This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
A recent post about football & climbing made me think of another even rarer connection. Is there anyone out there on UKC who is an F1 fan? I suspect very few- but I am one.
It probably comes from the engineering source but I find it fascinating though very non- eco PC and to some boring.
It probably comes from the engineering source but I find it fascinating though very non- eco PC and to some boring.
9
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
I used to love it, especially from around 1996 to the mid-2000s but it bores the shit out of me now.
I used to love it, especially from around 1996 to the mid-2000s but it bores the shit out of me now.
18
1
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
I follow it about as much as I follow football. Probably more really, as it equates roughly to either watching my team or an England game. Which isn't exactly avidly, but if it's on telly I'll enjoy it.
I follow it about as much as I follow football. Probably more really, as it equates roughly to either watching my team or an England game. Which isn't exactly avidly, but if it's on telly I'll enjoy it.
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
I don't mind it at all.
I know someone who is such an F1 fan he called his son Enzo....
I don't mind it at all.
I know someone who is such an F1 fan he called his son Enzo....
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
I quite enjoy it generally. I just rarely get the time to watch a race.
I quite enjoy it generally. I just rarely get the time to watch a race.
4
1
3
In reply to Deadeye:
How is coastal erosion LESS exciting than watching paint dry?! Under the right circumstances, watching coastal erosion can be pretty thrilling.
How is coastal erosion LESS exciting than watching paint dry?! Under the right circumstances, watching coastal erosion can be pretty thrilling.
24
In reply to Deadeye:
I can confirm that watching the East Anglian Coast erosion in the 1970's was far from boring. I also treasure my copy of Beaches & Coasts by Cuchlaine King which is inspirational.
I can confirm that watching the East Anglian Coast erosion in the 1970's was far from boring. I also treasure my copy of Beaches & Coasts by Cuchlaine King which is inspirational.
4
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
As with the football I am also a fan of F1.
I do however think there is a lot the FIA can do to make it more spectator friendly.
Verstappen robbed this evening. Let them race!
As with the football I am also a fan of F1.
I do however think there is a lot the FIA can do to make it more spectator friendly.
Verstappen robbed this evening. Let them race!
Post edited at 22:30
3
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
Climbing and rallying are closer companions, I think: alone except for your partner, against the elements, doing the best you can.
Climbing and rallying are closer companions, I think: alone except for your partner, against the elements, doing the best you can.
7
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
Yes, also an F1 fan. Don't follow any other sports however (of course climbing is not a sport, it's far more than that..).
Yes, also an F1 fan. Don't follow any other sports however (of course climbing is not a sport, it's far more than that..).
2
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
I too think that indeed it is rare to see a climber who is also an F1 fan.
I too think that indeed it is rare to see a climber who is also an F1 fan.
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
I love F1 and never miss a race and also enjoy most other forms of motor sport - possibly because I did some racing myself (in a Lola and a Mallock, for those who may be interested) before I started climbing. Yesterday's American race was a real cracker.
I love F1 and never miss a race and also enjoy most other forms of motor sport - possibly because I did some racing myself (in a Lola and a Mallock, for those who may be interested) before I started climbing. Yesterday's American race was a real cracker.
3
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
Engineering-wise I have a great interest, we used to do work for a number of F1 teams, and very nearly got involved in a full size rolling road, which would have either made or broke the company I was working for at the time (we never tried in the end). We did wind tunnel controls and a couple of specialist "ovens" for baking carbon fibre. At the time I took a real interest in F1, but I don't bother much now. It's become a bit formulaic, though I don't see what's changed since Mansell was winning every race.
Maybe I just got bored of it.
Engineering-wise I have a great interest, we used to do work for a number of F1 teams, and very nearly got involved in a full size rolling road, which would have either made or broke the company I was working for at the time (we never tried in the end). We did wind tunnel controls and a couple of specialist "ovens" for baking carbon fibre. At the time I took a real interest in F1, but I don't bother much now. It's become a bit formulaic, though I don't see what's changed since Mansell was winning every race.
Maybe I just got bored of it.
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
I have no interest in the modern F1 (though I appreciate the engineering, being an engineer myself), but the snorting v12,10 and 8s are fantastic to watch. modern racing is far too safe, controlled and the cars sound like a boy racers corsa. much prefer group B rally and racing of such styles.
And im very much a motorsport person, I am building a hill climb mk2 golf gti, and have raced imprezas in the past, but Modern F1 is as interesting as football for me, which is as good as "watching paint dry"
I have no interest in the modern F1 (though I appreciate the engineering, being an engineer myself), but the snorting v12,10 and 8s are fantastic to watch. modern racing is far too safe, controlled and the cars sound like a boy racers corsa. much prefer group B rally and racing of such styles.
And im very much a motorsport person, I am building a hill climb mk2 golf gti, and have raced imprezas in the past, but Modern F1 is as interesting as football for me, which is as good as "watching paint dry"
1
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
More than 12 hours and nobody has yet repeated that (misattributed) Hemingway quote!
More than 12 hours and nobody has yet repeated that (misattributed) Hemingway quote!
3
2
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Never do double denim - Wayne Hemingway
> More than 12 hours and nobody has yet repeated that (misattributed) Hemingway quote!
Never do double denim - Wayne Hemingway
7
In reply to Ben_Climber:
I have to disagree. If he couldn't complete the overtaken within the confines of the track, then it shouldn't be allowed to stand. Yes it sucks that it was the last lap but rules are rules. The problem seems to be that the rules aren't applied consistently.
> Verstappen robbed this evening. Let them race!
I have to disagree. If he couldn't complete the overtaken within the confines of the track, then it shouldn't be allowed to stand. Yes it sucks that it was the last lap but rules are rules. The problem seems to be that the rules aren't applied consistently.
2
In reply to Deadeye:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item/71039/rockfall_at_vicarage_cliff
> Not that exciting!
> Coastal erosion.
https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item/71039/rockfall_at_vicarage_cliff
2
In reply to GridNorth:
I enjoyed F1 when it was more about the driver than the car.
Don't worry, Hamilton seems to be making sure that it's more about the driver than the car...
Fantastic driver no doubt and when he talks about the sport itself comes across as a level headed professional. However, he really needs to give his ego a rest as it's starting to become nauseating.
I enjoyed F1 when it was more about the driver than the car.
Don't worry, Hamilton seems to be making sure that it's more about the driver than the car...
Fantastic driver no doubt and when he talks about the sport itself comes across as a level headed professional. However, he really needs to give his ego a rest as it's starting to become nauseating.
5
In reply to trouserburp:
There was an overtake in Formula 1?
Quite a few yesterday and an exciting race from start to finish.
There was an overtake in Formula 1?
Quite a few yesterday and an exciting race from start to finish.
2
In reply to Hat Dude:
Go on then - "Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports. . . all others are games".
> Never do double denim - Wayne Hemingway
Go on then - "Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports. . . all others are games".
2
In reply to FactorXXX:
To be fair... I'm not sure I can think of anyone who is arguably the best ever to have lived in their sport (with the exception of Federer) who doesn't seem to have a big ego.
> However, he really needs to give his ego a rest as it's starting to become nauseating.
To be fair... I'm not sure I can think of anyone who is arguably the best ever to have lived in their sport (with the exception of Federer) who doesn't seem to have a big ego.
Post edited at 13:43
1
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Best that ever lived?! In terms of title wins, Schumacher, Fangio, Prost, Brabham, Stewart, Lauda, Piquet, Senna, and Vettel could all be considered as good as, or better than Hamilton, and I don't think any of them had particular egos.
Granted about half of that list is well before my time, and there's a fairly good chance that he will pass about two thirds of that list at Mexico!
Best that ever lived?! In terms of title wins, Schumacher, Fangio, Prost, Brabham, Stewart, Lauda, Piquet, Senna, and Vettel could all be considered as good as, or better than Hamilton, and I don't think any of them had particular egos.
Granted about half of that list is well before my time, and there's a fairly good chance that he will pass about two thirds of that list at Mexico!
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
Probably to do with most climbers loving the outdoors and the environment, while F1 is an activity almost obscene in its unfriendliness towards the environment. I can understand where car racing came from historically, how F1 is the pinnacle of that development, and of course how Hemingway came to his famous conclusion about sports, but I believe that as a society we should take stock and leave that bit behind us.
CB
Probably to do with most climbers loving the outdoors and the environment, while F1 is an activity almost obscene in its unfriendliness towards the environment. I can understand where car racing came from historically, how F1 is the pinnacle of that development, and of course how Hemingway came to his famous conclusion about sports, but I believe that as a society we should take stock and leave that bit behind us.
CB
1
1
In reply to cb294:
I bet climbers burn through considerably more fuel collectively than F1 does in their weekly 'commute' up the M1 or their flights to Malaga. So whereas I find all motor sport pretty uninspiring I'm under no illusions about the 'green' credentials of the climbing community.
> Probably to do with most climbers loving the outdoors and the environment, while F1 is an activity almost obscene in its unfriendliness towards the environment. I can understand where car racing came from historically, how F1 is the pinnacle of that development, and of course how Hemingway came to his famous conclusion about sports, but I believe that as a society we should take stock and leave that bit behind us.
> CB
I bet climbers burn through considerably more fuel collectively than F1 does in their weekly 'commute' up the M1 or their flights to Malaga. So whereas I find all motor sport pretty uninspiring I'm under no illusions about the 'green' credentials of the climbing community.
3
Am I deluded in thinking that overall, F1 has a positive impact on the environment as it is essentially a laboratory and test bed for advances that make their way into consumer vehicles? e.g. lighter materials, improved fuel chemistry, greater fuel efficiency via clever engine management and aerodynamics.
3
In reply to cb294:
I believe F1 actually ends up being better for the environment. Despite the racing and travelling circus having a big carbon footprint, the advances in bio-fuel, kinetic energy reclamation, electrical energy, more power from smaller engines, better aerodynamisism (real word?!), longer lasting tyres, lighter materials etc etc etc eventually becomes affordable to everyday cars and that environmental improvement is then seen worldwide and can have a huge impact.
Then there's all the countless safety improvements from motor racing, that again eventually filter down to everyday use.
Quite simply, the impetus just isn't there to spend that kind of R&D money without the chance of sponsorships and prize money to recoup your losses. Just think of it as publicly broadcast testing, cos ultimately that's what it is.
Edit: Blue Straggler I've only just seen your post.
I believe F1 actually ends up being better for the environment. Despite the racing and travelling circus having a big carbon footprint, the advances in bio-fuel, kinetic energy reclamation, electrical energy, more power from smaller engines, better aerodynamisism (real word?!), longer lasting tyres, lighter materials etc etc etc eventually becomes affordable to everyday cars and that environmental improvement is then seen worldwide and can have a huge impact.
Then there's all the countless safety improvements from motor racing, that again eventually filter down to everyday use.
Quite simply, the impetus just isn't there to spend that kind of R&D money without the chance of sponsorships and prize money to recoup your losses. Just think of it as publicly broadcast testing, cos ultimately that's what it is.
Edit: Blue Straggler I've only just seen your post.
Post edited at 15:18
4
In reply to Dave 88:
I have heard the total on track fuel used by all cars in all sessions is less than a single transatlantic jumbo flight.
I'm not sure now true this is as I can't find out how much fuel a flight uses.
A bit of fag packet maths puts all the on track fuel 125,000 L, does anybody know how much fuel a jumbo uses?
I think the real fuel use is transporting all the kit around the world, something formula e still hasn't addressed.
I have heard the total on track fuel used by all cars in all sessions is less than a single transatlantic jumbo flight.
I'm not sure now true this is as I can't find out how much fuel a flight uses.
A bit of fag packet maths puts all the on track fuel 125,000 L, does anybody know how much fuel a jumbo uses?
I think the real fuel use is transporting all the kit around the world, something formula e still hasn't addressed.
3
In reply to GrahamD:
Quite, which is why I do not fly to Malaga. I occasionally fly overseas for holidays, ususally if I have to go somewhere for my job anyway, but normally I climb locally, or drive to the Alps (but only if I can extend it to a few days, no mad weekend rush).
CB
Quite, which is why I do not fly to Malaga. I occasionally fly overseas for holidays, ususally if I have to go somewhere for my job anyway, but normally I climb locally, or drive to the Alps (but only if I can extend it to a few days, no mad weekend rush).
CB
In reply to Dave 88 and blue straggler:
Sure, there are performance gains that may or may no trickle down to regular cars, and if you made that argument about Formula E I would readily believe that there is a net benefit (even though two sets of batteries are made and then discarded with every race).
Otherwise, car racing promotes fast driving as sport and as a thing that should emulated on public roads (especially here in Germany where for reasons of national madness we still do not have a general speed limit on motorways), and promotes emotional attachment to powerful and fast cars that consume vastly more fuel than required for their immediate purpose of transport, etc..
Hard to quantify, but I am certain that such knock on effects dwarf the environmental foot print of the race industry, which again vastly exceeds the pure fuel consumption of the actual racing.
CB
Sure, there are performance gains that may or may no trickle down to regular cars, and if you made that argument about Formula E I would readily believe that there is a net benefit (even though two sets of batteries are made and then discarded with every race).
Otherwise, car racing promotes fast driving as sport and as a thing that should emulated on public roads (especially here in Germany where for reasons of national madness we still do not have a general speed limit on motorways), and promotes emotional attachment to powerful and fast cars that consume vastly more fuel than required for their immediate purpose of transport, etc..
Hard to quantify, but I am certain that such knock on effects dwarf the environmental foot print of the race industry, which again vastly exceeds the pure fuel consumption of the actual racing.
CB
3
In reply to cb294:
But as MikeSP says, the pollution from the actual race isn't really that much, it's the flying all those people and equipment around the world, something that Formula E is not immune from.
The question of trickle down isn't "may or may not" I'm afraid. Kinetic energy reclamation is directly inherited from F1, and nobody is getting the efficiency from a 1.6 litre engine that F1 teams are. Even the discarded (they're actually analysed then recycled) batteries from Formula E are paving the way for better widespread technology in this area.
As far as F1 going on to then promote fast driving which in turn is then bad for the environment, I think that's a bit of a stretch. Why don't you make the same connection to your example of Formula E? You could extrapolate anything to that degree and say wildlife documentaries are the worst thing for the planet as they show amazing countries that people then want to fly to and experience.
If an F1 technology makes everyones engine perform just 1mpg better, then this is going to have a huge net benefit over these few hypothetical racing fans that drive faster after watching the F1 on Sunday.
But as MikeSP says, the pollution from the actual race isn't really that much, it's the flying all those people and equipment around the world, something that Formula E is not immune from.
The question of trickle down isn't "may or may not" I'm afraid. Kinetic energy reclamation is directly inherited from F1, and nobody is getting the efficiency from a 1.6 litre engine that F1 teams are. Even the discarded (they're actually analysed then recycled) batteries from Formula E are paving the way for better widespread technology in this area.
As far as F1 going on to then promote fast driving which in turn is then bad for the environment, I think that's a bit of a stretch. Why don't you make the same connection to your example of Formula E? You could extrapolate anything to that degree and say wildlife documentaries are the worst thing for the planet as they show amazing countries that people then want to fly to and experience.
If an F1 technology makes everyones engine perform just 1mpg better, then this is going to have a huge net benefit over these few hypothetical racing fans that drive faster after watching the F1 on Sunday.
1
In reply to Dave 88:
No in terms of sheer driving ability. Under this criterion, personally I'd categorise the top F1 drivers or the modern era to be: Senna, Schumacher, Alonso and Hamilton. Of those four I'd say Alonso is the only one who hasn't shown a large ego.
Prost, Lauda and Piquet were all decent but never outrageous in my view. And as for Fangio, Stewart and Brabham... I wouldn't really say their sport was the same sport.
> Best that ever lived?! In terms of title wins, Schumacher, Fangio, Prost, Brabham, Stewart, Lauda, Piquet, Senna, and Vettel could all be considered as good as, or better than Hamilton, and I don't think any of them had particular egos.
No in terms of sheer driving ability. Under this criterion, personally I'd categorise the top F1 drivers or the modern era to be: Senna, Schumacher, Alonso and Hamilton. Of those four I'd say Alonso is the only one who hasn't shown a large ego.
Prost, Lauda and Piquet were all decent but never outrageous in my view. And as for Fangio, Stewart and Brabham... I wouldn't really say their sport was the same sport.
Post edited at 16:43
1
In reply to Dave 88:
Yes, a improvement in mileage is a food thin. However, the average size, power and maximal speed of newly built cars has gone up dramatically in recent years, negating any advances in fuel efficiency (which may or may not have happened due to F1).
Just compare sequential generations of VW Golf, Ford Focus, you name it.
Do you seriously claim that this prevalence of ridiculously over motorized cars has nothing to with the glorification of fast driving by motor "sports"?
I agree (and have even explicitly stated) that the fuel consumption of the actual races is the least part of the F1 foot print. However, there is so much progress still to be made in electric mobility that there may be a large, actual net benefit for formula E (even if the foot print were roughly the same as F1).
In contrast, combustion engines are a dead end (as much as I like the sound of a nice vintage Harley, or a Ducati Monster), and we should just leave that period behind.
CB
Yes, a improvement in mileage is a food thin. However, the average size, power and maximal speed of newly built cars has gone up dramatically in recent years, negating any advances in fuel efficiency (which may or may not have happened due to F1).
Just compare sequential generations of VW Golf, Ford Focus, you name it.
Do you seriously claim that this prevalence of ridiculously over motorized cars has nothing to with the glorification of fast driving by motor "sports"?
I agree (and have even explicitly stated) that the fuel consumption of the actual races is the least part of the F1 foot print. However, there is so much progress still to be made in electric mobility that there may be a large, actual net benefit for formula E (even if the foot print were roughly the same as F1).
In contrast, combustion engines are a dead end (as much as I like the sound of a nice vintage Harley, or a Ducati Monster), and we should just leave that period behind.
CB
1
1
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Schuey was never that bad was he?! Yeah I'm gutted Alonso hasn't had a car good enough to showcase his true potential for years now, he is one of my favourite drivers. He's made some terrible team choices though!
Yeah I was being a bit facetious with the rest of the list. Hamilton is undoubtedly in a class of his own compared to most of them. I've just never been a fan so I hate the fact that if he keeps up his current form for a few more seasons he will arguably be the best driver we've ever seen!
I'd say Vettel is up there but he's done some crazy (albeit very entertaining) stuff this season.
Verstappen could be a future great, he's certainly not afraid to get amongst it! Shame about the stewards call this weekend.
Schuey was never that bad was he?! Yeah I'm gutted Alonso hasn't had a car good enough to showcase his true potential for years now, he is one of my favourite drivers. He's made some terrible team choices though!
Yeah I was being a bit facetious with the rest of the list. Hamilton is undoubtedly in a class of his own compared to most of them. I've just never been a fan so I hate the fact that if he keeps up his current form for a few more seasons he will arguably be the best driver we've ever seen!
I'd say Vettel is up there but he's done some crazy (albeit very entertaining) stuff this season.
Verstappen could be a future great, he's certainly not afraid to get amongst it! Shame about the stewards call this weekend.
1
In reply to cb294:
I dunno, I would say manufacturers big sellers are the more efficient engine sizes, with bigger engines simply being too expensive and unnecessary for most of us. Certainly the efficiency of all engine sizes has improved massively.
To be honest, I really don't know. It could be due to Top Gear which (anecdotally) I think had a wider audience, it could be due to increased finance options making these things affordable, it could be anything we really don't know. All I was saying is that if a few people buy big engined cars and drive them fast, this will be far outweighed by the progress of everyone else.
Yeah I agree the sun is very slowly setting on the combustion engine, but for now Formula 1 is the cutting edge and progress here is not restricted to just the internal combustion engine. In fact the progress made with biofuels in F1 could mean that traditional engines are far from finished, god knows the environmental impact of every car engine becoming redundant!
Motorbikes, well now you're talking my language cb! It'll be a dark day when I can no longer buy petrol to run my Triumph Bonneville!
If we're leaving motor racing behind, can it wait until I've been to the Isle of Man TT next year please?!
I dunno, I would say manufacturers big sellers are the more efficient engine sizes, with bigger engines simply being too expensive and unnecessary for most of us. Certainly the efficiency of all engine sizes has improved massively.
To be honest, I really don't know. It could be due to Top Gear which (anecdotally) I think had a wider audience, it could be due to increased finance options making these things affordable, it could be anything we really don't know. All I was saying is that if a few people buy big engined cars and drive them fast, this will be far outweighed by the progress of everyone else.
Yeah I agree the sun is very slowly setting on the combustion engine, but for now Formula 1 is the cutting edge and progress here is not restricted to just the internal combustion engine. In fact the progress made with biofuels in F1 could mean that traditional engines are far from finished, god knows the environmental impact of every car engine becoming redundant!
Motorbikes, well now you're talking my language cb! It'll be a dark day when I can no longer buy petrol to run my Triumph Bonneville!
If we're leaving motor racing behind, can it wait until I've been to the Isle of Man TT next year please?!
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
I'm a big F1 fan, then again I'm an engineering student, so both fast cars and shiny metal climbing gear attracts us!
I'm a big F1 fan, then again I'm an engineering student, so both fast cars and shiny metal climbing gear attracts us!
Post edited at 18:39
1
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
I'm a fan. Enthusiasm varies with the competitiveness but I watch 4 out of every 5 races.
Also an engineer...
I'm a fan. Enthusiasm varies with the competitiveness but I watch 4 out of every 5 races.
Also an engineer...
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
I'm also a fan, only watch the highlights now though as usually climbing on sundays!
I think it's getting better, the last few years of Mercedes have been a bit boring, but it seems like RB and Ferrari are getting their act together, Renault could be in the mix soon too, I reckon.
I'm also a fan, only watch the highlights now though as usually climbing on sundays!
I think it's getting better, the last few years of Mercedes have been a bit boring, but it seems like RB and Ferrari are getting their act together, Renault could be in the mix soon too, I reckon.
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
I'm a bit of an enthusiast. Went to Spa last year, and watch most practice sessions (in background) as well as all quali & races (rarely live).
Quite frankly I'm despondent at the state of the sport at the moment. Ok the cars are faster, but when finally we have more than one team up near the front (Merc, Ferrari, and Redbull on some tracks) we get cars that can't follow each other closely....all the tinkering they do with stuff like drs, silly tyres etc yet the most obvious issue for competition and excitement is ignored much greater limits on upper body aero would fix the sport.
It doesn't help that Hamilton doesn't appeal to me despite clearly being a talent - he comes across as whiny.
Edit: and I find it really hard to cheer for Finger boy Vettel especially with his recent habit of trumping it out after screwing up
I can't wait to see a half decent engine in Alonso's Mclaren next year and see what hondas shitbox has been hiding
I'm a bit of an enthusiast. Went to Spa last year, and watch most practice sessions (in background) as well as all quali & races (rarely live).
Quite frankly I'm despondent at the state of the sport at the moment. Ok the cars are faster, but when finally we have more than one team up near the front (Merc, Ferrari, and Redbull on some tracks) we get cars that can't follow each other closely....all the tinkering they do with stuff like drs, silly tyres etc yet the most obvious issue for competition and excitement is ignored much greater limits on upper body aero would fix the sport.
It doesn't help that Hamilton doesn't appeal to me despite clearly being a talent - he comes across as whiny.
Edit: and I find it really hard to cheer for Finger boy Vettel especially with his recent habit of trumping it out after screwing up
I can't wait to see a half decent engine in Alonso's Mclaren next year and see what hondas shitbox has been hiding
Post edited at 23:58
In reply to cb294:
Isn't part of the size/bulk/weight increase of modern cars mainly due to safety devices and ever-more-sophisticated air conditioning? I am not sure, I am kind of quoting a few soundbites from car forums e.g. comparing the top speed and mpg of a modern Golf vs a 1985 one and finding them to be rather similar.
There is of course a separate argument about why the consumer wanted the same performance from a heavier car and thus engine size and power increased with weight, but I'm not sure that you can blame F1 for this.
> Yes, a improvement in mileage is a food thin. However, the average size, power and maximal speed of newly built cars has gone up dramatically in recent years, negating any advances in fuel efficiency (which may or may not have happened due to F1).
Isn't part of the size/bulk/weight increase of modern cars mainly due to safety devices and ever-more-sophisticated air conditioning? I am not sure, I am kind of quoting a few soundbites from car forums e.g. comparing the top speed and mpg of a modern Golf vs a 1985 one and finding them to be rather similar.
There is of course a separate argument about why the consumer wanted the same performance from a heavier car and thus engine size and power increased with weight, but I'm not sure that you can blame F1 for this.
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
Thanks for all the petrolhead contributions to this thread - I can't think of a better way to wind it up than congratulating Lewis Hamilton on his 4th World Title. Great to see Ferrari up there - and three different engines in the mix as well, next season could be really tight.
Thanks for all the petrolhead contributions to this thread - I can't think of a better way to wind it up than congratulating Lewis Hamilton on his 4th World Title. Great to see Ferrari up there - and three different engines in the mix as well, next season could be really tight.
2
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
And bang goes whatever chance Froome had of being SPOTY, although I doubt he'll much care. Or will he?
And bang goes whatever chance Froome had of being SPOTY, although I doubt he'll much care. Or will he?
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
My niece's husband is an electronics/computer technician for this chap and his team;
https://scontent.fmel1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22886324_10154779156245443_...
He's offered to get me into the pits for a race, but I have absolutely no interest whatsoever.
My niece's husband is an electronics/computer technician for this chap and his team;
https://scontent.fmel1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22886324_10154779156245443_...
He's offered to get me into the pits for a race, but I have absolutely no interest whatsoever.
Post edited at 06:08
1
1
In reply to cb294:
I wonder if F1 brought about the technology that the German car manufacturers fitted to their diesels to con emission tests?
I wonder if F1 brought about the technology that the German car manufacturers fitted to their diesels to con emission tests?
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
No, but the perverse concept of motor "sports" as prominently exemplified by F1 certainly contributed customers demanding more and more powerful cars. Even for cars that are not SUVs average power has gone up and up over the last few decades.
A large fraction of these new cars had to have Diesel engines, otherwise manufactures would not have been able to match the CO2 fleet emission targets, ridiculously soft as they were: Just compare the CO2 emissions (on paper) between similarly powerful diesel and petrol engines. The difference is also present outside the testing environment.
That VW then decided to meet the NOX emission standards by cheating , is plainly criminal. Presumably the aim was to keep Diesel engines attractive by keeping the engine price down and to reduce urea sufficiently so that the tank could be filled at regular service intervals, rather than bothering the owners with having to refill the sticky gunk.
Annoyingly, US and other European car makers all get away with similar schemes. The difference between test cycle is the same for at least Fiat/Chrysler, GM, and Renault cars. Unfortunately VW by their stupidity and criminality handed the US as another weapon for their ongoing trade war.
What pisses me off most, though, is that the owners of the affected Diesel cars now act as if they were the victims, rather than cyclists and pedestrians who have to inhale their toxic shit. Anyone could have known that the emission values were fake, and that a mere software update will now not be enough to fix this issue.
That said, I also own a diesel car (a 8yo Volvo V50), which is almost exclusively used for motorway travel, where CO2 emissions are the more important issue than NOX levels.
CB
No, but the perverse concept of motor "sports" as prominently exemplified by F1 certainly contributed customers demanding more and more powerful cars. Even for cars that are not SUVs average power has gone up and up over the last few decades.
A large fraction of these new cars had to have Diesel engines, otherwise manufactures would not have been able to match the CO2 fleet emission targets, ridiculously soft as they were: Just compare the CO2 emissions (on paper) between similarly powerful diesel and petrol engines. The difference is also present outside the testing environment.
That VW then decided to meet the NOX emission standards by cheating , is plainly criminal. Presumably the aim was to keep Diesel engines attractive by keeping the engine price down and to reduce urea sufficiently so that the tank could be filled at regular service intervals, rather than bothering the owners with having to refill the sticky gunk.
Annoyingly, US and other European car makers all get away with similar schemes. The difference between test cycle is the same for at least Fiat/Chrysler, GM, and Renault cars. Unfortunately VW by their stupidity and criminality handed the US as another weapon for their ongoing trade war.
What pisses me off most, though, is that the owners of the affected Diesel cars now act as if they were the victims, rather than cyclists and pedestrians who have to inhale their toxic shit. Anyone could have known that the emission values were fake, and that a mere software update will now not be enough to fix this issue.
That said, I also own a diesel car (a 8yo Volvo V50), which is almost exclusively used for motorway travel, where CO2 emissions are the more important issue than NOX levels.
CB
1
In reply to cb294:
Wise man purchasing a car that only complies with euro4 emissions, saved yourself a fortune not having a dpf filtering out the NOX
Wise man purchasing a car that only complies with euro4 emissions, saved yourself a fortune not having a dpf filtering out the NOX
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
No, Euro5, with filter cat.
CB
edit: Possible that there are different specs in different countries but my car definitely has a NOX cat (as I just paid for its maintenance....)
No, Euro5, with filter cat.
CB
edit: Possible that there are different specs in different countries but my car definitely has a NOX cat (as I just paid for its maintenance....)
Post edited at 10:32
In reply to cb294:
AIUI the affected engines were the generation before those which use AdBlue. Certainly my 2010 Yeti's Euro 5 2l TDI is elegible for 'the fix' and that definitely doesn't use AdBlue. I don't know for sure, but I thought the Euro 6 engines that do use AdBlue weren't affected because they didn't need the 'cheat' to pass the emissions certification tests. Certainly the majority of affected vehicles listed in the Wikipedia article about dieselgate seem to be models up to 2015, which is when Euro 6 replaced Euro 5.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal#Models_affected
> That VW then decided to meet the NOX emission standards by cheating , is plainly criminal. Presumably the aim was to keep Diesel engines attractive by keeping the engine price down and to reduce urea sufficiently so that the tank could be filled at regular service intervals, rather than bothering the owners with having to refill the sticky gunk.
AIUI the affected engines were the generation before those which use AdBlue. Certainly my 2010 Yeti's Euro 5 2l TDI is elegible for 'the fix' and that definitely doesn't use AdBlue. I don't know for sure, but I thought the Euro 6 engines that do use AdBlue weren't affected because they didn't need the 'cheat' to pass the emissions certification tests. Certainly the majority of affected vehicles listed in the Wikipedia article about dieselgate seem to be models up to 2015, which is when Euro 6 replaced Euro 5.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal#Models_affected
Post edited at 14:25
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
1) DPF doesn't filter out NOx, it's a particle filter (as the name indicates, in fact).
2) My car has a DPF and in the seven years I've owned it so far the DPF has cost me...nothing. For the first three years I had the car I was doing three miles to work and back daily, which is pretty much the worst possible use case for a DPF-equipped diesel, but it was and has remained faultless. (The choice of a diesel at the time was down to regular long journeys I was having to make at weekends. With my previous petrol car I had to fill up half way on both the outward and return legs. In the diesel it was one tank each way.)
My take on DPFs is that, like ECUs and catalytic converters before them, people don't like the idea that there's a component of the engine that could cost a lot of money to replace if it fails. To my mind that's something you just have to accept these days if you choose to own and run a vehicle that dumps noxious pollutants into the atmosphere.
> Wise man purchasing a car that only complies with euro4 emissions, saved yourself a fortune not having a dpf filtering out the NOX
1) DPF doesn't filter out NOx, it's a particle filter (as the name indicates, in fact).
2) My car has a DPF and in the seven years I've owned it so far the DPF has cost me...nothing. For the first three years I had the car I was doing three miles to work and back daily, which is pretty much the worst possible use case for a DPF-equipped diesel, but it was and has remained faultless. (The choice of a diesel at the time was down to regular long journeys I was having to make at weekends. With my previous petrol car I had to fill up half way on both the outward and return legs. In the diesel it was one tank each way.)
My take on DPFs is that, like ECUs and catalytic converters before them, people don't like the idea that there's a component of the engine that could cost a lot of money to replace if it fails. To my mind that's something you just have to accept these days if you choose to own and run a vehicle that dumps noxious pollutants into the atmosphere.
In reply to Martin W:
Mine packed up after 85k miles on a 59 Volvo with similar short-run school pickups much of the time. Cost £1k to replace, but then my car tax is £25 a year.
Mine packed up after 85k miles on a 59 Volvo with similar short-run school pickups much of the time. Cost £1k to replace, but then my car tax is £25 a year.
In reply to Dave 88:
Actually, I think that there is some justification for that kind of argument. Consider the "Lord of the Rings effect" - OK, it wasn't a wildlife documentary but it certainly seems to have prompted a lot of people to fly to New Zealand who wouldn't otherwise have considered it. Similarly, look at the impact on The Dark Hedges as a result of it featuring in Game of Thrones: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41800886 , and the significant increase in visitor footfall in Scotland recently which has been ascribed to Outlander (including this recent incident http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-41719264 ).
I'd be surprised if similar effects could not be detected in the nature tourism market - Antarctic cruises, Galapagos Islands tours, safari holidays, whale watching, shark diving and the like.
> You could extrapolate anything to that degree and say wildlife documentaries are the worst thing for the planet as they show amazing countries that people then want to fly to and experience.
Actually, I think that there is some justification for that kind of argument. Consider the "Lord of the Rings effect" - OK, it wasn't a wildlife documentary but it certainly seems to have prompted a lot of people to fly to New Zealand who wouldn't otherwise have considered it. Similarly, look at the impact on The Dark Hedges as a result of it featuring in Game of Thrones: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41800886 , and the significant increase in visitor footfall in Scotland recently which has been ascribed to Outlander (including this recent incident http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-41719264 ).
I'd be surprised if similar effects could not be detected in the nature tourism market - Antarctic cruises, Galapagos Islands tours, safari holidays, whale watching, shark diving and the like.
In reply to Martin W:
I'm pitching some series ideas to Channel 4 next week: a new green home-buying TV series called Home or Home? and couple of lo-impact nature documentary series called Life in the Freezer and Journeys to the Ends of My Yard.
I'm pitching some series ideas to Channel 4 next week: a new green home-buying TV series called Home or Home? and couple of lo-impact nature documentary series called Life in the Freezer and Journeys to the Ends of My Yard.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...