F1technical.net

ecapox wrote:

Racer-X wrote:

ecapox wrote:Its strange. I'd like to see what companies Shell owns because i have seen Penske oil commercials advertising that it is used in Ferrari road cars (i think it was Penske oil). Oil, i'd say Shell, Mobil 1, and Total, but i bet you would find other manufacturers of grease and other lubricants if you were able to dig further.

PENSKE Oil is related to suspension oils used in shock absorbers. Not engine oils.

Then maybe it was Penzoil. either way, i was suprised because Ferrari is sponsored by Shell. If i see the commercial again ill make note of it.

I too saw that Pennzoil Ultra synth. oil commercial with a Ferrari 458 & was surprised at their statement that it was the only oil approved in Ferrari cars or something to that effect. To my surprise, Shell now owns Pennzoil-Quaker State.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennzoil
http://mustangs.about.com/b/2010/03/02/ ... or-oil.htm

For "oil companies", F1 sponsorship is mostly about getting their brand name on television. Oil companies aren't really just focused on fuels and lube oils. What these companies really are, foremost, are chemical companies.

Shell, for example, derives the majority of its income from the production and refining of natural gas into chemical feedstocks. And not from sales of gasoline or lube oil.

Right, while BP with its muppet-show chairman is into environment issues nowadays?

Once upon a time when I was young and handsome and count Dracula was still a juvenile, oil companies were the only sponsors, or more like sticker names, in F1. With the xception of some tyre makes and the odd sparkplug manufacturer.

At the time, we believed the make of fuel and lubricants made a difference, but that was before real life set in.

It looks like all the fuel suppliers in F1 are linked to an engine partner. Renault-Total, Ferrari-Shell, Mercedes-ExxonMobil (Although it is said that Petronas is already supplying Mercedes F1 team). The only window oppened to new suppliers is Cosworth. This is the chance for other or new oil companies to develop new products and bring it to what it was in the past, confirming F1 is the pineacle of Motorsport. I hope new engine manufactures arrive with more chance for other oil companies...

Racer-X wrote:Although it is said that Petronas is already supplying Mercedes F1 team

Not sure if this is happening already but the value to Petronas in the deal is in becoming the oem lubricant for Mercedes cars

xpensive wrote:Right, while BP with its muppet-show chairman is into environment issues nowadays?

Once upon a time when I was young and handsome and count Dracula was still a juvenile, oil companies were the only sponsors, or more like sticker names, in F1. With the xception of some tyre makes and the odd sparkplug manufacturer.

At the time, we believed the make of fuel and lubricants made a difference, but that was before real life set in.

Castrol R dominated in those days.
Guess what, it was a vegetable oil and did not use crude as a base.
Shame that pollution from oil came to F1 shortly after its demise.

autogyro wrote:

xpensive wrote:Right, while BP with its muppet-show chairman is into environment issues nowadays?

Once upon a time when I was young and handsome and count Dracula was still a juvenile, oil companies were the only sponsors, or more like sticker names, in F1. With the xception of some tyre makes and the odd sparkplug manufacturer.

At the time, we believed the make of fuel and lubricants made a difference, but that was before real life set in.

Castrol R dominated in those days.
Guess what, it was a vegetable oil and did not use crude as a base.
Shame that pollution from oil came to F1 shortly after its demise.

Early mineral based oils were actually quite poor in terms of performance. Vegetable oils like castor oil was actually much better, even though they had their own problems.

Today several synthetic oils have their origin in vegetable oils, and can offer advantages similar to castor oil without the disadvantages.

http://electrovelocity.com/2010/12/07/t ... -oil-coal/

Just thought it might be of interest.
Oil and coal in America received 70 billion dollars in subsidies and hand outs between 02 and 08. (the shares of course went ballistic for the greedy)
All alternative energies including electric received 12.2 billion.

Seems the poison the atmosphere rip off continues.

now compare that on a per kilowatt basis. You are also comparing a huge industry to a pretty small one.

I am against subsidies to anything but lets at least talk apples to apples. How many alternative energies could survive in a free market?

http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/21/o ... reen-power

FREEE MARKETTTT!!!!

Over 70 Billion in subsidies and hand outs and they still pay out huge amounts to shareholders and executives.

Edited out my opinion of your post.

flynfrog wrote:You are also comparing a huge industry to a pretty small one.

And the ratio will forever stay that way unless someone tips the balance against the incumbent suppliers. Subsidising a mature industry with an effective monopoly is a sure fire way to maintain the status quo : corporate wellfare, plain and simple.

As for the "free market" : the free market is a myth and will remain that way for as long as hedge funds exist.

gridwalker wrote:

flynfrog wrote:You are also comparing a huge industry to a pretty small one.

And the ratio will forever stay that way unless someone tips the balance against the incumbent suppliers. Subsidising a mature industry with an effective monopoly is a sure fire way to maintain the status quo : corporate wellfare, plain and simple.

As for the "free market" : the free market is a myth and will remain that way for as long as hedge funds exist.

The balance will tip when the alternative energies become producible at a cost lower than existing technologies. I agree the free market is a myth when you are subsidising both. Like I said in my post I don't agree with subsidising either.

I was merely trying to point out the fallacies of trying to compare a dollar to dollar amount between the two. It would be like comparing coke to a lemonade stand.

More like comparing Red Bull to a Lemonade stand.
The Cocaine connection went away years ago, it is now caffeine they use to addict the young and vulnerable.

Bottom line with energy development, is that it is firmly in the hands of government through grants and taxation and the criminal bankers who have over all control.
Until this is changed our environment will remain a playground for the greedy exploiters of filth to con the public.

anyway back on topic....

With the new engine regs coming out you might see more emphasis put on the fuel. In a fuel limit formula it only makes sense that increasing the energy density of the fuel becomes a playground once again for F1. They have been doing it for a while also the lubricity of the oil may come to play a greater roll in F1.

flynfrog wrote:anyway back on topic....

With the new engine regs coming out you might see more emphasis put on the fuel. In a fuel limit formula it only makes sense that increasing the energy density of the fuel becomes a playground once again for F1. They have been doing it for a while also the lubricity of the oil may come to play a greater roll in F1.

You are right... And I think no one will use oxygenates anymore unless it is imposed by the regulations.