Moving the WRC into the Green age?

[cosmicpanda]

What will be the best way for the WRC to make itself more environmentally friendly? This is necessary as no manufacturer will want to associate itself with a polluting sport. It would also be a good arena for them to test advanced green ways of running cars.

I think the proposed move to biofuel is a reasonable short-term solution, but no more than that, since the ultimate goal must be to make the sport emission-free. Other ways that emissions can be reduced are to reduce the weight of the cars, and although I'm not sure about this, I would guess that smaller engines without restricters would be cleaner than large engines with restricters. I'd imagine also that the ECUs can be developed to more efficiently use fuel.

But what would the rallies be like if, for example, the cars were electric? Won't happen for a long time yet but it'd take at least some of the spectacle of the cars away (the sound).

[N.O.T]

solar cars and pedal moving cars .....

Its moroninc to try and find green solution for motorsports while the 99.99999% of pollution comes from industries and from everyday cars....find a solution for them first then think about motorsport.

[BDunnell]

Biofuels are no panacea. In fact, some experts, including Greenpeace's chief scientist, are unconvinced as to their true environmental benefits.

[turves]

Here you go.
Cars powered by sugar... SWEET!

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91221-1312430,00.html

[Fischer]

The only reason to run a car on biofuels is to save money, not to save the environment. Besides, biofuels are causing food shortages because more and more agricultural land is used to produce biofuels instead of food.

[HaCo]

I recently discovered the "KERS" hybrid system that would be implemented in F1 cars. This could be interesting for rallycars as well as they brake a lot... but I don't know if it would work on those type cars.

Also lighter, aerodynamic cars, making use of turbo is IMO the way to go. I can hardly imagine that S2000 cars are more efficient with their fuel than WRC, but I have no real idea.

Why not add an extra penalty system for use of fuel, let's say every loop has to be done with 50l of fuel, if you consume more you get penalty's.

I think there are a lot of area's where motorsport can become greener and it's the perfect experimentation platform, so why aren't we allready doing these sorts of things?

[JAM]

As true members already wrote, biofuels are not green.

I don't imagine a rally car by solar energy, so, green motorsport is not for the next years.

[AndyRAC]

I can’t believe there isn’t a Diesel class; Le Mans has been won with the Audi Diesel, Peugeot have won the Spanish round of the Le Mans series recently, Seat Leon TDI’s cleaned up in the WTCC races. Am I missing something? Surely there is a Manufacturer with the brains to come in an develop one.

[cosmicpanda]

solar cars and pedal moving cars .....

Its moroninc to try and find green solution for motorsports while the 99.99999% of pollution comes from industries and from everyday cars....find a solution for them first then think about motorsport.

But motorsports have a much higher profile than everyday cars.

Also, it gives car makers a chance to come up with green technology that they might not want to put straight onto the road. Motorsport history is full of similar examples. Why should green technology be any different just because it is green?



I recently discovered the "KERS" hybrid system that would be implemented in F1 cars. This could be interesting for rallycars as well as they brake a lot... but I don't know if it would work on those type cars.

Also lighter, aerodynamic cars, making use of turbo is IMO the way to go. I can hardly imagine that S2000 cars are more efficient with their fuel than WRC, but I have no real idea.

KERS would be a good idea, actually, as would encouraging aerodynamic efficiency. The cars might start to look a bit different from road cars though...

[jonkka]

Who says electric car can't be fast?

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php

[Mirek]

I can’t believe there isn’t a Diesel class; Le Mans has been won with the Audi Diesel, Peugeot have won the Spanish round of the Le Mans series recently, Seat Leon TDI’s cleaned up in the WTCC races. Am I missing something? Surely there is a Manufacturer with the brains to come in an develop one.

It is easy to win when You have special rulles to be able of winning (5.5 V12 biturbo diesels in the class with 6.0 N/A or 3,5 litre turbo petrol engines). In Le Mans they have the engines close to the center of gravity so the more mass of any diesel engine (much bigger pressures etc.) is not that limitating as in front engine vehicle.

And the other fact is that diesels are not clean! In road cars they have much worse emissions than petrol cars. Yes, petrol car without 3-way catalic converter is worse but the converter works well. After 20-30 seconds when it gets the temperature it removes most of the pollution. Opposite to that there is nothing similar and working for diesels. The worst emissions are NOx, CO, SOx, HC and carbon particulates. CO2 is a product of ideal burning. It is not toxic but it is greenhouse gas. Simply it's production deppends on fuel consumpion and any burning is impossible without it. And the problem for diesel is a question of NOx or carbon particulates. When You optimalize the engine for making less NOx, You make more carbon particulates and vice versa. One way is to minimalize NOx and produce a lot of carbon particulates which are cought in filter. But the filter needs regeneration from time to time and it needs something like a higway run (several minutes on ca 100 Km/h). When You need it in a city, especialy in a traffic jam it doesn't work. And of course the filter makes the fuel consumption a bit worse. The other thing is that the filters can't remove the smallest and the most dangerous particals which carry non-burnt hydrocarbons. Those are often cancerogenic. And the better the burning is the smaller the particals. Second way is to minimalize particals and remove NOx by using SCR which is injection of AD Blue (basicly carbamide). But it is possible for trucks because You need a tank for it. It is very complicated but in terms of emission only CO2 is worse in a petrol car. And basicly it is not possible to run all vehicles only on diesel or all on petrol because those fuels are made from different oil fractions and making one from another needs another energy.

[JAM]

As true members already wrote, biofuels are not green.

I don't imagine a rally car by solar energy, so, green motorsport is not for the next years.

By mistake i wrote "true" instead of "others"....

[Mickey T]

strangely, i have thought about this a fair bit and the biggest green leap they could make for the WRC is not an easy one to imagine.

A WRC car will use around 40 litres/100km of competitive driving and far less (different mapping) on transports.

The actual CO2 and other damaging emissions are very low, especially if you consider that these cars will actually drive (assuming one shell does a full season, while a different shell takes care of testing) only around 15,000-20,000km a year.

less than a quarter of those would be at 40 litres/100km for special stage operation. so, between around 15 for normal consumption and 40 for special stages, they'll be averaging around 21. PWRC cars use slightly less, S2000 less again and front drivers barely register.

So there are, what, 20 regulars doing the full WRC? that's 80,000 litres a year (at the WRC Car rate) and doing anything to change the way those cars are powered would be an expensive publicity stunt that would effectively move an average 20 apartment condo block from cars to bicycles, buses and trains.

The WRC is carbon offset, which disturbs me anyway, given there is only so much arable land in the world to grow carbon offset trees, so much water, so many crops already going to ethanol and away from food, so much corruption in carbon offset-land, so many old growth forests destroyed to make room for carbon offset forests... it's dodgy. in both theory and practice, it's dodgy.

the trouble is that trees only soak up carbon when they are growing. when they're mature, they no longer have a net carbon benefit. if they're burnt, all the carbon is re-released. if the seedlings replace mature trees, there's no benefit whatsoever unless the trees are used in furniture or the like. So scrub carbon offsetting.

The only way you will make genuine cuts to the emissions of the WRC will be to make rule changes to make WRC cars much, much cheaper, employ more people, build MORE rally cars and make streamlined scheduling changes.

Why? because that way you could send the cars and a significant slice of the team by ship to cross-ocean rallies, then send them overland to the mated rally. Australia, Japan and NZ together, mexico and argentina together etc.

The biggest Greenhouse gas issue for the WRC is its air miles. A WRC car will be responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions flying to Mexico than it will emit in anger for the entire season.

if a London-New York-London flight emits 1.2 tonnes of carbon per passenger, than a 1.3 tonne rally car will be responsible for around 15 tonnes of carbon in-transit for the same journey. Then there's the weight of parts, and 20-30 team members.

Add to this the fact that the intergovernmental panel on climate change estimates that other gases emitted by passenger jets mean they have a greenhouse warming effect 2.7 times higher than their carbon emissions alone.

put whatever fuel you like in a WRC car because as soon as you get a full WRC team, its cars and all its spares in a plane, you've just blown any benefits to smithereens.

there's a massive difference between doing something beneficial and being seen to be doing something.

[Fischer]

The problem is that 'big' countries like the US, China, Russia and India are producing astronomic amounts of CO2 and these countries don't seem to give a damn about the environment. You can turn every branch of motorsport green but as long as the big players keep looking the other way all the effort is in vain.
Sad, because apparently the ignorant and greedy have the upper hand in deciding on the future of this planet.

[Mirek]

Mickey T: WRC fuel consumpion on stages is more than 100l/km ;) For example one Impreza N12 in last rally Bohemia had 38,5 //km including road sections. They said Octavia WRC had a stage consumption about 110l/km.

Very big polution is caused also by the airplanes. Jet engines are very bad in emission and they also produce a lot of non-burned fuel into the air. In a country like ours where the air traffic is one of the biggest worldwide it is a real problem...

[Lousada]

Solution: Every rallyfan holds their breath when a car passes.

[HaCo]

No more farting on the stages...

[Zico]

Joking apart, according to scientists methane is actually 22 times more contributive to the greenhouse effect than co2.

According to sources (which I find extremely hard to believe) one single cow can produce as much as 400 litres of methane (by farting) every day. This is said to contribute to between 5-15% (country dependant) of greenhouse gasses released every year.

I have no doubts that electric cars will be very quick as lithium-ion battery technology progresses even further to nano technology, wise positioning of the batteries will also allow for excellent weight distribution. Noise?.. just fit a big amp and speakers on the roof and pick your soundtrack, F1 shreik, flat 4 burble or whatever... :D

But.. I think they actually do something about it now if its really so damaging, they should be concentrating on reducing livestock methane production, scientists have come up with ways and means of doing this for as little as 50p per cow per day using some simple food additives that include a blend of nitrates and the amino acid cysteine which greatly suppress the methane production in a cow's stomach, making their emissions much more earth-friendly. Why dont they do it?..

Kangaroos produce zero methane.. australian scientists are trying to find a way to transfer the bacteria from kangaroos stomachs/guts to cows.

Can anyone give me figures on how road vehicles Co2 production compares to the damage caused by methane from livestock?

[HaCo]

No more cows on the stages; I bet tommi makinnen would be very happy :D :D :D

[Mickey T]

]Mickey T: WRC fuel consumpion on stages is more than 100l/km ;) For example one Impreza N12 in last rally Bohemia had 38,5 //km including road sections. They said Octavia WRC had a stage consumption about 110l/km.

Very big polution is caused also by the airplanes. Jet engines are very bad in emission and they also produce a lot of non-burned fuel into the air. In a country like ours where the air traffic is one of the biggest worldwide it is a real problem...

I might not have the exact number for a WRC car (skewiffed it from Chris). The SWRT boys are checking my estimate, but it's around 4km per litre on transports and closer to one for special stages.

if it was 100 litres per km, the car would need a 4000 litre fuel tank to finish the longest stage in the WRC and it would be nicely ballasted up to meet the minimum weight limit...

regardless, the fact remains that the biggest and most immediate cut the WRC could make for its greenhouse gas emissions would be to stop teams flying the cars to Mexico, Argentina, Australia (if it ever has another rally), New Zealand, Japan etc. And limiting the number of team members they could fly to events.

Still, with a lot more fly-away events (Canada, China, Bahrain, Australia, Brazil, Malaysia etc) and more team members, F1 is a lot worse...

as for the cows, the best estimates are that if US consumers reduced their meat intake 20 percent, it would be the emissions equivalent of switching from a six-cylinder Camry (insert 407, C-Class, 3-, 5-series, A4, A6, Mondeo etc as you prefer) to a Prius. (the assumption is you're counting only the Prius's on-road emissions, not its manufacturing emissions...)

it's not just emissions, either. it's water and it's energy.

the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimates that 1kg of beef is has soaked up enough energy to power a 100W light bulb for around 20 days. there are a lot of 1kg units inside a head of cattle, much less a herd...

[Mirek]

Of course, it was my funny fault. It should be 110l/100 km etc. ;) :D

The WWII Königstiger tank had about 10l/km :D

[cosmicpanda]

]CO2 is a product of ideal burning. It is not toxic...

What?

I think the ultimate goal would not be to get all the cars making zero emissions but still running on fuel, since fuel is still a non-sustainable source of energy (unless you use biofuel, which has its own problems, as pointed out).



the trouble is that trees only soak up carbon when they are growing. when they're mature, they no longer have a net carbon benefit. if they're burnt, all the carbon is re-released. if the seedlings replace mature trees, there's no benefit whatsoever unless the trees are used in furniture or the like. So scrub carbon offsetting.

...

The biggest Greenhouse gas issue for the WRC is its air miles. A WRC car will be responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions flying to Mexico than it will emit in anger for the entire season.

Air miles are a very good point, thank you for bringing them up.

However, I dispute your notion that trees are only useful when they are young; why, in that case, do we protest chopping down the Amazon for farm land? Surely, being an old forest, it has many old trees in it. What happened to the wonders of photosynthesis, whereby a tree converts carbon dioxide into oxygen? Surely that doesn't suddenly cease when a tree is mature, and it seems to be an ideal process for fighting global warming.

[ShiftingGears]

the trouble is that trees only soak up carbon when they are growing. when they're mature, they no longer have a net carbon benefit.

In that case, can I assume that you only breathe until you're an adult? ;)

[Mickey T]

if you did some research on the things you think sound wrong, you might seem less uninformed.

sure, the amazon is an important eco system and plays a big part in maintaining the air we breathe (though nothing like as much as sea-borne algae).

and, of course, mature trees continue to photosynthesize. but they are no longer soaking up our excess carbon. they are just in balance.

young trees can, in theory, carbon offset, because they take carbon out of the atmosphere and use it to grow. i said net carbon benefit. mature trees have stopped doing this.

do some research before you naysay those who already have.

[Daniel]

As true members already wrote, biofuels are not green.

I don't imagine a rally car by solar energy, so, green motorsport is not for the next years.

Agreed.


strangely, i have thought about this a fair bit and the biggest green leap they could make for the WRC is not an easy one to imagine.

A WRC car will use around 40 litres/100km of competitive driving and far less (different mapping) on transports.

The actual CO2 and other damaging emissions are very low, especially if you consider that these cars will actually drive (assuming one shell does a full season, while a different shell takes care of testing) only around 15,000-20,000km a year.

less than a quarter of those would be at 40 litres/100km for special stage operation. so, between around 15 for normal consumption and 40 for special stages, they'll be averaging around 21. PWRC cars use slightly less, S2000 less again and front drivers barely register.

So there are, what, 20 regulars doing the full WRC? that's 80,000 litres a year (at the WRC Car rate) and doing anything to change the way those cars are powered would be an expensive publicity stunt that would effectively move an average 20 apartment condo block from cars to bicycles, buses and trains.

The WRC is carbon offset, which disturbs me anyway, given there is only so much arable land in the world to grow carbon offset trees, so much water, so many crops already going to ethanol and away from food, so much corruption in carbon offset-land, so many old growth forests destroyed to make room for carbon offset forests... it's dodgy. in both theory and practice, it's dodgy.

the trouble is that trees only soak up carbon when they are growing. when they're mature, they no longer have a net carbon benefit. if they're burnt, all the carbon is re-released. if the seedlings replace mature trees, there's no benefit whatsoever unless the trees are used in furniture or the like. So scrub carbon offsetting.

The only way you will make genuine cuts to the emissions of the WRC will be to make rule changes to make WRC cars much, much cheaper, employ more people, build MORE rally cars and make streamlined scheduling changes.

Why? because that way you could send the cars and a significant slice of the team by ship to cross-ocean rallies, then send them overland to the mated rally. Australia, Japan and NZ together, mexico and argentina together etc.

The biggest Greenhouse gas issue for the WRC is its air miles. A WRC car will be responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions flying to Mexico than it will emit in anger for the entire season.

if a London-New York-London flight emits 1.2 tonnes of carbon per passenger, than a 1.3 tonne rally car will be responsible for around 15 tonnes of carbon in-transit for the same journey. Then there's the weight of parts, and 20-30 team members.

Add to this the fact that the intergovernmental panel on climate change estimates that other gases emitted by passenger jets mean they have a greenhouse warming effect 2.7 times higher than their carbon emissions alone.

put whatever fuel you like in a WRC car because as soon as you get a full WRC team, its cars and all its spares in a plane, you've just blown any benefits to smithereens.

there's a massive difference between doing something beneficial and being seen to be doing something.

Sadly no one in charge has a brain like yourself. They'd rather been seen to do something by carbon offsetting than actually doing something at all. What is carbon offsetting. I could have offset my return ticket to Perth if I'd wanted to. But what does offsetting buy me? Are my CO2 emissions immediately negated? Does it take 200 years? So many questions so few answers!

[BDunnell]

Sadly no one in charge has a brain like yourself. They'd rather been seen to do something by carbon offsetting than actually doing something at all. What is carbon offsetting. I could have offset my return ticket to Perth if I'd wanted to. But what does offsetting buy me? Are my CO2 emissions immediately negated? Does it take 200 years? So many questions so few answers!

I agree. At present, it's a gesture, though one can find companies that guarantee what's going to happen to your money. Personally, I have never used one, because, having looked at offsetting the carbon produced by a couple of flights I've made, the manner in which the calculation is made strikes me as almost completely arbitrary. For one thing, I was only asked where the flight started and where it finished. It didn't even take into consideration the fact that I might have been on a private jet carrying only myself, which would obviously have been far more wasteful!

[BDunnell]

Air miles are a very good point, thank you for bringing them up.

Indeed, it is a good point. It could also be applied to many other sports that, unlike motorsport in its various forms, don't produce emissions in themselves but do involve a lot of travelling by air.

[Daniel]

Some more questions for you bdunnell. Are you fat? Thin? Did you check in 100 kilo's of baggage or did you only walk on with a laptop? Was there a big headwind? Was there a tailwind. I could go on!

[BDunnell]

Some more questions for you bdunnell. Are you fat? Thin? Did you check in 100 kilo's of baggage or did you only walk on with a laptop? Was there a big headwind? Was there a tailwind. I could go on!

Exactly. :up: No system could ever be perfect, but I think there are a lot of advantage-taking money-making schemes out there.

By the way, does anyone else think that references to cars being 'powered by' biofuels are incorrect? They are fuelled with biofuels, or run on them, but are not powered by them. It seems a bit like saying that a car is 'powered by unleaded petrol'.

[Mickey T]

i think you'll find a lot of companies back pedalling from bio fuels now.

seen what wheat, rice and corn prices are doing lately? and how the world's poor can't afford it anymore?

the corn used to make one tank of ethanol for an SUV would feed one person for a year.

which one is the best use of our land and water?

[Daniel]

i think you'll find a lot of companies back pedalling from bio fuels now.

seen what wheat, rice and corn prices are doing lately? and how the world's poor can't afford it anymore?

the corn used to make one tank of ethanol for an SUV would feed one person for a year.

which one is the best use of our land and water?

Surely propelling some fat tool who needs a Range Rover Sport to feel that he's better than others is the best use? What use is something if it can't make you feel better than others?

Apparently......