[driver#8]

I liked the V10s much better than the 2.4 V8s, which were buzzy and puny.

But for me the best sound was the late Eighties/early Nineties mix of V8s, V10s and V12s. We had more of them too, of course - 19 teams in 1990 - with pre-qualifying sessions and full grids. For me it was the V8s that made the biggest impact. Felt the old sternum rattle a bit.

Magic.

Modern F1s are very clever but they are heavy and cumbersome beasts, as Nando showed in his little blat in the Renault. Four seconds off in a museum piece that was rolling on tyres that it was never designed for and having to lift twice down the main straight to hold the revs down was a good day's work, I would have said.

And the thing is this: the emissions and energy efficiency of the F1 cars is a drop in the ocean of emissions that Formula 1 generates. Each of the trucks used as transporters for the teams, the paddock pagodas, the fuel, tyres, merchandising units and F1TV emits on average 993g/km of CO2 and covers 22,000 km per year attending the European races and test sessions alone. And there are 300 trucks involved.

On top of that, the series is estimated to burn through 7 million gallons of jet fuel in reaching the events outside Europe, which amounts to 67 million kilos of CO2.

Add in the embedded carbon cost of manufacturing the cars and components, the onward transport by land from the airports to the circuits at flyaway races, the traffic in and out supplying the circuit hospitality and vendors, the energy to power the catering for 200,000 meals per day and the food miles that go into it. The extra infrastructure that has to be brought in, erected, dismantled and taken away again. And the circuit staff, volunteers, officials and of course the general public, travelling in and out of the circuit every day.

Teams, officials and media hire every available car, van and people carrier at each destination. That all adds up.

If you really want to go to town, what about the private jet and helicopter flights taken by drivers and team principals? Particularly in getting to and from promotional appearances and moving cars around for demos and so on.

It's the same for Formula E, the Olympics and the World Cup. The biggest carbon impact is all in the infrastructure of major events, with the biggest contributors being catering and attendees' travel in and out. Next to all that the emissions of even a 3.5 V12 Ferrari or Lamborghini engine from back in the day are negligible.

The hybrids have made racing worse and exponentially more expensive for the sake of virtue signalling while the logistics of running Formula 1, or indeed any major sport, remain unchanged. It's a total nonsense.

 

[driver#8]

Oh but apparently Lewis is already carbon neutral and F1 is on course for carbon neutrality by 2025.

 

[driver#8]

Some more stats to think on.

Since 2019, each car has been permitted a 110 kg fuel load, or 150 litres, to avoid fuel saving. This is exactly the same amount of fuel used by the pre-hybrid 2.4 V8s to cover the same distance after the ban on refuelling stops came into effect.

On average, each car uses 220kg (300 litres) across all three days of a Grand Prix. Based on regular pump fuel (99 per cent identical to race fuel), the current hybrids are averaging the same CO2 emissions as the V8s - average 1750g/km.

In 2008, each car averaged 231 tonnes of CO2 in an 18-race season, with 11 teams and 22 cars. So that's 5,082 tonnes of CO2.

In 2021, if we actually get the planned 23-race calendar to work, we may have 10% fewer cars but they will cover 28% greater distance. So that's 5,914 tonnes of CO2.

Based on the calendar for 2021 and assuming that the current vacant date goes to either Imola or Mugello, that gives us:

Aircraft CO2 for the year: 67,000 tonnes

Transporter CO2 for the year: 47,000 tonnes

F1 cars' CO2 for the year: 5,914 tonnes

So basically the carbon cost to run F1 cars is unaltered in the hybrid era but it still only accounts for 5% of the carbon footprint of the teams and organisers to get them there and televise it. Even if the manufacturing of those cars is carbon neutral (which of course it isn't - the embedded carbon in batteries and electric motors is astronomic, never mind the production of the fuel and oil and tyres and everything else), nobody can hope to neutralise 114,000 tonnes of carbon from the transportation of the cars.

And none of those figures include the biggest part of the event footprint - on-site energy, catering, food miles and attendee miles.

All of which basically should lead us to ask: can we have lightweight cars and shouty engines back again please?

 

[driver#8]

Returning to the topic, I feel a distinct whiff of nostalgia, people thinking: "The cars might as well return to IC engines, because the rest of the circus is burning so much fuel that it would make no real difference".

It would be a high risk choice, mainstream TV channels might then see the sport as too out of touch with the modern world. F1 could then be relegated to obscure channels (like many of the series first shown on the BBC in the 80s/90s).

There is already a risk that next year's visit to Saudi Arabia might trigger a backlash amongst viewers/fans and sponsors.

Joel

Yes that's kind of the thrust. Motor sport as a whole needs drama, and the flagship most of all. It's never going to be replaced, so we die on this hill. We're in the entertainment business, and entertainment means banshee howling, close racing and a whiff of danger that will engage with the baser desires of people who have other things to do with their time. The core audience for the sport is tiny and we're losing the casual ticket-buyers and viewers because the intellectual brilliance of harvesting energy isn't very exciting.

And whether or not mainstream TV will take it is a moot point, given that F1 is hell bent on driving people to subscribe to its own channels and/or make big bucks from pay-per-view networks in order to pay off its creditors.

Hence going to Saudi Arabia, which has agreed to pay $90 million per year for 10 years merely for the rights to host the race. And, yes, there will be mutterings, just as there were when Formula E went. But there's the rub: Formula E is already there, being unsustainable on its own account.

With governments hell bent on banning the sale of petrol and diesel in the near future going back to IC engines will definitely kill off F1.

For now this lunacy prevails but I think we may, just may, be turning the corner back to sanity. EVs kill more of the planet faster than ICs. The embedded carbon in building a Mercedes EQC is the same as building and running a Mercedes C-Class for five years, and that doesn't then add on the carbon cost of the energy to make it move or the nightmare of disposing of it. Neither does it address the ecological damage done to extract the minerals that are in it.

Responsibly-sourced biofuels are the primary answer to mobility.

Frank Williams, 78, has been admitted to hospital, and is said to be in a "stable condition". Details scant.

Damn. Even the sensible press appears to be getting obits in early.

 

[driver#8]

No one has, seemingly, thought yet to link Tony Brooks (88) with the launch of the newly-created Vanwall.

Won't be long, though.

I'm not sure that Tony's up to visitors, and if he is he's seen the Vanwall name used and abused sufficiently often for such ill-starred projects that he will probably keep away. Wisely so, too.

Indeed there are, the silly season in F1 used to be during the summer break, now there is a new report almost every day! Still, we can pour ourselves a large single malt and enjoy the pantomime!

That's the nature of the media, sadly. Lots of people needing to make lots of money, which means clickbait.

Ah...Autosport is one place I never look!

I shan't take that personally as we're not talking rallying! Meanwhile, it's important to make sure that what you're consuming is the good stuff, rather than recycled nonsense from someone who's never been closer to a race track than they have the North Pole.

It costs roughly £55k for a journalist to cover F1 for one season. Only by doing that do they establish the relationships with the teams and drivers needed to get decent copy. The only way to get into the paddock is to be accredited by the FIA, meaning that you are adjudged to be a valuable news source with an audience that is well established and large enough to warrant the privilege.

In 2020, this has been made infinitely more tricky by Covid. Do you know how many journalists were in place for the world championship decider in Turkey? 16. In a media centre built to house 400+ that is usually full.

Liberty Media is making things more complicated still because it is passive-aggressively using Covid to force journalists out altogether - unless they pay a big fat fee to be there, like the TV stations. Those journalists who have attended races are basically just watching TV in the media centre because they are not allowed into the paddock, they are not allowed to meed the teams or drivers and they must submit their questions for press conferences in advance by Zoom.

It is very unhealthy, but Liberty owes around $4 billion to the banks who provided the loans to buy the sport from CVC. This means that they need to rinse every penny going from the sport, and charging media to be there is essential, as is driving people to their own subscription services. That's why a lot of well-established F1 journalists now write for Formula1.com - they have sold their souls, and one must hope not too cheaply.

Most 'news' stories are conjecture that is linked with, in the best case scenario, PR material and/or quotes pinched from elsewhere. It is almost impossible for any genuine news story to be broken by a media outlet these days because the teams, manufacturers, partners and so on are all so good at keeping stuff under wraps. That is why they spend millions each year on an army of PR people.

So if you want to know what's going on in real time, then Autosport is a good start, as is its sister website Motorsport.com (which largely uses much the same content by the same journos), then there's occasionally something interesting on Racefans.net from Dieter, although he does get a few funny ideas, and then there is Joe Saward's stuff, which is often brilliant and certainly well informed, although he also gets one or two ideas in his head that won't be shifted even by reality. Joe also has the subscription-based online magazine, and his business newsletter, for those interested in where the deals are being made.

Edit: I forgot The Race, which is basically the old Autosport F1 reporting team with delusions of grandeur. Ditto Dirtfish, if you like rallies.

Anything else - all the wt f1 and planetf1 and essentiallysport are crud. Written by cellar dwellers who have never been accredited to anything. Pure and simple.

 

[driver#8]

I note that Marzipan is once again the centre of attention in parts of social media platforms. His apology of last week has been deleted...

Yes, his Dad has failed in his bid to buy Force Whatever-its-called-ths-week, which won't help Junior's chances.

What interests me is that the FIA, the team and the press are saying nothing about the really salacious stuff on his feed - soliciting under-aged girls to send pictures to him and threatening to 'out' George Russell. Not a whisper about that.

 

[driver#8]

I'm not sure how much attention Putin's mates take of online petitions. Nor the FIA for that matter!

 

[driver#8]

Yes, from Rich Energy to Rich Idiot.

The problem for poor old Haas and his calamitous sponsors is that he runs off the American business model, where you get a company to throw money at your team in exchange for putting their colours on the car. There are now so few sponsors in F1 - I can think of only two who are paying decent money to teams as a means to try and sell their goods and/or brand image - that without a few roubles in his account, Gene would otherwise catch a very nasty cold.

Most of the branding and partnerships are now internal spend by suppliers to the motor manufacturers, such as Petronas and BWT, to be used as a show of faith in their commercial relationships. The same is true of WEC, WRC and increasingly in NASCAR too, it seems.

 

[driver#8]

Yep, Mercedes gently heading for the exit. No rush, mainly because Toto's holding the brake on with both hands, and at least Merc's making money from F1 at the moment.

Very interesting what's going on with the industry in Germany at the moment. BMW seems to have thrown in the towel completely on motorsport and, indeed, on its entire business model. When it pulled out of Formula E it basically said that there is no value in trying to sell electric cars via motorsport because the market is too small to warrant the spend. It will be focusing on how to make money from building and selling fewer cars.

Audi has re-committed to motor sport but not 'pure' electric, VW is out altogether (although the electric Rekordwagen was hardly front page news). Meanwhile all of them are selling cars of which are 99 per cent fossil fuelled, getting larger, more ostentatious and less fuel efficient by the day. As of January 1st they will have to pay an EU levy of €95 for every g/km over the current political limit of 95g/km on new cars sold, which on 2018 figures would wipe out 40% of Daimler's profits.

Then you've got all the other brands in play, with Aston Martin being a focal point in F1 terms.

The customer has spoken: they want bigger SUV, MPV and crossover cars and they want to go where and when they please in them, meaning petrol/diesel rather than EV. For this they are happy to pay a premium and stick it on credit, which is where the manufacturers make their money, signing them up for HP agreements. But now the EU is saying that it is not desirable to have the school run full of big off-roaders pumping out 180g/km, and the manufacturers are going to have to carry the burden of that cost until they can convince their customers to buy something smaller, ideally below the 95g/km threshold.

We're in for a bumpy few years.

 

[driver#8]

Apparently a one-year deal before becoming team leader at Williams, if the scuttlebutt is accurate. Interesting times.

 

[driver#8]

The wages of drivers and senior staff aren't currently included in the cap.

Neither is hospitality or incidental spending.

 

[driver#8]

Monte is to be decided on Thursday. The prefecture responsible for Gap, where the rally is based, currently has a 6am-6pm curfew, but the Automobile Club de Monaco has a lot of money. We'll see...

 

[driver#8]

Please don't forget that GP Blog has absolutely no connection to any of the teams or accredited media. It is a clickbait site.

Obviously, Lewis's salary demands are extravagant. So too are his demands for a legacy career, given his political activism. He already forced Mercedes to change its corporate colours in 2020, and continues to highlight issues of diversity which are neither the result of proactive policy but the result of cultural differences in education and access going back centuries which cannot be altered because a racing driver clicks his fingers and wishes it.

Obviously, too, George Russell's performance shot a big hole in Lewis's demands. So too does Daimler's cashflow, which is complicated not only by COVID but also the demand from the EU for €95 euros per g/km above its maximum permitted 95g/km on every car sold.

This law came into effect on 1 January and was already anticipated to cost Daimler 40% of its operating profit in 2021 (based on 2018 figures), because it sells very few cars that emit less than 95g/km. Then you add in COVID.

I believe that we are in the last days of professional motor sport unless reason can be found, the 'silver bullet' myth of electrification can be put to rest and the engineers are allowed to make a strong case to act as a laboratory to develop genuine solutions through competition. Without that then, like the gladiators and blood sports, our time is drawing to a close. Indeed, the days of private car ownership are also coming to an end because personal mobility on anything other than a bicycle is being legislated out of existence.

Whether or not Lewis is in the car, Mercedes will win again in 2021. That much is clear.

 

[driver#8]

Private car ownership will never end.

It will if we move to electric. The technology is too impractical and too expensive for mass consumption. Added to which it is ruinous from an ecological standpoint.

Don't forget, most people thought that the car would never catch on in the first place. The 'great reset' that the WTO and governments including those of the EU and UK are endorsing is very clear on this:

The Great Reset describes a future in which China has successfully steered the economy toward a more sustainable path for growth and enacted constraints on vehicle ownership and driving...

 

[driver#8]

I don't think cars is what is being argued against, its car ownership.

I think that being effectively locked down, reliant upon the internet and being 100% track-and-traceable 24/7 are going to be the norm.

Bicycles as the means to get out and about locally, with buses for shopping/elderly and trains for longer distance.

The days of being able to say: "I want to go to Aberystwith, I need to be there by 11, so if I leave by 7.30 I can get there in time to find a parking space' are on their way into history.

 

[driver#8]

Autonomous drones is how we'll get about in the future.

Dont be soft, Kevin. Autonomous cars dont work because the battery gets drained with all the thinking power needed to keep itself on the road. Not one manufacturer has been able to make a case for it.

At least youre on terra firma when the motor dies, though... I wouldnt fancy a drone conking out on me.

With twice as many people on the planet in 2050 as there are now, our freedom to go where and when we please will die with us, Im afraid. I cant say Im excited for what the next generation will inherit.

 

[driver#8]

There's a mindset in F1 that the world began on the day they first stepped into the paddock. They might grudgingly acknowledge that the world championship goes back to 1950, but to suggest that Grands Prix had been going on for half a century before then gets fairly short shrift. Certainly did in the Bernie era... 'I haven't got the rights to the Tripoli GP, so I can't make any money out of it, so it's of no interest...'

I seem to remember a very half-bottomed attempt to mark a century of Grand Prix racing at Magny Cours in 2006, but it got less attention than Rubinho's 200th.

 

[driver#8]

This all started with Michael causing a red mist to descend on Mika.

"It was natural that I went to talk to him after the race," said Hakkinen in a later interview.

"I said: 'You can't push someone to the grass at 300kph. This is a life and death situation, use some common sense.'"

"He tilted his head and looked at me. 'What did I do wrong?'"

"He didn't say 'sorry, I was too aggressive'. It was simply his driving style."

Hakkinen said he "couldn't accept" Schumacher's driving tactics. "If it was a slow corner and you defend and do things that are on the limits of what is fair I could somehow accept it because I too use gimmicks on the track."

"But 300kph is so fast, if in those speeds an F1 car goes on the grass and the ground clearance is about 15mm at the front it's so low that the smallest of bump will send the car flying. That was my point: 'come on, think'."

 

[driver#8]

Damon Hill would have been a double World Champion and possibly a three time World Champion.

I think that's slightly generous. Damon did brilliant work to bring the team back around in the wake of Senna's death but Schumacher had him on the ropes long before that altercation in Adelaide. In 1995, with a clear advantage, Damon's head caved in and he fell foul of problems that were almost all of his own making. Certainly that's how Frank and Patrick saw it. In 1996, with Schumacher driving that bus of a Ferrari, he really only had to beat young Jacques in his rookie year and still made quite a meal of it, then turned around and demanded vast sums of money and was politely shown the door.

Both Damon and Jacques I tend to class as drivers who managed not to lose the title while in the best equipment, but there were others with significantly more talent.

 

[driver#8]

It's all rather confusing as to what is going on with any of the brands at the moment, but a lot of it is to do with the EU's 'tailpipe tax'. I think there's an idea to try and shovel customers who want big, powerful cars over to these niche brands in the short term in order to minimise the amount that needs to be handed over in penitence for failing to meet the mandated 95g/km maximum CO2 emissions on new cars sold in the EU from 1 January.

The manufacturers all know that electric cars are not fit for purpose as replacements for internal combustion. They come with a staggering CO2 cost to manufacture and they are destroying vulnerable ecosystems in places like Bolivia, Mongolia and Portugal in order to mine and process the rare earth minerals required to build them. Any argument in their favour relies upon converting to 100% renewable energy which is a pipe dream in most economies, and they're broadly unrecyclable.

At a more immediate level, buses, trains and bicycles are hopeless and too expensive by far for most people to abandon their cars, and the sooner governments accept these facts and look at sensible ways forward, the healthier the planet will be.

When it comes to Aston Martin ownership, Toto owns 10%, Daimler owns 20% and the consortium under Stroll owns the rest. There was a plan to swap the 80% of Aston for the Mercedes F1 team in its entirety, allowing Daimler to stroll off into the sunset. Not sure where that's got to.