On the question of F1 noise

An F1 engineer pal of mine (who had best remain nameless) sent me a message about the noise that the F1 engines are likely to be making in 2014.

“The engine noise,” he said, “might be more appealing than that of the current V8s.”

His argument is as follows: at the moment we hear two four-cylinder banks at 18,000rpm. The current engines have two separate exhaust tailpipes, one on each side of the car. This means that we are hearing 600 firings per second per bank of cylinders, which equates to 600Hz (cycles per second) of noise. The mathematics behind this is as follows: 18,000rpm equals 300 revolutions per second; as the engines are four-stroke the rpm must be divided by two, which means 150 revolutions per second, thus a bank of four cylinders creates 600 Hz of noise, which is heard in parallel to its twin bank.

The 2014 rules impose a single turbo, which means a single exhaust tailpipe. The engines will rev to a 15,000rpm, which equates to 750Hz of noise – (15000/60)/2 – which means that the frequency of noise will be 25 percent higher.
GP2 cars currently have a single tailpipe and despite revving to only 9,000 rpm, they sound as “screamy” as the current F1 cars.

The absolute noise level will be lower than 750 Hz because of the energy recovery systems and because of the maximum fuel flow rules, which may have some unusual effects. The rules state that maximum fuel flow allowed will be 100 Kg/hour and that this will come into play at 10,500rpm; so maximum engine speed should ideally be achieved at close to 10,500. In lower gears the engines may rev higher so that the gear changes will not drop the revs below 10,500, however the power will be constant over the rev range between 10,500 and 15,000 (decreasing slightly because of increasing friction), all of which means that the engines will be screaming differently to the current machinery.

67 thoughts on “On the question of F1 noise

  1. I am not convinced that “screaminess” is a positive benefit. The noise levels and quality at Monaco during the V10 era were thoroughly unpleasant. Compared with the wonderful noises the week before from the historic cars, with relatively low revving straight sixes and eights and bent eights and twelves, the noise of the modern F1 engine has all the charm of a jet engine.

    Wilson

    1. If we stick with that logic of aural pleasure though surely all engine development should have stopped after the Napier Railton?

    2. I cannot disagree more. I was at Monaco in 2006 (I was in stand T2 have a lovely photo of Alonso approaching Rascasse while Mr Schumacher was parking just ahead of him, then lying his arse off at the press confrence afterwards) when the Minardi / STR were driving the V10s while everyone else were on the current V8s and I assure anyone reading this that side by side like that the V8s compared to the V10s simply have no testicles.

      1. i remember those v10 at canada in 1996 and they were a little bit over the top noisewise.
        But i don’t have that memory about the v12’s of the early 80’s.
        Today’s v8’s are a little weak, and they bother my ear.
        To tell you the truth i am not sure about it. And this article confuses me even more.

      2. Agree!
        And what about the screaming V12’s Ferrari featured in the past. I remember Spa 1991 (my first visit to an F1 race) and could easily hear the V12’s on top of the other V10′ and V8’s.
        The sound of an F1 engine is way more impressive than that of an F16 for example (have spend a year at a Dutch military airbase in Leeuwarden). More alive, more screaming, more tones, a real beast in the machine.

        I really hope that do not go on with that silly plan to have F1 cars drive through the pitlane on an electric engine. I really love that sound of a low revving machine, impatient to flex it’s muscles again. Listen to the radiointerview on SENNA’s DVD (extra) where you can here in the background the cars coming by in the pitlane, really beautiful. What would that interview be without the natural background?

      3. The Nissan 3.5 engines that they use in the Renault world series are far louder than than the Renault F1 engine. I thought it was a bit much in comparison tbh.

      4. I’ve listed to lovely Ferrari V12s, awful low revving Lolas and a lot of other things running at Melbourne
        (Its a long time ago – but I reckon I remember the V12 being a distinctive and nicer sound )

        I always liked the V10s – and was a bit surprised the modern F1 V8s actually don’t sound to bad – so maybe the high revving frequency theory has something going for it? (Or maybe it will just set off every poor dog in the city)

        I suspect if I heard them side by side though – I’d prefer the V10 like Mon Pen

        Having said that – 4 cylinder turbos should be reserved for Euro FWD touring cars- regardless of sound.

  2. I can’t wait to hear them then. I’m actually looking forward to the new engine rules just because I would like to see engine development being part of the equation again…

  3. That statement depends largely on ones preferences of how an engine should sound but having said that that statement also makes me very happy 🙂

    Not only will F1 use the most advanced type of engine available it will also run it at close to maximum performance and it sounds nice, what else could I want from an F1 engine.

  4. in 2009 average consumption about 70 litres / 100km, and race speed 200km per hour (these are Melbourse figures from the web); so is the change to MAXIMUM fuel flow of 100Kg / hr the biggest of all the changes to F1

  5. I’m a bit confused after reading this. I think Joe has got a couple of things a bit messed up here. Higher frequency of the sound doesn’t mean that it is louder. It just determines the pitch of the noise. The logic might be correct in the sense that the noise of the new engines will be more “screamy” i.e. higher pitched, but I think it is quite clear that the noise probably won’t be as loud. The loudness of the nose comes from the energy that is put through the exhaust gasses and since the new engines will be using less fuel (less energy) and the turbos will be stripping extra energy from the gasses they definitely won’t be as loud as the current engines. BUT…that doesn’t mean that they can’t sound great 😉

    1. The problem here is the definition you and Joe are using for “frequency”. In Joe’s piece he is referring to frequency as the amount of times ‘a noise’ is generated per second, which is correct English, but confusing in relation to the science. You on the other hand are referring to frequency as the specific characteristic of an individual ‘noise’, which is also correct.

      So in your instance, the higher frequency would be specific to a sound wave, and such increase it’s pitch, appearing more ‘screamy’.

      What Joe is saying is simply the frequency, or rather amount of times of occurrence, that a ‘noise’ will be generated, will be higher. This does not relate to the pitch of the specific noises. In essence, the engine will throw out more noises per second than the current ones do.

      In reality, there are many, many more factors that will affect the sound of an engine. More important is the sound pressure generated, which is commonly referred to as decibel level. Put simply, this is determined by the particle displacement in the air, which is dependant on factors such as; atmospheric pressure, exhaust pressure, exhaust exit velocity, sound wavelength, etc.

      So really Joe’s point that more sounds will be generated per second than currently, actually has very little bearing on the ‘noise’ without considering all the other factors. Where, he does have a point, is basically the notion, if you bang on the drum more often, you are likely to more noise.

      (I’m not an acoustics engineer and just pulling this off the top of my head, so don’t take this as gospel…)

  6. I’m sure, with all the technoology available to them, the engine manufacturers could synthesize the noise a 2014 F1 engine will make, creating a sound file we could all hear, along with a recording of the current engines for comparison.

  7. Very interesting piece Joe.. I seem to remember you saying that you had heard a sample of the 2014 engine? Is that correct, and if so is there any chance that we could hear it as well?

    Best regards…
    Jeremy

  8. Thanks Joe, that’s fascinating, shows the degree of analysis of competitors that is possible by monitoring the sound of each engine. I am keen to see and hear the new engines should they come about. As the physics show, they should sound good – and as for sound quality from smaller engines there are some good examples. If they come close to the original Ducati 990 motoGP screamer for instance the experience will be spine tingling. Different, but thrilling.

    As for development of that capacity of engine and the technology that will surround it, the sooner the brains involved in f1 get involved with it the better – so long as the FIA don’t stifle innovation by making the formula too restrictive.

  9. I disagree with your engineer’s conclusions from the maths. An engine revving at 18000 rpm is rotating at 300 revs/s. This will give 150 exhaust cycles/sec per cylinder. Thus an eight cylinder engine will generate 8 x 150 = 1200 exhaust pulses per second. In other words the exhaust sound frequency will be 1200 Hz.
    Similarly, a six cylinder engine running at 15000 rpm will have 125 exhaust cycles/sec per cylinder, hence an exhaust frequency of 750 Hz.
    The frequency is dependent only on the engine speed and the number of cylinders. However, the sound quality will be influenced by the number of exhaust pipes and the presence of the turbo.
    Without the maths, common sense says that an engine revving slower, with fewer cylinders, will have a lower frequency.
    Pete J

    1. Although your theory is sound, in the case of the current engines, there are twin exhausts, where each exhaust pipe connects to 4 cylinders. This will result in 4×150=600 Hz per exhaust. Since there are 2 exhausts, you will have 2 sound waves, each of 600Hz.
      Where as, in the case of the new engines, there is a single exhaust into which all 6 cylinders feed. Hence in the new V6, you should hear 750 Hz as you have pointed out

      1. This is true if both exhausts fire simultaneously 600 times per second Vikram. However, as an audio engineer (though not a specialist in engine acoustics) I would be expect that if they take turns at firing, then the two exhaust outputs should interlace for a listener, and sound like 1200Hz. The amount of resonance and muffling in the exhaust will be factor on this also.

        1. And a quick and dirty frequency analysis of Seb’s pole lap from Melbourne 2011 confirmed this for me. At max revs down the start finish straight – the sound is made up of a very prominent signal around the 1200Hz mark, and a very strong second harmonic at 2400Hz. There is only a small amount of signal at 600Hz and 1800Hz.

        2. I think in a V8 the two cylinder banks don’t fire in turns. The firing order feeds sparks to one cylinder of each bank simultaneously, at least in some V8s. But there are different firing orders possible in a V8, depending on the crankshaft design. I have to look that one up again …

          1. Sorry, I was talking rubbish. There are different firing orders possible in a V8, alternating between all 8 cylinders, but not always alternating between the banks, that depends on the crankshaft (cross-plane or flat-plane).

  10. I find the noise of a contemporary F1 to be almost shocking in it’s intensity and loudness, my girlfriend was actually slightly disturbed the first time she heard one at full throttle coming in to the bus stop chicane at Spa.

    With turbocharging (and perhaps also turbocompounding) a significant portion of the energy is taken from the exhaust giving a muffled sound a la Indycar. I don’t think you’d find anyone who rates the sound of an Indycar engine as much as a V8 or V10 F1 car. I still think they will sound interesting but we probably won’t need to wear ear plugs, which is a shame.

  11. To anyone who says that the new turbo engines won’t sound as good as the current V8s (or the old V10s and V12s), the answer is yes they will – they’ll just sound *different*

    Pretty much any engine driven at full chat sounds great, and turbos are no exception.

    Examples? Watch the onboard footage of Senna qualifying his 1988 McLaren-Honda at Monaco…

  12. Turbochargers cut the exhaust noise considerably by chopping up the exhaust pulses, so I don’t expect the exhaust to sound anything like that mentioned, mechanical noise starts to become more audible.

    If you want an example, listen to a WWII radial engine without a turbo, and one with, they are much different in perceived noise, ‘softer’ is perhaps the wrong word to use, but I think it is more understandable. Turbos have been around a long time!

    Big trucks with turbos are far quieter that non-turbo versions, we used to run Scania engines in the workshop after overhaul with no silencer or downpipe after the turbo, it really made that much difference.

    It will be interesting to see how it works out.

  13. And given 99% of people will only ever hear this through a compressed, signal dampened tv signal microphone anyway, dipped behind the dulcet tones of whatever commentators are explaining the noise to them…I’m not sure it matters enormously. As long as it’s loud and has immediate impact live, the actual spectators aren’t likely to notice (yes some of the crowd will appreciate a better engine note/scream but I have to suspect it’s now a minority).

    A single exhaust outlet is actually a bigger change since no-one will be able to continue their current rear aero philosophies at all and we’ll have some big visual and handling changes (and controversies). Which will be fun.

  14. Is it just my pre-occupation with the predominant 2012 F1 design that I keep reading “On the question of F1 nose”? 😉

  15. I don’t get why people want to hear engines that make them want to wear earplugs. Yes is nice hearing the power of the engine but when the sound is so strong then is actually annoying. It makes me prefer hearing an F1 engine from the TV instead up close.
    Is not like i don’t get at all the attraction of an engine sound it’s just that i think it doesn’t need to be above a certain non earplug level.
    But again am the kind of guy that hates places that play music so loud you can’t even talk to the person next to you while many others seem to love them.

    1. I remember going to my first F1 race at Long Beach. As I approached the track the noise just got more and more intense and sent shivers up and down my spine. Television sound does not, in any way, convey the power and sound of these cars; you have to be there to really experience it. Television also foreshortens the corners and doesn’t come close to letting you understand how fast these things really are going. The first time I watched CART cars go through the final esses at Portland International Raceway I couldn’t believe it was possible to go that fast through a corner- and I raced Formula Ford there so at least had some idea. If you can, go to a race. It’s astounding.

  16. Just because you have 4 noise sources each producing a 150 Hz sound, doesn’t mean you’d get a 600 Hz sound source! It’s like saying 4 flutes playing the same note would produce a sound whose frequency is 4 times higher (i.e. a different higher note!).

    1. No, I agree, in fact what you get is constructive and destructive interference, which either reinforce or cancel the wave, but it remains at the same frequency, only the amplitude changes.
      (Also like Multipath interference on FM radio)

      However the turbo(s) will scramble the original waveform and could alter it completely.

    2. Babak – this is true if you’re dealing with flute-like sine waves, however engines (unless output through silencers) are not like that. they are closer to pulse trains – a series of instantaneous spikes. Because of this, the individual pulses will not overlap and interfere, but will instead interleave, as the cylinders take turns to fire.

  17. One turbo implies that all the manifolds must resolve to one pipe at some point along the length of the exhaust, but not *necessarily* to one final outflow: the pipe can be branched after the turbo.

    Do we know whether the current (2012) rules on exhaust apertures will be revised once the new formula comes in?

    1. I agree. They sound shitty compared to the glorious V10s. And this has nothing to do with the volume, in fact, the current V8s are really loud, but much more monotone. Im glad they’ll be gone by 2014.

  18. I have to day that the V6 turbocharged engines in the new Indy cars sound an awful lot better than the V8s they have replaced.

  19. Interesting.

    I personally think GP2 cars sound better than F1 cars as while they are quieter you actually hear exotic V8 engine noise than simple exhaust bark a la F1.

    It’s very rare you actually hear the distinct V8 soundtrack of a modern F1 car due to the sheer noise of the exhaust but in the pits and when tickling throttle you sometimes catch it and it is *gorgeous*.

    Using GP2 then and ’80s Turbo F1 as reference points, I think they will sound ace (seeing as 80s turbos only went to about 11,000rpm?). If the single exhaust and turbo knocks back the bark a bit i forsee a lovely, clinical 6cyl bark.

    Bring it on. I’m bored of 2.4 V8s. Especially since the rev limits crept in. 20,000rpm V8s were goregous to behold too!

  20. This means that we are hearing 600 firings per second per bank of cylinders, which equates to 600Hz (cycles per second) of noise.

    Does this mean that two cylinders (in a V8) fire simultaneously? I had thought – from a road car perspective – that the point of a v8 was smoothness, and that came from as many firings as possible per single rotation of the engine…

    Surprised or puzzled – not sure which

    Ross

      1. Actually, the current engines can be looked at as two four cylinder engines set at 90° to each other. There are four throws on the crankshaaft; looking at a single bank of cylinders, if #1 and #4 are at TDC (or there abouts) and #1 is firing, #4 is exhausting. After the crank rotates 180° #2 might be firing and #3 exhausting. After another 180° #4 would fire, #1 would exhaust, then after another 180° #3 would fire and #2 exhaust. The entire sequence takes two revolutions (720°). The other bank is doing the same thing, but is 90° out of phase with the first bank. So no, two cylinders are not firing at the same time.

  21. I think the noise issue will be a non-starter…

    Whenever there’s change, people complain, but soon get used to the new way.

    Most people are already used to the platypus noses and the season hasn’t even started!

    As long as the cars fly along the track quickly, and make some kind of unique “scream”, it’ll be fine.

  22. Noise and Power – are both a part of the F1 power mix which drives the sport.
    I do fully support F1,s moves to continually review and align its basic racing formula to the current needs and views of the manufacturers and their markets. It shows dynamic engaged management at the top of the sport which is the ultimate guarantee of F1,s future.
    Turbo,s and the rest is where we are in the world right now and F1 is right there with it – bring them on. Someone is listening to both the manufactures and the fans. A new engine – and lots of noise and Power. All very healthy.

  23. I dont think that RPM’s will tell the full story. The displacement of a V8 is part of the rich and more complex sound it produces. Reduced number of cylinders, muffling effect of a turbo and smaller displacement will reduce the sophistication of the sound and make it more like a chain saw at full wail than an exotic roadcar!

    Think of any type of engine where you have similar engines but different sizes, say motorcycle and the smaller displacement variant of an enine sounds less powerfull and higher pitched at any given RPM than a similar but larger displacement engine. That said lets wait and see what happens in practice. Maybe some inovation to extract power from the exhaust will return some rich deep tone to the process…… not likely, but we can hope! But I am sure the four cylinder idea would have been much worse than the V6 we will get.

  24. I think someone already mentioned it, but as a child in the late 70s one of the first engines I ever heard was a Matra V-12. Still gives me chills thinking about it.

    Best noise ever created by mankind.

    1. Absolutely. I remember Laffite’s Ligier-Matra at Brands in 1976. Beautiful noise, coming down the gears into Surtees. Fantastic, I’ll never forget that

  25. Rightly or wrongly, I’m not as wound up over the noise issue as many. It only affects those who go to the races, and for the vast majority of them, the new engines will still sound a lot louder and more aggressive than what they hear in their day-to-day lives.

    Sound is not unimportant, but it’s only one of the factors that make these cars thrilling. The most fierce and frightening racing car I ever saw was the Can-Am Porsche 917/30 driven by Mark Donohue. Compared to the big Chevy powered cars, it sounded a bit tame. But it was big and mean and visibly, shockingly fast; to see it reach the end of the back straight at Mosport while still accelerating was a heart-stopping experience.

  26. One per lampost used to be the dream of bikers of my age, this was the firing speed of a Gold Star at around a ton or maybe a ton twenty. (hundreds of years ago before speed cameras)

    Ian Flux’s formula Atlantic Lola at Brands, in a sports race (promised to use only two gears and gave a 10 sec start, won by 5 sec) Wonderful deep throbbing noise. The Jag XKR? whatever, that they only prototyped, ran it n Top Gear, sounded like a Merlin.

    I am a bit spoilt for noise (apart from being a deaf old git) living very near a source of Rolls Royce Merlin engines plus some Prat & Whitneys and twenty odd EJ200s (No not that EJ ! ) and a few RR RB199. (in fact it’s a wonder you can hear me write this)

    However my most memorable F1 sound was from a Gin Place bobbing gently in Monaco harbour, (A corporate, taxable event!) as the cars come out of the tunnel, all the sound is suddenly reflected straight off the adjacent wall and out over the harbour, it was 3 litres or so then. (I think Senna was still in F3 that year)

  27. “The engine noise,” he said, “might be more appealing than that of the current V8s.”
    That doesn’t say much as the only thing exciting about the current V8’s is the sheer loudness. GP2 V6 engines do sound great, but let’s not forget they are naturally aspirated! Turbocharging an engine is like putting a muffler onto it, new F1 cars will be much quieter. Actually the new IndyCar engine is the closest comparison to the new Grand Prix formula I can think of. Imagine this http://youtu.be/SR14vS2Z0zM at higher pitch (i.e. higher rpm).
    Sounds good to me, but the fans at the circuits may be somewhat disappointed with the loudness.

  28. Listen to this one:This is a 1953 B(ritish)R(acing)M(otors) MkII, with a 1.5 litre 16 cylinder supercharged engine capable of producing 600 BHP at 12.000 rpm, though in race trim, I read, they ran between 430 and 450 BHP.

    [audio src="http://privat.bluezone.no/jerry/linjer/sounz/brm.mp3" /]

    According to the website owner: ” this is surely one of the best F1 sounds ever, from BRM’s 50th anniversary at Silverstone in 1999. Competing drivers of the time admitted to being literally flabbergasted by the sound of the BRM engine”

    Play it VERY LOUD and enjoy.

  29. Seriously, its only the bearded houndstooth check anorak wearers who enjoy tea and cucumber sandwiches whilst camped next to a rail line waiting for the 7.34 from Hampstead who care much about the differences in noise. I would guess the majority of spectators just like watching cars go fast.

  30. Let’s see shall we? I loved the sound and smell of the early 90s Indycars. James Hunt evidently hated the previous incarnation of F1 turbos.

    I have faith that the sport we love will get it right

  31. Joe,

    A current F1 engine is 1200Hz at full rev.

    Your engineer friend made a mistake in assuming that two of the cylinders fire together – one from each bank.

    Your friend is completely and utterly wrong.

  32. 18.0000 rpm are 300 rps per cylinder, being a 4 stroke engine you get 150 ignitions per second, times 8 cylinders makes 1200 ignitions per second, which means 1200 Hz. It doesn’t matter how many exhaust pipes there are – the ignitions get evently distributed.

    Formula 1 wanted to go for a 12.000 RMP 4-cylinder first, that would be just 400Hz – a signifincantly lower frequency, but with the whole power comping from 4 relatively big cylinders and just 2 ignitions per revolution, that is a pretty rude sound.
    This is the BMW Turbo engine, revving up. According to the data sheets, the BMW engine does not rev higher than approx 9500 rpm, and I guess they did not max it in the video, so make it about 7000 that you’re hearing there:

    http://www.gurneyflap.com/bmwturbof1engine.html
    Just imagine it revving it up to 12.000 and you can imagine how the 4 cylinder turbos might have sounded like. To get a little closer to the Sound, let’s heard the 4-cylinder turbos from Formula 2:

    Imagine them revving higher than that. GREAT SOUND!

    Now they have decided to go for 6 cylinders and 15.000 rpm. That will be 250 rps, 125 ignitions per second, times 6 cylinders, equals 750 Hz. Listening to Senna’s Pole Lap in Monaco, one might guess how it sounds like, if it revs higher than the BMW, in the video we might hear it revving up to about 13000, according to the data sheet: http://www.gurneyflap.com/hondav6turbo.html
    That will be pretty close to what we are about to hear in 2014:

  33. i think the Main Point is the turbocharger, which Works as a muffele in any Case. Furthermore, due to fuel Limit reasons, we will see revs on average 13.000 rpm, which is about the revs of the years 1987/88. I think the Engines will sound similar to the current Indycars. But please compare the to soundfiles below, One feat. the BMW-Megatron Engine 4 inline, the other One the V8 Penske Ilmor, both equipped with one Turbo. Surprisingly, they produce almost the same sound!

    http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=rGv2A4wFMRc

    http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=rGv2A4wFMRc

    ” Appealing noise” doesn’t mean there has to be a high pitched, screaming engine noise to be attractive, just look at the Great sounding current V6 Indycars.

Leave a comment