The Great Noise Debate

[Jericoke]

In order to drastically increase the noise, they will have to radically alter the rules and at this point I doubt the engine suppliers would go along with that. The engines are quiet because they are small displacement, turbocharged, and have the exhaust manifolds covered by heat exchangers for the ERS system. You won't increase the sound much without changing one or more of those, and that's not going to happen.

This is Formula One... where engineers go to solve absurd problems for absurd amounts of money.  If the FIA stipulates that an F1 car must emit 130 decibels, while maintaining the current 'power unit' formula, these are the people who can do that.

The worlds of aerodynamics, fuel efficiency, human g-force research, and contract law have advanced tremendously thanks to Formula One.  Why not add in the world of acoustic research?

Imagine Bose becoming a technical partner for Williams!

[Scott]

Likin' the Rizla girl, Cos.

I don't think there are many road cars that actually have race car tech in them (though my VW has paddle shifters), but the theories can be tested in racing and then trickle down.  I don't mind that kind of relevance.

[lkjohnson1950]

OK, I surrender, F1 will spend billions, make the cars heavier and far more complex just to make them sound more like 18K rpm V8s. But let's come back here in a year and see what's actually changed, OK?

[Scott]

OK, I surrender, F1 will spend billions, make the cars heavier and far more complex just to make them sound more like 18K rpm V8s

Better they sound more like 20k V10's 

[Monty]

I honestly think that the noise debate is getting blown out of all proportion.
We know the FIA doesn't care about our (enthusiasts) opinions, they don't care about the entrance fee paying spectators opinions, they only care about the opinions of the TV companies and the sponsors and none of them are complaining!
F1 has weathered bigger threats than lack of noise. If the F1 circus keeps attracting TV audiences it will hold on to sponsors and therefore F1 will survive.
To do this they need to ensure 'spectacle' and close(ish) racing and if we are honest those are the main ingredients that we want.
For me the 2014 regs have brought good mid-pack racing. I am fairly sure the pack will start to close on Mercedes so things should improve further.
I still think the biggest problem with F1 this year is the tyres - cars can't compete if they can't 'turn the tyres on'; overtaking is limited because of the tyre marbles; cars cannot use their full power potential because the tyres can't handle 'proper' racing. This is a joke when you put it into the context of the amount of money the teams spend to make faster and faster cars.

[John S]

F1 is supposed to be about awe inspiring spectacle.

I would question that assertion Cossie, F1 is about applying the highest & best technology & engineering in motorsport. Noise was a by product of the technology used in the past, note the past, the real spectacle is and always has been the racing. 

Currently automobile manufacturers are all changing their mainstream product to turbo and hybrid power and as we have discussed before F1 can drive technology faster than any other activity on the planet - save for war of course.   

The gains to the motor industry and industry in general will be just as great from the new era power units as in previous times when such things as ABS, Carbon fibre and ceramic brakes (to name a few) were honed by F1.   

[Jericoke]

OK, I surrender, F1 will spend billions, make the cars heavier and far more complex just to make them sound more like 18K rpm V8s. But let's come back here in a year and see what's actually changed, OK?

If it's a fake noise, it doesn't have to sound like an 18K v8.  Just something loud.  Maybe RBR could actually sound like a raging bull.  Ferrari like a galloping bronco.

It would be like the old days where you could tell who was coming just by the sound of the car.

Heck, drivers have assigned numbers, why not an assigned sound?  Kimi's car can cruise around saying 'I know what I'm doing' at 130 decibels.

[John S]

Heck, drivers have assigned numbers, why not an assigned sound?  Kimi's car can cruise around saying 'I know what I'm doing' at 130 decibels.

  I think I'd pay extra just to have that Jeri.   

[cosworth151]

If F1 is "about applying the highest & best technology & engineering in motorsport," why didn't they start using turbine (not turbocharged) engines 30 or 40 years ago?

About the only American manufacturer still trying to shove turbos down the public's throat is Ford. GM yanked their Cruze turbo off the market back in March. Dodge just announced a new forced induction car for next year - supercharged, of course.

If F1 doesn't wise up quickly, it will go the way of the turbo CART and turbo ALMS.

[Monty]

About the only American manufacturer still trying to shove turbos down the public's throat is Ford. GM yanked their Cruze turbo off the market back in March. Dodge just announced a new forced induction car for next year - supercharged, of course.

but Cos, the USA is only a minor market ( ) and has not really caught up with the rest of the world; hell you can't even measure a gallon properly and you insist on driving on the wrong side of the road.
In Europe (where the UK is the Capital) we are seeing a lot of blown engines. I specifically say blown because although there are a lot of turbos, we do also have supercharged motors and there are a few with both supercharger and turbo.
Your point regarding F1 is solid. Wouldn't it be great if the manufacturers were given a free hand to extract the power any way they see fit. Tell them they have to keep to a maximum of 6cylinders and have to finish a race using xx litres of fuel and let them get on with it. I bet we would get turbos, superchargers, hybrids, the lot!

[Scott]

UK the Capital of Europe?  According to Ian and well, geography, the UK isn't even IN Europe...just a little island off the side. 

You can't get more locked into Europe than Switzerland, so I would say WE are the Capital.

[Monty]

the UK isn't even IN Europe..

according to our current Prime Minister we are so important and so democratic that we can simply vote on whether we are in or out of Europe so I extended that to voting to be the Capital of Europe. Switzerland can't be the Capital ... it is so small the road signs direct you to Countries rather than towns. By the way, why does a small Country that has draconian restrictions on cars speeding, creating pollution, etc. have so many car nuts including some of the best drag racing teams in the continent???

[Jericoke]

About the only American manufacturer still trying to shove turbos down the public's throat is Ford. GM yanked their Cruze turbo off the market back in March. Dodge just announced a new forced induction car for next year - supercharged, of course.

but Cos, the USA is only a minor market ( ) and has not really caught up with the rest of the world; hell you can't even measure a gallon properly and you insist on driving on the wrong side of the road.
In Europe (where the UK is the Capital) we are seeing a lot of blown engines. I specifically say blown because although there are a lot of turbos, we do also have supercharged motors and there are a few with both supercharger and turbo.
Your point regarding F1 is solid. Wouldn't it be great if the manufacturers were given a free hand to extract the power any way they see fit. Tell them they have to keep to a maximum of 6cylinders and have to finish a race using xx litres of fuel and let them get on with it. I bet we would get turbos, superchargers, hybrids, the lot!

To be fair, American (and Canadian) automotive needs are vastly different than 'European' needs.

To us, a 200 km drive is a daily commute, to you, it's a weeklong journey.

A majority of our driving is cruising on highways, where the advantage of a turbo is negligable compared with the wear and tear on the device.  Certainly city drivers who are stuck in start/stop traffic would benefit from a  blown engine, but they're still the minority here.

[Monty]

To be fair, American (and Canadian) automotive needs are vastly different than 'European' needs.

I hear what you are saying Jeri but it isn't correct to group the needs of Europe.
Us here in the Capital of Europe (UK) are a mixed bunch. I wouldn't want to guess what a typical commute is, but certainly 50km each way is very common. I travel 50km to one of my offices and 160km to my other office. The biggest difference I can see between my commute and a similar commute in USA or Canada is that my journeys take 45minutes and 2hours 30minutes respectively and I would guess you would expect to do similar distances in half the time. Also fuel is hugely expensive (US$2.20/litre or US$8.36/US gallon) so the 'gas mileage' offered by a car is important.
Across large parts of mainland Europe diesel is much cheaper than petrol so most modern cars in these areas tend to be turbo diesel.
The only exception is Switzerland where, as Scott can confirm, everyone is so rich they drive Bugatti Veyrons to their personal helipad.
My car collection  has turbo, supercharger and normally aspirated engines all covered (that's my 3litre diesel turbo daily driver, my wife's supercharged Merc. and my 3.6litre straight six TVR Sunday car). I would generally argue that turbos are perfectly reliable and  (in my case) the normally aspirated engine is probably the least reliable - extracting 365bhp from 3.6litres can result in some limitation to engine life 

[Scott]

I can't speak for the rest of the country, but I'm more likely to skateboard over to my VW.  Only seen a Veyron at the Car Salon in Geneva.   

...besides, we've got most of Europe's money, we may as well be the Capital and if we can't be, well maybe we won't give it back!