Honda's New F1 Car

http://www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/2007/02/stories/06/images/2/large.jpg

Honda, as you can see from the official video above, has revealed a radical new livery for the 2007 F1 season.

Surprised? So are we. It's a bold move that will leave the rest of the grid looking a little paint-by-numbers.

Instead of advertising and sponsors' logos, the RA107 is wrapped in a single huge image of the earth, part of a green initiative to help raise awareness of environmental issues.

"Climate change is probably the single biggest issue facing the global community, and F1 is not immune from it," says Nick Fry, chief executive of Honda Racing F1.

We believe that F1, with its huge global profile and cutting-edge technology, can play an important role in not only highlighting the issue but also playing our part in developing solutions."

Using a three-mile-per-gallon car to fight global warming might seem like a contradiction, but the publicity generated will be huge.

Brainchild of Simon Fuller's agency 19, the myearthdream initiative aims to use the attention to invite fans to get behind the environmental message by pledging to make a green lifestyle change and donating money to an environmental charity.

The name of each donor will form a single pixel on the surface of the new car, which together will build the image of earth. Each name will be visible on the website, or under a microscope on the car.

http://www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/2007/02/stories/06/1.html

http://www.hondaracingf1.com/en/

I have to say, this has to be one of the coolest looking F1 cars I've ever seen. Very interesting route to go down, ignoring sponsors.

honestly, im not against environmental stuff. i think its good to have a more hospitable planet. but i think the global warming thing is so immensely over blown that its just ridiculous. its not even about science anymore, its about politics which is stupid. i mean it pisses me off i cant have an affordable new diesel car because none can meet emissions requirements, id love to get the fuel milage of one, while still having that low end torque.

honestly, im not against environmental stuff. i think its good to have a more hospitable planet. but i think the global warming thing is so immensely over blown that its just ridiculous. its not even about science anymore, its about politics which is stupid. i mean it pisses me off i cant have an affordable new diesel car because none can meet emissions requirements, id love to get the fuel milage of one, while still having that low end torque.

I don't think it's overblown because Al Gore and the scientists are all right, if that seemingly thin layer of ice melts and the BIG ice falls into the ocean we're looking at a tidal wave and a 20ft raise in the sea level. I don't know about you, but that scares the SHIT outta me, being in NY. I think this is a great idea, and using clean fuels in pro racing (like IRL) will help immensely for green exposure. The time to act and set things into a good direction is now.

I do think some sponsors may be pissed off though.

I don't think it's overblown because Al Gore and the scientists are all right, if that seemingly thin layer of ice melts and the BIG ice falls into the ocean we're looking at a tidal wave and a 20ft raise in the sea level. I don't know about you, but that scares the SHIT outta me, being in NY. I think this is a great idea, and using clean fuels in pro racing (like IRL) will help immensely for green exposure. The time to act and set things into a good direction is now.

see thats what im talking about, there is no evidence of that happening whatsoever. Al Gore is a hack and he made that movie soley for political purposes. he invented the internet too remember. there are many scientists that would argue the opposite way. theres this big uproar because of politics and hype artists like al gore. and yeah... ice falls into the ocean on a daily basis, they are called icebergs. there are no tidal waves. the earth was warmer 650 years ago than it is today, and there is proof of that. it was also warmer back in ancient roman times. the earth goes through cycles, im not saying we arent affecting it, but theres no evidence that we are. 30 years ago everyone was in uproar about global cooling

your statement about there being no evidence of global warming is a bit naive. i live in washington dc, and the political climate isn't the only climate heating up. we had the shortest winter this year, literally around two weeks of sub-zero temps. it's been getting shorter every year. so please, dont pretend as if global warming isnt happening. you might be dead before the full effect takes hold, but look at satellite imaging of the polar ice caps and watch as they've shrunk over the last dozen years or so, then make an educated statement about global warming, or nothing at all, if you please.

the polar ice caps have been shrinking for thousands of years. and winters have not been getting shorter, where i live last year was very cold and snowy, this year was a little short but there was el nino. statements like your are exactly what im talking about. why dont you look at some science and actually have some kind of facts to talk with that arent false or misleading. just because al gore likes global warming, and saw a chance to make money off it. doesnt mean it shouldnt be debated scientifically. also your own experiences in winters dont matter at all really, hate to tell you that. and i never said it isnt happening, im just saying its WAY over hyped and that there is no hard evidence of it at all. like i said, it was warmer 650 years ago, than it is today. so tell me why that is if your so smart. see, the problem here is that someone like me makes a perfectally reasonable statement, and gets flamed for it because global warming is untouchable. the atmoshpere around the issue has gotten to the point where if you question it then your a moron and should just kill yourself. its pathetic. my statement is so naive, why because ive seen scientific information to back it up?

Good looking and very original livery. Although the black at the rear is a bit strange, is it meant to be space above the curve of the earth? The livery is also pretty effective in hiding the lines of the car, so any interesting new aerodynamic fiddly bits will be difficult for other teams to spot.

As for the global warming debate, unfortunately it is so overcome with political agendas and journalistic sensationalism the true science is completely lost. Short of conducting ones own research I honestly do not know which side of the argument to trust. :dunno:

well i guess that says it all. you've made a believer out of me. thank you.

i guess to be more on topic... the car itself doesnt look bad at all. im just not sure i agree with the issue.

Just wondering what all the sponsors think of the livery, I don't see many labels on it. Yes the blackness is outer space and the shadow over the earth.

You know we're going to be hearing some very interesting commentary from the other teams this years, like "Hey Button, where's Uranus?"

didn't want to start a new thread so i'll tag it on here.....


anyone surprised to see that Anthony Davidson in the Super Aguri car is outperforming Jenson Button in the Honda car?
Pretty much just like every other testing session except this time, Davidson is actually racing.
This is going to be interesting; Super Aguri looking to be beating Honda in Round 1.

CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' are responsible for maintaining a stable temperature throughout the planet. Without them, we wouldn't have an atmosphere, no oxygen to breath, and it would be unbearably cold. Take a look at Mars. It possesses many of the same elements found on earth, but due to a lack of atmosphere the planet is extremely cold by our standards, and left unprotected from comets and asteroids. Without 'greenhouse gases' radiation from the sun wouldn't be captured in our atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen at the surfaces, celestial bodies wouldn't burn up as rapidly when passing through our atmosphere, and it would make human life either difficult or impossible on Earth. Here is a small diagram depicting how the radiation is trapped, or slowed due our atmosphere: http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/animation/atmosphere/greenhouse_effect.jpg

That being said, CO2 levels in the atmosphere appear to be directly proportional to the average temperature experienced nationwide. This is due to CO2 trapping more and more radiation from the sun, raising the temperature over a long period of time.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/priem/priem10.jpg
and over a longer period of time:
http://sharpgary.org/CO2GlobTemp.gif

The above graphs suggest that CO2 and temperature show a very close relationship, and that the higher the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, the higher global temperatures will rise. While heating, electrical, and industrial utilities account for a great deal of CO2 emission, transportation is one of the largest. The combustion of one gallon of gasoline creates 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. Here is a short article explaining the chemistry involved in this reaction: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml

I'm not suggesting that a climate change will make earth inhospitable for life, but we will be entering uncharted territory. CO2 levels have never been this high, and especially not as high as the projected levels. It's hard to predict how high levels can go before they begin to impact our health, because we simply have never experienced anything like this before. However, there is a certain point where an event called a 'runaway greenhouse effect' is reached, where more and more radiation is trapped in our atmosphere, temperatures rise to the point where bodies of water evaporate into water vapor and thus become greenhouse gases themselves. If this were to occur, Earth would become something akin to Venus, which has an extremely dense atmosphere and an average surface temperature of 872 degrees Fahrenheit.

An unexpected but helpful source of information on atmospheric and greenhouse studies can be found in books dealing with planet terraforming. Creating or decreasing atmospheric conditions may be the key to sustaining life on other planets, and there is a great deal of research done in this area, specifically when dealing with Mars.

i already knew the science behind how it works, but others may not have so thats good info. but it doesnt really change anything i said.

another thing, is really if you look at how much CO2 is produced in nature already (one big source is the vents on the ocean floor) what we produce as humans is very insignificant in the amount (not necessarily saying it doesnt do anything at all though)

Guys, this is not really the place for discussing global warming. A couple of mentions are OK, but over a screen with diagrams and pictures is just too much. Discuss F1.

Super Aguri beat Honda both in qualifying and the race. :p

I think it's funny that they're using one of the most eco-unfriendly machines on the planet to promote eco-friendliness. I mean, an F1 car burns fossil fuels at an unbelievable rate... FOR NO REASON! It's also a pitiable waste of rubber, polymer compounds, metal, etc. On top of that, it creates massive noise pollution. Just think of the greenhouse gases vented into the atmosphere during the creation of all that carbon fiber. It's absurd. It's like Greenpeace sponsoring the Exxon Valdez.

This car looks like barf.

I think Honda is trying to do something new and innovative by introducing remotely green while the other F1 teams are ignored by people like Friends of the Earth. But I don't understand, Why Honda is getting the abuse for its new innovation? And the Friends of the Earth also completely ignore the fact that some of the technology goes into making current cars cleaner and more efficient was contributed to in some small way by the research performed by F1 racing teams and others.

Supporting the human-caused climate change already, and the need to take measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Many of these quotations, or references to the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as "reliable" or one of the most reliable sources of accurate information on climate change.