<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: GM Boss: F1&#8217;s New Rules are Greenwash</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gas2.org/2009/03/05/gm-boss-f1s-new-rules-are-greenwash/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gas2.org/2009/03/05/gm-boss-f1s-new-rules-are-greenwash/</link>
	<description>What is the future of fuel?  What&#039;s new?  What&#039;s next?  Since 2007, Gas 2 has covered a rapidly changing world coming to terms with its oil addiction.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:34:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Mar.17th 2011 &#171; The Daily Bayonet</title>
		<link>http://gas2.org/2009/03/05/gm-boss-f1s-new-rules-are-greenwash/#comment-85647</link>
		<dc:creator>Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Mar.17th 2011 &#171; The Daily Bayonet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:02:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/?p=1893#comment-85647</guid>
		<description>[...] says that if the sport adopts eco-engines in 2013, no-one will watch it.  He&#8217;s right, the KERS greenwash is bad [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] says that if the sport adopts eco-engines in 2013, no-one will watch it.  He&#8217;s right, the KERS greenwash is bad [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://gas2.org/2009/03/05/gm-boss-f1s-new-rules-are-greenwash/#comment-8573</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:00:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/?p=1893#comment-8573</guid>
		<description>Pity Lutz is retiring. If he put his money where his mouth is and GM were keen to tip the cubic billions required to develop EV racing than I&#039;m sure they could easily find teams and drivers. (even if the girls who drive F1 are already scared sh*tless of getting electricuted in their KERS cars). Of course, they&#039;re broke!!BTW when has GM EVER been involved in F1 racing?



There is a class for Hybrids at LeMans, are GM going to race the Volt there? LOL I doubt it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pity Lutz is retiring. If he put his money where his mouth is and GM were keen to tip the cubic billions required to develop EV racing than I&#8217;m sure they could easily find teams and drivers. (even if the girls who drive F1 are already scared sh*tless of getting electricuted in their KERS cars). Of course, they&#8217;re broke!!BTW when has GM EVER been involved in F1 racing?</p>
<p>There is a class for Hybrids at LeMans, are GM going to race the Volt there? LOL I doubt it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://gas2.org/2009/03/05/gm-boss-f1s-new-rules-are-greenwash/#comment-31051</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/?p=1893#comment-31051</guid>
		<description>Pity Lutz is retiring. If he put his money where his mouth is and GM were keen to tip the cubic billions required to develop EV racing than I&#039;m sure they could easily find teams and drivers. (even if the girls who drive F1 are already scared sh*tless of getting electricuted in their KERS cars). Of course, they&#039;re broke!!BTW when has GM EVER been involved in F1 racing?



There is a class for Hybrids at LeMans, are GM going to race the Volt there? LOL I doubt it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pity Lutz is retiring. If he put his money where his mouth is and GM were keen to tip the cubic billions required to develop EV racing than I&#8217;m sure they could easily find teams and drivers. (even if the girls who drive F1 are already scared sh*tless of getting electricuted in their KERS cars). Of course, they&#8217;re broke!!BTW when has GM EVER been involved in F1 racing?</p>
<p>There is a class for Hybrids at LeMans, are GM going to race the Volt there? LOL I doubt it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jonnyCtigger</title>
		<link>http://gas2.org/2009/03/05/gm-boss-f1s-new-rules-are-greenwash/#comment-8572</link>
		<dc:creator>jonnyCtigger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:56:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/?p=1893#comment-8572</guid>
		<description>It may assist the evolution of decreasing-emission engines by inventing a set of rules for a revived (and I think motor sport needs it) &#039;Formula One&#039; based on minimising the use of fuel.

...or, I would like to see, removing fuel altogether from F1 and concentrate on compressed air; there are so many different opportunities in The Environment to produce compressed air.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It may assist the evolution of decreasing-emission engines by inventing a set of rules for a revived (and I think motor sport needs it) &#8216;Formula One&#8217; based on minimising the use of fuel.</p>
<p>&#8230;or, I would like to see, removing fuel altogether from F1 and concentrate on compressed air; there are so many different opportunities in The Environment to produce compressed air.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jonnyCtigger</title>
		<link>http://gas2.org/2009/03/05/gm-boss-f1s-new-rules-are-greenwash/#comment-31050</link>
		<dc:creator>jonnyCtigger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/?p=1893#comment-31050</guid>
		<description>It may assist the evolution of decreasing-emission engines by inventing a set of rules for a revived (and I think motor sport needs it) &#039;Formula One&#039; based on minimising the use of fuel.

...or, I would like to see, removing fuel altogether from F1 and concentrate on compressed air; there are so many different opportunities in The Environment to produce compressed air.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It may assist the evolution of decreasing-emission engines by inventing a set of rules for a revived (and I think motor sport needs it) &#8216;Formula One&#8217; based on minimising the use of fuel.</p>
<p>&#8230;or, I would like to see, removing fuel altogether from F1 and concentrate on compressed air; there are so many different opportunities in The Environment to produce compressed air.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChuckL</title>
		<link>http://gas2.org/2009/03/05/gm-boss-f1s-new-rules-are-greenwash/#comment-8571</link>
		<dc:creator>ChuckL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 05:53:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/?p=1893#comment-8571</guid>
		<description>Lutz is correct if one only considers current racing formulae or organizations. NASCAR, doesn&#039;t even use what the manufacturers produce for sale.Ford and Toyota use overhead camshaft engines except for racing in NASCAR. No one uses carburetors any more. It is all fuel injection except NASCAR and older racing series. Let&#039;s face it. NASCAR designed the race cars and allows them to be built by auto manufacturers who then place their name on the cars they sponsor.



Way back in the &quot;dark ages&quot; NASCAR used real stock cars. Then they allowed &quot;safety&quot; improvements. Someone found that the roll cage could be used to strengthen the frame (frames were separate items then) and that helped handling. Ford&#039;s 9&quot; differential was the strongest so everyone used them. The design was carried over to the current cars, but the differential is built by an after market supplier with stronger materials than were ever in the ones used in the &#039;60&#039;s and &#039;70&#039;s. Fuel injection could reduce fuel consumption and increase power, but then NASCAR would have to find another way to slow the cars. I believe that the records that Bill Elliot set at Talledega (212.+) and Daytona (210.+) with his &#039;85 or &#039;86 Thunderbird still stand. Smaller engines and restrictor plates under the carburetors solved the speed problem even though the cars became smaller and more aerodynamic.



Current major organization racing rules definitely kill innovation.



NASCAR could fix this. Set the engine displacement limit to 4.0 liters rather than the current 5.7. Require that the stock design fuel system be used, although with different flow capacity injectors. Require that the showroom wheel geometry must be used within the service limits. Require showroom ride height less not  more than 2 inches. Require the bodywork to be showroom stock. (Anyone else for Plymouth &quot;Superbirds&quot; and Ford &quot;Torino Talladegas&quot;?)



I know.  IT JUST AIN&#039;T GONNA HAPPEN.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lutz is correct if one only considers current racing formulae or organizations. NASCAR, doesn&#8217;t even use what the manufacturers produce for sale.Ford and Toyota use overhead camshaft engines except for racing in NASCAR. No one uses carburetors any more. It is all fuel injection except NASCAR and older racing series. Let&#8217;s face it. NASCAR designed the race cars and allows them to be built by auto manufacturers who then place their name on the cars they sponsor.</p>
<p>Way back in the &#8220;dark ages&#8221; NASCAR used real stock cars. Then they allowed &#8220;safety&#8221; improvements. Someone found that the roll cage could be used to strengthen the frame (frames were separate items then) and that helped handling. Ford&#8217;s 9&#8243; differential was the strongest so everyone used them. The design was carried over to the current cars, but the differential is built by an after market supplier with stronger materials than were ever in the ones used in the &#8217;60&#8242;s and &#8217;70&#8242;s. Fuel injection could reduce fuel consumption and increase power, but then NASCAR would have to find another way to slow the cars. I believe that the records that Bill Elliot set at Talledega (212.+) and Daytona (210.+) with his &#8217;85 or &#8217;86 Thunderbird still stand. Smaller engines and restrictor plates under the carburetors solved the speed problem even though the cars became smaller and more aerodynamic.</p>
<p>Current major organization racing rules definitely kill innovation.</p>
<p>NASCAR could fix this. Set the engine displacement limit to 4.0 liters rather than the current 5.7. Require that the stock design fuel system be used, although with different flow capacity injectors. Require that the showroom wheel geometry must be used within the service limits. Require showroom ride height less not  more than 2 inches. Require the bodywork to be showroom stock. (Anyone else for Plymouth &#8220;Superbirds&#8221; and Ford &#8220;Torino Talladegas&#8221;?)</p>
<p>I know.  IT JUST AIN&#8217;T GONNA HAPPEN.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChuckL</title>
		<link>http://gas2.org/2009/03/05/gm-boss-f1s-new-rules-are-greenwash/#comment-31049</link>
		<dc:creator>ChuckL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 05:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/?p=1893#comment-31049</guid>
		<description>Lutz is correct if one only considers current racing formulae or organizations. NASCAR, doesn&#039;t even use what the manufacturers produce for sale.Ford and Toyota use overhead camshaft engines except for racing in NASCAR. No one uses carburetors any more. It is all fuel injection except NASCAR and older racing series. Let&#039;s face it. NASCAR designed the race cars and allows them to be built by auto manufacturers who then place their name on the cars they sponsor.



Way back in the &quot;dark ages&quot; NASCAR used real stock cars. Then they allowed &quot;safety&quot; improvements. Someone found that the roll cage could be used to strengthen the frame (frames were separate items then) and that helped handling. Ford&#039;s 9&quot; differential was the strongest so everyone used them. The design was carried over to the current cars, but the differential is built by an after market supplier with stronger materials than were ever in the ones used in the &#039;60&#039;s and &#039;70&#039;s. Fuel injection could reduce fuel consumption and increase power, but then NASCAR would have to find another way to slow the cars. I believe that the records that Bill Elliot set at Talledega (212.+) and Daytona (210.+) with his &#039;85 or &#039;86 Thunderbird still stand. Smaller engines and restrictor plates under the carburetors solved the speed problem even though the cars became smaller and more aerodynamic.



Current major organization racing rules definitely kill innovation.



NASCAR could fix this. Set the engine displacement limit to 4.0 liters rather than the current 5.7. Require that the stock design fuel system be used, although with different flow capacity injectors. Require that the showroom wheel geometry must be used within the service limits. Require showroom ride height less not  more than 2 inches. Require the bodywork to be showroom stock. (Anyone else for Plymouth &quot;Superbirds&quot; and Ford &quot;Torino Talladegas&quot;?)



I know.  IT JUST AIN&#039;T GONNA HAPPEN.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lutz is correct if one only considers current racing formulae or organizations. NASCAR, doesn&#8217;t even use what the manufacturers produce for sale.Ford and Toyota use overhead camshaft engines except for racing in NASCAR. No one uses carburetors any more. It is all fuel injection except NASCAR and older racing series. Let&#8217;s face it. NASCAR designed the race cars and allows them to be built by auto manufacturers who then place their name on the cars they sponsor.</p>
<p>Way back in the &#8220;dark ages&#8221; NASCAR used real stock cars. Then they allowed &#8220;safety&#8221; improvements. Someone found that the roll cage could be used to strengthen the frame (frames were separate items then) and that helped handling. Ford&#8217;s 9&#8243; differential was the strongest so everyone used them. The design was carried over to the current cars, but the differential is built by an after market supplier with stronger materials than were ever in the ones used in the &#8217;60&#8242;s and &#8217;70&#8242;s. Fuel injection could reduce fuel consumption and increase power, but then NASCAR would have to find another way to slow the cars. I believe that the records that Bill Elliot set at Talledega (212.+) and Daytona (210.+) with his &#8217;85 or &#8217;86 Thunderbird still stand. Smaller engines and restrictor plates under the carburetors solved the speed problem even though the cars became smaller and more aerodynamic.</p>
<p>Current major organization racing rules definitely kill innovation.</p>
<p>NASCAR could fix this. Set the engine displacement limit to 4.0 liters rather than the current 5.7. Require that the stock design fuel system be used, although with different flow capacity injectors. Require that the showroom wheel geometry must be used within the service limits. Require showroom ride height less not  more than 2 inches. Require the bodywork to be showroom stock. (Anyone else for Plymouth &#8220;Superbirds&#8221; and Ford &#8220;Torino Talladegas&#8221;?)</p>
<p>I know.  IT JUST AIN&#8217;T GONNA HAPPEN.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChuckL</title>
		<link>http://gas2.org/2009/03/05/gm-boss-f1s-new-rules-are-greenwash/#comment-8570</link>
		<dc:creator>ChuckL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 05:21:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/?p=1893#comment-8570</guid>
		<description>I believe that it was UPS or Fed Ex that is now using KERS systems in some of its delivery trucks. If memory serves correctly, the system uses hydraulic fluid powered by compressed air for motivation and braking pumps the fluid back to the high pressure chamber. The pump/motor is a positive displacement unit.



It is not really new technology. Automobiles are just a new application. and just out of curiosity, wouldn&#039;t a regenerative braking system such as Ford has in the 2010 Fusion also qualify as a KERS system? I know. This is also just a new application and Ford wasn&#039;t the first.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe that it was UPS or Fed Ex that is now using KERS systems in some of its delivery trucks. If memory serves correctly, the system uses hydraulic fluid powered by compressed air for motivation and braking pumps the fluid back to the high pressure chamber. The pump/motor is a positive displacement unit.</p>
<p>It is not really new technology. Automobiles are just a new application. and just out of curiosity, wouldn&#8217;t a regenerative braking system such as Ford has in the 2010 Fusion also qualify as a KERS system? I know. This is also just a new application and Ford wasn&#8217;t the first.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChuckL</title>
		<link>http://gas2.org/2009/03/05/gm-boss-f1s-new-rules-are-greenwash/#comment-31048</link>
		<dc:creator>ChuckL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 05:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/?p=1893#comment-31048</guid>
		<description>I believe that it was UPS or Fed Ex that is now using KERS systems in some of its delivery trucks. If memory serves correctly, the system uses hydraulic fluid powered by compressed air for motivation and braking pumps the fluid back to the high pressure chamber. The pump/motor is a positive displacement unit.



It is not really new technology. Automobiles are just a new application. and just out of curiosity, wouldn&#039;t a regenerative braking system such as Ford has in the 2010 Fusion also qualify as a KERS system? I know. This is also just a new application and Ford wasn&#039;t the first.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe that it was UPS or Fed Ex that is now using KERS systems in some of its delivery trucks. If memory serves correctly, the system uses hydraulic fluid powered by compressed air for motivation and braking pumps the fluid back to the high pressure chamber. The pump/motor is a positive displacement unit.</p>
<p>It is not really new technology. Automobiles are just a new application. and just out of curiosity, wouldn&#8217;t a regenerative braking system such as Ford has in the 2010 Fusion also qualify as a KERS system? I know. This is also just a new application and Ford wasn&#8217;t the first.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A D</title>
		<link>http://gas2.org/2009/03/05/gm-boss-f1s-new-rules-are-greenwash/#comment-8569</link>
		<dc:creator>A D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:19:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gas2.org/?p=1893#comment-8569</guid>
		<description>Why are you critical of what Lutz said?



He&#039;s right about F1. They will still use a boatload of fuel.



BTW, nobody has sold or has a KERS system production ready.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why are you critical of what Lutz said?</p>
<p>He&#8217;s right about F1. They will still use a boatload of fuel.</p>
<p>BTW, nobody has sold or has a KERS system production ready.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

