planetf1.com

pokerman wrote:I go with the one with the biggest talent and that's Max Verstappen, he will first give Red Bull and Honda fair chance to provide him with a WDC capable car, this is basically only the alliance's first year.

If they fall short again next year, and quite badly at that, then as far as I'm aware he will have an option to drive for Mercedes in 2021.

Problem with the "most wins" scenario is that one driver has to have an extended period in a dominant championship car.

In the same way that Schumacher had at Ferrari and Hamilton at Mercedes. My point is are those dominant years likely in future racing? Doesn't closer racing mean the chances of one car dominating are diminished. Isn't that what the specification changes are trying to achieve?

I would even go as far a questioning how many years will F1 remain in its present format?

The 2040 Fossil fuel ban seems likely to roll forward to 2030 and Norway plan to implement a ban in 2025. Predictions are assuming indefinite racing. It could well be that we already have the two main challengers in the records and a challenge to that almost impossible. Perhaps all we can do is fight over the minor placings.

SPLIT FROM Who will end their career with the most wins - 2019 edition by Mod Aqua

Option or Prime wrote:

pokerman wrote:I go with the one with the biggest talent and that's Max Verstappen, he will first give Red Bull and Honda fair chance to provide him with a WDC capable car, this is basically only the alliance's first year.

If they fall short again next year, and quite badly at that, then as far as I'm aware he will have an option to drive for Mercedes in 2021.

Problem with the "most wins" scenario is that one driver has to have an extended period in a dominant championship car.

In the same way that Schumacher had at Ferrari and Hamilton at Mercedes. My point is are those dominant years likely in future racing? Doesn't closer racing mean the chances of one car dominating are diminished. Isn't that what the specification changes are trying to achieve?

I would even go as far a questioning how many years will F1 remain in its present format?

The 2040 Fossil fuel ban seems likely to roll forward to 2030 and Norway plan to implement a ban in 2025. Predictions are assuming indefinite racing. It could well be that we already have the two main challengers in the records and a challenge to that almost impossible. Perhaps all we can do is fight over the minor placings.

Good point about the future of F1, for the moment I guess we can just live in the present?

Option or Prime wrote:I would even go as far a questioning how many years will F1 remain in its present format?

The 2040 Fossil fuel ban seems likely to roll forward to 2030 and Norway plan to implement a ban in 2025. Predictions are assuming indefinite racing. It could well be that we already have the two main challengers in the records and a challenge to that almost impossible. Perhaps all we can do is fight over the minor placings.

F1 may well only be a fossil fuel series for another decade, but unless it disappears entirely the records will still be contiguous.

Exediron wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:I would even go as far a questioning how many years will F1 remain in its present format?

The 2040 Fossil fuel ban seems likely to roll forward to 2030 and Norway plan to implement a ban in 2025. Predictions are assuming indefinite racing. It could well be that we already have the two main challengers in the records and a challenge to that almost impossible. Perhaps all we can do is fight over the minor placings.

F1 may well only be a fossil fuel series for another decade, but unless it disappears entirely the records will still be contiguous.

Perhaps there will be a common border with the Fossil Fuel results, but it will still be a border. Won't most F1 fans see the end of fossil fuel cars as the end of an era?

Exediron wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:I would even go as far a questioning how many years will F1 remain in its present format?

The 2040 Fossil fuel ban seems likely to roll forward to 2030 and Norway plan to implement a ban in 2025. Predictions are assuming indefinite racing. It could well be that we already have the two main challengers in the records and a challenge to that almost impossible. Perhaps all we can do is fight over the minor placings.

F1 may well only be a fossil fuel series for another decade, but unless it disappears entirely the records will still be contiguous.

Maybe they can carry on using fossil fuels although the manufacturers would probably no longer be there, electric car racing does nothing for me.

Option or Prime wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:I would even go as far a questioning how many years will F1 remain in its present format?

The 2040 Fossil fuel ban seems likely to roll forward to 2030 and Norway plan to implement a ban in 2025. Predictions are assuming indefinite racing. It could well be that we already have the two main challengers in the records and a challenge to that almost impossible. Perhaps all we can do is fight over the minor placings.

F1 may well only be a fossil fuel series for another decade, but unless it disappears entirely the records will still be contiguous.

Perhaps there will be a common border with the Fossil Fuel results, but it will still be a border. Won't most F1 fans see the end of fossil fuel cars as the end of an era?

I will, I would see it as the end of F1, also let's not forget that FE has the rights with the FIA of being the premier electric car racing series.

Option or Prime wrote:Perhaps there will be a common border with the Fossil Fuel results, but it will still be a border. Won't most F1 fans see the end of fossil fuel cars as the end of an era?

The end of an era, sure. But why would a different era mean the results don't carry over? The earliest stats in F1 come from a time when drivers changed cars mid-race, they were out-of-shape men in their 40s and 50s, sometimes the Indy 500 was randomly a part of the championship, etc. All of that is far more different than just a different type of powertrain, and we still consider that era to be F1. Fangio's titles were won in a sporting environment that bears no resemblance to the F1 of today. I don't see how it would make any sense to draw a bigger line on the basis of a simple power unit change.

pokerman wrote:Maybe they can carry on using fossil fuels although the manufacturers would probably no longer be there, electric car racing does nothing for me.

F1 would lose some fans, no doubt, and you might be among them. But why do you think the manufacturers would no longer be there? There are more manufacturers in FE right now than in F1.

Exediron wrote: F1 would lose some fans, no doubt, and you might be among them. But why do you think the manufacturers would no longer be there? There are more manufacturers in FE right now than in F1.

Two points:

1) As Pokerman states above "......I will, I would see it as the end of F1, also let's not forget that FE has the rights with the FIA of being the premier electric car racing series."

2) Can you see Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull effectively starting again in developing and building an electric car? I'm not sure can.

Your perception might be that the results would roll on, however, as I said before many other F1 fans would see it as an end of an era. It is such a significant change of direction.

Option or Prime wrote:

Exediron wrote: F1 would lose some fans, no doubt, and you might be among them. But why do you think the manufacturers would no longer be there? There are more manufacturers in FE right now than in F1.

Two points:

1) As Pokerman states above "......I will, I would see it as the end of F1, also let's not forget that FE has the rights with the FIA of being the premier electric car racing series."

2) Can you see Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull effectively starting again in developing and building an electric car? I'm not sure can.

Your perception might be that the results would roll on, however, as I said before many other F1 fans would see it as an end of an era. It is such a significant change of direction.

I think this is a pretty bizarre line of argument, to be honest. If F1 continues to exist, the results will continue to roll on - whether it's fossil fuels, electric, hydrogen or even rockets. If it's still F1, it's F1. It doesn't matter if it feels fundamentally different to any number of fans.

There is quite certainly a chance F1 will die entirely when fossil fuels are universally banned. But if that doesn't happen, the results will be contiguous no matter what power source they use.

pokerman wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:I would even go as far a questioning how many years will F1 remain in its present format?

The 2040 Fossil fuel ban seems likely to roll forward to 2030 and Norway plan to implement a ban in 2025. Predictions are assuming indefinite racing. It could well be that we already have the two main challengers in the records and a challenge to that almost impossible. Perhaps all we can do is fight over the minor placings.

F1 may well only be a fossil fuel series for another decade, but unless it disappears entirely the records will still be contiguous.

Perhaps there will be a common border with the Fossil Fuel results, but it will still be a border. Won't most F1 fans see the end of fossil fuel cars as the end of an era?

I will, I would see it as the end of F1, also let's not forget that FE has the rights with the FIA of being the premier electric car racing series.

F1 is a big enough fish compared to FE to prevent that from being a problem. F1 could quite easily just buy FE if it really wanted to.

Exediron wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:

Exediron wrote: F1 would lose some fans, no doubt, and you might be among them. But why do you think the manufacturers would no longer be there? There are more manufacturers in FE right now than in F1.

Two points:

1) As Pokerman states above "......I will, I would see it as the end of F1, also let's not forget that FE has the rights with the FIA of being the premier electric car racing series."

2) Can you see Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull effectively starting again in developing and building an electric car? I'm not sure can.

Your perception might be that the results would roll on, however, as I said before many other F1 fans would see it as an end of an era. It is such a significant change of direction.

I think this is a pretty bizarre line of argument, to be honest. If F1 continues to exist, the results will continue to roll on - whether it's fossil fuels, electric, hydrogen or even rockets. If it's still F1, it's F1. It doesn't matter if it feels fundamentally different to any number of fans.

There is quite certainly a chance F1 will die entirely when fossil fuels are universally banned. But if that doesn't happen, the results will be contiguous no matter what power source they use.

I'll believe Fossil fuels will be banned when the day arrives. I highly doubt it though. LOL
Politicians, their parties and world organizations like throwing big claims like that around to garner votes, but it's been my experience that WHEN the time comes to follow through, nothing happens.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:

Exediron wrote: F1 would lose some fans, no doubt, and you might be among them. But why do you think the manufacturers would no longer be there? There are more manufacturers in FE right now than in F1.

Two points:

1) As Pokerman states above "......I will, I would see it as the end of F1, also let's not forget that FE has the rights with the FIA of being the premier electric car racing series."

2) Can you see Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull effectively starting again in developing and building an electric car? I'm not sure can.

Your perception might be that the results would roll on, however, as I said before many other F1 fans would see it as an end of an era. It is such a significant change of direction.

I think this is a pretty bizarre line of argument, to be honest. If F1 continues to exist, the results will continue to roll on - whether it's fossil fuels, electric, hydrogen or even rockets. If it's still F1, it's F1. It doesn't matter if it feels fundamentally different to any number of fans.

There is quite certainly a chance F1 will die entirely when fossil fuels are universally banned. But if that doesn't happen, the results will be contiguous no matter what power source they use.

I'll believe Fossil fuels will be banned when the day arrives. I highly doubt it though. LOL
Politicians, their parties and world organizations like throwing big claims like that around to garner votes, but it's been my experience that WHEN the time comes to follow through, nothing happens.

Who said Fossil fuels will be banned? We are talking cars.

The point is that F1 is a world wide sport, there may be a blasé attitude to emissions in the USA but many other countries in the world take it very seriously. F1 is synonymous with the internal combustion engine and its European countries that are taking action.
In Europe countries are already making plans to use cars with electric power units, in fact several manufacturers have already closed down plants making IC engines and cars. Its not about it being a vote gainer it is happening NOW.

It is also in Europe where F1 cars are developed and manufactured. If the car divisions of Mercedes, Honda and Renault are not selling cars do you seriously think they will continue to build and develop an F1 car?
They compete because they want fans and viewers to buy their brand.
Renault would leave at the drop of a hat, 4 cars on the grid lose their PU's, are Red Bull fully committed? F1 isn't as stable and predictable as you think.

I think it is inevitable that F1 will change significantly, it may buy and adopt FE but who will the manufactures be in FE? Will it be DS TECHEETAH and ENVISION VIRGIN RACING or FERRARI and MERCEDES. It is not the same history or lineage. The results may be contiguous but lets face it the sound is different, the pits are different, the names are different and even the countries will be different with the leading team in FE being Chinese.

Of course F1 may continue to run Fossil fuel cars but the big names will go where the money is. Will that be petrol or electric?

Any country wanting to dominate the car industry should be investing in electric right now. Is it a coincidence that the top FE team is Chinese by the way.

The USA's love of the motor car came from cheap fuel from their oil wells, a massive natural resource. The cars of the future will need a similarly massive natural resource, the problem for Europe and the States is that they do not have that resource, it is situated in China.

The world is changing and F1 will have to change to keep up.

Option or Prime wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:

Exediron wrote: F1 would lose some fans, no doubt, and you might be among them. But why do you think the manufacturers would no longer be there? There are more manufacturers in FE right now than in F1.

Two points:

1) As Pokerman states above "......I will, I would see it as the end of F1, also let's not forget that FE has the rights with the FIA of being the premier electric car racing series."

2) Can you see Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull effectively starting again in developing and building an electric car? I'm not sure can.

Your perception might be that the results would roll on, however, as I said before many other F1 fans would see it as an end of an era. It is such a significant change of direction.

I think this is a pretty bizarre line of argument, to be honest. If F1 continues to exist, the results will continue to roll on - whether it's fossil fuels, electric, hydrogen or even rockets. If it's still F1, it's F1. It doesn't matter if it feels fundamentally different to any number of fans.

There is quite certainly a chance F1 will die entirely when fossil fuels are universally banned. But if that doesn't happen, the results will be contiguous no matter what power source they use.

I'll believe Fossil fuels will be banned when the day arrives. I highly doubt it though. LOL
Politicians, their parties and world organizations like throwing big claims like that around to garner votes, but it's been my experience that WHEN the time comes to follow through, nothing happens.

Who said Fossil fuels will be banned? We are talking cars.

The point is that F1 is a world wide sport, there may be a blasé attitude to emissions in the USA but many other countries in the world take it very seriously. F1 is synonymous with the internal combustion engine and its European countries that are taking action.
In Europe countries are already making plans to use cars with electric power units, in fact several manufacturers have already closed down plants making IC engines and cars. Its not about it being a vote gainer it is happening NOW.

It is also in Europe where F1 cars are developed and manufactured. If the car divisions of Mercedes, Honda and Renault are not selling cars do you seriously think they will continue to build and develop an F1 car?
They compete because they want fans and viewers to buy their brand.
Renault would leave at the drop of a hat, 4 cars on the grid lose their PU's, are Red Bull fully committed? F1 isn't as stable and predictable as you think.

I think it is inevitable that F1 will change significantly, it may buy and adopt FE but who will the manufactures be in FE? Will it be DS TECHEETAH and ENVISION VIRGIN RACING or FERRARI and MERCEDES. It is not the same history or lineage. The results may be contiguous but lets face it the sound is different, the pits are different, the names are different and even the countries will be different with the leading team in FE being Chinese.

Of course F1 may continue to run Fossil fuel cars but the big names will go where the money is. Will that be petrol or electric?

Any country wanting to dominate the car industry should be investing in electric right now. Is it a coincidence that the top FE team is Chinese by the way.

The USA's love of the motor car came from cheap fuel from their oil wells, a massive natural resource. The cars of the future will need a similarly massive natural resource, the problem for Europe and the States is that they do not have that resource, it is situated in China.

The world is changing and F1 will have to change to keep up.

Forcing F1 to go electric is a bit disingenuous when the whole show is still going to be carted around the world on 4 engine cargo planes. Also don't forget horse racing is still a thing.

Option or Prime wrote:

Exediron wrote: F1 would lose some fans, no doubt, and you might be among them. But why do you think the manufacturers would no longer be there? There are more manufacturers in FE right now than in F1.

Two points:

1) As Pokerman states above "......I will, I would see it as the end of F1, also let's not forget that FE has the rights with the FIA of being the premier electric car racing series."

2) Can you see Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull effectively starting again in developing and building an electric car? I'm not sure can.

Your perception might be that the results would roll on, however, as I said before many other F1 fans would see it as an end of an era. It is such a significant change of direction.

Point 2. Mercedes are entered into the forthcoming season of formula e. So that point is mute

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:I would even go as far a questioning how many years will F1 remain in its present format?

The 2040 Fossil fuel ban seems likely to roll forward to 2030 and Norway plan to implement a ban in 2025. Predictions are assuming indefinite racing. It could well be that we already have the two main challengers in the records and a challenge to that almost impossible. Perhaps all we can do is fight over the minor placings.

F1 may well only be a fossil fuel series for another decade, but unless it disappears entirely the records will still be contiguous.

Perhaps there will be a common border with the Fossil Fuel results, but it will still be a border. Won't most F1 fans see the end of fossil fuel cars as the end of an era?

I will, I would see it as the end of F1, also let's not forget that FE has the rights with the FIA of being the premier electric car racing series.

F1 is a big enough fish compared to FE to prevent that from being a problem. F1 could quite easily just buy FE if it really wanted to.

It would be F1 in name only plus the heritage would be somewhat blurred by buying out a series that already has their own past champions and heritage, it would be a watered down version of what it once was.

Option or Prime wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:

Exediron wrote: F1 would lose some fans, no doubt, and you might be among them. But why do you think the manufacturers would no longer be there? There are more manufacturers in FE right now than in F1.

Two points:

1) As Pokerman states above "......I will, I would see it as the end of F1, also let's not forget that FE has the rights with the FIA of being the premier electric car racing series."

2) Can you see Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull effectively starting again in developing and building an electric car? I'm not sure can.

Your perception might be that the results would roll on, however, as I said before many other F1 fans would see it as an end of an era. It is such a significant change of direction.

I think this is a pretty bizarre line of argument, to be honest. If F1 continues to exist, the results will continue to roll on - whether it's fossil fuels, electric, hydrogen or even rockets. If it's still F1, it's F1. It doesn't matter if it feels fundamentally different to any number of fans.

There is quite certainly a chance F1 will die entirely when fossil fuels are universally banned. But if that doesn't happen, the results will be contiguous no matter what power source they use.

I'll believe Fossil fuels will be banned when the day arrives. I highly doubt it though. LOL
Politicians, their parties and world organizations like throwing big claims like that around to garner votes, but it's been my experience that WHEN the time comes to follow through, nothing happens.

Who said Fossil fuels will be banned? We are talking cars.

The point is that F1 is a world wide sport, there may be a blasé attitude to emissions in the USA but many other countries in the world take it very seriously. F1 is synonymous with the internal combustion engine and its European countries that are taking action.
In Europe countries are already making plans to use cars with electric power units, in fact several manufacturers have already closed down plants making IC engines and cars. Its not about it being a vote gainer it is happening NOW.

It is also in Europe where F1 cars are developed and manufactured. If the car divisions of Mercedes, Honda and Renault are not selling cars do you seriously think they will continue to build and develop an F1 car?
They compete because they want fans and viewers to buy their brand.
Renault would leave at the drop of a hat, 4 cars on the grid lose their PU's, are Red Bull fully committed? F1 isn't as stable and predictable as you think.

I think it is inevitable that F1 will change significantly, it may buy and adopt FE but who will the manufactures be in FE? Will it be DS TECHEETAH and ENVISION VIRGIN RACING or FERRARI and MERCEDES. It is not the same history or lineage. The results may be contiguous but lets face it the sound is different, the pits are different, the names are different and even the countries will be different with the leading team in FE being Chinese.

Of course F1 may continue to run Fossil fuel cars but the big names will go where the money is. Will that be petrol or electric?

Any country wanting to dominate the car industry should be investing in electric right now. Is it a coincidence that the top FE team is Chinese by the way.

The USA's love of the motor car came from cheap fuel from their oil wells, a massive natural resource. The cars of the future will need a similarly massive natural resource, the problem for Europe and the States is that they do not have that resource, it is situated in China.

The world is changing and F1 will have to change to keep up.

The manufacturers will pull out but would F1 get banned in Europe because they use fossil fuels, far greater pollution is caused by the planes that fly over Europe, are these going to also get banned?

Everyone seems to be assuming that suddenly in x years time fossil fuel engines will be banned and the teams will have to start again from scratch. In case no-one has noticed we have hybrid engines now. Doubtless the FIA will continue a gradual move to electric engines as the technology evolves and the green pressure to cut fuel use grows. When the IC engine does cease to be a part of the F1 car we may barely notice.

...except for the lack of engine noise that is!

My prediction is F1 will remain in part, as it is now really, a fossil fuel sport for another 30+ years.

Car manufacturers are aiming to stop PRODUCING petrol/diesel cars in the next 20ish years, but that means they WILL be producing petrol/diesel engines for the next 20ish years too.

There are still quite a lot of cars on the road (certainly in the UK) that are in excess of twenty years old. Governments won't just suddenly ban them. They will probably make them more expensive to run by taxing the fuel more, but an outright ban just wouldn't work anyway - they will just slowly fizzle out over the next 30-50 years - leaving the classic/vintage cars/trucks/bikes as the only fossil fuelled vehicles on the road.

So I honestly think we'll have petrol engines in F1 cars for a long time yet, although the Hybrid part may end up far more powerful than it is currently as technology improves.

pokerman wrote: The manufacturers will pull out but would F1 get banned in Europe because they use fossil fuels, far greater pollution is caused by the planes that fly over Europe, are these going to also get banned?

I don't think F1 will get banned at all. I think it will continue but will it be showcase for the mode of transport that is the norm for everyday folk.

The connection with F1 and motorsport currently is that with devotion passion and a chunk of money we can all race cars. The same mode of transport that the star driver use. I can't drive a Mercedes F1 W10 but I can drive a Mercedes-AMG GT.

wire2004 has pointed out that Mercedes are entering FE next year, thanks for that , I wasn't aware, it just confirms that they have spotted the opportunity.

jono794 has commented that F1 is being forced to go electric. That is not the case, no-one is being forced. What I'm saying is cars and transport is going to change and the manufacturers will simply follow that trend.

Who knows what will happen with air transport, but it will probably change away its current form, we are seeing more and more passenger drones, you can get one of these currently and there are many more. How long will it take for there to be a commercial version?

Its not about banning fossil fuels in any way, they will clearly have a place, Fossil fuel F1 can and probably will still continue. My point is if manufactures want to make money from cars that every one drives a big chunk of the world will be doing a lot of electric. (Europe and China).

Development money will be in that direction. Mercedes et al will want to be the fastest. Are the top drivers going to want be be in a growing motorsport or a declining one?

Its just change.

pokerman wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Exediron wrote:I think this is a pretty bizarre line of argument, to be honest. If F1 continues to exist, the results will continue to roll on - whether it's fossil fuels, electric, hydrogen or even rockets. If it's still F1, it's F1. It doesn't matter if it feels fundamentally different to any number of fans.

There is quite certainly a chance F1 will die entirely when fossil fuels are universally banned. But if that doesn't happen, the results will be contiguous no matter what power source they use.

I'll believe Fossil fuels will be banned when the day arrives. I highly doubt it though. LOL
Politicians, their parties and world organizations like throwing big claims like that around to garner votes, but it's been my experience that WHEN the time comes to follow through, nothing happens.

Who said Fossil fuels will be banned? We are talking cars.

The point is that F1 is a world wide sport, there may be a blasé attitude to emissions in the USA but many other countries in the world take it very seriously. F1 is synonymous with the internal combustion engine and its European countries that are taking action.
In Europe countries are already making plans to use cars with electric power units, in fact several manufacturers have already closed down plants making IC engines and cars. Its not about it being a vote gainer it is happening NOW.

It is also in Europe where F1 cars are developed and manufactured. If the car divisions of Mercedes, Honda and Renault are not selling cars do you seriously think they will continue to build and develop an F1 car?
They compete because they want fans and viewers to buy their brand.
Renault would leave at the drop of a hat, 4 cars on the grid lose their PU's, are Red Bull fully committed? F1 isn't as stable and predictable as you think.

I think it is inevitable that F1 will change significantly, it may buy and adopt FE but who will the manufactures be in FE? Will it be DS TECHEETAH and ENVISION VIRGIN RACING or FERRARI and MERCEDES. It is not the same history or lineage. The results may be contiguous but lets face it the sound is different, the pits are different, the names are different and even the countries will be different with the leading team in FE being Chinese.

Of course F1 may continue to run Fossil fuel cars but the big names will go where the money is. Will that be petrol or electric?

Any country wanting to dominate the car industry should be investing in electric right now. Is it a coincidence that the top FE team is Chinese by the way.

The USA's love of the motor car came from cheap fuel from their oil wells, a massive natural resource. The cars of the future will need a similarly massive natural resource, the problem for Europe and the States is that they do not have that resource, it is situated in China.

The world is changing and F1 will have to change to keep up.

The manufacturers will pull out but would F1 get banned in Europe because they use fossil fuels, far greater pollution is caused by the planes that fly over Europe, are these going to also get banned?

Heck no! :LOL:

Until electric power becomes more viable and battery power can be sustained for longer periods of time and most importantly their volotile chemistry stabilizes, planes will not be changing any time soon. The European Ban on Fossil Fuels is for the moment a pipe dream, regardless of how far in the future they're planning it, until a genuine viable source of energy that is safe comes along, it ain't gonna happen.

Besides, by then the real impact of these ridiculous batteries will be fully realized and then the decision to be made will be on whether or not theyre more toxic and harmful to the environment than fossil fuels.

Battery technology is improving rapidly, I agree that batteries may well have a significant effect on the environment however, the biggest issue at the moment is greenhouse gases and global warming.
Electric vehicles will help in this respect, as if to prove a point this weekend Grand Prix in Singapore has a special plan in place in case the air isn't of sufficient quality resulting from forest fires in Indonesia.

I have to say I really do not understand Donald Trump's attempt to prevent California from trying to lower its emissions, its almost as though he wants the return of the smog of the 70's. You get the impression that he is doing it to spite Elon Musk, who incidentally looks like cleaning up on ALL battery manufacture for electric cars not just his own.

Returning to F1 for a minute this may be of interest Should F1 go fully electric sooner, later or never?

Production of fossil fuel vehicles may well end in the next few decades, but the fuels themselves will never be banned. Never. Think of the millions and millions of cars, bikes and scooters that would need to be scrapped or converted. Legislation against that level of wastefulness is more likely than a token gesture against climate change.

I say at the most about 15-20 years.

Covalent wrote:I say at the most about 15-20 years.

Ross Brawn thinks it might be 10 years but I agree 15 is more likely.

This isn't F1 but Adrian Newey is taking part in the Extreme E racing to highlight the problem. They race in fully-electric 4x4 SUV cars one of the venues being Greenland. That will test battery performance!



Source: bbc.co.uk

I also agree with jono794 fossil fuels won't be banned just discouraged through finance and taxation depending on where you live of course.

F1 will go electric sooner than many think. Manufacturers are already testing road cars capable of 250mph and driving from Portsmouth to Aberdeen in a single charge. Nobody wants to spend money developing pointless, complex and unreliable hybrids like we have now. The pressure from the teams will eventually lead F1 to go electric.

Formula E will eventually become defunct, once it has served its purpose and allowed manufacturers to develop their tech away from the spotlight of F1. Either that or it will simply become another lower formula, or replace F2 perhaps.

Option or Prime wrote:Battery technology is improving rapidly, I agree that batteries may well have a significant effect on the environment however, the biggest issue at the moment is greenhouse gases and global warming.
Electric vehicles will help in this respect, as if to prove a point this weekend Grand Prix in Singapore has a special plan in place in case the air isn't of sufficient quality resulting from forest fires in Indonesia.

I have to say I really do not understand Donald Trump's attempt to prevent California from trying to lower its emissions, its almost as though he wants the return of the smog of the 70's. You get the impression that he is doing it to spite Elon Musk, who incidentally looks like cleaning up on ALL battery manufacture for electric cars not just his own.

Returning to F1 for a minute this may be of interest Should F1 go fully electric sooner, later or never?

While battery technology is improving rapidly, the current top tech is close to being maxed out with current materials, chemicals and technology. There is a reason most batteries are being manufactured in of all places, China. And on top of that, there is still no battery disposal program in place which shows how much of a priority the environment truly is to EV manufacturers and the people pushing for them.

As for Electric vehicles themselves helping with the environment, that is something that is correct only in theory and most folks don't know the FULL reality of everything that goes into going all-electric, nor do they realize the BUSINESS behind the desire to go all-electric. And with states like Keleefawniuh writing laws requiring X amount of vehicles having to be all-electric by a certain date, one should note that California's cost of electricity is some 50% higher than most other states. The problem is that too many people who don't know as much as they THINK they know have set things in motion and have produced literature that sells PRECISELY what they believe, and most don't question a thing about it and in turn believe everything they hear about it, never suspecting that what they've read or been told might not be correct. For instance, electric vehicles produce more Co2 than their combustion counterparts, yet they don't publish that openly and you have to go looking for information like that because the industry doesn't want to provide all the facts.

If you know just some of the facts, you'd know that the comparisons the electric movement are relying on are emissions numbers from DECADES ago and you'd know that today's combustion vehicles produce less than 1% of the emissions they did from the 60's to the 80's, and you'd also know that overall an electric vehicle's carbon footprint is actually greater than that of a combustion vehicle. From manufacturing, to the continuous charging, to the disposal of the batteries once they reach their end of their life cycles, the acids and chemicals, to ruptured cells no one accounts for or acts like will never happen, electric vehicles are not as clean and good for the environment as people are led to believe, yet I bet a few people in here will JUMP to refute what I've said based solely on what they've been led to believe, never stopping to think that perhaps there is indeed more to this story than they thought.

And if it's not enough that they're primarily putting out information they feel helps them sell the concept of going all-electric, we haven't even broached the subject of the exploitation of children who are "employed" to mine the cobalt used to make the batteries.

I just hope F1 never goes electric because then the essence and soul of F1 will be gone.

Interesting to read that one of the senior staff at Porsche has given a huge hint that replacements for some of their top selling cars, Boxer being one, will almost certainly be fully electric, possibly before 2025. Now, Porsche fans will talk for years about the traditional engine layout in their cars, a layout that has basically stayed the same for decades. Yet here we are with a car company that does not sell cars based on practicality, load space, fuel economy or other things like that, but simply on tradition and that feeling of being alive when you drive them, planning on it's electric future.

It's certainly not beyond any doubt in my mind that F1 could and will do the same.

Some valid points in there but I don't really see why you have to get so irate over the issue, if you know stuff then why not just share it?

It is true that the the production of batteries can produce as many greenhouse gases as it saves. There has to be a start somewhere or are you suggesting we just carry on with the same transport strategy for the next 20 years. What needs to be done is to limit the CO2 production at source.

Of course there are issues with the production of metals and semiconductors there are also issues relating abuse of women and children making clothes, shoes, food, cars in fact anything that can be manufactured all need to be rectified. The west has been guilty of taking advantage of cheap Asian labour for too long, I agree it needs to be addressed but its not restricted to electric power.

The introduction of electric power as part of an environmental policy can't occur in isolation, it needs to be part of a global strategy. China may be leaders in the production of electric cars but they are not doing it for the environment, far from it they are doing it for their economy. What is disappointing is that the one country that could lead the way in developing green energy is actively operating to maintain the status quo or even regress.

If we are talking figures please don't adopt the "its not as bad as they say" attitude, ice thickness at the poles is probably thinner than first thought due to an error in measurement technique. There is no longer the luxury of time to redress the balance.

I agree that F1 will lose something if it goes electric, that is actually how we got on to this topic in the first place!

Option or Prime wrote:Some valid points in there but I don't really see why you have to get so irate over the issue, if you know stuff then why not just share it?

It is true that the the production of batteries can produce as many greenhouse gases as it saves. There has to be a start somewhere or are you suggesting we just carry on with the same transport strategy for the next 20 years. What needs to be done is to limit the CO2 production at source.

Of course there are issues with the production of metals and semiconductors there are also issues relating abuse of women and children making clothes, shoes, food, cars in fact anything that can be manufactured all need to be rectified. The west has been guilty of taking advantage of cheap Asian labour for too long, I agree it needs to be addressed but its not restricted to electric power.

The introduction of electric power as part of an environmental policy can't occur in isolation, it needs to be part of a global strategy. China may be leaders in the production of electric cars but they are not doing it for the environment, far from it they are doing it for their economy. What is disappointing is that the one country that could lead the way in developing green energy is actively operating to maintain the status quo or even regress.

If we are talking figures please don't adopt the "its not as bad as they say" attitude, ice thickness at the poles is probably thinner than first thought due to an error in measurement technique. There is no longer the luxury of time to redress the balance.

I agree that F1 will lose something if it goes electric, that is actually how we got on to this topic in the first place!

Bingo.

Nothing will change unless it begins at a corporate and governmental level. Expecting the average person to avert catastrophic climate change at a micro level is futile, and speaks to a larger problem of how capitalism is going to deal with it. It's going to be pay to survive. The rich finally have a way to get rid of the poor.

Option or Prime wrote:Some valid points in there but I don't really see why you have to get so irate over the issue, if you know stuff then why not just share it?

It is true that the the production of batteries can produce as many greenhouse gases as it saves. There has to be a start somewhere or are you suggesting we just carry on with the same transport strategy for the next 20 years. What needs to be done is to limit the CO2 production at source.

Of course there are issues with the production of metals and semiconductors there are also issues relating abuse of women and children making clothes, shoes, food, cars in fact anything that can be manufactured all need to be rectified. The west has been guilty of taking advantage of cheap Asian labour for too long, I agree it needs to be addressed but its not restricted to electric power.

The introduction of electric power as part of an environmental policy can't occur in isolation, it needs to be part of a global strategy. China may be leaders in the production of electric cars but they are not doing it for the environment, far from it they are doing it for their economy. What is disappointing is that the one country that could lead the way in developing green energy is actively operating to maintain the status quo or even regress.

If we are talking figures please don't adopt the "its not as bad as they say" attitude, ice thickness at the poles is probably thinner than first thought due to an error in measurement technique. There is no longer the luxury of time to redress the balance.

I agree that F1 will lose something if it goes electric, that is actually how we got on to this topic in the first place!

This entire thing is no different than PITA and similar organizations who put out a message and ignorant people take to causes simply because they read one side of the issue without ever taking the time to learn everything else about it, and as a result become active members of the outrage police.

This is not the place to post numbers and statistics, this is a forum whereby we can all enlighten one another with tidbits of knowledge and and share opinions to enjoy healthy debates that may teach us all something. I raised the counter argument to “going electric is better for the environment” because I felt too many folks have only seen the Pros column they want you to see in order to gain support for their agendas and initiatives, but there is indeed a Cons column that is quite vast and SHOULD be taken into account, studied and considered so that everyone has all the information before them so they are aware that there may be a whole lot more to the story than they’ve been led to believe.

Raising the questions flag in people’s minds should serve as enough to dona bit of research, if indeed this issue is so important to them.

What do you believe to be a better alternative to electric vehicles in the future?

Banana Man wrote:What do you believe to be a better alternative to electric vehicles in the future?

I'm no scientist, but I don't get why hydrogen cell cars aren't more popular....

From what I've read (albeit a while ago and not particularly in depth either) it seems a much cleaner solution than producing all these batteries?

Whatever solution we end up with will only become a success when governments invest in the relevant infrastructure to allow for refuelling of the millions of vehicles that will need it, which in the UK at least is years away yet in my opinion.

"Ignorant people", thats somewhat of an arrogant approach isn't it. Just because I have a view about this that doesn't match yours, (I actually agree with some of your points by the way), does it mean I am ignorant?

Anyway, it is a place to discuss all sorts of things, I'm not quoting numbers but I believe it is interesting.

There comes a point when you have to accept that electric F1 may well become a reality. You may not want it to change but many believe it will. The time span is open to debate, however, there are commercial examples from manufacturers like Porsche, development engineers like Adrian Newey and several European countries that indicate it is already happening.

The performance statistic on the Porsche Taycan are impressive 0-62 in 2.8 seconds and a range of 256 miles and battery charging is 100km from 5 minutes of charging.

It looks great as well. Ignoring the environmental aspect of electric cars it might well be that people buy them not just because they don't make the streets smelly (I accept the CO2 argument), but that they end up buying them because its a better car!

If they replaced fossil fuel cars on the road for that reason would that be more acceptable?



Source: http://pocket-lint.com

PS. I do accept that recycling old batteries could become an issue, but there are new ideas round that as well.

SteveW wrote:

Banana Man wrote:What do you believe to be a better alternative to electric vehicles in the future?

I'm no scientist, but I don't get why hydrogen cell cars aren't more popular....

From what I've read (albeit a while ago and not particularly in depth either) it seems a much cleaner solution than producing all these batteries?

Whatever solution we end up with will only become a success when governments invest in the relevant infrastructure to allow for refuelling of the millions of vehicles that will need it, which in the UK at least is years away yet in my opinion.

I believe hydrogen will be the way forward, but the reason it't not being used much at the moment is because the energy used to create a usable fuel is stupidly high, making it a no go. Hopefully, and they are working on it, the cost and energy used to create usable fuel will come down and it could be amazing for the future of energy, not just cars.

If you're someone who doesn't believe everything they're told simply because they're saying it, you do not count as ignorant. And let's be clear that saying people are ignorant doesn't necessarily mean you are saying it in an insulting manner. There are PLENTY of things I'm certainly ignorant about because I simply don't know about them.

As for a better option to battery powered or electric vehicles, as mentioned above, Hydrogen has been proven to be the cleanest option available BY FAR. As with everything it also proposes cons, and the greatest issue is the possibility of a hydrogen cell exploding without warning. And while technology has advanced greatly since the advent of Hydrogen with would make it considerably safer, the possibility will always exist. Then there's the cost to produce which tends to be high, but then so is electric, but the full extent will only be known once the majority of vehicles are electric and there are sufficient units to produce the percentage of failures that were never foreseen or accounted for by the people simply wanting to push, push, push to market.

Only then will we see the frequency of potential dangers of homes going up in flames due to batteries self combusting, or the charge ports failing, accidents resulting in ruptured cells that catch on fire and billow noxiously poisonous gasses and drivers die within minutes of ingesting the stuff. There's actually a ton of cons that people simply don't think about because they're not reported or covered by media in order to protect the "image" of electric being the best thing since sliced bread they've worked diligently hard to create. That is what I mean by ignorance.

Today, professional grade RC cars utilize some of the most advanced batteries on the planet which is one of the greatest contributors in the development of more powerful and more efficient battery technologies and they feature electronics controlled charging systems to regulate how precisely the cells are charged (most feature multiple cells within the case) and that they max out at identical levels in order to put out the desired amperage evenly in order to sustain the same power output right up until it reaches the safety cutoff. The issue is, that in order for the battery to charge properly, it needs to have enough energy to power the on-board electronics, otherwise when connected to a charger, the charger and battery don't talk to one another properly and the charger can bypass the electronics regulation system and send energy in large packets in bursts and the cells ignite. And the only way to put out the fire is to bury it in dirt/sand as even submerging it in water won't put out the fire, It needs to be tightly packed in order to suffocate the system for several seconds. Now given these things are microscopic compared to the cells powering full-size vehicles, how on earth will battery fires on those be put out?

There is tons of information like this that is being glazed over or not being discussed at all and its wrong. And FYI, RC also discovered that Electric was more powerful and offered more torque than the gas or Nitro engine powered variety. That's why it's now separated into their own classes because Nitro is no match for electric. Nitro or gas powered cars have to build revs to increase speed where as with electric, just a twitch of your index finger on the throttle gets the car to accelerate immediately off the line. This is the same in their full-size counterparts so it's no surprise to any of us who've been racing RC cars for years. We saw it take over the market a little over a decade ago and we've been watching battery technology evolve in order to do so, with the latest iteration breaking on the scene just over 2 years ago, and it offers increased performance across the board, and there are already new innovations being tested.

Option or Prime wrote:"Ignorant people", thats somewhat of an arrogant approach isn't it. Just because I have a view about this that doesn't match yours, (I actually agree with some of your points by the way), does it mean I am ignorant?

Anyway, it is a place to discuss all sorts of things, I'm not quoting numbers but I believe it is interesting.

There comes a point when you have to accept that electric F1 may well become a reality. You may not want it to change but many believe it will. The time span is open to debate, however, there are commercial examples from manufacturers like Porsche, development engineers like Adrian Newey and several European countries that indicate it is already happening.

The performance statistic on the Porsche Taycan are impressive 0-62 in 2.8 seconds and a range of 256 miles and battery charging is 100km from 5 minutes of charging.

It looks great as well. Ignoring the environmental aspect of electric cars it might well be that people buy them not just because they don't make the streets smelly (I accept the CO2 argument), but that they end up buying them because its a better car!

If they replaced fossil fuel cars on the road for that reason would that be more acceptable?



Source: http://pocket-lint.com

PS. I do accept that recycling old batteries could become an issue, but there are new ideas round that as well.

That's the thing with electric cars, they are good for up to 60mph and love quoting those acceleration figures, however go much above 60mph and you can wave goodbye to that 256 mile range, also you need to avoid any hills.

FE race on the type of tracks they do for a reason, low top speeds and circuits as flat as a pancake, if they ever did a race at at track like Spa that would show up their true capabilities.

Currently. Aren't we discussing the future here?

Covalent wrote:Currently. Aren't we discussing the future here?

You can foresee the future?

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:Currently. Aren't we discussing the future here?

You can foresee the future?

What gave you that impression?