21
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
21 points (92.0% liked)
Formula 1
10449 readers
5 users here now
Welcome to Formula1 @ lemmy.world Lemmy's largest community for Formula 1 and related racing series
π F1 Calendar
π FIA Documents
π F1 Pace
2025 Calendar
| Location | Date |
|---|---|
| πΊπΈ United States | 17-19 Oct |
| π²π½ Mexico | 24-26 Oct |
| π§π· Brazil | 07-09 Nov |
| πΊπΈ United States | 20-22 Nov |
| πΆπ¦ Qatar | 28-30 Nov |
| π¦πͺ Abu Dhabi | 05-07 Dec |
Rules
- Be respectful to everyone: drivers, lemmings etc
- No gambling, crypto or NFTs
- Spoilers are allowed
- Non English articles should include a translation in the comments by deepl.com or similar
- Paywalled articles should include at least a brief summary in the comments, the wording of the article should not be altered
- Social media posts should be posted as screenshots with a link for those who want to view it
- Memes are allowed on Monday only as we all do like a laugh or 2, but donβt want to become formuladank.
- No duplicate posts, or posts of different news companies that say the same thing.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That they lowered the fuel flow limit instead of eliminating it is a disappointment. Road relevance has been replaced by greenwashing relevance. But the active aero is an interesting choice.
That won't happen for 15 years at least, only Formula E can be fully electric.
https://www.autoweek.com/racing/more-racing/a44319865/formula-e-ceo-jeff-dodds-sees-sustainable-future-for-electric-racing-series/
Oh, I see what you mean about going all-electric. I think there are other reasons why they can't do that. Formula E cars would be completely unable to complete anything like an F1 race. We'd need some revolutionary new storage tech for that to happen.
I'm of the opinion that the fuel flow limit was a bad idea from the start. Fuel efficiency is a worthy engineering goal even if its relevance to "sustainability" is pretty negligable, but restricting the total amount used and basically anything else makes more sense to me rather than constraining the instantaneous fuel flow rate. But I suppose it's seen as a cost-cutting measure: Low-revving engines are less likely to blow up.
Oh you meant eliminate the flow limit, I thought you meant eliminate the fuel itself. And I agree (with the caveat you said, also limiting the total amount).