Which Produces More....

[Sheep in a motor]

I was wondering which of these motorsports produces the most emissions in a single season? (including race practice and qualifying)

-WRC

-F1

-BTCC

-WTCC

-Dakar Rally

-MotoGP

-Superbikes

[maxu05]

I would have to say WRC. If you factor in the number of fans that would drive to the events, mainly due to most of the races/rallies are staged in country areas, meaning many fans have to drive a car. The other sports mentioned, sure, many people drive there, but their car sits in a paddock all day while they watch the races.

[Rollo]

In terms of the actual cars... F1. They produce more power than the rest and therefore have to burn more fuel to do it.

In terms of the actual cars... F1. The full FIA circus carts around more crap than everyone else and that requires fuel to transport it all; mainly in the area of plane travel.

[anthonyvop]

I was wondering which of these motorsports produces the most emissions in a single season? (including race practice and qualifying)

How about Al Gore flying around in a private Jet from his mansion to to all points on the globe to collect checks to tell us how he will save us from ourselves?

[leopard]

Private jet wasn't those in the list of choice, it shouldn't be presented unless additional choice represented such as: others (please mention) :)

In the event parameter was made for each round (leg) of a season the longest distance might produce more emitter, perhaps rally Dakar.

[Magnus]

I believe Rollo is right. Emission of CO2 is in direct relation to the power of the engine in question.

[Erki]

N A S C A R - yes it was deliberately all caps...

[JSH]

I believe Rollo is right. Emission of CO2 is in direct relation to the power of the engine in question.

I think the trucks in Dakar may skew the Dakar rally above an F1 race in terms of CO2 emissions. But if you take the trucks out then I'd also agree F1 probably produces the most emission per competitor per mile.

But I'd somewhat disagree that CO2 emission is in direct relation to engine power.

CO2 emission is in direct relation to fuel consumption. But engine efficiencies can mean a higher fuel consumption engine may produce less power.

My BMW 3.0L inline-6 GDI twin turbo produces 300hp. I'll bet you a case of beer it produces less CO2 than my old 3.8L V6 Holden that only produced around 200hp.

[Magnus]

You are right ofcourse JSH. At stochiometric burn, you have a certain amount of fuel and a certain amount of air, whish results in a certain amount of CO2.

[schmenke]

NASCAR by far...
The cars themselves are very fuel inefficient (they burn leaded gas don't they?) and a typical event draws upwards of 100,000 specatators many of whom drive to the venue.

[Magnus]

Do they really run leaded gas in nascar. I thought that disappeared ages ago. Apart from CO2 emissions, it could be you´re right.

[MrJan]

Cos of the size of the engines I'd rule out the two bike championships and the touring cars right away.

I reckon F1 must be the worst. WRC probably covers more distance but F1 is still fairly long and at higher revs and with a lot more power.

[Rollo]

I think the trucks in Dakar may skew the Dakar rally above an F1 race in terms of CO2 emissions. But if you take the trucks out then I'd also agree F1 probably produces the most emission per competitor per mile.

I had thought about this, but Mr In A Motor added the proviso "in a season"; since there's only a few big Rally Raid events but a whole F1 calendar, this skewed my reasoning.

And especially for 2008, the Dakar was totally emission free... which sucked.

[BDunnell]

Goodness, this is a difficult one. I wouldn't want to hazard a guess, because there are so many factors involved apart from the emissions of the cars involved. To get to an exact figure, you would have to take into account the transport used by the spectators to get to events, the transport used to take the cars and equipment between venues, and so on. Even an estimate would probably be hard.

[airshifter]

Goodness, this is a difficult one. I wouldn't want to hazard a guess, because there are so many factors involved apart from the emissions of the cars involved. To get to an exact figure, you would have to take into account the transport used by the spectators to get to events, the transport used to take the cars and equipment between venues, and so on. Even an estimate would probably be hard.

I agree. Also unless you wanted the figures "per capita" so to speak, you would have to consider the size of the field of cars, how many races they attend, the length of races, etc.

I would venture that NASCAR uses more fuel and produced the most emissions. They have a large field of cars, a lot of races, and many long races. Even though it's just in the US, the logistical fuel would probably be just as high. It's not as if darting around coast to coast in the US isn't a long trip, even if it's a single country.

Besides, the fuel use to supply the beer drinkers alone would have to be immense! :laugh:

[cosmicpanda]

In the WRC you have teams flying their cars to a few overseas events each year (Mexico, Argentina, New Zealand and Japan this year?), plus spectators flying and driving around, plus the helicopters and things that fly all over the stages, not to mention the actual emissions of the rally cars themselves.

In F1 you have teams flying their cars overseas to a lot of events, all sorts of helicopters, hundreds of thousands of spectators who all need to get there somehow, not to mention the helicopters used for weather and TV.

Consider also that F1 has a lot more people watching it on TV at home, and factor in the cost of the electricity.

As the WRC has 15 events this year , reducing to 12 for 2008 and 2009, and as F1 has 18 events (increasing to 20, some say), I think that the WRC is not as polluting as F1.

NASCAR does sound like it could be very polluting as well, but surely it doesn't have the massive long haul flights?

[ShiftingGears]

For the races alone - NASCAR.

Including logistics - F1.

[Jag_Warrior]

NASCAR Sprint Cup far and away, would be my choice. Twice as many cars as the other series, big V8's and the race distances tend to be longer. Add to that the fact they NASCAR still uses carburetors and very limited engine electronics (though they did switch to unleaded gas a couple of years ago).

If just talking about a single race, I'd probably pick the Dakar.

Wonder which series would be the "cleanest" now... maybe ALMS or IRL?

[Erki]

ALMS. :cool:

[jso1985]

and how about comparing their emissions with the one a city produces in a year?

taking count 22 F1 cars go out to the track about 100 days in a single year and they drive an average of 2 hours each day(and not always the 22 cars the same day) I think their emissions level is certainly lower than the one a small city(around 100 000 inhabitants) produces.

And that's good to know, motorsport hardly pollutes comparing to other sources of pullution

[RichardM]

Not listed but by far the biggest emitter is American football. There are 32 teams with 15 games a week each attracting close to 200,000 fans who for the most part drive to each game. The teams fly to the games so that is also a big source.

In auto racing, it will be the version of the sport that has the most fans who drive to the events. So probably F1 of those listed. Otherwise NASCAR by far and away with 36 events each attracting 250,000 or so spectators who all drive to the events. F1 has less than half the number of events hence less emissions.

[RichardM]

Do they really run leaded gas in nascar. I thought that disappeared ages ago. Apart from CO2 emissions, it could be you´re right.

Yes, NASCAR still uses leaded gas but it will be cut out in a year or so. I don't remember the actual date of the switch to unleaded fuel.

[Eki]

How about Al Gore flying around in a private Jet from his mansion to to all points on the globe to collect checks to tell us how he will save us from ourselves?
Jetplane racing? Who's he racing against?