Why ban tobacco sponsorship from motor racing? I've got a better idea 01 March 05

I agree that if cigarette sponsors want to put logos on the cars they should be able to do so. People can decide if they want to take up the unhealthy practice of smoking. And I agree that the most efficient uses of fuel is probably not driving in a large circle or course as fast as you can. However, some positive things have come from man’s pursuits to excel. Racing has given us all a lot to be thankful for in the cars we drive today. From the common seatbelt to the rear view mirror! Below are some contributions.

Safety, performance, reliability and practicality all born from race technology http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4021932&src=News

Safer crash zones (crumple zones) within the car http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Trans/T01-22_NextExit.pdf

I did come across some racing cars using alternate forms of fuels. Again, pursuing this new fuel technology may one day translate into common use everyday!

Deviating slightly, I assume you probably don’t like the space programs for all of their waste either? Launches use a bunch of fuel! But before answering you may want to consider there are a few technologies we use today thanks to all the space program pursuits…

Some of them include—velcro, teflon, the computer chip (funded the technologies beginning), fuel cell technology, the (very high speed) dentist drill, freeze dried foods and computerized navigation and flight control to name a few….

Another just found… MRI’s and ear thermometers http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FSL/is_5_71/ai_64424119/pg_2

Other stuff http://www.techbriefs.com/spinoff/spinoff2002/goddard.html

Food for thought :)

It is true that most of the technological advances we enjoy in today’s consumer goods have been developed by pushing the boundaries of design, usually in dangerous or profligate ways: motor sport, space exploration, and the most destructive and exciting of all: warfare.

It is a strange conundrum that we learn most through pushing things to the edge of destruction: and if there is some guy riding it on the edge: then it has all the more allure; and man has always been a creative, risk-taking being.

What burns the most fuel? the F1 cars on the circuit, or the thousands of inefficient production cars clogging up the roads trying to get to the circuit to see the race? What gets most effect in the short term? banning the spectacle or providing more effective, energy-efficient access to it?

Dragsters can run on neat ethanol which can easily be sourced as a biofuel: and they’re about as mechanically extreme as it gets.

What about a world speed record attempt…... in a gas-fired steam-powered car!! see link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4076811.stm

Space programmes have also given us satellites and global communications, and, indirectly, helped expand the internet; without which we would not be able to monitor climate change and exchange data, theories, and observations as thoroughly and with the speed and scope that we can.

What I’m trying to say is that this kind of technological exuberance is fascinating and exciting to a whole load of intelligent, creative people that we desperately need on-side to make the multitude of quite mundane changes in energy efficiency and sustainable development work. If we hack them off by being killjoys, we lose the chance to get the real message across.

The challenge is to try to utilise these high-profile events to get the message across that there is an alternative way of doing things that is far less damaging to our only world and ourselves, is smarter but just as sexy!

So how about, for a start, getting one of the major oil companies that’s now desperately prospecting for methane to sponsor Formula One, provided that the cars are converted to run on LNG, taken from an anaerobic digester? Come on Bernie, there’s a challenge! and what a way to get the message across.

regards

Colin

I beleive there are about 22 formula 1 cars (I dont know as I am not in the least bit interested/impressed by what they do). But the point is that you could mutliply this by a 1000 and it still would not be important (climate wise).

The target should be the bulk of society, changing transport/living habits or energy supplies.

GHG emmissions do not have to be brought down to zero. So we could have a world where hydrogen cars, green energy etc rule the day, but formula 1 cars will still be running on oil derivitive fuels, and that would be fine. No problem, GHGs would be brought back under control.

Infact, I wonder whether, if electricity and road transport changed to non GHG emmiting sources, it would not be necessary to curb aviation as this would not take our cumulative emmisions over the danger level.

The priority has to be to change core GHG emissions, not waste time and energy on areas of no significance.

I think you’re missing the point somewhat, Brendon. What I’m complaining about here is car culture: the internal combustion engine as sport, something to be desired and admired. I saw a photo recently of Westlife (the pop band) on stage – guess what they were all draped around? Yes – a great big car! Cars are not sexy – they’re dirty and dangerous, and make people fat and lazy. Rant over.

Mark, yes cars are dirty, in their present form, but new technologies could sort that out. As for them being dangerous, well thats the attraction, both for the competitiors and viewers alike.

Car ownership does encourage laziness, lead to obesity etc etc, but thats what people want (to be ferried around and not to have to walk/get public transport-not to be obese!).

There is no point trying to fight that, because any politician trying to do so will be marginalised. Might as well embrace the car, but try to evolve it into something less environmentally harmful.

The lazy fools who end up obese because of their self indulgence will get no sympathy from me. I just don`t want their actions to damage the environment, but their cooperation/votes ARE required to change things.

I do agree that the car as a status symbol/health problem reflects badly on our supposedly progressive society.

Mark, your F1 post may be “off-beat” but is not “off-topic” and in fact stimulated a lot of thoughts for me. More, more … “off beat” stuff gets the think part of my brain going.

Let me open by reminding you that Bob Dylan once sang “ … don’t criticise what you can’t understand … ” Harsh comment … maybe, because of course F1 contributes to GW/CC and is integral to “car culture”.

But your understanding is partial. You actually understate the anti-F1 argument. In addition to the fuel used by the cars, factor in the emissions from the cargo aircraft transporting the cars and equipment to far flung parts of the planet. The top drivers and team mangers fly around in Lear jets. The factories where car development takes place are, in many cases, state of the art, high tech with wind tunnels, dedicated test tracks and goodness knows what else.

But the other bit you don’t get is two-fold. There are aspects to “car culture” which are not automatically negative. Focus on the drivers. The best have levels of physical fitness which most other mortals can only dream about and hey … no post race drug tests which result in the finishing order having to be adjusted as a result of disqualifications. They have skill levels which are truly amazing. If you have not driven a motorbike or a car in a fully engaged manner you won’t understand this. To drive a motorised vehicle at the maximum demands skills which are truly amazing. You just have to read about the late Ayrton Senna’s experience of setting sensational lap times around the very demanding Monaco circuit to see that something very, very special was happening. He used religious/mystical references when talking about it.

And the technology … I called in at David Coulthard’s museum/exhibition in south-west Scotland once and saw a Mercedes F1 engine from one of his race cars. I was gobsmacked. This engine was beautiful and must have been put together by watchmakers such was the delicacy and complexity of it’s construction.

Now I don’t want, ultimately, to defend F1 because looked at in a certain way it is bonkers. I, however, can relate to it and will tussle with myself over how much of it I watch this season. What may well finish it off is the new round of politicking with various vested interests disagreeing about the future governance and organisation of the sport.

1001 human activities are reprehensible from the GW/CC point of view and an awful lot of fossil fuels are consumed by those participating in and following other sports. I’ve tried on a number of occasions to watch football and rugby and find them so boring. I can hardly resist making facetious and disparaging comments and would not miss them if they stopped tomorrow. The culture surrounding them is far from attractive. Low tech sports such as surfing, wind surfing, ice skating and skiing are far more appealing.

What would be good is to somehow divert some of the very impressive technological advances made in F1 into pursuing sustainable technologies. Material scientists, of which there are many in F1, may have a contribution to make. Encourage them to read “High Tide” and Richard Heinberg’s “The Party’s Over” about the imminent end of the “petroleum interval”.

Douglas Coker

I love cars and I also love bicycles too. I would not want to give up either. I would rather my car burned less fuel. I can drive less but I do not like walking or cycling in the rain or when it is very cold. I love to cycle and walk during good weather rather than drive. Public transport is OK but it can take longer when you do not have that time to spare.

Now, about racing; I have little interest in the sport. However, I would enjoy a rule change which placed fuel efficiency as a factor.

I would love to see a race where the cars were hybrid vehicles only or vehicles using another type of fuel like natural gas or hydrogen.

Based on the previous comments, this may advance the state of the art of alternative vehicles and alternative fuels.

Making a natural gas vehicle contain enough natural gas or hydrogen without adding much to vehicle weight would be a challenge. Similar challenges for hybrids!

All those previous comments are correct about technological improvements.

Athletic shoes, racing bikes, snow skies, sailing yachts, surf boards, roller skates, and ice skates have all improved through competitive racing. So have cars.

Dan