SHARE

Its confirmed Formula 1 is set to look at ways to increase the level of sound coming out of its new turbocharged engines.

The lower noise level has been criticised by many fans and paddock figures in the early stages of the season, including Formula 1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone and reigning quadruple World Champion Sebastian Vettel.

But following meetings with the sport’s key players in Bahrain, the FIA is to set up a working group to address the issue, and it is hoped that the changes can be tested for the first time at the post-Spanish Grand Prix test.

“It’s something we have been addressing with all the manufacturers involved in Formula 1, to address the thing even with the new regulations,” Todt told media in the Sakhir paddock. “We must see if we can implement in the short, medium, long term, a bigger noise. And that we will do and we will get unanimous agreement.

“After Barcelona there will be two days of testing, so hopefully there is something that can be tested.”

SOURCEgp updated
SHARE
Hi, I have been a Formula 1 fanatic since 1987 when my family took me to the Adelaide GP. I now enjoy close friendships with team members at Ferrari and within the Holden Racing Team (V8Supercars).
  • jiji the cat

    thanks adam, personally i think they should implement it next season. Yeah, start looking at it now, as i am sure it will take a while to figure out.

    This does raise a question though, seeing as the manufacturers have already spent big $ getting the units to what they are now, who will pay for further development? what happens if a manufacturer (for whatever reason) cant lift the volume because of something in their design? then what?

    Ant tech people loitering around here have an answer?

  • I dunno…while I’d sure like the engines to be louder, their noise should follow from their design, not vice versa. If the best engine/car design leads to less noisy engines, then so be it.

    Now if they could figure out a way to make the engines genuinely louder, i.e. by a rule change that leads to the best design producing more noise, then I’m all for it. But if all they come up with is drilling a hole into the exhaust pipe, then that’s too artificial for my taste.

  • There is a pretty simple reason why the current Turbo era of F1 engines has killed the “sound” of the ICE so thoroughly. Both exhaust header banks of the ICE feed into ONE turbine. This is quite different from the separate dual header/twin exhaust outlet engines of the recent normally aspirated past, and is also differing from the old 80’s turbo era where twin turbos were the norm (one per exhaust header bank). So the current V6 ICE feeds all 6 exhaust headers into a 3 x 2 cluster, eventually mashing the exhaust gases from all cylinders into one great feeder pipe to a single large turbine primary.

    There is a pretty simple consequence to that situation to start with (before even considering the double effect of gas energy loss to compressor turbine drive + the new MGU-H motor harvesting). The sound of an engine relies on the resonance of the gases leaving tuned header lengths in a symphonic sequence. If the gases are let out to air they constructively interfere to produce the lovely tonal sounds of the underlying ICE cylinder compressions. The single big honking Turbo mashes this gaseous symphony into a “noisy mess” and of much lower apparent Sound Pressure Level (SPL dB) because the gases from left and right banks clash and destructive interfere with each other. This, on top of all the energy being purpose sucked out of the exhaust gas being expelled produces a mere FARTING exhaust, rather than a hearty – healthy one that sings the music to croon motorsport fan ears.

    It is not friggin’ Rocket Science FIA. It is pretty basic engine/exhaust dynamics that any decent Tune/Dyno/Exhaust/Mapping/Induction specialist knows when fitting a sports header system to an engine. The single turbo arrangement mashing gases together, with all the energy sapping of the loads on the turbine shaft, was always going to KILL the ICE music.

    The only way to truly resolve the sound issue is to substitute a single large exhaust turbine unit, for a dual-in-line exhaust turbine on single shaft, with one ICE header bank feeding each turbine. This separates the exhaust gas pulses, and lets them ‘sing’ properly. Increasing ICE RPM would increase the overall exhaust sound pitch (spectral frequency diversity), but it wouldn’t fix the low SPL dB across the octaves. The other possibility is to bleed off Left and Right Hand side header gases at the 3 x 2 collector points and let a small% escape free to atmosphere through a back-pressured mini exhaust outlets on either side of the engine cowling. That would emulate a normally aspirated engine sound with some better volume (but not ideal).

    Sheesh. It is incredible that a body of such supposed tech savvy as the FIA should fail this miserably at seeing the problem at it most obvious crux. That’s the FIA for you. Jack Flash.

    • Jack Flash, are you speaking of sound quality (pleasantness) when you say the current PU config has killed the sound, or the vol? You seem to be equating engineering design w/ sound quality, and as such is confusing, although your general grasp of exhaust scavenging and manifold design is seems okay.

      Performance.

      Generalizing a sound quality to a manifold configuration is folly. It’s true that an equal length header with appropriate runner length and diameter and properly-sized collector theoretically, tuned for mass airflow volume and the intended RPM range, produces the most power on a road car. As these are usually aftermarket replacements for the package-restricted production models, they reduce back pressure inherent in a production compromise, releasing power/increasing SPL. The subjective sound quality may be more pleasant to some. But it doesn’t mean that header is going to exhibit the same sound characteristics on a different engine configuration. Putting a 1 7/8″ primary’d, equal length long tube header w/ a stepped collector on an LS3 Corvette is not going to anywhere near the same as a 1 3/4″ header w/ the same properties, sized for a 911.

      (Note, the F1 cars aren’t all using tubular headers; the Mercedes units are using a log manifold, a 3 into 1 unequal-length setup similar to cast iron manifolds on an old car. I’m sure they tuned the runner lengths as best as possible, but they obviously care more about packaging and weight than scavenging.)

      “The sound of an engine relies on the resonance of the gases leaving tuned header lengths in a symphonic sequence.”

      What is symphonic to you? The goal of the header is to equalize the pulses for consistent scavenging and to evacuate waste gas with sufficient flow and velocity, not compensate for an engine’s firing order. Any pulses you might hear are inherent in the bank angle/firing/order of the engine, such as a 90 degree cross plane-cranked V8 or a WRX Flat Four w/ it’s uneven half space firings. Any header that creates/encourages pulses is suboptimal, either in packaging or performance, such as the aforementioned stock WRX manifold. Put a manifold more optimally-designed onto a WRX, and the flat four rumble is still there, but the lumpy exhaust pulse sound so many love disappears.

      Also, when talking about road cars, the majority w/ V engines and true dual exhausts actually use a crossover pipe between the twin exhausts (after the headers). This crossover pipe actually equalizing the exhaust pulses. Not applicable to racing cars, just bears mentioning since you mention merging exhaust bank energy kills the symphony. I believe you’re also referring to road cars when mentioning tuners “knowing” when adding a “sports-header” system that it’s going to “KILL the ICE music.” In my view, there very different applications due aforementioned packaging compromises.

      So manifold design affects sound, but it’s engine-specific, and subjective as to what’s better/worse. As to your solutions, it’s likely a twin-turbo/twin exhaust setup would change the sound. Excusing the engineering solutions for ERS/rear bodywork and gearbox packaging and so on, how would you predict they would sound? How would the smaller diameter exhaust tubing/smaller compressors due to static fuel flow and VE tables affect the sound in comparison to the segregated banks?

      Bleeding exhaust gases out of some point on the manifold; at what point “at the 3×2 collector points” would you allow exhaust gases atmospheric? What would that do to performance, and how do you differentiate that from an exhaust leak.

      I honestly want to hear your input, as to me, they sound questionable; if you’re correct, I’ll humbly thank you :) For me, it’s a shorter story; ICE, bank angle, firing order, displacement, and power potential have the most influence on sound. Short of compromising performance for a certain sound (a la the older WRX), the header can’t predictably be assigned a certain sound quality. It’s true, dual exhaust would significantly change the sound, but again unpredictably. Unless either ICE and turbocharger energy-conversion efficiencies change or the potential energy (fuel flow) is increased, the volume won’t go up much, at absurd costs.

      Please enlighten me if I’ve misunderstood you; I realize my response is a haphazard, but it’s because I don’t understand your reasoning nor solutions.

      • [1]. The current Power Unit configuration (single turbo on V6 ICE) has killed BOTH sound quality and volume (SPL dB) of the exhaust.

        [2]. The sound content (spectral content – fundamentals frequency and harmonic families) of the exhaust systems (vs ICE rpm) is not an unpredictable/unknowable thing. Gas/fluid [thermofluid dynamics] equations allow the ICE pressure waves from each cylinder to be theoretically equated as travelling wave pulses. The faster the ICE rpm, the faster shorter the delay between pressure pulses. Of course no system of such a complex nature with many variables is totally knowable, but the fundamental features of the sound should be able to be characterised. The length of header pipes from cylinder exhaust ports to first bank join (3 way) dictate a tuned system length which prefers multiples (n) of a certain frequency (f), sequenced by cylinder firing. The length from the 3 way join to the entry of the Single Turbo define another (n) x freq (f1). If it wasn’t for the single big turbine mashing all the tuned lengths together and making a cacophony of the various tuned lengths, the sound of the V6 ICE would not be half bad. If it wasn’t for the Single Turbine draining most of the gas-expansion energy from the exhausting gases to spin the compressor side &/or motor drive the MGU-H, the exhaust volume would Okay as well.

        [3] The speculative solution of a Twin Turbo solution (on a common shaft) would helps to isolate Bank Left (3 cycl exh to Turbo 1) from Bank Right (3 cycl exh to Turbo 2) and as such prevent the gas wave pulses from opposite timing cylinders from meeting and hence destructively cancelling each other out (this effect affects both output quality and volume).

        [4] The 3×2 collector point speculative solution is a real far-field suggestion (half serious really). The bleed of a fractional percentage of exhaust gas at this point HAS to be valved so as to maintain a solid backpressure for the remaining gases. A purely atmospheric release at these points will not work – the ICE will suffer badly (it would be like removing a significant section of header/exhaust). This is the sort of over complicated solution I expect the FIA numb-nuts to apply, rather than something far simpler (like a dual turbine, bank split exhausting arrangement).

        Not sure how else to further explain what I mean. Hope this makes more sense to you. Jack Flash

        • jiji the cat

          wow…i’m lost for words

        • Jack Flash, it does, thanks, I see where we differ. You’re explaining manifold design. I’m asking how that equates to predicted noise. Where we mostly agree:

          -Yes, velocity increases w/ RPM, and the sound wave frequency of the waste energy can be predicted

          -Balancing a engine’s exhaust pulses through its exhaust system will make the most power, all things being equal.

          -using Post-combustion waste (gas and sound waves, wasted energy) to drive the turbine muffles the noise; it’s utilizing power otherwise wasted for a denser intake charge, at a slight back pressure cost i.e.; more efficiency, which is the performance goal, no?

          -A manifold/header’s Primaries (individual runners) and the collector or merge (using your phrasing) can be optimized, both length and diameter AND shape, for best power, as I mentioned in my first response. This, again, is system dependent, upon intended RPM range, expected power output, as well as the physical constraints (crank type/firing order/cylinder number/valvetrain timing). How, for example, do you anticipate “sound quality” for staggered cylinder firing due to offset ground cam lobing in a VVT system vs a static system?

          You’re extrapolating generalizing optimum scavenging and flow and somehow equating your findings w/ a predicted sound quality. I ask again how that’s possible? I put the following in bold because it’s the conversational point of my questioning: DO ALL V-BANKED ENGINES w/ DUAL EXHAUST MANIFOLDS SOUND BAD in your opinion if the INDIVIDUAL EXHAUST BANKS MERGE? Corvettes/911’s have separate banks whose exhaust pulses “mash” into a single volume, either at a crossover or the muffler. A Ferrari 458’s does the same when it’s 3rd tailpipe opens at higher RPM; do these all sound bad to you?

          And, you can’t “valve” an exhaust manifold; well you could, but you would suffer horrible power loss. This is not an exhaust system, with cutouts that some road car tuners use. The piping downstream of the manifold is there purely for sound attenuation or as a band aid for sub-optimal manifold design (packaging constraints in a road car). As I’ve mentioned and now you have as well, the manifold’s design is absolutely critical for intended function. Any deviation in the cross section/legnth/numbers of the waste gas exits would have to be accounted for in design, and how would this affect this “pulse tuning” you claim has a predictable and enjoyable sound? A valved exit in the manifold is destructive, and would completely destroy your pulse-tuning theory as sound quality theory.

          You seem to have an understanding of exhaust technology, but IMO are extrapolating baseless conclusions on that incomplete understanding. Please correct me where you think I’m wrong; I’d love a bit more volume in F1 as well (personally like the sound quality), so if you’ve stumbled across a legitimate engineering solution, I’m all for it.

          • I think I need to be clear on something. Of course the ICE and Injection/Ignition mapping make a big contribution to the “sound” emanating from the engine (err… I mean Power Unit). These generate the exhaust port gas pulses –> therefore this is the ultimate sound source. So ECU and ICE design features have a big part to play. Sound at exhaust exit is certainly not just about manifold/exhaust path. But I don’t think I ever suggested that. If that appeared so, then I hope this straightens that miscommunication out.

            On Q re “Do I think all V-banked engines without dual exhaust manifolds sound bad” — My answer is NO. Many sound really great e.g. ones you’ve listed as examples, plus many others. Just because exhaust gases are merged does not automatically make a mashed terrible noise. If the tuned lengths are right as the merge, the gases interleave nicely and sing together richly. It is just pretty difficult for that merge to work like that when they crash into a 100k rpm turbine together. A fair % of the lovely clean gas pulse train is distorted/attenuated into a less ideal form. I don’t know why F1 PU/ICE have managed to screw the sound power output and tonal appeal so badly – in all possible aspects of impact.

            I am no clairvoyant nor insider to Renault. Ferrari or Mercedes PU development programs. What I do know is they have all produced the same (or at least VERY similar) “underwhelming” sound in the new regulation configuration/homologation design. The most obvious element that can’t at all help matters is the choice of ‘all pots to a single large Turbo’ constraint on new PU design. It is entirely possible that something fundamental in the ICE and Injection/Ignition mapping that has been driven all 3 PU designers to the same solution point, is also a major contributor. But I can’t speculate on that element of contribution with no data to work with. At least the external header/turbo/MGU-H arrangement is something I have solid data upon (Renault Motorsport tech note, and of course the written FIA 2014 Tech Regulations in this area).

            In the end… this is my opinion. I do the best with the info I have. I make a point of my opinion and offer it as my CONVICTION. If you disagree with elements of my analysis or conclusions, well that is fine. I am not trying to sway people. They can take it or leave it. That is what this forum is about. Respectful potpourri of lively blog discussion on a common passion of F1 (& motorsport in general). So Thanks for the lively discussion Jeff. Not sure I can add anything more on this topic. To be honest, I’m pretty over the sound/noise issue for F1, and will listen to my iPod to recorded tracks of n-a Matra V12 or Renault V10 to get a yesteryear fix (Thanks again MIE for the wav file links). For now… in F1 2014, I’ll be concentrating on the torquey, low downforce, on the adhesion edge racing – and ignoring the crap sound.
            Jack Flash

          • I appreciate the discussion Jack. I’m the type that sees an engineering conundrum and seeks answers; blame it on wanting to be an engineer in another life. Like you I’ve appreciated the debates and discussions of late and if our discourse came across as combative towards you, you’ve my apologies; certain not the intention.

            Yup, tired of the sound debate too, save for the physics aspect of it; this year’s brought so many talking points, we’re flush. Unfortunately, many don’t want a debate or to share an opinion, but use a topic as a one upsmanship codpiece-swing. I appreciate also your respectful tone, and hope you read mine.

      • Stan

        Man do I love exhaust geekery. The rumble of the cross plain crank v8 in the safety car sounds just glorious. Not sure what the mgu-h is doing to the sound but it’s safe to say the direct injection is not doing wonders.

        It should be interesting to see what can be done at this point without major changes to the regs.

        • Stan

          poopies plain = plane

  • MIE

    Last week’s AUTOSPORT has an article quoting the volume of current F1 compared to last year, and some other race series:
    Old F1 V8s – 145dB
    New F1 V6s – 134dB
    NASCAR – 10dB
    Indycar – 118dB
    BTCC – 115dB
    F3 – 114B

    So while F1 is certainly quieter than last season, it is not necessarily quiet when compared to other race series.

    • Difference between Old F1 V8s (145 dB A) and New F1 PU-V6s (134 dB A) is 11 dB. [ps. I presume these are Sound Pressure Level dB measures, not Sound Power Level dB measures].

      dB = 10 log (x) – power ratio, and 20 log (x) for amplitude ratio.

      11 dB equates to a n amplitude ratio of ~ 3.55 times (10^(dB/20)). F1 2014 has ~3.55 times lower Sound Pressure Amplitude than in F1 2013.

      If in fact your data is Sound Power dB, then;
      11 dB equates to a sound power ratio of ~12.6 times (10^(dB/10)). ie. F1 2014 has ~12.6 times lower Sound Power than F1 2014.

      I am pretty sure the SPL dB in amplitude is measured, so the ~3.55 times lower is representative.
      That is no small decrease in SPL, even for our ears which are logarithmic sensitive instruments themselves. JF

    • jiji the cat

      but who cares about other race series? this is f1 damn it.

      • Rapierman

        Wrong person to ask, dude. #NASCAR

        • jiji the cat

          yeah, that reply was in the wrong post

  • Steve Calvert

    Jesus people, let’s watch some good racing gere and stop all the crying about the sound. Bahrain showed us what racing is, we shouldn’t care about the sound when the output is better racing.

    Like it or not, the world is changing and F1 has to adapt. I watch F1 because of the Engineering that has these cars screaming around the track with little V6 engines and doing so in very fast times.

  • Mitch Davis

    I haven’t complained much about the new engine noises, or excuse me, power unit noises. I also feel that it is hard to complain about anything after the race we had this weekend.

    However, I did notice myself enjoying the noise made by the safety car more than the race cars. Something isn’t right with that.

  • I for one am really looking forward to Formula E racing, I don’t think the noise is going to be much more than tortured tires squealing under the torque but racing is what it is all about. Who cares what they sound like when your watching on TV.
    Too much is being made of the noise & being the conspiracy theorist i am, they will probably allow a little extra fuel “for noise” Yeah Bernie will get his way & help RB – Lets See

    • jiji the cat

      i am looking forward to Formula E as well, and this is where the FIA should be focusing their “green” message, not F1. As for the racing, well why should that change? 2 drivers being evenly matched and fighting it out has nothing to do with the sound level, or does it?

  • Natthulal

    So its ok if the new F1 cars are having safety issues due to submarining. Its Ok if the driver are looking malnournished, and passing out after the races. What matters is the sound.

    • jiji the cat

      yes thats all fine, its not like drivers are human anyway ;)

  • Schmorbraten

    People say the engines don’t sound nice, and people say the engines are not loud enough. Solution? Make them louder. Forget about HOW they sound.

    I really would have appreciated it if all this hullabaloo about the engine sound lead to better sounding engines, not caring about the decibels. One of the least harmonic sounds you can get out of a V6 turbo (because of the single turbo / single exit, supposedly), and now they’re only gonna make it even louder.

    But if it helps, I’m happy. F1 fans watching trackside pay big money to have their tympanic membranes spanked, and they shouldn’t be denied that.

    The one thing I wouldn’t like to see is deciding to use X% more fuel (after bleeding through the nose to develop these comparatively frugal engines) just so they can get the revs up.

  • wchrisg

    Sound schmound its just poor mixing by the sound editor with crappy mic on the cameras.
    I Love the new sound (no sarcasm). The sound issue is just Bernie trying to devalue F1 so he can buy it.

    • jiji the cat

      no its not. if people trackside are complaining, then its the natural sound, nothing to do with mixing or mics.

  • Brian Mattson

    No, it’s not just loudness. I attend a lot of vintage sports car events where they run almost anything. But when a Judd V10, Ford Climax V8, or a Ferrari V12 goes by, everyone pays attention! It’s due to multi-cylinders & screaming revs…..We’ve watched F1 go from 12 or 16 cylinders (and I don’t remember any rev limit), to 3 liter V10’s with 20,000 rpm limits, to 2.4 liter V8’s with 19,000 then 18,000 rpm limits, and now V6’s with 15,000 rpm limits. What’s next? I4’s with 10, 000 rpm limits?

    F1 seems to have changed from state of the art exotics to something that’s supposed to follow street car engines!! Why? And turning pinnacle racing to economy runs is even more depressing….Do we really want to see NASCAR type last lap fuel starvation dropouts?

    I thought the new engine sounds sounded familiar….it’s kind of a cross between a Formula Vee and a sick cow. Please…

    • How F1 is regulating boost via an electro-mechanical interface, harvesting energy to be sent through multiple conduits, seeking enhanced power density is all pretty state of the art exotic, to me. I won’t be able to drive a 918 for a few years if ever, but I’d bet it’s much more state of the art than a Carrera GT (which I dearly love).

      If one likes/dislikes the sound, fair enough. But equating it w/ a backwards technological step is erroneous. I wish people would separate the 2 arguments. As to economy runs, read about how Fangio and Clark approached driving, conserving the consumables (car and fuel) except when needed. This is no different, and look at the challenges on track so far this year. Doesn’t look like the drivers trundling around in boredom to me.

      My favorite, BTW, is the Matra V12 and the Alfa supercharged Straight 8, although I’ve yet to hear a BRM 16

      • Great minds think alike, I guess ;)

        • I’m glad you followed me this time. Several weeks on, I’ve typed what I thought an insightful, brilliant post, only to see you or someone else had already mentioned it. Fast damned people on this site, making for good talking points.

          I’ve always wanted to see the Silver Arrows in real life, particularly Auto Union A-D and P-wagen. The W25 hood (bonnet) looks huge in pictures.

          • If you’re interested in that era, you have to read this report from the 1937 Donington GP. It’s absolutely brilliant as it explains the context and introduces the various cars and drivers, but it’s also just written powerfully:

            http://www.grandprixhistory.org/donig1937.htm

            sone excerpts:
            […]
            “Far away in the distance we heard an angry, deep-throated roaring – as someone once remarked, like hungry lions impatient for the arena. A few moments later, Manfred von Brauchitsch, red helmeted, brought a great, silver projectile snaking down the hill, and close behind, his teammate Rudolf Caracciola, then at the height of his great career. The two cars took the hairpin, von Brauchitsch almost sideways, and rocketed away out of sight with long plumes of rubber smoke trailing from their huge rear tyres, in a deafening crash of sound.

            The startled Pressmen gazed at each other, awe-struck.

            “Strewth,” gasped one of them, “so that’s what they’re like!”

            That was what they were like.”
            […]
            “and then, far away, came the droning as if of distant aeroplanes. The drone rose to a roar, and there, twinkling silver in the sun, they came, down Starkey’s Straight in full view, one behind the other at 170 m.p.h., a speed never before seen in Britain.

            The seven German cars, nose to tail, the rest nowhere at all, tore past the back of the pits and fled downhill into Melbourne’s 15 m.p.h. hairpin. Round they swirled and then they were upon us. At 100 m.p.h. they shot over the crest of the ridge, all four wheels clear of the ground with the impetus of that phenomenal acceleration. The Mercedes came with front wheels a foot off, the Auto Unions with similar daylight under their rear wheels.

            In a crash of sound they went past, cut, braked and cornered into Red Gate again ”
            […]

            The site looks like it’s from the 1990s so be careful not to overlook the buttons at the bottom of the page to flip through the pages.

          • Attn: Vintage F1 fans.

            Read the article Tom’s posted. Meticulous, factual recounting, yet fabulously evocative. I personally look back on the GP racing in the 30’s as a wild frontier, and this article captures that feeling beautifully.

            Tom, thanks so much for the link and by extension the website. It deserves perusal. I’m more a 50’s-early 60’s racing fan, but that era, the Italians w/ the beautiful and desirable Monza’s and Monoposto’s, then Hitler’s shocking Silver Arrows entrance and the fight between Mercedes and Auto Union… It’s blockbuster-stuff. Nuvolari winning against Germany itself in 1935 at the ‘Ring, just amazing. Near 200mph, no helmets, no grip…

            My favorite is the W154, and the stories about R. Uhlenhut speeding around the ‘Ring faster than Fangio, and Uhlenhut’s reasons for during so to settle a bad lunch or show that Fangio’s sawing at the wheel was his style, not a car problem; no ego, just raw talent. Big men, sitting too close to a wood steering wheel, in tiny cars that’d likely kill them. Amazing stuff.

          • As for blockbuster stuff, I always thought that Rosemeyers life would make for a perfect movie. It has it all: An unlikely success story of a wildly talented kid, him becoming the darling of a nation, marrying an adventurer wife who became famous by being an aeronautical pioneer. It even has Nazis and how they were trying to use his popularity for their own propaganda. It has awesome cars and hot racing action with ups and downs, an antagonism with the Caracciola, the Schumacher of his day, and the championship as a high-point. And then it has his tragic death while trying to win back his land speed record, shortly before his son was born. I really wonder why nobody has produced this film yet…maybe someone should write Ron Howard…

    • I think you’re mixing up things in your post. On the one hand, there is the sound issue. That’s a very subjective thing and I’d be the last to tell you that you’re wrong to feel the way you do.

      I have also seen vintage race cars. And I did post my favorite on here a while back, the Mercedes W25. That noise was mind blowing. Though I haven’t seen the Auto Union Typ-C in real life, that might come close.

      On the other hand, there’s however the technological side and here I heavily disagree. There was nothing exotic about the old F1 engines. All that was done was to perfect the tolerances to such a degree that they could run up to 20,000 rpm and last a race.

      If anything, todays F1 is more exotic. But more importantly, it employs the more sophisticated, more modern technology. And BTW, the current generation of engines doesn’t even get near the 15,000 rpm limit, they rather max out at somewhere between 11,000 and 13,000 rpm, because they have so much torque that running higher revs would only cost more fuel but not bring more performance. Technology has progression and F1 can either follow or it will eventually be just another vintage racing event, but certainly not the pinnacle of motor sports.

      Lastly, we have had 3 races so far. Did you notice any economy runs? Any “Taxi-Cab racing”? I didn’t. I don’t expect that to happen. Saving fuel has been a factor ever since re-fueling was banned, as every kilogram of fuel you carry around with you costs a hefty amount of lap time. As paradoxical as it may sound at first glance, but saving fuel does make you faster – within limits of course, but then it’s not as if the fuel limit is outrageous…it’s what? 7mpg?

  • gsprings

    Kinda makes me think about my fathers 07 Chevy Silverado, it has a V6,it had a single exhaust when he purchased it,and was pretty quiet,but then he had the exhaust dualed out,and now it has a nice rumble to it, twin turbos next year maybe??

  • Actually, I found the site above back in the day via another one that is even more impressive:
    http://www.kolumbus.fi/leif.snellman/

    This one specializes on the 1920s and 1930s but it really has pretty much everything there is to know about the era. There are all the races of all events (and there were lots of them) and all classes with qualifying and race results and including write ups of the events at the big races. It has all the cars with all their specs, no matter how obscure plus again write ups of the more important cars. It has ALL the drivers of the era with some short and some not so short biographies, it has all the race tracks of the era, speed-record attempts, you name it. It has background information about racing in the 1930s, about the various formulas and the point system back then. And it has some in depth articles, like an analysis of Bernd Rosemeyers deadly crash and how Auto Union might have raced the first ground effect car that day without knowing it.
    And just a little factoid: That day Bernd Rosemeyer died during his record attempt, Rudolf Caracciola previously set the record for the fastest speed ever to be achieved on a public road which still is in place today at 432.692 km/h / 268.863 mph.

    As you can see, I really love that era…mainly because those silver arrows were so far ahead of their time, it’s not even funny anymore with the Alfa Romeos run by Ferrari a distant third. These cars were a massive step up from what was racing in the 1920 and early 30s. It was a new way of thinking, of approaching motor-sport and it set the ground work for Formula 1 in the 1950s. Uhlenhaut took the helm at the Mercedes racing department already in 1936 I think with the W125 being the first car he was responsible for. He was the Newey of his time I guess, though even better behind the wheel and not afraid to show it.

    • This was supposed to be a reply to Jeff…something must have gone wrong

    • Wow, talk about another time suck. I’m unfamiliar w/ this era, save for generalities, so look forward to/dread checking it out.

      I only know Rosemeyer from quick readings on Auto Union; he and the entire Silver Arrow driver cadre, and its forced involvement w/ the political arena of the era, is fascinating. just a quick Google before checking the site on his life’s loves and relationships, creeds, passion and accomplishments does indeed read like a protagonist from a script. I wonder how history will paint the current driver crop, what skeletons we don’t see.

      Uhlenhaut’s always been someone I admire; my uncle had a used 300SL in the early 60’s (choice between it and a ’57 Corvette; shockingly, they were priced similarly at the time). He sold it long before my time, but I’ve always been fascinated by the car and, once I discovered W194 and its designer, got wrapped up in Uhlenhaut’s story. A humble yet confident man, purportedly non partisan and non political, who listened to his engineers yet stamped his authority/responsibility, who was a paragon of practical engineering and could also drive the piss out of a racing car? Yeah, pretty admirable guy…

      • Tom Firth

        Afternoon all,

        Interestingly Donington Park released a book on the Grand Prix races Donington ran, primarily focused around 1938 and the famous Nuvolari victory. I’ve actually misplaced my copy of the book and I aren’t sure if it’s available as when I bought it, it was part of a giftpack I bought from the Donington Collection back in 2004. If you can find it though anywhere it’s well worth a read if the era intrigues you. Rosemeyer, Nuvolari, Caracciola , Lang , Haase and the British driver, Seaman all raced at Donington in that era. It does talk a little about the rest the season too, I will see if I can find it or more details on it if anyone’s interested in finding a copy.

        The sheer domination of the Silver Arrows, both from Mercedes and Auto Union is fascinating, Even down to the details of the transporters the company used to carry the cars, particularly in the Post war era with Moss and Jenks on the Mille Miglia in 1955.

        • A video from the tube of you of the 1938 Donnington GP. It gives some impression of the sound of the cars:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX_TnYpNyds
          Even then they were complaining about regulation changes slowing the cars down.

        • You 30’s GP fans have tuned me in to a fascinating time. As mentioned to Tom, I really want to see an Auto Union in motion, unlike Monterey. The best part of the following Goodwood video is the Aston DB5 being used as a safety car at the very beginning :D. Lovely sounds here:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bIJZVhOfQs