Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Actually they have the same sounds as ICE cars have. They use straight cut gears, same as ICE racecars, so that is what you hear.
so there's no noise from those (electromagnetic) forces cycling hundreds of times a second ?
@mzso and btw for my convenience ...
the energy cost of transporting electricity (before any charging/discharging batteries) is 10% and rising (Ohm's law)
the energy cost of transporting the conventional ICE fuel is 0.2 - 0.5 % (common sense)
in appealing to the FIA we might consider that 'they' have improved F1 ICE efficiency from 29% to 52% in 10 years
(most of this 52% can be retained with NA V10s (Atkinson-ed, recovery turbine-ed, of course)
Not really, no, some diminutive sound of bearings and stuff, completely owerwhelmed by the gears. Brushed motors are loud, but they're not relevant to racing. Also peculiar designs like a switched reluctance motor, which apparently yank around the rotor, I never heard of a desire to use those.
Not sure what you mean by "10% and rising (Ohm's law)". Or what do you mean by your 0.2-0.5 value.
Actually they have the same sounds as ICE cars have. They use straight cut gears, same as ICE racecars, so that is what you hear.
so there's no noise from those (electromagnetic) forces cycling hundreds of times a second ?
the energy cost of transporting electricity (before any charging/discharging batteries) is 10% and rising (Ohm's law)
the energy cost of transporting the conventional ICE fuel is 0.2 - 0.5 % (common sense)
Not really, no, some diminutive sound of bearings and stuff, completely owerwhelmed by the gears. Brushed motors are loud, but they're not relevant to racing. Also peculiar designs like a switched reluctance motor, which apparently yank around the rotor, I never heard of a desire to use those.
Not sure what you mean by "10% and rising (Ohm's law)". Or what do you mean by your 0.2-0.5 value.
all single-phase electric motors 'yank round the rotor' - in essence that was my point
brushed motors are of course 'noisy' in electromagnetic radiation terms ie they tend to cause interference
electrical supply transmission losses are 9-10%
lengthening the lines eg offshore windfarms means increasing the losses (or doubling/tripling the metal per mile)
eg the UK says it will quadruple its grid capacity to double the amount of electricity transported
btw
Net Zero is by law Net Zero of Greenhouse Gas emissions (only) ......
but ....'Global Warming' is also caused by direct heat emission eg energy lost as 'waste' heat ...
eg the 'cooling' losses from thermal power generation (often 60-70% - nuclear power being the worst) ...
nuclear 'power' (with transmission losses) in (non-heatpump) electrical heating makes 20% as much GW as gas heating
(incl nuclear fuel still heating the globe years after the fuel rods are 'spent') ....
also wind farms produce large-scale (not global) warming - their losses being c.35% (plus the losses in transmission)
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on 26 Jul 2025, 12:32, edited 2 times in total.
I really grew tired of the "road relevance" regs once they did their job of attracting the manufacturers. It's all played out now.
I dont know what you're defining as 'road relevance regs', as this was an effort that spanned multiple decades and many different regulation eras. And as we saw, you couldn't 'lock in' any manufacturers longer term, as they would and could leave as they saw fit. You cant just bait them in and then switch up things and expect them to stay.
It's also not 'played out now'. The '26 regs were quite clearly successful in bringing in interest and participation.
The problem is ever that 'road relevance' is more a perceptual thing than anything that has to be real. Car manufacturers dont want to jump into an ultra expensive sport like F1 while pushing what is seen by much of the public as 'outdated' technology(aka pure ICE powertrains). It required a serious commitment to hybrid technology to get them onboard with the new regs.
And to be clear, I do like your suggestion, ignorant as I am about its actual feasibility. I truly think that F1 has lost something significant with the lackluster noise and volume of these modern hybrid setups.
When you talk about attravting manufactuers, You cannot isolate the 2026 engine regs without looking at the wider picture. The atrention and stock of F1 had risen dramatically since Netflix's drive to survive and the new budget cap. Audi for example was already doing MGUH in its Leman cars. I don't think the engine regs was the only factor in attracting them. For Chevy... Well.. It was other factors as well.
It may not strictly have been the only factor, but it was certainly the most critical one that got them to the table with serious interest in the first place.
In YOUR opinion. My participation comes from working trackside at Silverstone. The current F1 cars are loud but not too loud and have a throaty bass and midrange not conveyed on TV as well as a complex sound with more than just the basic ICE sounds you get from other configurations.
Compared to historic F1 cars that are too loud with an ear piercingly high pitched scream that requires hearing protection even inside buildings next to the track.
Of course that is all in MY opinion.
Neither is right, neither is wrong and both are valid.
But you cannot surely tell me that the sound on TV is the same as in person, because that is empirically not the case.
You keep thinking this is an argument of my opinion vs your opinion.
I'm saying that my opinion is going to be so widely and obviously way more popular than yours among F1 fans. And of more casual fans that simply care less about it, again, they aren't going to be upset if the cars get louder and more visceral sounding.
I cant stress enough how much the loud, impressive sounding cars at Goodwood are what put smiles on people's faces there. And it's not like it's some unique era I'm referring to - basically any era of F1 had way better sounding engines than these modern ones. These current hybrid V6's are just, in a relative sense, supremely disappointing.
You have a point somewhere, or you're just being toxic as usual?
With not so much noise drowning out everything you actually hear stuff happening. But I guess that's beyond your comprehension.
yes, just like electric guitar, if you play it without the amplifier, you can actually hear the sound of guitar pick and fingers sliding on the strings. That is what music fans are missing.
Bring back the natural aspirated V10 with synthetic fuels.. TJI+port injection. Variable geometries.. and hybrid.. And we will be having a whale of a time!
A big fat slugghish whale.
The cars will be back in the 600kg to 650kg range hopefully.
all single-phase electric motors 'yank round the rotor' - in essence that was my point
brushed motors are of course 'noisy' in electromagnetic radiation terms ie they tend to cause interference
The types of motors use for automotive applications are esentially noiseless, compared to other parts.
The best example I can think of is this: ElectricRaceAbout. It has direct drive layout (wheel motors, so it's as direct as it gets), and on footage you hear all sorts of sounds from the chassis, tires, air, but not motor noise.
I misspoke when I talked about reluctance motors. The noise is apparently "from the high frequency radial force on the stator", which I don't know how results in noise. Maybe the coils rattle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd-5vlgyPdY
Brushed motors are noisy as hell, not just in the electromagnetic sense.
lengthening the lines eg offshore windfarms means increasing the losses (or doubling/tripling the metal per mile)
eg the UK says it will quadruple its grid capacity to double the amount of electricity transported
Sure you need more metal to keep the same amount of losses. Though 2quadrupling capacity to double electricity" seems to be obscenely big nonsense.
(BTW Renewable and nuclear is not really comparable with thermal powerplants.)
Net Zero is by law Net Zero of Greenhouse Gas emissions (only) ......
but ....'Global Warming' is also caused by direct heat emission eg energy lost as 'waste' heat ...
eg the 'cooling' losses from thermal power generation (often 60-70% - nuclear power being the worst) ...
nuclear 'power' (with transmission losses) in (non-heatpump) electrical heating makes 20% as much GW as gas heating
(incl nuclear fuel still heating the globe years after the fuel rods are 'spent') ....
also wind farms produce large-scale (not global) warming - their losses being c.35% (plus the losses in transmission)
There's a reason no-one ever mentions this. Because it's nothing compared to what gasses in the atmosphere might result in. Especially because gasses stay around in the atmosphere for years/millennia. Thermal inefficiency is a one-off waste of a tiny amount of energy, in comparison.
Bring back the natural aspirated V10 with synthetic fuels.. TJI+port injection. Variable geometries.. and hybrid.. And we will be having a whale of a time!
A big fat slugghish whale.
The cars will be back in the 600kg to 650kg range hopefully.
If you swap a NA V10 instead of the current turbo V6 and keep hybridization, weight can only surge. Both by the engine and fuel.
it's what I said it is in my sentence above that you have quoted and responded to .... but (as usual) have not read
Alright then... It's extremely insignificant in comparison to atmospheric greenhouse gas buildup. (Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I didn't read.)
Last edited by mzso on 26 Jul 2025, 22:11, edited 1 time in total.
If your point holds true why do 911 Carrera Cup and 911 GT3 use the inferior performing naturally-aspirated flat-six?
Maybe part of his point is that you're not a purist. (Not that anyone defined "purist")
And you're just simply motivated by nostalgia and hollow sentiment.
What has that got do with why the Carrera Cup and GT3 Porsche 911s use the 4.2 NA engine instead of the 3.0 twin-turbo one (or even the 2.0 or 2.5 single turbo flat-four)?
You didn't answer the question of why Porsche uses the naturally aspirated engine in those vehicles.
IMO, this clearly demonstrates that a naturally aspirated engine can provide sufficient power, drivability, reliability, economy and simplicity at an acceptable package weight.
Some makers are even trying their luck with naturally aspirated engines in Hypercar for crying out loud, not just in GT3! Not to say it is a good solution to the rules, but Cadillac and Aston Martin are willing to try it anyway...
yes, just like electric guitar, if you play it without the amplifier, you can actually hear the sound of guitar pick and fingers sliding on the strings. That is what music fans are missing.
It would probably be a good idea to use an acoustic guitar with sound hole instead!
And you're just simply motivated by nostalgia and hollow sentiment.
What does that even mean?
Vehicles from peak ICE like the Lexus LFA naturally aspirated V10 are very enjoyable to drive, their modern V6 twin-turbo equivalents like say a McLaren Artura or Ferrari 296 are faster but simply not more enjoyable.
If the ICE is bland and unenjoyable, then you may as well forget the ICE and have a nice fully electric supersportscar (or Formula car) instead, surely?
~30 lowly Civic Type R econoboxes, just like my road car, go out there every few weekends in the UK Civic Cup with their peak ICE era 2.0L naturally aspirated engines after all. Would the contemporary Honda 1.5L turbo engine produce the same ~220 PS power at a slightly lower package weight, possibly (with the narrower low-friction bearings, weaker conrods, silly Ford Ecoboost coolant slit and everything, there is lot less reserve margin though).
But since the good ol' K20 (the old non-turbo version) already does the job and meets any relevant targets of power, drivability, reliability, economy and simplicity - reliability and simplicity being the most important ones in a low-budget club racing class, then why change?
Is this untenable nostalgia? Stuck 25 years in the past (debut of the Honda K20 in 2000)? Maybe.
But I had a Megane RS 265, more of a modernish twin-scroll turbo and the updated 1980's F4RT engine was awful. The ICE was effective but not nice, not nice at all. That car would have so much better with a good ol' Renault NA V6, and even the NA F4R in the Clio RS 197/200 would have been better and more enjoyable...
The K20 is so much nicer to drive, so much more enjoyable & more satisfying, I could not care less that it is slower!
Last edited by JordanMugen on 26 Jul 2025, 23:49, edited 2 times in total.
If you swap a NA V10 instead of the current turbo V6 and keep hybridization, weight can only surge. Both by the engine and fuel.
Nah. The engine, gearbox and coolers is way heavier.
You can easily bring back refuelling which is another topic... (but I am in favour of refuelling).
You say, "nah" but then you apparently agree.
And bringing back refuelling is more useful if you don't make stuff heavier in the first place.
The cars were lighter even after refuelling was banned.
The battery itself is 20Kg or so.as it always was since 2009. The turbo engine, it's coolers and thicker parts are the issue here.
It's obvious that the cars will be significantly lighter going to NA with light hybrid. I only mentioned refuelling as something i think would bring more excitement to race strategies.
Bravo.
