The auto racing arena is considered the proving ground for next-generation ideas of the consumer car market. It's a slick marketing tool to say your new car has "race-proven" this or "F1-inspired" that. Now, it's become a microcosm of how alternative fuel vehicles can impact the marketplace.
Starting in 2006, the Indy Racing League will blend in the corn-derived ethanol with its current fuel, methanol in a 90/10 mixture. In 2007, they will go to pure ethanol as their fuel of choice. Meanwhile, NASCAR has proven to be more stubborn. A recent letter from Clean Air Watch highlighted the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency asked NASCAR six years ago to change to unleaded gasoline. NASCAR engines currently operate on leaded gasoline under a 1990 congressional exemption of the aviation and racing industries from EPA regulations. NASCAR politely declined to change.
The underlying reasons given by the racing bodies belie their making (or not making) the switch. The IRL's Senior Technical Director Paul Casey says "there will be a seamless transition." According to Casey, "testing has shown that there are no technical barriers to replacing methanol with ethanol" while the engines "demonstrated excellent performance because of the fuel's high octane content."
Not so in the case of NASCAR. Stock cars use different engines and, in their setup, lead increases the octane rating of the gas, allowing engines to use higher compression ratios. To switch fuels would mean overhauling the teams' engine programs.
Not only that, lead lubricates their engine valves, and without it "the engines don't work as well," which leads to "continual problems," according to spokesman Ramsey Poston, who implies that this would mean more blown engines during races and practice.
The reactions of the motor sport community demonstrate that economic pragmatism and general performance overshadows environmental idealism. In the case of the IRL, its switch will not affect the performance and will create only negligible adjustment costs. NASCAR is at the opposite end because making the switch would be cost-prohibitive. NASCAR's stance isn't doesn't come from hating Mother Earth; it's because, according to Poston, "we just have not been able to find a solution." In other words, the current setup works better for us.
While working towards cleaner, renewable fuel sources, the racing bodies are demonstrating the method for introducing alternative-fuel vehicles to the American consumer. If they offer a comparable product with comparable performance and price, then there is incentive for the buyer to switch. But if product does not offer comparable performance and has inhibitive operating costs, the consumer will not go for it.
Thus, the racing industry serves again as the microcosm of the automotive market. While gas prices continue to climb, drivers still must go to the pumps. The market is open to a carmaker that can develop a comparable alternative-fuel product. It's a better solution than taxing sport utility vehicles or any of the other measures deemed necessary to lessen fuel consumption that do nothing to address the pressing transportation requirements of the average citizen.
When the market introduces alternative-fuel vehicles with an equal or lower economic impact to the consumer's wallet, the public will embrace them. The best way to encourage environmental protection is through pragmatic and affordable development of alternative products that perform as well as those they will replace.
Write to Jeff at
mannedarena@yahoo.com
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
