Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Motorsport' started by Liquid, Jul 14, 2016.
If you guys want to talk politics, take it elsewhere.
... I wonder how that would be perceived?
For what it's worth, FIA has since banned t-shirts from the podium:
Now away from that...
With manufacturer interest in Formula E being that high, they'll soon or later have pre-qualifying like late 80s/early 90s F1 due to influx of entries.
Except GTPlanet does have a open section for this type of discussion: Opinions and Current Events. It's two clicks away, and I recommend discussion of BLM be taken there.
Should AMG Mercedes decide to rebrand themselves as the Lock Up Breonna Taylor's No-Knock Killers Mercedes F1, then it may continue here.
Stroll missing a race because of having the ***** is a joke. I think he just didn’t want to race and he seen that as an easy excuse tbh. Waiting until the last minute to tell his bosses was pretty dumb too and makes it look even more suspicious.
It sounds like food poisoning. I'm guessing at some point he thought he would be recovered enough, but that didn't happen.
Why would he not want to race? This has been his best season so far.
Unpopular motorsports opinion: Formula E's reluctance towards racing on traditional circuits is why it will never go beyond the small niche it's created.
No, no, I agree. Would much rather watch them at established race tracks. Not those claustrophobic winding street circuits. I get that initially, they were abysmally slow, hence the need for constant corners to keep things kind of interesting. But surely they'd be entertaining enough on the big boy tracks now.
I don't think speed was the main factor. Maybe in track design (like that awful but scenic circuit in Uruguay). The series likes to pride itself at bringing the sport to the people. "See; we can still have motorsport without those gosh garn polluting internal combustion engines." But the sport has suffered due to that. But while I don't see more people flocking to the circuit, it would legitimize the series more to the masses. And maybe get them accustomed to electric racing before the world government's force the FIA to cram it down our throat.
I was under the impression a big reason for the street circuits was the ability to use public/mass transport to get to and from races instead of hundreds (or even thousands) of cars driving to the middle of nowhere.
Why would they race on traditional circuits? That would just emphasise how slow they are. The wider the tracks and the more run offs a circuit has, the slower the cars look.
Especially when they make the tracks slower again by needing makeshift chicanes to charge the batteries anyway.
Because they went about racing street circuits wrong. Many circuits just miss the mark. While they nailed it on the head at Rome and Montreal, places like Paris, London, Uruguay just don't work. Like F1, adding 20 corners to a circuit does not make the racing any better. You don't need to go any make a mini Sochi or Valencia, but if you are going to only run street circuits, using parks in particular are not the way to go.
I like the series, and they have the on track action and the money on board in terms of entries and sponsors to be huge, but if they want to reach their potential, they need to do something with the circuits to grow.
Their circuits sort of have to be like that. Electric batteries deplete like mad at sustained speed, so they need multiple braking and acceleration zones to try and cover for that. And the cars are only about as fast as a Formula Ford, so the slow short twisty tracks make them look faster than they are. They also use economy car tyres to make them look faster as well due to all the sliding about and low traction making them look more on-edge. If they took the championship to a regular circuit, the batteries would go flat in about 10 laps and people would catch on to the fact they can barely break 100mph. Interest would plummet.
They are not fast enough. Putting them on a track that petrol cars race on would just show them up. They need at least 500KW (675 BHP) to deliver that kind of speed. Then they need a fuel source that will deliver that power over a race distance.
Speaking of FE circuits, how do they justify the pollution of having to build and dismantle each track, Diverted traffic from closed roads, all the concrete blocks being ferried about and the lorries/construction vehicles. Would not surprise me if WTCR or WRC had lower environmental impact.
I think that's more an issue with them designing crap circuits rather than something inherently wrong with street circuits though.
A single transatlantic flight consumes more fuel than all the Formula One cars do across a single season. And that was with the 3L V10's. It's all about perception.
Doesn't DHL supply like 6 cargo aircraft for shipping the Formula 1 circus around the world?
Shhh, the FIA would prefer if you didn’t ask those questions
Oh yeah, they nailed it alright. Try explaining to non car people in an island with a population of roughly 2 million people why you're shutting down the major downtown city streets for a weekend to host a race when there's a proper race circuit not in use 362 days a year, literally minutes away, and actually expect them to not only understand but actually show up. It didn't go down very well, the race was an absolute financial nightmare, and that's why they never came back.
Oh, I don’t know if any venue has made money hosting the series, hence the inconsistency of the schedule. But the circuit was really good.
But enhances my argument. These venues are more likely than not unpopular within their respective cities.
ETCR will be racing on traditional circuits...
...they released the Cupra Leon in R3E recently and it's an impressive car.
They also admitted they don’t have nearly the range necessary for a normal race so it’s going to be a 4-5 lap sprint between a handful of cars like RallyX. The FIA is so desperate to hype us up for dead-end electric cars, just like world governments are. It’s like none of them realise no country on this planet has the infrastructure or electrical grid to support majority-electric transport, and that there isn’t enough of the elements needed for the batteries to come even close to supporting that sort of transition. Not to mention how dirty and polluting it would be to scrap and recycle 2 billion petrol cars. The push for electric is going to ruin us, the real future is in alcohol/vegetable oil fuels and hydrogen ICE/hydrogen fuel cell. Alcohol and vegetable oils are sustainable and basically every car on the planet can be converted to run on them, and hydrogen is one of the most abundant elements on the planet and its exhaust from combustion is water.
Well that’s a post full of miss information and out right nonsense.
First the series has nothing to do with the FIA, and secondly I’ve written two reports for my masters and can supply endless citations that debunk every other point you’ve made!
Every, and I do mean every western economy already has the infrastructure to support full electrification, alcohol and biofuels do not address the carbon issue, hydrogen fuel cell will work for heavy commercial vehicles but would make the most boring cars on earth to drive (and as a race car would be an utter failure, drive one to find out why). Those petrol cars are going to need scrapping and recycling anyway, and industry recycling is at an all time high and extremely clean.
If you passed with those reports then your school sucks. Many national electrical grids are stressed to their limit NOW, what in god’s name makes you think they can handle septuple the load?
Hydrogen fuel cells are more efficient than traditional batteries, and are already in use in multiple cars being sold today. Meanwhile electric batteries are highly toxic and require child slave labour in Africa and China to be mined.
Yes, eventually as they reach the end of their lifespan as reliable transport they’ll be taken off the road and scrapped/recycled. It’s a gradual thing. The mass-replacement of them with electric cars isn’t going to be like that. Multiple countries have stated they plan to outright ban ICE vehicles by 2030. Ten years. It won’t be a few hundred/few thousand cars a year getting scrapped, it’ll be every single ICE car in the country being made illegal overnight and will require massive amounts of time and space to sideline them for processing.
I notice you skimmed over hydrogen ICE conversions, by the way.
Given that it's one of the top 5 universities in the UK and a leading one globally for automotive research, I'm going to stick with them over a shouty person on the internet with no citations (which my reports had to be). Just a quick heads-up, I'm also not just looking at this from an outside perspective, it's quite literally part of my job, as I've discussed (and fully sourced) before.
The above contains all the details you need to know that yes they can more than handle the load, in fact, it would actually result in cheaper electrical generation!
More efficient? Nope (see the end of my post). Better in terms of performance (from a motorsport perspective)? Nope, which is why I already stated that they will be OK for commercial vehicles (mainly heavy), but makes for the world's most boring race series.
To get even close to the efficiency of electric you need to use the stored hydrogen in conjunction with electric motors, in which case you have everything you have already said you dislike about electric, but less efficient.
If you convert an ICE engine to run on hydrogen, to get only water vapour as emissions (and it's still not technically only water vapour - hydrogen is considered a near-zero emissions fuel - not zero emissions) you need to run it so lean that performance will suffer to the degree that you will lose performance and it's now utterly unsuitable for motorsport (but crucially will be ideal for heavy commercials). Run it as rich as you would with petrol and while you are now close (but still behind either petrol or electric) to a reasonable performance, but you are now also going to start causing nitrogen reactions (well unless you want to also carry tanks of pure oxygen with you as well) and releasing NOx as well as water vapour, still cleaner than petrol, but not as clean as electric, and still not as efficient or as good in terms of electric.
Hydrogen fuel cells lose out on all fronts to electric and only come close to being useful in terms of heavy commercials, certainly, they are the worst option in terms of motorsport, well unless you want to remove performance from motorsport.
They also undo your argument around infrastructure, taking the UK as an example, there currently exist 13 hydrogen fuel stations, one of which will close next year. Electric charging points? Well excluding the fact that most people can charge them at home, that would be over 20,000! Lets also not forget that no infrastructure currently exists to produce and distribute hydrogen fuel on a commercial scale.
So does a number of components in every electric item you own (including whatever you are posting to GTP with), are you going to refuse to use them?
Except your argument is based on a myth, the majority of countries are banning the sale of new ICE vehicles from circa 2030, not the ownership or operation of them.
That's what happens when you try a gish-gallop! However, I have now covered that above, it will cost me and I would have a whole 12 or 13 locations in the entire UK to re-fill it! That's still better per square mile than the US, that has 43!
"A 2017 analysis published in Green Car Reports found that the best hydrogen fuel cell vehicles consume "more than three times more electricity per mile than an electric vehicle ... generate more greenhouse-gas emissions than other powertrain technologies ... [and have] very high fuel costs. ... Considering all the obstacles and requirements for new infrastructure (estimated to cost as much as $400 billion), fuel-cell vehicles seem likely to be a niche technology at best, with little impact on U.S. oil consumption. In 2017, Michael Barnard, writing in Forbes, listed the continuing disadvantages of hydrogen fuel cell cars and concluded that "by about 2008, it was very clear that hydrogen was and would be inferior to battery technology as a storage of energy for vehicles. y 2025 the last hold outs should likely be retiring their fuel cell dreams.” A 2020 assessment concluded that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are still only 38% efficient, while battery EVs are 80% efficient."
As far as i know, no country has made any of this law as yet. They are only targets to aim for or goals if you like. Somewhere like Norway already sells almost as many electric and hybrids as it does pure ICE vehicles. By 2030, which is the earliest you can expect any country-wide bans (a lot of this proposed legislation concerns only major/capital cities for now), the proportion of new ICE vehicles manufacturers will have available will be minuscule. There will be no mass-scraping of ICE vehicles, they'll just naturally phase out over their regular useable lifespan as more and more buyers see the benefits of non-ICE. By that time battery power, and whatever non-fossil fueled ICE technology is favoured will be much more efficient than it currently is.
The actual chap in charge (i.e. not someone at the FiA) in a public press conference on ETCR
"We want high-performance cars with big wheels and plenty of power, to be good looking and – we hope – driven by the best touring car drivers. We want to promote the performance of electromobility."
"We are not trying to save the planet."
I mean, you may not have noticed, but electric cars do seem to go like **** off a shovel. Why not race them?
Not sure if it's unpopular, but I'm fully convinced the best F1 drivers on the grid in order are: Verstappen, Hamilton and Ricciardo.
I also think if all where in the same team they are close enough in ability to make a championship battle last to the last round.