Impact of holding F1 in S'pore
-
Gov's bright ideas always generate secondary and new problems....Originally posted by :I'm sure we can all not do shopping for a weekend but the question is can retailers do without earning shoppers' money for that weekend considering how high rentals can ve especially at premium shopping centres?
Why the fark, can't they hold the race in a local race circuit? Don't have, built one!!! -
I certainly hope, that this F1 thing is not going to turn out like their many previous "wanna swim but don't wanna get wet" initiatives... -
if someone would sponsor me a tix.
-
Sepang's grandstand tickets cost RM$1000/-
I imagine SG's grandstand tics will be the same price...in SGD.
-
I have to disagree with you on three points.
Firstly, F1 drivers go through intensive training to condition their bodies. They are bloody fit, since they need to cope with forces of up to 5G under acceleration, braking and during cornering. A normal jogger will pass out after a few laps in the car.
Secondly, the entire F1 grid over the whole season uses only as much fuel as a single 747 taking off. The cars and engines are designed to be very efficient for the amount of power they produce. FIA will also implement the use of energy-recovery systems in 2010. So F1 is doing its bit to promote the efficient use of natural resources.
Thirdly, motor racing does not promote irresponsible driving. Drivers regularly appear in ads elsewhere to discourage people from that and drink-driving. And as it is, illegal racing's already taking place on our roads.
As soon as we learn that we have a race to host, we can then get Herman Tilke and co to repave the asphalt in stages and install rumble strips. That will reduce the disruption to businesses and traffic flow. However, expecting life to continue as per normal would be unreasonable.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:That's taking it far too simply. The TS is right...there are lots of implications, not all of which are good.
As they say in construction, safety first. To have an F1 race at night on our streets, there will be various modifications required to light up the track further. Our public roads are not designed for vehicles driving at those speeds at night without headlights. Roads will have to be re-surfaced, additional street lights installed. The amount of disruption to traffic will be considerable, weeks or months before the race.
There will need to be construction of viewing galleries and infrastructure required for the race, which will involve road closures and diversions.
Third, there will be the environmental impact, the noise and light pollution which will impact all residents close to the race track, irregardless of whether they are fans of the race.
There is also the possible long-term adverse effect of encouraging young people to emulate such races. I expect there will be more illegal street races and so more police resources will have to be deployed to prevent that.
As a recreation, it is an exclusive activity available only to the select few who can afford it. As a sport, it does not improve aerobic fitness and there are many better and healthier alternatives. A champion F1 racer is no more likely to pass the IPPT than one who takes up jogging. For the environment, it has a detrimental impact and probably the last thing we would want to introduce to Singapore at a time when we are going into green technology.
There is only one reason for bringing it in. It has the potential to earn millions for Singapore through an event that just lasts a week and there are long term benefits for the tourism industry. I am not a fan of F1 and would oppose this activity but for that one reason....it's good for the economy.
The government is considering the costs and benefits. If it can bring in hundreds of millions of dollars as events in other nations do, then I will support this event in Singapore. The adverse impact are mostly short-term and if the returns are as good as they are reported to be, then it is worth it. -
Well we can watch it on ESPN or Starsports..Originally posted by BillyBong:Sepang's grandstand tickets cost RM$1000/-
I imagine SG's grandstand tics will be the same price...in SGD. 
-
Logistic problems can be solved if well-thought out plans made in advance, but the thinking of the public is hard to control or changed.Originally posted by Kuali Baba:I have to disagree with you on three points.
Firstly, F1 drivers go through intensive training to condition their bodies. They are bloody fit, since they need to cope with forces of up to 5G under acceleration, braking and during cornering. A normal jogger will pass out after a few laps in the car.
Secondly, the entire F1 grid over the whole season uses only as much fuel as a single 747 taking off. The cars and engines are designed to be very efficient for the amount of power they produce. FIA will also implement the use of energy-recovery systems in 2010. So F1 is doing its bit to promote the efficient use of natural resources.
Thirdly, motor racing does not promote irresponsible driving. Drivers regularly appear in ads elsewhere to discourage people from that and drink-driving. And as it is, illegal racing's already taking place on our roads.
As soon as we learn that we have a race to host, we can then get Herman Tilke and co to repave the asphalt in stages and install rumble strips. That will reduce the disruption to businesses and traffic flow. However, expecting life to continue as per normal would be unreasonable.
Actually, I think F1 itself is quite safe (for those involved) due to their training, equipment, safety procedures, rules and regulations etc... It's when those public who have no access to such facilities but still want to emulate them, then the accidents happen.
It's like during world cup season, I can almost guarantee you that the sales of soccer boots will increase and there will be more people playing soccer, even those who seldom play before, leading to higher incident of sports injuries etc. -
As far as I am aware, there is no data to support any effect of hosting races on driving behaviour in the area. The issue was examined in Melbourne before the Grand Prix was brought back from Adelaide, but that's fizzled out.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:As they say in construction, safety first. To have an F1 race at night on our streets, there will be various modifications required to light up the track further. Our public roads are not designed for vehicles driving at those speeds at night [b]without headlights. Roads will have to be re-surfaced, additional street lights installed. The amount of disruption to traffic will be considerable, weeks or months before the race.
There will need to be construction of viewing galleries and infrastructure required for the race, which will involve road closures and diversions.
Third, there will be the environmental impact, the noise and light pollution which will impact all residents close to the race track, irregardless of whether they are fans of the race.[/b][/quote]
This much I'll agree with. We're looking at night races in Melbourne as well, and I doubt that the residents of Albert Park will appreciate having the cars screaming along at night when they're trying to get sleep before starting work the next day.
[quote]Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
There is also the possible long-term adverse effect of encouraging young people to emulate such races. I expect there will be more illegal street races and so more police resources will have to be deployed to prevent that.
At race speeds, and in particular in tight street circuits, drivers' pulse rates rise to over 200 beats per minute lap after lap. On top of that, they need to maintain full concentration over the course of a two-hour race, and the temperature in the driver's helmet often rise to up to 60 degrees celsius.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:As a recreation, it is an exclusive activity available only to the select few who can afford it. As a sport, it does not improve aerobic fitness and there are many better and healthier alternatives. A champion F1 racer is no more likely to pass the IPPT than one who takes up jogging. For the environment, it has a detrimental impact and probably the last thing we would want to introduce to Singapore at a time when we are going into green technology.
If someone can deal with that on a weekly basis (when they're not racing they're testing, and testing sessions can go on for longer than races), what's an IPPT to them?
Sure it has the potential, but it also has the potential to lose money. Check the stats on which cities make money during a GP weekend and which lose money.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:There is only one reason for bringing it in. It has the potential to earn millions for Singapore through an event that just lasts a week and there are long term benefits for the tourism industry. I am not a fan of F1 and would oppose this activity but for that one reason....it's good for the economy. -
A 747 carrying 500 passengers consume about 12L of fuel per KM. that means it consume 0.024L per person per 1km.Originally posted by Kuali Baba:Secondly, the entire F1 grid over the whole season uses only as much fuel as a single 747 taking off. The cars and engines are designed to be very efficient for the amount of power they produce. FIA will also implement the use of energy-recovery systems in 2010. So F1 is doing its bit to promote the efficient use of natural resources.
F1 race fuel consumption is around 75L per 100km, which mean 0.75L per person per 1KM.
That is a whopping 31.25 times less efficient than the 747. -
wah everyone type so many words see until my eyes blur blur
F1 racing gd meh?? they should hold English Premier League in singapore that 1 more economy benefits be it short term or long term -
Are those figures based on takeoff only, or the complete flight?Originally posted by Gazelle:A 747 carrying 500 passengers consume about 12L of fuel per KM. that means it consume 0.024L per person per 1km.
F1 race fuel consumption is around 75L per 100km, which mean 0.75L per person per 1KM.
That is a whopping 31.25 times less efficient than the 747.
Also, what would the consumption be if it was just the pilot and copilot taking the plane for a shakedown flight after maintenance? Something like 5-6 litres per kilometre? -
There is a big difference between the need for F1 drivers to be aerobically fit and how they acquire that fitness. This is taken from the official formula one website:
"...The most dependable form of exercise for drivers is aerobic work - running, swimming and, increasingly, cycling, as epitomised by Red Bull driver Mark Webber....."
Yes, most F1 drivers are physically fit; but they do not get that fitness by racing. If you want to get fit, F1 motoring is not the way to go...you do it the way thousands of others do...running, swimming, cycling....
Second, no matter how much greener F1 race cars have become over the years (Honda, though not all other manufacturers, has launched a low-environmental impact model), the fact remains that this is a sport that sends powerful cars running round and round a circuit for no purpose apart from the pleasure of being the fastest.
Friends of the earth isn't impressed even with Honda, the greenest of them all:
"...Friends of the Earth's Emily Armistead wasn't convinced, telling The Guardian that "there is some irony in the fact that Honda are attempting to promote the environment and calling on others to address environmental issues when they are contributing to climate change by participating in what is probably the most polluting sport on the planet."
(http://www.sportnetwork.net/main/s169/st112642.htm)
It is quite disingenuous to compare passengers on an aircraft who travels thousands of miles with a F1 driver who is back to where he started after consuming litres of fuel and emitting tons of CO2. The basic tenets of being environmentally friendly is to reduce, reuse and recycle. F1 racing is not a green activity.
Whether F1 racing will promote irresponsible driving is a point of debate and it is difficult to be certain either way. What is clear is that it is a glamourous sport and that always attract young people who would want to emulate their heroes. Not all will be able to afford to travel to Sempang every weekend to practise on proper race tracks and I expect there will be more illegal street races. Certainly in the UK there have been calls to ban programmes that highlight car racing:
(http://www.transport2000.org.uk/news/maintainNewsArticles.asp?NewsArticleID=239)
F1 racing can certainly earn millions for the economy, based on the Asian experience in Malaysia and Shanghai. The Singapore government is carefully considering the cost-benefit issues before allowing the event. That is a pragmatic and correct move.
As for having a dedicated race track, that is out of the question. In land scarce Singapore, that will be a white elephant and costs far too much. It also defeats the purpose of showing off the sights and lights of Singapore as a night race at the Esplanade will. -
So you would discourage people from taking up archery too? Competition shooting? Shot putt? The discus? Hell, the 100-metre sprint's too short to be aerobic - want to discourage that too?
As for our tree-hugging, hemp-wearing, hemp-smoking Friends of the Earth, they've got a penchant for forgetting that power stations pump out more pollutants than vehicles ever could while they're rabidly drooling and demanding that we go back to bicycles and kayaks. Of course, going nuclear's not an option since they want to put up brick walls around that too. So in the meantime, they're merrily contributing to the mess by spreading their nonsense through the electrically-powered media. Their claim to being Friends of the Earth is dubious, but they certainly are Enemies of Logic. -
If you want to compare the fuel comsumption of the F1 car to 747, why would you want to limit your comparison to the fuel consumption of a 747 during taking off?Originally posted by Gedanken:Are those figures based on takeoff only, or the complete flight?
Also, what would the consumption be if it was just the pilot and copilot taking the plane for a shakedown flight after maintenance? Something like 5-6 litres per kilometre?
And what about the engine manufacturers doing engine simulation in their workshop and the amount of fuel burn during testing over the seasons? -
You responded to KB's post:Originally posted by Gazelle:If you want to compare the fuel comsumption of the F1 car to 747, why would you want to limit your comparison to the fuel consumption of a 747 during taking off?
And what about the engine manufacturers doing engine simulation in their workshop and the amount of fuel burn during testing over the seasons?
He was talking about taking off, so why would you want to go off-point?Originally posted by Kuali Baba:Secondly, the entire F1 grid over the whole season uses only as much fuel as a single 747 taking off. The cars and engines are designed to be very efficient for the amount of power they produce. FIA will also implement the use of energy-recovery systems in 2010. So F1 is doing its bit to promote the efficient use of natural resources. -
I better comparison would be 747 taking offer vs. a F1 car stuck in 1st gear.Originally posted by Gedanken:He was talking about taking off, so why would you want to go off-point? -
I wonder if the F1 car lose control and crash into the surrounding buildings and spectators...
In so far, almost all decisions made by our glorious leaders had been financially driven for the pockets of those few elites. -
Of course its for their own pockets..Originally posted by mistyblue:I wonder if the F1 car lose control and crash into the surrounding buildings and spectators...
In so far, almost all decisions made by our glorious leaders had been financially driven for the pockets of those few elites.
Over time, people will rally for a more Cost Effective government... common folks are working their asses off feeding their paychecks!! -
Debris fences and armco barriers are used to prevent that.Originally posted by mistyblue:I wonder if the F1 car lose control and crash into the surrounding buildings and spectators...
In so far, almost all decisions made by our glorious leaders had been financially driven for the pockets of those few elites. -
Some common folks are not using the brains.Originally posted by ShutterBug:Of course its for their own pockets..
Over time, people will rally for a more Cost Effective government... common folks are working their asses off feeding their paychecks!!
Those who use their brains and open their mouths are sued
Those who use their brains and kept quiet migrated
Those who use their brains and still voted the same party in are just asking for it
Those who blindly follow the party will be disappointed one day
Those who are too busy, lazy, fearful, etc and chose not to use their brains in perference for status quo and choose not to take their vote seriously, should shut up when it gets tougher cause you chose to fly kite that day.
I will only say, the media is not fair. we are all trained to believe our media - papers and tv as god given truth. But has anyone paused and think all of it is controlled information?
Just look at the amount of focus on anti-smoking when equally gambling, drinking and other vice kills people as well? People are easy to manipulate.
Tell them something 5 times and they start to believe like the "Chaos in SG without certain Party", "Not to let companies Bleed", "who can run Sg better than some opposition with no experience and money" and etc. Like the sudden explosion of reports on how poorly paid are our politicians compared to the highest paid CEO.
People are starting to believe this is true - Money = talent = not corruption = good singapore which is all rubbish.
If ever there is a student who dares to prove the above in a thesis, will find otherwise. -
As I mentioned in the other thread, in absolute terms, it's equivalent to just another flight. The per-person economy of a 747 is actually even better than a Ford Fiesta hatchback.Originally posted by Gazelle:A 747 carrying 500 passengers consume about 12L of fuel per KM. that means it consume 0.024L per person per 1km.
F1 race fuel consumption is around 75L per 100km, which mean 0.75L per person per 1KM.
That is a whopping 31.25 times less efficient than the 747. -
This is a strange question to pose 'Who are we racing the economy for?'. Do you prefer a inactive inert economy where citizens are not able to find opportunities to earn their living? Its not as if this F1 event is held to the detriment of the non-rich and non-elites.Originally posted by ShutterBug:It just pains me, to watch our gov reversing things that they once upon a purist's-time, shunned. I mean, look at how they now need to make all sorts of preparations to accomodate F1 Racing and Casinos coming to Singapore.
I wonder what's next when they again need more revenues?
Our economy is indeed racing along relevantly with global trend, but are the quality of the people's lives, racing along as well???
No, in fact year on year, it gets tougher for all except the rich and elites..
Who are we racing the economy for???
Think about it! -
I don't really give a hoot about the govt, except that I don't wish to see them muddle the spectacle up if the consortium nails that deal with Bernie.
I wonder if people remember the buzz that was created when the circus was in Malaysia for the first time. It'll be even better than that this time because it's not way out in the countryside across the border, but in the heart of the city where it's so accessible to us.
Street demonstrations like those conducted in Valencia, London and Melbourne, if they can be held, would be great for those who can't afford the tickets. And there's the carnival atmosphere in the tents surrounding the circuit.
And because it's a sport and also about machines, it fires up the hearts and passions of all sorts of people in a way that IRs can't (and without the social costs of gambling). The higher-ups may choose to see it as a dollars and cents issue but it's more than that.
And since it reminds me a lot of the criticism of the Concorde, I'll post a quote from Jeremy Clarkson's book:They pointed out that Concorde has cost £2.1 billion to design...and...went on to remind everyone that for years the great white bird was, in fact, a great white elephant.
This is the point that Guardianistas missed. They thought the ordinary miner and nurse had paid for Concorde and derived no benefit. But we did. Because we were the ones ont he ground, pointing. -
To those who believe bringing the circus here will promote reckless driving, I say that the Initial D and Fast & Furious franchise are already doing that. Nothing's going to change.
-
I would have to disagree with you on that. To you it might be just a another flight from Singapore to London, but to the passengers it might be their Honeymoon, seeking medical treatment in London, attending their children graduation, signing a million dollar contract, etc..Originally posted by Kuali Baba:As I mentioned in the other thread, in absolute terms, it's equivalent to just another flight. The per-person economy of a 747 is actually even better than a Ford Fiesta hatchback.
The same can be said about F1, if you dont watch this season, there will be one next year.