[DOF_power]

The European Parliament has asked formula one to “change their rules” in favour of more environmentally friendly technology. While the FIA has already paved the way for things like electronic energy recovery systems, smaller engines and bio-fuels, a statement on behalf of EU politicians said motor sport can play a bigger role in “changing attitudes and customer behaviour towards environmentally friendly technology”.

The statement was part of a European Parliament report (CARS 21) that was adopted with 607 votes in favour, 76 against and 14 abstentions.

“The House therefore asks the FIA and others involved in Formula 1 to change their rules accordingly, so that environmentally friendly technologies like bio-fuels, four-cylinder engines or hybrid can be more easily applied,” it read.


Source: Motor Authority >> EU proposes four-cylinder engines for F1

[DOF_power]

Mosley welcomes EU recognition for FIA

Monday, 01, January, 0001, 00:00 FIA president Max Mosley has welcomed a statement from the European Parliament recognising the contribution of motorsport’s governing body to developing environmentally friendly technology in road cars.
Reacting to a report by the ‘CARS 21’ policy group – of which Mosley was a member – the EP praised the FIA for its leadership role in encouraging the development of innovative energy-efficient technology aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.
It acknowledged the role motorsport can potentially play in shaping consumer attitudes and called on the governing body to step up its efforts to promote research into road-relevant technologies.
Mosley, who has energetically committed F1 to the green cause, was delighted with the recognition given to the FIA’s efforts.
In a statement released on Wednesday, he said: “It is immensely satisfying that the European Parliament recognises motorsport’s role in developing environmentally-friendly technologies and supports the work undertaken by the FIA in its campaign to make motoring more sustainable in the future.
“With the support of the motor manufacturers competing in Formula 1 and with the engineering expertise unique to the sport, the new technical regulations will accelerate the introduction of energy-efficient technologies into the domestic car market.”
To further its environmental objectives the FIA says it will work with its member clubs to take forward recommendations from its Make Cars Green Declaration at campaign events throughout this year.
These recommendations include calls for governments to introduce tax incentives for both motor manufacturers and consumers to introduce modern, fuel-efficient technologies, and for the first worldwide target on CO2 emissions as part of an international framework for greener motoring.
Click here to read the full European Parliament report

[simple simon]

at top speeds they already wind the hell out of these engines ..... wont it be even worse with 4 cylinder engines ?

just seems to me it will lead to more engine failures ....... 4 cylinders are not meant to go 200 mph

[DOF_power]

They mean turbo 4 pots.
Many engines in Europe are 3/4 pot common-rail injection turbo diesels.

[Bob Tanner]

Mosley welcoming the EEU into becoming involved in F1, no matter how oblique, is a classical case of "The camel getting its nose under the tent."

Think about it. It's bad enough when you have self-serving individuals running an organization. But when you have an omnipotent, self serving, and multicultural entity getting involved... The psychology of power dictates that there will be no such thing as becoming "slightly involved," and "the recognition" Mosley relates to is, make no mistake about it, "involvement." When this "involvement " includes the environmental fascists like the Make Cars Green Group...

I predict that in the final analysis this will be a sad day for the world's most popular form of auto racing. I can hardly wait for the day we all thrill to the sound of a mighty "wrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr" and the electric racer hums down the track.

[DOF_power]

Some personal toughts ...

Why can Audi use a diesel 5.5 litre twin-turbo V12 with "650 hp" (700 to 750 really) and but F1 now need to reduce its cylinders (witch are 4 less then Audis and 2 less then in 2005) ?!

Why can DTM run 4.0 litre V8s ?!
What about FIA drag racing ?!

--------------------------------



I could definately live with some 3.5 litre magnetic valve system 25 000 rpm+ diessotto turbo-supercharged-injected V10s, "detuned" to just 1000 hp (from over 4200 hp peak potential) for "enviromental" CO2/NOx/fuel efficiency reasons. (Heck they could add bio-fuel.)

Also, drag and weight reduce efficiency and increase polution, therefor "enviromental" solutions:
- bring back active suspensions
- bring back ground effect clean aero
- bring back movable wings

[DOF_power]

The fact is, cars are about 20% of the polution worldwide and 11% in Europe.

Almost or perhaps nobody really made such big strides to clean up their act and air then the (western) automotive companies (calalytic converters, direct injection, new advanced transmissions, the fancy new turbos, the new cleaner AdBlue diesels, heck even TSI).

How about those EU politicians go to Russia or China or India and see some enviromental disasters there; or in Brazil where amazon forest is constantly and consistently choped.
Have they visited to see how the russians "kick started" their petrol economy (with mafia help) and destroyed lakes and poisoned rivers (they had to increase the petrol flow/pipe-distribution because 50% was wasted/leaked into the great russian rivers (with flow go into the north pole calot)). Now there's a trully horrible site and they (the EU politicians) have done nothing but buy that precious russian oil and enrich some shaddy characters in the process.

So how about they also concentrate on the rest of 80% / 89% ?!

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

The fact is, cars are about 20% of the polution worldwide and 11% in Europe.

Almost or perhaps nobody really made such big strides to clean up their act and air then the (western) automotive companies (calalytic converters, direct injection, new advanced transmissions, the fancy new turbos, the new cleaner AdBlue diesels, heck even TSI).

How about those EU politicians go to Russia or China or India and see some enviromental disasters there; or in Brazil where amazon forest is constantly and consistently choped.
Have they visited to see how the russians "kick started" their petrol economy (with mafia help) and destroyed lakes and poisoned rivers (they had to increase the petrol flow/pipe-distribution because 50% was wasted/leaked into the great russian rivers (with flow go into the north pole calot)). Now there's a trully horrible site and they (the EU politicians) have done nothing but buy that precious russian oil and enrich some shaddy characters in the process.

So how about they also concentrate on the rest of 80% / 89% ?!

Whew!

Somehow I knew this would get a rise from you. For a second there, in the first paragraph I thought we might have "crossed swords." Then, in reading further, I see you and I basically see things from a similar perspective.

It seems that using the power of legislation to get rich off the backs of the ambitious while staying in power and protecting this wealth by granting largess to the less ambitious isn't just an American phenomenon. One of my favourite social commentators, Alexis d'Tocqueville (he waas off in some of his views but his analysis of government was right on) saw this coming in 1835. I'm sure he'd share our feeling IRT F1 and the EEU.

Seeing the FIA welcome the EEU potential oversight sends chills up by back.

[Racer Duck]

I'm afraid I fail to see how 4 cylinder engines will promote "green". no matter what size engine (cc-wise) you're talking about, the fact still remains, there's a firing pulse in the 4 cycle engine once every 90 degrees of crank revolution. 2 cycle engines reduce the time between firing pulses by having one every crank revolution for every cylinder unlike the one every other revolution for 4 cycle engines. but 2 cycle engines are not as eco-friendly as 4 cycle engines. now, when you add cylinders you reduce the distance between firing pulses (the 8 cylinder engine, for instance has firing pulses every 45 degrees of crankshaft rotation .. adding 4 more cylinders shortens the time between pulses even more.)

the point is, by forcing a move to 4 cylinder racing engines, they have introduced waste into the system: by having more firing pulses per crankshaft revolution, there's more energy available to drive the car since less is used to cause engine rotation. additionally, because power pulses are closer together there is less shock to the drive line which means there are less shock induced parts failures (so there's fewer parts required to be produced which saves more energy.)

sadly, another ill-thought out government brain-fart disguised as goodness.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

sadly, another ill-thought out government brain-fart disguised as goodness.

"... disguised as goodness...?" You, my Feathered Racer friend, are a much more kind and forgiving person than I. The most positive side I see in this is just plain idiocy. What I see, mostly, is intrusion into affairs which do not, except in the most obtuse way, concern any governmental legislative body.

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

I'm afraid I fail to see how 4 cylinder engines will promote "green". no matter what size engine (cc-wise) you're talking about, the fact still remains, there's a firing pulse in the 4 cycle engine once every 90 degrees of crank revolution. 2 cycle engines reduce the time between firing pulses by having one every crank revolution for every cylinder unlike the one every other revolution for 4 cycle engines. but 2 cycle engines are not as eco-friendly as 4 cycle engines. now, when you add cylinders you reduce the distance between firing pulses (the 8 cylinder engine, for instance has firing pulses every 45 degrees of crankshaft rotation .. adding 4 more cylinders shortens the time between pulses even more.)

the point is, by forcing a move to 4 cylinder racing engines, they have introduced waste into the system: by having more firing pulses per crankshaft revolution, there's more energy available to drive the car since less is used to cause engine rotation. additionally, because power pulses are closer together there is less shock to the drive line which means there are less shock induced parts failures (so there's fewer parts required to be produced which saves more energy.)

While that is true, there are other things to consider
- more cylinders also mean more friction and more power loss equaling more waste (that's one of the reasons even Ferrari dumped the V12s in 96).
- packaging
- overall "grunt"/curve delivery (low end, mid end, high end)
- non engine related factors like weight/mass and drag

The current V8s are about 20% more efficient than any euro turbo 3 or 4 pot around. With the V10 layout and some of those banned things (turbos and/or superchargers; Variable Intake + VVT + Variable Exhaust, materials, magnetic valves) they'd be untouchable without any need to chop off cylinders.

sadly, another ill-thought out government brain-fart disguised as goodness.

True.
They're another bunch of <insert nasy words here> next to the likes of Balestre (former FIA president) and Mosley (current FIA president).
Sometimes I think men like Vittorio Jano, Ferdinand Porsche, Enzo Ferrari and Colin Chapman are lucky to no longer be alive.

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Whew!

Somehow I knew this would get a rise from you. For a second there, in the first paragraph I thought we might have "crossed swords." Then, in reading further, I see you and I basically see things from a similar perspective.

It seems that using the power of legislation to get rich off the backs of the ambitious while staying in power and protecting this wealth by granting largess to the less ambitious isn't just an American phenomenon. One of my favourite social commentators, Alexis d'Tocqueville (he waas off in some of his views but his analysis of government was right on) saw this coming in 1835. I'm sure he'd share our feeling IRT F1 and the EEU.

Seeing the FIA welcome the EEU potential oversight sends chills up by back.

I personaly think they've picked on the auto industry (with some quite unrealistic targets for some) and GP racing because of its greater visibility. There are all sort of problems out there and how can best describe what they're doing ?!
Well here goes, when the house is on fire they're complaing about a bread crumb on the floor.
Oh, and those guys are driving 6.0 litre W12 Phaetons.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

Oh, and those guys are driving 6.0 litre W12 Phaetons.

Of course. The last career I retired from was that of substance abuse therapist (low-buck psychologist). Anyway it was my experience that, in group, an addict could tell everyone else in group what their problem was but would not address their own problems.

Government weenies are much like drunks and addicts; they can tell everyone else how to run their lives but figure the rules they set for everyone else are beneath them.

Just another reason why I feel a compulsion for political office or appointment is actually a personality disorder.