Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 18 votes

Horrible 2014 sound [merged]


  • Please log in to reply
3391 replies to this topic

#3151 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 101 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 12 July 2014 - 03:04

They have to use the same 8 ratios for Monza as they do for Monaco.

 

So, if they can use 8th gear in Monaco it will be low in the rev range - well below 10,000rpm. At Monza they will be pulling 12,000rpm in the same gear, or more.

 

I doubt anyone actually used 8th at Monaco, and rarely atthe other circuits so far.

 

In previous years they had one less gera, 7 in total. But they could change the ratios and/or the final drive to suit each circuit. This year they are stuck with what they've got.

 

Yes, you are right.  I was thinking they could still change ratios when ever they wanted.  Now they can only change the set of ratios once per season.

 

I suspect they simply do not use 8th gear at the slow tracks.  But they still have a gear for each speed range.  They would not drive around at low RPM when they have a lower gear if they were racing, they might do it to save fuel though.  So I don't see where that implies any thing about the power band really.



Advertisement

#3152 Wes350

Wes350
  • Member

  • 68 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 12 July 2014 - 06:04

I still have a hard time understanding how FOM can be so much worse than a fan with a phone trackside:

 

 

THAT sounds very cool. I like it.

 

An almost Sci-Fi sound to the cars as they pass at speed.

 

Why wouldn't they do more to get that on their broadcasts???

 

Too busy trying to get shots of the crowd and drivers girlfriends I suppose...



#3153 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,298 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 July 2014 - 11:03

Because the rules have limited the maximum amount of fuel and the broadcasters have sometimes highlighted drivers fuel saving the assumption is that they are driving around trying to save fuel.

The reality is that, at least for most races, they spend no more time fuel saving than at any tiem since refuelling was banned.

Over the past several years the teams have rarely, if ever, actually put enough fuel in the cars to complete the race distance at full power. In some instances, like Malaysia 2013, teams have miscalculated (Mercedes thought that the GP would be wetter, therefore slower and less fuel would be required).

In some races this year the teams have not even bothered to put in a full 100kg of fuel. Williams, notably, never seems to be in danger of using 100kg of fuel during a race.

Also, the 8 gears are for every race this year.

From Monza and Spa, to Monaco.

The fact that soem teams have used 8th on tracks not as fast as Monza would suggest that they have a very wide power band. Lewis Hamilton commented in testing that he coudl take hairpins in 4th or 5th gear....possible because of the power band.


Whilst I agree that there had always been fuel saving going on I do think it's more severe now than previously. I didn't notice it too much on TV but it was very noticeable when sat at Silverstone last week. The length of time off throttle at corner entry was a surprise and braking far less severe than I can ever remember.

#3154 JHSingo

JHSingo
  • Member

  • 1,159 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 12 July 2014 - 12:28

 

They don't watch to get premenantly damaged hearing of course, but the loudness and the way the sound went through your body is still something that could be enjoyed.

 

What is the first thing someone who goes to a rock concert tells you? How loud it was or how it felt to be near a big speaker, F1 is no different.

 

 

 

I guess it is just a personal thing. I once went to a rock concert and found it a deeply unpleasant experience. It was far too loud, the booming nature of the speakers made me feel ill, and by the end of it I was highly relieved to get out of such a hot and claustrophobic environment. Afterwards, I told myself never again. So for me, I don't need to be deafened at a race track to have a good time. If the main thing you want from F1 is loud engines, there's plenty of alternative racing series to choose from.


Edited by JHSingo, 12 July 2014 - 12:28.


#3155 4MEN

4MEN
  • Member

  • 1,556 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 12 July 2014 - 12:46

THAT sounds very cool. I like it.

 

An almost Sci-Fi sound to the cars as they pass at speed.

 

Why wouldn't they do more to get that on their broadcasts???

 

Too busy trying to get shots of the crowd and drivers girlfriends I suppose...

This take shows speed but not advertising nor sponsors.



#3156 Tourgott

Tourgott
  • Member

  • 328 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 13 July 2014 - 15:14

 

This moment when you suddenly love the V6. Hilarious  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:



#3157 AlanK

AlanK
  • Member

  • 61 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 13 July 2014 - 22:40

Ha ha. Thats like a giant Scaletrix set.

 

As for the F1. Been visiting Silverstone since 1987. Loved the sound this time around. At the entry to Abbey the sound was amazing especially the Marussia. Sat on the terracing at the exit of Luffield was equally impressive. Becketts and Copse were also good especially on the exit as the cars struggled for grip and the full exhaust note kicked in.

 

It obviously hasn`t put people off. The 3rd largest ever weekend gate and ticket sales already up for next year. This may suprise some people but its not a noise contest. Its not obligatory for F1 cars to be louder that GP3 or GP2. In fact they sounded antiquated compared to the F1 technology.

 

It is what it is and one day it will change again. If you don`t like it, don`t go. Attendance figures suggest you won`t be missed!



#3158 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,400 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 14 July 2014 - 07:24

I've always thought that to be a mainly British problem. Move next a racing circuit, airport\airfield etc. etc and then complain about the noise, utterly stupid.

 

It is very Dutch as well. Zandvoort, Assen and the airport @ Schiphol all suffer from it.



#3159 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,489 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 14 July 2014 - 12:50

It is very Dutch as well. Zandvoort, Assen and the airport @ Schiphol all suffer from it.

 

Even Monza has had that problem.



Advertisement

#3160 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,788 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 14 July 2014 - 12:57

Ha ha. Thats like a giant Scaletrix set.

 

As for the F1. Been visiting Silverstone since 1987. Loved the sound this time around. At the entry to Abbey the sound was amazing especially the Marussia. Sat on the terracing at the exit of Luffield was equally impressive. Becketts and Copse were also good especially on the exit as the cars struggled for grip and the full exhaust note kicked in.

 

It obviously hasn`t put people off. The 3rd largest ever weekend gate and ticket sales already up for next year. This may suprise some people but its not a noise contest. Its not obligatory for F1 cars to be louder that GP3 or GP2. In fact they sounded antiquated compared to the F1 technology.

 

It is what it is and one day it will change again. If you don`t like it, don`t go. Attendance figures suggest you won`t be missed!

 

I don't think the ticket numbers being high is a surprise considering there was such a strong possibility of a British winner.

 

 



#3161 Tourgott

Tourgott
  • Member

  • 328 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 14 July 2014 - 15:58

It obviously hasn`t put people off. The 3rd largest ever weekend gate and ticket sales already up for next year. This may suprise some people but its not a noise contest. Its not obligatory for F1 cars to be louder that GP3 or GP2. In fact they sounded antiquated compared to the F1 technology.

 

            #3126            



#3162 Fonzey

Fonzey
  • Member

  • 232 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 14 July 2014 - 18:16

THAT sounds very cool. I like it.

 

An almost Sci-Fi sound to the cars as they pass at speed.

 

Why wouldn't they do more to get that on their broadcasts???

 

Too busy trying to get shots of the crowd and drivers girlfriends I suppose...

 

The FOM coverage sucked during the V8s too, the trackside sound was FAR better than anything FOM produced, even through mobile phones etc. It's more damaging now because the V6s have got more subtle qualities in their soundtrack, IMO.



#3163 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,265 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 15 July 2014 - 09:42

I still have a hard time understanding how FOM can be so much worse than a fan with a phone trackside:

 

Indeed and why don't we get some camera angles like that as well that really give the impression of speed?



#3164 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,298 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 15 July 2014 - 11:01

Indeed and why don't we get some camera angles like that as well that really give the impression of speed?

Because you don't a lovely view of the trackside advertising.



#3165 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 101 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 15 July 2014 - 13:41

 

Too busy trying to get shots of the crowd and drivers girlfriends I suppose...

 

Funny, I don't mind at all when they show the drivers girlfriends.



#3166 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,265 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 15 July 2014 - 13:48

Because you don't a lovely view of the trackside advertising.

True, but you might get more people watching to see the advertising in the wide shots.



#3167 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,811 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 July 2014 - 19:15

Because you don't a lovely view of the trackside advertising.

 

Little to prevent an ad on the back side of the guard rail or on the opposite side, in that particular camera position. And there would not have to be a pillar right through Emirates.  I'm pretty sure there would be solutions if anyone could be bothered at all.


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 15 July 2014 - 19:16.


#3168 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,489 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 16 July 2014 - 02:20

Whilst I agree that there had always been fuel saving going on I do think it's more severe now than previously. I didn't notice it too much on TV but it was very noticeable when sat at Silverstone last week. The length of time off throttle at corner entry was a surprise and braking far less severe than I can ever remember.

 

Thinking about this, it may not have been fuel saving, as such. It may have been harvesting for the ERS.

 

A while ago I calculated, very roughly, the amount of energy that could be recovered under braking. Silverstone was by far the lowest total. as low as 3/8 of the allowed limit.

 

The early lift off may be an attempt at topping off the energy store, with the team calculating that the benefit of extra ERS usage is greater than the loss of time in braking zones.



#3169 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 16 July 2014 - 07:24

Thinking about this, it may not have been fuel saving, as such. It may have been harvesting for the ERS.

 

A while ago I calculated, very roughly, the amount of energy that could be recovered under braking. Silverstone was by far the lowest total. as low as 3/8 of the allowed limit.

 

The early lift off may be an attempt at topping off the energy store, with the team calculating that the benefit of extra ERS usage is greater than the loss of time in braking zones.

 

 

 

Thinking along that line....  Monza could well become very, very interesting ......

 

Henri



#3170 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,298 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 16 July 2014 - 09:52

Thinking about this, it may not have been fuel saving, as such. It may have been harvesting for the ERS.

 

A while ago I calculated, very roughly, the amount of energy that could be recovered under braking. Silverstone was by far the lowest total. as low as 3/8 of the allowed limit.

 

The early lift off may be an attempt at topping off the energy store, with the team calculating that the benefit of extra ERS usage is greater than the loss of time in braking zones.

You could be right. Either way it does result in a dramatic decrease in the spectacle, and the cars being louder would not have improved things..



#3171 Madera

Madera
  • Member

  • 372 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 17 July 2014 - 01:23

I really miss this :(

https://www.youtube....h?v=5SoZiTxdQyw



#3172 Spinnekop

Spinnekop
  • Member

  • 46 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 18 July 2014 - 01:27

As I recall it, the restrictions and "stagnation" was due to the perceived need to slow the cars down and retain driver control over actions. This was done for safety reasons and to prevent so many circuits from becoming too small/tight/inadequate for the task at hand. For a time there certainly was fewer cubic metres of money floating around and that hampered the big, obvious strides.

 

There was still innovation and development, though. Reliability grew by leaps and bounds - not a small engineering feat. Engine revs soared into the 20K+ range and there was a lot of engine and fuel and lubrication development behind that. Then there's the dreaded "aero" stuff which gained back so much of the losses associated with the other restrictions. There are plenty of other examples. Most of this was not visible or sexy or even particularly desired, but it was there. I cannot comment on LMP but they had their formula and F1 had theirs.

 

Comment 2614 misses my point (but may nail others). The past had much to admire as does the present, and, I hope, the future. Alas "change" doesn't mean "good change" and for many the engine howl of the recent past is sorely missed. I will judge the current sound when I hear it live (very soon!). I'm sure those that sneer at howl-lovers complain about other things that the present has to offer - double points, DRS, assigned driver numbers - take your pick from a long list - which you did by complaining about technical stagnation. Obviously not everything the FIA causes meets with everyone's approval.

 

As an aside I find this whole "F1 is the pinnacle" thing a rather recent invention. Every race series runs to a formula, even if it is not in the name. Formula 1 was simply the open wheel/open cockpit formula that was at the top end. Formula Ford, Formula 3, Formula 2, Formula 1. Plus all the other (Atlantic, Inter-Continental, Tasman, etc.) in between. It was the pinnacle because of where it sat in the order of things, not because it had to have the latest tech, or the biggest audience, or the best drivers (some of the best ran Le Mans, CanAm, etc.). Now F1 has to be the pinnacle of everything (speed, technology, motor sport, development, racing, and on and on) and it is becoming more and more an artificial and the audience is becoming increasingly polarized (witness so many debates on the Atlas forums). Anyway, back to the topic at hand...

 

 

Actually F1 as the pinnacle is not a recent thing at all.  Colin Chapman dubbed it the pinnacle a long time ago and he was probably not the first.

 

"Formula 1 should be the pinnacle of motor racing. It should have the minimum of parameters controlling performance. There are only four parameters which control a racing car; one is the power from the engine; the second is the aerodynamical download it can produce; the third is the amount of grip which can be obtained by the tyres and the fourth is the weight." - Colin Chapman

 

Also, Formula 1 is named "1" because it was the first formula for open wheeled racing with the others following on.  It has been Formula 1 since the 1940's.

:up: Howzit guys been offline for a bit so have enjoyed catching up with the discussion.

 

Good assesments there. I referred to F1 needing to be the pinnacle sport, by that I meant the cars should be the most challenging, exciting open wheel series that only the very best drivers can do well in, For that reason if a racing driver manages to get into F1 he has reached the highest level of his potential career, no question about it.

 

Back when Colin Chapman said that the F1 cars were not even the fastest race cars around, they were easily trumped in power and speed by the sports racers but it was still the ultimate formula. As mentioned rarely have F1 cars had the most new and advanced drivetrains out there but thats not the point of racing after all. Also the beautifull and ingenius engineering that went into the engines of the 90's was not obvious but amazing.

 

As a marketing exercise F1's product appeal is based on manufacturers having their brand associated with the sport. Having a sensible and sociably responsible drive train that doesn't excite removes some of the aspirational knock on effect car companies are looking for. The powers that be have somehow lost their flipping minds and shot themselves in the foot.

 

If having the latest tech defines what makes a car special then a Prius is a more aspirational road car than a Ferrari F40, Porsche Carrera GT or McLaran F1? :drunk:  Thank goodness my Alfa has broken so I can finally get a Honda Jazz, My palms are getting sweaty already in anticipation of all that excitement.... oooh so sensible  ;) 



#3173 TurboF1

TurboF1
  • Member

  • 748 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 18 July 2014 - 04:06


 
This moment when you suddenly love the V6. Hilarious  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:


At 33-36 seconds, THAT'S what I call flexible bodywork :lol: ;)

#3174 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,265 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 18 July 2014 - 08:09

 

If having the latest tech defines what makes a car special then a Prius is a more aspirational road car than a Ferrari F40, Porsche Carrera GT or McLaran F1? :drunk:  Thank goodness my Alfa has broken so I can finally get a Honda Jazz, My palms are getting sweaty already in anticipation of all that excitement.... oooh so sensible  ;)

I don't see what's so aspirational about those cars, pretty much any road car will do a much better job on the road and you're much better off with a proper race car on the track. 

 

Their only function is to show how much money you have or to compensate for penile inadequacy. Normally both.


Edited by Lazy, 18 July 2014 - 08:10.


#3175 electro

electro
  • New Member

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 18 July 2014 - 16:01

Just got back from Friday practice at Hockenheim, and though I really hate to admit it (since I really do find the new engines/tech interesting & really don't care for the whole "F1 was better back then" sentiment), the cars are just not that exciting sounding. The last races I went to were in the V10 era, and the visceral bone chilling feeling you got  from the insane sound of those engines really was a totally different experience from what I saw today.



 



#3176 Spinnekop

Spinnekop
  • Member

  • 46 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 19 July 2014 - 13:43

I don't see what's so aspirational about those cars, pretty much any road car will do a much better job on the road and you're much better off with a proper race car on the track. 

 

Their only function is to show how much money you have or to compensate for penile inadequacy. Normally both.

OK good point there maybe not the best example. Good thing I'm riding a scooter at the moment then :lol:



#3177 KTownDevil

KTownDevil
  • Member

  • 164 posts
  • Joined: February 14

Posted 20 July 2014 - 18:23

Back from Hockenheim.

 

The sound was really bad, never seen so many people without ear protection. 



#3178 RockyRaccoon68

RockyRaccoon68
  • Member

  • 1,434 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 20 July 2014 - 18:50

Just back from Hockenheim and the cars sound just fine. Quieter but it detracted nothing from my experience.

That being said, the grandstands in the stadium section are very close to the track, when the cars were any distance away at all they were very very quiet indeed. I imagine the sound is much more of an issue at the more open tracks.

#3179 Vepe1995

Vepe1995
  • Member

  • 105 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 20 July 2014 - 19:55

Back from Hockenheim.

 

The sound was really bad, never seen so many people without ear protection. 

 

Was the sound bad (meaning the actual sound, not loudness) or just not loud enough (which is what I presume you mean, judging from your comment about ear protection)?



Advertisement

#3180 KTownDevil

KTownDevil
  • Member

  • 164 posts
  • Joined: February 14

Posted 20 July 2014 - 19:58

Was the sound bad (meaning the actual sound, not loudness) or just not loud enough (which is what I presume you mean, judging from your comment about ear protection)?

 

Both. They sound like an vacuum cleaner, not spectacular at all. Everyone around me was pretty disappointed. We loved the GP2 cars, much better.



#3181 ApolloBluecat

ApolloBluecat
  • New Member

  • 23 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 20 July 2014 - 20:02

Why do people get so hooked up on the sound the cars make?

 

They need to look at the racing and if it's good and close.... then is that not more important?



#3182 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 763 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 21 July 2014 - 06:01

Why do people get so hooked up on the sound the cars make?

 

They need to look at the racing and if it's good and close.... then is that not more important?

 

 Impressive sounds stir the imagination and visceral edge of watching a "battle".

 

 For those that continue to want to be bemused in this thread in which that idea means nothing - I can't understand.  

 

 My town hosted the National Southern Nationals drag boat race this weekend, on the river located about half a mile away from my house.  They're running it about 2 miles downstream from where I live.

 

I could hear the eliminations from inside my house yesterday.  Impressive, even at the distance.  But I'm not into drag racing, or boats, and I had other things to do, so I was at home....

 

... but occasionally one would turn around down at my end of the river, and hit the throttle.  They're top fuel dragsters on water; the sound is like a more convoluted thunder, combined with more overtones, a subsonic roar.  Makes my German shepherd freak out, shakes the walls. 

 

Makes *me* want to go see them race.

 

I would have today, except it was a nasty, rainy day.  I've never gone to watch them, I've always had to be somewhere else, but I would have today - and the compelling reason would have been to see the machines that made that sound race.

 

 25,000 spectators bring in out of town revenue; not F1 or Augusta National $$$$$$ revenue, but revenue.   Lots of multi-million $ houses along the river near there, nobody seems to mind for one weekend a year, basically having a top fuel race in their backyards.  What if you lived literally on a top-fuel drag strip...?

 

 

augusta-southern-nationals.jpg

 

 

http://visitaugustag...n-nationals.jpg


Edited by chipmcdonald, 21 July 2014 - 06:03.


#3183 Tourgott

Tourgott
  • Member

  • 328 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 27 July 2014 - 10:43

Niki Lauda changed his opinion.

 

http://www.motorspor...n-14072709.html

 

 

"I have to agree with Bernie. We need louder sound."

 

:drunk:  :lol:  :up:



#3184 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 27 July 2014 - 14:52

Why do people get so hooked up on the sound the cars make?

They need to look at the racing and if it's good and close.... then is that not more important?


Because the sound is the only reason to go to the track.

No matter where you sit at the racetrack, you know that over 90% of the action is happening somewhere out of your vision. What good is close racing if you miss most of it? If you want to watch the racing stay at home and watch it on TV.

The main reason to go to the track was the one thing the TV couldn't replicate... The sound. Everything else regarding the racing the TV does better. Now the cars are too quiet and the grandstands are half empty. What is the point is spending thousands in tickets, food, accommodation, and travel cost, only to sit in half empty grand stands looking at the big screen as the cars quietly zip past almost unnoticed?

#3185 TheUltimateWorrier

TheUltimateWorrier
  • Member

  • 836 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 27 July 2014 - 14:55

Niki Lauda changed his opinion.

 

http://www.motorspor...n-14072709.html

 

 

"I have to agree with Bernie. We need louder sound."

 

:drunk:  :lol:  :up:

 

That's actually mistranslated.  What he actually said was, "I have to agree with Bernie. We need Lauda sound."  Lauda will use his sound effect talents and provide the engine noises.



#3186 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,458 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 27 July 2014 - 15:07

I'm used to the sound now. :)



#3187 nitrocosworth

nitrocosworth
  • New Member

  • 6 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 27 July 2014 - 20:49

I remember when I recorded the Australian Grand Prix, the one thing I noticed was that I could barely hear the power units. Parnelli Jones' 1967 Indy 500 car was louder than these atrocities.  



#3188 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,571 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 28 July 2014 - 09:55

Because the sound is the only reason to go to the track.
 

Speak for yourself.  I used to go to races DESPITE the noise, not because of it.  If it was so wonderful  why did half the crowd wear ear protection?

 

I remember when I recorded the Australian Grand Prix, the one thing I noticed was that I could barely hear the power units. Parnelli Jones' 1967 Indy 500 car was louder than these atrocities.  

Interestingly, this year Mark Hughes, the highly experienced and respected motorsport journalist, went to the Indy 500 and commented that Indycars are quieter than F1 cars now.  Yet we hear no moans from the Indycar fans about the sound.



#3189 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,265 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 28 July 2014 - 10:07

How can we complain when we are getting such excellent racing?



#3190 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 3,258 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 28 July 2014 - 10:21

They just need to change their sound level set up. They've got exactly the same levels, microphones etc as they had for V8's. Just needs some really clever people to get to work with setting up directional microphones and then get the mix right.



#3191 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 28 July 2014 - 11:07

I remember when I recorded the Australian Grand Prix, the one thing I noticed was that I could barely hear the power units. Parnelli Jones' 1967 Indy 500 car was louder than these atrocities.  

 

 

How could you make that comparisment? Did you ever hear Parnelli's car in real? (To be honest: I haven't either but I have heard a decent sound registration of it, as far as I know the only one in existance available to the public)

 

 

I think that a number of the loud noise F1 fans who would ever get the chance to hear that car in real  would do tho things:

 

first: wonder if they have gone deaf already.

Second: praise themselves that they are not and then burn that car off as being not a race car at all since it doen't produce even the sound the current cars.

 

 

Henri



#3192 AlexanderF1

AlexanderF1
  • Member

  • 77 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 28 July 2014 - 11:16

They just need to change their sound level set up. They've got exactly the same levels, microphones etc as they had for V8's. Just needs some really clever people to get to work with setting up directional microphones and then get the mix right.

totaly agree but also brodcasters aswell. for example on bbc they have there sound mix all wrong the commentator volume is really loud and car volume is really quiet and as a result we cant hear the cars . i do like the sound when watching onboard videos with no commmentary(because i can hear it) but during the race its annoying not being able to fully enjoy the sound with the commentators shouting over it.  

 

people saying indycar is quieter than f1 but onboard because of the twin turbos,twin exhausts and no hybrid systems they sound really angry onboard.



#3193 yasushi888

yasushi888
  • Member

  • 113 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 28 July 2014 - 12:48

How can we complain when we are getting such excellent racing?

Because it could have been excellent racing with great sound! If you add in good looking cars to it aswell I would have been tempted to fork out the money to go and watch the race live. Instead I watched on TV. What extra would I have got from going to this race in person?



#3194 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 29 July 2014 - 04:04

Speak for yourself.  I used to go to races DESPITE the noise, not because of it.  If it was so wonderful  why did half the crowd wear ear protection?

To protect their ears. But even with ear protection they were still louder then this years cars without. Many people would only put the ear protection in when the cars (or certain cars) went past, and then take them out so as to hear the cars on the other side of the track. 

 

If the sound was not the reason people went, why are the grand stands half empty at tracks that usually sell out? Why are more and more people who did go to a race this year now saying that they won't go back next year? Why are some of the people in F1 who defended the lack of sound now starting to say it may be an issue? 

 

It should be pretty clear that sound is a big seller. It is what blows people away at the track because it can't be replicated on TV and is unique. It is what creates an awe in regards to how powerful and brutal these machines are. It is what keeps you interested in the grand stands for 1 and a 1/2 minutes as the cars are on the other side of the track out of your view, yet you can still hear them. It is what builds anticipation as you can hear them getting louder and louder as they enter your seating area.  

 

If you were going to F1 races "despite' the sound, what where you actually going for? To watch the racing as others have claimed? You see more racing on TV. Why go to the track knowing that you will miss 90% of the racing as it is out of your view? And even when events happen right in front of you there is a 50/50 chance you weren't looking at that car at that moment. Is it to get close to the cars? Well today's tracks don't want you doing that, and unless you have money to burn you won't be getting close to the paddock either. Again, at least on TV you will get to see what is happening in the paddock, which is more than what 99% of fans at the track can say. So again, what is the big selling point of going to an F1 race these days? If you have never gone to one I could perhaps see the appeal. Maybe just to check it out for yourself or to say you have been to a race. But if you have been there before, what is there to see and not hear these days that you can't get more of from your TV?   



#3195 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,458 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 29 July 2014 - 05:54

Speak for yourself.  I used to go to races DESPITE the noise, not because of it.  If it was so wonderful  why did half the crowd wear ear protection?

 

 

I don't know... Racing cars are SUPPOSED to be loud.

 

Do you really prefer to watch Production Saloons or similar (where the rules require the use of standard exhausts that means the cars are bloody quiet) rather than the wall of thunder versus the banshee wail of the historic Mustangs & Camaros dicing with the historic Minis & Escorts in the historic touring class !???  :confused:



#3196 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,265 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 29 July 2014 - 06:16

 

If you were going to F1 races "despite' the sound, what where you actually going for? To watch the racing as others have claimed? You see more racing on TV. Why go to the track knowing that you will miss 90% of the racing as it is out of your view? And even when events happen right in front of you there is a 50/50 chance you weren't looking at that car at that moment. Is it to get close to the cars? Well today's tracks don't want you doing that, and unless you have money to burn you won't be getting close to the paddock either. Again, at least on TV you will get to see what is happening in the paddock, which is more than what 99% of fans at the track can say. So again, what is the big selling point of going to an F1 race these days? If you have never gone to one I could perhaps see the appeal. Maybe just to check it out for yourself or to say you have been to a race. But if you have been there before, what is there to see and not hear these days that you can't get more of from your TV?   

You can't be serious? The only reason to go to a live race is to hear loud noise? 



#3197 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,265 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 29 July 2014 - 06:24

I don't know... Racing cars are SUPPOSED to be loud.

 

Deuteronomy 4:12;11:

And the Lord spoke onto me saying "And thought shalt build racing cars and they shall be loud. Verily, should a man in your tribe shall build a racing car that is quiet, a curse will be upon him, his crops will whither and his cattle will die and his wife will be forever barren. Harbour not thoughts of efficiency and environment, for these are the temptations of Lucifer." 



#3198 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 29 July 2014 - 07:46

You can't be serious? The only reason to go to a live race is to hear loud noise?


Then just give a good reason as to why people go. But don't say anything that can be easily debunked. For example, don't say;

A) To see racing. Because if you want to see the racing watch it on TV. You will miss most of the action sitting at the track.
B) To see the cars up close. Because if you want to have a good look at the cars, again, watch it on TV. If you're at the track you'll be absolutely nowhere near the cars.
C) To know what is happening around the track. Because if you want to know what's actually happening, again, stay at home and watch it on TV. You will get pit reporters, people in the paddock, up to date weather forecast etc. Being at the track is putting yourself in an information vacuum.

Television coverage replaced being at the track for seeing racing years ago. Especially as being at the track has become less of an experience as years go on. Safety fences and seating positions make it hard to know what's going on even when the action is right in front of you. But at least you could still hear the cars.... At least until this year.

So go on, give a good reason as to why people cough up thousands of dollars for less of an experience than what they can already get at home. Because the only thing I can think of is the one thing that the television cannot and could never capture; The sound. It created the atmosphere of being at a race. Take that away, and what are you getting for your over priced ticket? The empty seats at recent races should give you your answer...

#3199 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,265 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 29 July 2014 - 08:12

Then just give a good reason as to why people go. But don't say anything that can be easily debunked. For example, don't say;

A) To see racing. Because if you want to see the racing watch it on TV. You will miss most of the action sitting at the track.
B) To see the cars up close. Because if you want to have a good look at the cars, again, watch it on TV. If you're at the track you'll be absolutely nowhere near the cars.
C) To know what is happening around the track. Because if you want to know what's actually happening, again, stay at home and watch it on TV. You will get pit reporters, people in the paddock, up to date weather forecast etc. Being at the track is putting yourself in an information vacuum.

Television coverage replaced being at the track for seeing racing years ago. Especially as being at the track has become less of an experience as years go on. Safety fences and seating positions make it hard to know what's going on even when the action is right in front of you. But at least you could still hear the cars.... At least until this year.

So go on, give a good reason as to why people cough up thousands of dollars for less of an experience than what they can already get at home. Because the only thing I can think of is the one thing that the television cannot and could never capture; The sound. It created the atmosphere of being at a race. Take that away, and what are you getting for your over priced ticket? The empty seats at recent races should give you your answer...

Well, if you don't know, I'm not sure anybody can explain it to you.

 

Why go to any live sporting event? All the same issues you've mentioned and very few of them have V10's to entertain those who lack the facilities to appreciate everything else that is on offer. 



Advertisement

#3200 yasushi888

yasushi888
  • Member

  • 113 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 29 July 2014 - 08:53

Although important I don't think the sound is the only thing about going to an F1 race. But over the years the live experience is getting less and less. I wasn't around then but I hear and I'm guessing 50's/60's/70's the smell used to be part of the experience, the oils, fuel etc. The crowd is being moved further and further back from the circuit and even worse stuck behind large catch fencing, the tickets are becoming more expensive, the crowds are becoming less everywhere dulling the atmosphere. For example when those stands are full at Hockenheim its a completely different atmosphere to how its been the last few years. Same at Monza you just don't see the kind of images you used to see of large crowds filling every possible gap around a circuit thus creating an atmosphere. I think the best thing that has happened for a while is moving the Monza podium over the circuit, Not sure why any new circuits in design do not try and involve the fans more in the podium ceremonies. What the hell has Silverstone done with its new pit complex? Fans can't even see half of the pitlane let alone get near it. 

Of course being there no matter what is still different to watching on Tv and you see things and pick up on things that you wouldn't otherwise be able to. But back to the sound I think this was the biggest difference to watching a race on Tv and being there.

 

Do you think in 20 years time this same thing will be done with a Hamilton or Alonso's 2014 V6 lap around Suzuka???

https://www.youtube....h?v=7W-hC2HC5Sk