing the order of use. Capitalism doesn’t work like that, whoever has money, economic agent, makes the investment they see fit, there is no central planning. Eventually the system evolves.

Prioritizing private investments is not good policy.

[Badger]

This is a fantasy take, I'm talking about the world as it is. We don't have energy abundance nevermind renewable energy abundance, we don't have solar farms the size of countries. That means that renewable energy that could be spent on making an e-fuel is (in most cases) better spent as normal electricity, it's more efficient.

It’s not a fantasy take, it’s data. There’s plenty of energy if you make the investment.

Not making the investment based on your reasoning is ridiculous.

You are not comprehending what I am saying, no one is talking about investment or how much you could hypothetically produce in the future. I am saying that with our current energy production and energy mix, it does not make sense to spend what little renewable energy we have on creating synthetic fuels, it's not efficient. If we had virtually unlimited renewable production maybe it would make sense, but not as the energy system sits today.

As for the question whether your energy solution would genuinely be a good investment or not for the future, given the lack of such mega-projects I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be, but it's a discussion for another topic really.

[dialtone]

This is a fantasy take, I'm talking about the world as it is. We don't have energy abundance nevermind renewable energy abundance, we don't have solar farms the size of countries. That means that renewable energy that could be spent on making an e-fuel is (in most cases) better spent as normal electricity, it's more efficient.

It’s not a fantasy take, it’s data. There’s plenty of energy if you make the investment.

Not making the investment based on your reasoning is ridiculous.

You are not comprehending what I am saying, no one is talking about investment or how much you could hypothetically produce in the future. I am saying that with our current energy production and energy mix, it does not make sense to spend what little renewable energy we have on creating synthetic fuels, it's not efficient. If we had virtually unlimited renewable production maybe it would make sense, but not as the energy system sits today.

As for the question whether your energy solution would genuinely be a good investment or not for the future, given the lack of such mega-projects I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be, but it's a discussion for another topic really.

Well my argument is that Shell, Petronas, Aramco and so on could be forced by rules to make their own solar power plants to produce F1 fuels, or to fund public investments in solar (or other renewable) sources to offset their energy usage.

[ScottB]

The fuel feels like it's been largely a marketing endeavour by the car companies to help their push to delay electric car mandates, and it's certainly helped with that.

The energy required to generate the synthetic fuel is obviously more than would be used producing regular fuel, and far less efficient than charging a battery. It's not a mass market solution.

I am fine with it being a niche product, which is the likely reality to my mind, for motorsport, classic cars, perhaps even aviation which is difficult to electrify. I can't imagine a future where it replaces petrol at any large scale, and ultimately isn't reducing the emissions into the atmosphere from the exhaust pipe, which is more than just a carbon issue, even if it manages to claim to be 'neutral' on that front.

[Badger]

It’s not a fantasy take, it’s data. There’s plenty of energy if you make the investment.

Not making the investment based on your reasoning is ridiculous.

You are not comprehending what I am saying, no one is talking about investment or how much you could hypothetically produce in the future. I am saying that with our current energy production and energy mix, it does not make sense to spend what little renewable energy we have on creating synthetic fuels, it's not efficient. If we had virtually unlimited renewable production maybe it would make sense, but not as the energy system sits today.

As for the question whether your energy solution would genuinely be a good investment or not for the future, given the lack of such mega-projects I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be, but it's a discussion for another topic really.

Well my argument is that Shell, Petronas, Aramco and so on could be forced by rules to make their own solar power plants to produce F1 fuels, or to fund public investments in solar (or other renewable) sources to offset their energy usage.

Looking at European energy prices those investments should go towards baseload, not pie in the sky synthetic fuel production.

[dialtone]

You are not comprehending what I am saying, no one is talking about investment or how much you could hypothetically produce in the future. I am saying that with our current energy production and energy mix, it does not make sense to spend what little renewable energy we have on creating synthetic fuels, it's not efficient. If we had virtually unlimited renewable production maybe it would make sense, but not as the energy system sits today.

As for the question whether your energy solution would genuinely be a good investment or not for the future, given the lack of such mega-projects I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be, but it's a discussion for another topic really.

Well my argument is that Shell, Petronas, Aramco and so on could be forced by rules to make their own solar power plants to produce F1 fuels, or to fund public investments in solar (or other renewable) sources to offset their energy usage.

Looking at European energy prices those investments should go towards baseload, not pie in the sky synthetic fuel production.

Demand is demand. The maker of solar panels or storage batteries don’t care what you use them for, neither does the public utility.

Buy capacity and install it to offset your usage.

[TeamKoolGreen]

All this rhetoric about the "50/50" power split and "sustainable fuels", that was literally the point behind all of it, a marketing exercise.

Which reminds me about a question I had when I came to know about F1 using 'sustainable fuels' and had forgotten to ask :

How is 'sustainable fuel' produced in a lab/factory purely from chemicals, 'helping to achieve carbon neutrality' ? It goes against entropy, doesn't it ? Unless we are talking of nuclear fuel, the amount of energy needed to break a bunch of chemical bonds from 'stable' raw materials and then create another bunch of chemical bonds and form a 'stable' product, in addition to the energy needed to 'extract' the raw materials from nature, all combined , has to be lesser than the 'oxidising exothermic chemical bond energy' present in the final product itself, for us to be even saying 'using an energy source'.
For fossil fuels, the 'raw materials' were already created by gravity and time. The same (to an extent) applies to biofuels created by bacteria and time, on animal/human/kitchen waste. So they are 'free'. In case of synthetic fuels, where does the raw material come from ? Shouldn't it be 'created as well' by spending energy in turn, by some factory ? (if that's not the case, all human knowledge about entropy will break).
So why is 'synthetic fuel' considered a savior of humanity ? I am unable to connect the dots and understand the meaning of 'sustainable'.

Yes of course. The fuel costs way more. Some estimates say the fuel will cost $250-$300 per litre. The current fuel is $30. The cost simply shows that it is taking way more energy to produce this fuel than the old fuel. And is therefore worse for the environment. Also, the compression ratio had to be lowered to use the fuel. So it is less efficient and not as clean burning either.

But this is how corporate PR works today.

[TeamKoolGreen]

In reality this is stupid though, as renewable energy is expensive to produce and any energy that you spend on making "sustainable fuel" could probably be spent more efficiently on something else, something that doesn't require the conversion of electricity to fuel which is inherently energy inefficient.

This might be a biblically wrong level take.

If you replace the etanol corn fields in the US (about 30% of total corn fields) with solar panels you will make 85% more energy than the US needs daily, measured as using the efficiency of panels in the Chicago area, so quite north.

Solar panels are 97% glass, aluminum and silicon. The remaining 3% is lead and glue and probably other resins.

Solar power is practically unlimited, can easily be used to produce any fuel that F1 needs at the cheapest price of any source of electricity. It also doesn’t need to be active all the time, this isn’t providing energy to a country.

This is a biblically wrong take, full stop.

The closest thing we have to infinite energy is nuclear. Not solar. Solar panels have to be manufactured , installed and maintained and do not have an infinite service life.

There is a reason big oil loves putting money into solar and wind. Because these methods don't have a hope in replacing true energy baseload. Only nuclear does.