Start, Formula E, Mexico City, 2018

Formula 1 could not go all-electric – Todt

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: FIA president Jean Todt rejects the idea Formula 1 could eventually switch to all-electric engines, as used in Formula E, after Ross Brawn raised the possibility last month.

What they say

Tost was asked about Formula E’s recently disclosed long-term agreement with the FIA to have the exclusive right to run an all-electric single-seater championship.

We have implemented a new FIA championship which is the Formula E championship. It is true we have an exclusive agreement on single-seater for a certain amount of years with the promoter of Formula E.

But it would be a nonsense to say that in the coming future Formula 1 is going to be electric. It’s not going to happen. Simply you could not do it.

We are talking about two completely different categories. Formula E has not the performance of Formula 1 at the moment. One of the reasons Formula E is hosted in cities [is] because it would not create any interest to have Formula E on a circuit like Monza, for example.

We are talking about two different categories. It’s completely misleading to compare Formula E and Formula 1. Formula 1 is a very well-established category. I keep saying for me Formula E is the baby of the FIA.

So still a lot to learn but saying that it’s growing very well. We started four years back, we needed to have two cars to do a race of 45 minutes at the end of the year first race in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia when women will be allowed to drive, we will be able to do the race with one car. So again it shows how motor racing can be a laboratory, not only a show.

But to lose time by comparing the two categories is just boring.

Quotes: Dieter Rencken

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

Are Liberty Media sincere in their desire to find out what fans think?

The thing that concerns me a bit is how they talk about doing research and surveys to get fans’ opinions because the one I got from them was very leading and felt like they were done to get the answers they wanted rather than the answer’s I’d have actually liked to give.

For example if you look at the points system, The survey I got gave options only to increase how many cars scored points. I’m perfectly happy with it staying as the top 10 yet I had no way to say that as ‘stay the same’ wasn’t an option.

Same with all the questions about the racing, Everything was aimed at getting an answer that I wanted a lot more overtaking when I in fact don’t. I’m far more interested in the quality of the racing than just seeing more overtaking.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Frantz Guns, Jackysteeg and Nick!

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

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

  • 50 comments on “Formula 1 could not go all-electric – Todt”

    1. Agree with the Comment of the Day. The fan survey wasn’t neutral enough to give a true and fair reflection of fan views.

    2. I agree with COTD. I actually gave up on completing one of their surveys because I didn’t feel like the available answers reflected my opinion. Now that I think about it, that seems to be happening a lot more frequently, in general…

      1. I agree as well, every time I take one of their surveys it just seems like they are assuming what fans think and want and in turn they provide limited options for answers to reflect that. There is also no place in any of the surveys to write any kind of opinion either on any of their questions or topics. They seem to be making rather large assumptions that this is what fans want and possibly how Liberty sees where they want F1 to go instead of simply and directly asking the fans and then developing a consensus of what could or work and could be changed.

      2. I agree as well, every time I take one of their surveys it just seems like they are assuming what fans think and want and in turn they provide limited options for answers to reflect that.

        There is also no place in any of the surveys to write any kind of opinion either on any of their questions or topics.

        They seem to be making rather large assumptions that this is what fans want and possibly how Liberty sees where they want F1 to go instead of simply and directly asking the fans and then developing a consensus of what could or work and could be changed.

        1. I can only confirm about the survey. Good news is they manage to pinpoint fans it seems

      3. As for the surveys, they certainly go from the starting point that the idea is right – I did the one on the weekend format, and a few others I cannot remember.

        At first it did make me want to stop and throw a tantrum. But then I let my knowledge / experience of doing marketing surveys come into it. The thing is, they are considering a change and need to gather information on what forms would work for the fans. That is data they can then evaluate to formulate how a change might look. The desicion on whether they do it is a completely different one, made seperately from these surveys. They don’t need to gather that data in the survey.

      4. Most surveys are not normally designed to get your actual opinion. The questions are set to corral you into a the direction the customer wants.

    3. The comment of the day is assuming that market research wants to find out what the customer really wants. I spent years doing this and it was mostly for our customers to justify what they were doing to someone else in the company. Meaning the surveys were designed to get the answer that the company that had us design the survey wanted. Having said that I think F1 ceases to become a sport when they have to ask the fans. The fans have to be the worst group to ask. Like when someone asked Gene Roddenbery why he didn’t cater to the fans and he replied that “Star Trek would suck if I did what those idiots wanted”.
      It seems like F1 lost its way when Senna died. Weak leadership and knee-jerk reactions have left this “sport” where it is today. It just seems so wishy washy and weak to ask the fans. Liberty’s leadership seems no different than the last 24 years. Constantly over-correcting and not letting the previous knee-jerk rules play out is never going to fix any of the problems or perceived problems F1 has.

    4. No electric F1??? Thank goodness!

      1. Maybe.. but his arguments are rubbish.
        Tesla is developing a new Roadster .
        Of the production line it will go 400Km/h with a accelearation faster than a F1 car. 1.8sec 100.

        And that;s only a roadlegal, production car.. imagine the future of electric cars with these developments

        1. The thing is, power output was never the issue. Electric motors are far superior to combustion engines in almost every conceivable respect, and tuning them to deliver insane amounts of power is a relatively trivial task.
          In that sense, what Tesla are doing can be summed up as ramming a point home that was never really in question.

          The problem with electric mobility is storing the energy. All things considered, a full tank of F1 fuel offers slightly less than 2.5 GJ of usable energy. Contrast that with the newest generation of Formula E batteries that weigh 250 kilos and hold slightly less than 200 MJ. Even if we assume an efficiency of 100% (electric motors get reasonably close to that), a battery that holds the equivalent of the energy an F1 car deploys over the course of a race would have to weigh over 3 metric tonnes! If you wanted to make up for that extra weight, you’d probably need to add another tonne of batteries to the equation. With the current technology (and in that respect, Tesla is almost the polar opposite of an innovator), F1E would have nothing to do with the relatively slender and agile machines we’re used to. Those cars would be tanks. Machines weighing 5 tonnes and more, if you consider the necessary structural reinforcements.

          Or, you do things the Tesla way and build a swanky power monster that would perform really well in a drag race but would run out of juice after a couple of laps at best.

          As things stand, the storage capacity of batteries needs to improve by almost two orders of magnitude before electric motors can take over F1 without sacrificing speed or shortening the races significantly.

        2. Lets not forget the Tesla Truck! The tractor unit is capable of 0-60 in 5 seconds! With a full load it is able to do 0-60 in 20 seconds! Electric is so much better in practically every way and as it develops and matures we will be wondering why anyone ever drove around in fossil powered cars and how horrific it must have been to do so… I mean I already would hate to ever go back to driving a petrol car as my day to day drive.

        3. Yes lots of talk of ‘is capable of’ but a one off standing qtr mile is not the same as maintaining that level of performance over a 1.5-2hr period.

          1. It is not a race car. Lets be honest. Most cars do not like to be run at full power for long periods of time, even F1 cars give up sometimes. However they have learned a lot with the model S with respect to cooling so they may well have made a lot of improvements to the cooling of the battery as that is the main point of issue.

      2. I beg to disagree. Although it is not viable right now it will not be very long before Electric is capable of beating F1 cars. I mean I suppose in one way F1 can still remain ICE based but it will just mean as Formula E develops it will overtake F1 as the pinnacle of Motorsport.

    5. “I am not the guy who can change things, but clearly F1 should look at finding a way not to make it easier but a bit more fair sometimes, (so) when a proper talent deserves to be in F1, to make sure that he stays there.”

      The best (read: only) way to ensure talent stays in F1 is to have enough seats available. If you have 20 seats, a number of which are filled with current stars (Vettel, Hamilton…), old guys who haven’t let go yet (Räikkönen, Alonso…) and the ones who actually pay the bills (Stroll, Ericsson…) and proven, but ultimatively not great drivers (Sainz, Hülkenberg…), some young talent is inevitably going to orally consume feces. Ocon being out of a seat in 2019 could be horrible, the fact that Wehrlein is out of a seat in 2018 is horrible.

      A good-managed F1 should look to always have around 15 teams, plus-minus one or two. No young talent would go without a seat if there were 30 cars (of course ignoring the talent that is held back from F1 in the first place because of the FIA’s silly license points system that only promotes paydrivers, but that’s a debate for a different day). However, as Lewis Hamilton being a four-time world champion has shown we cannot have nice things, so probably Liberty Media and the FIA will not look to extend the grid as is needed.

      1. Unfortunately, until (read “if ever”) Liberty sort out the commercial arrangements with teams, there won’t be more teams and if anything there’ll be less.

        The only thing that I can see being workable is for the FIA to introduce some kind of “qualification school” to work with the license points system where young drivers who have enough points to qualify for there license have to attend a formal session (or sessions) at a race track and consistently drive a F1 car to a designated (and pretty difficult) time.

        The time could be set by one of the top 6 drivers and potential new drivers would be required to be able to consistently stay within .x of a second of that time.

        That way, whether they are pay drivers or not, we can be sure that the drivers actually have the talent to deserve to be in a F1 car.

    6. at the end of the year first race in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia when women will be allowed to drive, we will be able to do the race with one car

      What do women drivers have to do with using one car?
      Or are women more frugal when racing, or are they introducing parallel parking during a pit stop ;)

      (hit me! I deserve it)

      1. (hit me! I deserve it)

        Swat! Now you’re a cold, dead, fly @coldfly

    7. There were so many good comments on dieter’s article yesterday, but I think the one you chose as cotd gets to the nub of why people are, so far, unconvinced by liberty. I’ve worked on survey design and they’re really just cheating themselves with stupid leading questions, or closed off questions.

      It’s not easy to ask the right questions – ask any political parties pollsters – but even someone with half a brain could’ve worked out the flaws with these questions. The natural conclusion is that Bratches is indeed all talk and we can trust what he says about as much as we could Bernie.

      1. I’d never been a team principal before, or run a business before I was running Williams. It’s a case of going through your job and learning almost as you go along. That’s what we’re doing.

        So…what Claire is saying she is imminently qualified to bring the team the results they achieved in recent seasons. Well done. Score another victory for nepotism and $100M a year on-the-job training programs.

        1. If Bernie hadn’t forced him out in that power struggle, Adam Parr would have continued as team principal/chief whatever and perhaps things would be different today…

      2. Sorry @frood19, didn’t mean to put my Williams rookie comment under your sage observation. Even if Liberty polling reveals that any response is the best response and concur 100% with the predetermined results.

    8. To me, unless that contractual situation changes or F1 becomes a de facto electric series, it sounds like Jean Todt just predicted the demise of F1 as a category over the next couple of decades. I just can’t imagine a manufacturer continuing to plough resources into the sport for the next couple of decades to develop engine technology that will be completely irrelevant.

    9. A good interview with Claire Williams. It doesn’t give the answers to a quick turnaround, but it is a lot less bombastic and fake than the stories we get from the other struggling historic team.

      I wish Williams all the best and a quick turnaround.

      1. I already thought after the Williams documentary that she seems like having all the weight of the world on her shoulder. This interview confirms my impression

        1. Not often you have a team principal say that she is embarrased to have her name on the door. But she keeps pushing through in order to solve things.

          They could give us a sign of their racing spirit in the upcoming weeks by signing Ocon, maybe even Russel

    10. But it would be a nonsense to say that in the coming future Formula 1 is going to be electric. It’s not going to happen. Simply you could not do it.

      I imagine Tost is speaking of the immediate future, not in 15 or 20 yrs. I can’t say it will be electric, but I highly doubt it will be an engine that runs on fossil fuels.

      1. It is still more efficient to transport fuel than energy, so I’m behind that claim of yours. Question is, will hydrogen be reliable? What other fuel could be used?

        1. Hydrogen is a non starter really. For a start you still need the battery (although it can be smaller). You also need a very bulky cylindrical tank and they can’t hold a huge amount of hydrogen. So although hydrogen is more energy dense per molecule, the molecules do not pack together as tightly. So you need more space to hold the same amount of energy as petrol. Hydrogen Fuel cells are also nowhere near as efficient as Battery Evs although they are more efficient than ICE. The hydrogen manufacturing process is also not great for the environment. Currently over 90% of hydrogen is produced from steam reformation of methane. This releases a lot of CO2 and uses a lot of energy. Obviously it can be produced from electrolysis but this is very inefficient. There is talk of using Bacteria to produce hydrogen but this is way off production ready…

          I would also like to point out that Fuel is energy… That is the point of it. I guess you meant it is more efficient to transport fuel than batteries? Even that is not correct as it is more efficient to run a vehicle on batteries due to the losses of ICE. It is however hard to fit as much energy in car with a battery than it is with fuel right now. However that will change as we move forward. We are already seeing EVs with a similar range to their petrol equivalents. In a few years we will see EVs that far surpass the range of current petrol cars.

          1. Hence the question mark on hydrogen.

            And fuel isn’t energy, it’s potential energy.

            EVs have their problems too if you care to enunciate them

            1. Hydrogen cars are EVs… Batteries are also Potential Energy… what is your point?

              BEVs only real issue is energy density and cost per KWh of storage and those are constantly improving and will continue to improve. The benefits though are huge!

            2. What? Batteries store energy they aren’t converted into it. Transporting energy nowadays is still harder than transporting potential energy, also know as fuel.

              Got the point now?

              Currently the only certainty is that fossil fuels have their days counted, but the best solution to replace them is still unknown in my opinion. Or at least I’m not convinced with the alternatives so far. Some brands are pushing bev cars, other are investing in hydrogen powered cars, some are still reluctant to adopt either of the two. So who knows?

              And that’s not the only problem with a bev car

            3. Potential Energy is “Stored Energy” so batteries and petrol are both potential energy!!! As is a hydro electric dam…

              Got the point now?

              What are the other issues with BEVs then? Please do tell.

            4. Let’s not forget the amount of fossil fuels needed to manufacture cars and batteries, as well as the toxicity of the batteries and how that relates to their manufacture as well as disposal when they’re used up.

            5. @Robbie.

              There are fossil fuels used to manufacture the cars although that amount depends on where the car is manufactured. For instance if the country in which it is manufactured is entirely run on renewables then it is likely next to zero are used for manufacture. So we can conclude that as we move forward with renewable generation the manufacturing process will consume less fossil fuel until we reach almost zero.

              Lithium Ion batteries are not particularly toxic (We give high doses of Lithium to people for medical purposes). This is an old myth related to Ni-Cd batteries which are very toxic and are banned as far as I know. Lithium Ion batteries can be recycled pretty easily but for the most part are reused in other applications for quite some time after they leave the donor car before they need recycling.

              Please do not fall for all the myths bounded about.

            6. @Lee1 Fair enough, I am certainly no expert. The manufacture is only one aspect. It takes for metals to be mined in order to have the raw materials to manufacture everything we do in the world. Wrt batteries, I thought I had read that cobalt is one of the favourite substances to use, and that is becoming in short supply so they are already looking for suitable alternatives.

            7. Potential Energy is “Stored Energy” so batteries and petrol are both potential energy!!!

              No, you are wrong. Surely you can see the difference between the energy on a battery and the energy on fuel right?

              @robbie made a great job of statting the other problems

            8. Joao

              Potential Energy is Stored energy. Fuel is stored energy, Batteries are stored energy (ie the energy is stored in the chemical composition of the battery), a compressed spring is potential energy, water in a bucket hanging held in your hand is potential energy, you standing on the side of a plane ready to jump out is potential energy.

              More precisely Fuel and Batteries are both forms of Chemical Potential Energy

              “Chemical potential energy is a form of potential energy related to the structural arrangement of atoms or molecules. This arrangement may be the result of chemical bonds within a molecule or otherwise. Chemical energy of a chemical substance can be transformed to other forms of energy by a chemical reaction. As an example, when a fuel is burned the chemical energy is converted to heat, same is the case with digestion of food metabolized in a biological organism. Green plants transform solar energy to chemical energy through the process known as photosynthesis, and electrical energy can be converted to chemical energy through electrochemical reactions.”

              For instance a hydrogen fuel cell is also a battery of sorts. It is a flow battery.

          2. And range is an issue with electric of course, and that is improving, but one big problem is the recharge time. It is hard to beat being able to drive up to 800km on a tankful and then needing less than five minutes to fill up and go another 800 km. I think the near future, if not still for the next two or three decades, will see more and more hybrid production that will continue to use less and less gasoline, but yet will still use some, with a smaller and smaller but more and more efficient ICE, in order to keep batteries topped up on board. Cars getting 100-200 miles per gallon with five minute refueling times would not be the main problem to the environment compared to air travel and industry.

            1. For me the biggest issue so far, while ot is true it is being addressed, is the charging times. Once that’s fixed I’m pretry sure most would make the jump.

              Price of a BEV car is also quite high currently, even the smaller ones, let alone the family cars. Again that should be a question of time.

              Other problem is that the car is has green (if you care about that, I think there are plenty of info suggesting that we should, but still) as the energy used to charge the batteries. Currently if we were all to switch to BEV cars we wouldn’t have enough clean sources of energy and eventually we would still have to use fossil fuels. If we take China as an extreme example, it would barely make a difference, as they would burn even more coal to charge those cars.

              Some things are definitely solved with time, others probably not. Lithium harvesting isn’t familiar to me, but I think the process is similar to what is done with table salt, the post-processing I don’t know how it works. Of course if the demand increases the impact on extraction zones will be felt.

              I like to keep an open mind about it, and usually I try to see the alternatives as well. Hydrogen, sinthetick fuel, whatever.

              As you say @robbie for me the solution that works in the present is an hybrid, you get a little of both worlds

            2. @Jaoao

              You are correct. Lithium is generally created with solar power in the same way as table salt.

              The charging time is more of a perception issue rather than an actual issue. I have been driving an EV now for 2 years and I have yet to find a problem with charging time despite having travelled on long trips all across the UK. No one should be driving for very long without taking a break so during that break you charge up… The rapid charging network is pretty extensive across the motorway network (almost every service station has rapid chargers). On long trips it has not taken that much longer than normal to make the journey and that journey was a lot nicer in a BEV than it was in my previous ICE cars. Now would it be better if they were even quicker to charge? Yes it would and they are getting there. The next generation will likely charge much quicker as Porsche and a few others are developing 800v systems which dramatically decrease the charge time. However is it really an issue for most people? No it isn’t. For a start every time I leave the house I have a full charge.

              Cost is again a perception rather than a major issue. My Leaf for instance was a much cheaper solution than even getting a second hand car. My previous car cost me £250 per month in petrol while my Leaf costs me £35. So my car costs me £325 per month which means a second hand car would have had to cost me £75 per month on a loan or finance in order to match the overall cost. You are not going to get a lot of car for that money…

              With regard to electricity generation. My electric is 100% renewable. However I am aware that that is not practical right now if everyone were to suddenly swap. The point is though that even if the cars electric is generated by coal it is still cleaner than a petrol car. Power plants have very advanced filtration systems and are more efficient than car engines. The world is trying to move away from coal (apart from trump) so it is far more likely the generation will be from gas which is much cleaner than petrol and even more efficient or from renewables. The other benefit is that if you buy an BEV now, as the renewable generation increases your car automatically becomes greener. The other major benefit is that there are zero tailpipe emissions. These are the things that really affect our health and are potentially killing up to 50,000 people in the UK each year. They certainly cause asthma in children and all sorts of other health issues. Sound pollution is also an issue especially in cities. It causes stress and sleep issues as well as simply being unpleasant. BEVs address this issue too as they are much quieter.

              China is the world leader in BEVs They drive more there than the rest of the world put together and have the worlds most progressive laws to curb fossil fuel use. They are also the world leaders in renewable energy production.

            3. Lee I’m glad it works for you, and for what you say it surely doens’t create you amy issues. Glad to know as well that you have access to charging stations within reasonable distances, but that isn’t true for every country.

              Personally I would also forget to plugin the car every day when I arrive home, but that shouldn’t be held as a setback when considering a BEV car

              In regards to car prices, for axample a leaf wouldn’t suit my needs, and while they are surely cheaper to run, the initial investment on a eletric car is considerably higher than a petrol car of the same segment, with an hybrid falling in the middle of the two.

              Your stats about China are correct, but they come from the shear number of inhabitants. And while they lead renewable energy production they also are the biggest users of fossil fuels. Their green environmental laws are fairly recent, and still have to make an impact, hopefully they do.

              Let me also make clear that in no way I’m pro using petrol cars for the future, and that we would benefit from using other type of cars, I just find that we are in a interesting age of evolution in this regard and I’m curious to see what will become the mainstream for car manufacturers.

            4. @Joao.

              I never implied that the Leaf is suitable for all people. It is suitable for lots of people (which is why they chose that class of car to start with) but different people need different model types. That however is not a fundamental issue with BEVs it is just a fact that they are new and so the model range is very narrow at the moment. There is nothing stopping someone from releasing a pickup bev, an mpv bev or a 2 seater sports car bev etc.

              China’s stats are significant as although they are still the largest user of fossil fuels, they have made such progress that the fossil fuel use is dramatically slowing down while their renewables are increasing at the fastest rate in the world. They are really serious about the issue and most of our cars in the future will be Chinese as they are now world leaders in BEV production.

              The fact that the initial investment is higher is as I said mainly a perception issue. What is important is the cost of ownership rather than the initial cost especially when most people finance their new cars.

              If a phone cost you £300 up front but then just £5 per month for 2 years would that not be a better purchase than a phone that cost you £100 up front but cost you £30 per month? I mean would you not want to save that £400?

              As for charging. I am not sure where you live but the infrastructure in many countries is getting pretty good. If it isn’t then you need to get on to your politicians and complain as they are the issue not BEVs. One guy recently took a Leaf on the mongol rally from London to Ulaanbaatar in Mongolia and he made it all the way. For most of Europe the charging infrastructure is pretty good and improving by the day.

              As for mainstream manufacturers. Only 2 are still perusing Hydrogen. Toyota and Honda. That is likely because they have sunk so much money into it that they can’t reasonably give up on it without lots of people having to resign for wasting the cash… Even those two are also now turning to BEVs with Toyota investing heavily in a new solid state battery technology! All the rest acknowledge that battery is the best way forward most likely due to the benefits I have already stated.

            5. I enjoyed reading this exchange. Very informative… and civil!

          3. The issue with batteries is that any increase in range (currently) increases weight.

            Hydrogen can be packed pretty densely and contain significantly more energy per kg (tank included).

            But the delivery of that energy (from tank to wheels) isn’t as efficient and I suspect significantly slower.

            In regards to bull hydrogen transportation (big issue); scientists have figured out a way to convert hydrogen out of ammonia (which is very easy to transport) using a special membrane. If it can be commercialised, will be a game changer for hydrogen.

            1. Hydrogen can not be packed densely. That is part of the issue. It also leaks out of everything and can cause metal to become brittle. Per kg is has the highest energy density of anything however a kg of hydrogen takes up quite a lot of space. So you have to keep it stored in cryogenic tanks which is complex and expensive. The energy still has to go through a battery so that is still needed in a hydrogen car.

              Batteries do not necessarily have to become heavier to store more energy. It is true if two batteries are identical in their chemistry etc but it is not true when comparing different battery technologies. Lithium Air batteries are for instance around one fifth of the weight of a lithium ion battery for a given capacity. Lithium Sulphur and Sodium-Ion are also both in development and could offer better energy density and possibly for much cheaper prices. Not only that but even altering the chemistry slightly can increase the energy density of a battery. Current Lithium Ion batteries are lighter for a given weight than their predecessors and this is constantly improving.

              The Hyundai Kona Electric has a similar range to the Toyota Mirai (Hydrogen car) and is a similar size yet is quite a bit lighter.

              As for the transportation, yes there are new ways to transport it in bulk and this helps solve one issue. However it does not solve all the inefficiencies in the process and it does not solve the issue that hydrogen production currently causes a lot of CO2. Plus it still has to be transported by road… Electricity does not.

    11. I agree with both Gasly and the COTD.
      – Regarding the BBC-article: Just let it go already. It’s been almost ten years (the anniversary will occur on the practice day for the Russian GP to be entirely precise) after all, so, therefore, this particular topic is entirely irrelevant now (and has been for some time already).

    12. Worst thing about Singapore 08 is that the result still stands. That is the probably one of the stupidest things. It is the same as robbing a bank and allowing the thief to keep it

    13. I enjoyed reading this exchange. Very informative… and civil!

    Comments are closed.