New Extreme E electric SUV racing series launched

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Extreme E, a new racing series pitting teams against each other in electric SUVs, has been launched in London.

Extreme E

Extreme E will visit a series of challenging environments, including deserts, rainforests and polar ice caps. The races will be run in a knock-out format, pitting two teams against each other over stages of up to 10 kilometres.

The new championship, due to launch in 2021, has been created by Formula E founder Alejandro Agag and IndyCar champion Gil de Ferran.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Comment of the day

@Gwbridge argues for giving points to more than just the top 10 F1 drivers.

The purpose of points is to record how well a team does compared to its competitors. Why should that apply to only the top 10 finishers?

With team competitiveness now so ‘stratified’ into ‘classes’ the teams relegated to finishing worse than 10th should have some motivation to finish as high as they can, and that includes drivers for big teams that have been relegated to the back due to some mechanical issue or grid penalty nonsense.

Extending points beyond 10th place would promote competitive racing all the way down the order for the full duration of the race and might end the practice of teams pulling perfectly functional cars out of the race to ‘save an engine’ or skirt some regulation.
Bridge Wilson (@Gwbridge)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Cliffery, Kutigz and Pmelton!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

  • Ray Crawford, who started three Indianapolis 500s when they counted towards the world championship, died on this day in 1996

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories RaceFans Round-upTags ,

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 46 comments on “New Extreme E electric SUV racing series launched”

    1. The purpose of points is to record how well a team does compared to its competitors. Why should that apply to only the top 10 finishers?

      I agree, points should be allocated for all places. I’m not sure whether or not that should include those that are classified as retired, but definitely it should include all those that are classified as having completed the race.

      1. yeah, that part of the CotD is key for me too

    2. Leave it be otherwise someone like Max or Occon or Leclerc Will end up with more Points than Schmacher or Hamilton without merit.

      1. Max or Occon or Leclerc

        Are those the drivers you use to illustrate the pitfalls of allowing any finisher to score points? Seriously? :)

      2. …without merit

        Schumacher’s results need to be adjusted to the current points scale, or Hamilton to the scale current in Schumacher’s time to make them relevant. The same will happen when the current point scale is superseded, people will have to make adjustments so comparisons between the current drivers and those of the future so points are relevant.

    3. Completely against giving points to everyone. So how many points will winner to keep the proportions sensible – 100? Complete nonsense. It’s like the opposite side of Bernie’s crazy idea about giving medals. If you can’t get in top ten you don’t deserve points – simple as that.

      1. Why does the number of points matter?

        Supercars in Australia give 150 points for a win (varies by format, as there are several) and arguably one of the most competitive grids in top-tier racing.

    4. Extreme E sounds a bit weird. If their idea is to raise the awareness of climate change. Why are they racing in areas that don’t need any more human touch like amazon or himalayas. In the end racing with electric power is not so climate friendly. After all it depends where and how the electric power is produced. But it is good to see new series coming up.

      1. The idea is rather to show electrically powered vehicles CAN work in extreme circumstances Qeki. In a way it resembles the extreme weather testing car makers do themselves, but now in a competative environment to give it more oomph, prestige and marketing value.

        I must say that i am curious about these cars, since most “SUV” currently aren’t really sporty, only too many offer rather limited utility and their off road capabilities are only too often not the focus of them at all.

      2. Extreme E Session Premier: Polar Vortex

      3. They’are racing in areas already damaged by humans for two reasons:

        1. To not further damage “untouched” areas, as this defeats the purpose of a race highlighting environmental issues.
        2. To highlight the extent of human environmental damage.

        I think it’s a great idea. Currently there appears to be a perception, true or otherwise, that electric vehicles are fragile and unreliable. Smashing SU-EVs through harsh terrain flat out should help slyer that perception – and maybe even some new tech might come out of it as the barriers are pushed.

      4. I might add that they will probably be supported by a fleet of heavy diesel trucks a la The Dacca, with large diesel generators to re-charge between stages, but perhaps I should read before commenting.

        1. Bet on it …. guaranteed.
          Oh yes, there will be hundreds of people and thousands of tons of equipment getting flown all around the world. Smart.?

    5. I don’t see the point (pun intended) in changing this when so many other things are broken.
      If those (e.g. finances) don’t get resolved we’ll soon have points for all participants even without increasing it beyond the top 10.

      1. If those (e.g. finances) don’t get resolved we’ll soon have points for all participants even without increasing it beyond the top 10.

        @coldfly LOL :) I’m laughing now, but we might soon be crying!

    6. Points for you! Points for you! Points for everyone!!!

      Ok, not quite true, but there has always been a degree of kudos in getting points, kudos that has been diminished since points went to the top ten and will be extinguished if everyone gets points. Keep it to the top ten, make points actually a prize you have to earn. Ever seen the V8 Supercar or NASCAR point scores? They have winning point scores in the thousands, almost impossible for the average fan to properly follow. The old point system, points to 6th, was so easy to follow, and the current system is not too bad either (I prefer the old one) but points for everyone is stupid.

      This is F1 after all, not some primary school sports carnival where everyone gets a prize…

      1. Indeed and F1 is supposed to be exciting and loud. If tradition is what we want, how can we accept lawn-mower engines?

        1. Not all of us do.

      2. Actually, Nascar has revised their points system and it’s now possibly the simplest, most sensible system in motorsports: 40 points for winning, 35 points for second, and then every following position gets one less point, down to a minimum of one point awarded.

        I quite like the simplicity—if driver A is three points behind driver B, then you know A has to finish three places ahead of B to draw level. And yes, it awards points to all places, and since the interval is consistent between nearly all finishing positions, it gets very close to rewarding the mathematical equivalent of the best average finishing position, while awarding a bonus for winning. What more do points need to accomplish?

    7. Extreme E electric SUV

      a little bit of sick just came up to my mouth

      1. @mrboerns

        Same here but probably for different reasons.
        SUVs are seen mostly in cities with a single driver. Totally obscene. They have the same wheelbase as a minibus.

        EVs in extreme conditions though sounds fun. I’ve ridden a fat tired E-bike in the snow/ice and could have spent all day on it. If I can work a bit closer to home I can see me dumping my car altogether.

        1. Why do you doubt my undying hatred of SUVs and everything they stand for?

          1. Out of interest, what is it you think they stand for?

            Most people in my experience seem to buy them:

            To get a better view of the road and less of a feeling of speed (sensible given most people are about at their limits whilst driving, anything that makes it easier is a good thing)

            Towing Caravans (I can imagine that a larger vehicle is more stable towing a large trailer)

            To have space for dogs to go in the boot (Guilty as charged – the small, high size of the boots is by far the safest environment for dogs)

            To Offroad (Also guilty as charged, I need to drive down the beach into the sea a way to launch my boat)

            To satisfy their aesthetic sensibilities (As we all do, unless you drive something like a dacia sandero)

            1. That’s a 4×4 not an SUV. An SUV is used to take space in the city centre by people that could perfectly live with an hatchback. The amount of cx3, cactus, that Renault one, pukes, etc etc is insane, and most of those cars don’t have off-road capabilities. Hell they are 2 wheel drive “cars” with aerodynamics of a fridge that brands use to charge extra for lower segment platforms while advocating for green technology. And most of them are as ugly as my feet, desporpotional and crooked

            2. Mine’s an SUV, trust me, it’s also a 4×4 but it’s an unashamed SUV – it’s the Nissin X-trail for reference.

              I mean, your opinion on what’s ugly or not is about as useful as my feet, crooked and disproportionate as they also are, by all means hate it as much as you want personally, but I hate the looks of hatchbacks, doesn’t mean my opinion on hatchback racing holds some special weight or deserves to be listened too.

              So even if we accept _your_ opinion on what’s ugly as fact, that leaves three reasons as perfectly valid reasons to get an SUV.

              Be cautious about the “charge extra for” argument, I’m already formulating my “You think you know better than me which car is right for me, and what I should and shouldn’t be paying for, that’s arrogance” rebuttal.

            3. Just to be very, VERY clear, any owner who put’s their dogs in the boot of a hatchback does not deserve to have dogs, they are shockingly dangerous, in even the smallest of accidents. SUV’s are by far and away the safest space, because of the tall, narrow shape of the boot.

      2. wouldn’t it be fun if they go to all this extreme location and really isn’t any source of energy that they can gather and instead of to use petrol generators to power the cars?

          1. not that deep of a joke

    8. I can see where K-Mag is coming from, and I agree with him that it’d be nicer if more teams had a shot at the podium and or race wins no matter how seldom, but unfortunately, the likeliness of that happening isn’t too high. With similar regards to Andrew Frankel’s tweet: Most of the time in F1 before it’s been like that, though.

      I can understand the point of the COTD, but I still don’t really agree with it. As I’ve pointed out before, the current points-system already works adequately well as it is, so no need to alter it.

      Regarding the Autosport-Article: Well, maybe you should’ve given the drive for 2019 vacated by Ricciardo to Sainz instead then.

    9. For me it’s simple. You either want F1 to be traditional which means the top 6 scoring points, a return to proper engines, dropping road-relevance and all of that or you want F1 to be modern which means a modern points scoring system, hybrid engines and road-relevance.

      Personally, I hate the new engines but I accept them as part of a new, modern F1. If that’s the way we are going, we have to drop the other traditional things that make no logical sense.

      1. To me it seems all motorsports doing the same mistake. Back 20 years ago motorsport was extreme, exciting, out of this world with perceived high cost. It was bonkers that a wheel nut could cost 6 figure sums. But now that is turned into road relevance with focus on fuel saving and fictional environmental goals. Instead of exciting and out of this world we get the speech about cutting down the cost, road relevance and limiting everything because everything is too expensive, everything costs too much while at the same time those high cost items are necessary to our corporate overlords whose opinion seems to be the only one that matters.

        Yet in reality the wheel nut still cost 6 figure sums but instead of out of his world spectacle a lot of money is just spent on computers and limitations. The sport is fundamentally flawed when fuel saving is the key stat of the current engines. Who on earth cares an iota? Nobody which is why almost every year the fuel limit goes up because fuel saving sucks period.

        No wonder motorsport is losing viewers. It is depressing when all they talk about is saving money and making the race cars more like the road cars people drive. Only people whose opinion matters is car manufacturers. That’s not exciting. It is a massive flaw and one of the reasons why extreme sports are taking away spectators from motorsports. Why would you watch f1 when literally everything else is more real based on actual peak performance and you can see the sportsmen and women do things that are difficult and look difficult.

        What is the focus of next f1 ruleset? Reducing costs, limiting technical development and focus on road relevance and fuel saving. In other words all the things you should never want to speak about publicly if you claim to be a the fastest show on earth.

    10. Unless things have changed, I think that both the cost for a driver to renew their super license and the constructor’s entry fees vary by the number of points scored in the previous season. If that is the case then awarding points to more finishing positions would mean that the costs to the teams and drivers go up.

      Yes in comparison to the overall budgets for teams it is not the most expensive thing, e.g. for 2017 it was reported that Mercedes had paid around $5.2 million for their entry, but it is another cost to be considered.

    11. What about keeping the current points system (IMO going back to the old 10-8-6 would be even better) and having another one to decide the way money is distributed (where you can give points to everyone, from first to last)? So you don’t end up with the last positions in the WCC decided by a freak result and things don’t get silly like in some other series where you get 135 points for a win.

      1. @francorchamps17 why is the number of points relevant? Or special?

        Australian Supercars give 150 for a win. Could be 300. Doesn’t matter so long it’s scaled correctly.

    12. If the McLaren turns out to be a dud, at least they have the perfect trilogy of blandness McL34 – Sainz – Estrella Galicia

    13. Mark my words. Sophia Flörsch will drive f1 car this year. For the wrong reasons.

      1. Its a better reason than Stroll has

        1. Stroll won f3 even if he did it with his daddy’s money and that gives him at least some pedigree for f1. Sophie is a woman who had a crash.

          1. You know, I’ve searched every article in June last year, and I just can’t find it. Do you think you could point out your same objection to Billy Monger driving an F1 car please.

            1. Are you saying it is the same thing to have a crash where you come out of it with no long lasting injuries and have a crash where you lose both your legs? Is that your point? So both deserve f1 drives … because they had crashes? I think there are other qualities in a driver I’d look for…

              Monger is much better driver than sophie anyways. Not because of gender but because of results. Monger finished 6th in formula 3 without his legs while also scoring podiums. Sophie’s best result was 15th in f3. What more do I need to say?

    14. Nice that Mclaren have to turn up the volyme so high that the ventilation blasts like a jetplane if they are gonna catch some sound from that engine.

    15. Extending points beyond 10th place would promote competitive racing all the way down the order for the full duration of the race

      Which is what happens already.

      Anyone that thinks that drivers outside the points don’t push as hard, don’t race as hard or don’t try to overtake/defend clearly aren’t paying any attention to that part of the field. You could award points to the entire field and nothing would change in terms of the racing just like nothing changed when they went from top 6 to 8 & then 10.

      The only thing that would change is that scoring a point would no longer mean anything & would no longer be seen as the achievement it currently is.

    16. Relating to the Andrew Frankel tweet.

      To try to understand how much @F1 is in need of reform I’ve got the calculator out and discovered that… the gulf between the top three teams and the rest is now so great that in 2018 the team that came third scored more points than those that came 4th-10th combined. Nuts.

      That is no different to how it was for a lot of F1’s history. I mean looking at the 1998 season Ferrari were 2nd in the constructors standings & were 100 points ahead of Williams in 3rd with both McLaren & Ferrari scoring more points than 3rd-11th combined.

      There been a big gap between the top few teams & the mid-field is nothing new, It’s not even as big as it has been in the past where there was often also just as big a gap between the mid-field & backmarkers.

      Watching races from the 80s/90s on F1TV & you see cars that finished on the podium end up a lap or more down & more regularly cars that were in the points (Top 6 back then) a lap or more down.

    Comments are closed.