What to say to environmentalist opponents of motor racing?

[BootsOntheSide]

From time to time, views such as "with fossil fuels in short supply and global warming a big concern, how can cars/bikes going nowhere for 2 hours be justified?". What do people think are the best responses to this?

• The amount of advances in road car safety, performance and (correct me if I'm wrong) fuel economy which have been pioneered in motorsport?
• The fact that several championships are starting to use efficient fuels?
• The fact that Bernie ensures that enough trees are planted to offset the carbon emissions each year?
• Or just the fact that it entertains hundreds of millions of people every year?

[Knowlesy]

For me it is the last option because it plain annoys everyone.

But the other elements are strong too.

[1200Datto27]

I just point out to them that their old, wornout leaded fuel burning pieces of junk that they insist on covering with greenpeace stickers create more pollution each year than my well tuned racing car does in five years.

[Tony Clifton]

This is an easy one to answer, look at the person saying motor sports have no place on earth, with a straight face say "You are right, save the planet, KILL YOURSELF, it is the only ethical thing to do."

It shuts them up IMMEDIATELY.

[Schummy]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

For me it is the last option because it plain annoys everyone.

Racing 22 Hondas-Earth in F1? They are green and they are slow, surely that people would be happy.

[carlo8]

F1 used to have some relavance to fuel economy (the fuel restricted turbos from '85'ish were giving horspower per fuel use figures FAR higher than road cars).They used far more per KM of course but that isn't the point.The point was when that tech was transfered to normal cars there were serious benifits to be had.

These days frankly f1 doesn't have a leg to stand on.Yes sure they still give HP/fuel use figures that are better than cars but such things don't have any relavence now.Everyone is looking to what will power cars in future and f1 has allmost NOTHING to contribute to that .
Let's face it -even if f1 changed over to completely polution free hydrogen fuel as soon as possible that would prove absolutally zero use to the world.The real questions for the future are HOW to make the hydrogen (or other potential fuels) and when to spend the enormous sums nessesary to setup the distribution network.

I allways laugh at the suggestion by Max that energy recovery tech would be a great thing for f1.But that fact is that this would be another case of f1 following instead of leading -it's a mature technology allready

Sorry if this sounds like a rant.What i'm getting around to saying is that we will just have to forget the idea that f1 contributes anything meaningfull to the world like it may have in the past.

Personally i say use option D above and who cares what others think! LOL

[kramer]

Shrug and agree with them. They're right, really.

We like it 'cause it's fun.

Then ask them how much energy it took to make their bicycle.

[Dennis.Doyle]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

...

• Or just the fact that it entertains hundreds of millions of people every year?

Clearly this is the right answer when you take into account that those hundred of millions lounging in front of the TV have a much smaller carbon footprint than they would have if they were doing almost anything else. I can't do the sums for you but I have a suspicion that watching TV consumes less energy & ultimately generates less carbon emissions than walking to the recyling centre.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

From time to time, views such as "with fossil fuels in short supply and global warming a big concern, how can cars/bikes going nowhere for 2 hours be justified?". What do people think are the best responses to this?

• The amount of advances in road car safety, performance and (correct me if I'm wrong) fuel economy which have been pioneered in motorsport?
• The fact that several championships are starting to use efficient fuels?
• The fact that Bernie ensures that enough trees are planted to offset the carbon emissions each year?
• Or just the fact that it entertains hundreds of millions of people every year?

I'd say that all four are reasonable responses, and I will be making notes for next time my in-laws start banging on at me about it.

They also say "I don't see what's so entertaining. Why not just go into town and watch the traffic?", to which I respond "Why do you watch the Olympic 100m final? Why not just stand on Northumberland Street and watch pedestrians".

Grrr....

[ensign14]

Tell them you can see a shrew with a sprained ankle. They'll be off with a miniature splint before you can say "carboniferous".

[MrTTraces]

Originally Posted by 1200Datto27

I just point out to them that their old, wornout leaded fuel burning pieces of junk that they insist on covering with greenpeace stickers create more pollution each year than my well tuned racing car does in five years.

Even they've got a race!

It's the 2CV 24hrs

[FPV GTHO]

If they dont understand to begin with, they probably wont at any point so why bother?

For those that DO feel like it however, many of the points raised so far would probably silence the average critic, although for those unlucky few that come across the Germain Greer type, RUN!

[Racer_kyle]

Now I'm quite sure some of the environMENTALISTS out there also attend sporting events. Now I wonder how they travel to those events.... car, perhaps???

Also I have to agree with the last point. It keeps us dirty carbon emmitters in the house on a sunday afternoon doesn't it!?!

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

From time to time, views such as "with fossil fuels in short supply and global warming a big concern, how can cars/bikes going nowhere for 2 hours be justified?". What do people think are the best responses to this?

• The amount of advances in road car safety, performance and (correct me if I'm wrong) fuel economy which have been pioneered in motorsport?

I'm not sure on this one. Motorsports in general has contributed to the advances in safety and performances. But I don't think motorsport has contributed anything to the fuel economy since the ban on turbos and elimination of Group C.

[Jon Lincoln]

If these people really want to make motoring greener then they need to realise that the only way progress will be made is via competition.

That's either competition in road cars are competition via racing. Racing really speeds up the progress of road car development so getting rid of racing just delays a greener World. Our sport is part of the solution and not just part of the problem.

The planting of trees is just a stunt. It doesn't offset carbon emmissions because once the trees die they rot or get burnt and they release all that lovely carbon they've absorbed. We need to focus on making racing greener and not silly stunts like this or knee jerk reactions like ditching racing altogether.

Also While I'm on a roll, I read somewhere that international golf has as big a carbon footprint as F1, once you take into account the air travel of competitiors, sponsors, fans and so on. So if F1 has to go so does golf, football, tennis and the rest...

[Racer_kyle]

Surely all the hot air coming out of environmentalists heads also contributes to global warming no?

[Schummy]

Somehow greeners tend to dislike "competition" in general terms. It is rather puzzling being nature shaped mainly by darwinian competition.

Some people has mentioned Group C fuel formula. It was a great principle for a makers series. A(nother) sport-prototype fuel formula would be great, and a "environment-stunt" to appeal some people.

[Piglet]

Originally Posted by Jon Lincoln

Also While I'm on a roll, I read somewhere that international golf has as big a carbon footprint as F1, once you take into account the air travel of competitiors, sponsors, fans and so on. So if F1 has to go so does golf, football, tennis and the rest...

We watched the Bristol half marathon last year. At first glance the nice kind of eco-friendly activity we should be encouraging - yes?

So....10,000 competitors - how did they get to Bristol - train? I doubt it - no the city was rammed with cars.

They've got more marshals than we have at motorsports events because the course is much longer, they've all travelled into Bristol. They've got motorbikes that zip in around the competitors... and then there's the water bottles...

We happened to be stood just down from the one of the water stations - every competitor that came past, took a bottle (they've got to be sealed bottles now) drank a small amount from it and lobbed it into the hedgerow...

I hate to think how many plastic bottles were used and how many ended up in the hedgerow and had to be collected by vast numbers of litter pickers who'd also travelled into the centre.

We're an easy target because of the fuel usage but in reality if we had the skills to assess it I'd imagine Motorsport is no worse than many other activities.

...on the subject of Earth Aid - how big do you reckon their carbon footprint is

[Schummy]

In a passing move, ban chess tournaments. They use wooden pieces and boards (save the tree...) or plastics ones (petrol). Moreover, they go to tourneys in cars. Outrageous.

[Biff]

Its great to see all the answers to the original question posed at the start of the thread, and all of them have relevance. The fact is life isn't green, no matter what activity you take up, or look at. Escalators and automatic doors at Marks & Spencer, christmas tree lights, the cement works, the cinema, breathing, etc., etc.. The fact is we've as much right to race our cars as anyone has to do any other activity.

Its time the green lobby were turned on and made to see what a rediculous argument they have. Reducing emissions is no doubt a responsible thing to do, but will not cure the problem which exists.

The only way to do that is via technological development which will produce a reversal of the process which is causing the problem. We need a carbon dioxide to oxygen process, only this will stop the inexorable continuance of the carbon problem. Until it happens though, we'll get more and more 'numpties' jumping on every band wagon going, so keep up the good work with bashing out the reposts.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I'm not sure on this one. Motorsports in general has contributed to the advances in safety and performances. But I don't think motorsport has contributed anything to the fuel economy since the ban on turbos and elimination of Group C.

An F1 car needs to be (relatively) fuel efficient.If you can make your car do one more lap on the same weight of fuel that your competitor has,then you have a significant advantage.Apparently an F1 car is now something like 30% more fuel efficient than they were ten years ago!

[Leighton Irwin]

Most of them are a fan of some sport or another. Over here a stanadard answer is that the jet fuel used to transport the Maple Leafs or Blue Jays to Calif. far exceeds what is used in a race. Shh! Don't mention testing and away races.

[Snrub]

It's entertainment. There are frivolous things in our society that don't need to be eliminated, but can have the environmental impact improved. Having a "football" match at night involves having a bunch of lights, waste for people traveling to the game, food/beverages, etc.

F1 is moving towards having waste energy capture, that would be a good start. Moving towards more energy efficient fuels would make sense too. Using ethanol/methanol like Champ Car/IRL would be an easy move to make. That would actually raise the octane of the fuel used in F1, make smog emissions non-existant and lower the CO2 output. There's no reason why stiffer fuel economy measures cannot be enforced. It wsa once quiet the issue in Champ Car when the mandated the amount of fuel to be used in a race was small and the cars had the ability to significantly alter the fuel used to run the cars.

Why not require the use of cellulous derived ethanol? There is at least one plant design that is about to be constructed. Tie it into the teams so that there is an interest in spending money on developing efficient production methods.

It's odd how the world's two biggest forms of motorsports F1 and Nascar, are the most irrelivant to production vehicles and have no environmental focus. Oh wait, for 2007 Nascar uses unleaded fuel and some of the cars in Somolia use carbs.

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

From time to time, views such as "with fossil fuels in short supply and global warming a big concern, how can cars/bikes going nowhere for 2 hours be justified?". What do people think are the best responses to this?

• The amount of advances in road car safety, performance and (correct me if I'm wrong) fuel economy which have been pioneered in motorsport?
• The fact that several championships are starting to use efficient fuels?
• The fact that Bernie ensures that enough trees are planted to offset the carbon emissions each year?
• Or just the fact that it entertains hundreds of millions of people every year?

I would go with the first, second and last one of your points to counteract his/her concerns about fuel being in short supply. As for global warming, that is irrelevant, as it has very little to do with racing (or human activity, for that matter) at all.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

An F1 car needs to be (relatively) fuel efficient.If you can make your car do one more lap on the same weight of fuel that your competitor has,then you have a significant advantage.Apparently an F1 car is now something like 30% more fuel efficient than they were ten years ago!

True, but an F1 car is now less fuel efficient than they were in the late 1980's.