http://www.hondaracingf1.com/en/
Is an extremely inefficeint, high-performance race car an appropriate place to be promoting “green” technology?
I’m not really sure what to think (other than that the car is pretty damn ugly).
What makes you think it’s inefficient? It’s not going to be very competitive if it is.
I think the point they were making was that they are not concerned with selling the space on the car to anyone with money but concerned with promoting their energy saving ideas, at least that is the way it seems to me. In one of the articles linked from that page, it talks about how Honda is trying to raise awareness about environmental issues. The following is from the arictle (bolding mine):
If 1% of the viewers changed their behavior, it would be the same as three and a half times what the F1 team uses in a year. I think that’s a pretty small percentage that they hope will pay attention to the issues they want to bring up. Also, I think that shows that a small change in a few people would help, and that the team obviously isn’t that inefficient. 45000 tonnes of CO2 divided up by 3.5 is 12857 tonnes, and that was an annual figure. It seems that is not ridiculously inefficient. I could be way off in this information though, I’m sure someone a little more qualified to talk about this will be along shortly to discuss…
Brendon
Why is that? Is there a necessary connection between efficiency (I take it the OP meant this in terms of “gas mileage” so to speak) and the ability to accelerate quickly and maintain high speed?
-FrL-
Better “gas mileage” = less pit stops.
Yes, there is. A whole lot of the techology that makes today’s Honda Accord more efficient was pioneered by people who wanted to go fast. IMHO, racing sparks more innovation in the automobile industry than anything else.
An F1 car is pretty fuel efficient for what it does. You can’t just cavalierly throw out the accusation that the car is “inefficient” without narrowing the scope of what you mean. It’s probable that you’re right, and that what the OP really meant to say was “isn’t it a bit hypocritical to trumpet ‘green’ technology in a race car that generates huge gobs of power, gets dramatically less mileage than a street legal car and has no emissions regulations to worry about?” And then everyone could have pointed out the very things they did.
What are some examples?
VTEC
I-VTEC
Obligitory Wikipedia Link
Honda isn’t exactly alone in this, FIA President Max Mosley (whose organization basically sets the rulebook for F1) has been trumpeting F1’s role in improving the “efficiency” of F1 racecars for awhile now. Check out this press conference transcript from last summer.
Basically F1 engines all get about the same mileage (1 m/gal, probably) despite that they are produced by various independent groups, mostly because of the rulebook concerning how the engines are to be built. Some produce more horsepower than others but generally any team that tries to win on “fuel mileage” vs. sheer engine horsepower is not going to be successful.
The single biggest hypocrisy in F1 regarding concern on wasting fuel is the current qualifying system. The 10 fastest cars must begin a final 15 (or maybe 10) minute qualification period with the amount of fuel that they will start the next day’s race with. Because cars will go the fastest with a nearly empty fuel tank, the first 3/4 of the qualification session the cars simply circulate to burn off the fuel. There are a lot of reasons why they decided on this system but mostly it was to force cars to drive around on track, even if they aren’t really “racing”, to give the fans at the track and those watching on TV a show rather than showing people milling about in the pits. I’m not aware that the qualification process will be changed this season. If they aren’t, Honda surely won’t sit in the pits if when make the final qual session to promote the fact that they aren’t “wasting fuel” and thus handicap their starting grid position.
Anyhow, the FIA has frozen further engine development for the next 3 years (homologation, as Max puts it in the press conference). It is the FIA’s hope that the teams redirect money spent on research relating to squeezing extra horsepower out of the engine to other means of making a car faster, and that this research, in turn, will be more applicable to road cars down the road. Whether or not it turns out that way remains to be seen. Often these rules have unintended bad consequences (e.g., the qualification process wasting fuel).
But nowhere in on that page does it say these technologies were originally developed for racing.
In any case, IMHO, if you were truly concerned about the environment, you wouldn’t promote auto racing at all. Auto racing encourages the idea that driving is a recreational or sporting activity. I think this is a major reason people are buying more and more powerful cars, which is why cars sold today have such poor fuel economy.
I cannot cite formula 1 innovations, but turbocharging, fuel injection, four or more valves per cylinder, variable valve timing such as the VTEC mentioned earler, and lighter construction techniques are all technology that was first applied to racing automobiles before they were introduced to street cars. All of these technologies make cars more efficient.
Audi’s diesel prototype racer won 24 hours of Le Mans largely because it was more powerful and it got better fuel economy. Trust me, fuel efficiency is a concern for many types of racing. In some you get no pit stops, and in others you have a limited amount of fuel, but umlimited pit stops to put it in your vehicle.
Poor fuel economy comes from many things, one factor of which is power. Another, often more important, factor is weight. AC systems add weight and drain power, 5mph bumpers add weight, fancy radios and speakers add weight and drain power, electric windows and locks add weight and drain power, etc., etc., etc. To blame current fuel economy trends on motorsports is an extremely shortsighted analysis.
I’m blaming it on obsession with horsepower, which I blame partly on motorsports.
I drive an '83 Mercedes 240D; it has all the options you listed, and weighs 3300 lb. It still gets 30 mpg city, thanks to the tiny 68-horsepower engine. Is there any 2007 car that is comparable?
seriously?
Chevy Aveo, Nissan Versa, Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, toyota camry hybrid, honda civic hybrid, toyota prius - for starters.
Maybe you should start with diesels? The “D” in 240D stands for Diesel.
why? He mentioned gas mileage. Besides - diesel exhaust is stinky and a carcinogen. And the reason those were a great alternative in the 70s and 80s was a combination of the fact that diesel got engines got great mileage and diesel was usually cheaper than unleaded. Thats not the case anymore.
No, he didn’t. He said he got 30 mpg DIESEL. The 240D uses DIESEL. So what exactly is the point of comparing a small gasoline powered compact car with a large luxury diesel powered car? You should be comparing it with modern diesel cars.
Look at the quote again. He mentioned the model and said it got 30mpg. Sure the model denotes diesel, but he made no extra effort to say good things about his diesel. You want a luxury vehicle? Get a well appointed hybrid camry or accord.
As I pointed out, diesel engines don’t have the same advantages they used to as compared to gasoline engines - the most notable being cost. You can get leather, premium sound, power locks, windows etc etc on most, if not all of the vehicles I listed. Plus, (again, as I’ve already stated) if we’re looking out for the environment here, spewing carcinogenic exhaust into the air isn’t really a big help.
Let me add that because the cost of diesel is closer to the cost of gasoline in europe, you’re more likely to find diesel models there, from bmw, mercedes and the usual suspects. Infact, here’s some info on a bimmer. It gets considerably better mileage, and is substantially more powerful than his old mercedes.