[Tech Issue] The Sound Of The V6 Turbo PU..

[wolfhound]

The Prius just uses the engine to charge the battery when it has nothing better to do but to the best of my knowledge does not have any energy recovery function.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

The Prius just uses the engine to charge the battery when it has nothing better to do but to the best of my knowledge does not have any energy recovery function.

No it doesn't, you're right. But there are others such as Efficient Dynamics that do. Sorry I'm not sure how we got onto the Prius... don't think I introduced that.

[Marcus666]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7NMZ9o9HNI

Sounds like the Indycars will sound better this year than the F1.

[davyboy]

Not sure why F1 didn't go the whole hog and become electric. Silence and eco-friendliness. Its energy [pardon the pun] could be applied into finding more effective ways of charging batteries or something... at least there'd be something socially useful there. Maybe Formula E will become F1 ?

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Not sure why F1 didn't go the whole hog and become electric. Silence and eco-friendliness. Its energy [pardon the pun] could be applied into finding more effective ways of charging batteries or something... at least there'd be something socially useful there. Maybe Formula E will become F1 ?

The reality is high noise levels from Motorsport equate to wasted energy and angry neighbours and in the medium to long term it is inevitably going to be throttled back (pardon the pun) I understand that some don't like it but the other alternative is we lose a lot of motorsport altogether.

Barmy Ecclestone is supposed to be F1's promotor, perhaps he should be doing some promotion all he seems to be doing at the moment is running it down, it's truly becoming reminiscent of Gerald Ratner.

Controlling turbo speed by having a direct drive to a motor generator and limiting turbo speed by absorbing the surplus exhaust gas energy, then storing it for later use is genuinely interesting technology that I haven't seen outside of F1, if it is used anywhere else I'd be interested to know where, it certainly isn't a Prius which uses regenerative braking, a concept which probably predates the motor car. Perhaps you can find something similar at the clever end of the diesel truck market, there are some on here who would probably know that.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by davyboy

F1 is first and foremost an entertainment show. Nobody cares about the incomprehensible and irrelevant technology. Let's see if what they've done this year leads to increased viewing figures. If not, the days of F1 itself may be numbered... never to return

That's what Bernie has turned it into.

It WAS a place where Auto Union could show off their technical prowess, and where plucky little five mechanic Garagiste teams could use innovation to give Ferrari a run for their money.

Even in the late '80's we had widely varying engine configurations as every team took their own approach to build a better mousetrap.

Now, we have this little area where teams can innovate we get a small taste of what F1, pre-Bernie, was.

As for the noise, I've always chosen seating in the braking zone of the longest straight of a track, because that's where the action is. A side benefit is that's usually the quietest part of the track. I've always thought the people who sat along the straight were casual fans. The cars are going too fast to really see, and the noise is too intense. Maybe less engine noise would be a turn off for those people. I would think to a gearhead, being able to hear some of the other noises the car makes, is more appealing.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

The reality is high noise levels from Motorsport equate to wasted energy and angry neighbours and in the medium to long term it is inevitably going to be throttled back (pardon the pun) I understand that some don't like it but the other alternative is we lose a lot of motorsport altogether.

Barmy Ecclestone is supposed to be F1's promotor, perhaps he should be doing some promotion all he seems to be doing at the moment is running it down, it's truly becoming reminiscent of Gerald Ratner.

Controlling turbo speed by having a direct drive to a motor generator and limiting turbo speed by absorbing the surplus exhaust gas energy, then storing it for later use is genuinely interesting technology that I haven't seen outside of F1, if it is used anywhere else I'd be interested to know where, it certainly isn't a Prius which uses regenerative braking, a concept which probably predates the motor car. Perhaps you can find something similar at the clever end of the diesel truck market, there are some on here who would probably know that.

I could not agree more with reference to Bernie Ecclestone, who is clearly a man on the move to another chapter in his life..

The health of a sport is not dependent on one person.. Max Mosley came and went and we still have F1 don't we... I will always watch it because its still about the best minds coming together to produce technologically wonderful racing cars...

[ciscotex]

Originally Posted by MCWB

.... The V8 Supercars and Porsche Carrera Cup cars were both significantly louder.

I did like not having to wear ear protection (and being able to hear other sounds, as others have already mentioned), but the cars don't sound like they've got anywhere near the grunt and mongrel that they actually do. FWIW the PUs seem very impressive, certainly buckets of torque on tap throughout the rev range.

COTA in Austin is out in the country with few neighbors to worry about, but I remember commenting to an Aussie photog last year that I thought the V8 Supercars were a little too quiet. Very quick, but no real bark out in the country. OTOH, the F1 cars damn near made my ears bleed! I won't miss that level of noise. Back in 84, the F1 turbos were also very loud. The presence of a turbo doesn't mean it has to sound like a Tesla. I hope some reasonable compromise can be found. Perhaps Bernie and the FIA will tweak the rules to specify a minimum noise level at some point on the track. That would seem like the typical F1 response.

Paul

[JeremySmith]

Please welcome Paul to our forum everyone, he is rather knowledgeable when it comes to F1...

[ciscotex]

Thanks Jeremy. I look forward to hoisting one [or a few] with you.

P

[Smurfer]

Originally Posted by miatanut

As for the noise, I've always chosen seating in the braking zone of the longest straight of a track, because that's where the action is. A side benefit is that's usually the quietest part of the track. I've always thought the people who sat along the straight were casual fans. The cars are going too fast to really see, and the noise is too intense. Maybe less engine noise would be a turn off for those people. I would think to a gearhead, being able to hear some of the other noises the car makes, is more appealing.

I think it's fair to say that this is an uninformed opinion. You are welcome to your opinion though it seems a little simplistic and judgemental.

I for one have been following the F1 closely from the early 90's (from about age 13) and have travelled the world to watch races (and experience the surrounding country(ies)). I've liked the sound of the V10's and V8's though have a tendancy to move around the circuit to experience the cornering, braking and acceleration. If on a straight I do wear ear plugs after the first few mins in the interest of preserving my hearing.

Anyway, it will be interesting to hear the new engines, I just hope there is something unique and special about them.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Smurfer

I think it's fair to say that this is an uninformed opinion.

.

I think you are just plain wrong!

Show a little respect and relax!

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by ciscotex

COTA in Austin is out in the country with few neighbors to worry about, but I remember commenting to an Aussie photog last year that I thought the V8 Supercars were a little too quiet. Very quick, but no real bark out in the country. OTOH, the F1 cars damn near made my ears bleed! I won't miss that level of noise. Back in 84, the F1 turbos were also very loud. The presence of a turbo doesn't mean it has to sound like a Tesla. I hope some reasonable compromise can be found. Perhaps Bernie and the FIA will tweak the rules to specify a minimum noise level at some point on the track. That would seem like the typical F1 response.

Paul

Welcome Paul ! Hope you have fun engaging in the debates we have here.

Going back to the noise subject, my lament isn't so much about the volume but the pitch. The soft wail of a high revving, normally aspirated, V12 racing engine is a joy to behold... particularly when experienced live. The music from a V10 or V8 isn't so bad either. Does it need to be a gazillion dB ? Of course not. But I do feel that one of the greatest attributes of Formula One in the flesh was it's ability to excite all of your senses - sight, sound, smell etc... and it would be a shame if that's a casualty of 'progress'.

[Armco Bender]

This is all part of a grand plan to replace F1 with Formula E in the near future.

[ciscotex]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Going back to the noise subject, my lament isn't so much about the volume but the pitch. The soft wail of a high revving, normally aspirated, V12 racing engine is a joy to behold... particularly when experienced live. The music from a V10 or V8 isn't so bad either. Does it need to be a gazillion dB ? Of course not. But I do feel that one of the greatest attributes of Formula One in the flesh was it's ability to excite all of your senses - sight, sound, smell etc... and it would be a shame if that's a casualty of 'progress'.

Thank you for the welcome. I look forward to some informed F1 banter.

WRT the sound, I'm curious why the FIA spec'd 90 degree V6. This is an odd fire design that is doomed to sound mediocre compared to a 60, 120 degree, or boxer engine. Did the engineers, who obviously care nothing about aesthetics, spec this for aero or cg reasons? Someone at the FIA best reign these guys in before the situation gets even more ridiculous than it already is. I'm afraid of what they'll come up with next.

Paul

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by ciscotex

Thank you for the welcome. I look forward to some informed F1 banter.

WRT the sound, I'm curious why the FIA spec'd 90 degree V6. This is an odd fire design that is doomed to sound mediocre compared to a 60, 120 degree, or boxer engine. Did the engineers, who obviously care nothing about aesthetics, spec this for aero or cg reasons? Someone at the FIA best reign these guys in before the situation gets even more ridiculous than it already is. I'm afraid of what they'll come up with next.

Paul

The orginal idea was to use an inline turbo 4 cylinder but some of the manufacturers did not want that so the V6 six was chosen. The reason to the beast of my knowledge for the tightly specified engine was for the following reasons.
That all the engines would use the same pick up points that if a manufacturer droped out it would be easier for teams to change.
The FIA wanted to concentrate development on the EARS systems rather than the actual engine.

[Sodemo]

Wasn't the idea behind the V6 structural? If they had used a 4 in line it would have needed a subframe or something?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Wasn't the idea behind the V6 structural? If they had used a 4 in line it would have needed a subframe or something?

More structural from a political point of view I think, Ferrari didn't like the I4 idea and got their own way on a compromise - V6.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

More structural from a political point of view I think, Ferrari didn't like the I4 idea and got their own way on a compromise - V6.

Yup!

There were I-4's in the first turbo era.

[ciscotex]

Yup, I4s to V8s in the original turbo era, and they were loud.

Originally Posted by wolfhound

That all the engines would use the same pick up points that if a manufacturer droped out it would be easier for teams to change.
The FIA wanted to concentrate development on the EARS systems rather than the actual engine.

This actually makes sense, but it's a long way from spec'ing mount points to spec'ing bore, stroke, crank and cg height, etc.

In any event, Jean tells us now that the quiet engines aren't his fault after all, and he won't oppose a change to both noise levels and fuel consumption, his original demand for golf cart mode in the pitlane notwithstanding. All you have to do is get unanimity from the pitlane on the rule change.

http://www.motorsport.com/#!/f1/news...fficient-todt/

Paul

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by ciscotex

All you have to do is get unanimity from the pitlane on the rule change.

http://www.motorsport.com/#!/f1/news...fficient-todt/

Paul

Unanimity in the pitlane, could they even agree that we breathe in air?

Welcome to ten-tenths paul.

[henners88]

Originally Posted by miatanut

As for the noise, I've always chosen seating in the braking zone of the longest straight of a track, because that's where the action is. A side benefit is that's usually the quietest part of the track. I've always thought the people who sat along the straight were casual fans. The cars are going too fast to really see, and the noise is too intense. Maybe less engine noise would be a turn off for those people. I would think to a gearhead, being able to hear some of the other noises the car makes, is more appealing.

The bold part seems like a silly statement to me and I don't mean any offence with that. I've been to many GP's and tend to stand in different places throughout the weekend to get a sense of the speed from the cars. I know a lot of fans who do that with general admission. If you pay anything from £130 plus to go and attend a GP, I think its because people are interested enough to be there. You can't label spectators by where they choose to watch or possibly know what knowledge they have.

I also don't like this snobbery we see online where casual fans are looked down upon. I've been engrossed in F1 for decades now but coverage and a busy life have forced me into a more casual role and I see nothing wrong with that. I'm still interested enough in the sport to watch it and take an interest in the engineering side of it. We also all start off as casual fans we need to remember. Whether you sit at the end of Hangar Straight and enjoy the downshifting or in the middle of Stowe, its really down to enjoyment, not superior or lack of knowledge.

[chillibowl]

considering the costs and difficulties/distance in attending a traditional race i would say the vast majority of people who go have more than a passing interest in the sport.

i agree with miatanut though that the best seats for me are also the ones in the breaking zones. in Montreal i am looking at the hairpin/entrance to casino straight and the end of the main straight into turn 1. those are also the ones that sell out first so i think most people in attendance feel the same way.

by contrast races at the newer venues/non motorsports countries seem to focus on filling up the main grandstand while covering up the seats in the breaking zones which i think is telling.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by henners88

I also don't like this snobbery we see online where casual fans are looked down upon. I've been engrossed in F1 for decades now but coverage and a busy life have forced me into a more casual role and I see nothing wrong with that. I'm still interested enough in the sport to watch it and take an interest in the engineering side of it. We also all start off as casual fans we need to remember. Whether you sit at the end of Hangar Straight and enjoy the downshifting or in the middle of Stowe, its really down to enjoyment, not superior or lack of knowledge.

Indeed. I'd go as far as say unless you actually work in F1, or are paid to write/talk about it from the outside, you are a casual fan. There are simply different levels of casual!

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by henners88

The bold part seems like a silly statement to me and I don't mean any offence with that. I've been to many GP's and tend to stand in different places throughout the weekend to get a sense of the speed from the cars. I know a lot of fans who do that with general admission. If you pay anything from £130 plus to go and attend a GP, I think its because people are interested enough to be there. You can't label spectators by where they choose to watch or possibly know what knowledge they have.

I also don't like this snobbery we see online where casual fans are looked down upon. I've been engrossed in F1 for decades now but coverage and a busy life have forced me into a more casual role and I see nothing wrong with that. I'm still interested enough in the sport to watch it and take an interest in the engineering side of it. We also all start off as casual fans we need to remember. Whether you sit at the end of Hangar Straight and enjoy the downshifting or in the middle of Stowe, its really down to enjoyment, not superior or lack of knowledge.

I can see the appeal of being on the Mulsanne straight, where you get a tremendous variety of different engine notes. The cars are going too fast to see, but the sounds have appeal. I'm afraid why anyone would want to sit in the middle of a straight at an F1 race completely escapes me.

If F1 is going to be as expensive as it is now, the casual fans are critical to making the numbers work. For me, that was the wrong direction to go. In the '60's and '70's it was a sport for gearheads, not entertainment, and there was all kinds of innovation going on. It truly was better when it was smaller.

With Bernie, the gearheads lost and what passes for innovation now are flexi-wings and bits of tubing. I think that is sad.