Shock News #2: Porsche Withdraw From WEC and Le Mans for 2018

[Xenozoid]

they should ask france to get all the electricity available to even think of décent raport between quality and future, i guess all the waste will go in africa,....
anyway it seems all is moving lately, not only the racing world,do you know what dTM racing cost in zandvoort? 80 euros for a vip , to what was free in the adac évent...
business is life in a poor world

 

[Brandon Wright]

Electricity does not appear out of thin air.

Actually....

 

[wombat999]

I'm not surprised with this announcement hard on the heals of Mercedes departing the DTM.
LMP-1 as a category is only relevant to Le Mans, with Audi and Porsche gone it demonstrates the folly of relying on 'Manufacturer Teams', rather on relying on them in this day and age.
Corporations are run by accountants and advertising weenies, not by enthusiastic engineers.
Unlike the Group C era, privateers are not given the opportunity of running comparable 'customer cars', capable of defeating the Works Team.
To be frank, I lost interest in the 'Prototypes' around 2000, and these days I really prefer the GT category.
LMP-2 was 'interesting' until it became a 'closed in spec series', very disappointing.
Stuff happens.

 

[howitzer155mm]

Formula E will be the dying breath of motorsports.

 

[protonv5]

Actually....

Thanks for the pics. But, really? Ok, since you need me to, I'll explain it.
Those windmills that supposedly make electricity out of thin air cost millions of dollars each to build. They are made out of lots and lots of steel. Huge amounts of smelting and welding go into their production. Then they are hauled on...wait for it...huge trucks that burn copious amounts of diesel fuel. These trucks are so long that they cannot just go from point a to point b on their own. They need several escort vehicles to ride along with them. Not only that, here in the States they are required to have Police Escort as well. So, before the blades even turn one time, all so-called energy savings is burned up. It may take a year or more to earn that back. Further, these devices need maintenance and parts replacement which can only be done by enormous cranes which burn...you guessed it, more diesel. Furthermore, when the wind is blowing hard and the blades are turning quickly, they send power spikes to the nearest power station and the extra energy is bled off. This results in the blades needing to be feathered so that they stop turning altogether. Which is why in certain parts of the country you will see an entire grid of these windmills doing absolutely nothing for hours on end. And of course, since you mentioned it, I'll add that all during this process thousands of birds are killed each year by flying through the spinning blades. But hey, we're saving the planet here right?
So, onto the solar panels: You know, since you mentioned it. These babies here, are pretty much next to useless over their lifespan. Most are made in China and are shipped around the world on massive container ships which of course burn thousands of gallons of diesel to reach their port of call. Depending on where they are headed, if to the US, the trip takes 28 days. Once in place, they are only effective if you have many of them. Effective as in powering in an auxiliary sense. You will never see a building/home/corporation that can power off solar entirely as they simply don't make enough power. These places still need to be connected the power grid which of course burns coal. Furthermore, once the solar panels begin their life cycle they already start their degradation process. The more sunlight they absorb, the quicker they wear out. And of course when it's cloudy, they produce, well nothing. The other main cause of solar panels not being effective is due to the environment. Daily accumulation of dust and dirt cause their ability to harness energy to become far less effective. So a huge array of them as you see in your pic needs to be regularly cleaned. Each one being sprayed/wiped off etc. This is done by diesel burning trucks carrying a water pressurizing source which is again powered by gas or diesel. So the companies that sell these items is happy to sell them to a happy buyer. The same way a salesman may try to sell ice to eskimos. If there's a buyer, they will happily sell them. So to sum up, all of that free energy isn't free at all. But if it makes you feel better, then go for it. Sort of in the same way Formula E makes people feel better.

 

[formidable]

Shitty electricity non-racing championships...

 

[Bugatti098]

I'd rather see an top tier fully electric class similar to LMP1 race in the WEC. Electric cars need better range and recharging solutions and this would be a better way to come about them than formula e.

It is smart that formula e is mostly made up of city circuits as that is where the market for electric cars is now, but looking at the way the governments are headed - banning the sale of gas and diesels by 2040 - we are going to need another solution for the rest of us. An electric victory in an endurance championship would improve my perception of a manufacturer's electric vehicles much more than formula e.

 

[Brandon Wright]

Thanks for the pics. But, really? Ok, since you need me to, I'll explain it.
Those windmills that supposedly make electricity out of thin air cost millions of dollars each to build. They are made out of lots and lots of steel. Huge amounts of smelting and welding go into their production. Then they are hauled on...wait for it...huge trucks that burn copious amounts of diesel fuel. These trucks are so long that they cannot just go from point a to point b on their own. They need several escort vehicles to ride along with them. Not only that, here in the States they are required to have Police Escort as well. So, before the blades even turn one time, all so-called energy savings is burned up. It may take a year or more to earn that back. Further, these devices need maintenance and parts replacement which can only be done by enormous cranes which burn...you guessed it, more diesel. Furthermore, when the wind is blowing hard and the blades are turning quickly, they send power spikes to the nearest power station and the extra energy is bled off. This results in the blades needing to be feathered so that they stop turning altogether. Which is why in certain parts of the country you will see an entire grid of these windmills doing absolutely nothing for hours on end. And of course, since you mentioned it, I'll add that all during this process thousands of birds are killed each year by flying through the spinning blades. But hey, we're saving the planet here right?
So, onto the solar panels: You know, since you mentioned it. These babies here, are pretty much next to useless over their lifespan. Most are made in China and are shipped around the world on massive container ships which of course burn thousands of gallons of diesel to reach their port of call. Depending on where they are headed, if to the US, the trip takes 28 days. Once in place, they are only effective if you have many of them. Effective as in powering in an auxiliary sense. You will never see a building/home/corporation that can power off solar entirely as they simply don't make enough power. These places still need to be connected the power grid which of course burns coal. Furthermore, once the solar panels begin their life cycle they already start their degradation process. The more sunlight they absorb, the quicker they wear out. And of course when it's cloudy, they produce, well nothing. The other main cause of solar panels not being effective is due to the environment. Daily accumulation of dust and dirt cause their ability to harness energy to become far less effective. So a huge array of them as you see in your pic needs to be regularly cleaned. Each one being sprayed/wiped off etc. This is done by diesel burning trucks carrying a water pressurizing source which is again powered by gas or diesel. So the companies that sell these items is happy to sell them to a happy buyer. The same way a salesman may try to sell ice to eskimos. If there's a buyer, they will happily sell them. So to sum up, all of that free energy isn't free at all. But if it makes you feel better, then go for it. Sort of in the same way Formula E makes people feel better.

Windows kill a lot of birds too.

 

[protonv5]

And your point is? No one is trying to save the world with windows.

 

[Timmy UK]

Windows kill a lot of birds too.

Use a Mac then.....x

 

[Epistolarius]

This may open the door for factory DPi's at Le Mans as in interim solution, it all depends on whether the ACO swallow their pride and allow them. I think there was a little bit of sour grapes with that one as originally they would have been allowed and then they changed their mind. Agreed though that they should run in their own category. They are essentially LMP2 cars but are factory supported (which goes against the spirit of LMP2 being customer teams only) but we'll see.

They do allow them. But not as factory entries like they are in IMSA, because they are only eligible for LMP1-L, which is a privateer class.

http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/beaumesnil-no-mountain-to-climb-for-dpis-in-lmp1-privateer/

 

[4 8 15 16 23 42 108]

Windows kill a lot of birds too.

There is no chance in giving arguments to all those on my ignore lost. They will never listen to you or think about your words, Brandon. Sadly.

 

[dhmotor]

I know that LMP1 HY was not built to last; it unraveled awfully fast though. The instant-on of the electric motors out of turns was exhilarating, but not to the point where we can't live w/o them (obviously). The FIA and ACO knew better than everyone else forcing what they determined the innovation should be. Innovation seldom comes from dictating how to innovate. That and there's just way too much energy packed into a gallon of gasoline. Breakthroughs will ultimately make 100 mpg race cars and electric only cars that beat them. The breakthroughs have to come first though, designing a racing class and crossing your fingers that it creates a breakthrough seems like a bad bet. As it became clear that this was actually not the technology of the future, the wheels literally came off. The costs were too high, and even Audi - who did better than most in translating race tech to road cars - never really got the R18 tech into their cars – just ‘cause you call it “e-tron” don’t make it “e-tron”.

What I really don’t get though is the switch to Formula E. I watched the Brooklyn E-Prix; these are glorified golf cart races. The race lasts all of 50 minutes to an hour, there is only one pit stop for which you have to take at least 45 seconds, which basically means no one wins on pit strategy. The best you can do is hope to garner the “Fan Boost”. I mean seriously? A series where the biggest variable in the race is an American Idol style dial-in vote? You can’t race on conventional circuits because the power would get drained too fast in elevation changes, plus most circuits are more than a mile which would showcase how slow these "race" cars are. At a circuit like Spa that's over 4 miles long (I have Spa on the brain this weekend), even assuming the elevation change was not an issue (which it is), the current cars would only complete 10 laps - 20 between two cars – yes two 10-lap stints. Even if you doubled the efficiency of the cars you could only run around 40 total laps. Who wants to watch that? Senior citizens on rascals having a race would be more entertaining. It only serves to prove the point that electric vehicles, even at the sharp end of the technology stick, are not for distance or speed. At least not yet.

 

[Akra]

Good lord there's some nonsense here. Wind turbines require forging and transportation, unlike a natural gas power plant I guess, where you plant the seed and grow a power plant?

Edit, I'm putting my sources at the start of this post so people know I'm not just pulling this stuff out my arse.

Source for my entire post: I work in the energy industry, as part of a large training provider. I create training simulators for oil rigs, power plants, ships and wind turbine farms for training engineers on how to use their own equipment, and how to deal with major emergencies and incidents. I am also an engineering student, studying energy, electricity and...sustainability.

Furthermore, when the wind is blowing hard and the blades are turning quickly, they send power spikes to the nearest power station and the extra energy is bled off. This results in the blades needing to be feathered so that they stop turning altogether. Which is why in certain parts of the country you will see an entire grid of these windmills doing absolutely nothing for hours on end.

Wind turbines are fitted with brakes which slow the blades down, generally when the wind speed is greater than 20 m/s. Most turbines (certainly the Vesta V90s that I'm most familiar with) do an emergency stop over 25 m/s. The turbines also do not produce power "spikes", and they do not deliver electricity to "the nearest power station". They have local substations which do all of the necessary power management. Even the offshore turbines have substations mounted on monopiles. Whilst they can produce too much power on a windy day (which is why some are not always running), they are not producing a spike. Basic physics with momentum and inertia just won't allow these sudden spikes. You can tell just by looking at them as well - they don't suddenly change speed on gusts of wind. If the blades aren't changing speed, then it isn't producing more power, and therefore not spiking.

If you're complaining that they have to shut the turbines down because they produce too much power, then that's a bit of a silly argument. You can't argue that these things are not any good, and then say that they are so good they need to shut them down.

There is 10 times the amount of energy in a liter of gasoline as compared to the same capacity of Electric.

This is a nonsensical statement. There is no such thing as a litre of electricity. So how can you possibly measure that? There is 9.7 kWh of energy in a litre of petrol.

Furthermore, an electric battery can either put out more power and go for a much shorter time or go with less power output and drive longer. This limitation is almost non-existent comparatively with petrol/diesel.

This is incorrect. A more powerful internal combustion engine will return less MPG. It will "put out more power", but "go for a much shorter time". It is not non-existent in a petrol car, otherwise a Ford Mustang V8 would return 80 mpg. (Spoiler alert: It does not).

As I have spent some years in the auto industry me and my colleagues call electric cars coal cars. Because that's what they are. For as much power as you put into the battery, that's how much coal is needed to be burned to produce it. Let's not kid ourselves.

That argument only works if you use 100% coal to power the grid, which we do not. However even if you use 100% hydrocarbon fuel to power your grid, you still output 20-40% less emissions. A petrol engine tends to only be around 20% thermal efficiency. A rustine gas turbine generator is around 60%. (Diesel engine comes in at around 40). So even if you burned oil and gas to produce ALL of your power (which we don't), you still have a net gain of 20-40%. And this is before you fact in it takes 6 kWh to refine a single gallon of petrol, not including transportation and infrastructure costs.

Diesel/petrol = far more efficient.

See above, it is not. Even if you ignore the infrastructure requires, it is not more efficient.

Those windmills

Turbines. Not windmills.

cost millions of dollars each to build.

An oil and gas drilling platform (the cheapest of the lot of them, as they do not have any production equipment onboard) costs around $650m. A single wind turbine costs around $3-4m (they are about 1.5m per MW). Wind turbines are expensive. Oil rigs are MUCH more expensive.

Then they are hauled on...wait for it...huge trucks that burn copious amounts of diesel fuel.

Pulled by the same cab that brings petrol to a petrol station. And that petrol station gets a weekly top up. The turbine makes one trip.

Further, these devices need maintenance and parts replacement which can only be done by enormous cranes which burn...you guessed it, more diesel.

I don't know if you've ever seen an oil rig, but most have a lot of replacement parts, which are shipped out by boat (using diesel), and then lifted on using a crane (using diesel), and they need to fly people there (using Jet A1 fuel). Oil rigs tend to have multiple cranes as well. Usually 2 primary ones and a third laydown crane.

And of course, since you mentioned it, I'll add that all during this process thousands of birds are killed each year by flying through the spinning blades. But hey, we're saving the planet here right?

I don't need to google for the Gulf of Mexico, right?

Most are made in China

Have a look at what Solar City are doing. Building them in America. By Americans. Providing American jobs.

You will never see a building/home/corporation that can power off solar entirely as they simply don't make enough power.

Actually this is completely false. The average roof area of an American house (American! Not European, they have smaller roof areas), is large enough to power the home for the majority of the year. California actually relies on residents putting power back into the grid in the summer due to the amount of people running Air Conditioning and the utility companies being unable to cope with the demand. That's right - solar power keeps the lights on baby.

The more sunlight they absorb, the quicker they wear out

Not sure you're using the word "wear" correctly there. You will find no wear on a solar panel. All forms of energy capture suffer from degradation. Oil rigs are routinely given massive upgrades due to advancements in technology and wear and tear. Want to talk about those boats again?

Each one being sprayed/wiped off etc.

Solar creates jobs then? What a horrible system.

----

You seem to be under the impression that solar and wind are not steps forward because they do not fix 100% of the problems 100% of the time, which is of course a completely delusional stance to take. In fact, they provide steps forward, even if they do not solve the problems completely.

However if we 100% completely IGNORE the environment right now, let's just talk about fuel sources. Oil and gas will run out. I love oil and gas. It powers awesome V12 cars. It allowed us to go through the industrial revolution. It's a great source of energy. But it is not sustainable. By that definition, it makes it...unsustainable. So why is it a bad thing that we move to looking at alternative ways of capturing energy? Isn't it good that we do this now, rather than when it is actually a serious problem and we go through an energy crisis? Shouldn't we be looking forward, solving problems before they happen?

Or shall we just stick our heads in the sand...or oil wells...and pretend the current situation is sustainable?

Source for my entire post: I work in the energy industry, as part of a large training provider. I create training simulators for oil rigs, power plants, ships and wind turbine farms for training engineers on how to use their own equipment, and how to deal with major emergencies and incidents. I am also an engineering student, studying energy, electricity and...sustainability.

Edit 2: I like my motorsport petrol powered. I do not like Formula E. I think it lacks noise and fun. However this preference for a petrol powered motorsport does mean I will deny physics and join the flat earth society.

 

[Glaurung]

I've no words....
Totally disappointed!
The worst day of 2017 for the motorsport.
I was looking forward for this new era of the hybrid prototypes of the LMP1 class, such awesome machines, with superb technologies and innovations.
Now it's all gone.
Guilty n.1 for this is definitely the FIA, managing the WEC in a pretty amatorial way, not able to give the right exposure, and not able to improve the affordability for new manifacturers in the premier class with more stable and durable regulations.

 

[protonv5]

Good lord there's some nonsense here. Wind turbines require forging and transportation, unlike a natural gas power plant I guess, where you plant the seed and grow a power plant?

Edit, I'm putting my sources at the start of this post so people know I'm not just pulling this stuff out my arse.

Source for my entire post: I work in the energy industry, as part of a large training provider. I create training simulators for oil rigs, power plants, ships and wind turbine farms for training engineers on how to use their own equipment, and how to deal with major emergencies and incidents. I am also an engineering student, studying energy, electricity and...sustainability.



Wind turbines are fitted with brakes which slow the blades down, generally when the wind speed is greater than 20 m/s. Most turbines (certainly the Vesta V90s that I'm most familiar with) do an emergency stop over 25 m/s. The turbines also do not produce power "spikes", and they do not deliver electricity to "the nearest power station". They have local substations which do all of the necessary power management. Even the offshore turbines have substations mounted on monopiles. Whilst they can produce too much power on a windy day (which is why some are not always running), they are not producing a spike. Basic physics with momentum and inertia just won't allow these sudden spikes. You can tell just by looking at them as well - they don't suddenly change speed on gusts of wind. If the blades aren't changing speed, then it isn't producing more power, and therefore not spiking.

If you're complaining that they have to shut the turbines down because they produce too much power, then that's a bit of a silly argument. You can't argue that these things are not any good, and then say that they are so good they need to shut them down.



This is a nonsensical statement. There is no such thing as a litre of electricity. So how can you possibly measure that? There is 9.7 kWh of energy in a litre of petrol.



This is incorrect. A more powerful internal combustion engine will return less MPG. It will "put out more power", but "go for a much shorter time". It is not non-existent in a petrol car, otherwise a Ford Mustang V8 would return 80 mpg. (Spoiler alert: It does not).



That argument only works if you use 100% coal to power the grid, which we do not. However even if you use 100% hydrocarbon fuel to power your grid, you still output 20-40% less emissions. A petrol engine tends to only be around 20% thermal efficiency. A rustine gas turbine generator is around 60%. (Diesel engine comes in at around 40). So even if you burned oil and gas to produce ALL of your power (which we don't), you still have a net gain of 20-40%. And this is before you fact in it takes 6 kWh to refine a single gallon of petrol, not including transportation and infrastructure costs.



See above, it is not. Even if you ignore the infrastructure requires, it is not more efficient.



Turbines. Not windmills.



An oil and gas drilling platform (the cheapest of the lot of them, as they do not have any production equipment onboard) costs around $650m. A single wind turbine costs around $3-4m (they are about 1.5m per MW). Wind turbines are expensive. Oil rigs are MUCH more expensive.



Pulled by the same cab that brings petrol to a petrol station. And that petrol station gets a weekly top up. The turbine makes one trip.



I don't know if you've ever seen an oil rig, but most have a lot of replacement parts, which are shipped out by boat (using diesel), and then lifted on using a crane (using diesel), and they need to fly people there (using Jet A1 fuel). Oil rigs tend to have multiple cranes as well. Usually 2 primary ones and a third laydown crane.



I don't need to google for the Gulf of Mexico, right?



Have a look at what Solar City are doing. Building them in America. By Americans. Providing American jobs.



Actually this is completely false. The average roof area of an American house (American! Not European, they have smaller roof areas), is large enough to power the home for the majority of the year. California actually relies on residents putting power back into the grid in the summer due to the amount of people running Air Conditioning and the utility companies being unable to cope with the demand. That's right - solar power keeps the lights on baby.



Not sure you're using the word "wear" correctly there. You will find no wear on a solar panel. All forms of energy capture suffer from degradation. Oil rigs are routinely given massive upgrades due to advancements in technology and wear and tear. Want to talk about those boats again?



Solar creates jobs then? What a horrible system.

----

You seem to be under the impression that solar and wind are not steps forward because they do not fix 100% of the problems 100% of the time, which is of course a completely delusional stance to take. In fact, they provide steps forward, even if they do not solve the problems completely.

However if we 100% completely IGNORE the environment right now, let's just talk about fuel sources. Oil and gas will run out. I love oil and gas. It powers awesome V12 cars. It allowed us to go through the industrial revolution. It's a great source of energy. But it is not sustainable. By that definition, it makes it...unsustainable. So why is it a bad thing that we move to looking at alternative ways of capturing energy? Isn't it good that we do this now, rather than when it is actually a serious problem and we go through an energy crisis? Shouldn't we be looking forward, solving problems before they happen?

Or shall we just stick our heads in the sand...or oil wells...and pretend the current situation is sustainable?

Source for my entire post: I work in the energy industry, as part of a large training provider. I create training simulators for oil rigs, power plants, ships and wind turbine farms for training engineers on how to use their own equipment, and how to deal with major emergencies and incidents. I am also an engineering student, studying energy, electricity and...sustainability.

Edit 2: I like my motorsport petrol powered. I do not like Formula E. I think it lacks noise and fun. However this preference for a petrol powered motorsport does mean I will deny physics and join the flat earth society.

Wow, well you certainly do mince words and twist their meaning. You've basically taken all that I said, re-worded it to fit your argument. You know exactly what I mean by the terminology that I used above. Yet you call me out as if I'm saying something else. For example, why point out the substation issue? Who cares? You get the meaning of what I said. Yet you use it to show me that I'm wrong, you're right and Formula E wins Windmills are throttled back, blades feathered and so on. They're only useful to provide energy when the situation allows for it. That's the point. You understood that but changed the argument to call me out because I used different words. Whew. Windmills cost millions of dollars and the use of fossil fuels in their creation is exorbitant. Why ignore it? Why pretend they actually produce energy freely from nothing? Why pretend they are greener? Because you're in the industry and you're a company man. So, you're a hero and everyone loves you. You know I'm correct in what I'm saying, but go ahead, keep YOUR head up YOUR ass. We get it: Electric is Free, clean and saves the world. And you're at the sharp end of the stick.

 

[4 8 15 16 23 42 108]

@Akra Maybe we could use the non-fossil power plant technology in Urville, France, to find a cleaner way of racing.
Urville should be in Wikipedia, folks. Until then Akra seems right to me.

 

[Akra]

You've basically taken all that I said, re-worded it to fit your argument.

Actually I quoted you.

You know exactly what I mean by the terminology that I used above.

When you said "windmill", yes I knew what you meant. When you talked about the equivalent of a litre of electricity, nobody knows what you mean because it doesn't exist. And if they were the equivalent then they would be equal in energy storage, not 10 times more or 10 times less. This sort of statement literally, does not make sense.

For example, why point out the substation issue? Who cares? You get the meaning of what I said. Yet you use it to show me that I'm wrong, you're right and Formula E wins

I point out the substation issue, because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the system works. You do not send electricity to a power plant (why would you do that? They create power, not import it. That's like posting a bottle of Coca Cola to a Coca Cola factory), they go to a substation. They do not produce energy spikes, despite your claims. This isn't about what you mean - this is about making false claims to try and make out the technology is bad.

Formula E does not win. Formula E is a bloody awful series. I like my cars powered by hydrocarbons, preferably with 12 cylinders. Or at least 8. And I like them as loud as a Corvette.

Windmills are throttled back, blades feathered and so on.

So are hydrocarbon power plants. They are throttle back a LOT and do not run on full capacity. This is normal. This is because the grid naturally has high and low points. Depends on a lot of things - time of day, day of week, temperature outside, humidity, etc. You'll be surprised how much the demand fluctuates through the week. This is why turbines are shutdown. This is also why powerplants shutdown generators - you just don't know it's happening because you don't see them.

Windmills cost millions of dollars and the use of fossil fuels in their creation is exorbitant. Why ignore it? Why pretend they actually produce energy freely from nothing?

I didn't deny it. I actually addressed that at the bottom of my post - they do not solve all problems. However it is a step forward.

Because you're in the industry and you're a company man. So, you're a hero and everyone loves you.

I'm in the industry - the energy industry includes oil and gas, which actually makes up the biggest marketplace for my company. I'm all for oil and gas. I just understand physics. I'm no hero - but I do get to be involved with training heros in the form of Emergency Response Teams and Incident Command Teams. I'm not the one who trains them (I do the engineering/tech stuff), but I do get to play a part in it, and that's awesome. But I'm no hero...I just work in this sector and study the subject.

You know I'm correct in what I'm saying, but go ahead, keep YOUR head up YOUR ass. We get it: Electric is Free, clean and saves the world. And you're at the sharp end of the stick.

You're right, I'm god. I know it all.

On a serious note: electricity is not free, and you will still have to pay for it. The equipment requires maintenance which means people on the ground (or up the turbine, those rope access guys have bigger balls than I do).

Look, the bottom line is technology is progressing to the point where electric cars are becoming viable. And that's a good thing for sustainable energy. Notice I said sustainable energy, not the environment. Because I'm not a green warrior...I really don't care much about the environment. I know I should...but I don't. What I care about is humans having a sustainable energy situation, which currently we do not have. That's what I worry about - will my grand children have to go through an energy crisis because we were too fat and happy to worry about planning for them? Well not on my watch!

I like my motorsports petrol based. Whilst I enjoyed the hybrid P1 cars, I enjoyed them because the hybrid system provided a boost to the petrol system. I do not enjoy Formula E, I do not think I will enjoy Electric GT. I like the new Gibson V8, the new Porsche GTE exhaust, and I LOVE the feeling or a Corvette from trackside (long time Le Mans attendee here). However, just because I love these engines, it does not mean that I think we should ignore physics and sustainability and say no to electric cars. They are coming, whether you like them or not, and they do make sense for every day commuting, even if they make seriously boring race cars.

----

Edit: the real discussion should be if motrorsport should continue to be road relevant, even if it is not entertaining. Why not move away from road relevance and back to pure petrol? That's what most motorsport fans seem to want. And when the world has moved to all electric cars and we no longer dirll for oil, motorsport can run on hydrogen internal combustion (not fuel cell) and retain the noise and spectacle. Many other sports such as sailing and horse riding have distanced themselves from the relevance of the sport and done just fine. Motorsport can do so too.

 

[kedy89]

the troll can't deal with facts, don't waste your energy

 

[Akra]

the troll can't deal with facts, don't waste your energy

But energy is free! I have a wind turbine! It only cost me $4.55 and was made out of recycled badgers.