FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[FerrariFan63]

you missed my point about emissions using less fuel but still emitting harmful emissions is hardly what i would call green, and to suggest something is greener than before is just a PR term used by morons!

If they use 30% less fuel, then they are greener than before. They would have to go beyond that to be truly "green", if that is possible in auto racing. But you can't deny that a major reduction in the amount of fuel used by the cars would be making them greener, unless you could point out that this reduction is compensated by additional pollution and/or fuel and other resources consumption in other areas. Since you haven't pointed out any such exceptions, you have not made your point.

[FerrariFan63]

Any significant "green" measures is going to cost a hell of a lot of money. Few teams would be willing to spend this money in the current economic climate. It's certainly a bit of a headache for the powers that be.

Unless of course this is used as another argument for a standardised engine. That it would be too expensive to develop more green technology if done per engine supplier and with the need to be competitive with other teams. A standardised engine has no need to get every last bit of performance out of the engine and can therefore make design compromises to make it seem "greener".

[KyrosV]

you missed my point about emissions using less fuel but still emitting harmful emissions is hardly what i would call green, and to suggest something is greener than before is just a PR term used by morons!

If they use 30% less fuel, then they are greener than before. They would have to go beyond that to be truly "green", if that is possible in auto racing. But you can't deny that a major reduction in the amount of fuel used by the cars would be making them greener, unless you could point out that this reduction is compensated by additional pollution and/or fuel and other resources consumption in other areas. Since you haven't pointed out any such exceptions, you have not made your point.

Buds just trying to make himself feel better after unnessarily buying a 6 litre V8 'Pickup'

[McLaren Fan]

Any significant "green" measures is going to cost a hell of a lot of money. Few teams would be willing to spend this money in the current economic climate. It's certainly a bit of a headache for the powers that be.

Unless of course this is used as another argument for a standardised engine. That it would be too expensive to develop more green technology if done per engine supplier and with the need to be competitive with other teams. A standardised engine has no need to get every last bit of performance out of the engine and can therefore make design compromises to make it seem "greener".

I would be for a standardised engine if it wasn't compulsory. When you think about it, Cosworth engines were the garagistas' engine of choice in the 1960s and '70s. They were top-notch pieces of kit and relatively inexpensive. That way the smaller teams could afford to compete and the manufacturers could devise their own engines. My only worry with this is that it's open to a lot of political manoeuvring from Messrs Mosley and Ecclestone.

[FerrariFan63]

I would be for a standardised engine if it wasn't compulsory. When you think about it, Cosworth engines were the garagistas' engine of choice in the 1960s and '70s. They were top-notch pieces of kit and relatively inexpensive. That way the smaller teams could afford to compete and the manufacturers could devise their own engines. My only worry with this is that it's open to a lot of political manoeuvring from Messrs Mosley and Ecclestone.

I do want to point out that I wasn't arguing for a standardised engine, I was trying to guess what political manoevering Mosley might get up to in order to sneak them in.

Though, if we want to criticise the standardised engine plan, then we need to propose better alternatives, and what are these. Did the meeting come up with any?

I'd agree that a standardised engine would be OK if it wasn't compulsory. But I'd think that Mosley would want to make sure that the standardised engine was at least as good as the factory units. And since it's impossible to get that exactly right, he might err on the side of letting the standardised engine have an advantage.

[Jensonb]

The best point I've seen is one thta notes how the non-Cosworths would have to be EXACTLY AS GOOD AS or, worse than, the Cosworth. At that stage, there is virtually 0 advantage to building your own engine (Especially since the Cossie will get more testing) and so the Cosworth essentially WOULD be an absolute control engine.

[bud]

you missed my point about emissions using less fuel but still emitting harmful emissions is hardly what i would call green, and to suggest something is greener than before is just a PR term used by morons!

If they use 30% less fuel, then they are greener than before. They would have to go beyond that to be truly "green", if that is possible in auto racing. But you can't deny that a major reduction in the amount of fuel used by the cars would be making them greener, unless you could point out that this reduction is compensated by additional pollution and/or fuel and other resources consumption in other areas. Since you haven't pointed out any such exceptions, you have not made your point.

remember about the carrot

the fact is they will still pollute so how can you even call them green?

"greener" than before? what kind of comment is that? a slight reduction compensates the emission they still produce?
you would make a great politician!

[darwin dali]

H2 (produced with solar energy) - the way to go green.

[bud]

H2 (produced with solar energy) - the way to go green.

Yup

[FerrariFan63]

remember about the carrot

the fact is they will still pollute so how can you even call them green?

If you were actually able to read, you would see that I never called them green. Go back and check if you don't believe me.

"greener" than before? what kind of comment is that? a slight reduction compensates the emission they still produce?
you would make a great politician!

30% is not a slight reduction. It is a major reduction. Anybody with half a brain can see that.

[bud]

Haha youre a crack up i think its clear now, You need to get a good root!

[McLaren Fan]

From autosport.com:

FOTA to push for greater revenue share

By Jonathan Noble Saturday, December 6th 2008, 16:27 GMT

The Formula One Teams' Association (FOTA) wants to meet with the sport's supremo Bernie Ecclestone to discuss a revision to the amount of money paid to competitors, as further moves are made to reduce costs.

With FOTA due to meet with FIA president Max Mosley in the next few days, the body's chairman Luca di Montezemolo has suggested that work on cost cuts must go hand-in-hand with a greater share of the sport's profits being given to the teams.

Speaking about the next steps for FOTA in the wake of Honda's withdrawal from F1 on cost grounds, he said: "In the short run we'll organise a meeting with Max Mosley to present him the details of our proposals and to discuss with him how to improve the show our sport offers. Furthermore we also agreed that it's necessary to meet with Bernie Ecclestone to talk about the distribution as far as the earnings are concerned."

The teams' stance that they should get more income from Ecclestone has been supported by Mosley, who wrote to FOTA last month saying that the governing body wanted to push for an increased revenue share.

Mosley wrote in a letter about future cost cut plans: "The FIA would join with FOTA in seeking to persuade FOM to divide the prize money so that up to 12 teams are guaranteed at least $50m (€40m or £33m) each. This would ensure a full grid with a strong possibility that new teams will enter the championship, filling the two vacant slots as well as any additional vacancies."

FOTA met this week to further discuss rule changes that will help bring down budgets in the sport, and di Montezemolo says he is pleased with the progress being made.

Although no details of what is being looked at have been released, autosport.com understands that one of the major steps being looked at is a dramatic reduction in aerodynamic testing and wind-tunnel running.

Speaking about the meeting, di Montezemolo said: "First of all I want to say that I was very satisfied with the meeting's extremely cooperative climate. We unanimously took some very important decisions with short-term and mid-term impact, for the years 2009 and 2010, while we also set out a proposal for a new engine starting in 2011.

"We gave a further input as far as cost reduction is concerned to help especially the smaller teams over the upcoming season. It's a huge effort from all of us, which is important for two reasons: firstly because it wasn't planned, considering what has been planned a few weeks ago, and secondly, because it happens in a very delicate overall economical situation."

He added: "I think that we've given an unanimous reply to the requests FIA has made several times; therefore we've shown that we have a great capacity to react and to suggest solutions, backed by all of us protagonists in Formula 1, from the big car manufacturers to the independent teams.

"The aim is to reach unanimous decisions, which satisfy all our requests, while we don't touch Formula 1 as a sporty and technological competition amongst teams."

Di Montezemolo has also expressed his sadness at Honda's decision to withdraw from Formula One on cost grounds - but is confident teams are doing all they can to reduce budgets without the sport losing any of its appeal.

"I'm really sorry to hear this and I am close to the men of the team in this very difficult moment," he said. "Unfortunately these things can happen in difficult times like these. Over the years we've seen coming and going several constructors in Formula One."

[FerrariFan63]

Haha youre a crack up i think its clear now, You need to get a good root!

How sophisticated of you. Do you really think this sort of thing impresses anyone with an IQ in double digits or more?

Once again bud is completely unable to address the argument, and just lashes out by insulting people.

[bud]

Haha youre a crack up i think its clear now, You need to get a good root!

How sophisticated of you. Do you really think this sort of thing impresses anyone with an IQ in double digits or more?

Once again bud is completely unable to address the argument, and just lashes out by insulting people.

seriously take my advice you wont be so uptight and up yourself and think your s*** dont stink!

but ok if i must continue to talk this stupid discussion with you so it appears on an internet forum to some moron bitch in Britain that i have intelligence so be it.

lets put it simple for you ok, lets say you take a Murderer, last year he killed 10 people. But he wants to be a good boy well "better" boy so he wants to kill 30% less next year. so he does that and only kills 7 people. He is better huh but wait he is still a killer!!!!

this greener talk is just that its either 100% green or its not green at all! so please just STFU miss high and mighty

[FerrariFan63]

seriously take my advice you wont be so uptight and up yourself and think your s*** dont stink!

but ok if i must continue to talk this stupid discussion with you so it appears on an internet forum to some moron bitch in Britain that i have intelligence so be it.

lets put it simple for you ok, lets say you take a Murderer, last year he killed 10 people. But he wants to be a good boy well "better" boy so he wants to kill 30% less next year. so he does that and only kills 7 people. He is better huh but wait he is still a killer!!!!

this greener talk is just that its either 100% green or its not green at all! so please just STFU miss high and mighty

Like many things in life, being green is full of shades of grey. Activities such as running internal combustion engines on fossil fuels damage the environment more or less depending on a number of factors, including how much fossil fuel is burnt. So by adjusting some of these factors, the environment can be damaged to a greater or lesser degree. And if an activity or the activities of groups can be modified so that it damages the environment less, it's greener than it was before. That "greener" is a valid word in the English language describing a commonly agreed concept can be seen by its wide usage by many different people and groups.

Looking at Bud's argument, I'm unconvinced that he's actually able to reason with shades of grey. And I think this is evident from much of the arguments he has in this forum. He doesn't seem able to consider points raised by others, he just repeats his own claims with no backing. Then when he gets frustrated and embarrassed, he then simply name-calls. Not very impressive.

And in response to his claims (made also in the unsolicited PMs he sent me) that I need, as he puts it, "a good root", I consider this to be a reaction to discomfort he feels due to my being a lesbian.