Basic problems/solutions with Formula 1. Opinion not Fact.

Basic problems/solutions with Formula 1. Opinion not Fact.

Author
Discussion

Derek Smith

45,512 posts

247 months

Saturday 6th August 2016
quotequote all
entropy said:
Pretty much agree with these two:

I've followed F1 since the early 90s and from school to workplace I was teased for following a sport that was akin to watching paint dry. Any PHer's familiar with this? F1 racing has always been boring to some extent.

F1 always had problems defined to its eras. Its easy to be nostalgic, wear rose tinted glasses on certain aspects and intricacies without the context and easy to say the past was better.

F1 V10s of the early 2000s are fondly remembered in this thread but the V10s were taken for granted then for who'd thought engine capacity would change? F1 cars in the early 2000s were vilified for having TC, auto downshifting gearboxes, pit to car telemetry. Lauda said what all the fans thought at the time and said a monkey/granny could drive an F1 car but Lauda ending up spinning a Jaguar in testing.

Another is tyre strategy. 1987 British GP is often cited as example of this yet the reality was that Mansell pitted because he had a damaged tyre. In the 80s and early 90s you usually did a whole race on a set of tyres, maybe a pit stop. Were readers of Autosport et al writing letters begging for more pits stops or is it we've become so accustomed today that it has become a necessity? In 2009 Bridgestone had that could last the race distance if it wasn't for the two compounds rule and you had people not liking one stop races.

And what is this soul I keep hearing about? Alistair Caldwell recently said he never had any fun in the 70s, F1 was a job and a business. I just think that people like to hark back to different era and say it was better because they don't like how the sport evolved. I'm as guilty as the next: LMP1 as so aesthetically unpleasing these days; NASCAR isn't quite the same now and then because it isn't so much a regional sport that featured the good ol' boys as it has become more professional and more money with kids entering the top level.
Thanks for the post.

I think people need to follow F1 fairly closely to get the best from it. McLaren's slow climb from its nadir has been fascinating. We still don't know if its improvement has anything to do with the other teams concentrating on 2017. Then Williams. They are going backwards at some races.

Ferrari's machinations are the stuff of legend. RB and its anticipation of being able to run the sport but, so far, it has been put in its place. The struggle of the back-markers (other than McLaren,)

Then we have the performance of the Ferrari cars at the last race compared to earlier in the season. There's the politics of course, with the regulations being invented by Colin, whose other job is tending wigs. Busy man.

If you look at the sport as just the races then it is no wonder that the thrill sometimes recedes. The same with thinking that it only matters who wins.

Max's rise to prominence means that every race it is worth watching him develop his skills. Keeping an experienced driver like NR behind him, despite the performance deficit, is riveting.

Whilst my days of standing at Club are over, I bet it is just the same as a few years ago, with nerds aplenty. Surely the best F1 place to be at a GP. There are followers of every team and every driver, and the few hours from when you get there at 5am to the start of anything of note is the best education of what fanboys of F1 are like.

Just watching it on TV, without reading Autosport, Motor Sport (after a few years in the doldrums), or online fanzines is to miss so much.

As for those awful fins you mention, they do look ugly from any angle but directly above. But kids watching today will find them as enticing as I did with the fins on the D-Types, despite my father reckoning they spoiled the beautiful lines of the C-Type. Now I prefer the scalped D-Types.

You've made me think, no easy task. I was wondering if, somehow, I get a bit of a kick from the threat to F1 from Ecclestone and the lack of succession planning. Would it be as exciting if I didn't think that next season might be the last as we know F1? There's no way I miss Balestra, and certainly not Mosley.


Tango13

8,395 posts

175 months

Saturday 6th August 2016
quotequote all
kambites said:
Tango13 said:
Instead of having a maximum amount of fuel I'd set a minimum amount of fuel to be carried at the beginning of each race, a lot! And each car would only be allowed to have a maximum amount at the end, not much! This would mean having to drive harder to burn off the fuel so none of the fuel conservation tactics we're having to suffer.
The firs thing this would do is drive every engine manufacturer (with the possible exception of Ferrari) out of the sport... hardly an ideal way to "fix" F1.

ETA: Although only having one engine manufacturer would certainly make the racing closer.
How would this drive engine manufacturers away from F1?

Limiting the fuel ration drives up engine development costs alarmingly. Back in the 1980's the front runners were mapping every single RPM in their engines to minimise fuel consumption and maximise power consuming hours upon hours of expensive dyno time and engines.

If fuel consumption isn't rationed the engine mapper has a far easier time, get the fueling about 95-98% right and leave it.

The engine designer doesn't need all sorts of exotic materials and piston coatings to contain the higher tempreratures caused by running as lean as possible, just run the fueling slightly richer to cool things down. If you're running a turbo charger you can run richer so the unburnt fuel cools the turbo saving the need for expensive turbines made from Inconel etc

Building an engine to produce big BHP is relatively easy and cheap, building one that does all that using a thimbleful of fuel is difficult and expensive.

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 6th August 2016
quotequote all
all that would happen with that rule is they would dump the fuel in the first few laps, weight costs lap time. They used to start with less fuel than tank capacity in previous unlmited fuel era and still drive fuel saving laps because it was quicker than carrying the extra weight.

Whatever the rules, the engineers always go for the highest efficiency burn, you will lose if you don't.

Inconel is cheap, my own car runs Inconel waste gate components.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 6th August 23:08

Flooble

5,565 posts

99 months

Sunday 7th August 2016
quotequote all
Yes, during the refuelling era the tyres could last a race. Drivers still made pitstops as it was faster than carrying fuel to the end.

That era was by definition the period when every lap was a maximum performance one as both tyres and fuel were unlimited.

It also had the fewest overtakes ever ...


Eric Mc

121,768 posts

264 months

Sunday 7th August 2016
quotequote all
Flooble said:
Yes, during the refuelling era the tyres could last a race. Drivers still made pitstops as it was faster than carrying fuel to the end.

That era was by definition the period when every lap was a maximum performance one as both tyres and fuel were unlimited.

It also had the fewest overtakes ever ...
Ironically, pit stops made a comeback in the early 1980s SPECIFICALLY so tyres could be replaced. The added bonus was that the cars could run light for much of the race on partially filled fuel tanks (and also turbo boost could be maxed).

It was only later that refuelling became the primary reason for fuel stops as fuel strategies became more important.

entropy

5,403 posts

202 months

Sunday 7th August 2016
quotequote all
paulguitar said:
entropy said:
And what is this soul I keep hearing about? Alistair Caldwell recently said he never had any fun in the 70s, F1 was a job and a business. I just think that people like to hark back to different era and say it was better because they don't like how the sport evolved. I'm as guilty as the next: LMP1 as so aesthetically unpleasing these days; NASCAR isn't quite the same now and then because it isn't so much a regional sport that featured the good ol' boys as it has become more professional and more money with kids entering the top level.
The best way I can explain 'soul' is my little story about my brother and the 1995 Ferrari V12. It turns a non-fan into a little boy just from the sound. That's soul.
The sound of an F1 is most definitely soul stirring but is it F1's soul? Google the term https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=f1+soul&ie=u... and there's BBC article by Allan McNish criticizing the sport's administration and a Guardian piece from 2004 by Maurice Hamilton which surprise, surprise has a dig at Bernie.


The I find the term loose, subjective and debatable when you analyze things and the engines is certainly the latter. An argument about F1's soul is that it should be the pinnacle. The current PUs are high tech and advanced - noise is wasted energy and that's why F1 cars today sound the way they do so the debate over PUs and dinosaur V engines is rather soul searching. Is sound really that important? Just look at NASCAR: rolling thunder of pushrod V8s is the soul and a USP of NASCAR and yet attendance has been dwindling for almost a decade eg. the recent Brickyard 400 had 50k at Indianapolis that can hold 400,000. Or how about WEC and specifically LMP1: the clatter of V4s and diesels is hardly soul stirring and yet there people out there trumping WEC better than F1.

Derek Smith said:
As for those awful fins you mention, they do look ugly from any angle but directly above. But kids watching today will find them as enticing as I did with the fins on the D-Types, despite my father reckoning they spoiled the beautiful lines of the C-Type. Now I prefer the scalped D-Types.
I don't have a problem with the fins. Its the blunt front aero created by the gaping fender holes. The former is to move air around the car and latter is to release high pressure air within the wheel well to stop the cars from flipping over. The problem is akin to F1 noses: clever people getting solutions from regulations that end up aesthetically unpleasing.

e8_pack

1,384 posts

180 months

Sunday 7th August 2016
quotequote all
paulguitar said:
Dr Z said:
New: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfTsIVDgXWw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg10kcBFbHo

vs

Old: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uupZsfs_8s0

Different. Not better. Oh and there is a great deal of variety in the sounds of the different manufacturers even if they all have the same basic V6 config.
Yes, that pretty much sums things up for me. The current cars sound so terrible they would struggle to excite a kid, let alone someone who has experienced a Ferrari V12!
You surely didn't listen to the clips, because they both sounded very similar except one was the "glorious" 80s turbo era vs the current turbo era. No V12 nonsense, have your rose tints back.

The mercs at the back end of the first clip are considerably different and more shrill.

Edited by e8_pack on Sunday 7th August 13:03

paulguitar

23,104 posts

112 months

Sunday 7th August 2016
quotequote all
e8_pack said:
paulguitar said:
Dr Z said:
New: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfTsIVDgXWw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg10kcBFbHo

vs

Old: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uupZsfs_8s0

Different. Not better. Oh and there is a great deal of variety in the sounds of the different manufacturers even if they all have the same basic V6 config.
Yes, that pretty much sums things up for me. The current cars sound so terrible they would struggle to excite a kid, let alone someone who has experienced a Ferrari V12!
You surely didn't listen to the clips, because they both sounded very similar except one was the "glorious" 80s turbo era vs the current turbo era. No V12 nonsense, have your rose tints back.

The mercs at the back end of the first clip are considerably different and more shrill.

Edited by e8_pack on Sunday 7th August 13:03
I did listen to the clips. All of those cars sound horrible. I went to GP's in the 'old' turbo era, and those sounded pretty awful too. It was fun though because they made 1400 BHP and spat fire.




kambites

67,460 posts

220 months

Sunday 7th August 2016
quotequote all
Tango13 said:
How would this drive engine manufacturers away from F1?
Major car companies are making F1 engines to "prove" to the general public that they can combine performance and fuel economy. Remove that, and they have no reason to be there.

Why do you think we have these hybrid lumps in the first place? They were introduced to entice engine manufacturers into the sport.



ETA: Personally I don't think there's much wrong with the current power-trains anyway. F1's issues stem from the aero regulations not the drive-train ones.

Edited by kambites on Sunday 7th August 16:02

Speedy11

516 posts

207 months

Sunday 7th August 2016
quotequote all
In my unqualified opinion the current two main problems with F1 are

1) The sport itself doesn't know what it wants too be.
2) Too many people with vested interests.

For the 1st point the sport needs to decide what it wants and a clear plan of how to get there. Unlike now where they want the series to be the fastest so are going to throw on a load more dirty downforce but then they want racing like Formula Ford so give them crappy tires. They want spectacular cars so mandate using skid blocks that make lots of sparks, then give them underwhelming engines, who cares that they are 40% + efficient at the track side? They want to be seen to be green and give manufacturers an excuse for downsizing road cars yet fly all over the world, throw huge number of tyres away and then fly to other side of world from where they were last week but the time zone is wrong for the people who actually watch the race so use more energy to light the place up. They want to use racing to improve the breed yet the rules are so limited no innovation is possible ie max 4MJ per lap for energy recovery. They say they want to listen to the fans ie radio rules but completely miss what people were saying ie they didn't want drives asking how to drive like Nico did in 2014 so instead banned everything and now have done another u turn. They say safety is top priority so start under the safety car when its a bit damp yet allow you to go purple while the double yellow is out. They want track limits but its to much like hard work so only do it on 1 or 2 corners. They say they want the little teams, yet give them the dregs and give them no say in the rules.

I think a lot of this would be solved by number 2. Put people in charge who genuinely love the sport not love the money the sport produces. I personally think that Brundle would do a fantastic job, sure he may not get it right all the time but I think his intentions would be for the good of the sport not his or friends back pocket. He has experience doing deals with drives and is respected in the paddock. I think also someone like Wurz who cares about safety who was a drive and does a bit of circuit design work should be listened to more. Also either let all the teams have a say in the rules or none of them unlike now where only the rich teams get a say and pay them fairly.

I hope some of that makes a little sense.

Edited by Speedy11 on Sunday 7th August 17:32

paulguitar

23,104 posts

112 months

Sunday 7th August 2016
quotequote all
Speedy11 said:
In my unqualified opinion the current two main problems with F1 are

1) The sport itself doesn't know what it wants too be.
2) Too many people with vested interests.

For the 1st point the sport needs to decide what it wants and a clear plan of how to get there. Unlike now where they want the series to be the fastest so are going to throw on a load more dirty downforce but then they want racing like Formula Ford so give them crappy tires. They want spectacular cars so mandate using skid blocks that make lots of sparks, then give them underwhelming engines, who cares that they are 40% + efficient at the track side? They want to be seen to be green and give manufacturers an excuse for downsizing road cars yet fly all over the world, throw huge number of tyres away and then fly to other side of world from where they were last week but the time zone is wrong for the people who actually watch the race so use more energy to light the place up. They want to use racing to improve the breed yet the rules are so limited no innovation is possible ie max 4MJ per lap for energy recovery. They say they want to listen to the fans ie radio rules but completely miss what people were saying ie they didn't want drives asking how to drive like Nico did in 2014 so instead banned everything and now have done another u turn. They say safety is top priority so start under the safety car when its a bit damp yet allow you to go purple while the double yellow is out. They want track limits but its to much like hard work so only do it on 1 or 2 corners. They say they want the little teams, yet give them the dregs and give them no say in the rules.

I think a lot of this would be solved by number 2. Put people in charge who genuinely love the sport not love the money the sport produces. I personally think that Brundle would do a fantastic job, sure he may not get it right all the time but I think his intentions would be for the good of the sport not his or friends back pocket. He has experience doing deals with drives and is respected in the paddock. I think also someone like Wurz who cares about safety who was a drive and does a bit of circuit design work should be listened to more. Also either let all the teams have a say in the rules or none of them unlike now where only the rich teams get a say and pay them fairly.

I hope some of that makes a little sense.

Edited by Speedy11 on Sunday 7th August 17:32
I think that makes an immense amount of sense and I agree completely.


Derek Smith

45,512 posts

247 months

Sunday 7th August 2016
quotequote all
kambites said:
Major car companies are making F1 engines to "prove" to the general public that they can combine performance and fuel economy. Remove that, and they have no reason to be there.

Why do you think we have these hybrid lumps in the first place? They were introduced to entice engine manufacturers into the sport.

Edited by kambites on Sunday 7th August 16:02
I don't think that is the reason the big manufacturers are in the sport. It is advertising in its simplest sense. They want their product to be aligned with success. Their drivers in their corporate gear. Everything else is of no account.

If they reduced the complexity there would be more manufacturers lining up.

The hybrid engines were introduced to greenwash the sport, so it came from inside not outside. As another poster puts it, they throw hundreds of tyres away after each race and fly all over the world, and backwards and forwards. It must be one of the most environmentally belligerent sports out there. But it can point to proving technology, despite being behind the times. It probably suits the green lobby, seeing F1 cow-tow to environmental concerns. They'll put the boot in later.


anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 7th August 2016
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Flooble said:
Yes, during the refuelling era the tyres could last a race. Drivers still made pitstops as it was faster than carrying fuel to the end.

That era was by definition the period when every lap was a maximum performance one as both tyres and fuel were unlimited.

It also had the fewest overtakes ever ...
Ironically, pit stops made a comeback in the early 1980s SPECIFICALLY so tyres could be replaced. The added bonus was that the cars could run light for much of the race on partially filled fuel tanks (and also turbo boost could be maxed).

It was only later that refuelling became the primary reason for fuel stops as fuel strategies became more important.
Brabham built a refuelling car in 1982, the whole concept was to run the car light compared to the opposition for the first half of the race. They then took advantage of the pit stop time required for refuelling to bolt on another set of tyres, which allowed them to maximise the performance on the same fuel weight as the other teams for the second half of the race.

It was the lighter weight that drove the decision to build a refuelling car, the tyres were a bonus.

kambites

67,460 posts

220 months

Sunday 7th August 2016
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
I don't think that is the reason the big manufacturers are in the sport. It is advertising in its simplest sense. They want their product to be aligned with success. Their drivers in their corporate gear. Everything else is of no account.

If they reduced the complexity there would be more manufacturers lining up.

The hybrid engines were introduced to greenwash the sport, so it came from inside not outside. As another poster puts it, they throw hundreds of tyres away after each race and fly all over the world, and backwards and forwards. It must be one of the most environmentally belligerent sports out there. But it can point to proving technology, despite being behind the times. It probably suits the green lobby, seeing F1 cow-tow to environmental concerns. They'll put the boot in later.
I guess we'll have to agree to differ there.

Dr Z

3,396 posts

170 months

Monday 8th August 2016
quotequote all
paulguitar said:
Dr Z said:
New: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfTsIVDgXWw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg10kcBFbHo

vs

Old: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uupZsfs_8s0

Different. Not better. Oh and there is a great deal of variety in the sounds of the different manufacturers even if they all have the same basic V6 config.
Yes, that pretty much sums things up for me. The current cars sound so terrible they would struggle to excite a kid, let alone someone who has experienced a Ferrari V12!
Just out of interest, what do you find particularly interesting about the V12, in terms of the sound? Apart from a V10/V8/V6 etc?

If your objective is to excite a kid so that he or she can become a fan, I would have thought the best course of action is not to blow their ear drums. smile

paulguitar

23,104 posts

112 months

Monday 8th August 2016
quotequote all
Dr Z said:
paulguitar said:
Dr Z said:
New: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfTsIVDgXWw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg10kcBFbHo

vs

Old: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uupZsfs_8s0

Different. Not better. Oh and there is a great deal of variety in the sounds of the different manufacturers even if they all have the same basic V6 config.
Yes, that pretty much sums things up for me. The current cars sound so terrible they would struggle to excite a kid, let alone someone who has experienced a Ferrari V12!
Just out of interest, what do you find particularly interesting about the V12, in terms of the sound? Apart from a V10/V8/V6 etc?

If your objective is to excite a kid so that he or she can become a fan, I would have thought the best course of action is not to blow their ear drums. smile
Hi Dr Z. Firstly, I would like to thank you for your amazing F1 race threads, great work!



As to the V12, I think it is perhaps the sheer pitch of the engine note that makes it particularly exciting. I think with the engines, revs have a lot to do with the problem with the current units. They just don’t sound as if they are making much of an effort, whereas as the V12’s and also very much the V10’s sounded like they were working so hard they might explode at any moment!


I think the sound is something that is almost impossible to describe to someone who has not heard it for themselves. The sound of a V10 or V12 in anger provokes an internal primordial response, it is literally frightening. On that basis, I don’t think F1 live should necessarily be an appropriate place for a child to be. Of course there is the option of ear protection, which potentially makes it more realistic.


So to be honest, I struggle to actually put into words the way the V10’s and V12’s made me feel, I wish I could do so more adequately. They stirred my soul, made me feel acutely, intensely alive, and I have wonderful memories to this day of those cars and the sounds. I have almost no memories at all of my one hybrid-era live race, even though my favourite driver won the event. Really my one memory of that really is just the awful, sinking disappointment when I heard the new cars for the first time.



entropy

5,403 posts

202 months

Monday 8th August 2016
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
kambites said:
Major car companies are making F1 engines to "prove" to the general public that they can combine performance and fuel economy. Remove that, and they have no reason to be there.

Why do you think we have these hybrid lumps in the first place? They were introduced to entice engine manufacturers into the sport.

Edited by kambites on Sunday 7th August 16:02
I don't think that is the reason the big manufacturers are in the sport. It is advertising in its simplest sense. They want their product to be aligned with success. Their drivers in their corporate gear. Everything else is of no account.

If they reduced the complexity there would be more manufacturers lining up.

The hybrid engines were introduced to greenwash the sport, so it came from inside not outside. As another poster puts it, they throw hundreds of tyres away after each race and fly all over the world, and backwards and forwards. It must be one of the most environmentally belligerent sports out there. But it can point to proving technology, despite being behind the times. It probably suits the green lobby, seeing F1 cow-tow to environmental concerns. They'll put the boot in later.
Well you still need to justify a motorsport program and spending silly amounts of money to the boardroom - presumably the majority of members probably more bean counters than racing in their blood who view motorsport as a vanity project.

Post 2008 manufacturers have been more careful. Why would a manufacturer continue with the V10s let alone V8s in F1? Audi have been close to join F1 a couple of times.

paulguitar said:
I think with the engines, revs have a lot to do with the problem with the current units. They just don’t sound as if they are making much of an effort, whereas as the V12’s and also very much the V10’s sounded like they were working so hard they might explode at any moment!
Modern turbos can create peak torque lower down the rev range than NA engine so there's no point of a high revving engine these days.

People forget the criticisms of the refuelling era that even though they drove on the limit it was easy to drive flat out, point & squirt and you could blame in part the peak torque and bhp at the upper reaches of the rev band of NA engines.

Dr Z

3,396 posts

170 months

Monday 8th August 2016
quotequote all
paulguitar said:
Dr Z said:
paulguitar said:
The current cars sound so terrible they would struggle to excite a kid, let alone someone who has experienced a Ferrari V12!
Just out of interest, what do you find particularly interesting about the V12, in terms of the sound? Apart from a V10/V8/V6 etc?

If your objective is to excite a kid so that he or she can become a fan, I would have thought the best course of action is not to blow their ear drums. smile
Hi Dr Z. Firstly, I would like to thank you for your amazing F1 race threads, great work!



As to the V12, I think it is perhaps the sheer pitch of the engine note that makes it particularly exciting. I think with the engines, revs have a lot to do with the problem with the current units. They just don’t sound as if they are making much of an effort, whereas as the V12’s and also very much the V10’s sounded like they were working so hard they might explode at any moment!


I think the sound is something that is almost impossible to describe to someone who has not heard it for themselves. The sound of a V10 or V12 in anger provokes an internal primordial response, it is literally frightening. On that basis, I don’t think F1 live should necessarily be an appropriate place for a child to be. Of course there is the option of ear protection, which potentially makes it more realistic.


So to be honest, I struggle to actually put into words the way the V10’s and V12’s made me feel, I wish I could do so more adequately. They stirred my soul, made me feel acutely, intensely alive, and I have wonderful memories to this day of those cars and the sounds. I have almost no memories at all of my one hybrid-era live race, even though my favourite driver won the event. Really my one memory of that really is just the awful, sinking disappointment when I heard the new cars for the first time.
Ah, now we've got to the crux of the matter. When you said V12, I thought you meant that you liked how 12 cylinders arranged as two opposing banks of 6 cylinders each sounded. So, it's more to do with the loud high pitched wailing sounds of the engine that evoked a sense of primal fear, and this sound amplified your appreciation of how fast these cars were? I know the feeling very well, and I do have experience of that in a real life (non-F1) motorsport context.

The way I see it is, once an internal combustion engine goes past around 15000 rpm, the harmonics get mashed together and it loses its distinctiveness. Unfortunately, most modern (from around 1993-2013) naturally aspirated V10s, V12s and V8s stayed above this limit at most racing conditions...Take an older V10 vs V12 for example the Honda V10 in the 1990 McLaren MP4/5 and the V12 in the 1992 MP4/7--they sounded different and interesting because they didn’t rev so high. It allowed you to appreciate the real character of the engine configuration, as the dominant engine ‘note’ and its harmonic overtones jumped through the (audio) frequencies as the engine climbed the rev range.

It’s interesting that the 1995 Ferrari V12 has been cited as the epitome of F1 engine notes. I find it to be so lacking in character that it might as well be white noise. Sacrilege! Mind you, I haven’t heard one in real life, just good recordings of it. The modern V10 had the most interesting/distinctive sound at those very high rpms...but they are still a long way down on the favourite list. What this illustrates is that we have very different ideas about what makes a good sound and therefore what makes F1 attractive.

All of this stuff only concerns someone if they are trackside, which makes a very small percentage of the total F1 audience in a given race weekend...the powers that be are more concerned with the television/online audience, although they did play around with the exhaust pipes to produce more volume in the sound for this year. The current engine regulations do have the ability to sound more high pitched, as the rev limit is actually 15000 rpm (in line with old N/A V10s/V12s). But the regulations specify a constant fuel flow of 100 kg/hr after 10500 rpm, so there is no benefit for the manufacturers to let the engine rev out much higher past that 10500 rpm limit. If they can stretch the power band out to around 14500 rpm or so, by specifying that the maximum permitted fuel flow is achieved at that rpm rather than lower down, they can change the sound to a more high pitched wail, as the manufacturers will then have the incentive to let their internal combustion engines to rev to that limit...not that it is necessary, in my opinion.

For the reasons I mention above, I find the current V6 in a turbo/hybrid config to be an interesting sound to listen to than the previous V8s, V10s and V12s. And for a restricted engine formula such as this, each manufacturer’s PU sounds different too. That’s always a bonus. Hopefully, I get to hear the current engines next year when I plan to go to a GP.

PS: Thanks for the appreciation. smile

BlimeyCharlie

Original Poster:

901 posts

141 months

Monday 8th August 2016
quotequote all
Dr Z said:
paulguitar said:
Dr Z said:
paulguitar said:
The current cars sound so terrible they would struggle to excite a kid, let alone someone who has experienced a Ferrari V12!
Just out of interest, what do you find particularly interesting about the V12, in terms of the sound? Apart from a V10/V8/V6 etc?

If your objective is to excite a kid so that he or she can become a fan, I would have thought the best course of action is not to blow their ear drums. smile
Hi Dr Z. Firstly, I would like to thank you for your amazing F1 race threads, great work!



As to the V12, I think it is perhaps the sheer pitch of the engine note that makes it particularly exciting. I think with the engines, revs have a lot to do with the problem with the current units. They just don’t sound as if they are making much of an effort, whereas as the V12’s and also very much the V10’s sounded like they were working so hard they might explode at any moment!


I think the sound is something that is almost impossible to describe to someone who has not heard it for themselves. The sound of a V10 or V12 in anger provokes an internal primordial response, it is literally frightening. On that basis, I don’t think F1 live should necessarily be an appropriate place for a child to be. Of course there is the option of ear protection, which potentially makes it more realistic.


So to be honest, I struggle to actually put into words the way the V10’s and V12’s made me feel, I wish I could do so more adequately. They stirred my soul, made me feel acutely, intensely alive, and I have wonderful memories to this day of those cars and the sounds. I have almost no memories at all of my one hybrid-era live race, even though my favourite driver won the event. Really my one memory of that really is just the awful, sinking disappointment when I heard the new cars for the first time.
Ah, now we've got to the crux of the matter. When you said V12, I thought you meant that you liked how 12 cylinders arranged as two opposing banks of 6 cylinders each sounded. So, it's more to do with the loud high pitched wailing sounds of the engine that evoked a sense of primal fear, and this sound amplified your appreciation of how fast these cars were? I know the feeling very well, and I do have experience of that in a real life (non-F1) motorsport context.

The way I see it is, once an internal combustion engine goes past around 15000 rpm, the harmonics get mashed together and it loses its distinctiveness. Unfortunately, most modern (from around 1993-2013) naturally aspirated V10s, V12s and V8s stayed above this limit at most racing conditions...Take an older V10 vs V12 for example the Honda V10 in the 1990 McLaren MP4/5 and the V12 in the 1992 MP4/7--they sounded different and interesting because they didn’t rev so high. It allowed you to appreciate the real character of the engine configuration, as the dominant engine ‘note’ and its harmonic overtones jumped through the (audio) frequencies as the engine climbed the rev range.

It’s interesting that the 1995 Ferrari V12 has been cited as the epitome of F1 engine notes. I find it to be so lacking in character that it might as well be white noise. Sacrilege! Mind you, I haven’t heard one in real life, just good recordings of it. The modern V10 had the most interesting/distinctive sound at those very high rpms...but they are still a long way down on the favourite list. What this illustrates is that we have very different ideas about what makes a good sound and therefore what makes F1 attractive.

All of this stuff only concerns someone if they are trackside, which makes a very small percentage of the total F1 audience in a given race weekend...the powers that be are more concerned with the television/online audience, although they did play around with the exhaust pipes to produce more volume in the sound for this year. The current engine regulations do have the ability to sound more high pitched, as the rev limit is actually 15000 rpm (in line with old N/A V10s/V12s). But the regulations specify a constant fuel flow of 100 kg/hr after 10500 rpm, so there is no benefit for the manufacturers to let the engine rev out much higher past that 10500 rpm limit. If they can stretch the power band out to around 14500 rpm or so, by specifying that the maximum permitted fuel flow is achieved at that rpm rather than lower down, they can change the sound to a more high pitched wail, as the manufacturers will then have the incentive to let their internal combustion engines to rev to that limit...not that it is necessary, in my opinion.

For the reasons I mention above, I find the current V6 in a turbo/hybrid config to be an interesting sound to listen to than the previous V8s, V10s and V12s. And for a restricted engine formula such as this, each manufacturer’s PU sounds different too. That’s always a bonus. Hopefully, I get to hear the current engines next year when I plan to go to a GP.

PS: Thanks for the appreciation. smile
I enjoyed reading these comments, but the Ferrari V12 from 1995 lacking in character?

My hat!

The 1994 car was also something to behold. Watching at Copse corner you could hear the car accelerate from Luffield, up through the gears, sound echoing off the grandstands and bridge. Brilliant.

To say a Ferrari V12 in any F1 car is/was lacking in character is like saying you don't like fire because it is too hot!

If an engine is a V12, or a V11 whatever is, to me, irrelevant. A flat 6 Porsche engine sounds great too, along with a 5 cylinder Quattro from the 80's. It is a point of reference that the engine is this or that, the sound generated is what is all about.

I love the sound of a Lancia Delta S4 from 1986, supercharged and turbocharged, only 4 cylinders. Also loved the sound of a 205 T16 which was 4 cylinders and turbocharged. A Metro 6R4 with a V6 sounded grand too.

A Ferrari 333 SP sounds ace, as does a Sauber Mercedes C11, with a turbo'd V8.

Formula 1 today is trying to be a Vulcan bomber but with Airbus A380 engines.






Derek Smith

45,512 posts

247 months

Tuesday 9th August 2016
quotequote all
entropy said:
Well you still need to justify a motorsport program and spending silly amounts of money to the boardroom - presumably the majority of members probably more bean counters than racing in their blood who view motorsport as a vanity project.

Post 2008 manufacturers have been more careful. Why would a manufacturer continue with the V10s let alone V8s in F1? Audi have been close to join F1 a couple of times.
The main reason is advertising. Manufacturers suggest that there is a cascading effect on the systems; what is on GP cars today is on road cars tomorrow, but it is not true.

However, there is one aspect which they suggest which, I think, is true. A manufacturer has a team involved in research and if a number of their staff spend time in the F1 team, then it raises their game. They set high standards, look for solutions that are outside the box, and have a degree of loyalty.

The main reason is the 'look at what we achieve' way to present the company not only to the public but to the workforce as well.

There can be little doubt that Merc don't go racing for the fun of it. It is a marketing decision. Winning races shows the manufacturer as on top of the rest.

As for the cost, Merc are in a bit of a cleft stick. If the costs are kept down, there's no advantage for them against the smaller teams. If the costs are allowed to escalate, then the board get a bit concerned. Whilst nothing succeeds like success, moderation is an essential. These engines, which are tremendously expensive to design, build and maintain were brought in at a time when the sport was giving lip service to cutting costs. Another F1 logical farce.

The sport has some free thinkers in it and I am certain that they have great ideas on how the sport can be fairer, cheaper, and be a test-bed for production technology. The problem is that no team at the top wants it. Merc and RB don't want to lose their advantages. Ferrari doesn't want to be like the rest. McL are hoping to get back into the position where the status quo will be a benefit to them.

What the sport needs is a way of keeping costs down but in a manner that allows the rich teams to continue to dominate. Is that too much for Merc at al to ask?

However, BACK ON TOPIC

I have an idea on how to improve the sport. It addresses the most obvious problem after costs: aerodynamics. The disturbed air behind a car gives rise to reduced grip and braking and also to increased tyre wear. It also requires computer game style solutions like DRS.

Have a requirement to stablise airflow behind the cars. Measurement could be taken in a wind tunnel at, for instance, three heights behind the car at three distances.

There should be an increase in requirements year on year.

I accept that this will increase costs to an extent but so will any change.