New F1 engine sound...it's not good

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/08/2014-f1-engine-sound/

Weren't F1 cars turbocharged in the past? I don't think it sounds that odd to be honest

Most F1 engines sound bad to me, but that one sounds weird.

I'm waiting to pass judgment until I actually hear them.

Also, Lotus released a sound clip weeks ago.

The engines reved slower than 15k and still had a single turbo in the 80's. Most people don't complain about the sound of the engines when watching old Senna movies.

Having heard V10 and V8's in person over the last seasons, one is required to wear hearing protection, else suffer from serious ear pain. I tried for a few seconds at Monza three years ago, and I could not do it. Oh, so painful.

So if they become quieter, that would not be a bad thing. Just turn your tv volume up.

I don't know, sounds kinda nice to me. I've never heard this generation of F1 engine but I'll be at Circuit of Americas in November.

I like the sound but I've only listened to it on my phone. I'll have to check it out with nice headphones when I get home. I typically like the vacuum cleaner sounds turbos make as the suck in huge amounts of air

Really? We have a simulated sound on lame computer speakers, and we're supposed to believe that's how an actual F1 car will sound like next year? Like others, I'll wait until the real thing comes out before I make any real judgement. On the other hand, I don't see any reason at all that F1 cars won't sound exactly like the current Indycars, or at least extremely similar. I'll leave the video game sound effects for my PS3.

Shooting fire > weird sound.

So yes, moar turbo F1 please!

ncjay wrote: Really? We have a simulated sound on lame computer speakers, and we're supposed to believe that's how an actual F1 car will sound like next year? Like others, I'll wait until the real thing comes out before I make any real judgement. On the other hand, I don't see any reason at all that F1 cars won't sound exactly like the current Indycars, or at least extremely similar. I'll leave the video game sound effects for my PS3.

That merc video was an actual engine on a dyno running monza - only the video was simulated.

In reply to Kendall_Jones: It's on the internet, so it must be true.

ncjay wrote: In reply to Kendall_Jones: It's on the internet, so it must be true.

Did you read the article?

Way back, post turbo, most everybody went to V12 engines. There were some Cossie V8's, I think, but they were at the back of the pack.

Anyway, as the new generation v10's started to show up, Ferrari was one of the last to leave the 12- I remember one race where they had incar cameras with open mikes on a Ferrari 12, and an Osella, I think, with the new 10. What a difference there...

i'll like the way an F1 car sounds when they start running naturally aspirated 350 inch V8's that don't rev past 10k rpm..

I kind of like it. At least as it comes out of my speakers. sounds like a howl or yowl. angry cat ?

The lower redline is what kills it for me...you can tell the rev limit is very conservative.

Honestly, I don't mind it.

In reply to GameboyRMH:

The actual engine speeds will be lower than 15k. More efficient.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8jz_Dgb8D4

renault's sounds better to me. Not sure why.

I like it.

That's the sound of making a crap-ton of power in a manner somewhat more applicable to passenger cars than spinning a naturally aspirated engine up to unpossible RPM minus one . On those grounds, I dig it.

In reply to tpwalsh: The French accent

Sounds like an F1 engine to me... with some turbo whine/hiss... whatever... I generally agree about them using engines that are at least somewhat relevant to what the car manufacturers (other than maybe Ferrari) are producing for the street.

The regulations actually are designed to encourage higher(ish) revs. The cars aren't given the full fuel allowance until they hit 10,000 rpm, just to make them spin higher. If the rules didn't require that, the engineers would run slower.

So there are fuel limitations to encourage greater efficiency. And then the fuel limitations are juggled to make the engines less efficient just so people don't bitch about the sound. Stupid.

I say, set the fuel limits. Let the engineers take it from there. If they want a 300 rpm two-cylinder with four turbos or a V16 that revs to the moon, go for it. Then we'd have a variety of engine sounds and some really interesting design concepts.

Keith Tanner wrote: The regulations actually are designed to encourage higher(ish) revs. The cars aren't given the full fuel allowance until they hit 10,000 rpm, just to make them spin higher. If the rules didn't require that, the engineers would run slower. So there are fuel limitations to encourage greater efficiency. And then the fuel limitations are juggled to make the engines less efficient just so people don't bitch about the sound. Stupid. I say, set the fuel limits. Let the engineers take it from there. If they want a 300 rpm two-cylinder with four turbos or a V16 that revs to the moon, go for it. Then we'd have a variety of engine sounds and some really interesting design concepts.

I agree completely.

I think they should go as far as "The car must fit these general dimensions, it must past the safety/crash tests, it will use these tires, GO!"

But then enact a budget cap.