F1technical.net

Here's the voiceprint of the part between the start of the first braking zone and before the braking into second chickane



Note what appears to be a linear rpm increase at the final gear. The same is in all parts where it is used. This seems stange, as naturally the acceleration would decrease over time, so the shape should be curved somewhat.
Also, at 0:45 and 1:05 there strange "rev ups".

At the main straight I found a point where frequency reaches 371Hz so the revs are just below 15k.

As for "swoosh" sound, I listened in my Stax headphones and found basically two types of noises -- engine revving noise which changes pitch and constant background noise that doesn't change pitch and which sounds like air compressor. IMO the latter is cooling/ventilation. I do not hear turbine whistle or anything like.

The are some digitalness in the file, especially when it goes into top gears, which maybe from youtube compression (which is horrible) but may also be because of file manipulation. The linear rev increase puzzles me greatly.

If one consider how easily Timbo could make frequency-analysis, why in the world would MHPE give Rpm-info like that away?

Just the same smokescreen as their MGU-H and Renault's xhausts and giant intercooler if you ask me.

rjsa wrote:Precious. =D>

What do you want to tell us?

Here is a comparison between 2013 and 2014 engines. Of course the frequencies doesn't matter but note how different is the shape of the final gear trace. IMO it shows that 2014 is at least "treated".

This is just straight out of my program, I haven't checked it yet (will do tomorrow when I've more time) and it's obviously first time I use it with a F1 turbo V6...



Assuming it's right, there's clearly lot of short shifting going on, as indicated by how linear the acceleration is even in the longest gear (meaning speed is quite distant from peak), and at how revs drop to 8.5k after upshifts, which doesn't make sense as power drops too much there due to fuel rate limitation. Going by the logic that teams should try to keep rpm above 10.5k or so to use full fuel rate, I would say the engine looks meant to rev up to 13.5k or so.

Obviously it's entirely possible that they "played" with sim/dyno data for example to artificially lower drag and/or used "fake" gear ratios, in order to mask real performance in case someone made a noise analysis...

As a matter of fact the total time of around 87 seconds looks a bit too good if coming from a "short shifting lap" as pole in 2014 was 84s...

Hmmm, needs a more accurate look, tomorrow...


Edit: timbo posted his graph as I was writing this...

Cool stuff timbo cool stuff =D>

Reca wrote:This is just straight out of my program, I haven't checked it yet (will do tomorrow when I've more time) and it's obviously first time I use it with a F1 turbo V6...

Looks like you have it still set on 8 cylinders=)

Reca wrote:Assuming it's right, there's clearly lot of short shifting going on, as indicated by how linear the acceleration is even in the longest gear (meaning speed is quite distant from peak)

Note that the trace is curved at the lower gears. Seems like only highest gear is "treated".

timbo wrote:

Reca wrote:This is just straight out of my program, I haven't checked it yet (will do tomorrow when I've more time) and it's obviously first time I use it with a F1 turbo V6...

Looks like you have it still set on 8 cylinders=)

Reca wrote:Assuming it's right, there's clearly lot of short shifting going on, as indicated by how linear the acceleration is even in the longest gear (meaning speed is quite distant from peak)

Note that the trace is curved at the lower gears. Seems like only highest gear is "treated".

Please excuse my ignorance what's treated mean???

pgfpro wrote:Please excuse my ignorance what's treated mean???

I meant that they either made something to the recording or used a different input/model for the final gear.

timbo wrote:Here is a comparison between 2013 and 2014 engines. Of course the frequencies doesn't matter but note how different is the shape of the final gear trace. IMO it shows that 2014 is at least "treated".

http://s11.postimg.org/slfw5e8sj/2013_2014engine.jpg

Hi Timbo, mind sharing what software you are using? I donwloaded SoundView for mac but can't open files with it, had to jump the mic and earphone in loop, less than optimal...

timbo wrote:

pgfpro wrote:Please excuse my ignorance what's treated mean???

I meant that they either made something to the recording or used a different input/model for the final gear.

Thanks!!!

It is strange at 0:45 and 1:05 the rev ups??? Sounds like a second power adder to me. That's why i ask earlier if it was the MGUK kicking in. Kicking in is probably not the correct wording because i know the MGUK will add power gradually so it won't upset the driver. But I don't think that when in high gear the engine can increase its rpm that fast with out some type of power adder or the MGUK???

rjsa wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:

rjsa wrote: I will argue the input data. You are comparing a V6 run recorded for publishing to a v8 run probably recorded from behind the insulated firewall. If you have on track experience you know that what we hear from onboard camera recording is way duller than what you get from the pipes at grand stand distances. Even the 20k+ V10s sounded muted from onboard. Just like that V8 dyno run.

The issue here was the perceived frequency by the spectator and whether it is influenced in pitch by a different exhaust routing. I think it was comprehensively shown that indeed separate exhaust systems for the two banks of a V-engine result to a lower pitch than common routing. In theory this was already known by the testimony of the Renault expert. Your criticism is now addressing the different damping and recording conditions of the two engines. In my opinion damping will not fundamentally change the frequency composition. It will primarily influence the amplitude. Hence I feel your criticism is not applicable. I leave it to our local expert to confirm that point ultimately.

WhiteBlue wrote:The sound is dead because the recording was on the dyno with the exhaust piped out at the roof. The dyno room is insulated so that you do not hear the exhaust as much as you would hear it outside. So be prepared to hear a much different sound later.

Precious. =D>

rjsa, you don't seem to realize that there is no contradiction.

F1technical wrote:Andy Cowell explains however that the sound in the clip is still very different to what it will be on track. A recording like this, from within an engine dynamometer produces noise distortion due to it being an isolated room with walls reflecting the noise. Additionally, exhaust fumes are directed out of the room through pipes, contrary to blowing in open air as is the case on track...

But because it's six cylinders firing into a single tailpipe, instead of four into each pipe on the current engines, the frequency will be very similar to the current 18,000 rpm. So we will have a similar frequency but lower volume because of the energy being recovered from the exhaust stream.

The first paragraph confirms my opinion that the sound we hear from the dyno file is damped in amplitude. We can still analyse the frequencies. It is the same as with the Renault sound file.

The second paragraph confirms the statement from Rob White - which you have attacked - that the exhaust routing impacts on how we perceive the pitch of the engine.

For me this is not as funny as it may be for you. I would expect a sensible discussion if you have something to criticise instead apparently having a go at ridiculing me.

ringo wrote:Some interesting reading:

maybe a wastegate wont be need, not sure, though this is for a generator/truck application.

steps to improve thermal efficiency:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesand ... easley.pdf

electric turbo compounding:
intro:
[urlhttp://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2002/session8/2002_deer_hopmann.pdf][/url]
development:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesand ... opmann.pdf

the improvement in fuel economy of 3 to 5% isn't what i expected. I guess this is based on their setup and intention.

granted a 3-5 % improvement doesn't seem, but in the transport industry that is a big deal, Just look at Walmart they have 7200 trucks, they get 6.5 MPG (industry best) the avg. truck covers 66,768 mil/year (US dept. Energy) and diesel cost $3.90/gal (US avg. this week) based on 3% savings, that amounts to a little over $8.5US million a year.
maybe not the best thing for a F1 car but for the trucks that transport them from track to track it's a good idea

bdr529 wrote:

ringo wrote:Some interesting reading:

maybe a wastegate wont be need, not sure, though this is for a generator/truck application.

steps to improve thermal efficiency:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesand ... easley.pdf

electric turbo compounding:
intro:
[urlhttp://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2002/session8/2002_deer_hopmann.pdf][/url]
development:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesand ... opmann.pdf

the improvement in fuel economy of 3 to 5% isn't what i expected. I guess this is based on their setup and intention.

granted a 3-5 % improvement doesn't seem, but in the transport industry that is a big deal, Just look at Walmart they have 7200 trucks, they get 6.5 MPG (industry best) the avg. truck covers 66,768 mil/year (US dept. Energy) and diesel cost $3.90/gal (US avg. this week) based on 3% savings, that amounts to a little over $8.5US million a year.
maybe not the best thing for a F1 car but for the trucks that transport them from track to track it's a good idea

Which is why the whole Green F1 engine is quite hypocritical when the F1 cars them self is not what pollutes the most in the F1 circus. Its the transportation of the teams and cars around the world using jets and trucks.

WhiteBlue wrote:
rjsa, you don't seem to realize that there is no contradiction.

F1technical wrote:Andy Cowell explains however that the sound in the clip is still very different to what it will be on track. A recording like this, from within an engine dynamometer produces noise distortion due to it being an isolated room with walls reflecting the noise. Additionally, exhaust fumes are directed out of the room through pipes, contrary to blowing in open air as is the case on track...

But because it's six cylinders firing into a single tailpipe, instead of four into each pipe on the current engines, the frequency will be very similar to the current 18,000 rpm. So we will have a similar frequency but lower volume because of the energy being recovered from the exhaust stream.

The first paragraph confirms my opinion that the sound we hear from the dyno file is damped in amplitude. We can still analyse the frequencies. It is the same as with the Renault sound file.

The second paragraph confirms the statement from Rob White - which you have attacked - that the exhaust routing impacts on how we perceive the pitch of the engine.

For me this is not as funny as it may be for you. I would expect a sensible discussion if you have something to criticise instead apparently having a go at ridiculing me.

It is there, in your quote: distortion. There is no technical discussion to be had if one selectivelly reads the words that suit his opinion, discarding the ones that do not. There is just plain spin doctoring what's said and written to suit one's agenda.