PDA

View Full Version : Fabulous Fuel Saving Scheme


PAXboy
31st Aug 2005, 18:05
Ban Formula 1

The fuel is used to go nowhere. Their practise sessions drink huge amounts of gas to go nowhere. The spectators use thousands of gallons of gas to go and watch people going nowhere.

No need to ban cigarette advertising on Forumula 1, just ban the whole thing. Yes, some jobs will be affected but the benefits to the planet will be enormous. The Greens will be very pleased with this idea, as it means that we use fuel to GO places in aeroplanes rather than go round in circles in one seater cars.

The race tracks can be redeveloped into GA or small regional fields.

Saintsman
31st Aug 2005, 18:15
How many times on the downwind leg have you been told to do a couple of orbits? Going round in circles going nowhere......

Jerricho
31st Aug 2005, 18:16
That may waste a bit of fuel, but them orbits can be the best noise abatement procedure ever ;)

Unwell_Raptor
31st Aug 2005, 18:52
Don't get me started...........

That's my grandchildren's fossil fuel out there. I will draw a veil over 4 x 4s, advertisements ablaze at all hours, patio heaters heating the sky, but just think of the US sending B52s and B2s from the USA to fly by an airshow in Yurp (in some cases, fairly near anyway) and then flying home again.

I respect and admire the USA, but sometimes they just don't get it, do they?

con-pilot
31st Aug 2005, 19:50
Oh hell, its real easy to save gas, always drive down hill.:)

419
31st Aug 2005, 20:04
Doesn't seem to work for me.

The U.K is going rapidly downhill, and I seem to be spending more on petrol each week.

Farmer 1
31st Aug 2005, 20:48
While totally agreeing with PAXboy in every respect, 100% all the way, I feel I ought to say a few words in defence of the Formula 1 fraternity. They probably never log on to PPRuNe, so they’ll miss this call for their total disbandonment. Not that I’m at all interested in F1, you understand, but did you see the Turkish GP? Wasn’t it great? But I digress.

“The fuel is used to go nowhere.” Actually, most races go nowhere. OK, I admit, in the hundred metres the competitors actually manage to travel a distance of – well, a hundred metres. Mind you, most of them, if not all, have to travel a tad further than that in order to travel – well, a hundred metres. The Iditarod is another exception that springs to mind. For this race, the competitors probably have to travel thousands of miles to the start, then more thousands of miles from the finish back to their home. None of them – not one single solitary one individual person on his own – actually has any need to get from the start to the finish using a long-outdated mode of transport, or even a modern one (mode of transport, that is). It’s a race – a competition – to find the best there is in the world in their particular sport. I thought Jenson Button did very well, by the way, don’t you? Starting from 13th, ending up 5th, next British world champion, maybe?

What is the greatest sporting event in the world? The Olympics, many would say. OK, fair enough, I agree, absolutely no fuel wasted there getting teams and their entourage to the event, not to mention the odd spectator. Oh, and how many billions of £/$ are spent building the multitude of stadia, plus the Olympic “Village”, principally for just the one event? No, not that many, really. I was very pleased to see Raikkonen win, weren’t you? Keeps the championship alive, doesn’t it? I wonder what he looks like when he’s not being emotional.

“The Greens will be very pleased with this idea, as it means that we use fuel to GO places in aeroplanes”. Are you mad? Have you ever met a Green? Have you seen how they pronounce the word “Aeroplane”? I thought it was a great shame about the Monster. Again, bad luck in the penultimate lap robbed him of second place, and McLaren of a long-awaited and well-deserved 1-2. Probably not worth a mention – well, all right then, just for you – as far as I’m aware, the fuel they use in F1 cars won’t actually work very well in aeroplanes. And another thing hardly worth a mention, but now that I’ve mentioned it – how many gallons of aviation fuel do you imagine are burnt transporting the teams and spectators to and from the various races throughout the world? How many regular PPRuNers transport said teams and said spectators to said races? You could be treading on thin ice there, Boy.

“The race tracks can be redeveloped into GA or small regional fields.” That is as what many of the racetracks in the UK began life (airfields, that is), but the reason they stopped being airfields is not enough people needed or wanted them. Fact of life, I’m afraid. Again, don’t hold your breath waiting for the Greens to start demonstrating in support of your suggestion. What’s happened to Ferrari this year? Even they don’t seem to know, if you consult Autosport.com regularly. Not that I do, of course.

Formula 1 is a spectacle, you cannot deny that. In the motor racing world it is the absolute pinnacle, with engineers, designers, aerodynamicists, drivers (some people call them pilots, but, well, I mean to say, really, steady on, what?) and others all striving to shave every 1/1000 of a second off the lap time. I once watched a qualifying session where the first three cars had precisely the same time – to within 1/1000 of a second. Nowhere else will you find that degree of perfection. And, the teams actually talk to each other, and usually put rivalry to one side, and act like, er, what’s that word again? No, don’t tell me – it’s er – yes, just a minute – I’ve got it – sportsmen. Or is it gentlemen? (Never was any good at words.) And each race brings in vast amounts of revenue to a vast number of organisations and individuals in and around each place which has striven to attain the multitude of extremely high standards in order to have the privilege of holding said race. Isn’t it great to see a new kid on the block, Alonso, doing so well? New blood, just when we – er, sorry, they – needed it. Not that I am in the slightest bit interested in Formula 1, of course.

Mrs Farmer is similar to me in that she has no interest whatever in Formula 1. Mind you, she does admit to being a fan of David Coulthard. So much so, she named our dog after him. She called her Daisy.

The clues are there. For all of you whose first language is not English, and any others, it’s a sort of a joke, an English joke. Well, almost.

Answers on a postcard, please. But not to me.

Farmer.

tony draper
31st Aug 2005, 21:12
Well when it does run out or get to expensive we will be forced to do what we should have done in the seventies, look for a viable alternative, we should start building the next generation of nuclear power stations now, fission plants, fusion power is arse breeze and will always be twenty years in the future.
Use the fecker up, force some action.

PAXboy
1st Sep 2005, 01:15
Dear Farmer 1,

Thank you for a glourious demonstration of the art of English. Hhhmmm, or do I mean the art of Bull$hit?

You know, I wonder if you shouldn't try and have a look at the next Grand Petrol Pi$$ Up, as F1 truly is, for I know that it will be sometime before the ban is made 100%.

From some of the things that you have said, you may not realise that you have a latent F1 fan within your very body. Also, it occurs to me, you might be able to persuade Mrs Farmer to help you dig deep to find something in her that responds to powerful sounds of finely tuned engines and specialised fuel. :E

--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

FlyMD
1st Sep 2005, 02:19
SAVE OIL!

- Ban business travel: we have little thingies called telephones nowadays, and even video-conferencing if you really want to see your co-worker's ugly mug.

- Ban tourism travel: you wanna see the Grand Canyon? they show it on the Discovery Channel. Wanna dive the Great Barrier Reef? We'll buy you a few plastic fish and a fake coral reef for your Jaccuzi.

And I can finally retire, cuz we won't need all those noisy airplanes and their overpaid pilots anymore.

And when I retire, I'll buy an SUV and go watch the F1 races! :E

Farmer 1
1st Sep 2005, 06:38
PAXboy,

I deny most emphatically the existence of a latent F1 fan within my body. Specialised fuel went out years ago, by the way. Can't wait for Monza.

And I have a degree in irony.

Best wishes,

Farmer.

eal401
1st Sep 2005, 07:21
Formula 1?

If I want to see cars going "weally weally fast" I'll stand on a motorway bridge.

Equally as interesting anyway!

Ultralights
1st Sep 2005, 07:24
without Formula1, there would be No Anti lock brakes on your car, well maybe, but it would have taken a lot longer to develop from aircraft brakes! Fuel injection, a F1 perfected, supercharging! turbocharging! crash protection, tyre technology, gearbox technology, engine alloys are tested there, paddle shifters now in mass production cars, etc etc..


F1 is the Automotive worlds technology development centre.....

TheFlyingSquirrel
1st Sep 2005, 08:07
Hyrdogen power, fuel cells, and safe nuclear power are rapidly becoming viable energy alternatives. Stop panicking ! It will all be fine !!!

TFS

UniFoxOs
1st Sep 2005, 08:20
Paxboy,

If you really want to save fuel - ban football. It uses far more fuel than F1 - hundreds of thousands of fans travelling every week to hundreds of matches....

Ropey Pilot
1st Sep 2005, 09:03
Just put a brick in your fuel tank
(well on in the toilet cistern saves water:\ )

Ultralights
1st Sep 2005, 09:10
what we really should be doing is building more bloody great thumping V8'! more gass guzzling radial engines in light aircraft!

burn all the oil NOW!! get it all out! get all the pollution out now in the next 20 yrs!! alternative fuel technology WILL be developed, as necessity is the mother of invention... when oil supplies run dry in the next 20 yrs...

or become more fuel economical, save oil, save this save that reduce this, and drag out the whole fossil fuel thing for another 100 yrs...

SLFguy
1st Sep 2005, 12:51
My mum says we should just burn the trees.. 'parantly it saves 'bout 100,000 years off the fossil fuel cycle which is way more efficient than what we is doing now.

Burnt Fishtrousers
1st Sep 2005, 12:55
Bu*****T , get rid of all those stupid pointless one way systems in our towns and cities,designed by anoraks with sandals and bikes.That way we dont need to drive 2 miles to cover 200 yds to the car park weve just spied, we can take short cuts and save fuel.

Car manufacturers invest billions developing fuel efficient cars in accordance with government legislation, all to have it undone by poor traffic management.

Pax boy

The race tracks can be redeveloped into GA or small regional fields.

irony of ironies most race tracks were developed from old airfields

Milt
1st Sep 2005, 13:32
About time we ALL became Sun Worshippers.

The Sun is the best nuclear power plant we have. Without it we wouldn't be here.

Little Suns on planet Earth will soon satisfy our thirst for energy.

Expedite the pebble reactors as the Chinese are apparently doing.

And we are all standing on a vast store of energy not too far beneath our feet just a few Km down beneath the coal and oil.

UniFoxOs
1st Sep 2005, 14:30
Cheerio - that's an excellent point, of major importance. We use these hydrocarbons to make all sorts of modern plastics and supplies such as disinfectants and cleaning fluids. It must be much easier to cut down use of fossil fuels or replace them with something else rather than re-invent replacements for all the other products.

Mariner9
1st Sep 2005, 15:32
Not quite as simple as that I'm afraid. Not all components of crude can be used for petrochems. A reduction in kero, gasoil and fueloil consumption wouldn't free up significant quantities of petrochem feedstock. Although a reduction in gasoline would.

In order to match current demand for petrochem feedstocks whilst not producing gasoline, refineries would have to drastically reduce refining throughputs. That'd lead to a big price rise in fuel oil/diesel/kero, and a big drop in petrochem feedstock prices. Basically it'd completely screw the current economic model, and make refining completely uneconomic.

Realistically, petrochem feedstock production relies (and will continue to rely on) the balanced consumption of the other components of crude.