Microphone in helmet? or Balaclava ?

[VT5700]

Does anybody know where the microphone of the F1-drivers are located ? In the Balaclava or fixed in the helmet ? I see a wire in the balaclava of some drivers. Or is that from the drinking system ? I want to simulate the situation of F1-drivers and try to figure out why they sound so terribly noisy.

And why don't they use a wireless connection to the car ? It's still wired

[Jolle]

Most drivers have their microphones (a open-back/filtered dynamic/balanced output) woven into their balaclava with a plug, combined with their in-ears and G meters wired with the lead plug near their navel. Some drivers still like their microphones in their helmets (so they don't have the clunky piece of plastic against their lips)

as for "why not wireless", apart from a F1 prototype being a cesspool of interference (not just electromagnetic but also from several high power transmitters, in the car and around track), a cable is more reliable and doesn't need any extra action like pairing, charging etc.

In other racing series it's almost always "in helmet" because of cost. For a typical weekend you need/want a clean balaclava for every session and it takes quite some time to get the microphone out (before you can wash it)

[VT5700]

Ok so they use pre WWII microphones and use cables. I agree about the cables in terms of reliability. But i don't see why there should be interference. Especially not bc the helmet is almost attached to the cars surface, the distance is just 10-20 cm or so max to the backside of the helmet?

Anyway, i wonder also how important the communication is? How much does it add to the results and why is it so incredibly bad? Hard to understand

[El Scorchio]

Ok so they use pre WWII microphones and use cables. I agree about the cables in terms of reliability. But i don't see why there should be interference. Especially not bc the helmet is almost attached to the cars surface, the distance is just 10-20 cm or so max to the backside of the helmet?

Anyway, i wonder also how important the communication is? How much does it add to the results and why is it so incredibly bad? Hard to understand

You're obsessed! I'm sure it's the best they can feasibly make it.

[VT5700]

Im just pragmatic. Einsteins obsession led him to E=mc^2

[Jolle]

Ok so they use pre WWII microphones and use cables. I agree about the cables in terms of reliability. But i don't see why there should be interference. Especially not bc the helmet is almost attached to the cars surface, the distance is just 10-20 cm or so max to the backside of the helmet?

Anyway, i wonder also how important the communication is? How much does it add to the results and why is it so incredibly bad? Hard to understand

I’m an live audio engineer (for 25 years now) and there is a lot of interference in such a small space. Electric motors, high voltage cables and don’t forget, the transmitter on top of the car for TV, radios, etc etc. This will mess up your signal a lot, even over a small distance. Ik those cases: use a cable when you can. As for the pre WW2 microphones you’re talking about: it’s stil the industry standerd, if you go to any concert, show, etc etc, 90% of microphones are open back filtered dynamic balanced. They are sturdy and never fail.

[El Scorchio]

Im just pragmatic. And can't understand why amateurs provide the teamradio communication. That is all

And about obsession, Einsteins obsession led him to E=mc^2

Well, if you're intent on trying to pioneer a 'better' system then good luck to you, but as mentioned I'm sure they've already found the best possible compromise between quality and reliability they can, within the restrictions they have to work. Personally I don't really see a huge issue. Most of what is broadcast can be understood pretty well and clearly the teams are happy with it. It may be helpful to just keep all the radio based thoughts on one thread with a suitable title though, rather than starting multiple ones essentially about the same thing?

[VT5700]

Ok so they use pre WWII microphones and use cables. I agree about the cables in terms of reliability. But i don't see why there should be interference. Especially not bc the helmet is almost attached to the cars surface, the distance is just 10-20 cm or so max to the backside of the helmet?

Anyway, i wonder also how important the communication is? How much does it add to the results and why is it so incredibly bad? Hard to understand

I’m an live audio engineer (for 25 years now) and there is a lot of interference in such a small space. Electric motors, high voltage cables and don’t forget, the transmitter on top of the car for TV, radios, etc etc. This will mess up your signal a lot, even over a small distance. Ik those cases: use a cable when you can. As for the pre WW2 microphones you’re talking about: it’s stil the industry standerd, if you go to any concert, show, etc etc, 90% of microphones are open back filtered dynamic balanced. They are sturdy and never fail.

I don't care if you are a 100 years working as engineer, you cannot make statements like
"This will mess up your signal a lot, even over a small distance" it just isn't true. signals aren't messed up, only electronic circuits are, if not properly designed.

And i refer to this topic as example of another engineer making an even more bold statement:

https://www.f1technical.net/features/3759

where Jose Santos says " For instance, one can be on 150 and the other on 450. To handle that is absolutely impossible.” He is talking about 150 and 450 MHz. Clearly he has no clue about radios in 2006 (I'm not sure how they differ from current technology) because it is very untrue. It is very possible to receive at 449 MHz and not having interference of a 450MHz signal. You just have to know how to do it. That is all.

then he says
"the microphones are very, very small – something like 5mm diameter and 2mm thickness – and extremely light.

“Speaking when the engines are on is a little bit difficult, so we use noise-cancelling technology that requires a double-face microphone. You have an opposite face, which is looking for the noise, and a face into which you talk. So you have two signals: noise and voice. The electronics inside are able to compare them and kill the noise. In the laboratory, we can have 80% suppression, although in the field it’s another question!"

apparently, he didn't use dynamic microphones looking at the size he mentions, aside from that he claims "80% suppression" then why, please explain me you 100 year engineers, WHY do the drivers have almost 0 dB speech/noise ratio when they are not even driving ? I

Then you compare dynamic vs active microphones as dynamic being suerior in reliability, which again, isn't the case even if i know what you mean. Its sturdy, but having hopelessly bad characteristics so what is your point ? You want a reliable 0dB SNR ? or a little less reliable 60dB SNR ? If that even is the case.

If you say dynamic are more reliable then explain me this

Then a week later, problem still not solved.

See what i mean ? water is just as bad for a dynamic as it is for an active mic. Whats more, if you have to amplify a dynamic mic signal you need a LOT more amplification so, you are ASKING for interference.

Now look at Stroll for example when he is not driving at all


I find it amazing, not driving and still having just a few dB speech to noise ratio? And there is a ticking sound in it too so maybe this is what you mean with interference, well yes there is interference, because of bad engineering.
I can reduce this noise to close to zero. So why can't the F1 do it when they have the money ?

The only thing i don't know is if the radio to the Broadcast TV system is made bad on purpose ? I have thought for quite a while the TV broadcast is made bad on purpose for strategic reasons. As i have no explanation why else in almost every message, the noise is just a few dB away from the speech, how is this even possible and accepted ?

I remember a moment when Hamilton was waiting near the pit, and his voice was much better than when driving but i could clearly hear the cooling blowers on the left and the right and his engine running.

Amazing

[VT5700]

Well, if you're intent on trying to pioneer a 'better' system then good luck to you, but as mentioned I'm sure they've already found the best possible compromise between quality and reliability they can, within the restrictions they have to work. Personally I don't really see a huge issue. Most of what is broadcast can be understood pretty well and clearly the teams are happy with it. It may be helpful to just keep all the radio based thoughts on one thread with a suitable title though, rather than starting multiple ones essentially about the same thing?

Why are you asterisking 'better' ??? I did this already a 1000x better 20 years ago with simple analog radios. So yes, its 'better'

Why different posts, because i didnt get response on the other posts. My statements and claims are clear. I hoped to be noticed but all i read is scepticism and consensus like 'they already have the best stuff' lolll

Do your best to find any inconsistencies in what i say ? Good luck with it, 'engineers'.

[Jolle]

Ok so they use pre WWII microphones and use cables. I agree about the cables in terms of reliability. But i don't see why there should be interference. Especially not bc the helmet is almost attached to the cars surface, the distance is just 10-20 cm or so max to the backside of the helmet?

Anyway, i wonder also how important the communication is? How much does it add to the results and why is it so incredibly bad? Hard to understand

I’m an live audio engineer (for 25 years now) and there is a lot of interference in such a small space. Electric motors, high voltage cables and don’t forget, the transmitter on top of the car for TV, radios, etc etc. This will mess up your signal a lot, even over a small distance. Ik those cases: use a cable when you can. As for the pre WW2 microphones you’re talking about: it’s stil the industry standerd, if you go to any concert, show, etc etc, 90% of microphones are open back filtered dynamic balanced. They are sturdy and never fail.

I don't care if you are a 100 years working as engineer, you cannot make statements like
"This will mess up your signal a lot, even over a small distance" it just isn't true. signals aren't messed up, only electronic circuits are, if not properly designed.

And i refer to this topic as example of another engineer making an even more bold statement:

https://www.f1technical.net/features/3759

where Jose Santos says " For instance, one can be on 150 and the other on 450. To handle that is absolutely impossible.” He is talking about 150 and 450 MHz. Clearly he has no clue about radios in 2006 (I'm not sure how they differ from current technology) because it is very untrue. It is very possible to receive at 449 MHz and not having interference of a 450MHz signal.

then he says
"the microphones are very, very small – something like 5mm diameter and 2mm thickness – and extremely light.

“Speaking when the engines are on is a little bit difficult, so we use noise-cancelling technology that requires a double-face microphone. You have an opposite face, which is looking for the noise, and a face into which you talk. So you have two signals: noise and voice. The electronics inside are able to compare them and kill the noise. In the laboratory, we can have 80% suppression, although in the field it’s another question!"

apparently, he didn't use dynamic microphones looking at the size he mentions, aside from that he claims "80% suppression" then why, please explain me you 100 year engineers, WHY do the drivers have almost 0 dB speech/noise ratio when they are not even driving ? I

Then you compare dynamic vs active microphones as dynamic being suerior in reliability, which again, isn't the case even if i know what you mean. Its sturdy, but having hopelessly bad characteristics so what is your point ? You want a reliable 0dB SNR ? or a little less reliable 60dB SNR ? If that even is the case.

If you say dynamic are more reliable then explain me this
https://streamable.com/1ilfvh

and 1 week later !! Whe Max wins
https://streamable.com/1ilfvh

See what i mean ? water is just as bad for a dynamic as it is for an active mic. Whats more, if you have to amplify a dynamic mic signal you need a LOT more amplification so, you are ASKING for interference.

Now look at Stroll for example when he is not driving at all
https://streamable.com/1ilfvh

I find it amazing, not driving and still having just a few dB speech to noise ratio? And there is a ticking sound in it too so maybe this is what you mean with interference, well yes there is interference, because of bad engineering.
I can reduce this noise to close to zero. So why can't the F1 do it when they have the money ?

The only thing i don't know is if the radio to the Broadcast TV system is made bad on purpose ? I have thought for quite a while the TV broadcast is made bad on purpose for strategic reasons. As i have no explanation why else in almost every message, the noise is just a few dB away from the speech, how is this even possible and accepted ?

I remember a moment when Hamilton was waiting near the pit, and his voice was much better than when driving but i could clearly hear the cooling blowers on the left and the right and his engine running.

Amazing

You ask a question and then go on a rant when you get an answer? maybe not ask the question?

reading your comments it's quite clear you, at the moments, lack the basics of microphones. The noise suppression doesn't work as something difficult and is passive. With an open back, with holes on strategic places in the back film you cancel out a lot of noise (and that well could be that 80%). If you take a simple microphone like a SM57 or SM58, you'll notice the sound changes a lot when you cover the rear of the grill or, like the drivers do with their balaclava microphones, speak very closely directly into the grill (outside noise is blocked from the front side for a big part). Active noise suppression (like in noise cancelling headphones or the ill-fated Schuberth helmet system) needs multiple microphones, algorithms, etc etc, which adds complexity and therefor failure points.

Dynamics are more reliable than condensor (or active as you call them) because they don't need external power and because they are shockproof (where condensor mics are extremely delicate when powered, both for shocks and too much volume). A dynamic element can also take more moisture than a condenser, which will short out.

[VT5700]

I’m an live audio engineer (for 25 years now) and there is a lot of interference in such a small space. ............
And i refer to this topic as example of another engineer making an even more bold statement:

https://www.f1technical.net/features/3759

where Jose Santos says .........ngine running.

Amazing

You ask a question and then go on a rant when you get an answer? maybe not ask the question?

reading your comments it's quite clear you, at the moments, lack the basics of microphones. The noise suppression doesn't work as something difficult and is passive. With an open back, with holes on strategic places in the back film you cancel out a lot of noise (and that well could be that 80%). If you take a simple microphone like a SM57 or SM58, you'll notice the sound changes a lot when you cover the rear of the grill or, like the drivers do with their balaclava microphones, speak very closely directly into the grill (outside noise is blocked from the front side for a big part). Active noise suppression (like in noise cancelling headphones or the ill-fated Schuberth helmet system) needs multiple microphones, algorithms, etc etc, which adds complexity and therefor failure points.

Dynamics are more reliable than condensor (or active as you call them) because they don't need external power and because they are shockproof (where condensor mics are extremely delicate when powered, both for shocks and too much volume). A dynamic element can also take more moisture than a condenser, which will short out.

"reading your comments it's quite clear you, at the moments, lack the basics of microphones."

Wow you are nasty man

To adress a few simple statements:

1.the mass of a dynamic mic diaphragm is a zillion times heavier than that of electronic microphones. Which of coarse , is highly in the disadvantage for your wonderful dynamic mic.
2. the size of the dynamic mics very much worsen any passive noise-cancellation for the simple fact that passible noise-cancellation is highly dependant by its physical size. who has to learn about microphones ? not me
3. how can you state, the dynamic microphone do any noise-CANCELLATION, if all i hear ... is NOISE ????

are you paying attention on what you say ? The systems simply fail.

Why i rant is the attitude i see when i am just asking plain simple questions and all i see is an attitude of technicians who seem to be insulted. What for? Why being insulted ?

Who will pay me 1 Million if i drop the noise when standing still, like in Strolls video, or, Hamilton (i have to lookup the vid) standing still, by say, 60dB or so ??

Who will pay me ??

[CMSMJ1]

Ok so they use pre WWII microphones and use cables. I agree about the cables in terms of reliability. But i don't see why there should be interference. Especially not bc the helmet is almost attached to the cars surface, the distance is just 10-20 cm or so max to the backside of the helmet?

Anyway, i wonder also how important the communication is? How much does it add to the results and why is it so incredibly bad? Hard to understand

You're obsessed! I'm sure it's the best they can feasibly make it.

Obsession is not always a bad thing

[El Scorchio]

Well, if you're intent on trying to pioneer a 'better' system then good luck to you, but as mentioned I'm sure they've already found the best possible compromise between quality and reliability they can, within the restrictions they have to work. Personally I don't really see a huge issue. Most of what is broadcast can be understood pretty well and clearly the teams are happy with it. It may be helpful to just keep all the radio based thoughts on one thread with a suitable title though, rather than starting multiple ones essentially about the same thing?

Why are you asterisking 'better' ??? I did this already a 1000x better 20 years ago with simple analog radios. So yes, its 'better'

Why different posts, because i didnt get response on the other posts. My statements and claims are clear. I hoped to be noticed but all i read is scepticism and consensus like 'they already have the best stuff' lolll

Do your best to find any inconsistencies in what i say ? Good luck with it, 'engineers'.

I say this because if they wanted or needed better radio comms or signals for what they do with them within the constraints they have to work with, then they'd almost certainly have engineered/implemented it already. It's not like they don't have the money or engineering expertise to do so Ergo they are probably happy with what they've currently got in balance between clarity and reliability. If the drivers and engineers can understand each other just fine which seems to clearly be the case then that's all they need. The quality of anything relayed to us as viewers is irrelevant to them. They aren't talking over the radio for our entertainment

Just because you might not like the responses you get, doesn't mean you have to keep starting threads to ask the same question repeatedly in different ways, or be rude to the people who are taking the time to respond.

[Jolle]

You ask a question and then go on a rant when you get an answer? maybe not ask the question?

reading your comments it's quite clear you, at the moments, lack the basics of microphones. The noise suppression doesn't work as something difficult and is passive. With an open back, with holes on strategic places in the back film you cancel out a lot of noise (and that well could be that 80%). If you take a simple microphone like a SM57 or SM58, you'll notice the sound changes a lot when you cover the rear of the grill or, like the drivers do with their balaclava microphones, speak very closely directly into the grill (outside noise is blocked from the front side for a big part). Active noise suppression (like in noise cancelling headphones or the ill-fated Schuberth helmet system) needs multiple microphones, algorithms, etc etc, which adds complexity and therefor failure points.

Dynamics are more reliable than condensor (or active as you call them) because they don't need external power and because they are shockproof (where condensor mics are extremely delicate when powered, both for shocks and too much volume). A dynamic element can also take more moisture than a condenser, which will short out.

"reading your comments it's quite clear you, at the moments, lack the basics of microphones."

Wow you are nasty man

To adress a few simple statements:

1.the mass of a dynamic mic diaphragm is a zillion times heavier than that of electronic microphones. Which of coarse , is highly in the disadvantage for your wonderful dynamic mic.
2. the size of the dynamic mics very much worsen any passive noise-cancellation for the simple fact that passible noise-cancellation is highly dependant by its physical size. who has to learn about microphones ? not me
3. how can you state, the dynamic microphone do any noise-CANCELLATION, if all i hear ... is NOISE ????

are you paying attention on what you say ? The systems simply fail.

Why i rant is the attitude i see when i am just asking plain simple questions and all i see is an attitude of technicians who seem to be insulted. What for? Why being insulted ?

Who will pay me 1 Million if i drop the noise when standing still, like in Strolls video, or, Hamilton (i have to lookup the vid) standing still, by say, 60dB or so ??

Who will pay me ??

good luck with that.

[VT5700]

Ok so they use pre WWII microphones and use cables. I agree about the cables in terms of reliability. But i don't see why there should be interference. Especially not bc the helmet is almost attached to the cars surface, the distance is just 10-20 cm or so max to the backside of the helmet?

Anyway, i wonder also how important the communication is? How much does it add to the results and why is it so incredibly bad? Hard to understand

You're obsessed! I'm sure it's the best they can feasibly make it.

Obsession is not always a bad thing

BIG THANK YOU !! Yes maybe im obsessed but the thing is, i regret i didnt enter F1 20 years before, as because of the Covid situation, i lost all work and am kind of jobless now. And its heartbreaking to see others a get paid for doing a lousy job. Bc to me that is what it is. Not talking about Riedel bc it appears to me, Riedel does a fantastic job in porting all the data from the cars. I make a bow for them

But the teamradio ? NO. Its a fail and a shame this is normal in a sport that in magnitude is not far away from Space-X launching rockets.