English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

those cars must have massive carbon footprints, yet all we hear about in the newspapers is attacks on poor defenceless 4x4s

2007-05-16 12:04:29 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment Other - Environment

don't forget some people do need a 4x4, or at least a big vehicle. Nobody needs to do F1 racing though.

2007-05-17 11:59:04 · update #1

24 answers

Back in the 70's I told my brother that the government will get serious about oil consumption when they ban AUTO RACING and GRASS CUTTING in yards. He laughed and agreed. He was a budget director for the National Park Service under Jimmy Carter.

No one listens or cares....then or now....

2007-05-16 13:33:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I complain all the time. Not only are they leaving massive carbon footprints, but I'm of the opinion that the only reason one could possible want to watch a car race is to see a spectacular crash.

Don't feel to sorry for the poor 4x4s. Most people have no need whatsoever for gas guzzling 4-wheel drive since they only drive on nice clear roads. Nationwide, they do use so much more gas than the few race cars that it's not even close to the same issue.

2007-05-16 12:12:13 · answer #2 · answered by Joan H 6 · 3 1

As a fan of autoracing, because autoracing is R&D for the Auto industry. If some innovative race car team comes up with away to travel more distance with less fuel, they will win the race (less pit stops), but everyone in the world will benefit because similar technologies can be moved to standard passenger cars at a huge environmental savings.

And before you claim that no innovation from an auto race ever helped hummanity, the rear view mirror was first used in the Indianapolis 500. So Autoracing has already saved so many hundreds of thousands of lives (and countless greenhouse gas producing ambulance runs and funeral processions) to pay for itself.

2007-05-16 14:52:56 · answer #3 · answered by Vultureman 6 · 0 0

Because like for like whatever the carbon footprint how can you make a comparison between a relatively few finely tuned Formula 1 Racing cars and the many millions of 4 x 4 vehicles - finely tuned or not.

2007-05-16 13:29:54 · answer #4 · answered by Whistler R 5 · 0 1

I'm sure enviro's don't like the formula 1's, but they aren't very abundant. It's about usage. People use these huge V8s to cart groceries at 45mph. They also carry a substantial amount of weight just in the chasis for one person and 6 or 7 bags of groceries. This is just an inefficient way to tranport yourself. Most people could accomplish the same tasks with a smaller, more efficient vehicle. There are a bunch of folks that fall into this catagory, and that is why they are targeted.

2007-05-16 12:09:32 · answer #5 · answered by stevenhendon 4 · 3 1

Automobile and Motorcycle racing is the testbed for tomorrows engine technology. F1 and MotoGP both limit the size of the engines and how much fuel it can carry. Carbon fibre and Metal alloys abound on these machines.
If you want to talk huge carbon footprint, look at drag racing.

2013-10-27 13:53:36 · answer #6 · answered by n0t4c|u3 6 · 0 0

How many Formula 1 cars are there, and if you added every mile driven by each one in a year, how many miles is that?

How many SUV's are there, and what is the combined annual mileage for all SUV's?

Not to be a spoilsport, but I do think that elimination of the 'sport' (as if getting inside a machine and pushing the gas pedal makes one an athlete) of motor racing (cars, boats, snow and sand vehicles) could be put on a moratorium as a serious gesture indicating the seriousness of wasting fossil fuels.

When did being responsible cause one to be characterized as a 'whiner'??

2007-05-16 12:17:12 · answer #7 · answered by nora22000 7 · 2 1

Environmentally conscious folks do complain about formula one, it is a pointless parade of cars once the race has started. however it has a limited benefit in that the vast amounts of money spent on making those cars go faster has helped produce more efficient engines.

Off road cars on the other hand are four times the weight to power ratio they need to be for an urban environment - they drink fuel like there is no tomorrow, use up tons of extra resources, like rubber for the tyres and oil for all those extra bearings. Using a 4x4 on a farm is a good choice of vehical, Using it as a fashion statement to pick up you obese kids from school is not - and there are an awful lots of idiots driving them!

2007-05-16 12:20:19 · answer #8 · answered by DAVID C 6 · 2 2

They do, but anyone with anything to do with F1 has a 'black hole' for a brain.
And as for 'poor defenceless 4x4s' - I had to take off my bicycle clips to drain my tears away.

2007-05-16 16:59:48 · answer #9 · answered by Ynot 6 · 1 0

Because as conventional cars begin to fall by the
wayside, the Formula 1 racing cars will eventually
follow suit.
I'm sure this will take at least a decade to start happening,
but all types of vehicles will gradually evolve to become
more environmentally friendly.

2007-05-16 12:36:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers