Hopes, expectations and excitement for 2024

[FIRE]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Maybe Yuki just sneaks in the odd punch then darts away to join those yelling?

Yes!

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

If petrol vehicles are on their last legs then you dont realise just how much of the talk is completely verbose.

For a start, fossil fuels do a lot more than power vehicles.
The notion that you can do without the offshoots of petro-chemicals is just one example.
Do completely do without items of plastic, medicines and pharmaceuticals, plus a plethora of consumer items such as clothing, carpets and othr flooring etc defies belief.

Secondly, it is a nonsense to assume that the world can sustain its enrgies needs from renewables in the environment per se.
If the reasoning to depart from oil as a major fossil fuel and turn to electricity gemerated from weather elements such as wind and solar power, and the rationale is to save the environment including potential weather and climate transformation then they are putting their hopes in the wrong basket.

In view of the predictions of catastrophic climate change, why are we spending so much on sourcing so much of our needs from electricity generated by using elements of the climate like wind and sunlight when they may not be available much longer?

The argument is not about climate change at all. It is about money.
Climate cycles do alter and the surface of the sun has an enormous effect on what happens here on earth where the oceans play and enormous part in regulating seasonal cycles and movements. Far more than pollution does.

Even the measurement of pollution is a scam.
It is usually quoted in tems of the amount of pollution per capita, which is a complete nonsense.
A small nation, sparsely populated over a relatively medium sized area is generating relatively high amounts of pollution per capita, because of the distances involved in travel and commercial distribution, but the capita amount may be relatively high. But the amount per square 100 kms is quite low.

On the other hand, industrial cities generate enormous amounts of industrial pollution with large populations, like Shenzen in China, or Los Angeles.

China produced 26 percent of global GHG emissions, nearly twice as much as the next- highest producer, the United States. New Zealand contributed 0.17 percent. The top 12 emitting countries produced nearly double the amount of GHGs produced by all other countries.

So the per capita amount is a meaningless amount.
If you believe all the rhetoric, everything you are told, and don't analyze what's really going on, you, miss a lot.

Just like when following F1....

ALL of that times 1000. The idea of the END of anything is foolish bordering on ill-informed agenda politics. The removal of all petro based products is a flat non-starter. It just 100% is and any statements to the contrary show a level of delusion that ends conversation.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

The idea of the END of anything is foolish bordering on ill-informed agenda politics

I don't want to pour sustainable fuel on this, but that's flat-out wrong.

Tetra-ethyl lead in petrol
Radium and strontium whitening toothpastes
Atmospheric and sub-sea nuclear testing
Allowing coal-fired power stations to pour sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere
Unfettered use of DDT
Thalidomide

I could go on, and there are literally millions more examples, but over the time since the industrial revolution there have been many things that were accepted as the norm that subsequently were proved to be damaging to the environment and/or directly to humans and therefore ENDed (your emphasis).

As others have noted, we all have to park our prejudice and preconceptions before looking at the world we live in, and that's hard. Especially when we've been soaked in them for decades and anything that challenges them *in any way* is hard to accept. I don't care which way anybody leans - to say that there's an agenda challenging your world view is only demonstrating that you also have one, and god forbid anybody should see things differently!

This is a motorport forum. We may well be the last generation(s) who get to enjoy hydrocarbon-fuelled noisy monsters sliding round corners, so, y'know, can we agree to enjoy it?

[flatlandsman]

You enjoy it if you like, but as this is a forum those of that did and now dont will always ask the question!!

[Greem]

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

You enjoy it if you like, but as this is a forum those of that did and now dont will always ask the question!!

As the thread has moved into motorsport as a whole, that's what I was talking about. I believe there are certain aspects of motorsport that you like, right? You have after all made that abundantly clear.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Richard C

My quick comments is that the topic is complex. I think both sides of the argument are either pumping up the fear and also downplaying clear and overwhelming evidence. Moore might have started in place that should provide appropriate bonafides, but is clearly in another place today and is discounting the evidence that does exists to make his case. You mention that "Truth may be uncomfortable", but problem is... is he really peddling the truth or just a position that really doesn't have much support?


My opinion is that someone (maybe you) can create a thread to continue the discussion elsewhere vs this thread derailing this one into an off topic area.

I ignored this topic when it showed up in the thread just so as to avoid this derailment. But maybe it needs to be derailed so the content can be moved elsewhere.

Richard

I raised the question in reply to a suggestion that ICE's days were numbered.
Politically they may be but not because of climate change, although the rhetoric is a useful tool for those with the money.

I'm not interested in starting a discussion on climate change on ten tenths.
However, the implication of the current narrative is being used ti change and challenge a lot of things regarding motorsport so in that sense it is very relevant and if you attended the WEF meeting in Davos you would meet a lot of people who would shut all motorsport down on environmental grounds.

And they have the money....
So, it is a meaningful topic for F1 enthusiasts.

However the broad general statements about climate change, the future of environmental changes and the science data on what is actually happening, contradict many of the generally held statements,
they are not being heard widely because the general narrative supports a political purpose the is supported by the WEF, the UN and some political and financial allies.
That is why the present Davos meeting is themed on rebuilding trust.

They got so much push back around the planet they are having a discussion on public relations,
As I have already noted. It is about money and power, political and economic power.

But this is not the place to discuss that.

[Born Racer]

No, this is: https://tentenths.com/forum/showthre...63#post4192963

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Near zero? Making them 1000hp Formula Fords? I don't there is an appetite for that, 1.5G instead of 5G cornering and +20s/lap is a big step change and "looks" quite slow.

Simulation of Formula One car with no downforce by Willem Toet, Sauber aerodynamicist:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/formu...s-willem-toet/

Formula Ford racing is far more entertaining than F1. 1000hp Formula Fords would be even better! But realistically teams would not bother with that much power and would concentrate on drivability and economy (to save fuel weight).

Everyone would soon become accustomed to slower racing. The biggest obstacle would be introducing the same sort of restrictions to all other categories, otherwise F2, Indycar and other classes would be faster and F1 would cease to be "the pinnacle".

But like I said before, it's just a pipe dream of mine because I know it will never happen.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

That could be quite easily achieved by reverting to more historical type brakes, not the exotic stuff that they currently use.

The impact of carbon/carbon brakes on braking distances is minimal. If brakes are capable of generating enough force to lock the wheels, then braking is limited by tyre grip. Exotic brake materials may give more consistent behaviour and cope better with high temperatures but they don't change the laws of physics at the tyre contact patch.

[broadrun96]

It's not the singular braking event but the use across ALL the braking events. That literally DOES change the braking distance because you cannot use the full force of them each time out. If you stopped being minutiae pedantic and looked at WHY they are used you would see that what he said was exactly on point

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

It's not the singular braking event but the use across ALL the braking events. That literally DOES change the braking distance because you cannot use the full force of them each time out. If you stopped being minutiae pedantic and looked at WHY they are used you would see that what he said was exactly on point

Minutiae pedantic!

I think we are saying the same thing in different words, but we are arriving at a different conclusion. Cast iron discs and old-fashioned pad materials will suffer fade much earlier if they are of roughly the same design. If they were mandated, that would force F1 designers to go to bigger discs (much easier now we have 18" wheels), possibly twin callipers, bigger air scoops, etc. Maybe someone would even try a multi-disc arrangement. All these things would add weight and interfere with aerodynamic efficiency but they wouldn't massively increase braking distances.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

Minutiae pedantic!

I think we are saying the same thing in different words, but we are arriving at a different conclusion. Cast iron discs and old-fashioned pad materials will suffer fade much earlier if they are of roughly the same design. If they were mandated, that would force F1 designers to go to bigger discs (much easier now we have 18" wheels), possibly twin callipers, bigger air scoops, etc. Maybe someone would even try a multi-disc arrangement. All these things would add weight and interfere with aerodynamic efficiency but they wouldn't massively increase braking distances.

And all of that could be stopped by regulation. It's quite simple, if the will is there.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

That could be quite easily achieved by reverting to more historical type brakes, not the exotic stuff that they currently use.

Zanardi used steel brakes in '99, it made very little difference to performance. The main advantage of carbon ceramics (and why Indycar uses them now) is that they last longer and therefore this reduces costs.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

Formula Ford racing is far more entertaining than F1. 1000hp Formula Fords would be even better! But realistically teams would not bother with that much power and would concentrate on drivability and economy (to save fuel weight).

Everyone would soon become accustomed to slower racing. The biggest obstacle would be introducing the same sort of restrictions to all other categories, otherwise F2, Indycar and other classes would be faster and F1 would cease to be "the pinnacle".

But like I said before, it's just a pipe dream of mine because I know it will never happen.

Yes, I don't feel the need for F1 to be so fast. After all MotoGP lap times don't hold a candle to F1, yet the spectacle in that is better, as they look to be more on edge. To be fair the recent rule changes have been in a step in the right direction for F1, although there is still room for improvement. Like getting rid of DRS for one

[flatlandsman]

MotoGP racing has suffered a lot in recent times due to aero, obsession with tyres (like F1) and poor tracks.

The racing is still good at times.

The will needs to be there for F1 to improve and right now only need is money and expansion, that is All everyone involved cares about, that is why the show is so poor, because people are coming, watching without the show being there.

F1 has now turned in some ways into a sort of festival, music, loads of other stuff so in terms of spectacle the kings dont care, people are coming regardless.

[MaxLL]

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

MotoGP racing has suffered a lot in recent times due to aero, obsession with tyres (like F1) and poor tracks.

The racing is still good at times.

The will needs to be there for F1 to improve and right now only need is money and expansion, that is All everyone involved cares about, that is why the show is so poor, because people are coming, watching without the show being there.

F1 has now turned in some ways into a sort of festival, music, loads of other stuff so in terms of spectacle the kings dont care, people are coming regardless.

What do you mean by show? Dancing racers or spectacular crashes?

[flatlandsman]

I mean passing and repassing, it used to happen a little more, the 800 era was very poor, hence the return to more powerful bikes, it has now gone too far so they are gong to trim them back again, so we will get even more corner speed and now more aero focused on side grip and corner speed rather than now wheely and tyre management.

I am alone in wanting a tyre war, in all sorts of formula F1 included, it makes it more interesting and could easily be properly policed, it also adds in the unpredictability factor which is exactly why it will never happen.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

I am alone in wanting a tyre war, in all sorts of formula F1 included, it makes it more interesting and could easily be properly policed, it also adds in the unpredictability factor which is exactly why it will never happen.

They absolutely want the unpredictability. They don't want the cost and potential for unrestricted dominance from one supplier over the other. How would it be policed easily?

Richard

[bathurst77]

Those posts comparing the drivers to a school yard fight might be onto something?

WHat about full contact f1 with none of these silly 5/10sec/3gridspot/drive thru penalties. No 1000 replays and stewards etc.
Hear me out!

If say Max and Lewis have a coming together and one loses out. Instead of a penalty. Theres a red flag and the two (or more) drivers involved are given 3 minutes to sort it in a boxing ring in front of the grandstand. They punch on to decide who was in the wrong. This gives pit crews time to get the cars back to racing trim and everyone resumes in the position just before the crash. plus whoever won in the ring.

Imagine, if instead of all the recrimination at the end of max's first wdc title, Lewis and Ma had of had a right punch on during the race coverage, before the podium. Then come out and said.... we sorted it out and both agree the champion this year, by a right hook, is.....
(would of still been max)

"Formula Fight 1"

ok time for me to put the bottle away and go to bed.