Editor’s note: Our colleagues at Wired.uk.co attended the unveiling of the Vodafone McLaren Mercedes MP4-26 race car and spent some time chatting up drivers Jenson Button and Lewis Hamilton and interviewing managing director Jonathan Neale. Wired UK’s Olivia Solon offers a commentary on why F1 should clean up its act.

Formula 1 has been flirting with sustainability for a while now, but it’s time to commit to a serious relationship — for the good of the sport and the environment.

Enviros accuse F1 of being a gas-glugging, tire-burning, component-churning anachronism, while petrolheads say “treehuggers” and sustainability rules take the fun out of the sport. There’s nothing to say racing can’t be more eco-conscious. And like it or not, racing is likely to lose relevance unless F1 takes big steps to address the gaping chasm between its apparent disregard for finite resources and the growing consensus among the rest of the world that we all need to do our bit.

The sport is not completely unaware of its predicament. McLaren boss Martin Whitmarsh, chairman of the Formula One Teams Association, said at the unveiling of the latest McLaren F1 car on Friday: “We really want to broaden the sport’s appeal while also introducing innovative and energy-conscious new ideas that will simultaneously improve racing and help generate new technologies within the motor industry.” So far, so good.

He added, “We must be seen to be socially relevant. The sound of F1 cars is lovely, but F1 is a gas-guzzling, money-guzzling sport. That was acceptable in the ’70s and ’80s, but increasingly efficiency is a more important part of the sport.”

The first signs of change appeared in 2006 when Max Mosely, then head of F1’s governing body, spoke of a “green overhaul” for the sport. So far there are no signs of anything as comprehensive as an “overhaul,” but steps are slowly being taken toward that direction. For example, last year the Formula 1 Teams Association unveiled an externally audited carbon reduction program that aims to cut emissions by up to 14 percent over three years.

A key driver of carbon reduction in F1 has been a resource restriction agreement, which aims to return expenditure to levels that prevailed in the early 1990s, forcing teams to be more efficient throughout the supply chain. This year’s regulations support this, with tire allocations being reduced from 14 sets to 11 per race weekend, and an insistence that gearboxes last five race weekends rather than four.

Despite the fact F1 engines manage just 4 mpg and that the cars emit around 1.5 kilograms of CO2 for each kilometer they drive (nine times more than the average car), they account for just 1 percent of teams’ total emissions. The other 99 percent of the 215,588 tons of CO2 emitted by the 10 teams in 2009 (there are now 12 teams) came largely from the supply chain and transporting the teams and their equipment around the world.

Despite their proportionally small carbon contribution, the F1 cars represent an opportunity to show commitment to sustainable design.

This year sees the return of kinetic-energy recovery systems or KERS, which recycle energy generated by braking, and there are starting in 2013 — an extremely quick turnaround in auto-manufacturing terms. These are expected to deliver a 35 percent reduction in fuel consumption.

There is even a debate about running F1 cars under electric power when they’re in the pit lane, using something akin to the stop-start technology found in many road cars. It would be a complicated process that requires some serious engineering nous, but when F1 engineers put their weight behind something, they can make real technological breakthroughs.

Competitive motor sports can accelerate development of greener technologies, evident in F1’s adoption of KERS. But there appears to be a reluctance to really push the green agenda for fear of alienating the hardcore petrolheads. Jonathan Neale, McLaren managing director, says, “I don’t think we do a good job of telling people about our sustainability initiatives, because it doesn’t make great headlines.”

It appears that in this smoggy sport sustainability is still a dirty word that conjures up images of tree-hugging, mung beans and yoga. It’s talked about sheepishly, the way a child explains away mum’s embarrassingly “jazzy” sequined dress. As such, most of the efforts mentioned so far amount to light foreplay between F1 and sustainability, without really getting down to business.

At the European Cleaner Racing Conference in January, Britain’s former minister for science, Lord Drayson, said: “The automotive industry needs help pushing ahead with green tech, and the government needs help in persuading people to change what they drive — because the presenters of Top Gear are having a field day making fun of green cars, and any thumbs-down from the Stig leaves a stigma that’s hard to dislodge.”

Soundbites aside, part of the problem is the confusion within the automotive industry (and beyond) about which technologies to focus on. Changing engine design is extremely costly and no one wants to hedge bets on a technology that could quickly become irrelevant. F1 is inextricably linked to the consumer automotive industry, and as such is influenced by the market forces that operate there — if people aren’t prepared to spend more on an electric car, and if the government isn’t going to install charging stations everywhere, then why would companies focus all their energies on creating electric cars?

Furthermore, let’s not forget that F1 is an entertainment business that relies on big audiences paying to be thrilled by racing. Chris Aylett, CEO of the Motorsport Industry Association, says, “These organizations cannot move too far away from the market that they’re trying to entertain. If they get the audiences, they can draw funding from sponsors to invest in new technology.”

If you compare F1 with IndyCar in the United States, it’s clear that change could come in bigger steps. The whole of IndyCar switched completely to biofuels in 2007. [Ed. note: Le Mans-style endurance racing also has been a major advocate of alternative fuels and hybrid technologies.]

Formula 1, on the other hand, only has to ensure that 5.75 percent of fuel contains biomatter. While its true that biofuels are not without their own impact, IndyCar shows a clear and considered commitment to change.

Clearly Formula 1 needs to represent the pinnacle of engine performance, but what’s to say that engine can’t use electricity or hydrogen?

Aylett says he “couldn’t think of anything more unpleasant than a silent F1 race,” but was quick to add, “but I’m an old dinosaur.” However, he had a life-changing moment seeing the electric motorbikes on the Isle of Man at the zero-carbon TTXGP electric motorcycle grand prix. Not only did they look cool but he noticed that “all of the young people were surrounding these space machines.” He adds, “The racers get to appreciate so many other things, such as feeling a lot more of the surface because the noise and vibration of the engine isn’t there.”

Formula 1 is fundamentally about eking out the best performance within the restrictions imposed by both physics and the rules. If the engineering geniuses at McLaren, Ferrari, Mercedes-Benz, Renault, Lotus, etc. put their heads together and got serious about sustainability, who knows how quickly sustainable vehicle engineering could advance? Imagine what might happen if, say, Tesla Motors were to partner with an F1 team.

It’s not going to be easy, but embracing sustainability could generate additional sponsorship revenue from brands that have traditionally shied away from motor sports, and make a real difference to the environment.

Photos: Vodafone McLaren Mercedes