From Road Transport to Intermodal Freight: The Formula 1 Races Logistics Case

Abstract

According to the Formula 1 commitment to produce net zero carbon emissions by 2030, the present paper examines the environmental impact of Formula 1 logistics by means of a case study carried out from the point of view of an Italian company, with reference to the European Grand Prix. Logistics accounts for approximately 49% of the sport’s total emissions and accordingly, to reduce its carbon footprint, addressing the logistics activity is vital. Two scenarios are compared in detail: AS-IS, involving only road transport of assets, and TO-BE, in which a combined rail–road approach (i.e., intermodal freight) is implemented. While the AS-IS scenario is more cost-effective, it has a significant environmental impact in terms of CO₂ emissions; in contrast, though more complex and costly, TO-BE offers major advantages for environmental sustainability, including reduced emissions (approximately half compared to AS-IS) and improved efficiency through intermodal transport units. This study stresses that a combined transport system, facilitated by the European rail infrastructure, is a more sustainable option for Formula 1 logistics. However, achieving full carbon neutrality still represents a challenge that will require further innovations and collaboration among the stakeholders of this world.

1. Introduction

In the past decade, sustainability has become a critical priority across various industries, prompting even the world of sports to face global environmental challenges, emphasized by the fact that sport activities are one of the tools of the Agenda 2030 within the scope of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [1]. Among these sports, Formula 1 (F1 in the following) is not only a pinnacle of technological innovation and high-performance motorsport, but also a platform striving to reconcile its operations with the growing demand for environmental responsibility. Indeed, in 2019 F1 announced its commitment to produce net zero carbon emissions by 2030 as part of its wider sustainability strategy [2].

F1 is the highest echelon of open-wheel motorsport governed by the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) [3]; FIA also regulates the design, the development, the aerodynamics, the engine performance, and the material used for each single-seater.

Overall, ten teams race within the F1 championship; each team has two drivers along with reserve drivers ready to step in if necessary; these two drivers compete across a series of Grand Prix races on circuits worldwide, taking place during the weekend; each year, the number of Grand Prix can vary. The number of single-seater cars is two for each team, while the total number of drivers on the grid for every Grand Prix is twenty.

The 2024 season was the longest in F1 history, spanning from 2 March to 8 December and encompassing twenty-four races, with a significant concentration of races taking place in Europe [4].

In recent years, F1 has launched efforts toward sustainability, adopting hybrid engines and promoting eco-friendly initiatives to reduce its carbon footprint. However, one of the main challenges that the F1 has to face as part of its sustainability strategy concerns the logistics associated with hosting the Grand Prix. Logistics, in this context, refers to the process of planning and organizing, implementing, and controlling the efficient flow, transportation, and storage of goods necessary for a Grand Prix and related information from the point of origin to the point of consumption/usage of these goods. The point of origin may be either the headquarters of an F1 team or a Grand Prix location, while the destination could again be a Grand Prix location or the headquarters, in case of reverse logistics. Transporting cars, various equipment, assets, and materials is a complex operation that not only supports the seamless execution of races (and accordingly is necessary) but also significantly contributes to the sport’s carbon emissions and footprint.

To reach the Grand Prix location, F1 teams rely on a strategic combination of three primary transportation modes: road freight, sea freight, and air freight [5,6]; obviously, sea and air freight are used for greater distances, while at the European level, road transport is normally used.

Despite the meticulous planning and integration of these transportation modes, the environmental impact of these operations is significant.

To attempt to solve this issue, this paper proposes an alternative to traditional road freight in Europe; namely, intermodal freight transport, combining road and rail freight transportation, which proved to be a promising alternative to the traditional road logistics previously mentioned. This approach could not only reduce emissions and lower the sport’s carbon footprint, but also introduce a more efficient and sustainable model for managing the complex logistical demands of each F1 team. Moreover, intermodal transport represents one of the central ideas for the development of freight transport in Europe in coming years in response to the need for sustainable development [7].

The perspective is that of Company A, F1 cars producer and owner of an Italian team (based in Bologna, in the heart of the motor valley). For the sake of simplicity, the study was limited to the European context, which turned out to be the most preferred for the Grand Prix locations last year.

As far as the already published literature dealing with the topic of the present manuscript, when performing a query on the Scopus database with “Formula 1” OR “Formula1” OR “F1” AND “sustainability”, a total of 781 documents was returned (mid-June 2025); by adding a third keyword, namely “logistics”, this number dramatically decreased to 39 documents, corresponding to nearly 5% of the initial result. Looking at the titles, it immediately stood out that all the papers were out-of-scope, and the reason could be that Formula 1 (and synonyms) could be associated with chemical formulae or with the F1-Score (an indicator for predictive performance, which was mentioned in the abstract of most of the 39 documents). Accordingly, we removed F1, and only one paper was returned, namely [8], which is focused on using green hydrogen to power F1 cars. Repeating this research on the Web of Science database, the result was the same. When using and combining different keywords, e.g., “Grand Prix” or “Formula One”, other studies emerged; for instance, with reference to Grand Prix event management [9] (with no mention of the logistics or transport issues), to the medical Center of the Australian Formula 1 [10], and to the application of the population ecology model [11] (the latter goes back to 1992). Based on this search, it can be stated that there is no evidence in the literature of studies focusing on the logistics and transport of a Grand Prix for the F1 sport; thus, this represents the first document focusing on this issue. For the sake of completeness, we only report that the majority of published studies within the F1 field deals with mechanical characteristics of racing cars (e.g., Ref. [12], which focuses on the aerodynamics effects produced by the rear wing mainplane deformation in the vehicle, or Ref. [13], which discusses the materials for improving tires’ performance), and when moving to the sustainability issue, the efforts are mainly addressed towards the reduction of the emissions with reference to the vehicles (for instance, we recall again [8]). It is worth mentioning a recent study in which a life cycle assessment (LCA) of different fuel types was carried out so as to derive the most impactful, revealing E85 as the most harmful, contrary to expectations, since it was considered a sustainable alternative to gasoline and other fuels [14]. An investigation was carried out also for other sports but no evidence was returned for intermodal freight shifts.

When moving on to the literature dealing with intermodal freight for sustainability reasons, the literature is certainly more copious. For example, it is worth mentioning the study [15] that provides a practice-oriented research agenda with reference to combined rail–road transport in Europe (which is the context under investigation); specifically, our study addresses one of the six research areas that the authors pointed out. Another interesting study worthy of mention is [16], which compares different intermodal scenarios from Korea to the USA (but in this case, sea transport is also included, and no comparison between pure one-means transport and intermodal freight is performed); or [17], in which a model aimed at assessing the rout choice behavior is proposed.

Regarding literature reviews, in both [18,19] intermodal versus unimodal road freight transport is compared but only in economic terms. When moving to sustainability, a review [20] can be mentioned from which it emerges that intermodal freight is more eco-friendly in terms of energy use and CO₂ emissions; however, this review was published in 2003. Overall, it can be stated that there is no evidence of similar studies carried out in the same context.

It can be therefore stated that this paper represents a novelty for at least two reasons. First of all, it proposes a study dealing with intermodal freight, a transport modality which still presents significant barriers in terms of adoption [21], despite its potential in reducing both costs and environmental impacts [22], as has also emerged from other studies. Moreover, it represents a new and innovative research field with reference to the F1 world; indeed, we stress once again that there is no evidence of studies dealing with the logistics of Grand Prix. Hence the novelty of the proposed study, which represents the first research addressing this issue of transporting material to the different locations of Grand Prix.

The structure of the manuscript is as follows: Section 2 illustrates the methodology, followed by Section 3 in which the AS-IS scenario results (corresponding to the road transport) and the TO-BE ones (involving intermodal freight) are compared in terms of the selected indicators, which will be detailed in the Section 2. Section 4 concludes the study and highlights relevant future research directions.

2. Methodology

To assess the economic feasibility and the environmental impact of the alternative intermodal transport method, the study compares two distinct scenarios:

• The AS-IS scenario, which reflects the current traditional transportation method, where the freight transport for the European races is exclusively carried out by road;
• The TO-BE scenario, namely the adoption of intermodal freight transportation by combining road and rail transportation for the same routes in the AS-IS situation.

The routes considered are those of the 2024 championship.

Table 1. 2024 European Races (source: Company A).

Race Location	Circuit	Schedule (Year 2024)
Emilia Romagna, Italy	Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari	17 May–19 May
Monte Carlo, Monaco	Circuit de Monaco	24 May–26 May
Barcelona, Spain	Circuit de Catalunya	21 June–23 June
Spielberg, Austria	Red Bull Ring	28 June–30 June
Silverstone, Great Britain	Silverstone Circuit	5 July–7 July
Budapest, Hungary	Hungaroring	19 July–21 July
Spa Francorchamps, Belgium	Circuit de Spa Francorchamps	26 July–28 July
Zandvoort, Netherlands	Zandvoort Circuit	23 August–25 August
Monza, Italy	Autodromo Nazionale di Monza	30 August–1 September

below shows the European Grand Prix calendar, which included nine races held between May and September, with most of the races separated by only one week, and accordingly stringent times for transportation. This tight scheduling makes the European Grand Prix an ideal context for testing the effectiveness of intermodal transportation.

For both scenarios, routes (km), travel times (hours), costs (EUR), and emissions $({\mathrm{t}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_2$e) were determined and compared so as to identify strengths and weaknesses of the TO-BE scenario against the AS-IS, mainly in terms of costs and emissions (i.e., economic and environmental sustainability). The following software and programs were involved for determining the abovementioned indicators:

-

Routes and Travel Times: Google Maps “https://www.google.com/maps” (accessed on 24 January 2025) for road transport and Railway Routing Tool (RRT—https://signal.eu.org/osm/ (accessed on 29 January 2025)) software for the train transport; the use of these kinds of online tools is not new in the literature, see for instance [23,24]. For both the tools, one has to enter the geographical coordinates of the departure of origin and the destination, and the returned result is the distance in kilometers from the two geographical points. Travel times as well are returned, but since the times can be affected by traffic conditions and other unpredictable variables, for one working week (i.e., 5 days) the travel times were recorded in three different periods (morning at around 11 a.m., afternoon at 4 p.m., and evening at 9 p.m.), and the average of these 15 values was considered in the deterministic model.

-

Emissions: CEVA Logistics simulator “https://www.cevalogistics.com/en/eco-calculator” (accessed on 24 January 2025); this simulator uses the well-to-wheel (WTW) approach, which considers the entire fuel lifecycle—extraction, transportation, refining, and combustion phases—providing a comprehensive evaluation of the emissions associated with each transportation mode. The input data to be inserted in this online tool are: the transport mode and the departure from origin–destination, and the returned result corresponds to the tons of carbon dioxide equivalent issued.

Finally, costs were determined as follows:

-

For the AS-IS scenario, the cost estimation referenced data published by the Italian Ministry of Transport, which provides operating costs ranges for commercial vehicles based on their transported weights. These costs are categorized into four vehicle classes [25]:

• Category A: vehicles transporting up to 3.5 tons;
• Category B: vehicles transporting from 3.5 to 12 tons;
• Category C: vehicles transporting from 12 to 26 tons;
• Category D: vehicles transporting more than 26 tons.

• For the present case study, the vehicles in question fall into category C, with operating costs ranging from EUR 1.452 to EUR 2.969 per kilometer.
• Given the specific characteristics of the cargo and the substantial distances involved (approximately 10,400 km per truck) the minimum rate for category C (i.e., EUR 1.452/km) was applied in order to optimize the logistics cost. This unitary cost includes depreciation, maintenance, tires, insurance, and all the operating costs associated with the vehicles and transport activity [25].
• A second essential cost component determined was the tolls for the different European highways. To obtain accurate estimates, ToolGuru Calculator “https://tollguru.com/toll-calculator-europe” (accessed on 30 January 2025) and Autostrade per l’Italia Toll Calculator “https://www.autostrade.it/en/il-pedaggio/come-si-calcola-il-pedaggio” (accessed on 30 January 2025) were employed. For these tools again, entry and exit motorway tollbooth have to be inserted, and the output is the cost for that itinerary;

-

The economic analysis for the TO-BE scenario was carried out by categorizing expenses into three categories: (i) railway costs, (ii) road costs, and (iii) intermodal transport unit (ITU) costs (the latter will be detailed later in the text).

• As far as the cost for the railways is concerned, it was computed by assuming a cost per kilometer equal to EUR 1.19/km [26] for each ITU, which was then multiplied by the distances of the different journeys and the number of ITUs (which is a fixed number). For the road costs, the same procedure as for the AS-IS scenario was used.

Being an initial study, for the sake of simplicity one fundamental assumption was made about the transported goods: the focus was on non-critical materials. Non-critical materials for a Grand Prix include what is used in the operational areas, the pit lane, the Paddock Club, and the garages [27]. These materials typically comprise components such as such as furniture, temporary structures, partition panels, workbenches, and everything required to create a welcoming and professional environment for sponsors, clients, and guests. In this study, it is assumed that, out of a total of eighteen transport trucks involved for logistics support during the European Grand Prix, seven are dedicated to non-critical materials [27]. This last number will be considered fixed in the present study.

These materials are grouped into “kits”, which facilitate handling and ensure the timely availability of all the necessary equipment where and when it is required.

At the beginning of the year, the kits are organized, packed, and shipped via sea freight to the first non-European races inside containers. Upon completion of these races, the kits return to Europe for road transport to the European competitions. Subsequently, they are again shipped to the next non-European races via sea freight. The content of the kits for non-European and European races remains the same; there are only substitutions if something is damaged or used (in the case of consumable materials).

In this study, it is assumed that the transport is carried out by Company A and that all the movements, both initial and final, take place from and to Bologna city.

It is also assumed that each lorry transports 26 tons (fixed value) of non-critical materials, and that a full truck load (FTL) is always respected, as these data represent the current situation.

Since Company A is Italian, all the applicable regulations will be those provided by the Italian legislative system, including tariffs and regulations related to the transport of goods.

3. Results

This section presents the comparative analysis of the AS-IS and the TO-BE scenarios for the transportation of non-critical materials to the 2024 European Grand Prix. The subsections that follow propose the results from these two assessments, including the economic and the environmental evaluations.

3.1. AS-IS Scenario

As already stated, this approach relies exclusively on road freight, reflecting the actual modality involved, using a fleet of lorries owned by Company A. The number of routes employed in this scenario is six (see

Table 2. AS-IS scenario routes.

Number	Routes
1	Bologna—Imola—Bologna
2	Bologna—Monte Carlo—Bologna
3	Bologna—Barcellona—Silverstone—Spa Francorchamps—Bologna
4	Bologna—Spielberg—Budapest—Bologna
5	Bologna—Zandvoort—Bologna
6	Bologna—Monza—Bologna

for the details); the transported material remains the same for each route.

Each load of kits is inspected before being loaded for transportation for checking that the content is compliant. Once cleared, the kits are transferred to a warehouse storage area, where they are arranged onto seven lorries, each with a maximum loaded weight capacity of 40 tons. These vehicles, fully compliant with European road regulations, have the following dimensions:

-

Maximum length: 16.5 m;

-

Width: 2.55 m;

-

Height: 4 m;

-

Maximum loaded weight: 40 tons.

To enhance efficiency and to comply with the Italian driving time and rest regulations, each lorry is managed by two drivers, who alternate driving duties. This arrangement optimizes travel times while maintaining compliance with mandatory rest periods. The transport operates in FTL mode as already stated, with lorries being either fully or nearly fully loaded to maximize capacity utilization.

It is important to note that the departure of lorries does not occur simultaneously but is staggered according to the priority of delivery of the materials to the track. Therefore, the departure order of the vehicles varies depending on the logistical needs of Company A, while the total number of seven lorries remains constant, as already stressed.

3.1.1. Routes

The distance covered by the trucks was calculated by considering the storage area at Company A’s warehouse in Bologna as the starting point, and the circuit hosting each European Grand Prix as the final destination. The total distance amounts to 10,328.4 km (for each vehicle), representing the cumulative distance traveled by the fleet of seven lorries throughout the whole past season.

As shown in

Table 3. AS-IS scenario detailed routes.

Route Number	Origin	Destination	Distance (km)
1	Bologna	Circuito Enzo e Dino Ferrari	45.2
	Circuito Enzo e Dino Ferrari	Bologna	45.2
2	Bologna	Circuit de Monaco	468
	Circuit de Monaco	Bologna	468
3	Bologna	Circuit de Catalunya	1121
	Circuit de Catalunya	Silverstone Circuit	1604
	Silverstone Circuit	Circuit de Spa Francorchamps	653
	Circuit de Spa Francorchamps	Bologna	1007
4	Bologna	Red Bull Ring	530
	Red Bull Ring	Hungaroring	406
	Hungaroring	Bologna	849
5	Bologna	Zandvoort Circuit	1326
	Zandvoort Circuit	Bologna	1326
6	Bologna	Autodromo Nazionale di Monza	240
	Autodromo Nazionale di Monza	Bologna	240

below, the significant total distance is primarily caused by the lengthy routes required to reach some specific circuits, especially Silverstone (UK), Zandvoort (Netherlands), and Barcelona (Spain). These circuits are among the furthest from Bologna, thus necessitating extensive travel and contributing to the high mileage associated with this transportation model.

3.1.2. Travel Times

For determining travel times, in addition to the times returned from the online tools, driver breaks were also considered. According to the Italian law [28], every 4 h and 30 min of driving, drivers are entitled to a 45-min break. In addition, drivers cannot drive for more than nine hours in a working day.

Table 4. AS-IS scenario travel times.

Route Number	Origin	Destination	Time
1	Bologna	Circuito Enzo e Dino Ferrari	0 h 45 m
	Circuito Enzo e Dino Ferrari	Bologna	0 h 45 m
2	Bologna	Circuit de Monaco	6 h 41 m
	Circuit de Monaco	Bologna	6 h 41 m
3	Bologna	Circuit de Catalunya	16 h 1 m
	Circuit de Catalunya	Silverstone Circuit	22 h 55 m
	Silverstone Circuit	Circuit de Spa Francorchamps	9 h 20 m
	Circuit de Spa Francorchamps	Bologna	14 h 23 m
4	Bologna	Red Bull Ring	7 h 34 m
	Red Bull Ring	Hungaroring	5 h 48 m
	Hungaroring	Bologna	12 h 8 m
5	Bologna	Zandvoort Circuit	18 h 57 m
	Zandvoort Circuit	Bologna	18 h 48 m
6	Bologna	Autodromo Nazionale di Monza	3 h 26 m
	Autodromo Nazionale di Monza	Bologna	3 h 26 m

below displays the travel times based on this restriction. However, it is important to note that these calculations do not account for real-world variables such as traffic congestion, weather conditions, or other unforeseeable factors and they were only achieved by averaging the 15 recorded times from the online tool (see again the Section 2). As such, the estimated times should be viewed as indicative values for planning purposes. Therefore, the estimated times provide only a general indication of the duration required to transport goods between the selected circuits using road transport.

Overall, the time dedicated to the road transport for these destinations was 8858 min, corresponding to 147.63 h for each vehicle.

Upon analyzing the data in Table 4, certain routes, particularly those associated with routes 3, 4, and 5, exhibited significantly longer travel times. This was especially true for route 3, which involves covering extensive distances, including destinations such as Barcelona and Silverstone. The considerable distance, combined with mandatory rest periods, resulted in substantially higher overall travel times. In such cases, to comply with road transport regulations, drivers are required to take overnight rests, further extending the total duration needed for transportation.

3.1.3. Costs

Before discussing the results presented in

Table 5. AS-IS scenario costs.

Route Number	Origin	Destination	Cost (km/t)	Tolls Cost	Total Cost
1	Bologna	Circuito Enzo e Dino Ferrari	EUR 459	EUR 49	EUR 508
	Circuito Enzo e Dino Ferrari	Bologna	EUR 459	EUR 49	EUR 508
2	Bologna	Automobile Club de Monaco	EUR 4756	EUR 728	EUR 5485
	Automobile Club de Monaco	Bologna	EUR 4756	EUR 728	EUR 5485
3	Bologna	Circuit de Catalunya	EUR 11,394	EUR 1919	EUR 13,313
	Circuit de Catalunya	Silverstone Circuit	EUR 16,303	EUR 2190	EUR 18,493
	Silverstone Circuit	Circuit de Spa Francorchamps	EUR 6637	EUR 471	EUR 7108
	Circuit de Spa Francorchamps	Bologna	EUR 10,235	EUR 862	EUR 11,097
4	Bologna	Red Bull Ring	EUR 5387	EUR 457	EUR 5844
	Red Bull Ring	Hungaroring	EUR 4127	EUR 545	EUR 4672
	Hungaroring	Bologna	EUR 8629	EUR 1466	EUR 10,095
5	Bologna	Zandvoort Circuit	EUR 13,477	EUR 1374	EUR 14,851
	Zandvoort Circuit	Bologna	EUR 13,376	EUR 1362	EUR 14,738
6	Bologna	Autodromo Nazionale di Monza	EUR 2439	EUR 376	EUR 2815
	Autodromo Nazionale di Monza	Bologna	EUR 2439	EUR 376	EUR 2815

, it is useful to clarify the key parameters:

• The cost per kilometer per lorry (km/t) represents the cost for all the seven lorries; the unitary cost is calculated by multiplying the cost per kilometer (EUR 1.452/km) by the total distance between the team’s storage area and the destination (considering two ways, for each of the seven lorries);
• The total cost includes both the cost per kilometer per lorry and the highway tolls, encompassing all the seven trucks used in the transportation process.

Based on these calculations, the total cost for analyzing the logistics of these six routes for the AS-IS scenario amounts to EUR 117,827, which corresponds to the sum of the total costs (i.e., the last column of Table 5).

3.1.4. CO₂ Emissions

The carbon footprint emissions for the AS-IS scenario are presented in

Table 6. Total tCO₂e WTW for the AS-IS scenario.

Route Number	Origin	Destination	tCO2e WTW
1	Bologna	Circuito Enzo e Dino Ferrari	0.7238
	Circuito Enzo e Dino Ferrari	Bologna	0.7238
2	Bologna	Automobile Club de Monaco	7.0791
	Automobile Club de Monaco	Bologna	7.0791
3	Bologna	Circuit de Catalunya	17.5742
	Circuit de Catalunya	Silverstone Circuit	23.0888
	Silverstone Circuit	Circuit de Spa Francorchamps	9.7909
	Circuit de Spa Francorchamps	Bologna	15.2453
4	Bologna	Red Bull Ring	9.2274
	Red Bull Ring	Hungaroring	7.665
	Hungaroring	Bologna	12.4509
5	Bologna	Zandvoort Circuit	19.3578
	Zandvoort Circuit	Bologna	19.3578
6	Bologna	Autodromo Nazionale di Monza	3.3656
	Autodromo Nazionale di Monza	Bologna	3.3656

, which considers the use of seven 40-ton trucks for each European Grand Prix, each transporting 26 tons of non-critical goods. The table displays the total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (tCO₂e) for the entire journeys, covering an approximate distance of 10,400 km, corresponding the total distance required to deliver materials directly to the circuits for all the European races that took place in 2024.

For each route, Table 6 reports the distance traveled and the associated well-to-wheel (WTW) CO₂ equivalent emissions, generated by the entire fleet of trucks employed. Assuming all these values, the total emissions from road transport in the AS-IS scenario corresponds to 156.0951 tCO₂e, consistent with the results of the F1 Impact Report 2023, which states that logistics activities account for 49% of the total pollution, emphasizing the urgent need for effective measures to mitigate its negative impact on the environment [2].

3.2. TO-BE Scenario

The TO-BE scenario consists in designing an efficient system that integrates rail and road transport for transferring the required goods, namely an intermodal freight system. In this scenario, due to the efficiency achieved by combining trucks and trains, the number of routes considered is reduced to five (

Table 7. TO-BE scenario routes.

Number	Routes
1	Bologna—Zandvoort—Bologna
2	Bologna—Monaco—Bologna
3	Bologna—Silverstone—Bologna
4	Bologna—Spa Francorchamps—Bologna
5	Bologna—Imola—Barcellona—Budapest—Monza—Bologna

) if compared to the AS-IS scenario, which included six routes. This integration allows for the planning of more efficient routes and equipment delivery plans, ensuring a smoother and more timely movement of goods during the European Grand Prix.

3.2.1. Intermodal Transport Units

The selected intermodal transport units (ITUs) are 40-ft containers designed to transport 26 tons of goods per ITU, ensuring the cargo’s integrity during the transit to the race circuits. Their sturdy construction, along with four corner castings at the bottom and twist-locks, provides an excellent protection and stability, minimizing the risk of damage. Additionally, these containers can be seamlessly interchanged between road and rail transport (and also sea, if we consider that before and after the European locations, the others are intercontinental), ensuring consistent use throughout the logistics chain and maximizing their overall efficiency.

The handling of ITUs follows a series of stages to ensure efficient and secure transportation. An external company transports the ITUs from Company A’s storage area to the intermodal freight terminal in Bologna. At the terminal, lorries unload the ITUs and place them in designated areas, awaiting their transfer to the train. A crane equipped with an electric telescopic spreader is then used to transfer the containers onto Sgns flat wagons, the most suitable choice for this transport due to their load capacity and the ability to securely lock the containers with twist-locks. These wagons also allow for loading from both the side and above, optimizing the handling process. As only a limited number of ITUs are needed per Grand Prix, the containers are consolidated with other cargo on mixed freight trains, maximizing railway infrastructure use and ensuring logistical efficiency.

The load of each route comprises seven 40-ft containers to be involved across all the European Grand Prix.

3.2.2. Routes

The analysis of the distances between inland terminals and race circuits considered two key requirements imposed by the European regulations for the intermodal freight:

-

A minimum distance of 100 km as the crow flies for rail transport;

-

A maximum distance of 150 km as the crow flies for the first and last by road.

The selection of inland terminals was crucial to comply with these constraints and to ensure the efficiency of the transport system.

Within this context, identifying the Trans-European Transport Network, and in this specific case the European TEN-T corridors, was essential [29]. The EU’s trans-European transport network policy is a key instrument for planning and developing a coherent, efficient, multimodal, and high-quality transport infrastructure across Europe. The network comprises railways, inland waterways, short sea shipping routes, and roads linking urban nodes, maritime and inland ports, airports, and terminals. For the present study, it was necessary to identify the key terminals and routes. In detail, the TEN-T network consists of nine intermodal central corridors traversing Europe from north to south and from east to west. Each corridor streamlines connections and attempts to ease bottlenecks in the transport system so that all major cities and regions can be accessed within 30 min. By analyzing these corridors, it was possible to accurately calculate railway distances and to evaluate the efficiency of the connections between terminals and circuits; the selected corridors are depicted in

Table 8. TEN-T corridors associated with the terminals involved in this study.

Intermodal Terminal	TEN-T Corridors
Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Scandinavian-Mediterranean, Baltic-Adriatic
Milano-Smistamento	Rhine-Alpine, Mediterranean
Ferrovia Genova—Ventimiglia	Rhine-Alpine
Barcelona Morrot	Mediterranean
Terminal Budapest	Mediterranean, Orient/East-Med, Rhine-Danube, Amber
Rail Service Center Rotterdam	Rhine-Alpine, North Sea-Mediterranean, North Sea-Baltic
Cargo Center Graz	Baltic-Adriatic, Alpine-Western Balkan
Daventry Rail Freight Terminal	North Sea-Mediterranean
Liège Logistics Intermodal	Rhine-Alpine, North Sea-Mediterranean, North Sea-Baltic

below.

The analysis of the TEN-T corridors, supported by the already mentioned Railway Routing Tool (RRT) software, allowed for an accurate quantification of the railway distances, which are shown in

Table 9. TO-BE scenario detailed routes.

Route	Means of Transport	Origin	Destination	Distance [km]
1	Road	Bologna	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	20.8
	Rail	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Rail Service Center Rotterdam	1574.70
	Road	Rail Service Center Rotterdam	Zandvoort Circuit	79.3
	Road	Zandvoort Circuit	Rail Service Center Rotterdam	79.3
	Rail	Rail Service Center Rotterdam	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	1574.70
	Road	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	20.8
2	Road	Bologna	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	20.8
	Rail	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Ferovia Genova—Ventimiglia	464.2
	Road	Ferrovia Genova—Ventimiglia	Automobile Club de Monaco	27.5
	Road	Automobile Club de Monaco	Ferrovia Genova—Ventimiglia	27.5
	Rail	Ferrovia Genova—Ventimiglia	Cargo Center Graz	1045.50
	Road	Cargo Center Graz	Red Bull Ring	91
	Road	Red Bull Ring	Cargo Center Graz	91
	Rail	Cargo Center Graz	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	656.8
	Road	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	20.8
3	Raod	Bologna	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	20.8
	Rail	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Daventry Rail Freight Terminal	1739.50
	Road	Daventry Rail Freight Terminal	Silverstone Circuit	40
	Road	Silverstone Circuit	Daventry Rail Freight Terminal	40
	Rail	Daventry Rail Freight Terminal	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	1739.50
	Road	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	20.8
4	Road	Bologna	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	20.8
	Rail	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Liège Logistics Intermodal	1196.20
	Road	Liège Logistics Intermodal	Circuit de Spa Francorchamps	60.8
	Road	Circuit de Spa Francorchamps	Liège Logistics Intermodal	60.8
	Rail	Liège Logistics Intermodal	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	1196.20
	Road	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	20.8
5	Road	Bologna	Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari	45.2
	Road	Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari	Bologna	45.2
	Road	Bologna	Interporto di Bologna S.p.A	20.8
	Rail	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Barcelona Morrot	1272.40
	Road	Barcelona Morrot	Circuit de Catalunya	33
	Road	Circuit de Catalunya	Barcelona Morrot	33
	Rail	Barcelona Morrot	Terminal Budapest	2273.30
	Road	Terminal Budapest	Hungaroring	20.5
	Road	Hungaroring	Terminal Budapest	20.5
	Rail	Terminal Budapest	Milano—Smistamento	1124.10
	Road	Milano—Smistamento	Autodromo di Monza	24
	Road	Autodromo di Monza	Milano-Smistamento	24
	Rail	Milano—Smistamento	Interporto Bologna	220
	Road	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	20.8

.

As shown in Table 9, for the second route, an intermodal node is used at the Genoa Ventimiglia railway station, since there are no nearby rail intermodal terminals in Monte Carlo. Therefore, the only feasible method for implementing intermodal freight to this destination involves departing from the Bologna Intermodal Terminal and arriving at the Genoa Ventimiglia station, which is the nearest point to the circuit in question.

3.2.3. Travel Times

The analysis of travel times distinctly considered the two modes of transport: road and rail. For road transport, concerning the first and last mile, the same assumptions as for the AS-IS scenario were made (including seven lorries).

On the other hand, for rail transport, the RRT software was involved again. The results are shown in

Table 10. TO-BE scenario travel times.

Route	Means of Transport	Origin	Destination	Travel Times
1	Road	Bologna	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	0 h 18 m
	Rail	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Rail Service Center Rotterdam	9 h 2 m
	Road	Rail Service Center Rotterdam	Zandvoort Circuit	1 h 8 m
	Road	Zandvoort Circuit	Rail Service Center Rotterdam	1 h 8 m
	Rail	Rail Service Center Rotterdam	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	9 h 2 m
	Road	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	0 h 18 m
2	Road	Bologna	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	0 h 18 m
	Rail	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Ferovia Genova—Ventimiglia	3 h 54 m
	Road	Ferrovia Genova—Ventimiglia	Automobile Club de Monaco	0 h 24 m
	Road	Automobile Club de Monaco	Ferrovia Genova—Ventimiglia	0 h 24 m
	Rail	Ferrovia Genova—Ventimiglia	Cargo Center Graz	8 h 46 m
	Road	Cargo Center Graz	Red Bull Ring	1 h 18 m
	Road	Red Bull Ring	Cargo Center Graz	1 h 18 m
	Rail	Cargo Center Graz	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	7 h 14 m
	Road	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	0 h 18 m
3	Raod	Bologna	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	0 h 18 m
	Rail	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Daventry Rail Freight Terminal	9 h 23 m
	Road	Daventry Rail Freight Terminal	Silverstone Circuit	0 h 35 m
	Road	Silverstone Circuit	Daventry Rail Freight Terminal	0 h 35 m
	Rail	Daventry Rail Freight Terminal	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	9 h 23 m
	Road	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	0 h 18 m
4	Road	Bologna	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	0 h 18 m
	Rail	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Liège Logistics Intermodal	7 h 52 m
	Road	Liège Logistics Intermodal	Circuit de Spa Francorchamps	0 h 53 m
	Road	Circuit de Spa Francorchamps	Liège Logistics Intermodal	0 h 53 m
	Rail	Liège Logistics Intermodal	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	7 h 52 m
	Road	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	0 h 18 m
5	Road	Bologna	Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari	0 h 39 m
	Road	Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari	Bologna	0 h 39 m
	Road	Bologna	Interporto di Bologna S.p.A	0 h 18 m
	Rail	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Barcelona Morrot	8 h 44 m
	Road	Barcelona Morrot	Circuit de Catalunya	0 h 29 m
	Road	Circuit de Catalunya	Barcelona Morrot	0 h 29 m
	Rail	Barcelona Morrot	Terminal Budapest	16 h 28 m
	Road	Terminal Budapest	Hungaroring	0 h 18 m
	Road	Hungaroring	Terminal Budapest	0 h 18 m
	Rail	Terminal Budapest	Milano-Smistamento	10 h 44 m
	Road	Milano-Smistamento	Autodromo di Monza	0 h 21 m
	Road	Autodromo di Monza	Milano—Smistamento	0 h 21 m
	Rail	Milano—Smistamento	zzInterporto Bologna	1 h 17 m
	Road	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	0 h 18 m

.

Note that the handling times for ITUs at intermodal terminals are estimated at four hours per operation, including truck loading and unloading and crane transfers on freight trains [30]. This estimate is based on data from the Intermodal Freight Terminal in Bologna and the Italian regulations. Therefore, four hours are assumed for each handling phase, both upon arrival of the ITUs’ arrival at the terminal and upon departure.

3.2.4. Costs

The results for the railway cost analysis are shown in

Table 11. Railway costs: TO-BE scenario.

Origin	Destination	Railway Route Cost
Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Rail Service Center Rotterdam	EUR 13,113.00
Rail Service Center Rotterdam	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	EUR 13,117.00
	Total route 1	EUR 26,230.00
Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Ferrovia Genova—Ventimiglia	EUR 3867.00
Ferrovia Genova—Ventimiglia	Cargo Center Graz	EUR 8709.00
Cargo Center Graz	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	EUR 5471.00
	Total route 2	EUR 18,047.00
Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Daventry Rail Freight Terminal	EUR 14,490.00
Daventry Rail Freight Terminal	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	EUR 14,490.00
	Total route 3	EUR 28,980.00
Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Liège Logistics Intermodal	EUR 9964.00
Liège Logistics Intermodal	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	EUR 9964.00
	Total route 4	EUR 19,929.00
Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Barcelona Morrot	EUR 10,599.00
Barcelona Morrot	Terminal Budapest	EUR 18,937.00
Terminal Budapest	Milano—Smistamento	EUR 9364.00
Milano—Smistamento	Interporto Bologna	EUR 1833.00
	Total route 5	EUR 40,732.00

, following the procedure depicted in Section 1.

The assumptions previously used for calculating road transport were also applied in this case, with a cost of EUR 1.452 per km for each truck employed.

This value, when multiplied by the total distance traveled for each route and considering the number of trucks used (i.e., seven), provides the overall cost of road transport (

Table 12. Road costs: TO-BE scenario.

Origin	Destination	Road Route Cost
Bologna	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	EUR 211
Rail Service Center Rotterdam	Zandvoort Circuit	EUR 806
Zandvoort Circuit	Rail Service Center Rotterdam	EUR 806
Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	EUR 211
	Total route 1	EUR 2035
Bologna	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	EUR 211
Ferrovia Genova—Ventimiglia	Automobile Club de Monaco	EUR 280
Automobile Club de Monaco	Ferrovia Genova—Ventimiglia	EUR 280
Cargo Center Graz	Red Bull Ring	EUR 925
Red Bull Ring	Cargo Center Graz	EUR 925
Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	EUR 211
	Total route 2	EUR 2832
Bologna	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	EUR 211
Daventry Rail Freight Terminal	Silverstone Circuit	EUR 407
Silverstone Circuit	Daventry Rail Freight Terminal	EUR 407
Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	EUR 211
	Total route 3	EUR 1236
Bologna	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	EUR 211
Liège Logistics Intermodal	Circuit de Spa Francorchamps	EUR 618
Circuit de Spa Francorchamps	Liège Logistics Intermodal	EUR 61
Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	EUR 21
	Total route 4	EUR 1659
Bologna	Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari	EUR 459
Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	EUR 459
Bologna	Interporto di Bologna S.p.A	EUR 211
Barcelona Morrot	Circuit de Catalunya	EUR 335
Circuit de Catalunya	Barcelona Morrot	EUR 335
Terminal Budapest	Hungaroring	EUR 208
Hungaroring	Terminal Budapest	EUR 208
Milano—Smistamento	Autodromo Nazionale di Monza	EUR 244
Autodromo Nazionale di Monza	Milano—Smistamento	EUR 244
Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	EUR 211
	Total route 5	EUR 2917

).

The cost associated with handling ITUs includes the loading and unloading of ITUs from trucks to railway wagons, as well as terminal maneuvers. While part of these expenses is already factored into the rail transport unit rate, additional costs for crane operations and ITU handling were calculated separately.

Referring to the Bologna Intermodal Freight Terminal, for seven 40-ft containers weighing 26 tons each and handled by crane, the costs, derived by a telephonic interview with Bologna Terminal, are as follows:

-

EUR 35.00 per ITU for unitized cargo handling;

-

EUR 41.00 per ITU for crane operations.

Given both road-to-rail and rail-to-road handling, the total costs amounted to EUR 12,768.00.

The total analyzed costs were as follows:

-

Railway transport costs amounted to EUR 133,922.00;

-

Road transport costs, including the transfer of goods from railway terminals to destination circuits, were EUR 10,678.00;

-

Costs related to loading and unloading operations of ITUs, including crane handling, and the ITUs management within terminals, amounted to EUR 12,768.00.

Overall, summing all these expense items, the total cost for the entire analyzed scenario was EUR 157,368.00.

This amount represents the total cost required to cover all the transport and handling expenses for implementing intermodal transport (road-rail) for moving goods to European Grand Prix events.

3.2.5. CO₂ Emissions

To evaluate the ${\mathrm{t}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_2\mathrm{e}$ emission for the TO-BE scenario, data were split into two tables for a better understanding; in detail,

Table 13. Carbon footprint of TO-BE scenario using trucks for the first and last mile.

Route Number	Origin	Destination	Distance (km)	tCO2e WTW
1	Bologna	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	20.8	0.224
	Rail Service Center Rotterdam	Zandvoort Circuit	79.3	0.1099
	Zandvoort Circuit	Rail Service Center Rotterdam	79.3	0.1099
	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	20.8	0.224
2	Bologna	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	20.8	0.224
	Ferrovia Genova—Ventimiglia	Automobile Club de Monaco	27.5	0.392
	Automobile Club de Monaco	Ferrovia Genova—Ventimiglia	27.5	0.392
	Cargo Center Graz	Red Bull Ring	91	1.386
	Red Bull Ring	Cargo Center Graz	91	1.386
	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	20.8	0.224
3	Bologna	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	20.8	0.224
	Daventry Rail Freight Terminal	Silverstone Circuit	40	0.08
	Silverstone Circuit	Daventry Rail Freight Terminal	40	0.08
	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	20.8	0.224
4	Bologna	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	20.8	0.224
	Liège Logistics Intermodal	Circuit de Spa Francorchamps	60.8	0.896
	Circuit de Spa Francorchamps	Liège Logistics Intermodal	60.8	0.896
	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	20.8	0.224
5	Bologna	Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari	45.2	0.861
	Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	45.2	0.861
	Barcelona Morrot	Circuit de Catalunya	33	0.511
	Circuit de Catalunya	Barcelona Morrot	33	0.511
	Terminal Budapest	Hungaroring	20.5	0.217
	Hungaroring	Terminal Budapest	20.5	0.217
	Milano—Smistamento	Autodromo Nazionale di Monza	24	0.364
	Autodromo Nazionale di Monza	Milano—Smistamento	24	0.364
	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Bologna	20.8	0.224

refers to all the movements carried out using road transportation (with the same assumptions as for the first scenario), while

Table 14. Carbon footprint of TO-BE scenario using rail transportation for the main stage.

Route Number	Origin	Destination	Distance (km)	tCO2e WTW
1	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Rail Service Center Rotterdam	1574.7	6.3
	Rail Service Center Rotterdam	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	1574.7	6.3
2	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Ferovia Genova—Ventimiglia	464.2	1.5
	Ferrovia Genova—Ventimiglia	Cargo Center Graz	1045.5	5
	Cargo Center Graz	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	656.8	3
3	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Daventry Rail Freight Terminal	1739.5	7.4
	Daventry Rail Freight Terminal	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	1739.5	7.4
4	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Liège Logistics Intermodal	1196.2	4.7
	Liège Logistics Intermodal	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	1196.2	4.7
5	Interporto Bologna S.p.A	Barcelona Morrot	1272.4	5.3
	Barcelona Morrot	Terminal Budapest	2273.3	7.8
	Terminal Budapest	Milano-Smistamento	1124.1	4.7
	Milano-Smistamento	Interporto Bologna	220	1.1

pertains to all movements carried out using rail transportation.

The ${\mathrm{T}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_2\mathrm{e}$ emissions for the first and last mile using lorries amounts to 11.4258 ${\mathrm{t}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_2\mathrm{e}$, mainly due to the shortest distance covered by lorries of only 1029.8 km.

Despite the larger amount of material, the greater overall distances, and the slightly higher costs compared to the AS-IS scenario, the total emissions analyzed in Table 14 amount to a total 65.2 ${\mathrm{t}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_2$e.

With the addition of road transport emissions for the first and last mile (namely data from Table 13), the grand total rises to 76.63 ${\mathrm{t}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_2$e, which is nearly half of the emissions generated by the exclusive use of road transport in the AS-IS scenario.

As the data clearly shows, this intermodal approach results in a significant and relevant reduction in carbon emissions compared to the traditional road-based method employed in the previous scenario.

While more complex to implement, this solution would lead to a substantial decrease in terms of ${\mathrm{t}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_2\mathrm{e}$ emissions, and can be realistically adopted for transporting non-critical goods for the European Formula 1 Grand Prix.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

This paper aimed at comparing two different scenarios with reference to the logistics of the Formula 1 races (at present limited to non-critical material and referring to the Grand Prix that took place in Europe last year, i.e., 2024): for the first scenario, representing the AS-IS traditional transport modality, only road transport is involved; in the second, instead, reflecting a potential TO-BE scenario, intermodal freight transportation (i.e., road + train) is involved. For comparing them, the two KPIs used were the total costs and the CO₂ equivalent emissions generated, so as to derive which is the most sustainable in economic and environmental terms. The overall results are:

-

Cost for the AS-IS scenario: EUR 117,827.00

-

Cost for the TO-BE scenario: EUR 157,368.00

-

Emissions for the AS-IS scenario: 156.0951 ${\mathrm{t}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_2\mathrm{e}$

-

Emissions for the TO-BE scenario: 76.63 ${\mathrm{t}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_2\mathrm{e}$

It is clear that the AS-IS scenario is cheaper than the TO-BE (saving approximately 15.5%), and moreover it is undoubtedly more logistically advantageous, as it does not require mode changes, the selection of intermodal transport units, or additional logistical adjustments. Thus, from a merely economic point of view, road transport is the best option. However, this approach comes with several significant drawbacks.

The first issue relates to timing. Since the transport relies solely on road transport, delivery times are longer, especially for more distant locations; with reference to the time issue, moreover, it is necessary to note that delays related to traffic, accidents or weather conditions were not considered, and accordingly times in real contexts could be even longer. Furthermore, mandatory rest periods for drivers must be factored in, which can add to the overall transport time (and costs).

However, the most concerning and critical downside of the AS-IS scenario is the environmental impact. Indeed, the 156.0951 ${\mathrm{t}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_2\mathrm{e}$ underscores the urgent need for a shift in logistics. In this regard, the TO-BE scenario, even if more logistically complex, more expensive, and requiring a double handling of the transport units, would allow an almost 50% saving in terms of harmful emissions, so halving the total ${\mathrm{t}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_2\mathrm{e}$; these results are in line with other studies demonstrating that intermodal freight is more sustainable [20]. The environmental sustainability, however, is not the only advantage of the intermodal freight; in fact, the suitable selection of the ITUs can help in preventing cargo breakage during transitions between transport modes, and can also optimize the sea transport, ITUs being versatile. Moreover, involving rail transport also significantly reduces delivery times: freight trains do not make intermediate stops, and ITUs are loaded at one point and unloaded at another, resulting in faster travel times, even over long distances. Additionally, unlike lorries, trains are not affected by factors such as traffic, refueling stops, or adverse weather conditions, which often complicate road transport.

Overall, the TO-BE scenario would represent a significant step towards achieving F1’s sustainability targets to reach net zero by 2030. Moreover, adopting intermodal freight transport offers several strategic advantages beyond emissions reduction and cost savings. First and foremost, it would enhance the public image of Company A by aligning with growing environmental and sustainability expectations. Fans, sponsors, and partners increasingly value green initiatives, and using rail as part of its logistics would demonstrate a concrete commitment to sustainable innovation (core to both motorsport and global corporate responsibility trends). This shift would strengthen brand loyalty and attract eco-conscious sponsors. Additionally, intermodal transport positions the team more favorably in terms of regulatory compliance. As governments and international bodies tighten emissions regulations and introduce stricter transport policies, especially in Europe, being ahead of the curve would mitigate future risks and potential disruptions. It would also improve the access to key markets that prioritize environmental standards. Furthermore, intermodal systems often offer greater predictability and resilience, especially when road transport faces congestion or policy-driven limitations (such as restricted access zones or emissions tolls). Overall, embracing intermodal logistics reflects innovation, responsibility, and adaptability. However, this is an ambitious goal which would require innovative strategies and technologies to ensure a sustainable and lasting process. Indeed, despite the benefits, significant operational and contractual barriers could emerge when attempting to integrate it into F1 logistics under the current race calendar. One major challenge is the tight scheduling and geographic spread of races. The nature of Grand Prix, sometimes on different continents within days, leaves limited time for the longer transit times typically associated with rail (or sea) transport compared to road. This makes it difficult to ensure timely delivery of time-sensitive equipment. Additionally, infrastructure limitations (such as lack of direct rail access to certain circuits or inadequate terminal facilities) can hinder smooth modal transitions. From a contractual standpoint, teams are often bound by existing logistics service agreements that favor road or air freight due to their flexibility and speed. Renegotiating these contracts to incorporate multimodal logistics may incur additional costs or require collaboration with freight providers not yet familiar with the unique demands of F1 operations. Moreover, customs procedures and cross-border documentation requirements can add complexity, especially for intercontinental races. Together, these barriers necessitate careful planning, advanced coordination, and collaboration with logistics partners to make intermodal transport viable within F1’s high-pressure, fast-paced environment.

This study has a limitation, which is its deterministic approach: the authors are aware of the fact that several variables may impact on the KPIs under investigation, such as traffic, weather conditions, accidents, which surely have an impact on both KPIs, and in the future research will aim at closing this gap by developing a simulative model including stochasticity. Moreover, analysis is planned to include also the transport of critical materials in the assessment, so as to have a complete overview of costs and emissions involved, which as expected would both increase. This analysis, then, was performed in Italy with data and regulations applying in this country; a similar assessment could be performed from the side of foreign companies in order to have a cross-country comparison, and also for extra-EU destinations, since in this case sea transport could be involved and the logistics infrastructures abroad could significantly differ from those in Europe. An ad hoc study could be carried out in this regard.

Last but not least, this paper is intended to be a first study whose aim is to sensitize F1 companies to consider this logistics solution, as well focusing attention on intermodal freight, which is still scarcely involved and considered due to difficulties in its implementation. Regarding this last sentence, the managerial implications of this study could be seen as the fact that practitioners involved in the F1 context could start to reconsider their transportation mode, and this paper offers a practical and easy guide as a first attempt to determine the costs and the emissions that can be associated with the logistics of European Grand Prix. Moreover, given the assumptions made, the tools involved, the KPIs used, and the followed steps, this procedure can be easily implemented in other contexts (for instance, for other sports such as Moto GP) in starting to considering the shift to intermodal freight.