Ferrari (Read Luca) Doesn'T Want New Engines

[Port-A-Loo 0]

Green is just a marketing stamp that people want to add to every single product on the planet. F1 is one of those products eager to have their green stamp on it but "guys, this is ridiculous". We can all be very ver very green. Most of us don't need engines bigger than 1,000 cc. and 60-70 hp. We don't need a TV bigger than 30 inch. We don't need more than a pair of shoes every 5 years. A motorbike bigger than 50 cc., a computer bigger than a pentium 1 Ghz, a mobile phone bigger than the good old nokia...

We don't need F1 at all if we want to be green. We have all the technology already to have a much much greneer planet with a "small impact" in our life style. It's hard to think about F1 and green together if we're talking seriously and no demagoguery is allowed in the debate.

Does not having a motorbike make up for the fact I've grossly exceeded everything else you outlined?

In F1's regard, I don't have a preference either way as long as it doesn't become so much of a priority it takes away from the other aspects of the sport that could use some attention. I'd love to say it's the right thing to do, but if I really felt that way, my actions would show it, and I'm not interested in being a hypocrite. So I can't advocate for F1 to go down that path but I won't be bothered if they do as long as it's reasonable.

[dribbler 6]

That's a fair point.

Given your example above, I might agree with you.

I will pop a beer for you, and perhaps I'll have a bit of a think.

This reminds me of when my first daughter was born and the moment I truly became a father. It wasn't when the baby slid out all covered in lasagna and it wasn't when I cut the cord. It was when I buckled her carrier into the car as we were leaving the hospital. You see, for the first two days after the birth, the nice hospital staff took care of my daughter. We only really saw her at feeding time and a few hours when she was awake and we really didn't get the impression that we were 'on our own'. As I sat behind the wheel and was about to drive away from those nice, knowledgeable hospital nurses, I realized that my wife and I were on our own. We were it. No safety net. I'm dad. I hope you get to experience that terror as well. It's first of many rites of passage.

Humble, insightful and thought provoking. Stick around this time.

[Autumnpuma 0]

If going 'green' is what's wanted, and you wish to avoid a purely symbolic gesture, the proper way to go about this is to set a km/gallon standard coupled with a minimum RPM of 10,000 and a mandated size for liquid fuel pods. Give 'em free-rein past that. If they want to bring a hybrid, so be it. If they want to bring an all electric, magnetic, flux-capacitor or whatever that uses no liquid fuel at all, so be it. Allow open competition to select the best option and let the money and talent in F1 refine the ideas. Trouble is, what 'green' tech has actually made the cars faster or improved the aero? Halfway measures and mandated solutions don't work. Open competition within a set of rules is the only way.

[AleHop 0]

I really don´t care in a engine has 4 cyl or 8 or 10 or 12 I think this should be a manufacter choice; The FIA and the F1 regulators should only said here you have 300 lts of gas for the weekend have fun and remember next year you will have only 250 lts per race and the next year 220 etc for the next 10 years. In that scenario each manufacturer choice to have their best engines ferrari probably will use a V12, maybe Renault will use a Turbo 4L or maybe all the manucfactures agrees that the V6Turbo is the best choice.

F1 must be about liberty of choice and most of all liberty to be wrong not about standarization.

Mario

I think that would be a good idea. If they say they're the pinnacle of motorsport, whatever that means, they can prove it by going faster and faster with a smaller amount of fuel every year. There's no problem using green technologies if you can achieve faster lap times.

In F1's regard, I don't have a preference either way as long as it doesn't become so much of a priority it takes away from the other aspects of the sport that could use some attention. I'd love to say it's the right thing to do, but if I really felt that way, my actions would show it, and I'm not interested in being a hypocrite. So I can't advocate for F1 to go down that path but I won't be bothered if they do as long as it's reasonable.

I think we all agree on making F1 greener if it's done reasonably. Greener&Faster or Faster&Greener would be a good aim.

If going 'green' is what's wanted, and you wish to avoid a purely symbolic gesture, the proper way to go about this is to set a km/gallon standard coupled with a minimum RPM of 10,000 and a mandated size for liquid fuel pods. Give 'em free-rein past that. If they want to bring a hybrid, so be it. If they want to bring an all electric, magnetic, flux-capacitor or whatever that uses no liquid fuel at all, so be it. Allow open competition to select the best option and let the money and talent in F1 refine the ideas. Trouble is, what 'green' tech has actually made the cars faster or improved the aero? Halfway measures and mandated solutions don't work. Open competition within a set of rules is the only way.

I would love to see a diesel in F1. I guess we'll have to wait till VW/Audi join the championship. And some years more after that.

[Quiet One 15]

We humans are alarmingly unable to think in nothing but extremes. What is the problem of adding a "greener" component challenge to F1? Nobody says the cars should be made of recycled paper. Just as much as I don't think that "anti-greener" F1 fans would like the cars running 18,000 liters gas tanks which throw flames all the way to the Abu Dhabi's oil fields. Same discussion with safety. There is a middle point between having a dead Senna in every corner and running around in cars covered in styrofoam. Ditto for creativity, overtaking, etc. If we take every idea and make it sound idiotic enough, then no idea is worth it. Thats a good way to kill any sport.

IMHO: you could have a greener F1 adding an extra challenge, and yet keep it competitive without turning it into Woodstock, minus the music, the drugs, and the sex.

BTW, see what I did there? I made all your ideas look idiotic enough not to be worth it hee hee.

Ok, maybe I should lay low for a little more time. Sorry

[yurp 0]

By definition f1 can´t be the pinnacle of motorsport with engine fixed architecture! I would like to see who make the best engine despite of its number of cylinders!!!!!!!

Finally.

Mike and Dribs - great comments from both of you. Bit of a tangent...

I'm always a bit perplexed by the framing of the F1 +/-/vs Green debate.

It occurs to me that the F1 bandwagon need only rave about green credentials when they benefit the sport technologically. Firstly, 2 alternatives should be assessed as to which improves the sport more. Secondly, by which is greener. The first assesment should tell us whether or not to welcome it to F1. The second should provide us with the information on how to market the change. On the other hand there is a kneejerk community including such people as Clarkson who enjoy their place as contrarians but only sustain their position by ignorance. As soon as anything is mooted as 'green' they turn their noses up in disgust. They forget to assess the measure on whether it improves F1 or motoring in general. So here lies the rub. To frame a technology as green turns the Clarkson's of the world away while attracting the tree huggers. To market something as making F1 even quicker/more entertainin has the opposite effect. Ignorance on both sides denies the possibility of technology that is both green AND aids the F1 circus when infact many such improvments are possible.

The introduction of KERS was a shocker and a perfect example of how NOT to introduce a technology that can both provide better entertainment (if they hadn't limitted it's use to an expensive irrelevance), AND be shown off as green.

Where we should NOT go is to introduce technologies simply because they're perceived as green to the detriment of the sport.

Which takes us on to managing perceptions. Many green initiatives (in F1 and elsewhere) are anything but green. And here lie the spin doctors (pun intended).

END TANGENT

[Fwon 0]

We humans are alarmingly unable to think in nothing but extremes. What is the problem of adding a "greener" component challenge to F1? Nobody says the cars should be made of recycled paper. Just as much as I don't think that "anti-greener" F1 fans would like the cars running 18,000 liters gas tanks which throw flames all the way to the Abu Dhabi's oil fields. Same discussion with safety. There is a middle point between having a dead Senna in every corner and running around in cars covered in styrofoam. Ditto for creativity, overtaking, etc. If we take every idea and make it sound idiotic enough, then no idea is worth it. Thats a good way to kill any sport.

Polystyrene Styrofoam isn't particularly green technology

However, your point is taken. On one end, you have the "anti-green" cars running V12 turbos. On the other end, you have totally green cars (solar or wind powered). In the middle, you have a nice balance: a V6 with an attempt at KERS. Unfortunately, the idea of a 4 cylinder is starting to move away from sensible and heading towards ridiculous.

In my initial post I eluded to the fact that not much F1 technology ends up in road cars (paddle shift - wow). There is a whole industry dedicated to creating hybrid or full electric cars. And their technology is way ahead of anything F1 has at the moment eg inefficient KERS. So why don't we just leave it to the experts?

Not really. You don't have to make the sport completely anal where it follows 'being green' completely. I used to think '**** it, lets have it all' but I see Steve's point. It doesn't have to affect every aspect of F1. Why not have the greener fuel if it gives one more century to the planet. Why not try to reduce emissions? Use materials that are less damaging. Recycle materials that are no longer used? I would try and ditch the tyre rule if all teams were in favour of using recycled rubber. Donate x amount to whatever charity that helps the planet from the sales of tickets. There is lots of ways to help our environment and our future generations environment that don't necessarily affect the sports racing element. Sorry mate, but i'm agreeing with dribbler for the most part. Pass the Kool-aid please.

As for giving F1 a greener reputation, Kopite Girl mentioned several other ways of sponsoring green technologies. Yes, those are all possible. F1 can do all of them, but leave the bloody engines alone! Guess you won't be needing the Kool-Aid because you just argued against Dribbler.

Green is just a marketing stamp that people want to add to every single product on the planet. F1 is one of those products eager to have their green stamp on it but "guys, this is ridiculous".

Don't get me wrong, I am a greenie at heart. I was all for the V12 -> V10 -> V8 -> V6 downgrade. But a V6 -> 4 cylinder downgrade is, as Alehop puts it: "guys, this is ridiculous."

Who's up for some Kool-Aid?

[Fwon 0]

Where we should NOT go is to introduce technologies simply because they're perceived as green to the detriment of the sport.

Which takes us on to managing perceptions. Many green initiatives (in F1 and elsewhere) are anything but green. And here lie the spin doctors (pun intended).

END TANGENT

Exactly.

Thus 4 cylinders should NOT be introduced.

END DEBATE.

[JHS 1]

Exactly.

Thus 4 cylinders should NOT be introduced.

END DEBATE.

Why?

What the heck is so bad about 4 cylinder engines? I doubt anyone will actually care about them as soon as they're introduced.

In 2010, in such a close championship battle, how many times did we have a massive debate about engines? Not often if at all. If introducing green technologies isn't relevant or whatever, so is the type of engine the cars use in terms of the racing they produce.

They'll still be incredibly fast and make a loud noise, so why is everyone having hissyfits about it?

Stop living in the past and suck it up.

F1 can't keep passing the book of responsibility to other series in terms of green developments, because they'll end up getting overtake in terms of popularity by something like sportscar racing. As Eric rightly said earlier, F1 can't just relax and not make change just on the basis that it's called F1.

[HandyNZL 1]

I'd just like to say that I am in the non-hissyfit camp.

I look at the Cosworth MAE in the Cooper and wonder how the hell this engine designed at 2000rpm manages to stay in one piece when she's screaming at 8 times that and pumping out five times the original horsepower. This is a 1965 engine...4-cylinders, loud as, and runs sweetly and makes the Cooper go like stink.

4-cylinders in an F1 car will be pretty bloody trick, believe you me. More trick than some dumb V12 that uses 3x the cylinders to achieve the same goal that these new engines will.

[Rainmaster 7]

We humans are alarmingly unable to think in nothing but extremes. What is the problem of adding a "greener" component challenge to F1? Nobody says the cars should be made of recycled paper. Just as much as I don't think that "anti-greener" F1 fans would like the cars running 18,000 liters gas tanks which throw flames all the way to the Abu Dhabi's oil fields. Same discussion with safety. There is a middle point between having a dead Senna in every corner and running around in cars covered in styrofoam. Ditto for creativity, overtaking, etc. If we take every idea and make it sound idiotic enough, then no idea is worth it. Thats a good way to kill any sport.

IMHO: you could have a greener F1 adding an extra challenge, and yet keep it competitive without turning it into Woodstock, minus the music, the drugs, and the sex.

BTW, see what I did there? I made all your ideas look idiotic enough not to be worth it hee hee.

Ok, maybe I should lay low for a little more time. Sorry

Exactly. There's been a good debate here but as usual it isn't black and white, it's shades of grey. Or green

Adding more efficient technologies/practices to F1 doesn't automatically dilute the racing element (provided the cars are still damn quick), and people who think it does or will just don't like change. Technology shouldn't be rejected or ignored by any of us just because it is 'green' and the same is true the other way, technology shouldn't be implemented just because it is seen as more efficient. The important thing is to introduce the changes (or new tech) only when it is proven/developed enough for F1 and can match the existing component's function but in a more efficient way. F1 doesn't need to be at the front of a development race for more efficient technology and on the other hand, it shouldn't be left behind just because. F1 should just be (and generally already is anyway) fast cars using the best technology available to them to go fast, and that technology will inevitably get more efficient.

At least that is something like my take on what should be happening. Realistically I think F1 just wants to be seen as 'green' from a PR point of view like Eric talked about (hello kers); which is funny because the cars produce very little in the way of emissions anyway (in comparison to the rest of the F1 circus). I mean, isn't 99% of F1's carbon footprint people travelling to the races rather than the races themselves? Just a matter of perception for the FIA and the manufacturers.

On a related note I think a lot of the resistance to stuff like this is also in the framing of such technologies as 'green' which for a lot of people has negative connotations (tree huggers and all that).

[dribbler 6]

On a related note I think a lot of the resistance to stuff like this is also in the framing of such technologies as 'green' which for a lot of people has negative connotations (tree huggers and all that).

Indeed. We're a long way away from green equalling salvation as opposed to sacrifice.

[yurp 0]

Returning to my earlier tangent, - the greenest thing the FIA could do would be to lift all engine limitations. As long as the fuel is standard teams will choose the most efficient engine for themselves and thus the greenest spec will come to the fore.

Why?

Because it's in the team's interests to make an engine that is highly efficient, very lightweight, extremely robust and one that uses as little fuel as possible (in order to have a light fuel tank) to make the car go really fast.

The most efficient solution to this conundrum is also the greenest.

Back to KERS again. Why limit the power per lap? If they hadn't done so, every team would be running extremely effective KERS systems by now and F1 would be greener as a result.

The whole F1 v Green debate is a false one. Technology that lets F1 cars do what they do more efficiently will also be greener because it's more efficient.

The whole idea that green development is anti speed is one foistered on the general public by Mr Clarkson and friends in order to retain their contrary image and thus fame.

FIA limitations stop the sport from being as technically advanced as it could be.

FIA regulations stop F1 engineers from developing varied and cutting edge technologies.

with this limited variety of design solutions the FIA rules limit overtaking too

Finally FIA rules limit the greenness of F1.

The only thing the FIA should limit is the number of limitations they themselves impose on F1.

[Quiet One 15]

Yup to most of what Steve, George and Adam said.

Nobody is asking for F1 to be actually green. And nobody thinks that the cars being greener will save the planet or anything. But among the many paths F1 could take, taking a greener option is just a matter of conveying a message. The message is 'we should strive for greener technologies, whenever possible'. That's about it.

I bet that Todt is more than aware (mostly, because everybody uses the same argument over and over again) that F1 logistics emit more pollution than the cars themselves. But that's a problem the airline companies will need to face ('hey, use our airline, we have greener technology!'). As far as FIA's responsability goes, they chose to contrive this message through F1 cars' technology.

Is not a bad idea, per se. As usual, it all comes down to the implementatiom. If they will enforce the use starting right now of solar powered cars, then the 11 hours it will take the cars to make a single lap around monaco will probably hurt the spectacle. But most probably, the greener approach will not be as dramatic a change as, for example, the budget, testing or engine developement caps were.

Better spectacle comes down to a mix of many ingredients. Trying to focus on one of them or, what's even worse, trying to extrapolate from that given one to make absolute assumptions (green is bad, safety is for sissies, overtaking is king, etc.) is just getting lost in the details and using them to make worthless generalizations.

[dribbler 6]

I bet that Todt is more than aware (mostly, because everybody uses the same argument over and over again) that F1 logistics emit more pollution than the cars themselves. But that's a problem the airline companies will need to face ('hey, use our airline, we have greener technology!'). As far as FIA's responsability goes, they chose to contrive this message through F1 cars' technology.

Very good point. F1 needs to take responsibility for itself in isolation, not ignore it by comparing its carbon footprint with that of the logistical framework that supports it.

[Rainmaster 7]

Yup to most of what Steve, George and Adam said.

Nobody is asking for F1 to be actually green. And nobody thinks that the cars being greener will save the planet or anything. But among the many paths F1 could take, taking a greener option is just a matter of conveying a message. The message is 'we should strive for greener technologies, whenever possible'. That's about it.

I bet that Todt is more than aware (mostly, because everybody uses the same argument over and over again) that F1 logistics emit more pollution than the cars themselves. But that's a problem the airline companies will need to face ('hey, use our airline, we have greener technology!'). As far as FIA's responsability goes, they chose to contrive this message through F1 cars' technology.

Is not a bad idea, per se. As usual, it all comes down to the implementatiom. If they will enforce the use starting right now of solar powered cars, then the 11 hours it will take the cars to make a single lap around monaco will probably hurt the spectacle. But most probably, the greener approach will not be as dramatic a change as, for example, the budget, testing or engine developement caps were.

Better spectacle comes down to a mix of many ingredients. Trying to focus on one of them or, what's even worse, trying to extrapolate from that given one to make absolute assumptions (green is bad, safety is for sissies, overtaking is king, etc.) is just getting lost in the details and using them to make worthless generalizations.

Just to be clear I wasn't making that argument. Everybody should do their own bit regardless of how insignificant their carbon footprint is, because it all adds up and becomes significant (..which now makes me a hypocrite because I don't do anything..). I only made the comparison between the cars and the logistics, to show that despite the fact F1's public image may change due to new technologies in the cars and the marketing around them, realistically it's a drop in the F1 ocean in terms of the actual reduction of F1's overall carbon footprint.

[Quiet One 15]

Just to be clear I wasn't making that argument. Everybody should do their own bit regardless of how insignificant their carbon footprint is, because it all adds up and becomes significant (..which now makes me a hypocrite because I don't do anything..). I only made the comparison between the cars and the logistics, to show that despite the fact F1's public image may change due to new technologies in the cars and the marketing around them, realistically it's a drop in the F1 ocean in terms of the actual reduction of F1's overall carbon footprint.

I know and, as usual, my post wasn't aimed at you, you worthless slimy maggot.

[Fwon 0]

There are enough people looking after the environment. F1 is the pinnacle and therefore has a right to indulge a bit. How about reinstating V12 turbos?

Having read all the warm and fuzzy arguments....I guess as long as a 4 cylinder F1 car can lap as quick as the current V8s, then there is no harm in progress is there?

F1 cars in the future will probably sport warp drives running of anti-matter - and not a V12.....

[dribbler 6]

I bet you laugh at your own jokes too.

[monza gorilla 1]

How about reinstating V12 turbos?

Ah, the V12 turbos. It's as if they never happened.............