What can be done to make the engine louder?

[McG]

Could he really do those sounds or was there someone doing the sounds for him!?

He really do that sounds... You had internet so check it out.

We don't have the internet north of the wall yet. I'm posting using crows.

[Andres125sx]

You can try to explain people that F1 goes about perfomance, technology and competition.... not about sound

You can try to explain what most people call the golden era of F1 was using turbo engines too so the sound was similar to current one

You can try to explain what people call "F1 sound" is only present since 1989 while F1 born in 1950

Or you can try to explain the noise level F1 engines were emitting are harmful for everyone at the track, and if you´re close enough, your hearing could be harmed even with earplugs. People was thinking with earplugs they could be close to the cars without any problem when they actually were loosing hearing sensivity and nobody did warn them



I perfectly understand 99.99% of people doesn´t know they could be loosing hearing sensivity even with earplugs... I didn´t know it and I´ve studied some basics about sound (I´m construction engineer) and I´ve even worked testing acustic isolation of new buildings, and only noticed 2013 sound was harmful even with earplugs (close to the cars) discussing here with a member some weeks ago, so if I didn´t know it I guess 99.99% of people didn´t know it either


I prefer v8 sound too, but that was way too much. I´m not saying that´s the reason for the change, but IMHO they could be defending new F1 easily. Problem is they´re not smart enough, they prefer to make some holes on his own ship like Bernie did criticizing new sound....

[rssh]

Increase race fuel to 125kg and 125kg/hr as fuel flow limit and the sound will be more than acceptable.
Surprisingly I thought than 2013 V8 were sounding duller than 2012 atleast during the race (I was on track). 2011 was just kinda amazing almost DISCO due to off-throttle blowing.

For immediate effect one can increase race fuel limit to 110kg and fuel flow limit to 125kg/hr; also increase car weight limit by 10kg.

[heidenreich27]

Increase full, force revs and make it higher

[Scardini1]

I just finished listening to Bernie say "It's louder than I expected". What a crock. He used making F1 a greener venue as justification. It's just too pathetic for me.

I agree with Heidenreich: increase the RPMs. Let's get back to 20K+ RPMs. They have smaller engine engines now - why not? The extra exhaust volume would also send more energy to the turbo-powered generator; producing more electricity to batteries; opening the opportunity to use the ERS even more often.

But for what ever the reason - do raise the RPMs.

[JimClarkFan]

Andrew Benson did a piece on engine articles which I thought was quite good - waiting on 'benson is a rubbish journalist.'

Personally I prefer the quieter engines on tv coverage but preferred the louder V8s for onboard footage.

[Manoah2u]

Personally I prefer the quieter engines on tv coverage but preferred the louder V8s for onboard footage.

I still say easiest fastest and most pleasing solution for starters is simply to enhance tv coverage volume of the engines/environment. If neccesary, put the microphone sensitivity levels up, and amplify the sounds a bit. same
goes for onboards.

TV coverage will satisfy most customers easy. The trackside 'silence' is just how it is at this point. I do admit when
seeing v8 vs v6 starts it underwhelmes. But, it's as it is now.

[red300zx99]

There is no more fuel burned at 15.000 rpm than at 10500 rpm. So increasing the revs will only change the sound. Not increase the volume.

Not quite true. For a given HP you will burn more fuel doing 15k then 10k, simply because of frictional losses. That's probably the reason you don't see the cars reving to 15k, it's a fuel saving formula and why would you waste trying to overcome frictional losses in such a formula.

Part of me thinks that this is some RB\BE conspiracy. RB seems to want to do away with the fuel flow limits. Why? One can only guess, but maybe their engine design is at a disadvatage with such low fuel pressures. Then BE comes along and suggest the cars need to be louder. Well if they throw out the fuel flow restriction his wish is granted.

[Holm86]

There is no more fuel burned at 15.000 rpm than at 10500 rpm. So increasing the revs will only change the sound. Not increase the volume.

Not quite true. For a given HP you will burn more fuel doing 15k then 10k, simply because of frictional losses. That's probably the reason you don't see the cars reving to 15k, it's a fuel saving formula and why would you waste trying to overcome frictional losses in such a formula.

Part of me thinks that this is some RB\BE conspiracy. RB seems to want to do away with the fuel flow limits. Why? One can only guess, but maybe their engine design is at a disadvatage with such low fuel pressures. Then BE comes along and suggest the cars need to be louder. Well if they throw out the fuel flow restriction his wish is granted.

The fuel flow of 100 kg/h is constant from 10500 to 15000 rpm. So no you don't use any more fuel at 15000 than at 10500 rpm. You just get less power.

[Lycoming]

There is no more fuel burned at 15.000 rpm than at 10500 rpm. So increasing the revs will only change the sound. Not increase the volume.

Not quite true. For a given HP you will burn more fuel doing 15k then 10k, simply because of frictional losses.

Unless you reach your fuel flow limit at 10k, in which case you cannot burn any more fuel than at 10k without risking disqualification.

RB seems to want to do away with the fuel flow limits.

No, they're just pissed because they got disqualified.

One can only guess, but maybe their engine design is at a disadvatage with such low fuel pressures.

You can have high fuel pressure regardless of your flow rate. In fact, for a given pump, you can typically achieve higher pressures at lower flow rates.

Then BE comes along and suggest the cars need to be louder. Well if they throw out the fuel flow restriction his wish is granted.

Coincidence?!

I would say yes, actually.

[jagunx51]

Red Bull might at least have a solution to the noise problem.

"If we change the turbo blades, it will sound better," team director Dr Helmut Marko said.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/11403287245 ... act-talks-

[red300zx99]

The fuel flow of 100 kg/h is constant from 10500 to 15000 rpm. So no you don't use any more fuel at 15000 than at 10500 rpm. You just get less power.

Exactly....that's why the teams have no incentive to rev the engines very high, they'd lose power due to trying to overcome frictional losses. Notice I said for a given hp. Meaning that if HP were constant you'd burn more fuel at 15k then you would at 10k.

[red300zx99]

Coincidence?!

I would say yes, actually.

This is Formula 1 boys, theres no such thing as a coincidence.

[red300zx99]

Unless you reach your fuel flow limit at 10k, in which case you cannot burn any more fuel than at 10k without risking disqualification.

In my example the HP is constant, which rules out the fuel flow being constant. It's a hypothetical statement.

No, they're just pissed because they got disqualified.

Personally I think Riccardo was a RB guinea pig. They wanted to see how far they could go while knowing they had an argument proving the rule was flawed. When the engineers read the rule book they look for ways to go past the rules, I believe we are seeing a case of this.

[mrluke]

Coincidence?!

I would say yes, actually.

This is Formula 1 boys, theres no such thing as a coincidence.

He knows too much!