RBRR 2021 - the feedback thread

[yorkshire_spam]

30 minutes ago, TReslaV8 said:

I paid £35 to a Carbon Offsetting website myclimate.org who have a ethically checked series of offsetting schemes .

Awesome! Well done!

[Tim Bancroft]

We are actively talking to various organisations about carbon offset and it is hoped that the next RBRR and other CT events are offset in some correct manner. 

[thescrapman]

I get the impression that there are lots of shysters in the offsetting business.

 

[PeteStupps]

I offset this one and 2018, using a company endorsed by an environmental organisation I'm familiar with through ex-colleagues. Am personally a bit sceptical about the process but it seems to go down well with sponsors. In fact it was a sponsor who suggested doing it.

[Sidescreen Ben]

On 13/10/2021 at 20:32, Tim Bancroft said:

Plenty to read and digest here.

I do not think we will be asking crews to prove their mechanical worth, not reasonable and a little unfair. We want to bring people into the Club and certainly don't want to encourage elitism. Back in 1966 I would imagine not many of the crews were mechanically versed, still maybe not as necessary as the cars should have been more reliable...........

Def agree that more women taking part would be better, however, this old car hobby is a very blokey thing, so whilst its a nice thought, I  cannot see the ratio changing. We did have two women crews taking part: Jess Cook/Steph Brake and Clare Pearson/Becky Whitehead. Experienced RBRR'er Katie Foreman withdrew on the eve.

RallyAppLive: We were delighted with it, this will feature again in 2023. Docwad, Francis' phone was the one registered, not yours. We hope that it will be able to be used in 23 when 'running in the background'.

We joined CT in 2016 specifically to do the RBRR, we’re still here and have never noticed a clique/elitist culture. In fact CT is the most down-to-earth club we belong to! Frustrated that we couldn’t participate this time due to my knee surgery but marshalling at Bude renewed the intention to do the next one in our rejuvenated TR3!

[Sidescreen Ben]

On 19/10/2021 at 21:35, Tim Bancroft said:

We are actively talking to various organisations about carbon offset and it is hoped that the next RBRR and other CT events are offset in some correct manner. 

Surely the fact that the cars are old defrays some carbon? Mine is 64 years old, that must count for something. I’m sceptical about carbon offsetting and paying someone else to salve your conscience. Land near us has been bought uo to plant trees specifically to help businesses offset their carbon footprint. That’s lazy; they should try harder to reduce their own footprint not pay someone else to do it for them.

How many RBRRs can you do before your carbon credit has run out!?😜

[iani]

I've just bought an EV, picking it up next month, to offset its carbon saving I've also ordered triple webers for my GT6!

Edited October 25, 2021 by iani

[Tim Hunt]

3 hours ago, iani said:

I've just bought an EV, picking it up next month, to offset its carbon saving I've also ordered triple webers for my GT6!

😄😄

[Sidescreen Ben]

6 hours ago, iani said:

I've just bought an EV, picking it up next month, to offset its carbon saving I've also ordered triple webers for my GT6!

A perfectly balanced decision 😜

[TReslaV8]

Being fortunate enough to have two V8s (MGBGTV8 and a TR7V8) I had to use an EV as my daily, now done over 110k electric miles in 5 years. Love the power of both V8s and Electric, and perhaps 110k electric miles offsets some of the CO2 of the V8s (probably done around 20k in the V8s in the same time period) but… the Club is right, we have to think about it seriously or all in the classic community will face increasing criticism.

Such criticism may be misguided in that the embedded carbon of manufacturing a new car, even an EV, is such that long use of the same vehicle is preferable to constantly making new ones, however old cars are a very visible and identifiable target for criticism. When offsetting for the RBRR, I used www.myclimate.org which was recommended on an ethical consumer website.  They enable you to calculate the CO2 that you would need to offset for a specific activity (e.g. 2000miles in a weekend at 25mpg) and give a choice of the project that your calculated donation will go to, which themselves save CO2. These projects are not just tree planting, but all sorts of positive programmes that are worth supporting. Tree planting is actually one of the least positive ways to offset CO2, as young trees absorb MUCH less CO2 compared to established ones. And new tree schemes also tend to be mono cultures, when we need variety for best ‘green’ results.  

Sermon over; come what may we would be much better to be on the front foot and be seen to be doing something rather than nothing, so I welcome the Club’s proposal to offset the big runs, and perhaps CT could encourage members to look to cover local mileage in their classics? 

[Nick Jones]

3 hours ago, TReslaV8 said:

Tree planting is actually one of the least positive ways to offset CO2, as young trees absorb MUCH less CO2 compared to established ones

Yeah….. but if you don’t plant them they’ll never grow up to be big trees…..

Nick

[Tim Bancroft]

I should point out that CT first offset the RBRR in 2006 and did the same in 2008....suddenly when economic gloom descended for the UK, the climate change dissapeared from the front pages...can't see that happening again though.

[thescrapman]

I spotted a carbon offset scheeme mentioned in paper yesterday, a guy buys charcoal in Namibia, fills containers with it, ships it to the UK and burys it in a disused quarry.

I think the word is shyster.

🙂

[McJim]

Always makes me smile when folk get on their high horse of how we are causing damage to the planet by running old cars all the way round Britain in one weekend every two years.

No thought given to the tens of thousands using their cars every weekend to watch 22 millionaires chase a bag of wind around a park in their pyjamas (with apologies to Guy Martin).

What are football clubs doing to offset the carbon footprint of the fans who generate their profits?

Perspective.

Jim.

[Nick Jones]

12 hours ago, thescrapman said:

a guy buys charcoal in Namibia, fills containers with it, ships it to the UK and burys it in a disused quarry.

Burying charcoal is actually a pretty good way of storing carbon. Would be much more ecologically sound to bury it in Namibia though!

 

2 hours ago, McJim said:

No thought given to the tens of thousands using their cars every weekend to watch 22 millionaires chase a bag of wind around a park in their pyjamas (with apologies to Guy Martin).

What are football clubs doing to offset the carbon footprint of the fans who generate their profits?

Perspective.

Totally with you on that one Jim.  Or those who drive their low tax hybrids at speed up and down the motorways, feeling self-righteous, but using nearly as much fuel as everyone else.

[yorkshire_spam]

Whilst I agree with @Nick Jones and @McJim  in regard to the hypocrisy, ignorance and inaction of others I don't think we should see that as a reason for us and the club not to do the right thing (and be seen to be doing the right thing) 

A questionable offsetting scheme is better than nothing, a credible offsetting scheme even better. And beyond the moral dimension to this, it's another potential barrier to attracting younger people to our hobby addressed/removed. 

Edited October 28, 2021 by yorkshire_spam

[Slimboyfat]

I am thinking of converting one of my old Triumphs into a 'mild hybrid' (makes me laugh every time that phrase gets used in a TV advert).

I have a old mobility scooter motor that I am going to run via a fan belt to my propshaft. Gear it through a clutch, and up-rate the alternator, bobs yer uncle, fannies yer aunt, and Fay Presto I have top marks in my Green credential portfolio.

 

[RobPearce]

12 minutes ago, Slimboyfat said:

'mild hybrid' (makes me laugh every time that phrase gets used in a TV advert)

It's certainly a fairly meaningless term. As it happens, I'm working on the engine control for a couple of "mild hybrid" applications. They're a bit more than a mobility scooter motor, though. Of course, the ICE in question also puts out rather more power than a Triumph...

[Hogie]

A serious management ploy (when they do not know the answer or the answer is too unpalatable) is to drop a 'hot potato' into the workforce midst and let them come up with the answer.

Usually the answer is way beyond what the management would think possible.

Are we not doing the same with off-setting the RBRR foot Carbon print

Climate change is caused by green house gases.

Carbon Dioxide is a very small contributor to this (but there is a lot of it).

The effect of the CC is that it will potentially wipe out human life (or give it a serious headache)

What is the present purpose of the RBRR and its result. Aside from the entertainment value (masochists) it generates desperately need funds for charities that affect human existence. Be it nursing Guide dogs, cures for cancer and other ailments.

Surely this is more than comparable to planting a tree in your garden.

So the 'Hot Potato' is reducing CO2 at whatever cost and the 'workforce' are going at it tooth and nail.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Roger

[Nick Jones]

22 minutes ago, Hogie said:

What is the present purpose of the RBRR and its result. Aside from the entertainment value (masochists) it generates desperately need funds for charities that affect human existence. Be it nursing Guide dogs, cures for cancer and other ailments.

Heh…. Well, actual “right” answer in environmental terms is to just donate the money you would have spent on fuel direct to the charity. But obviously there ain’t no fun in that…. I suppose you could also try getting your more environmentally minded friends to sponsor you for not going and add that to the pot….

Or, as a half-way house, go through the process of signing up, preparing your car, turning up at the start, and then break down terminally just after leaving - then donate the money you would have spent on fuel direct to the charity. This way you can enjoy at least some of the excitement, aggro and suffering.

Or you could go in an Acclaim rather than a PI or Stag and hope to save a bit of carbon that way…..

All of the above tending to make carbon offsetting look like the best way to have your cake and eat it.

 

One further possibility occurs to me…. Possibly outside the spirit of the event…… Stick a Triumph badge on your Tesla (or other EV of your choice) and attempt to do the run in that. Could be an interesting (frustrating?) exercise. Wonder if it might prove that even a Herald 1200 or Atlas van can travel further in 48 hours than a modern EV at the mercy of the UK charging network……? Tortoise and hare story springs to mind.

Nick

[Vader]

I won’t be offsetting. It’s all a con and propaganda in my un qualified opinion.

i see the COP26 is in Glasgow, discussing climate change, as they all fly in then get driven around in cars, hypocritical?

[carboy0]

This was my 2nd RBRR, after a DNF in 2018 in my Stag, this time we bought a big Trummy in November 2018 and progressively knocked her into shape, adding reliability with new parts and carrying the previously fitted parts as spares.  We put 500 miles on the car in one day to see what would break and what we could improve.  On the run, we carried spare ignition parts, plugs, way too much oil and (perhaps understandably) lots of E5 fuel - none of which was used.

I found the organisation spot-on, the control timings seemed quite generous on occasion, but none the worse for that.

Niggles - headlights.  As has already been mentioned, we were blinded by several following cars and we had no place to let them past, in fact one was content to follow our lead even when passing was possible.  We anticipated that we would be rear end heavy and fitted 2500 Estate rear springs in advance, mainly to carry the load, but the added bonus meant that our own H4/H1 Osram halogen eyeball burner headlights were ‘kosher’.

On the point of ‘snowflake’ entrants.  I didn’t see anyone who was unprepared to work on their car, however I was astounded by the dearth of sensible tool-kits.  I lent out imperial spanners, sockets even a hammer to three different teams, so they could work on their cars.  One car only had metric socket set of the sort that you buy in filling stations - max 19mm.

We were one of the teams that stayed on the main road at Carter Bar.  We got the RallyApp thingy’s proximity warning beeps and then the confirmation beep/message popped up, saying that we had been through the Control.  We were prepared to double back, but it wasn’t necessary.

Overall, IMHO very little needs changing.  Any attempt to require a driver or a team to ‘prove’ one’s ability in advance should be strongly challenged.  As a newbie in 2018, if there had been proscribed qualification events to enter the RBRR.  Then I wouldn’t have bothered joining CT at all and would have gone on to enter some other longer distance event in a non-Triumph.

 

Edited October 30, 2021 by carboy0

[carboy0]

On the subject of our carbon foot-print, I didn’t look into it, but if the entry fee had included a carbon off-set charge, I would have paid it.

[RobPearce]

9 hours ago, carboy0 said:

if the entry fee had included a carbon off-set charge, I would have paid it.

I looked at the site somebody mentioned. The offset cost (for one of their "third world" projects) was only £16 for my very economical Spitfire - call it £30 per team average to cover the large number of PIs in the mix. But the thing that struck me was, despite being a small fraction of the average European's carbon footprint, doing one RBRR in a 44MPG Spitfire is more than a person's annual "allowance" if we are to halt climate change. Whatever the cynics may say about currently available offsetting schemes, there is no way we can fix things just by all cutting back. Some form of "offsetting" - carbon capture, either by trees or technology - is definitely needed.

[Clive]

10 minutes ago, RobPearce said:

I looked at the site somebody mentioned. The offset cost (for one of their "third world" projects) was only £16 for my very economical Spitfire - call it £30 per team average to cover the large number of PIs in the mix. But the thing that struck me was, despite being a small fraction of the average European's carbon footprint, doing one RBRR in a 44MPG Spitfire is more than a person's annual "allowance" if we are to halt climate change. Whatever the cynics may say about currently available offsetting schemes, there is no way we can fix things just by all cutting back. Some form of "offsetting" - carbon capture, either by trees or technology - is definitely needed.

I struggle to understand how trees help in the (very) long term.

Yes, they capture carbon, and store it. But eventually they die, then the captured carbon will be released as the wood rots (or gets burnt) Unless somewhere we are going to have a huge pile of wood that is kept dry/rot free. Yes, use wood in construction etc, but once all the viable areas of the world are reforested, what then? or are we hoping that is enough. 

Far better would be real zero carbon energy (like nuclear fission, though that has issues. Fusion may be our one great hope) not companies running around claiming their electricity is zero carbon, when in reality it is offset. If we get cheap, zero carbon and unlimited electricity, we can deal with the CO2 in the atmosphere.  

Meanwhile, we need to (1) enjoy our cars, and if a driver feels guilt, don't fly on holiday or similar (2) Try to avoid bad publicity, and offsetting will go some way towards that (3) Hope those with the power actually sort it all out, though I have my doubts about that, and we may have to have a genuine crisis before things start to seriously change. (ie talking of a climate crisis now is foolish in my mind. It is when we see our lives being affected, towns lost to sea rise, the UK not enough food, energy etc) but I have no doubt we are heading in that direction, slowly, unless things change.