Syntagma Digital
21st-Century Phi
Stage Latest
  • Auto Insurance
  • Nascar Tickets
  • Facebook Jane Von Bothmer

Max and the Future of F1

There is only one item of news of any importance today but it’s a doozey: Mighty Max Mosley’s proposals for rule changes in 2011. I won’t detail them here as there are plenty of sites that give the whole press release (Pitpass dot com has the best article so far, I think) but essentially, you can look foward to an F1 world of 2.2 liter turbo-diesels with traction control and standardized bodies.


Max Mosley

Before I begin, let me say that I resent being forced into the position of appearing to be an extreme anti-environmentalist. When the lunacies of the greenies begin to affect the sport I love, however, I have no option but to emerge from my preferred stance of keeping my own counsel to call for a brake on this drive back to the caves. Regular readers will have read me on the subject before and I have already had a good rant on the forum I use, but it is not enough; I apologize, but I have to raise my voice once again in the cause of balance and common sense.

Surely every F1 fan must be horrified by Max’s proposals. Already the calls for his resignation are rising from the ranks of those who truly care about the sport. This is not sufficient, however, as there is no guarantee of who would succeed him in that unlikely event; we need to attack this disease at its root, not its effect.

For F1, that root is the surrender of the FIA to the car manufacturers. That results in the two motivating factors behind Max’s brave new world: that F1 must become relevant to the advance of road car technology and that the sport must be seen as being eco-friendly. Both motivations are diametrically opposed to the prime reason for the existence of F1 – fun, entertainment, a sport indeed.

Those involved in F1 do so because we are a competitive species and love to pit our wits and skills against each other – there is no great benefit to humanity in ascertaining who is the fastest, the cleverest or the best; it’s fun and interesting, that’s all. The fans watch because they too are competitive and want to see humanity’s finest competing against each other and to root for their heroes; it is entertainment, no more and no less.

This is what we call sport and, naturally, F1 fans feel that it is the best sport there is. Take away that reason for doing it and suddenly F1 becomes meaningless beyond an extension of the motor industry’s R&D departments. Watching it would be like taking a tour of a car factory – interesting for the technically-minded but deathly boring for anyone who wants to become involved in a competition to see who is the best. It is the human factor that is being excised from F1 and with it will go all reason for watching it.

I have pointed out before that the manufacturers do not need F1 as a test bed – they have plenty of such facilities already. They should recognize that, if they insist on being involved, they are there only to provide the machinery that enables drivers to compete. Somehow F1 must be wrested from the grasp of the manufacturers and placed back in the hands of those who understand that it is a sport and therefore has nothing to do with practical, everyday things – it is about competition between flesh and blood above anything else.

What really galls me about all this is that Max is doing it in lip service to a theory that is fundamentally flawed and exposed several times over as just plain wrong: the idea that mankind is causing the warming of the atmosphere and that this will soon make the planet uninhabitable. This is not the place to enter the debate that rages over the theory; if you are interested, my website, Global Warming Latest is a quick and easy introduction to the arguments against the theory. But anyone as old as I am must surely remember that, before the global warming hysteria, we were subjected to assurances that we were causing the onset of another Ice Age and, before that, we were confidently advised that overpopulation would bring on worldwide famine before the year 2000.

These are fads picked up by politicians and exaggerated for their own nefarious purposes. Even those scientists who think that global warming is taking place admit that it will have no discernible effect on climate for another hundred years at least. There is no mad hurry to reduce society to some sort of hunter/gatherer paradise just yet, even in the worst scenarios imaginable. The haste is caused because the politicians who encourage the hysteria cannot afford to wait a hundred years – they want power now.

And for this mess of potage, Max wants to destroy F1 as a sport. How dare he propose such ridiculous changes to something that belongs to us, the fans who ensure that F1 continues? It is no longer sufficient for us to bow to the diktats of the greenies by some humble admission that we should be more eco-friendly, as is done by those who want to avoid a fight. The fight is upon us and it is time for us to stand up and demand that our sport remain as such.

I know that attempting to get some sense into the minds of the money men who run the FIA has as much hope of success as starting a search for the fountain of youth. But I have to try. If F1 fans do not raise a shout of protest that is heard even in the hallowed corridors of the FIA, we will see our sport reduced to ruins. We stop the rot now or never.

28 Responses to “Max and the Future of F1”

  1. I have a feeling I’m going to catch hell for this but I’m going to play the devil’s advocate on this one…

    Although I do not agree with all the proposals listed, I do for one agree with the diesel’s (and I’m on your side with the global warming thing) . Maybe I’m selfish but I don’t really care about emissions, I want fun efficient cars that are cheap to drive. With gas prices going through the roof something needs to be done to get us off this gas kick. I don’t know how you manage over there in Europe, as we are currently complaining about $3.00 a gallon( I’m not sure the conversion for the Euro/dollar or liter/gallon but I know its not in your favor).

    I would love to see car companies come out with powerful and most importantly tuned with HP in mind that can be run on alternate fuels, not for the O-zone layer though, again I’m very cheap. We need to change the image of alternate fuels in motor racing.

    I also have to disagree with your point that implementing all these changes would result in a less skill oriented race. That would mean that you believe that TC that has been in the sport (legally) since 2001 has ruined the sport and made it unwatchable, and yet you still are hooked to your television. Having a set areo package, will only make passing more feasible and show what a driver is really capable of and doesn’t matter what aids the drivers have as long as there is an equal plain to judge there performance. I am not in favor of yet another return of TC by any means, I am merely stating the other side of this debate. Although I would be interested in a fixed rear wing configuration.

    If your worried that the innovation will be taken out of the sport then look back to all the other major bans or rule changes. When one thing was deemed unusable, another even more exotic thing would emerge. Also areo innovation is what got us in this mess in the first place.

    I guess what I’m getting at is that change is needed, maybe not this radical, but something needs to be done. Sometimes giving people a radical option that don’t like will help them compromise on something that works for all sides.

  2. No way will you catch hell from me, Dan – it’s the greenies who answer reasoned argument with invective. ;)

    I, too, am all for alternative fuels, not because I believe our present ones add to global warming but because, sooner or later, we’ll run out of oil. It doesn’t hurt to be prepared for that day. There is also the economic side to be considered, just as you say (incidentally, I live in the States although I’m a Brit – but never mention to a Brit how little we pay for gas over here, they’re paying over the equivalent of $10 a gallon!). I also have nothing against diesel, although I think it will take a heck of a lot of expensive development to make a diesel engine as exciting as F1′s present engines. Hydrogen would be a better alternative, perhaps, and one day we can go to electric motors (with sound effects provided by recordings of today’s engines :D ).

    We have talked before about skill levels involved in cars with and without TC – I am of the opinion that it takes more skill to control a car without electronic aids, you see just as much skill in adjusting those aids to the conditions. There’s truth in both arguments but you must admit that the skill of a driver controlling wheelspin is more visible to a spectator than one twiddling with his TC controls inside the cockpit. That is why most F1 fans want TC to go, I think.

    I agree that the effect of rule changes is often impossible to predict; the FIA’s fiddling about with the qualifying procedure is an example – often they produced the exact opposite of what was intended. But I’m not against rule changes as such, even ones that make the cars more eco-friendly. It’s the sweeping nature of the proposals and the fact that they are a knee-jerk reaction to the global warming hype that gets me. Sure, something needs to be done about the dominance of aerodynamics in F1 design but I do not believe that standardizing the bodies is anything other than an admission of defeat by the FIA. I have written already about some of the ways in which we could limit the influence of aerodynamics – it’s not an impossible task (or even rocket science).

    Taken all together, Max’s proposals will change the nature of F1 racing beyond recognition. Judging from the reaction from the fans that I’ve seen so far, very few will bother to watch if the changes are made. Max makes noises about “keeping the show entertaining” but he never says just how that can be done; whereas he is full of radical suggestions that go against the spirit of racing. Without an audience, F1 will be irrelevant indeed.

  3. I’m gonna skip this, there’s too much nonsense here. And limit myself to the F1 subject.

    Max is damn crazy, we should have V10′s again. There are 22 cars in 20 races a year and some testing, disregarding either position on the global warming: F1 is simply too small to cause ANY damage at all.

    Now V6? That’s just idiotic.

  4. You’re a wise man indeed, Haplo. :D

  5. Well I kinda like the turbo-6 of the 80′s. Then again the grass is only greener.

    I have to agree with you that hydrogen would be a better fit. If your going to spend the money you might as well go all the way. Diesel is just a band aid to the fuel problem hydrogen is the answer, its just to big a task to try to implement in the short term (everyday situations).

    I know F1 isn’t supposed to be a test session for everyday driving but what better way to prove its safety to the general public then by having someone fill up on 35 liters in 10 seconds and not explode. I believe most people fear that every accident they get into will turn into the Hindenburg. If you can show that hitting the wall at 100+MPH will not cause a fire and people may be less scared of the technology. Ive also heard that hydrogen has less compression and heat which could lead to even higher RPM’s that would everyone loves right?

    I am sick of the teams complaining about how much it will cost. If Honda can spend 300+ million on that horrible advertisement then I’m sure that can afford to research something that will benefit us all.

  6. Good point about proving that hydrogen will not lead to Hindenburg type disasters. It is no more dangerous than gasoline as a fuel for motor vehicles and has been used as such by a small minority of car owners for more than fifty years.

    As far as I know, hydrogen produces a roughly similar amount of power as gasoline and our current engines can be adapted to use it very easily. The strongest argument against it is that its production requires electricity – and electricity generation requires the burning of fossil fuels in the power stations (unless we build a whole lot more nuclear power stations).

    So a changeover to hydrogen could be done at very little expense but would be a cosmetic measure only – the emissions would occur at the power stations rather than at the circuit. Diesel, however, would require the design of a whole new engine. No prizes for guessing which would be more expensive…

  7. Wow! A lot of text on this subject and I’m a good one for long responses but not this time. The gobal warming crowd are duped, the earth is warming
    but not due to my BUICK. Whose car melted the last ice age 12000 years ago? Air emissions? So what, man will EVOLVE, we’ll grow different lungs etc., IF….. the Islamic idiots don’t kill us off before then. All of this bio-fuel stuff is great in YOUR car but F1 is meant to be SPORT, not a R & D lab.
    And before closing I might warn everyone, Clive is right …… just replacing MadMax Mosley is not the answer, the next one COULD be worse! Everyone knows where I stand. Can the political slant and put the “sport” back in F1.

  8. Well I was reading something that the Finnish, possibly the Nords, were building individual fuel stations that ran on solar power to produce the hydrogen. They could be placed anywhere water could be piped to them at far less cost then building a massive gas station with underground tanks.

    Your right about replacing Max Mosley too, Everyone was calling for Clinton’s head when he was president and then look what we got stuck with for 8 years…..

  9. Sorry for the quick repost again, how ironic that this was on CNN:

  10. There are all sorts of ways of producing electricity but none of them generate enough to replace meet our present needs, let alone future requirements. Perhaps a combination of various methods might assist us in getting there in the end – but I think that is beginning to happen already.

    Even apparently harmless generating methods like using wind power carry unexpected side effects with them anyway. Using wind power as an example: to produce anything like a substantial contribution to energy needs, we would have to cover the available land with windmills. Aside from the eyesore that would result, has anyone thought about what that would do to wind patterns and climate therefore? Remove energy from the wind and the wind slows; remove enough and the wind dies. What happens then? Do we find that other winds start in other areas and, if so, what happens to the weather? Do we suddenly find it starts raining more in places that usually receive no rainfall and other areas become deserts?

    All our wonder solutions have unexpected small print at the bottom of the contract – we need to go carefully and watch for potential effects. And that includes making changes to F1 regulations!

    That is a very interesting article, Dan, and shows that there are possibilities we haven’t thought about yet. I like the fairly low cost, as well. :)

  11. You and I disagree about global warming – but lets not rehash that argument.

    Where I’m with you is that F1 is not the place to start tackling these problems. F1 is about sport and entertainment – its not about solving transport problems.

    As you say, the fundamental problem is the grip that the car manufacturers have got over the FIA now. There is frankly no fundamental reason why F1 should be relevant to road car technology. That link has not existed for probably 80 years. Road cars are about getting ordinary guys from a to b comfortably and safely. Racing cars, on the other hand, are about getting from a to b as quickly as possible. Technologies which make perfect sense on a road car – stability control, traction control, abs, etc are anathema to motor racing, as far as I’m concerned. Equally, technologies which are relevant to racing (and whole areas of research like aerodynamics) are utterly irrelevant to road cars.

    Diesel V6s? Nah, lets bring back 950BHP V10s. The cars have too much grip and not enough power as it is.

  12. Quite right, Patrick, and I find it heartening that we can agree to disagree on such a subject as global warming and yet be of one mind on something as important as the future of F1! :)

  13. Haha, that was ironic isn’t it?

    F1 more important than global warming (either side you are)?


  14. It was indeed a joke, Haplo – a deliberate irony after my definition of F1 as just a sport. But it’s true to some extent at least – let us not forget that an England football manager once said, “No, I don’t think football is a matter of life and death. It’s more important than that!”

    And we all know that F1 is far more important than mere football… ;)

  15. Oh Honestly, I was really enjoying your website and then you had to spout nonsense regarding global warming. Nobody knows what is going to happen, and for you to say that you’re upset that “YOUR” sport of F1 is going to be ruined by silly worries about the environment strike me as being truly terrifying.

    Yet Again, I’m not in total agreement with all his proposals, or for the reasons and factors behind such ideas, but I just don;t se how you can actually argue about such ideas. If it is indeed al about man against man and all of that – then surely changing to to bio-deisels, or whatever should make no real difference. The people involved will still try to make it the very best possible. Standardising body work is slightly worrying – but something has to be done to reduce the effect they have – the question is how???

    Personaly speaking I actually take issue with the whole safety issues. Max claimed that cornering speeds were geting too high so he introduced grooved tyres which seemed to largely create all these aerodynamic issues. These people are paid VAST sums of money to take risks. That was the fundamental allure of being a Grand Prix driver, and frankly I don;t see why that should change. Fine, introduce safety measures such as rollcages and HANS devices – but if a car can go round a corner as fast as it can, then it should, and if you don;t like the danger – then don;t get paid millions of quid and take the risk.

  16. My best friend races vintage formula cars, and it’s some of the best racing around. We should assemble a bunch of the rich guys who race the vintage machines, and start another contemporary/advanced series. OUR series would satisfy we devotees, and not those yucky people who see it as a business, and only do it for personal profit. (not that there’s anything wrong with that… or is there?)

  17. Nothing wrong with making a profit, Barry – we all have to make a living somehow, after all. The problem seems to arise when people start making so much profit that they can’t possibly spend it as fast as they make it. For some reason this makes them greedy and they just keep adding to the pile beyond reason and morality, concern for others, respect for others’ opinions, everything, goes out the window.

    I’m not saying it happens to all but it does seem to be an occupational hazard for the very rich. Your friends who race vintage formula cars have obviously found a way to keep the spending high and so avoid the problem – keeping old machines in running order does take a fair bit of cash.

    Who knows? It may be that Max succeeds in ruining F1 beyond repair and then we can all watch vintage racing and be happy again. I must admit that I’d prefer it if someone would just knock some sense into the heads of those who run the FIA however…

  18. I’m glad that you are enjoying reading the website, Josh, and sorry that my brief excursion into the global warming debate annoyed you. But I see GW as a driving force behind many of the changes coming to F1 and, when you believe as I do that any atmospheric warming taking place is not caused by man (and there are good reasons for believing that – I supplied a link for those who wish to read them), I have no option but to protest against what I see as unnecessary changes to the sport. I am sure that you have your reasons for believing that anthropogenic global warming is real and you are entitled to that opinion; but I am equally entitled to mine.

    I did not state that F1 is “mine” but that it is “ours”, meaning the fans. Since we provide the funds through TV viewing, race attendance and commodity purchase, we are entitled to have our views on change considered, but we are always ignored, in spite of the FIA’s much-vaunted annual surveys of opinion (too easy to avoid the answers you don’t want by simply not asking the relevant questions in the surveys). If I feel that the sport is about to be ruined by Max’s proposed regulations, I must say so, although anyone is entitled to disagree, of course.

    The determination to make F1 relevant to road cars means that more driver aids must be allowed in the rules. Manufacturers are always seeking ways to make their cars easier to drive and more capable of doing the thinking for the driver – hence traction control is to come back, after being banned for next year, and the FIA is talking to the manufacturers about the legalization of stability control. Although these are excellent ways of making road cars safer, in F1 they leave the driver without a way to show his skill by superior car control. Ultimately we will end up with a situation where all the driver has to do is put his foot flat at the beginning of a race and then let the car do everything else. Anyone can do that.

    That might be an exaggeration but it shows where F1 is heading. And the fans are already complaining about traction control since it deprives them of the sight of skilled drivers controlling the power through corners, sliding the car at the limit of adhesion and sensing when that limit is about to be reached. Most fans want there to be fewer driver aids on the cars, rather than more.

    In previous posts I have suggested ways of reducing the importance of aerodynamics without standardizing the bodywork – extending the flat bottom to the nose of the car is one. But the idea that all cars should have a standard body goes against the spirit of F1 which is competition, in this case between the designers.

    It is very hard to stand up and say that safety in F1 is not important – one risks being called callous and bloodthirsty as a result. Certainly we don’t want to go back to the days when the sport lost a few good drivers every year. But I do agree with you to some extent in that I feel that safety has been attended to enough for the moment. The cars are not quite as safe as we could make them (we haven’t fitted closed cockpits and rollover bars yet) but we have done all that is reasonable to make them almost indestructible. It has to be a really freaky accident to get at the driver these days.

    You are correct that grooved tires have increased the importance of aerodynamics to the cars. They were intended to reduce cornering speeds – reduce the amount of rubber on the road and the tires automatically have less grip – but the designers compensated by piling on downforce through aerodynamic developments. It is yet another example of regulations introduced in haste that have had profound side effects for the sport.

    Sorry this response was a bit late – because this is the first time you have commented (hah, my post brought you out of the woodwork at least!), the system held it back for approval and it was a while before I noticed it sitting there, waiting. Next time your comment will go through automatically – the system recognizes previous commenters and gives them the seal of approval automatically.

  19. I’m OK with the idea of biofuels on both resource availability and global warming grounds. The world’s temperature is demonstrably increasing at a gradual rate, and since we can’t ask the world to decrease its temperature, humanity will have to cool the planet down itself or adapt itself to warmer temperatures. Besides, there is only enough oil on Earth to satisfy its needs for about 45 years. F1 going to an alternative fuel is a good example to set towards other motorsport series, even if biofuels themselves are unlikely to be the sustainable fuel of the future.

    However, I agree with most of the people who have commented that 2.2l 10000rpm V6s are not the way forward. This is clearly the manufacturers wanting something that fits in with their marketing efforts. Unfortunately the engines resulting from this will be lower-spec than either GP2 or A1GP, and not much of an improvement over F3 (except for those small details that the factor-of-100 spending rates cause to be different) and this will seriously damage the speediness of the racing cars. This is simply not a viable model for any series expecting to be the “pinnacle” of motorsport.

    I have a theory that this is all a ploy to devalue F1 to the point where Bernie Ecclestone can implement GP1 as a top-level series. The FIA can be its legislators, the teams will be anyone not stung by the F1 devaluation and the manufacturers will get all the blame. If that happens, then apart from the odd comment about F1, I expect to be spending most of my post-2011 time following BTCC and MotoGP instead. At least they know that they are meant to be racing series…

  20. It’s true that the earth’s climate is warming at a gradual pace at present, Alianora, but not at the rate touted by the global warming alarmists (the post linked to shows that their “hockey stick” graph is seriously skewed to support their theory). This is most likely part of the natural fluctuation of temperature and scientists expect temperatures to start going down again in about ten years.

    Otherwise, I agree with all you say and will probably join you in switching to series like the BTCC and MotoGP. Let’s hope the FIA doesn’t get there first…

  21. Well, i will start this reply with saying that i’m absolutely not a “greenie”. But to talk of common sence, seem to be out of the question if i are to listen to the editor of this forum/blog.

    It is surely not much wrong in what Max is saying. F1, and motorsport in all it various forms, needs to get more environmentfriendly. To have drivers racing around a track in hightech cars gussling 10′s of litres of fuel every ten kilometers just to see who is the best driver, has absolutely nothing to do with common sence.

    If there are any way to get the cars to consume less fuel, and even then, maintain their effect, there’s nothing wrong with that.
    And after what i have read, the engines that are to come out of Max’s specifications would maintain the effect of the engines used in todays cars. But that’s not all.
    The “new spec” cars would also have a system to recover the energy generated during breaking, so that it could be used during overtaking. And if there’s anything needed in F1 today, it’s more competitive racing. Ok, i have to admit that this season have started of just fine on that point, with Alonso, Hamilton, Raikkonen and Massa beeing almost equal on the track. But let’s not forget that theres 20 more cars on the track who want’s to win too.

    If there’s anything i have to say is really negative in Max’s proposal, and on that point i do really agree with the editor, is that the racingcars have to be more equally configured and manufactured in the likes of roadcars. That is so wrong!

    Away with all the driveraids, get rid of at least half of the aerodynamics, and let there be slic-tyres again. And if the cars are to run more effective there should be no rules telling the teams what tyres to use. That should be up to the drivers and teams to decide after their own minds.

    But to rant on like a rabid dog about it all being so wrong, and that racing should be left outside the development of “greener” cars, is wrong. And there’s nothing you can say to get me to abandon that standpoint.

  22. Björn, I agree that there is little common sense involved in the sport of F1, just as there is no apparent point in all the other sports we indulge in; it’s just what we do as an expression of our need to compete. And, when you consider that the fossil fuels burned in the course of F1 form a tiny percentage of humanity’s total consumption of those fuels, it becomes apparent that the sport’s contribution to the depletion of fossil fuels fuels is so minor as to be almost non-existent.

    But Max’s proposal does not even begin to attack this insignificant consumption of fuel – he wants to burn diesel fuel instead. Well, pardon me for mentioning it, but diesel is just as much a product of oil as is petroleum. The reason he wants the change is not to conserve oil resources, but because diesel is seen as being cleaner than petrol, which is why I have had to point out that CO2 emissions have nothing to do with any global warming that might be taking place (again, I refer you to the link provided – there is an abundance of evidence to support that statement).

    Diesel engines produce much more torque than power, which is the reason for their employment in heavy duty applications. To increase power output from them has required decades of research by the car manufacturers just to get them to the point where they are almost as efficient at power output as the petrol engines used in road cars. It will require a great deal of money poured into further research to get diesel engines to be as efficient as current engines, yet we are told that the FIA want to reduce costs. It’s just silly.

    The idea of energy reclamation through braking is fine in theory but more difficult to put into practice – yet another area in which large sums of money are going to have to be spent before a workable system is devised. So much for any lofty ideals regarding saving money. And I fail to see how energy reclamation will make the racing any better – all cars will have it so things remain the same.

    You may see what I have said as a rabid rant, Björn, but I have spent the last few months studying the whole global warming theory and it has become clear to me that it is nothing more than a scare instituted by people with vested interests. I would be irresponsible not to point out that so many of the changes proposed by Max are driven by adherence to a theory that is seriously flawed and that those changes are unnecessary therefore.

    But I don’t expect to change your mind; I am just putting my point of view and you are as entitled to disagree with it as I am to state it in the first place. :)

  23. If F1 really wants to be green, what would unquestionably make a difference whilst improving the sport would be to ban refuelling, or limit it to one refuel, if teams are still worried about the low-but-present risk of a full race’s worth of fuel exploding. Pit stops could still be permitted to change tyres, but a lot of the passing-in-the-pits phenomenon could be reduced, car management would become more important and more overtaking would result. Plus the “greenies” could cite Formula 1 as an example of green living. Whatever fuel source is eventually discovered to be the best compromise between sensible resource management and utility (read speed-for-volume in the case of F1), using less of whatever fuel is chosen has to be good for the environment and good for marketing. It would also be a much better way of combining the manufacturer’s desires with the spectator’s desires than the current proposition.

    Mind you, if someone invented an engine that could run on the hot air produced by psuedopoliticans, that would be the most efficient proposition of all. I get the feeling the F1 paddock could fuel an entire grid’s worth…

  24. By the way, I didn’t link to the “hockey stick” with the intention of showing what was going to happen – I did so to demonstrate the increase in 20th century temperatures (if you look at the grey line behind the red one, that is the graph for the real year-by-year figures). It does demonstrate a modest increase, though if Clive and the scientists he’s read are right about the increase being temporary, then the manufacturers really are panicking about nothing (or only about how to please Max, which is close to being the same thing…) Sorry for anyone getting the wrong impression.

  25. I like your suggestions for a more sensible approach to fuel conservation in F1, Alianora, not least because I have always disliked the way pit stop strategy so often decides races these days. And there is another product from politicians that could function as an alternative fuel – it’s usually called BS in polite circles. ;)

  26. Clive, i do understand that Formula 1 has a very small footprint if you look to the global environment. But if you coun in all the industries and testing and researching going on around F1, the numbers will increase substantially. But even to try to compare those numbers to any of the numbers from any other industries would be unfair. What i want to say is that everyone should try to make their bit to get a better environment.

    Then ofcourse, if the things Max mentioned, and that are meant to lower the consumption of fuels, and the way F1 inflict damage on the environment, then it would be to go in the wrong direction to make the teams spend alot more in researc and testing.

    But if there are to be made any changes, small or big, they are going to take research because you can’t take an untested part to use on the racetrack. So all in all, i agree with you on the point that just changing from one fossill fuel to another is money thrown in the fire.

    The best way to go would certainly be to have the teams using the same engines as npow, but using alternative fuels instead. Or, even better, have the F1-cars using fuelcells and hydrogen, as is mentioned in another reply above.

    Then, is there anything we can do to make Max change his mind? Well, i don’t think that sending him an angry mail would do anything in either direction, so whats left? I don’t know, but if there’s anything we can do besides sitting here and talking to a forum, i for one are willing to help.

    And as a last thing, i hope you did’nt take it to hard in my last reply when i called you “rabid dog”. I may have been a little to harsh, but i really get annoyed when people oppose changes, just for the idea that it would give so little to the world. Well, everyone is responsible for whats happening to the world, and everyone have to do their part in minimising the damage.
    I’m not saying that humanity are responsible for the heating of the planet, but we are responsible for the poluted oceans, changes in the ocean-streams and we surely are responsible for the overconsumption of wood. And if those don’t play any part in the worsening of mother earths’s health, i don’t know what is.

  27. I think we are basically in agreement, Björn. Certainly, I agree that we could all work towards a less polluted environment and that includes F1. Yesterday I saw a comment from someone that Max always starts with proposals that are really wild, knowing that people will react strongly to them and will accept smaller changes as a result – and those may be just what Max really wants. I hope that’s true because he certainly brought the strong reaction from me that he was looking for in that case!

    As to what we can do about getting a reasonable view across to Max, I think that there will be enough protest from the teams and the fans to limit what he does bring in ultimately. Gradual evolution is what is required, rather than such sweeping changes as proposed.

  28. I know what I want to see in F1: I want the cars to be using the technologies that will be the future of road cars. F1 has always been a forerunner in this way. Diesels are in no way inferior to gasoline engines. The LeMans was won by a Diesel car last year. Bio-fuels are one of the future technologies in road cars. Hydrogen fuel would be even better, but that’s for the future. Turbo chargers could make overtaking easier. At least if you make it so that you can not use full the pressure all the time. Standardizing the cars in some way should promote driver skill over team skill.

Leave a Reply