What can be done to make the engine louder?

[theloniousmonk]

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 78#p504378 (No reading required)

Look at the first image, notice how the power and torque curves drop off after 10500 RPM (coincidentally where fuel flow first reaches 100kg/hr, prior to that its Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5. (so 9000RPM would be 86.5kg/hr).

Because the fuel flow at 10500, and 12000 are identical, what explains the drop of torque and power, the potential energy of the fuel remains the same, the ability to pump air is sufficient. Well, its mechanical losses. That's why they don't bother to rev beyond 12000 or so. Because the drop off in power is too great. It doesn't matter if you have more fuel or not. If you were to add more fuel, the numbers on the side of the graph would simply be higher, the shape of the power band would remain roughly the same.

if you wanted to raise the rev limit, change the formula to Q=0.0075N+5.5, that would make peak fuel flow start at 12600rpm. And the cars would be even slower.

Anyway, this is out of the scope of you and this argument im guessing.

Cheers.

[sennaf1god.94]

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 78#p504378 (No reading required)

Look at the first image, notice how the power and torque curves drop off after 10500 RPM (coincidentally where fuel flow first reaches 100kg/hr, prior to that its Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5. (so 9000RPM would be 86.5kg/hr).

Because the fuel flow at 10500, and 12000 are identical, what explains the drop of torque and power, the potential energy of the fuel remains the same, the ability to pump air is sufficient. Well, its mechanical losses. That's why they don't bother to rev beyond 12000 or so. Because the drop off in power is too great. It doesn't matter if you have more fuel or not. If you were to add more fuel, the numbers on the side of the graph would simply be higher, the shape of the power band would remain roughly the same.

if you wanted to raise the rev limit, change the formula to Q=0.0075N+5.5, that would make peak fuel flow start at 12600rpm. And the cars would be even slower.

Anyway, this is out of the scope of you and this argument im guessing.

Cheers.

How can you blatantly obviate that engines are actually RESTRICTED per RULES to 100kg/h, so no matter where you reach that number in the rpm regime, that once you surpass that point it will always maintain the same flow and will keep losing performance the further you get in the curve?

That's what starvation is all about!!!

What keeps rpms down is fuel flow and not mechanical loses... Ask Remy Taffin. It's obvious that the sooner you get the 100kg/h peak in the curve the more performance you will get from the PU, that's what teams are configuring through engine mapping!

Reality is actually out of your scope.

I guess.

Clue: BMW 1.5 F1 Turbo 1.450Bhp at +11.000rpm 5.5 Bar (80 PSI) turbo pressure. Roadcar block=Big mechanical loses...

[mrluke]

Clue: BMW 1.5 F1 Turbo 1.450Bhp at +11.000rpm 5PSI turbo pressure. Roadcar block=Big frictional loses.

5 psi? Thats quite impressive.

[Pierce89]

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 78#p504378 (No reading required)

Look at the first image, notice how the power and torque curves drop off after 10500 RPM (coincidentally where fuel flow first reaches 100kg/hr, prior to that its Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5. (so 9000RPM would be 86.5kg/hr).

Because the fuel flow at 10500, and 12000 are identical, what explains the drop of torque and power, the potential energy of the fuel remains the same, the ability to pump air is sufficient. Well, its mechanical losses. That's why they don't bother to rev beyond 12000 or so. Because the drop off in power is too great. It doesn't matter if you have more fuel or not. If you were to add more fuel, the numbers on the side of the graph would simply be higher, the shape of the power band would remain roughly the same.

if you wanted to raise the rev limit, change the formula to Q=0.0075N+5.5, that would make peak fuel flow start at 12600rpm. And the cars would be even slower.

Anyway, this is out of the scope of you and this argument im guessing.

Cheers.

How can you blatantly obviate that engines are actually RESTRICTED per RULES to 100kg/h, so no matter where you reach that number in the rpm regime, that once you surpass that point it will always maintain the same flow and will keep losing performance the further you get in the curve?

That's what starvation is all about!!!

What keeps rpms down is fuel flow and not frictional loses... Ask Remy Taffin. It's obvious that the sooner you get the 100kg/h peak in the curve the more performance you will get from the PU, that's what teams are configuring through engine mapping!

Reality is actually out of your scope.

I guess.

Clue: BMW 1.5 F1 Turbo 1.450Bhp at +11.000rpm 5PSI turbo pressure. Roadcar block=Big frictional loses.

You two are saying the same thing and you're too interested in a pissing match to see it.

[sennaf1god.94]

Clue: BMW 1.5 F1 Turbo 1.450Bhp at +11.000rpm 5PSI turbo pressure. Roadcar block=Big frictional loses.

5 psi? Thats quite impressive.

I meant 5,5 Bar or 80 PSI

Current turbo pressure, while ruling say it is unlimited, is actually restricted to 3.5 Bar or 50 PSI, due to the same old factor...FUEL FLOW limitations.

Compare that to the BMW Turbo in...:

Race trim (1987): 3.8 bar (55.8 psi) / 900 hp

[321apex]

Much is being said about the disappointment of "quiet" F1 cars in 2014. The issue is bounced around the world by millions of ardent and not so ardent F1 fans. However the most important voices are of those who put out the money to run F1 races in their countries - THE PROMOTERS. They do begin to speak, and as we all know - "money talks and BS... walks".
The NOISE will have to be brought back.
But how?

In my view:
1. More exhaust will have to be "freed" unmolested by the turbo - ergo we get the noise
2. ECO will stay for many reasons with perhaps MGU-x amount of regeneration adjusted but largely continuing unabated.
3. Not wanting to reduce speeds/performance the fuel limit may get increased to 120-130kg, while at the same time ADDING mandatory aero drag to the cars so they don't become too fast on straights (safety)

What is your take on this?

[the user]

Oooor... by the end of the season most people will stop moaning and they won't change anything. Personally I don't have issues with the noise of the engines.

[McMrocks]

3. Not wanting to reduce speeds/performance the fuel limit may get increased to 120-130kg, while at the same time ADDING mandatory aero drag to the cars so they don't become too fast on straights (safety)

What is your take on this?

I don't think that will change much at the noise. Of they increase the fuel limit the drivers don't have to lift and coast anymore but the engines will sound the same.

To change the sound they have to increase the fuel flow rate (to 105kg/h for example). By doing this the engines will be able to rev higher and thus producing a different and louder(?) sound.

[lebesset]

Oooor... by the end of the season most people will stop moaning and they won't change anything. Personally I don't have issues with the noise of the engines.

me too ; sounds fine on the TV , and I might even go back to the monaco race which I found impossible noise wise , deafened with ear plugs and couldn't talk to anyone

[321apex]

Oooor... by the end of the season most people will stop moaning and they won't change anything. Personally I don't have issues with the noise of the engines.

What about race promoters who are reliant on "the spectacle" for the foot participants buying tickets? The promoter of Australian GP has already made some statements and we are just beginning our season.

If the tickets stop selling, the venues will be gone. It is theoretically possible to hold a race at an empty track just for the benefit of TV viewers. In such scenario, the F1 would then have to start paying the track owners. I just don't see it.

[321apex]

To change the sound they have to increase the fuel flow rate (to 105kg/h for example). By doing this the engines will be able to rev higher and thus producing a different and louder(?) sound.

Sure, that's one way to do it.
Bearing in mind that noise must come from "unmolested by turbo" exhaust gases a sufficient portion of which will have to be released freely.

[FrukostScones]

Much is being said about the disappointment of "quiet" F1 cars in 2014. The issue is bounced around the world by millions of ardent and not so ardent F1 fans. However the most important voices are of those who put out the money to run F1 races in their countries - THE PROMOTERS. They do begin to speak, and as we all know - "money talks and BS... walks".
The NOISE will have to be brought back.
But how?

In my view:
1. More exhaust will have to be "freed" unmolested by the turbo - ergo we get the noise
2. ECO will stay for many reasons with perhaps MGU-x amount of regeneration adjusted but largely continuing unabated.
3. Not wanting to reduce speeds/performance the fuel limit may get increased to 120-130kg, while at the same time ADDING mandatory aero drag to the cars so they don't become too fast on straights (safety)

What is your take on this?

my take on this: It 's NONSENSE!

[gridwalker]

No matter what changes you make, or the reasons you give (noise/costs/spectacle/safety), a percentage of the fanbase will always find something wrong with what you have done. Given the size of this sport's global fanbase, even a small percentage of naysayers will amount to millions of people posting their indignation on the internet and predicting the demise of F1.

I say leave the engines as they are. It is a wonder you can hear them at all over the noise of the complaining. Where is the point in spending millions retooling the formula for noise whilst simultaneously negotiating a cost cutting agreement? It makes no sense!

People will adjust : give it a few seasons and the vast majority will be wondering what all of the fuss was about ... these things just take time.

[321apex]

my take on this: It 's NONSENSE!

Wow!, what an insightful and fascinating sharing of ideas.
NOT!!!!!

[tim|away]

Promoters care first and foremost about selling tickets, and some of them seem to make a correlation between lack of noise and a smaller number of tickets being sold. It's important to note that this is a correlation - a correlation does not imply causation which some promoters don't seem to understand.

If promoters were indeed suffering from not selling enough tickets, there would be a myriad of reasons. The lack of noise could very well be a contributing factor, but equally a lack of general excitement (lift&coast, mercedes domination, no drama) would effect a lack of interest in F1. It does feel as if the noise levels are playing the role of a scapegoat for promoters that aren't happy with their financial bottom line. It's pretty convenient to pick one factor and declaring it to be entirely responsible for the drop in profits.