Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari, Bahrain International Circuit, 2014

Quieter engines ‘better for F1’ – Mosley

F1 Fanatic Round-upPosted on | Author Keith Collantine



Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Mosley takes ‘blame’ for Formula One’s new noise… and is James Hunt’s son poised to follow in his father’s footsteps? (Daily Mail)

“The quieter engines are better for families. You can take children to races without fear of their being deafened.”

Red Bull appeal is first test of F1’s new era (Reuters)

“If you look at the facts, it’s a very simple case. The rules are very clear. Technical directives are not rules. Did we break the rules or not? It’s as simple as that.”


Comment of the day

Yesterday’s Caption Competition prompted the usual array of excellent suggestions. I especially enjoyed those from PJ Tierney, Sam and Dan_the_McLaren_fan.

But I chose this original effort from Keith Campbell as the winner:

Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari, Bahrain International Circuit, 2014

Ferrari recharge the Kimibot with two power cables between sessions.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Kester!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Happy 83rd birthday to Dan Gurney, who can count among his four grand prix wins can include the only victories for Porsche (1962 French Grand Prix) and his own Eagle team (1967 Belgian Grand Prix).

Image © Ferrari/Ercole Colombo

86 comments on “Quieter engines ‘better for F1’ – Mosley”

  1. I missed the caption contest, so…

    Kimi has grown fond of the F14T’s gremlins and takes time to pet them between sessions.

    1. Hahaha, this is just pure gold and originality! :)

    2. I think we have to nominate a new winner – that is brilliant!

      1. I should say I thought the winning caption was the best on a few levels. Observation (cables and robotic power down stance) and Kimi’s monotonic voice combined with his economic use of language. Kimibot just really tickled me :-) Congrats to Keith Campbell.

        1. @grez76

          Thanks for the shout out, yours was a good effort too, might have taken the prize if you’d got it in on time ;)

      2. This one or about a hundred others were better than the winning caption.

      1. hahaha awesome.

  2. money (@carlos-danger)
    13th April 2014, 0:38

    just bring back the Exhaust Driven Blown Diffusers

  3. I hope, if Red Bull win their case, that some serious consideration is given to amending the fuel rate monitors and the default procedures to follow in the event of a failure. It is probably a case of very fine tolerances, but in that event a calibrated error margin should be taken into consideration, to prevent disqualifications when in reality no rule was contravened.

    1. Get rid of the flow sensor and use a flow restrictor. My taps at home carry a flow restrictor that limits water to 9 litre’s a minute. That part costs $2. It’s cheap, reduce costs, FIA can test them then hand them out so teams do not need to calibrate them. Put them where the fuel exits the tank and we would never have to hear about it again. They used those things in the old refuelling days and I never recalled a team getting disqualified for filling up the car too fast.

      1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
        13th April 2014, 3:57

        It does make you wonder why they didn’t use a restrictor instead of a sensor.

        Restrictors are cheaper, and there’s no grey area because you can’t physically exceed the 100kg/h limit.

        Whereas with the sensor, you can, and so now we’ve got this red bull case that could have been easily avoided with a Restrictor.

        1. You and Yappy seem to be pretty sure of yourselves, but I think the thing it that restrictor measures volume, but can’t measure mass. You essentially need to monitor at which rate the fuel in mass is being consumed.

          1. even here it is volume . It is flow rate – 100 kg /hr not 100 kg .

          2. @hamilfan Kilograms is not a measure of volume, it’s a measure of mass. Flow rates measures as the amount of volume over a known time.

            The sensors that the FIA have specified cannot measure mass of fuel per hour which is what the rules require. I would be surprised if there is any such sensor in existence, as no one that needs to measure flow rates does so using mass over time.

            Because the sensor cannot measure mass over time, a conversion factor based on the density of fuel is required to convert volume over time into mass over time. Problem with this is that the density of fuel changes with temperature, meaning how does the FIA apply an accurate conversion factor?

            Does the FIA have separate sensor that also measures the temperature of the fuel, and then do they apply a sliding conversion factor to suit the density of the fuel at the different temperatures?

            Even if the conversion factor does take into account changes in temperature, then does it also allow for the slightly different properties of the different fuels supplied by the different suppliers? Doubtful, as would the different suppliers, i.e. Shell, Total, Petronas et al really want to be disclosing the exact composition and properties of their carefully engineered fuels?

            This all means that any measurement of flow rate that the FIA calculates in kg per hour is nothing more than an approximation. An approximation is not acceptable. How can the FIA penalise teams for breaking the rules, when at best they can only assess whether a team broke the rules against an estimation?

            In my opinion, the crux of this whole problem starts with the rules, which requires flow rates to be measured in units that no sensor can actually measure.

          3. formulales, the FIA does, to the best of my knowledge, measure the temperature of the fuel onboard the car during the race – it is something they have been doing for at least a decade as the temperature of the fuel is strictly controlled.

            As for the fuel properties, yes, the FIA would know what the chemical composition of the fuel was – all of the fuel suppliers have to submit the chemical fingerprint of their fuel to the FIA at the start of the season, and then repeat that process every time they amend the fuel, in order to demonstrate their compliance with the regulations and for the FIA to undertake their fuel sample analysis.

            As for the comments about flow restrictors, those systems are not perfect either. Household plumbing can use stiff pipes where effects such as radial expansion or “water hammer” effects can be more easily controlled – however, a rigid fuel line would rupture in a heavy crash, necessitating the use of a flexible fuel line. As a flexible flow line will, by definition, deform due to changes in fuel pressure, you would therefore have a variable cross section and therefore a variable volumetric flow through the fuel line.

          4. @formulales Thanks for that ! Now I understand . I got confused with mass flow rate and volume flow rate . I think it would be very easy to measure it in terms of the latter . It would be easy to add more sensors to measure fuel temperature but as you say temperatures can even vary with track and composition . The FIA would be better off simplifying things .

          5. @formulales you are the voice of reason amongst this madness!

            I do believe that there are already regulations in place to prevent cooling of the fuel or any other means of circumventing the restrictions to give the appearance of less fuel travelling through the sensor, so a volume rate monitor would be the best option.

            The fuel in the tank should remain in kg’s, though.

            @hairs that is because Red Bull I presume felt theirs was so far out that it was comprising performance – due to the dodgy sensor. Since then, there have been no other issues to speak of.

            @bascb would that be the case though? I’m sure they would stick to one sensor if it was found to be more reliably accurate than another.

          6. First of all a restrictor just does that, in effect it’s an orifice of desired diameter which at a certain pressure drop will pass a known volume/mass of flow. Flow rates be it volumetric or mass are related by density (kg/m3) measurement of either can be done accurately, for liquids, by measuring velocity in a known diameter. This gives a volumetric flow rate if you know the density then you can calculate mass flow. The change in density of liquids wrt temperature is relatively small over a 20 deg change and has little impact on accuracy which with an ultrasonic meter us about 0.5%

          7. @formulales Sorry, you’re wrong. the sensor is an ultrasonic sensor which measures the density to work out mass. Hence why all the technical bumpf on it rates the measurements in kg/h which as you say is mass not volume.

          8. @mazdachris, no where on the data sheet for the sensor does it specify being able to measure density. If the sensor could measure density, then it would surely be specified on the data sheet.

            Based on the information on the data sheet the sensor can measure flow rates up to 8000ml/min, which is volume over time. The sensor can also measure temperature.

            To convert the flow rate measurement from volume over time to the FIA required mass over time, the flow rate in volume over time needs to be multiplied by the the density of the the fluid. The problem is the sensor doesn’t appear to measure density. It does however measure temperature. If you know the temperature you can make assumptions of the density based on measured empirical data of the fluid at different temperatures. You can then use that assumed density at different temperatures to calculate an approximate flow rate in mass over time.

            This gets back to my original argument. The sensor cannot measure flow rate in mass over time.

            As the sensor cannot measure mass over time, the FIA should not be assessing flow rates in mass over time, because to do so assumptions about the density of the different supplier fuels at different temperatures needs to be made, meaning the resultant calculation can only be an estimation.

            Here is a link to the data sheet I am referring to:

        2. The answer to that was posted in race car engineering last year, Google it.

          Short answer is that the power unit in an f1 car is slightly more complex than a kitchen tap.

          1. There is another factor in the Fuel Sensor debate which has not been aired much and that is the teams have to have their fuel approved by the FIA at the start of the season. The teams can have more than one type of fuel approved and presumably, the different blends will be designed for varying atmospheric conditions. The chosen fuel is tested by the FIA at each race weekend and which fuel they choose to use possibly affects the sensor readings. I am not technical so cannot be sure, but there seems to be wriggle room in all this to gain an advantage and I suspect that the other teams know this and have pretty much ‘outed’ Red Bull by implication by their insistence that the FIA take a tough stance.

            I do not believe that the FIA can choose to ignore the outspoken teams i.e. Ferrari and Mercedes who have gone public, and who is to say that other teams have not made representations to the FIA on similar lines but have not shred their views with the press? There is never smoke without fire…

          2. @hairs
            Where would pointless articles about noise and similar nonsense find place, if all the blogs and sites were just writing sensible about new technical aspects of the new formula, eh?

    2. A calibrated error margin was calculated, and was given to teams. All the other teams followed it, red bull refused to.

    3. lets start over that comment with a very, very bit IF @vettel1, and instead of focussing on protesting, what if most Renault teams stopped changing their sensors, like they are said to have been told to do from Barcelona onwards, and install the component as delivered by Gill, so that the failure rate and margins in measurement go down at least 4 fold?

    4. Christian has the nerve indeed. I see his comments as mind game in this case. He is quiet about reasons that caused missreadings of the sensors used on Renault powered cars exclusively. On the other hand he’s very loud about reiterating his misconception of ‘their case being stronger’.
      I don’t know if you’re aware of the information that sensors used on Renault’s engines were modified to fit them according to preference of – I assume – Renault’s engineers. They were remanufactured by making an extra winding. The proces of this modification caused a damage to the glass coating of the inner part of the sensor which is very important to provide exact reading. Case being stronger? Yeah, stronger my…

    5. Unfortunately a sensor is needed to monitor and police the fuel flow. Otherwise teams could possibly alter the restrictor and would not be caught unless the restrictor part was sealed and examined after every race. This would provide a different way to achieve DQs and penalties. Obviously, as has already been explained in this thread quite well in a more technical way, there are other reasons a restrictor would not be viable, but policing part is a factor too.

      The real dilemma with this whole situation is not the fuel sensors so much as it is whether the FIA directives are enforceable. This is what Horner/Red Bull are basing their argument on.

      The rules are very clear. Technical directives are not rules. Did we break the rules or not? It’s as simple as that.

      This becomes the real question: Does the FIA have the authority to enforce technical directives?

      If not, what happens in situations like 2013 when tires are blowing up and it is determined in season that a technical directive is needed to keep tire usage within specified guidelines recommended by the manufacturer. Teams were previously going outside the recommendations for the purpose of gaining an advantage. What if some teams had continued this after the directive was put in place by the FIA. Do they have the power and authority to penalize teams teams violating directives or not?

      It could be argued the tire directive was for safety reasons. True, but the real question remains, whether or not the FIA has the authority to make and enforce directives. If not, how is F1 to be run during the season between actual regulation writing and approval sessions?

      Not being a huge fan of the FIA it seems a bit strange to be somewhat defending their modus operandi. But, if they do not have authority, then what fills that void, chaos? The regulations and directives apply to all teams to try to create a level playing field. I would feel the same way no matter which team had violated any FIA directive and direct warnings during a race that penalties could be applied.

      The fuel flow sensors are not perfect and this situation could be improved upon by the teams and FIA working together to come to a fair resolution for all. But, Red Bull are essentially arguing that they don’t really have to follow any FIA directives and it would follow that neither does any other team. I doubt they that they will win that argument nor should they.

  4. Mosley does have a point, but a partially void one. Most of the attendees to races are dedicated Formula One fans, who come for the experience of perceiving the car’s earth-shaking power. And, frankly, the new generation of cars simply do not provide the same audible assault that leaves such a distinct impression on the spectator as the V10’s I assertain.

    But, for the important audience – the television viewers – loudness is an almost non-issue. FOM can simply edit the sound levels to redress the balance, and viewers can press a magical button on their remote which makes more noise happen.

    Besides, when – whilst sitting on the couch for some Sunday afternoon viewing – was sound ever an issue? Provided they make some and it is uniquely Formula One, then it is almost an afterthought when compared to the real area where ammedments need to be considered – the quality of the racing. And yes, I refer to our old friend DRS: though improved this season (by which I mean made less effective), it is arguably redundant in this era of power unit management, energy recovery systems and turbochargers. Add to that smaller front wings, shallower rear wings and a lack of exhaust-blown turbulent mayhem and DRS is looking a relic of a short-lived but bygone era – which nobody requested in the first place.

    1. They can not edit the noise to be louder. For instance on long zoom when they enter straights, they wont do that in real time. Besides the volume, the cars do not sound like race cars. V6 @ 10,000rpm is rubbish for the top level of motrsport

      1. I imagine the microphones had to be detuned for the V8’s to prevent them from being simply overwhelmed by the sound exposure.

    2. Since when did S&Max have in mind anything that was family-friendly?

  5. “The quieter engines are better” – No

    1. I disagree. I have avoided going to the track live a few times because it does give me a headache.

    2. Given the strict noise emission regulations surrounding most racetracks, some might argue that it would be better to have cars with quieter engines rather than no racing at all.
      There are already a number of circuits around Europe that have been forced to close or can only hold a very small number of races per season because of that – the owners of Spa Francorchamps have already been successfully sued for noise pollution and came close to having their licence revoked altogether, whilst a number of local circuits in the UK have been stripped of licences and closed down.

      1. I hate that, but it is an unavoidable truth. People have chosen to live near these racing circuits so in my mind they have no right to complain as long as the racing is undertaken within reasonable hours. Especially considering that, in the cases of tracks like Spa, the racetracks have been there longer than the inhabitants of nearby towns and villages probably have.

        But facts are facts, so indeed quieter engines – if they help preserve the ability to race – are a good move.

      2. It’s also happened here in NZ, Anon, also with speedway and Kart tracks!

  6. I attended the Malaysian Gp through the weekend & didn’t think the sound or volume of the new engines was too bad to be fair.

    They make a nice sound & they still sound like fast, powerful race car engines. The various other noises from the turbo & hybrid systems also sound pretty cool.

    Yes they are quieter than the engines we have had over the past 20+ years but I found them to be a lot louder than I was expecting based on all the whining been done on the internet & in the media.
    There still fairly loud, There in no way near been silent (Like the Le Mans diesels) & it is still a very impressive sound when you have 22 of them revving ready for the start.

    I took my cousin along, She had never been to a race before & isn’t a big race fan so she had no preconceptions about the noise. The noise/volume didn’t hurt her experience at the track in any way & she was still wowed by the speed of the cars & the overall performance. She was blown away by the braking performance & just how quickly these cars accelerate out of corners.
    Said she’d like to go with me to another f1 race in the future so the new sound certainly didn’t put her off in any way as many was saying it would turn new fans away.

    I would suggest that all the people doing the complaining who have not heard the sound in person yet should stop there complaining until they do because in the flesh they still sound awesome even if they are a bit quieter.

    Had a great weekend, Liked the sound, Loved the spectacle of the 2014 cars moving around with the lower aero & higher torque. Simply brilliant to watch these cars :)
    You also don’t really see the pointy noses while at the track either apart from when the cars are stationary & you get a good head-on view. The fact most of them are painted black really does a good job at hiding them. Caterham looks really odd though as all you see is the big square bit at the top.

    1. Great comment. I notice no one replies to your expression of pleasure at hearing the new engine and exhaust notes in person. I’m envious! The sound is wonderfully complex and multi-layered. Sophisticated…


  7. I’d like to throw my spin on why I think the new engines are going to be the saviour of F1: you can hear the crowd on TV. That adds to the atmosphere- you wait until Silverstone and you’ll hear Hamilton and Button being cheered round; you’ll hear the roar of the crowd when they overtake. As such, it will make traditional circuits much more valuable to F1 than a Tilkedrome in a desert in a country where no one cares. In short, it will be the saviour of circuits like Spa and will remind F1 bosses the importance of the fans.

    1. Noise is not the problem with the circuits, it is the fact Bernie is taking all the revenue, as such, the circuits are forced to increase ticket prices which still leaves them with a shortfall in income.
      Hearing the roar of the crowd on TV makes for a great viewing on TV.

      1. Er.. That was my point.

    2. Fans used to take air horns with them and sound them when they were cheering, and were perfectly audible on TV that way. That is, until 22 V10’s started taking over.

      1. Ah, the air horns when Hakkinen retired from the 1999 San Marino and Italian GPs.. In no way do I have hard feelings towards Mika, but the crowd response to those two retirements is probably why I consider most of today’s F1 crowds inaudible.

  8. ‘I wear these things in both my ears (hearing aids) because the noise of the engines went right through me for 40 years or more. It’s too late to save my hearing but not for the next generation.

    If the engines are not loud enough for you, it means you are already deaf. Good point Max.

  9. …Wanted to reply to some posts, but it looks like there is dictaturial censorship around this blog.

    1. @jeff1s perhaps follow the rules and you won’t have a problem.

      1. @dragoll, not necessarilly so.

      2. Wasn’t talking for my post you @dragoll

  10. I disagree I think louder engines are better.Yesterday I was watching a clip in youtube from 2004 in suzuka that was great and then watched the start from spactator view in bahrain 2014 and i was wondering were was the noise from the cars? ;)
    BTW bahrain 2014 was one of the best races i’ve ever seen!

    1. The more efficient and engine, the less noise it makes. The old engines were brutes that used high revs and capacity to archive power a good deal of it being heat and noise. These are quieter because they are efficient, they are the future. I am happy with the noise.

      1. Its not all about efficiency. V6 is always quieter then even i4 half its capacity.

  11. Have to say, I agree with a lot of what Max had to say in that article. And it’s not often I’ve been able to say that.

    I like the sound of the new engines, more efficient engines were always going to be quieter. I’m really looking forward to some of the European races where those watching on TV will really be able to get a sense of the atmosphere of being there. The crowds in Catalunya, Silverstone and Monza will be truly awesome to hear.

    1. Ever since he’s been on the outside, Max has spoken a lot of sense generally. I too am looking forward to the crowd noise. I also have soft spot for the warning whistle you can now hear as the cars come into the pits!

      In short, we are losing the engine noise but we are gaining much more in terms of variety. I actually quite like it and I can now take my 3 year old daughter to Silverstone which will be nice.

  12. Who cares what the dirty old has-been says? I would never subject my wife and child to what Max Mosley did let alone try and justify it by claiming a right to privacy when caught out. He had his time and it’s definitely over! Let’s not forget he brought the entire sport into disrepute forcing manufacturers and entire countries to speak out out against him, threatening boycotts. The dinosaur is just repeating what he read in the newspapers. C’mon Keith… you are so much better than letting scrap-heaps recycle this trash. I know since I’ve digested 3yrs of your quality reporting and never felt less than brilliantly informed before. Max Mosley does not deserve any further mention anywhere.

    1. Well, we all still mention Adrian Sutil as well, while he should hardly be role model for anyone.. It’s not as if J.J. Letho is a forbidden subject either.

    2. RaceProUK (@)
      13th April 2014, 11:14

      So you’re going to ignore all the work Mosley did to improve safety in Motorsport, just because he did something you don’t like?

    3. How old are you? I’m no Max fan, but he actually did quite a lot of good things for the sport too. He’s still a major figure in F1 whether you like it or not, so I think if he speaks people are going to listen and that includes the certain F1Fanatic of which you speak.

      1. @john-h With one fell swoop he undid all his previous work. Even the great deal that @hohum mentions below. Whenever I hear his name I cringe as an image of him in my mind is automatically conjured up :'(
        People do certain things then they are usually appropriately ashamed and apologetic. This guy dragged his wretched wife in front of the paparazzi.

        Upon reflection though it is going too far to take offence to an article about him.

        1. The fact remains that he didn’t say anything new. By definition it’s therefore not newsworthy.

    4. @grez76, Mosleys’ sweetheart deal with Bernie, selling the FIAs stewardship of F1s major source of income for a pittance was a far more egregious act than his personal kinky peccadiloes. Karma.

  13. Nice try, Horner.
    There’s absolutely no way Red Bull will win this. Winning would mean making technical directives useless, opening a can of worms and appeals in the process.
    Every other team followed an FIA instruction, 1 team chose not to.

    1. But the technical directives aren’t rules though.
      It even says that at the bottom of the technical directive.

      1. @xjr15jaaag That’s not the point.

        Many things are not specifically written in the rules, yet the FIA issues instructions all the time to the teams.

        For instance, from Spain onwards, there’s a technical directive issued by the FIA which states that all teams must install the fuel flow sensors exactly as instructed by the manufacturer. Up until this point Red Bull, Torro Rosso and Renault had a different way of installing the sensors and coincidentally, almost all fuel flow sensor problems ( 96% of them) come from these 3 teams. You can read about it here , from AMuS.

        If technical directives don’t need to be respected, I’d like to see Red Bull ignore this one too.

      2. No, it’s an instruction. Follow the instruction and you’ll be fine.

        Red Bull didn’t follow the instruction and paid the consequences. An expression including the words “hoisting”, “own” and “petard” comes to mind.

    2. It shouldn’t be a matter of opinion, of what the other teams chose to do, of what has been the “tradition” so far, or of which can would be opened. There has to be some rule or contract somewhere that says whether technical directives are optional or not. It should be clear, absolute, and with no ambiguity. If that is the case, then it should be instantly clear whether Red Bull or the FIA are right. If that is not the case, then ambiguity in a contract (or rule or specification) benefits the party who did not draft it, aka Red Bull.

    3. If they didn’t break the regulation, they should not have had their points revoked. It is as simple as that.

      Exceeding the FIA measurement on the day of fuel flow rate =/= actually exceeding the fuel flow rate.

      1. @vettel1
        There is no such thing as ‘actually’ exceeding the fuel flow rate or not. It doesn’t matter if your measurements tell you otherwise, the fuel flow rate can only be determined by the FIA.

        1. I have thought all along that RBR was correctly penalized, and now after reading the article cited above with Horner’s quotes I am even more convinced they will, or should, lose their appeal.

          When I keep hearing the words ‘directive’ or ‘opinion’ used I have thought since Australia that it was the directives from the FIA on that very weekend that Horner was referring to, and that he claims are unenforceable by the FIA. But now this article says the directive came before the season began.

          The word ‘warnings’ was also used in the articles on this topic after Australia, so I remain convinced that indeed RBR was being warned that if they didn’t follow the directive from before the season began, then they would be breaking the rule that flow rates shall be measured via the FIA sanctioned and homologated sensor. It would be rather surprising to me if this was indeed just an optional suggestion by the FIA, that other teams wouldn’t have also ignored the FIA.

          But I also refer to Whiting’s quotes once again, where he cites that it is indeed in the rules, and he cites the actual articles within the rule book that state that the method of measurement shall be through the sensors sanctioned and homologated by the FIA.

          Horner claims more accuracy from their own method of measurement…not the point…it was not the Gill sensor that they used. Full stop.

          Horner claims no fair…they might be being penalized during the race to the tune of 4% less flow rate by being forced to go by the Gill sensor…not the point…they would have no way of knowing who else was also having to run at potential 4% less rate, so cannot know if indeed they were disadvantaged.

          And to me, if RBR were to win their appeal, then the other teams should be able to protest, or appeal tomorrow’s appeal, as they will indeed have been disadvantaged during the Australian GP, and could claim that DR might not have gotten second place if other teams had 4% more flow by also ignoring the warnings and using their own measurement method.

          I think RBR has to prove why they think they deserve to ignore the rules that seem black and white according to Whiting, not that they can do a measurement more accurately and that they didn’t breach 100kg/hr of rate, as the only measurement that counts is the FIA’s sensor which told the FIA they did indeed run higher than 100, and continued to do so.

          What seems black and white to me also is that if indeed the teams were only being given an unenforceable directive, then the penalty that needed 5 1/2 hours to arrive at (telling in itself) would not have been a disqualification, but more likely a grid spot penalty, or a financial fine.

          1. I think you are wrong. Redbull will prove they followed the rules, if not the technical directives. They will prove they didnt pass the fuel rate limit

  14. A quieter Mosley is better for F1.

    F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport: the fastest drivers, the fastest cars, the best tracks (we are far from that, sadly). We should also have outstanding engine noise, wich was the case in the past. Anybody who went on a GP before 2014 knows what I mean.
    I will never forget the first F1 car I saw: back in Spa 1992, it was an Andrea Moda, driven by Roberto Moreno. I was at the chicane, at the end of the lap. We heard the car leaving the pits, and we heard it ALL LAP LONG. It was the most impressive thing I had ever saw (well, heard :-) ): engine noise is part of F1, we can’t loose it.

    Ok, turbo engines are different. The sound is ok to me, it just needs to be louder.

    1. which was the case in the past.

      How loud were the engines in the ’80s?

      I watched Silverstone 1987’s start on YouTube the other day and I could barely hear the engines compared to the N/A days.

      1. Though having said that if they’re increasing the volume of the current turbos I won’t complain too much…

        1. @davidnotcoulthard, I watched (on TV) Indycar Q at LongBeach last nite, they sound just as quiet if not quieter than F1 yet I haven’t heard howls of derision about Indycar being ruined by lack of sound, but then again I don’t suppose the promoter went around telling the press that the cars would sound lousy before they ever raced them.

      2. A lot quieter than most people seem to realise – there was another clip floating around of the 1986 Australian GP, and in that race you could also hear things such as the loudspeakers in the background giving the race order.

  15. @keithcollantine
    How about featuring this in the roundup tonight? It’s not today’s news but some people seem to be in dire need of getting some facts into their heads. Don’t make your readers into angry peasant mob, by posting over and over about sound and scandals. Educate them.

    1. RaceProUK (@)
      13th April 2014, 23:30

      The daily round-ups are of news articles published on that day. Explaining the fuel flow meters would be its own article.

  16. I have no problem with the noise of the engines, if the action is better. In my opinion it is better. The problem is of course dominant Mercedes, or terrible opposition, whichever way you want to say it, because they are masking competitive racing of the rest of the herd. Of course maybe with the louder engines it would be a better show but maybe going high at races would be even better but it’s not that healthy isn’t it? The irony of new engines rules in my view is that if F1 is a pioneer of road relevant technology than way go with V6 1.6L when they never ever will go in a road car. It would be ether R4 1.6L or minimum 2.5 V6 in a road car. I guess that V6 is better than R4 to digest for the fans.

    1. I do. They sound like low revving garbage. Try watching any previous season or GP2 and enjoy the difference.

    2. @nidzovski, R4 ? likely translation problem, do you mean “inline” or “horizontal/boxer?

      The actual ICE layout is pretty irrelevant for developement purposes, the teams like the V6 layout for its rigidity and compact form.

      1. Come to think of it the Renault engines had many of the characteristics of a horziontal boxer during testing. ;- )

        1. Don’t tell me Renault is a naughty word now.

      2. @hohum Yeah sorry about that. I meant inline 4 cylinder engine. My point was that we’ll never see V6 1.6 engine in a road car or in a sport car. FIA was balancing with that until the last minute and I’m glad that they chose V6 aldo I would be happier with at least 2.0L capacity. However it is a good thing that F1 stayed unique with this layout of the engine.

  17. Trenthamfolk (@)
    14th April 2014, 17:11

    I don’t get this noise thing… surely excessive (or lots of) noise is just wasted energy/ I would rather that be converted into speed rather than being wasted. Yeah, I get the ‘I love the glory days’ thing, but people always look back on ‘better times’ with rose-tinted spectacles, whatever their point of reference may be… people don’t like change, but you can accept it or let it embitter you… People should lighten up.

    On the other hand, if quietness is the only thing people have to moan about, everything else must be pretty good!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.