2017 Formula 1 Singapore Airlines Singapore Grand PrixFormula 1 

Are you yourself a fan of pollution? Or are we all hypocrites for loving racing and disliking pollution, just like Hamilton(in which case why does he get singled out)? Or do you think it might be possible to enjoy racing and yet make responsible choices in other areas of your life?
None of this is relevant.

Hamilton has cited "avoiding damage to the planet" as a reason for his veganism. Hamilton is one of several individuals involved in Formula One, a sport in which 10 companies have just flown (shoving pollution directly into higher parts of the atmosphere, where they do more damage) thousands of people and thousands of tonnes of cargo over 8,000 miles to burn another 2,000 gallons of fuel. The result of doing so is that Hamilton was the quickest, after three of the people quicker than him the previous day crashed into each other.

He does this 21 times a season. Sometimes it's greater distance (Japan, Australia), sometimes it's less (UK, France, Spain), but on average it's about 3,000 miles from Brackley to a Grand Prix, but with some back-to-back races for the flyaways, the average comes down to about 2,500 - so that's 100,000 miles a season for Mercedes (or 1 million for all ten teams). Series sponsor DHL has a fleet of seven 747s (which emit 3,600g/km CO2, at altitude) that it uses to fly all of the teams' equipment to the distant races - some teams use their own transport and logistics partners - although it employs trucks (at 2,200g/km CO2) for European races. The teams also transport their own personnel and equipment in their own trucks and chartered planes. Hamilton has his own, a Bombardier (which emits 2,500g/km CO2, at altitude), which he will use sometimes instead of his team's flights (and, of course, for personal engagements).

A quick scribbled calculation suggests that his personal CO2 emissions from driving an F1 car sit at 13 tonnes a year, if he doesn't fly his own plane there, rising to 300 tonnes a year if he flies his own plane to every flyaway race. Average it to 155 tonnes if you like. With some assumptions (half flying, half road), the CO2 emissions required to get his car and all the equipment needed to run it to each race are roughly 230 tonnes. That's without the personnel, because I have no way to reasonably estimate that.

So Lewis Hamilton's job produces 385 tonnes of CO2 every year, of which he is responsible for 155 tonnes - if he quit, someone else would do that job and that 230 tonnes would still be produced. That's quite a lot. In fact it's 14 times as much as a normal Brit, and he's doing it half the time (155 tonnes in half a year compared to 11 tonnes a year).


A vegan diet produces 2.9kg of CO2 a day. A meat-rich diet produces 7.2kg of CO2 a day. That's a difference of 4.3kg a day. Over the course of a year, a vegan will produce 1.57 tonnes less CO2 than a meat eater.


Lewis Hamilton, who produces 155 tonnes of CO2 a year for going to places and driving his car once every two weekends, has switched to a vegan diet to save less than one percent* of his personal CO2 emissions from his racing because he wants to "avoid damage to the planet". That's why he's being "singled out" - because he's pontificating about environmental damage, while causing more pollution than 28 people. If he cared that much about avoiding damage to the planet he'd quit F1. Or stop flying his private jet around, or stop driving supercars that car barely reach 10mpg. Vegan or not, he's one of the highest polluters on the planet! That's quite a skewed perspective, and very, very hard to justify on the basis of environmental friendliness.


Now, if anyone on this site supports F1 financially and proselytises about environmental friendliness then, yes, I'd agree that they are being a bit hypocritical. But I don't see any real need to aggressively go after people who are lightly mocking Hamilton's choice and justification for it with "so ure pro pollution i take it? Not fond of breathable air?", when they're not the ones trying to justify shaving one percent off their 2800%-of-normal personal emissions.


*Actually less, as he claims to have been pescatarian for the last two years, which produces about 3.8kg of CO2 a day
 
What Vettel did was pretty much the right thing to do if Kimi was behind Ves. Unfortunately he was next to Ves, Ves didn't slow down when he might had to and I just checked the onboard replay of Kimi and he steers right two times towards Ves. The speed difference between Ves and Kimi was pretty big and it happened so fast, I can't blame one driver.
 
No further action from the stewards? I'm astonished at that.
As much as I want to see the book thrown at Vettel, I can understand it.

As I keep saying quite often after every incident, the stewards take into account what happens to the victims and ones to blame after an accident. If Vettel had driven away and not taken any damage, but was the direct cause of RAI and VES retiring, then the FIA would give him a massive penalty for causing a collision and getting away with it. As it was, Vettel took terminal damage, and therefore his punishment was a DNF in the Singapore GP. Take the Magnussen overtake on Ocon as an example. If Magnussen had got it wrong and shoved Ocon into the wall, making him pit for a new front wing, Magnussen would have got a drive through penalty. If Magnussen had done the same thing but broken his front wing, while Ocon got nothing, it would have been no further action. The stewards take into account if a driver was the maker of their own demise before giving out penalties.
 
IMO Vettel had no way of knowing, reasonably, that Raikkonen bad mived alongside Verstappen. If tbey were to cars wide, it would have worked, but they weren't two cars wide. Ultimately it was a "wrong place, wrong time" thing. It was a racing incident; how many times have we seen these first lap incidents becahse of the fiekd being so bunched up at the start.

Was it Vettel's fault? Yes.
Was it a mistake? Yes.
Does it end Vettel and Ferrari's chances at a title? More than likely, yes.

All anbody can do at this point is pack their bags, head home, and start work for the next Grand Prix.
 

Now, if anyone on this site supports F1 financially and proselytises about environmental friendliness then, yes, I'd agree that they are being a bit hypocritical.
What are you talking about. We all support F1 financially. Am i supposed to believe that you make all those emission calculations and yet are incapable of understanding F1 business model?

But I don't see any real need to aggressively go after people who are lightly mocking Hamilton's choice and justification for it with "so ure pro pollution i take it? Not fond of breathable air?",
Well you only feel it's aggressive cause i'm taking a jab at what you feel strongly about.

A vegan diet produces 2.9kg of CO2 a day. A meat-rich diet produces 7.2kg of CO2 a day. That's a difference of 4.3kg a day. Over the course of a year, a vegan will produce 1.57 tonnes less CO2 than a meat eater.

And how many people will be inspired to follow Hamilton's example? have you calculated that?

The result of doing so is that Hamilton was the quickest, after three of the people quicker than him the previous day crashed into each other.
Now, Mr. Relevant how is his perceived speed relevant to this discussion on veganism? What a joke to try to pretend that this is about CO2 emissions and not a personal vendetta of some kind. Puh-lese.

p.s. considering the difference between the top 5 in quali and comparing it to how much faster Ham was than Ricciardo in the race, Hamilton was definitely wouldve been the fastest man on race pace today.
 
As a third party I feel the need to ask you a question though. Why are you defending Lewis Hamilton so badly?
What do you mean badly? I am not the one conducting CO2 emission calculations to prove a very questionable point.

My point is fairly simple, that racing in general and F1 in particular can exist within an environmentally friendly world. Frankly i find it very very odd that formula 1 fans have that idea that racing and environmental responsibility can not co-exist. I would think being racing fans they'd be more interested in defending racing's merits.

p.s. but i'm guessing if it wasn't Hamilton and if it wasn't veganism, both very controversial topics, the discussion here would be a lot more reasonable.
 
The reason for the snide comments and jabs at is because, out of all the measures he could have taken to reduce his emissions, he chose the one with probably the least impact. If it's about reducing his carbon footprint as much as possible, why not sell his extensive car collection and go EV? Why not sell his personal jet?

This is why we poke fun at him. Because his measures for a better environment are purely symbolical.
 
We all support F1 financially.
Whether I do or don't (and I don't - I've never provided a penny to F1, regardless of its business model), you missed that it was an AND statement:
Now, if anyone on this site supports F1 financially and proselytises about environmental friendliness then, yes, I'd agree that they are being a bit hypocritical.
See anyone doing both?
are incapable of understanding
i'm taking a jab at what you feel strongly about
not a personal vendetta
This is what I mean. You are being ludicrously aggressive at people who are simply pointing out that Hamilton is preaching about environmental issues while taking a drop in the ocean approach to his own incredibly elevated contribution to environmental damage. I would draw the same attention to any other overwhelming polluter who does the same thing and claims that they have done so for environmental reasons.

I have no interest in a vendetta, or attacking or defending Hamilton, and have both argued in favour of blaming him for events for which he should be blamed and argued against him being blamed for events for which he should not be. It wouldn't be that hard for you to find me ridiculing the notion he should be blamed for Vettel hitting him at Baku, or Maldonado hitting him at Barcelona, for example.

If you're going to participate in this discussion, participate in the discussion (which is useful and interesting) rather than attacking the people who are discussing it (which is abusive and unhelpful).

p.s. but i'm guessing if it wasn't Hamilton and if it wasn't veganism, both very controversial topics, the discussion here would be a lot more reasonable.
Yes, nothing says reasonable like ignoring actual discussion points in favour of saying other people are incapable of understanding things and attacking them for a perceived and unestablished bias.

Discuss the point and not the people making them.


Scuderia Ferrari's reprehensible Tweet, for those that missed it:
 
Last edited:
But when it comes down to the crunch, one of them can see both cars, and that is Verstappen.

If Vettel doesn't have a clear understanding of what's happening behind him, then maybe it's not the brightest idea to assume Verstappen is the only one alongside - because multiple cars alongisde just doesn't happen at the start of an F1 race, right - and move right across the track to squeeze him.

Sorry but it's ridiculous to apportion any blame, let alone most of it, on a driver who has been driven into, on a straight, because he's slightly behind.
 
Whether I do or don't (and I don't - I've never provided a penny to F1, regardless of its business model), you missed that it was an AND statement:
You don't watch formula 1? And i dont think watching pirated streams puts you above that, tbh
See anyone doing both?
Again, racing and environmentally friendly choices are not mutually exclusive.

I have no interest in a vendetta, or attacking or defending Hamilton,
Fine, I'd like to understand what does him being fourth fastest today has to do with his environmental stance.
 
@Famine I think too you have forgot to include the possible effect of someone like Hamilton influencing other people to perhaps change their diet to a more environmental friendly one. I'm aware this possible effect is probably impossible to calculate against Hamilton's personal environmental pollution numbers, but I'm pretty sure there is an effect.

But it's interesting
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...p-beef-reduce-carbon-footprint-more-than-cars

maybe a good alternative for petrol heads who want to do something but not give up their cars. ;)
 
@Famine. (regarding vegan Lewis)

Don't you think it's potentially a positive/kind of important message, to send out to his fans? (that's providing his fans don't delve too deep into the hypocrisy of his own carbon footprint).

I think Lewis is viewed as a role model by some. Who knows?, maybe some of those people may think twice about their diet and consider becoming vegan. I'm not 100% sure it would have that impact but again, who knows? I think if people can look past the hypocrisy, overall it's a positive message. And me personally, I don't see anything wrong with him spreading that message.

[More on topic]:

An enjoyable and exciting race. Well done Mercedes!

[EDIT]

Tree'd by two others, more succinctly than I ever could. 👍
 
Last edited:
Wasn't Vettel on final straw (regarding points deducted) before a race ban or something to that effect? I guess that also helps to explain the stewards' decision.

In any case and regardless of if that was a political decision or not, I do agree that no driver is to blame. True, Vettel squeezes Ves into the tight line, but that's exactly what he's supposed to do, but leaving a car's width (as per Alonso's famous phrase about "Always leavin' da space" ). But Vettel didn't know, didn't realize, couldn't anticipate, and clearly had no way to actually SEE, that he had to leave "da space" for 2 cars, not one.

I call it racing incident. A spectacular one, probably a championship decider one, but nonetheless an incident. And I pity all involved.

PS - That Alonso Tweet is priceless. The billboard at the back, the car flying at the front and the "rolleyes" smiley. Priceless :lol:
 
You don't watch formula 1? And i dont think watching pirated streams puts you above that, tbh
I'm sure he'll be along in a minute but...

c4tv.JPG


Note 1: Channel 4 is a free to air TV channel.

Note 2: Watching and providing money to F1 are 2 entirely separate things.

Wasn't Vettel on final straw (regarding points deducted) before a race ban or something to that effect? I guess that also helps to explain the stewards' decision.
According to Crofty, he was on 7 points before this race.
 
And he is right, I checked and got this from F1fanatic. I bolded the final paragraph that explains why it's now 7:

Sebastian Vettel has become the first driver to get three-quarters of the way towards a race ban after being put on nine penalty points at the Azerbaijan Grand Prix.

The Ferrari driver was given three penalty points for making contact with Lewis Hamilton during a Safety Car period. That brings him to a total of nine for the current 12-month period. A race ban is automatically applied if a driver reaches 12 points.

Since the penalty points system was introduced at the beginning of 2014 no driver has accumulated more than eight points in a 12-month period. Here’s how Vettel reached nine:

Race Points Incident
2016 British Grand Prix 2 Forced Felipe Massa off the track
2016 Malaysian Grand Prix 2 Caused a collision with Nico Rosberg
2016 Mexican Grand Prix 2 Drove dangerously (incident involving Daniel Ricciardo)
2017 Azerbaijan Grand Prix 3 Caused a collision with Lewis Hamilton

The largest number of penalty points any driver has been given for a single incident is three. Therefore Vettel is at risk of receiving a one-race ban if he commits a sufficiently seriously offence at the next race.


However this will only be the case at the Austrian Grand Prix, after which Vettel will deduct the two points he incurred at Silverstone last year, and drop to seven. Jolyon Palmer and Carlos Sainz Jnr are currently on seven penalty points, the next-highest after Vettel.



 
Well that was... interesting to say the least. (Ironic that the first proper wet session F1 ever has at this track's 10th weekend as a GP venue is on the day when it matters...)

I think Mercedes got lucky there. Singapore had long since been marked as a damage limitation track for the team, but with the fiasco at the start, coupled with the great start by Hamilton to end up 2nd by turn 2 and keeping out of the chaos, it just seemed to go their way, even if the strategists wanted him to back up Ricciardo into Bottas towards the end. :odd:

As it turned out, Ricciardo was suffering with a gearbox oil pressure issue that hampered his performance, but even factoring that in, Bottas never seemed to have the pace like Hamilton all weekend, so even if the "back up" plan had been allowed to play out, I don't think Bottas would've been able to make a move passed Ricciardo, let alone make it stick.

How Ferrari would have faired we'll obviously never know. Out of context, Vettel's move on Verstappen probably would've been seen as harsh, but fair heading to turn 1. No blame whatsoever can be apportioned to Raikkonen: he just hooked it up brilliantly. There's simply no way Vettel could have known he would be to Verstappen's immediate left at that moment in time.

Verstappen was simply trying to prevent any potential risk of the two clashing: that Raikkonen was there alongside him was simply a case of wrong place, wrong time, and certainly did not warrant Ferrari's tweet of throwing the blame at Verstappen's feet. 👎

Championship-wise, it's been a big blow for Ferrari, but unlike EJ, I get the feeling this season has at least one more twist in its tale.

Gotta feel for Alonso: another of the great starters in this race, only to get caught up in someone else's incident. Wonder if he got any reward points for flying with the local airline? :sly:
 
You don't watch formula 1?
Nope. I don't have a TV Licence, so I cannot watch broadcast media of any kind.
And i dont think watching pirated streams puts you above that, tbh
Don't do that either.
Again, racing and environmentally friendly choices are not mutually exclusive.
They are not. However, F1 is a particularly high-damage series and flying a personal jet (as many drivers do) is considerably worse. F1 has striven to improve this on-track in the last few years, with hybrid cars and the like improving fuel economy to an impressive extent but, as you can see, the lion's share of F1's pollution is the transport and travel. This only gets worse the more races they have and the further away the races are held. This pollution is injected directly into high altitude for the fly-away races too.

That doesn't stop an F1 driver from being concerned about the environment, but the fact is that doing their job is around 30 times worse for the environment than any normal person. A vegan diet does cut the CO2 emissions, but by less than 1% - so instead of 2800% worse, it's 2799% worse (or 2799.98%, switching from pescatarian diet to vegan) - and there are so many more significant ways to cut your personal CO2 emissions if you produce as much as 28 ordinary people and you're concerned about it.

Hamilton isn't driving an F1 car for 265 days a year (race, practice, test days, exhibitions) and will either drive or be driven on many of those days. He owns a selection of AMGs, a Zonda, and voiced a desire during the Project ONE launch to have the first one. A Zonda might do 20mpg (Imp), or 325g/km CO2, which means that if he drives it 9km/5.5mi, he'll produce as much CO2 as an entire vegan daily diet. He has an AMG GT R, which does 25mpg. That'll go 11km/6.9mi before he hits 2.9kg CO2. I don't know what the Project ONE will do, but I'm guessing 10mpg will be optimistic - 4.4km/2.8mi. If he drives 6,000 miles a year in the most fuel efficient car I can find for him, he'll emit 2.5 tonnes of CO2. A Mercedes-Benz E220d is rated at 72mpg combined. If he drove that 6,000 miles a year, he'll emit 1 tonne of CO2. That would save three times as much as his switch from pescatarian to vegan. I know he likes fast cars, but environment. And he'd still be showing up on-brand.

Houses are a pain too. An average UK house produces about 4 tonnes of CO2 a year in electricity (1.5 tonnes) and gas consumption (2.5 tonnes). An upscale 10-bed pad in the country would be up near 20 tonnes. The more appliances - games consoles, televisions, coffee machines - you have, the more electricity it consumes, but these are good averages. Hamilton owns a flat in Monaco and a luxury home somewhere in New York. I don't know what size they are or if he has any others, but I'd figure on them being 20 tonnes between the two. If he ditched both and got a nice, half-million quid, five-bed house in Oxfordshire somewhere, it would cut that to around 7 tonnes - or 20 years' worth of giving up fish...

But, F1 aside, it's the private jet that's the doozy. If he wants to fly to LA (I believe he does that occasionally), that's 20 tonnes of CO2. If he wants to slum it and go First Class on BA, it's around a tonne (depends on the plane and capacity, but it's around 120g/km/passenger). There's a lot of compromises, like going where and when BA want you to rather than where and when you want to (ATC permitting), but that's a hell of saving of CO2 per flight.


Going vegan is pretty much the least he can do. For someone who makes a living out of shovelling hundreds of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere a year, and tops it up on his time off, saying you've gone vegan and citing environmental reasons (he cited others too, just for reference) is pretty much the definition of lip-service. Like Bono telling people to donate to charity and stop making CO2, as he steps off a stage with all his electric instruments in front of a bank of monitors and onto a private 737.

Fine, I'd like to understand what does him being fourth fastest today has to do with his environmental stance.
He was fastest today, fifth fastest yesterday. And nothing - that's just the race result.
@Famine I think, too you have forgot to include the possible effect of someone like Hamilton influencing other people to perhaps change their diet to a more environmental friendly one. I'm aware this possible effect is probably impossible to calculate against Hamilton's personal environmental pollution numbers, but I'm pretty sure there is an effect.
@Famine. (regarding vegan Lewis)

Don't you think it's potentially a positive/kind of important message, to send out to his fans? (that's providing his fans don't delve too deep into the hypocrisy of his own carbon footprint).

I think Lewis is viewed as a role model by some. Who knows?, maybe some of those people may think twice about their diet and consider becoming vegan. I'm not 100% sure it would have that impact but again, who knows? I think if people can look past the hypocrisy, overall it's a positive message. And me personally, I don't see anything wrong with him spreading that message.
Indeed, I'm sure it will influence others, just as Bono does, but he is a significant polluter (just as Bono is) and would create a larger effect by doing it himself.

And, honestly, it's not entirely his fault. He's seen a documentary about meat production and CO2:

"As the human race, what we are doing to the world... the pollution [in terms of emissions of global-warming gases] coming from the amount of cows that are being produced is incredible.

"They say it is more than what we produce with our flights and our cars, which is kind of crazy to think."
Which it is - there's bloody loads of it. Unless you look at it a bit more closely.

Meat production, specifically but not only cows, is responsible for about a sixth of all anthropogenic greenhouse gases. F1 isn't. But F1 is 2,000 people and meat eaters are 6.8 billion people. Meat production contributes 7.1 Gigatonnes of CO2, or about a tonne per person involved. F1 produces somewhere between three and six tonnes per person involved.

I don't even see why Hamilton announcing his veganism is something that warrants such a long discussion.
Me neither. But since it's being discussed there's no reason not to discuss it.
It's not like there is nothing to talk about from the race - there's a load more stuff that actually has an impact.
That's also being discussed though. Neither is to the detriment of the other - we won't hit a two hour limit :lol:
 
Last edited:
Back