• woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actually everyone I knew who was watching F1 in Germany, stopped so once it went to pay TV.

      It’s not like football became unpopular when the matches were divided between three or so paid services (Dazn, Sky, and I believe some are even on Amazon) and only a fraction ending up on free TV.

      Btw: Some free VPN option like UrbanVPN and the races are free to watch on the Swiss TV’s streaming platform and I’m not aware of any spike in F1 popularity when Sky Germany had to stream two races on YouTube.

      • GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I will never understand F1 fans reluctance to accept that F1 simply fell out of flavour. There’s always some excuse.

        • woelkchen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s always some excuse.

          Looking for reasons is not the same as making up excuses.

  • quantum_mechanic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The green washing has also put me off the sport after 26 years. That and the Americanisation/enshitification of the show.

    • codybrumfield@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t blame America for this one. We usually get the Sky broadcast from the UK. It’s Englishitification if anything.

    • mars296@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      What do you consider the Americanisation of F1? I don’t watch F1 but I do watch other American sports.

      • quantum_mechanic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s becoming more artificial, and having DHL fastest pistop bullshit, Pirelli fastest lap etc. Everything is just an opportunity to increase cashflow. I know it has always been a business first, but I saw this stuff 20+ years ago on indycar/NASCAR and made me gag then. I’m just old school now, and prefer lower tech cars and a straightforward show without artificial drama.

      • Waldhuette@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s becoming more and more a dramatized event where entertainment is the focus and not a sports competition.

  • lemmyseizethemeans@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m a vegetarian who doesn’t use AC in the summer, doesn’t drive… And I flipping love F1. I race in VR, I love the sport and I dig how they are trying to make it less destructive.

    How about ban private jets flying into every race? That would be awesome. Just something stupid like that where Toto has to ride with the proles in coach.

  • woelkchen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Meanwhile in F1: Cling to combustion engines at all costs and shout lies about “sustainable” fuels.

    • soviettaters@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      The cars are not the sustainability issue. If every modern car was as efficient as F1 cars then we would be in a much better spot regarding climate change. The issue is with the massive transportation effort involving planes, trucks, and ships required to transport materials between the races.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s about the perception, not facts. The general public does not know about transportation in F1. They know that F1 cars still make wroom when they sit in the growing number of VW id.3 cars that are making silent SciFi sounds.

      • Waldhuette@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They are very efficient yes. But at the same time they aren’t very reliable. If everyone was running an F1 style engine and would have to replace loads of parts constantly we would be in a much worse spot.

        If it was such a good system don’t you think we would already have such engines in regular cars ? There’s a reason why we don’t. Because these systems only work when that engine has to only run for little time in very confined scenarios.

        • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They aren’t very reliable because they run at the ragged limits. It is a competition, after all. Motorsport has always been like that, nothing to do with current PU tech.

          The reason we don’t use them in regular cars is because it’s expensive to make, and combustion engines are being phased out anyway.

            • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, running engines at the limits makes things less efficient, which is why on fuel-limited tracks you see a lot of lift and coast and turning down engine modes when that was a thing.

              The efficiency comes from having two different complex energy recovery systems, which is what makes them expensive to transfer to the road.

              Still, you’d see more real world applications if countries’ carbon regulations were tighter.

    • maeries@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You act like anyone in Germany thinks that coal is greener than nuclear. Believe it or not, but no on does that

      • Waldhuette@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        They are also lying by claiming nuclear is being replaced by coal. How can nuclear be replaced by coal when share of coal is also declining at the same time as nuclear is declining.

        People don’t care about facts. They just want to spread their uninformed hysteria about Germany.

        • 50gp@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          more like theres always a huge army of german defenders when their energy sector is criticised

          hows that nord stream 2 project going? very green yes

          • Waldhuette@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You can criticize it based on facts. Not based on lies. Of course I’m defending Germany when someone is spreading lies.

            I don’t care if you point out actual flaws of anything relating to Germany. Why would I accept people making false claims ?

            Also Nord Stream 2 was not a German only Project. But people like you always like to ignore that fact or aren’t knowledgeable enough to know that fact.

      • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean the only argument you need is comparing the emissions per capita of Germany to France or Sweden.

        • woelkchen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean the only argument you need is comparing the emissions per capita of Germany to France or Sweden.

          Why not Poland, Netherlands, or Belgium?

          Obviously, if you compare countries without heavy industry to countries with heavy industry and ignore all context such as Germany also providing electricity to France when their reactors need to shut down again, claims are easy to make. Those claims don’t hold any water but people like the French can pat themselves on the back for successfully chasing away much heavy industry to China and Poland and let other countries count towards rising emissions because French reactors can’t run in hot summers.

          • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I did compare countries with heavy industry. And with a lot of nuclear + renewables in their energy mix specifically, that’s the argument. Could have included Spain too.

            Why not Poland, Netherlands, or Belgium?

            Go right ahead and compare them too. What do they have in common? Still burning a lot of fossils maybe?

            • woelkchen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I did compare countries with heavy industry.

              Sure, buddy:

              Germany has 49% renewable energy, France 20%. Nuclear is not renewable and even worse for the environment than CO2. Germany still needs to burn fossil fuels when it needs to fill in all the time for France’s shut-down reactors.

              Failing to keep production domestic and then relying on imports via cargo from other countries is not good for the environment: https://www.worldstopexports.com/report-card-for-trade-surpluses-and-deficits-by-country/

              • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Sure, buddy:

                I specified per capita. You don’t like it, you can look at carbon intensity instead. Whatever way you want to spin it, Germany is still doing much worse at decarbonisation than its neighbours using nuclear power.

                Nuclear is even worse for the environment than CO2

                Wow. Demonstrably false. You’re either mad or you’ve fallen for the decades of fearmongering from the oil megacorps.

                Nuclear plants emit only water vapor, waste is contained and isolated. Unlike fossil fuel waste which goes directly into the atmosphere and kills millions of people a year. While being directly responsible for bringing us to the brink of climate catastrophe, putting billions more at risk. You need to get some perspective.

                • woelkchen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Wow. Demonstrably false.

                  Amazing. “Demonstrably”, huh? So where is it? Considering that you refused all the time to actually back up your claims with citations, unlike me, I refuse to continuing engaging with you. Edit all your posts to include evidence and you can be taken seriously. Until then: Ba-bye.

    • Waldhuette@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Why do people like you constantly spread lies lmao. Coal usage is dropping despite not using a tiny amount of nuclear anymore.

      Funny how people are down voting my comment regardless that it is the truth.

      Here for the uneducated people:

      https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2023/german-net-power-generation-in-first-half-of-2023-renewable-energy-share-of-57-percent.html#:~:text=Coal-fired power generation also,to 20.1 TWh in 2023.

      Coal-fired power generation also fell: Lignite-fired power plants generated about 41.2 TWh, a sharp decline of 21 percent from 2022 (52.1 TWh). Net production from coal-fired power plants also decreased by 23 percent, from 26.2 TWh in 2022 down to 20.1 TWh in 2023. Electricity generation from natural gas decreased only slightly from 24.3 TWh to 23.4 TWh. In addition to gas-fired power plants for the public power supply, gas-fired plants in the mining and manufacturing sectors also supply the industrial own consumption. These approximately produced an additional 24 TWh for industrial captive use.

      Stats say coal share is dropping after nuclear shut down yet people online claim nuclear is being replaced by coal.

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh what a sursprise that a country who has no final storage for nuclear waste decided not to produce more nuclear waste instead of just putting it somewhere and hoping the barrels will not leak again.

      The mistake was not closint down uneconomical and toxic nuclear power plants. The mistake happened years before. It was selling out our solar tech to China

      • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nuclear waste is not the reason they’re closing, it’s purely political. You could fit all of the high-level waste Germany’s ever generated on a football field, and be able to walk around without any protection, getting less radiation dose than in an airplane. Let’s not spread disinformation.