Subscribe to this blog's feed« Busch Takes Loudon | Main | Now She Wants To Sell!!! »
July 05, 2008
We can have fast and efficient, too
By DAVID GREEN
Critics of Brian France have no shortage of material with which to work, but many of them may take aim at France's recent comments suggesting that auto racing ought to work to become more environmentally friendly. My only criticism is that it took so long for NASCAR to take such a stance.
Before anybody gets the wrong idea, I'm no friend of radical environmentalists. I think the chief cause of any "global warming" that may or may not be occurring is the hot air coming from former Vice President Al Gore.
I believe mathematics is an exact science, but much science is pure guesswork. Want examples? How about the reports, based on predictions of climatologists, that we were on the verge of another ice age? That was about 40 years ago, folks. Did I miss it? Or did the climatologists miss their guess? How about the way a substance (eggs, salt, etc.) is (a) good for you, (b) bad for you, (c) good for you, depending on the latest scientific research?
Hope I don't get a barrage of flak from my colleagues who teach science with that paragraph, but the fact is the principle achievement of much scientific research is to debunk what scientists previously believed. That goes all the way back to the debate over whether the world is flat or round.
Anyway, getting back on topic, the Indy Racing League and Formula One are deep into programs that promote progress in transportation. As a long-term fan of auto racing, that reminds me of the days when racing helped improve passenger cars. Most people know that Ray Harroun, winner of the first Indianapolis 500, gave us the rear-view mirror.
The IRL is in its second season of using pure fuel-grade ethanol instead of gasoline or even a gas-ethanol blend. I don't know about y'all, but if I'm going to be paying $5 a gallon for fuel, I'd rather the money go to American farmers instead of Islamic terrorists or the countries that underwrite their efforts to kill all us "infidels."
F1's initiative, promoted by the scandal-racked FIA president Max Mosley, is to develop technology to recover the energy generated by a racing car. The engine burns fuel to produce horsepower, but the brakes generate great volumes of heat. That's energy production, folks. To grossly oversimplify it, the idea is to somehow capture and utilize that energy, rather than just looking at it as something that causes the brakes to wear out too quickly.
Some of the most virulent critics of F1's plans think the idea of auto racing being environmentally responsible is laughable, that the whole point of racing is excess -- maximum speed, maximum power, maximum consumption. There are two problems with that notion.
One is that racing is not the worst offender in the carbon footprint department. In the energy crises of the 1970s, the late Bill France led the effort to explain to the public and Congress that racing's fuel consumption is comparable to the usage of jet fuel to transport professional sports teams from city to city to compete against each other. Racing is just more visibly a consumer, because the sport features fuel-burning automobiles.
The second is that we are a good two decades beyond the point in evolution of the sport where it can be about maximum speed. The NHRA recently made a landmark change, reducing the distance of races in its top two divisions from a quarter-mile to 1,000 feet. That's because the nitro-burning Top Fuel and Funny Car machines have achieved speeds that are dangerously fast on many of the NHRA's tracks.
And for those who need reminding, NASCAR's present restrictor-plate rule is in its 21st season.
As long as the sport features entertaining competition for victories, I'm going to be a fan of it. If it can continue to contribute to society in ways other than providing entertainment for gearheads, I say bravo.
July 5, 2008 | Permalink
Comments
David David David, you are so right on many of your points and yet have fallen into the trap of good intentions. Saving the enviorment is a bigger political movement than saving the children in education was. Never mind the fact we are paying more for uneducated children, HMMM kind of like paying over $4 per gallon to slow the usage. For thirty years political correctness has beat down original thought for the "greater good". On the 4th of July no less, I will not entertain that we as Americans should alter our lifstyles for the greater good. They do that in Russia and China and it works for the government but not so much for the people. Brian France must believe there are enough stupid people in his stands that believe this crap that he needs to make statements in favor of it, like he gives a fuck, because people cant afford to give him their money instead of paying for gas. You first France, give up the Jets, strip the air out of the coach bus, get rid of all the nice ammenities to make the bus lighter, buy smaller houses, how about you renting a fucking Prius to use at the track. I'm sick and tired of people telling me to change my life for the greater good but do jack shit themselves other than blow smoke up my ass. Screw that, my freedom to move about this country while buying goods and services feeds more people around the world and improves their life more than tripleing the cost of corn does. One need not look past the last three weeks of races and see that milages does play an effect on getting the win. Fast isnt everything its a balance of everything not just conservation. Try this for conservation, lets get rid of the Hot Dog wrapper. Follow me here, no wrapper fewer cautions, less commercials fewer energy used to make commercials, fewer people driving to work, few goods and services being purchased, fewer energy being consumed. I submit to you that the Hot Dog wrapper is a bigger detriment to the enviorment and has a greater impact than the new Dodge Challenger with the Hemi that I want.
I'm better now thank you!
Posted by: Bob | Jul 5, 2008 9:52:41 AM
David,
Did you ever notice how all these predictions, pro or con, are always preceded by, "In 50 years."? If they get one right, great, but, if they're wrong, who's even going to remember? It's a win/win for them.
Ethanol, from corn or whatever source, may drive food prices up and create food shortages in poor countries. But, maybe it's about time some of these poor countries started educating their people, and taught them to grow food. They've been developing for an awful long time now, and how about you plant something you can actually eat instead of poppies or pot. I like ethanol.
Usable brake energy would be a valuable aide for everyday cars.
Al Gore has one of the biggest carbon footprints of any American. Jetting off around the world telling his tale. If he really cared, he'd teleconference.
NASCAR, in this case, is neither the biggest foe, nor champion, of energy efficiency. They could do more, and I think they will, but it takes time.
Posted by: Keith | Jul 5, 2008 10:11:47 AM
David,
Thanks for an interesting blog. I wouldn't have put energy conservation and NASCAR in the same sentence.
I like the way Bob thinks! It's the old "Don't do as I do, do as I say" crap from folks who like to "should" all over other people.
I'm doing my part for energy saving -- not driving to races, not walking miles from parking to the track, not climbing steps into the stands, not idling my truck engine during the "mad dash" to leave the track, and no unnecessary use of electricity if the race totally sucks by turning off the TV.
Cheers!
Posted by: Doris | Jul 5, 2008 10:52:17 AM
Doris, I'm married but I'm willing to try Polygamy if you'll marry me?
Posted by: Bob | Jul 5, 2008 11:04:35 AM
Bob,
Not even an act of Congress, when they do act (sometimes you have to poke them to see if they're still kicking), will rid us of commercials. Nor will the Almighty intervene. In fact, when Moses brought out the Ten Commandments, they cut to commercial.
Posted by: Keith | Jul 5, 2008 1:41:13 PM
The problems are several - 1, none of these alternatives to oil-based fuels are any better. 2, the premise that the environment is endangered is flawed to start with. Carbon footprints are irrelevent to anything.
Posted by: Mike Daly | Jul 5, 2008 1:45:06 PM
David, Good Post!
Now I Beleive that we (humans) ARE creating a hazardous environment...Now I'm no tree huggin' left coaster wearing hemp clothing...But growing up in Frostbite Falls, we had 60+ inches of snow yearly, and from Jan 1st to Feb 15 a heat wave was anything above zero...most daytime hights where -10 to -15...we as kids Snowmobiled when it was -45 (windchill -72, Dad called all his brothers down South to brag)...Now I keep track via "weather bug", Internet and it's not nearly as cold as before...My sleepy lil town was surrounded by corn fields as far as the eye could see...now it's $300,000.00 homes as far as the eye can see, what used to be windy dirt roads are 4 lanes of blacktop! What scares me is The Great Lakes are just starting to come back up after years and years of low levels, We here in western North Carolina are still in severe drought conditions!
I feel that alternative energy I'm all for it! Hydogen is coming...we had Electric and Steam powered vehicles in the past...I don't think Ethanol is the solution...My Grandad always told me, Son only eat what you shoot, and only shoot what you eat, and always leave nature the way you found and leave no trace you where here...He was Native American...And THAT would be tough for most Americans...I'll get off my soapbox now with this message...we must leave this earth in better condition than it was given to us!
Posted by: Fan #5 | Jul 5, 2008 6:16:47 PM
Fan #5 - AMEN !!!
Posted by: Diane | Jul 5, 2008 7:03:45 PM
1,000' top fuel is the end of pro drags
Posted by: Go Dog | Jul 6, 2008 3:06:10 AM
Bob Bob Bob: Glad I provided you with a stimulus to vent. Hope you enjoyed.
Not to take away from your satisfaction, but what I wrote was not about "saving the environment." It was about making smart choices that help individuals retain as many options as possible, along with the freedom to exercise them.
Frankly, I believe that nature is a much more imposing and overwhelming presence than many of us seem to believe. From time to time we have a Katrina or a tsunami or a series of tornadoes that ought to remind us, but we forget and give in to the cultural persuasion that we can fix every problem.
We can't. But just because we cannot fix everything does not mean we should not do what we can. I'm old enough to have already witnessed considerable changes in the environment -- by that, I mean an improvement from the time that folks dumped their garbage in the creek that ran behind my grandparents' house in upstate South Carolina, or in the Ohio River bottom land of McCracken County, Kentucky. America is a much, much cleaner place than I remember it being. It it also a much more crowded place than it used to be, and to believe we can add so many people without affecting individual freedoms of all of them is a little curious.
Now, getting back to the subject of my piece, I'd like to see auto racing continue doing what the IRL and F1 have begun to do -- pursue innovative ideas that have applications in racing and in highway transportation as well.
In doing so, racing would be carrying on a century-long tradition. Passenger cars would have evolved, surely, without the help of racing. I can't help believing the cars we drive would still be much, much more primitive than they are without the effects of racetrack competition.
I don't want to take your Hemi-powered Challenger away from you. But at some point, it's going to become an anachronism, and it will be just as outdated as a boat-tailed Auburn Speedster is now, or as Henry Ford's 999 was when the Speedster was the rage.
Rest assured, there will be another iteration of the iconic automobile. I'd prefer that racing help shape that vehicle, rather than depend on the environmental nutcases to dictate to us.
Posted by: David Green | Jul 6, 2008 11:37:03 AM
Keith: Excellent point about the "developing" nations. So develop, already.
Doris: I don't know about the polygamy thing, but you keep up the online conversations, because you seem to put Bob in a much calmer mood.
Mike: Please don't give the uber-liberals so much ammunition. To think that the number of people who now inhabit the planet don't have ANY effect on the environment is ridiculous.
#5 and Diane: Following up on that remark, 281 million NAs would have a pretty challenging task to leave the land the way it was in your granddad's day. But I love the notion of taking what you need, using what you take, giving something back. We can still do that.
Go Dog: What kind of "end" are we talking about here? You may stop caring, but I'm figuring the sport still exists next week, next month, next decade. Want to bet on it? You think drag racing pre-Doug Kalitta's crash had never changed from the days when Wally Parks created the sport? Things change, pal. The socialists are doing all they can to erode freedoms, but for the time being, you have the right to move on to something besides Nitro drag racing to get your kicks. Just don't expect it to be exactly the same in 2012 as it is today, OK?
Posted by: David Green | Jul 6, 2008 11:52:41 AM
"The socialists are doing all they can to erode freedoms"
there's always somebody around to easily blame some shit or the other on.
there is a huge amount of different "freedoms" to erode.
shoving your version of religion down someone else's throat cause you "believe" only you are correct is an erosion of freedom.
when gas hits 5 or even 4 bucks a large number of people's "freedom" to move about when they want to becomes severly eroded.
good blog subject.
kinda wasted on people who don't want to get away from "me" first to try to improve the way things are for others like their kids and grandkids.
imagine bob living next door to thomas edison.
bob: hey that guy next door is totally crazy, he wants to replace my candle with some nutty left wing thing he calls it a 'lectric bulb.
Posted by: exile | Jul 6, 2008 2:07:15 PM
Hey David,
Remember last year at Atlanta? Teams recycled radiator water thru the weekend to save water. It seemed like a very practical idea. It should be done at each track, every weekend!
While we do recycle and garden a bit, not ready to give up the big ole' van.
Posted by: Larry | Jul 6, 2008 7:34:09 PM
David,
Having just driven on HWY-64, the next racing innovation I'm thinking about may be roof flaps. It's the flaps, or maybe a pace car, because they're crazy out there. Another potential innovation, from racing, could include safer barriers on hwys.
Posted by: Keith | Jul 6, 2008 8:04:54 PM
David, when you speak of advancements in technology and applying the efficiencies of them to everyday life, you will never get an argument from me. That type of thinking is what has and will continue to grow this country and improving the quality of life of people around the world. The purpose of my rant was to object to Brian Frances comments about being "enviormentally friendly". That phrase has become synonymous with climate change/global warming. There are too many ignorant people that think that the automobile is the sole threat to the planet and the human race. Never mind the fact that in the same time frame of the automobile the average life span has increased by over twenty years. Putting eight Nascar people on a private jet instead of four reduces the consumption of fuel and makes Nascar more profitable and reduces the use of a non renewable resource. Had France said that Nascar needs to be more efficient and less wastefull I would have applauded him. You and I both now he was not talking about the fuel efficiency of 43 race cars and the technology to operate them. Like our own costs, the cost of producing the Nascar product has gone way up. To insinuate that he is going to alter his lifestyle to be a good stewart of the enviorment is ludicrous and nothing more than an attempt to pander to the masses with marketing. By making a sweeping generalization of being envormenatlly friendly he has yet lent unwarranted credence to the baseless debate that we are ruining the planet.
Exile, you could not be more backwards in your thinking of who or what I am. I want my entire subdivision full of the likes of an Edison, Gates, Buffet, Newton, and Yes Henry Ford. Its the guy next to him that says there is a byproduct to what they do so it should never be done based on bad science. Radiation bad- Xray good. Find the balance be reasonable and dont feed hysteria laced with ignorance. I would never replace the fuel injection of a Hemi with two double pumpers that would be crazy!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Bob | Jul 7, 2008 11:35:20 AM
Exile, socialism refers to state ownership and control of property. Big, invasive government is inherently socialist in nature. The whole "freedom" thing is like trying to bottle lightning, though; one man's free speech is another's pornography, and one's freedom to choose to use tobacco products is another's burden on society and second-hand smoke hazard. I don't smoke, but I don't want the government telling me I can't; I don't speed, but I don't want to be on the highways with no speed limits. Everybody draws his or her own lines.
Keith, there's already a good bit of energy-absorbing barrier technology at work on many U.S. highways. Racing was actually a little behind the curve on that one. Amen to your commentary about the way many people drive, though. You'd think there was big prize money at stake or something.
Larry, good point. In drought conditions such as the Southeast suffered last year, every drop counts.
Bob, thanks for the follow-up. How often it is that we don't say or write exactly what we mean, or others hear or read it to mean something else. Communication is an imprecise thing, to be sure.
Posted by: David Green | Jul 7, 2008 9:17:26 PM
Thanks to Trucker for emailing to point out that I typed "Doug" instead of "Scott" in reference to the most recent NHRA driver fatality in my reply to Go Dog above. Mea maxima culpa. RIP, Scott; God bless, Doug.
I was just wondering if Go Dog took his blogging identity from the classic children's book, "Go, Dog. Go!" by P.D. Eastman. It's wonderful.
Posted by: David Green | Jul 7, 2008 9:26:25 PM
"socialism refers to state ownership and control of property. Big, invasive government is inherently socialist in nature."
funny, actually not at all, how the party that claims to be the less government lover has ended up making the government huge, and very intrusive in the average person's life.
F1's high tech adventure...
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/23/ferrari-split-as-formula-one-goes-hybird/
Posted by: exile | Jul 8, 2008 1:13:12 AM
Post a comment
Advertisements
