If you’re worried about leaded fuels (and I agree, you should be) then don’t look up next time a small plane flies over… They’re almost all still using leaded Avgas :\
Some scientist took to mapping IQ levels geographically and everyone who lives downwind of a small airport has a consistent and directly proportional drop to the average concentration of airborne lead for about 1-4 miles surrounding them. The drops in IQ even perfectly match the wind patterns. It’s insane. If you live really close to a small airport, pack up and move away.
It’s also crazy that they allowed small aircraft to get away with not having to follow the same fuel regulations, it’s really a small difference in cost, our politicians are just too bought out.
Edit: but also, the rest of us likely breathe it in as well, just not as much, and we haven’t figured out exactly how much; ostensibly because it spreads out too much and thus affects everyone more evenly. Yay “energy” corporations and capitalism.
Aviation regulations are written in blood. There’s a reason general aviation is stuck with technology developed in the 50s and 60s: innovating is so expensive from a compliance standpoint and production volume so low that new technologies enter that space at a glacial pace. A new Jet-A burning piston engine is only available in airframes that cost $1M+ and the cost of retrofitting in older airframes is prohibitive. If we weren’t so restrictive on the regulations, capitalism would offer a solution at a vastly reduced price point. So, would you rather have less provably safe aircraft, leaded avgas, or the complete prohibition of aircraft that make up the vast majority of the GA population?
The fuel used in F1 cars is fairly similar to ordinary (premium) petrol, albeit with a far more tightly controlled mix. Formula One fuel would fall under high octane premium road fuel with octane thresholds of 95 to 102. Since the 1992 season onwards all Formula One cars must mandatorily utilize unleaded racing gasoline fuel.
“Zero safe limits” has a lot to do with the scale. While it can’t be good for those in attendance, between the relative infrequency of races, limited number of cars on the field, and general use of batteries even in the ICE leagues (let alone caring about emissions for efficiency purposes), it is probably perfectly fine. Or, more pointedly, all the OTHER emissions are likely a much bigger concern.
Also, the number of safety and societal dangers of F1 go WELL beyond just dangerous fuel. Like, I enjoy watching the occasional race. But holy shit does F1 make pro wrestling look “not THAT bad…”
Their point has validity on any scale though… I’m generally not a fan of “zero tolerance” in any context, but the context here is ostensibly an intentionally equalized playing field, meaning that a zero tolerance policy on any aspect is inherently fair… So there’s really no excuse for accepting environmental hazards…
The assertion that allowance of additives (any additives that pose environmental/spectator hazards) has no benefit other than “car go fast”, is a solid point.
The waste from the cars, the maintenance, transportation, and the event itself go above and beyond. Yes, everyone totally keeps the fancy kitty litter around to get every single leak and so forth. Sure…
Not to mention the increased exhaust.
As for scale: Yes, it really does matter.
Rough numbers time.
According to chatgpt, an F1 car has a max fuel capacity of 110 kg per race. Obviously they try to avoid using all of that for a range of reasons, but sure. Not gonna bother to write the math, but that is about 39.29 gallons.
Roughly 20 cars on the starting grid, and let’s assume for the sake of easy math that every car used a full tank for practice, both rounds of qualifiers, and the race itself. So 4*39.29*20=3143 gallons per race for the cars alone.
Still chatgpt because the window is open, but the average sedan has 12-18 gallons tanks.
3143/12=261 cars. 261 cars use the amount of fuel used in a single F1 race in between trips to the gas station.
Still using chatgpt: average attendance numbers range from 10k to 100k spectators.
So yeah. The amount of fuel used in a given F1 race is a drop in the bucket relative to just how much is used by the cars that bring people to watch them. And I have intentionally not included the trucks used to transport the f1 cars or even the trains and boats.
And that is why, while it isn’t good and I am opposed to it, the lead that may or may not still be used in F1 fuel (chat gpt says no, random ass quora page says 5 mg/L. Whereas, if there were even trace amounts of lead in the gas that gets everyone else to the F1 race…
The environmental impact of an F1 race, let alone a season, is horrendous. Even if we are talking formula E or whatever the current pure electric league is. And fixating on older fuel composition in the light of that is, quite frankly, asinine and self defeating.
Hell, the dirt and dust around the more rural tracks probably has MUCH more lead than the fuel.
According to the EPA 61 FR 3832 - Prohibition on Gasoline Containing Lead or Lead Additives for Highway Use
EPA has historically defined unleaded gasoline as gasoline
that is produced without the use of any lead additive and that contains
no more than 0.05 gram of lead per gallon. EPA interprets section
211(n) this way for the following reasons. The regulatory definition of ``unleaded gasoline’’ also
contains a cap on the amount of phosphorus, see 40 CFR 80.2(g), but
the phosphorus cap is not relevant to the discussion of section
211(n). Unleaded gasoline that was produced without lead additives may pick
up trace amounts of lead as it passes through refinery and transport
systems that had previously contained leaded gasoline.
This is the same limit Formula 1 has for its fuels. Formula 1 fuel is unleaded fuel.
For Formula 1 cars it is 5mg/l. Old four star leaded has about 840mg/l but is now banned. In the UK low lead petrol is available from a small number of specialist garages for classic cars which cannot run on unleaded and contains about 75mg/l.
So while none is the best, this is a very small fraction in comparison as to what it used to be, and it also is to cover cross contamination purposes.
get those engines modified so they do take unleaded, shit is bad for anyone breathing it
edit: also, I’m not sure I completely buy it. Lead was only picked as an additive because it was the cheapest available. Before it was even picked, there were other economically and mechanically viable alternatives. The commercial aircraft industry switched to a different additive seamlessly once lead was legislated away. The studies about this are abundant and easily found; sounds like some old farts just managed to squeeze by with a bogus excuse that no-one scrutinized.
deleted by creator
If you’re worried about leaded fuels (and I agree, you should be) then don’t look up next time a small plane flies over… They’re almost all still using leaded Avgas :\
deleted by creator
Some scientist took to mapping IQ levels geographically and everyone who lives downwind of a small airport has a consistent and directly proportional drop to the average concentration of airborne lead for about 1-4 miles surrounding them. The drops in IQ even perfectly match the wind patterns. It’s insane. If you live really close to a small airport, pack up and move away.
It’s also crazy that they allowed small aircraft to get away with not having to follow the same fuel regulations, it’s really a small difference in cost, our politicians are just too bought out.
Edit: but also, the rest of us likely breathe it in as well, just not as much, and we haven’t figured out exactly how much; ostensibly because it spreads out too much and thus affects everyone more evenly. Yay “energy” corporations and capitalism.
Aviation regulations are written in blood. There’s a reason general aviation is stuck with technology developed in the 50s and 60s: innovating is so expensive from a compliance standpoint and production volume so low that new technologies enter that space at a glacial pace. A new Jet-A burning piston engine is only available in airframes that cost $1M+ and the cost of retrofitting in older airframes is prohibitive. If we weren’t so restrictive on the regulations, capitalism would offer a solution at a vastly reduced price point. So, would you rather have less provably safe aircraft, leaded avgas, or the complete prohibition of aircraft that make up the vast majority of the GA population?
The last one.
Let’s slow the world down a little bit - things move waaaay to fast anymore.
Formula 1 hasn’t used leaded fuel since the early 90s.
Why fucking lie
deleted by creator
-Wikipedia on F1
Yea, the Wikipedia page on formula one cars
Formula one car
That’s the same as saying they don’t contain any.
Yea, no. F1 cars don’t use leaded fuel.
“Zero safe limits” has a lot to do with the scale. While it can’t be good for those in attendance, between the relative infrequency of races, limited number of cars on the field, and general use of batteries even in the ICE leagues (let alone caring about emissions for efficiency purposes), it is probably perfectly fine. Or, more pointedly, all the OTHER emissions are likely a much bigger concern.
Also, the number of safety and societal dangers of F1 go WELL beyond just dangerous fuel. Like, I enjoy watching the occasional race. But holy shit does F1 make pro wrestling look “not THAT bad…”
Their point has validity on any scale though… I’m generally not a fan of “zero tolerance” in any context, but the context here is ostensibly an intentionally equalized playing field, meaning that a zero tolerance policy on any aspect is inherently fair… So there’s really no excuse for accepting environmental hazards…
The assertion that allowance of additives (any additives that pose environmental/spectator hazards) has no benefit other than “car go fast”, is a solid point.
The waste from the cars, the maintenance, transportation, and the event itself go above and beyond. Yes, everyone totally keeps the fancy kitty litter around to get every single leak and so forth. Sure…
Not to mention the increased exhaust.
As for scale: Yes, it really does matter.
Rough numbers time.
So 4*39.29*20=3143gallons per race for the cars alone.3143 / 12 = 261cars. 261 cars use the amount of fuel used in a single F1 race in between trips to the gas station.So yeah. The amount of fuel used in a given F1 race is a drop in the bucket relative to just how much is used by the cars that bring people to watch them. And I have intentionally not included the trucks used to transport the f1 cars or even the trains and boats.
And that is why, while it isn’t good and I am opposed to it, the lead that may or may not still be used in F1 fuel (chat gpt says no, random ass quora page says 5 mg/L. Whereas, if there were even trace amounts of lead in the gas that gets everyone else to the F1 race…
The environmental impact of an F1 race, let alone a season, is horrendous. Even if we are talking formula E or whatever the current pure electric league is. And fixating on older fuel composition in the light of that is, quite frankly, asinine and self defeating.
Hell, the dirt and dust around the more rural tracks probably has MUCH more lead than the fuel.
deleted by creator
Not all series use the same fuel as formula 1, pretty much just formula 1&2
Formula One hasn’t used leaded gasoline since the 90’s.
The fuel they use is actually very similar to the gas that anyone can buy at the pump.
https://flowracers.com/blog/what-fuel-do-f1-cars-use/
deleted by creator
Here’s something that you might find annoying:
According to the EPA 61 FR 3832 - Prohibition on Gasoline Containing Lead or Lead Additives for Highway Use
This is the same limit Formula 1 has for its fuels. Formula 1 fuel is unleaded fuel.
It’s even like E10 now
For Formula 1 cars it is 5mg/l. Old four star leaded has about 840mg/l but is now banned. In the UK low lead petrol is available from a small number of specialist garages for classic cars which cannot run on unleaded and contains about 75mg/l.
So while none is the best, this is a very small fraction in comparison as to what it used to be, and it also is to cover cross contamination purposes.
get those engines modified so they do take unleaded, shit is bad for anyone breathing it
edit: also, I’m not sure I completely buy it. Lead was only picked as an additive because it was the cheapest available. Before it was even picked, there were other economically and mechanically viable alternatives. The commercial aircraft industry switched to a different additive seamlessly once lead was legislated away. The studies about this are abundant and easily found; sounds like some old farts just managed to squeeze by with a bogus excuse that no-one scrutinized.
Don’t know why you’re downvoted, there’s no excuse to use leaded fuel in anything.
There’s no lead in the fuel. That’s why. Downvote for incorrect information.