and for something entirely different.....Mp4/4

+2 [Am I allowed to +2 my own post?... ]

Hopefully, that'll get Toyota back too.... Rumors were they may be further advanced (2014 entry?) than Honda..... A *nice* PR lead if they could pull it off......

Then, I'm sure there's many Euro's and Eastern guys looking too - They're *way* ahead of anything we've seen here so far.

Meantime, there's a couple of WC's to be won......

Cheers,
Ian

 

The V10s win by a mile...

 

No one is buying that the V6 turbos were "much louder" than the the Ferrari V12.

+1000 I actually like it better than the 12

 

a little clarification

You had to be there

It's physics, a 1400bhp boom is greater than an 800bhp boom (even with turbo mechanism) as it escapes.

But don't take it from me or all the youtube commenters, take it from the guys who actually drove the cars and spanned both era's - Berger and Brundle for example


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWUo-IP1cec]Brundle Drives-1986 Lotus 98T - YouTube[/ame]


Berger - "Forget everything after", "the most spectacular time ever in Fromula1", and "those turbo's were rockets"

What are you going to tell Gerhard if he posted the same thing here, he's full of *****, because some young guys don't want it to be so. Berger drove the BMW inline4 in 1986, the most powerful of the turbo's, DON"T FORGET he also drove the 3.5l 1994 Ferrari V12, he also drove Honda V12's and V10's and drove the 1997 Renault V10. (just about the same with brundle)

take me out of the equation, a middle-aged turbo era fanboy, listen to the experts

 

I think this may help on the science front;




read this (courtesy physicsclassroom)
"The more energy that the person puts into the pulse, the more work that he/she will do upon the first coil. The more work that is done upon the first coil, the more displacement that is given to it. The more displacement that is given to the first coil, the more amplitude that it will have. So in the end, the amplitude of a transverse pulse is related to the energy which that pulse transports through the medium. Putting a lot of energy into a transverse pulse will not affect the wavelength, the frequency or the speed of the pulse. The energy imparted to a pulse will only affect the amplitude of that pulse."

then this
Intensity and the Decibel Scale







Though the frequency of the V12 and V10's is different because of the rpm's being higher, the bottom line is the POWER creating the sound wave

1400 > 900

 

+1

 

This is so wrong it's not even worth responding to.

One problem: Berger is talking about power, not sound. To say that the turbo cars were "much louder" than the V12s or V10s is not only ridiculous, it's completely untrue.

I can't understand why you get so pissy when someone says a different engine sounded better or was louder than the turbos.

You got all bitter for some reason when I said the 2004-05 cars are king and would lay waste to the turbo era cars (FACT).

In addition, the original video posted in this thread sounds like ****. Child's play compared to a V10 or V12. Hell...even a V8.

 

Provide some science to back up your wish.

I don't. I saw Remy Zero's opinion yesterday and did not respond. He is entitled to it and I could care less. But you quoted me directly and continue talking about cars that I believe you have never heard. ##### Only 15 seconds worth of tape ######exists to my knowledge that can give someone who wasn't there a slight impression of what they were like. Whereas I have heard many different N/A F1 engines.

How old were you in 1986?

I have never argued against facts and admit that the 86 "cars" would be beaten, but not the engines. I myself pointed out that on the identical track the 94 cars were faster by over 5 seconds than the 86 YET slower on top end. engine's weaker but cars much better


From Ian; (monza times)

76; 41.35 Laffite, Ligier
77; 38.08 Hunt, Mclaren Ford
78; 37.530 Mario Lotus Ford
79; 34.580 Jabouille Renault
80; 33.988 Arnoux Renault
81; 33.467 Arnoux Renault
82; 28.472 Mario, Ferrari
83; 29.122 Patrese, Brabham BMW
84; 26.584 Piquet, Brabham BMW
85; 25.084 Ayrton, Lotus Renault
86; 24.078 Teo Fabi, Benetton BMW
87; 23.460 Piquet, Williams Honda
88; 25.974 Ayrton, Mclaren Honda
89; 23.720 Ayrton, Mclaren Honda
90; 22.533 Ayrton, Mclaren Honda
91; 21.114 Ayrton, Mclaren Honda
92; 22.221 Mansell, Williams Honda
93; 21.179 Prost, Williams Renault
94; 23.884 Alesi, Ferrari [Track layout changed a little]
95; 24.462 Coulthard, Williams Renault [Track change again]
96; 24.204 Damon Hill, Williams Renault
97; 22.990 Alesi, Benetton Renault
98; 25.298 Schu, Ferrari [Grooved tires, less aero]
99; 22.432 Mika, Mclaren Merc
00; 23.770 Schu, Ferrari
01; 22.216 JPM, Williams BMW
02; 20.264 JPM, Williams BMW
03; 20.963 Schu, Ferrari
04; 20.089 Rubens, Ferrari
05; 21.054 JPM Mclaren Merc
06; 21.484 Kimi Mclaren Merc
07; 21.997 Fred, Mclaern Merc
08; 37.555 Sebby-V STR [WET]
09; 24.066 McHam, Mclaren Merc
10; 21.962 Fred, Ferrari
11; 22.275 Seb, RBR
12; 24.010 McHam, Mclaren Merc

The track changes set the cars back over 3 seconds and by 04 they clawed back over 3 seconds so 93 and 04 cars were performing roughly equal, seems to me that the Titans of F1;

for "cars" were the 93 Williams Renaults, called the most technologically advanced by the authors and team owners I have read or heard

for "engines" it is still no question that the 86 turbo qualifiers were the rockets

for "sound loudness" again the 86 turbo's packing air at 80 psi into those small combustion chambers are going to make a bigger louder pop than a N/A engine

for "excitement" - 86 again, watching the likes of Senna, Piquet et al mastering that much power w/o drivers aids and sliding the cars all over the corners was the peak of F1!

 

I think we're simply having to beg to differ on this.....

+1 However, it's a recursive argument; Bottom line, it was slower than the later cars. With less "technology" as it all been outlawed by then.....

+1 I remember well Ayrton coming towards us into Paddock at Brands; Awe inspiring doesn't start to describe the speed and noise that we *felt*.

Throw in the *narrowest* power band they've ever had, and it was quite something.

Cheers,
Ian

 

How old were you?

 

That's relevant to the discussion how, exactly?

IMO, the original Q could give some insight into the comment. Nothing whatsoever to do with the questioners age.

Cheers,
Ian

 

At the 86 Montreal GP I was 23 at the 84 i was 21

Ian helps me make the point here, if you were not at a race in 1986 you will never know what these cars sounded like and why is that?

The turbo's did have a very narrow powerband, all happening in the last 1500 rpm's under full boost. All the drives happening years later like the drive by Brundle in the video above or the Honda collections hall video's are done under minimal boost at modest rpm's with race engines NOT qualifiers, because these cars/engines are irreplaceable pieces of history and very few drivers were good enough to control that amount of power coming on that quickly.

Just like Marlboro Mclaren's real color was a flourescent pink in person yet appeared orange on TV coverage, the TV coverage of the time did not record the sound near accurately either because it was not capable of doing it or because they purposely avoided it to protect their equipment or viewers tv's. The only piece that comes close is that 15 seconds of Australian qualifying with jackie stewart holding the turbo's.

1986 was a time of extremes, that's why Berger says the drivers had to have balls and the cars were rockets. Extreme boost 5.5 bar, extreme fuel mixtures, extreme engines and tires that would only last a few laps, and extreme power and SOUND, 500 extra horsepower in Qualifying in a very narrow rev range.

If you were there, like I was and Ian was, you consider yourself very fortunate, if you weren't there you will never understand, so I will not bother trying to convince anyone anymore. (the new turbo's at half power will not come close)

 

Wish? It's reality. First off, how much horsepower an engine makes has nothing to do with how loud it is. Secondly, it's simply a fact that turbochargers muffle exhaust noise. Lastly, two banks of 5 cylinders each with its own exhaust outlet being revved to 19k+ RPM is going to make more noise than two banks of 3 cylinders each with the exhaust being muffled by a turbo.

You could look at it as noise level = difference between pressure in cylinder when the exhaust valves open vs atmospheric pressure. That includes speed of opening of valves and diameter and length of exhaust as well as frequency/rpm. Sound is a function of when something creates amplitude and frequency. If you take a look at a V10 Formula One exhaust, and it's five into one and you get extremely high frequency pulses for a short duration, which gives high amplitude and makes the cars extremely loud. Moreover, the human ear is most sensitive to high pitched sounds, so even if the V10s weren't louder, they would seem louder.

RPM plays a huge part, why do you think a 1991 F1 V12 is much louder than a 1970 F1 V12? RPM. Each time a piston goes up and down energy is released. Not all of that energy turns the crank, some has to escape out of the exhaust. Each "combustion" makes lots of noise in an unrestricted F1 exhaust. When you have an engine with a high number of cylinders revving at very high RPM, you get lots of explosions in the engine releasing lots of energy in a very short period of time.

A 19k RPM engine at the end of the V10 era is releasing massive amounts of energy 316 times per second with 10 cylinders whereas a turbo V6 does so 216 times per second with a mere 6 cylinders...and that's before you have any muffling effect from the turbo.

Obviously, one would have to take into effect noise from open wastegates, etc. but even accounting for that, I doubt the turbo motors were as loud as the V10s and there is no way they were "much louder" as you put it.

 

You are confusing frequency and amplitude, they are distinct, see the science pages I linked. There were always N/A engine running in the turbo days for comparison down 200bhp but still. An opera diva vs. Burl Ives. Charlotte Church vs Placido.

You are comparing a lot of smaller amplitude events to fewer but larger amplitude events. Like a string of firecrackers vs. a couple M80's. Or popping a bubble gum bubble vs. a water bottle. more pressure, more sound

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfc5wNClQpo]Franco Columbu blowing up a hot water bottle - YouTube[/ame]

enjoy your day, 1400 > 900 and always will be

 

I always loved the tach graphic showing how high each driver took their RPMs back in the day. Now it was replaced by a damn battery graphic. Sucks.

 

As I said above, we're simply going to have to beg to differ on the "best noise" question - They *all* sound pretty damn good up close & personal.....

Anyway, searching around a little turned up this little gem from our buddy Joe S - Explains a little and gives hope that all is not lost;

But, they'll still scream!

Cheers,
Ian
On the question of F1 noise | joeblogsf1

 

Personally, I don't even think the V8s sound all that great. They don't hold a candle to the 10s...they're loud but sort of flatulent. Had they not restricted RPM it would be better. We'd probably be seeing 25k RPM by now.

I'm looking forward to being able to hear some turbo noises. I'm sure they will sound fine, probably not as loud. I would would have higher hopes if they were allowing engine development. Shame they aren't. We could have seen real turbo monsters again.

 

Boost is easy to make power, 1400 out of a turbo V6 is nothing special or impressive. There's street driven Supras and GTRs putting down 1400 to the wheels out of a 3.0L I6 and 3.8 liter V6, respectively. Street cars.

900-1000 HP out of a 3.0L N/A engine, on the other hand, is a work of art. We all know which cars have the lap records. Enjoy your day

 

FWIW, a little caveat to the above; When Renault first appeared how we laughed at the silly Frenchmen!.... Silly little 1.5L motor ain't never gonna live with the V8's! And it did indeed sound like crap - Actually, I guess more truthfully, it didn't sound like much of anything initially.

They stuck with it and the rest is history; Suffice to say we weren't laughing for long and come the end I'd defy anyone who heard them to complain - They were nothing short of friggin' awesome! Not just the noise (which like the 10's, you felt as much as heard) but the speed at which they accelerated.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Ahh, so you never actually experienced 'em back in the '80's then? As I've said many times, until you get up close & personal (regardless of era) you just don't understand.

Trust me, they were *loud* & sounded just fine! May take 'em a while to get back there, but they will.

Cheers,
Ian

 

This is very true, but could any of these cars race for 200 miles at these boost levels without problems. Highly unlikely.

 

Good point but keep in mind the cars in the 80s could only do a few laps with the wick turned up before blowing up. For the race they turned the power way down.

 

I just listened to a pod cast interview by Peter Windsor of Remi Taffin in which Remi told Peter that they new turbo engines will be noticeably quieter than the current v-8s. If anyone should know how they will sound it should be the Head of Track Operations for Renault Sport. I am sure we will get used to it like we have with the silly front wings, but I still miss the scream of the Ferrari v12s from the early 1990s and the v10s from the early 2000s.

 

Every year the F1 turbo's were improving reliability and power, the REASON they turned down the power as much as they did was because TPTB kept lowering the fuel limits NOT because of engine reliability. Watch the San Marino GP in 1985, almost everyone ran out of gas, Prost was DQ'd for being light. 1985 had 220 liters for the race, 1986 went down to 195 liters total and 155 for 1988.

Yet they kept improving till 1987 which saw 1000hp in the race engines on limited fuel, the fuel being "rocket fuel" which was actually gelled toluene (from what I have read) The V10 "monsters" only broke the lap record by 1 mph and top speed (that we know of by 10 at Monza which is partly attributed to gearbox quickness and extra gear BUT mainly to aerodynamics, narrower cars and narrower tires. Much cleaner in the wind, don't forget Indy cars were lapping at 237mph avg in the mid 90's with comparably little down force. And who can forget what happens when you cover the wheels as in the 956 and 962 at LeMans where they hit near 250mph.

And found this in my reading -- "I remember Martin Brundle commenting in Motor magazine in 1986 that his Tyrrell-Renault turbo F1 car at Monaco had a drag coefficient of 0.98 and found that a 0.01 decrease in Cd improved his top speed by 2-3mph."
and
"Also the Honda V6 turbo in the 1987 Williams had 1200hp for qualifying too. Piquet did 352km/h at Monza with the wings using the Monaco set up for maximum downforce."

Compare - same venue, in-car recording 85 Turbo vs. 05 V10 BOOM vs. waaaaaahh


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciluwF47c-Y]Derek Warwick at Imola in Renault RE60 - YouTube[/ame]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK2uV9ApLts


I don't like the whiny sound of those very high rpm engines, they were not as powerful nor did they sound it. They sound like hair dryers to the bass of the 12,000rpm turbo's. 1986 and 1994 respectively were the high water marks for sound in F1.







wow (all this magnificent engineering when all they had to do was go buy a supra)
http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/DSC_9960.jpg
http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/DSC_9959.jpg
http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/Engine-Front.jpg
http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/Engine-In-1.jpg





http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/DSC03786.jpg
http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/P1010910.jpg