Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari, Albert Park, 2014

Raikkonen not happy with balance yet – Domenicali

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari, Albert Park, 2014In the round-up: Ferrari team principal Stefano Domenicali says Kimi Raikkonen is not happy with the balance of his car yet.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Stefano Domenicali: “It’s like the cat has to bite the tail…” (Adam Cooper’s F1 Blog)

“I think we need to help Kimi in trying to find the right balance with the car, helping him because he deserves that. I think there was an improvement during the days.”

Walker furious at the lack of GP ‘screams’ (The Age)

“I was absolutely delighted with the whole weekend, but I was not too happy with the sound. We are resolving that with Bernie. It’s clearly in breach of our contract. I was talking to him last night [Sunday] and it’s not what we paid for. It’s going to change.”

Teams may pay price for quieter F1, says Ecclestone (Reuters)

“We give the teams a percentage of the revenue we receive. So if we are receiving less revenue, whatever the case may be, certainly the teams wouldn’t get as much. So it’s going to cost them.”

F1 2013 vs 2014 sound comparison – Melbourne (YouTube)

Button ’emotional’ after podium finish (The Telegraph)

“This weekend has been an emotional one for me, and the support I’ve had has been brilliant. That being the case, it would have been a real bonus if I could have celebrated my third place from the podium, alongside Nico and Kevin. But I really feel for Daniel, who drove a great race in his first race for his new team, in front of his home crowd.”

Red Bull rivals followed FIA sensors (Autosport)

“On the back of clarifications made by the FIA earlier this month – making it clear that the fuel-flow rate being produced by the sensor would be the one that determined conformity with the regulations – no other team went down the Red Bull route and deliberately ignored the sensor reading.”

Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull, Albert Park, 2014Australian GP report by Mark Hughes (MotorSport)

“‘According to our analysis,’ said Red Bull’s Christian Horner, ‘we are losing a second per lap down the straights.’ One second per lap appeared to be the advantage Rosberg enjoyed over the Renault-powered Red Bull here. Rosberg admitted that, having earlier in the weekend worried about the fuel consumption, in the race it was not a concern. “I could see from quite early in the race that it wasn’t going to be a worry.”

Red Bull will be cleared: Paul Stoddart (The Sydney Morning Herald)

Daniel [Ricciardo] did not gain any advantage and that will be proven by Red Bull in their appeal.”

Australian Grand Prix – weighing the benefits from a state outlay of $58m (The Guardian)

“‘I don’t care if people like F1 or not, but let’s stop pretending it’s about the economy. People have a go at me and say ‘well, we subsidise the opera’. Well yes, we probably do, but the difference is the opera doesn’t claim it is in the best economic interests of Australia.”

Toro Rosso STR9 – cooling solutions (F1)

“The new 2014 power units mean all the teams have had to increase their cars’ radiator cooling, leading to some quite complex layouts. Toro Rosso’s is unique.”

UK supply chain keeps Formula One on track (FT, registration required)

“‘To be quite honest we don’t know what our parts are used for half the time,’ says Alan Rollason, managing director of ACE, a Shropshire company that makes parts for high performance engines.”

Maurice Hamilton: Papers miss bigger picture (ESPN)

“The 11-hour time difference did at least allow writers to wait for the stewards’ decision without worrying about missing the early editions of their paper, as would have been the case had the race been in Europe. As a result, all of the Monday dailies carried the story. The various interpretations literally made interesting reading.”

#ForzaMichael! – 17 March (Ferrari)

“Michael, we think and talk about you and your family every day, and we anxiously await good news from this, your greatest challenge of all. You have all of our support and best wishes in these dark days and we desperately hope for and look forward to happier times with all of our hearts. The Brundle family.”

Sky’s fortunes increase as BBC’s Australian Grand Prix ratings drop (The F1 Broadcasting Blog)

“Yes, a Sky gain of 73k is great for them, but if BBC loses nearly 200k, it eradicates whatever gain Sky is made.”

Revolutionising racing (The Way It Is)

“It will be fascinating to see how F1’s new world order takes shape after Ecclestone finally retires or is removed from the scene. Most longtime observers believe a gruesome power struggle will ensue among the team owners, CVC and the FIA that’s likely to do the sport more damage than good.”

Melbourne podium highlights the problem with GP2 (Duncan Stephen)

“Both Ricciardo and Magnussen cut their teeth in Formula Renault 3.5. For a long time, Formula Renault 3.5 has seemed like a better school for wannabe F1 stars than the Bernie Ecclestone-backed GP2 Series.”

Tata Communications powers Remote Operations for Formula 1 (Tata via YouTube)


Comment of the day

Red Bull’s dramas aside, how competitive are the world champions this year? Thoughts from @Estesark:

I’m not sure where Red Bull fit into the pecking order after all this.

Vettel had a software problem on his car, which should be resolved easily enough. Ricciardo appeared to have no problems at all – and excellent pace – until the stewards announced their decision to disqualify him.

I don’t understand why his team chose to ignore the rulebook, but if his fuel rate monitor really was faulty, perhaps they anticipated getting a working one for Malaysia and chose to use the race as a testing session. If that is the case, they could be much closer to the front than most people anticipated. On the other hand, if their monitor wasn’t faulty, then Ricciardo’s pace was misleading and they could be anywhere.

My instinct tells me it’s the former. If the team can sort out its reliability issues then more podium finishes are well within their grasp for the next few races.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Oskar!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

1994 F1 seasonOn this day 20 years ago Benetton confirmed Jos Verstappen would be Michael Schumacher’s team mate for the first race of 1994 in Brazil, JJ Lehto having not recovered sufficiently from his neck injuries.

Verstappen only had 52 race starts to his name at the time but Benetton had fended off interest from McLaren to sign him as their test driver.

Images © Ferrari/Ercole Colombo, Red Bull/Getty

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 123 comments on “Raikkonen not happy with balance yet – Domenicali”

    1. It’s “car”, not “cat”! Didn’t you read the article?

    2. Omar R (@omarr-pepper)
      18th March 2014, 0:11

      If Red Bull gets their appeal ok, that automatically means Ric gets his points back?

      1. And that automatically means everyone else was an idiot for listening to FIA? I don’t think that’s going to happen.

      2. Yes, he should.

      3. I hope Ricciardo will get his points back!

        At the 1995 Brazilian GP, Michael Schumacher (1st) & David Coulthard (2nd) got disqualified for fuel sample irregularities which promoted Gerhard Berger to 1st place. An appeal of the FIA decision followed and MSC & DC were reinstated to 1st and 2nd place months later. However, Benetton and Williams were stripped of their WCC points from the race.

        As an Aussie and a Ricciardo fan, this would be a pretty good outcome. But I feel that the FIA has a great case against Red Bull with evidence to suggest they actively ignored a directive from the FIA – I’m pessimistic.

        1. I think regardless if Red Bull can prove that they were within the limit, the FIA will want to make an example of all this right (as in, not matter what, do what we say!)?

          On another note, Ferrari must be shaking their heads, to have the advantage of building an all new power unit and chassis together, and then to be totally outclassed by Mercedes, and not only that, be slower than Red Bull (who are down on power and reliability at this stage in comparison)….they either have the wrong people on the team, or they were too negative about the rule changes, which impacted their attitude.

          1. I don’t know what makes you think RBR is faster than Ferrari, because only in the Quali and Race RBR managed to come out in front, but in Quali “special” conditions helped too. And the race was pretty dull in front, a procession. So far, Ferrari/Alonso was faster than both RBRs in every pre-Quali session. Fastest lap time of the race for each driver proves this too. I think we should wait another 2-3 races for a clearer picture.

        2. @frankus28

          It’s terrible for Ricciardo, but giving him his points back, but not Red Bull (as they did in ’95) would open the floodgates for all sorts of deliberate cheating in the later stages of the season. Imagine in theory, a team has already won the constructor’s championchip (or has no chance in improving the position), but still a stab at the driver’s championchip. Just run with an illegal fuel monitor (as an example), perhaps gain a serious advantage in certain moments of the race and then say “Ooops! But it wasn’t the driver’s fault…”
          In that case we would need to punish the same offense with two different measures. And that’s wrong. I hated the decision in 1995. Thankfully it had no impact on the order.

          It should be either all points, or no points. With Red Bull actively ignoring the FIA – this isn’t a case of argueing about ‘stretching the rules’ like usual – I have a hard time finding any justification to give the points back, even though it’s – as I said – a tough one of Ricciardo.

          1. Adesh Chetram (@)
            18th March 2014, 11:28

            It makes folowing the sport confusing and frustrating. We want consistency and a set of rules that are not open to interpretation. Not that this was the case. Here, a rule seems to have been broken.

      4. It’s not going to happen. You don’t troll the FIA and walk away scott free.

      5. If Red Bull get away with this, I assume that means that none of the teams have to follow the fuel cap anymore?

    3. I was not too happy with the sound. We are resolving that with Bernie.

      This just shows you that all the rich people live in the dream world. Is Bernie going to alter the laws of physics, making these engines produce more noise? Are they gonna rev them at 18000 rpm from now on? These people are ridiculous. And that’s sadly how most politicians think. Extremely declarative, with no goddamn idea about actually doing anything.

      1. Try not to be that quick to judge prople. “Talking with Bernie” could mean a lot things, from asking for rule changes to money compensations for the lost spectacle. The “that’s not what we paid for” makes me think it’s the latter.

        Don’t be that desperate to judge people and label them as idiots if you don’t really know what exactly is going on.

        1. It’s clearly in breach of our contract

          This is just pure headline grabbing nonsense – and possibly trying to cozy up to Bernie to help with negotiation of the next contract.

          When the last Australian GP contract was signed in 2010 the expectation was for an inline 4 cylinder engine revving to a maximum of 12,000rpm and similar turbo and energy recovery systems so if anything I would imagine the expectation would have been for even quieter power units when the contract was agreed.

          Bernie might like to think he makes the rules but he doesn’t and the current V6 turbos are thankfully here to stay for a good few years yet.

        2. I think you missed the “It’s going to change” at the end. That is pure arrogance and as sir OBE puts it “Extremely declarative, with no goddamn idea about actually doing anything”.

          The reality is that the turbo “destroys” the sound waves, and dampens the volume, and this is true for both exhaust and intake noise. The now smaller engines must now use less fuel, so the combustion is smaller too. They will not be able to produce the same sound pressure as the normal aspirated V8s did, unless they cheat and use loudspeakers like in the new BMW M5 – that could really take a chunk out of ones f1 pride!

          I like the sound, as it is new and a welcome change, most of all. I was pleasantly surprised by the sound onboard, especially compared to the renault and mercedes dyno videos they released in the winter break.

      2. Is Bernie going to alter the laws of physics, making these engines produce more noise?

        I agree with this. The engines, as they stand, cannot produce “more noise”.

        I guess it comes down to the contract. If there is some way to interpret the wording such that it constitutes a breach of contract, other circuits will follow suit. It will then come down to a “which will cost us the least money” calculation, like auto manufacturers do over faults (will a recall cost less than the law suits). Will it cost more to pay compensation to all the tracks, or to the teams for having to redesign the engines?

        1. Honestly, there’s likely room to alter the exhaust to generate more noise. You know, like the boy racers do with their Corsas…

          1. Nope.

            Boy racers in their Corsas fit less restrictive exhaust systems, and silencers (mufflers) with less/no baffles.

            On an F1 car, the exhaust is just a big pipe (after the turbo). They could make it bigger, but that wouldn’t increase the noise much (if at all), and would affect the performance. The exhaust length and diameter are tuned to the engine, and the engine to it. It probably has less of an effect now, as the turbo is in the way, but it would still have an effect.

            The main reason the cars are now quieter is because there is a turbo in the way. This acts like a silencer. To increase the noise, you would probably need to allow exhaust gasses to bypass the turbo (in some way), which would mess up everyone’s MGU-H mappings, reduce fuel efficiency (and power output), and generally require huge amounts of work from the teams and engine manufacturers.

      3. Lewisham Milton
        18th March 2014, 9:41

        “Resolving that with Bernie” normally means “giving Bernie lots of money”.

      4. I think he was talking about money…

      5. Bernie is going to twist Jean Todt’s arm to introduce a third energy recovery unit to the cars that exclusively powers a sound system which will pump out 135dB of noise that matches the frequency of the olde V8/V10’s.

    4. Chris (@tophercheese21)
      18th March 2014, 0:21

      I don’t get how the lack of noise is a breach of the AusGP contract.

      Is there a Claus that says the 22 car field must make a combined level of 1xx.xx decibels? Seems a bit ridiculous. On tv, I thought it sounded fine. Just get over it, it’s the first race.

      I wish race promoters were putting up this much of a fight against double points…

      1. Yeah, Aus GP is half points so they get half sound.

        1. LOL ….That would be Bernie’s reply .. oh wait .

        2. Haha… perfect!! If they want more than half sound they can just pay up – like Abu Dhabi did.

      2. +1

        I had to laugh hard when I read that nonsense. I wish people wouldn’t make such a fuzz of the new sound and produce so much negative PR for F1 when there’s so many new and exciting things.

        1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
          18th March 2014, 2:16

          Not to mention much more pressing issues that need addressing.

          As long as the racing is good, then I couldn’t care less about the sound. And Sunday’s race was a really exciting race!

          1. Have any of you been to a race before? The complaint is that they bought a ‘product’ and feel that it is no longer as exciting as what they agreed to. The sound is certainly no longer special, I mean you can hear the difference in the video posted, it no longer gives you the chills and excitement as before. It is rather odd though that they think they have a case, and think Bernie can change it? I mean, how on earth can they change it!?
            I thought they might end up sounding more like this (which sounds closer to what F1 used to be), from 1:30:

            1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
              18th March 2014, 4:46

              Yes, I went to the 2011 Aus GP, and the V8’s were bone shatteringly loud. But, surely Ron Walker or who ever it is who deals with the Aus GP contract would’ve known that these changes to the sport were coming, and there would’ve been discussion that the cars would be somewhat quieter.

            2. could you imagine if they had gone the 4 banger route instead of choosing the 6 cylinder option. Lolz. Listening to the cars in SuperGT is so sad, I hope the FIA get off their soap box and appreciate diverse solutions.

            3. Martin Brundle doesn’t like the sound either…

              I’m yet to hear them on sight but I’m afraid I’ll miss the loud naturally aspirated V8s when the day comes :(

            4. Chris (@tophercheese21)
              18th March 2014, 13:38


              Martin Brundle does like the sound, he just doesn’t think it’s loud enough. And I agree with him.

              I think the engines sound great, they’re just not loud enough.

          2. I do not think a race is good when you have no real racing for P1. Do not get carried away. Merc is in TOTAL control as long as the engines (or whatever we should call these things) works. Nico were cruising and the hunting guy’s did not have fuel and fuel-rates to race him.

      3. Would that be the Santa Claus.

    5. I miss the scream, but you could see the difference to those on the pit straight. Last year, many were wearing hearing protection, this year, you could almost have a normal conversation with someone as they went past. The noise hasn’t been right since the end of the V10 era, but as long as the cars are fast I have no problem with the new sound.

    6. I never attended to a GP.. but this year I promised to myself I’ll go to Interlagos at the end of the year…
      I can’t help but feel a little sad that I wont be able to hear those screamers…

      1. Do they do a speed comparison (fast road car vs race car vs F1 car) at Interlagos? If so, you will still get the chance to hear the V8 scream in person, as they use an old car. Still, the V8 is not as special as the old V12’s or V10’s.

      2. Just look on youtube for a video shot from the grandstands (high quality with no clipping), turn the volume up and that’s pretty much how it is, seriously.

        I went last year to my first GP as well and after watching so many old and recent videos there were no surprises for me, other than my seat vibrating a little when they downshifted hehe.

    7. Am I the only one on here who does not give a flying damn about the sound of the cars? I want good racing, that is all that is important to me.

      1. Personally I was in favour of retaining the old engines, but I accept that there is no going back on this issue – the argument has been won and lost. It’s time to move on.

        Ron Walker is just stirring the pot, and maybe trying to talk down the price of the next contract extension.

        I am not the first to make this point, but they do sound much better live than on TV, and by the end of the weekend I was growing rather used to it. Not as good as the old ones to this (biased) ear, but not as terrible as some would have you believe.

      2. No, I feel exactly the same way. These schoolboy notions of what a race car should sound like are rather immature if you ask me. It’s the kind of nonsense I’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Clarkson, not serious racing fans.

        1. It’s the kind of nonsense I’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Clarkson, not serious racing fans.


        2. Paul Sainsbuy
          18th March 2014, 9:56

          It makes me very sad that the majority are just rolling over and accepting this. ‘Real fans’ are people who have visited many races and now have had their sport removed from them due to the noise being gone.

          1. What are you talking about? The ‘noise’ is still there, it’s just ‘different’ because of a change to the technical regulations.

            1. Paul Sainsbury
              18th March 2014, 11:21

              I think you would understand if you stood trackside.

          2. Sport is not the same as spectacle.

          3. So the sport in which drivers have to drive on circuits at speeds regularly over 170mph, jostling for position over 180 miles with 20+ other drivers doing the same. All that is irrelevant and it’s now just about the noise?

            Sunday’s race was a good example of a race. There was jostling for position, technical problems, a couple of incidents and in the end, a clear winner. Those are usually the 4 main things people look for (or in the case of the clear winner, the lack of) during the RTR features on Sunday after the race. Any ‘real fans’, as you put it, wouldn’t be as fussed about the noise.

            You watch sport. You don’t listen to it.

            1. Paul Sainsbury
              18th March 2014, 16:31

              No, you’ve missed the point completely. In F1, we need, and previously had, all of the things you mention, AND the noise.

      3. Great, I was feeling lonely.

      4. Well, I wouldn’t go as far as not giving a flying damn about it, but it isn’t as important to me as it is to other people. I don’t share the “as loud as possible, blow my ears away” philosophy. I like being able to hear tires screeching, clear radio messages, and things like that. I’ve never seen a GP live, but I’m pretty sure I’d prefer not having to use ear protection too.

      5. I like hearing all the other bits other than all the wasted energy shooting out the pipes. They remind me of the Audi R15 Le Mans car. “Noise is unused energy” -Dr. Wolfgang Ullrich (head of Audi Motorsport)

      6. I’d like FOM to make them sound a little louder on TV, particularly during qualifying with just one car being too quiet. But otherwise I don’t mind. I would probably feel differently if I was a regular attendee though.

      7. +1 You’re not alone.

      8. Actually , I see that a lot of people who attended live felt that the sound was distinctly different . Me , on the other hand had to turn up the TV volume so much to hear the much accustomed “wrrr”. I guess it makes a lot of difference on TV . But boy,am I glad I attended a 2013 race while I had a chance.
        But seriously , I don’t think it should be much of an issue as long we have a great fight for position in our hands.

      9. Jan (@yancheelaa)
        18th March 2014, 6:06

        +1 agree completely…. :)

      10. I agree completely.
        It’s the racing that matters, not the noise. In previous season’s I used to go to a race with earplugs firmly in place and feel the sound actually vibrating my chest as the cars screamed past. It was exciting yes, but at the same time I always wondered if it was doing me any harm.
        I always came away with a violent headache too.

        1. [I always came away with a violent headache too.]

          Not if you use good waxed earplugs that fits exactly to yours. It was really pure joy to hear the fine art of V8 audio and of course the thundering vibrations and loud cracking too. And my ears never rang at all and it’s a streets circuit, cars are really close.

      11. The noise is part of what makes F1 what it is but I don’t think they sound bad now.

        Some work with the FOM mics to improve the sound would be an idea and perhaps, finding a way of increasing the volume for next year.

        It made no difference to my enjoyment of the race though. I’ve been priced out of going to watch F1 live so the sound at the track makes very little difference to me!

      12. I’m with you. I actually was at the last year’s race and this year. If the racing would be as exciting as last year I would enjoy the race much more than last year. Finally you don’t need to worry about your ears, hear commentators and even discuss something with your mates.
        All those “couch experts” are becoming more and more annoying. If you really like the noise so much move somewhere next to the jets military base… they are much louder than last year’s F1 cars.
        Of course I get that some people at the track didn’t like the sound. I was in Melbourne with two of my mates that were having their first time experience and they said that they preferred last years noise (you could hear it during the speed comparison race). The thing is though, that they went there just to experience the event. It was more like a show for them and they didn’t really know what is happening on the track and who actually won the race.
        I don’t get how real fans care more about the sound than the racing itself.
        I must say though that the race wasn’t that exciting at the track. Almost all looked like not pushing and you could see that they probably care more about finishing the race than finishing it higher. If that changes as the season goes… it will be one of the best seasons from a long time.

    8. I miss the engine noise, big time! The TV was in full volume but I can’t hear the engine. F1 is about great racing and engine noise haha. The good thing is I can hear and understand well the team radio.

      1. I noticed no difference in TV volume – they seemed to increase the volume on the trackside microphones, because although the cars seemed the same volume on this side of the telly, I could hear more of the “trackside ambiance” than previously.

    9. I can’t see how the sound of an F1 car can put Bernie in breach of the GP contract, but Walker’s got a point – the sound isn’t right.

      To be honest until the Aussie GP I didn’t give a rotten damn about the engine noise; V8s were as welcome as V10s – I didn’t even notice a world of difference. But having watched the opening race, it was eerily quiet race with engine noises that sound like loud vacuum cleaners. I grew accustomed to it as the race went on; but it still felt like I was watching a different (albeit exciting sporting-wise) motorsport series, not Formula 1.

    10. Can anyone please explain why the engines are so much quieter.
      Someone explained that is not to do with the lower rev limit as older f1 cars had much lower rev limits in the early 90s and before….
      Is it just that the engines are designed so efficiently with the turbo and ERS that there is much less energy loss as sound? Is that why the turbos of the 80s were so much louder….they were more inefficient and produced more sound? Were the 80s turbos actually louder than today’s cars?
      Regarding the sound, is there not a way it could be artificially enhanced via the exhaust? I remember seeing a BBC article on the McLaren MP4 12C where they basically showed how the engine sounds from the car are artificially created and “tuned” by a sound engineer. He worked with differing exhaust profiles to produce what McLaren deemed to be the perfect sound, pitch and loudness. It is a bit extreme and artificial, but hey, seems to be the trend in F1 these days….

      1. I would say the turbo effects the sound the most because the exhaust is now muffled by having to go through the turbo instead of straigt out the back. I dont think revs have much to do witb it. IE top fuel dragsters dont rev increadibly high but are ear blowing loud

        1. And I dont really see a way to “enhance” the loudness as the exhaust is straight piped out of the turbo. Not 100 percent though. I believ it would require a different turbo to change sound significantly

          1. @bmk1586 Good point . The exhaust is more or less crude enough . Teams would object to a generic turbo . Maybe they can tweak around the rules a bit .

      2. 6 cylinders X 5000 firings (10000/2) = 30000Hz
        8 ” X 9000 ‘ (18000/2) = 54000Hz
        Explains the difference in pitch, less energy from less fuel and less energy again after turbo extracts energy gives a ROUGH explanation for the reduced volume.

        1. @hohum
          Sorry, but your calculations are way off. RPM is revolutions/minute, while Hertz is 1/second.
          So 1 cylinder @ 10000 RPM fires 166,7/2 times a second, 6 of them would generate 500Hz.
          Not to mention, that 30KHz is way above what humans can hear (20Hz-22KHz)

          Also the firings only give the fundamental frequency of the sound. An ICE sound is mainly composed of the fundamental frequency and its harmonics, plus the formant (resonance frequency). Formant is the frequency at the exhaust resonate the most, and the sound energy becomes the maximum. There is also anti-resonance frequency. It is the frequency component that weakens the sound energy extremely.

          The volume could be altered at specific frequencies by modifying the formant, thus modifying the amplitude of the soundwave, which could be achieved by altering the exhaust.

          1. @bago, thanks for the correction, I shouldn’t do these things late at night, I remember thinking “that seems high” but couldn’t see the missing step (divide by 60) for a rough idea.
            My solution to the lack of noise would be to attach a Tuba or French Horn to the exhaust outlet, that should do it. Anyway Mach1 has his answer now.

    11. I’m expecting little chrome-effect clip-on exhaust tips to be in the regulations by Bahrain.

      1. hahaha. Maybe some dollar-sign spinning rims and underfloor lighting as well?

    12. I actually enjoyed the lower engine noises from my TV! While the V8s were more aurally impressive, they could get annoying after a while, constantly buzzing like a swarm of bees. They would also sound the same, plus they would drown every other noise: Hearing the tires screeching and the crowds cheering was a revelation for me!!
      I do understand that a lot of people were disappointed for paying for admission to watch the race and not suffering from hearing loss afterwards, but that’s life…

      1. You’re absolutely right! After a while it was annoying to hear that monotone noise over and over, this also happened with the very high pitch of the V10s, I even remember being embarrassed when I was a kid to turn the volume way up because it would annoy everyone else, but then again in my family no one was an F1 fan back then ;)

        1. @mantresx I can relate with you on that ;-) . @aetost I loved the tyre screeching when someone locked their tyres up too much . And also the turbo whine when accelerating . The Ricciardo roar was pleasing as well .

      2. Another interesting point is the contribution electric motors to the engine sound. I definitely like that hiss!

        1. I was at the race and i had mixed feelings. I do really like the news sounds, the engines and thinking about whats going on inside is just fantastic!.
          I really enjoyed Saturday the most.
          The Race was great from a sound point of view except for one thing. That was when the field were bunched up like at the start and under the safety car. After all the cars had gone past it was pretty quiet. Once they cars were on the other side of the track it was like their was nothing going on. Then out of the blue suddenly they would be their again a bit like the race was paused for 30 seconds.
          When the field is spread out its was fine. So for me its just that you cant hear them from a distance and they do sneak up on you, that’s all.

          After all that, if recall my heady days of going to Rally New Zeland in the late 90s, the WRC cars were pretty quiet, with the sound of the car running on the gravel and the antilag systems giving themselves away. Ironically the Group As and F2 Rally cars of the 90s were louder. Or rather the F2 cars would just scream… but they had no turbo

      3. I liked that too, hearing far more of what the cars are doing. And radio can be understood now too, another plus.

        The whole thing looks like Bernie continuing his battle against these new engines, for whatever reasons. Aren’t Ron Walker and Bernie very close – I remember it was Walker who was the first to claim that no track would even think of talking to the teams when they were seriously considering the break-away series a couple of years back, so its probably staged.
        A contract made by Bernie would certainly not give a promoter a guarantee for Minimum sound levels, rather the only notion of noise lvls that might be in the contract (for legal reasons with getting state permission to race) are MAXIMUM noise limits to be regarded.

        1. @bascb I agree, the whole lawsuit thing sounds like one of Bernie’s weird schemes… Indeed, today he declared “war” against the engine sound… I don’t know if he tries to divert the press away from his trial, but I am getting tired of him and his PR ways.

    13. I dont see how they can decide to pay the teams less if the FIA dont recieve the income they planned on for the reason the PUs arent as loud. Its not the teams fault the FIA changed the rules without thinking of the potential backlash. Especially after all the money teams spend developing new cars around new PUs. That seems a breach of contract. Guess the FIA are really trying to hurt an already financially hampered sport(teams) for the benefit of their own pockets

      1. You should question what FOM (Bernie) is proposing here, the FIA “only” does the rules, they only get a tiny amount of money out of it themselves

      2. I dont see how they can decide to pay the teams less if the FIA dont recieve the income they planned on

        It will all come down to the wording, and I suspect they can.

        As a simplified example, say the contract states that 10% of the revenue is divvied up between the teams. FOM refund the venues 25% of their fee because of this, and the same with the TV deals and all other sources of income. The teams will then get 25% less, because the revenue is 25% less.

      3. less people buying tickets because the thrill and excitement at the track is no longer there. Less people attract less sponors…less money. Simple as that. Death spiral.
        …I am one and there are loads of ‘me’ in that respect. To me it is … Sad times.

    14. Regarding Red Bull
      The fuel flow limit provides a power limit. In WRC they had a restrictor to the turbo inlet. That in itself limits the power of the engines.
      A number of times teams in WRC have been disqualified for running a larger restrictor.
      If you can all recall the Sauber’s were disqualified post race in Melbourne because their rear wing element cord dimensions was out by a few millimeters. They had no significant performance benefit and it was traced to a manufacturing error. There was no uproar because it did not affect the podium or a local driver. Sauber accepted the error as any respectful team would

      The Fuel Flow limit is designed to limit the peak potential power of the engine. Without a fuel flow limit they could have massive boosts of over 1000hp. By limiting the flow it prevents teams being able to have this level of boost even if they stay within the 100kg over the race. It also means during Qualifying they are not running ridiculous and unsafe power levels as fun as that might be to watch. I’d expect a fair few cars to end up in the wall in a flaming mess.

      Red Bull have no defense because regardless of if the fuel flow was faulty, they fitted a component without the FIA approval, and continuously ignored warnings during the race. Either of those is grounds for disqualification. This regardless of if a performance benefit was their or not. (I strongly suspect they were getting a benefit otherwise why would they not comply when instructed)
      Imagine a driver is given a drive through for a contentious passing move. Have you ever seen a team ignore a drive though? Being told to do something by the FIA is mandatory, the teams do not have discretion. Applying your own rules and ignoring the officials is grounds for disqualification.
      Perhaps the next a team who ignores them will simply be given a black flag during the race.

      Red Bull should be apologizing to Riccardo and do their up most to pay him back. They cheated him and the fans out of his best result. They should have accepted a guaranteed 4th or 5th position.

      1. The FIA also let this grow out of proportion by not black flagging Daniel in the first place, at least it gives us something to talk about until the next race.

      2. Having read the COTD further reinforces my belief that to run at 96% power would have been a total loss for RBR, once they show that they were not using extra fuel they can at least say the/car and driver deserved 2nd. place, if they allowed the FIA to bully them into accepting racing underpowered no-one knows where Dan would have finished and there is no chance that he would be gifted 2nd. place. RBR had more to gain by running at the correct fuel flow than they did by running at the imposed fuel flow.

        1. “RBR had more to gain by running at the correct fuel flow than they did by running at the imposed fuel flow.”

          Until they got disqualified. The had points to gain if they had run at the corrected fuel flow.
          I cannot think of any professional sport where you can get away with actively disobeying the referee.

          1. If they lose the WCC by 17 points then they might think about potential gains and losses in Melbourne.

        2. @hohum You say this as if you have intrinsic insider knowledge that Red Bull’s ‘correct’ fuel flow is any more correct than the FIA’s.

          The FIA’s sensor is an homologated part that is overseen by a neutral party, one that also happens to set the rules the races are run to. If Red Bull ‘win’ this ruling, it basically destroys the FIA’s position in policing the sensors, if not the entire sport. Cheating the sensor will basically ‘be allowed’.

          It’s a political play.

          1. Yeah I don’t see how the FIA were being bullies in this, and the day a team has more to gain from ignoring the FIA’s warnings and expects that to be without consequence is the day a whole can of worms opens up. So I don’t see any need nor room for politics in this issue…it’s fairly black and white to me and as has been pointed out, them proving they did not gain advantage is irrelevant. The FIA not only did not bully them, but gave them every opportunity to prevent this dsq from happening, so RBR has only themselves to look at in this.

          2. At Optimaximal, it is RBR position that their FF is correct and they can prove it, if they are wrong it is a different ballgame as you point out. However both parties agree the sensor was inaccurate despite it having been tested and found to be within spec. before and during FP1, the manufacturer claims accuracy between 0.1% and 0.01% yet RBR were told to apply a correction of -4.00%, clearly they weren’t going to be competitive or representative running that far down on power which would have left them defenseless in the DRS zones, a couple of points maybe, 17 no way.

            1. it is RBR position that their FF is correct and they can prove it, if they are wrong it is a different ballgame as you point out

              Actually, I think the FIA’s position (as, I believe, it should be) is also that RB refused a direct instruction from the technical representative. The fuel flow actually becomes secondary in this instance.

              It is as if, in a football game, the referee gave one of their team a red card, and they refused to take the player off the pitch. It doesn’t matter whether you are right or wrong, you do what the ref tells you, or face the consequences. You may loose the game because of it, and feel cheated, but you do as you are damn well told!

    15. That sound comparison from Melbourne is the most distinctive one that I’ve heard yet. I’ve been following and watching F1 for many years, and I guess that I’ve always taken the awesome sounds for granted. Engine configurations change, teams and drivers come and go, and the cars themselves morph into different and wonderful shapes. And while there may have been some minor grumbling about exhaust noises back in the previous turbo era, those cars were different beasts entirely. 900+ hp, fire spitting monsters! I get it that the sport needs to move forward to survive, but in my view it has lost a great deal of its visceral appeal in its latest form. I’m pretty sure that F1 has never before specifically addressed exhaust noise, and while doing so simply to make the cars louder would be a bit artificial, it needs looking into. F1 machines whispering by just won’t do.

        1. Just a question…would they do if they were 3 seconds faster than last year?

    16. I think the noise is a two edged sword.
      I heard the V10’s and they were painful.
      Rather than complain (there’s too much invested in these power units) they should be looking at opportunities.
      Perhaps now in Melbourne they could run a night race – with better times for other time zones – that was not conceivable with the 18-20K rpm V8-V10 engines, as Albert Park has a lot of residential around it…

      I’m not sure what they could even do about it…in terms of making the current engines louder… Twin turbos with whopping big wastegates and a higher rpm limit and megaphone style pipes…

      I wasn’t all that long ago that the Renault V8 sounded like a bucket of bolts as they did some weird fuelling in the corners for the diffuser…that sounded truely rubbish- – loud maybe, but rubbish..

      People have short memories..

      One other note, having experienced the V10’s and V8’s live – I wouldn’t take my young kids to a race – no way known….however now, its a much more family friendly event – and should be marketed in such a way…

      Times change, get over it..

    17. Re Stoddart: His claim was one of the major Aus GP-related articles the local Murdoch press ran on Monday to try to feed of the feeling that Ricciardo was harshly treated by his DQ.

      It’s no wonder he couldn’t operate a GP team successfully if he cannot understand how running with a higher fuel flow would give you the advantage of faster lap times.

      Re Engine Noise: It’s not so much the volume, but the frequency and the note that would just hang in the air, not matter what part of the circuit the cars were on.

      It doesn’t have the sound of fury. Someone should add the sound of the Jetson’s flying mobiles.

      1. I think what Stoddart meant was that if the sensor was faulty then he didn’t gain an advantage, so he’ll get his result back. But either the media trimmed the quote or he didn’t say it correctly.

        That was how I read it, anyway.

        1. I read that article as looking for straws to hold on to. First its “he got no advantage, so should be fine”, but maybe Stoddard then remembered that a tech infringement does not need the FIA to prove any advantage gained, it gets you DSQ without even looking at that question. So then he came to the part about at least getting his points back by pointing to a situation that was a bit different.

          Personally I would be surprised if RBR achieved anything with their appeal – if they even file a repeal (they have until Thursday to do so).

          1. @bascb, they may well fail in their appeal but hopefully will bring resolution to the faulty sensor problem. The FIA certainly need to be the ones regulating the fuel flow, we all know what the teams can do left to their own devices, but the measurements must be impeccable and above reproach, the FIA can’t just say ” It’s only a sporting contest, the teams just have to accept the luck of the draw” there are, as we know, literally $millions at stake every race.

        2. “Gaining advantage” doesn’t just have to mean in terms of lap time. Running an engine leaner raises its temperature.

          Red Bull already have known cooling issues so infringing on the fuel flow rules may have a negligible affect on the ultimate lap time but may have assisted reliability.

          If Red Bull can ignore an FIA directive what’s next? Get a penalty for speeding in the pit lane and a team says “we don’t trust your measurements, we’re not coming in”.

      2. @kazinho, you are right about that note hanging in the air, 1 year around 1990 I was in Cap D’ail marina in France, on the Monaco border, and couldn’t hear the TV commentary over the sound of the race coming over the hill.

    18. Posted this after Saturday but here’s a comparison of the old V8 and new V6 taken on Saturday at the track:

      People who have no issue at all with the engine sound do not go to Grands Prix.

      1. Paul Sainsbuy
        18th March 2014, 10:30

        Thank you.

        1. Personally I’m indifferent. On the one hand I get that the sound is important, but I just find myself not all that bent out of shape about it, and the fact is, the horse has left the barn. If they feel it is important enough, as in, detrimental to the bottom line, then I guess they’ll look at ways to change the sound if they can, but otherwise, it is what it is. I found my ears crackled in Montreal even with ear buds in, and covering my ears or sticking my fingers in them did nothing. It wasn’t the end of the world or anything…not like I had to leave the track or anything, but my goodness I do wonder how some F1 insiders hearing is going to be later on in life…like musicians too.

          I also wonder if the cars were noticeably faster than last year would that make the quietness a little more acceptable to some who yearn for the big scream of yore.

      2. You are sooo right. There are quite a few of us that used to love the magic at the grandstands.
        What is soo sad is the FIA being well aware abt the less noise years ago, but they took all the fans for granted…not knowing many of us. Not understanding why we spend loads of money just to be at the tracks enjoying the magic. In business we talk abt knowing your customer.
        The FIA heads sit in their ivory towers and do not care. It was pathetic to listen to mr Lom (head of powertrains at FIA) throwing dB numbers in an attempt to state that there is not much difference.
        Bernie are now trying but it boils down to FIA and mr Todt. They do not give a damn obviously.
        To me it is….sad times.

    19. It’s simple really…

      I work in marketing and as a marketer we broadly look to positively stimulate every sense of a potential buyer. F1 is a weird blend in that people ‘buy’ into it by watching it (or more plainly by subscribing to pay-tv) but they can’t taste it or feel it, they can only hear and see it (ignoring the irrelevant, privileged few that can smell it). So when the excitement from the noise is gone, all they have to go on is what they can see.

      The V12’s sounded aggressive and fast. The V10’s were almost as good.
      The V8’s were less aggressive but still very noisy. In a way, the blown diffuser mappings made them sound even more aggressive.

      The new V6 engines don’t sound remotely aggressive or fast. They sound dull and I find myself looking for the whine of a turbo in search of excitement.

      Removing that aggressive sensory experience has a significant effect on people’s subconsious opinions and memories. To put it simply, they just won’t notice or care.

      I’m all up for this technology, it’s the future direction but quite frankly, I can see Moto GP etc doing quite well out of this. However, quite why F1 cars sound so rubbish and Le Mans cars so awesome, I don’t know.

      1. Very well put…

      2. It’s largely because this is the first year of the regulation change and focus has been on reliably running the cars, not tricking the exhaust note to make the fans happier.

        That’ll come next year, or sooner if Bernie throws money at it.

      3. Just a few thoughts for discussion not argument. You cannot taste, smell, or hear most televised sports and that doesn’t prevent huge audiences from watching. Sure I get that perhaps there is an expectation for loud noise from racing, but to say the excitement is now gone because the noise is, is subjective and not a view shared by everyone. Is MotoGP so loud? Certainly it can be said that new fans to F1 will not have any different expectations and will only know this sound. And I ask here too as I have on a few other comments…if the cars were 3 seconds faster than last year would as many people be complaining about the lack of noise?

        So I don’t think it is simple. Should be very interesting to see how the viewership ratings pan out this season and whether or not if there is a downturn they can pin it to noise and then do something about it that helps. What noise would help given that they aren’t going to go backwards back to V-8’s? Is louder but still not screaming going to do it? That to me would just mean better microphone placement within the car and around the tracks. I think we have all noticed before how at some races, depending on who is directing the show, the sound we are hearing is not actually the sound of the car we are watching.

    20. Hey Keith,

      How about another article like this

      Lots of new drivers on the grid now.

    21. Re: Melbourne podium highlights the problem with GP2 (Duncan Stephen)

      Errrr is Mr Stephen forgetting the race winner on top of that podium Nico Rosberg – 2005 GP2 Champion? Yes I know he goes on to say that GP2 hasn’t created many successes but then not many GP2 drivers make it straight (within a few seasons) into a top team.

      1. And the 2008 GP2 Asia, 2011 GP2 and 2011 GP2 Asia champion Romain Grosjean has done pretty well in his most recent F1 stint. And the 2010 GP2 champion and F1 race winner Pastor Maldonado has real pace (if not the consistency and calm head). And highly rated 2009 GP2 champion Nico Hulkenberg is only missing out on a top drive due to his height / weight issue.

        Looking at the Formula Renault 3.5 champions from the same era (2005>) (with the exception of Robert Kubica who should still be in F1 if it wasn’t for his accident) how well have these guys done in F1? Alx Danielsson, Álvaro Parente, Giedo van der Garde, Bertrand Baguette, Mikhail Aleshin, Robert Wickens, Robin Frijns?

        1. I think the point is that more are coming from WSR than GP2 NOW, largely because more drivers can get into the WSR because it’s much much cheaper.

          The majority of drivers are priced out of GP2 unless they’re rich/sponsored, lucky or very talented.

    22. Dale jr, Ricciardo said Dale and said was,

    23. The thing about the engine note is that it is driven by the engine configuration, a configuration which aims to make F1 more road relevant in an attempt to get manufacturers back into the sport (proven by Honda coming back next year). These V6’s with their single turbo and the MGU-H prevent muffle most of the noise before it gets a chance to get out of the exhaust. If Bernie wants more noise then he has to go to the engine manufacturers and ask them to change the configuration of their engines, which would result in massive costs and probably get them so riled up they’d consider exiting the sport. So it isn’t going to happen, no matter how much Bernie or anyone else wants it do.

      1. @geemac : So as per the ‘road relevancy’ logic, we might soon have ‘driver-less’ F1 cars

      2. So for me, if you are saying the only fix, for those that feel there needs to be one, is an expensive one, it will still come down to the bottom line. If the lack of noise literally affects the bottom line negatively, then they will have no choice but to try and change it…but can they change it enough to assuage the naysayers…and what sound will be acceptable when that is subjective.

    24. Regarding GP2, 11 of the current drivers were GP2 graduates (Kvyat and Bottas skipped GP2) so that’s still quite a large chunk. 17 drivers have previously raced in F1 but are not currently racing too. I feel the quality of the 2013 grid was pretty poor for GP2, there were some drivers who needed some major finetuning and we had a strange situation where it seemed Stefano Coletti forgot how to race. This year however the championship appears much more intriguing with Mitch Evans going to Russian Time, Felipe Nasr who needs to start winning races, Jolyon Palmer at DAMS who showed some awesome overtaking ability last year as well as outright speed (winning 2 races to Nasr’s 0), Abt at Hilmer, Rossi who showed great speed, and of course, Stoffel Vandoorne.

      A lot of these drivers are relatively young, as oppose to being older as most of the F1 grid, as was the case last year.

      Despite this, I can’t help but feel a lot of former GP2 drivers end up in the States. Bird has gone over there, and a few of them have been looking at the likes of IndyCar and Indy Lights.

    25. “We advised them twice after qualifying and five laps into the race to take the necessary steps to comply with the regulations,” Whiting told The Times about Red Bull’s infringement.

      Does it mean Red Bull ran with potentially exceeded fuel flow rate even in qualifying?

      1. @cyclops_pl
        They did. And that’s what makes me sick of Red Bull. They were even given the benefit of doubt since it’s a new system and it might play up, so FIA didn’t want to be too strict with Red Bull. But then Red Bull in their customary arrogance, gets as greedy and filthy as they usually are, and tries to intentionally cheat in the race, hoping the get off lightly, even though every other team was respecting the offset FIA gave them.

        If anything, I’d hope Red Bull gets a few races ban, like BAR got in 2005. I’m sick of them. And before some knight in shinny armor, who’s following F1 since 2010, comes here to tell me I dislike them just because they are winning, I’ll say that I never disliked a dominant team, even when Williams in the early 90s or Ferrari in the early 2000s were dominating. McLaren never really dominated in the late 90s, let’s face it.

    26. Where’s Bub Rubb and the exhaust whistle tips when you need them?

    27. Alleged contractual breach due to noise. Someone else may have mentioned this already, but wasn’t there protests back in ’95/’96 over the noise at Albert Park? The other way round obviously.

      Well if the noise is that bad, I say someone needs to call Adelaide back to say we’re sorry….

    Comments are closed.