Race start, Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, 2023

F1 engines will get louder when new rules arrive in 2026 – Domenicali

2026 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Formula 1 engine noise will increase when new regulations are introduced in 2026, the series’ CEO Stefano Domenicali has promised.

The introduction of the current 1.6-litre V6 turbos, which replaced the previous 2.4-litre V8 normally aspirated engines in 2014, made grands prix quieter affairs. The reduction in volume came about due to the smaller size of the new engines, a sharp cut in the maximum rev limit plus the greater use of energy recovery through kinetic and thermal generators.

F1 has agreed new engine regulations which will come into force for the 2026 season. Domenicali says these will bring back some of the lost noise.

“The intention is to make sure in the new regulation the engine [noise] itself will be higher because that’s part of our emotion,” he told Australian radio station 3AW. “It is really what our fans want to hear and that’s the duty for us to commit to that.”

The new rules agreed for 2026 will retain the current V6 turbos, increase the recovery of kinetic energy by the MGU-K but remove the thermal energy recovery system (MGU-H).

Domenicali insisted there is no possibility of the series moving to much quieter electrical drivetrains as used in Formula E: “No, it’s very clear, no,” he said.

“We need to have a different sound. It’s music for my ears. It’s true that we had the 12 cylinders, it was a different frequency, very loud. And then 10, eight, six – it’s not [going] again down.

“It’s just the situation is different. Of course we need to be a hybrid, we’re going to hybrid for the future.”

The quietening of F1’s engines in 2014 was panned by the series’ then-CEO Bernie Ecclestone at the time. Senior figures in F1 have continued to argue for a return to the louder engines of old.

“The noise is part of the emotion,” said Red Bull team principal Christian Horner earlier this year. “It’s part of the DNA of the sport.

“It’s funny how you get used to things because the V6s with the energy recovery systems they currently have are much quieter than the old V10s and V12s or even the V8s. So now when we roll out a show car and you hear a V10 or a V8 engine, all the mechanics put their tools down to go and watch the car.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2023 F1 season

Browse all 2023 F1 season articles

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.

76 comments on “F1 engines will get louder when new rules arrive in 2026 – Domenicali”

  1. Great. One pollutant to be replaced by another, in this case noise pollution.

    What is it with the F1 dinosaur tendency to link noise with sexiness, where in reality noise is wasted power.

    1. Formula E is your thing

    2. Emotion directs human energy, and in the case of F1 that energy is translated into ticket sales. So, no it isn’t ‘wasted power’ it is literally the root of power.

      There’s a very archaic and out-of-date view that sound doesn’t matter, yet music is literally used in treatment of dementia and so on. Music is one of the most remarkable aspects of the human experience, and great sounding cars absolutely evoke similar feelings of emotions in people. To deny otherwise really is a dinosaur tendency, especially since the Neuroscience of Music is an exciting, new and interesting pursuit that has gained traction in the last decade or so.

      To go back to wasted energy. Motorsport is a discretionary activity. To not appeal to human emotion because it’s ‘wasted energy’ would be to seal its fate as a pointless activity that may as well not exist. it is wasted energy in and of itself.

      I can’t speak for the plans for 2026 for F1 as it problem will be rubbish as it has been ever since 2014 (and tbh the V8s were never particularly tuneful), but I can speak for why sound really does matter. To deny this, is very very very old-fashioned.

      1. Certainly the old-fashioned view is having the screaming v12s, not the other way around. But sound matter indeed, that’s why I love the current cars in the flesh. It is still a TV-only problem to me. Putting aside that sound is not music per se, the level is very much ear-damaging unfortunately. I don’t mind a change, I just hope we won’t need earplugs again.

        But the change is about money only, the potential increase is just a byproduct of making the engines cheaper to build.

        1. But the change is about money only, the potential increase is just a byproduct of making the engines cheaper to build.

          That’s the thing. This is just how they’re selling it, but it’s not intended. It’s just what happens when you take away the only unique technology F1 has had in the last couple of decades, that being the MGU-H. Which might be fair enough as it’s use case outside of F1 is pretty limited, but it’s not like Liberty, the teams and the FIA got together to ‘solve’ F1 sounds.

      2. Alan, you reminded me of a childhood memory (Argentina, 1970s.) There was actually a long play vinyl record sold to racing fans that was called “Musica de Motores” (literally “Motor Music”) which featured the sounds of various race cars. Things like a Porsche going past on the Mulsanne straight, or such.

      3. Alan Dove, is this going to be the usual reactionary rant from those who grew up in the 1990s and for whom anything that doesn’t match with that period is too alien to be accepted by them?

        1. I am talking about relatively modern science with regard to music and emotion. Nothing to do with “it was better in my day” just an awareness that actually sound does matter way more than some appreciate.

          Also motorsport IS archaic in every way. To say someone is essentially old-fashioned because they say sound matter is to ignore the fact that motorsport, especially one as wasteful and pointless as F1 which serves just 20 competitors, IS old-fashioned and out-of-date. No one really has licence to pull that card I’m afraid.

    3. One pollutant to be replaced by another, in this case noise pollution.

      Actually it’s an even worse equation, and more like ‘no pollutant to be replaced by two pollutants’. The excess heat from Fuel burning was (partly) recovered through the MGU-H system. This is no longer possible to the same extent (only ‘simple’ turbo) which causes part of the fuel burning being used to create more noise.

    4. Sound is one of our five senses. Why not make the most of the two we use to watch and LISTEN to F1 races? I’ve been to Silverstone for the past two GPs and its a bit soul destroying when the F2’s sound louder and better than the F1 grid.

      When listening to a thunderous rock song (or whatever your muse), we don’t listen to it at half volume do we?

      As Spinal Tap once said “this one goes up to eleven”, and so should F1!

      1. If sound is what turns you on, then you know what races to attend ;)

        F2’s sound louder and better

        Or go to both; F1 for the technical marvels, and F2 for the noise.

      2. its a bit soul destroying when the F2’s sound louder and better than the F1 grid

        Louder, I agree. But better: That’s very subjective. For instance, I personally much prefer the sound of the current cars no matter the volume level, and I much prefer the volume level of the current cars.

        This is no different to music. Some will prefer Metal, some will prefer Jazz, some will prefer Classical. All are just as valid, but it’s important to remember that it’s only your opinion, your preference, not an objective fact.

    5. I pity you for not being able to enjoy the beautiful sound of a screaming engine. You’re missing out.

      1. Would you say that to someone who dislikes the kind of music you most enjoy? How would you respond if someone said that to you about some music you didn’t enjoy?

        A person’s reaction to a particular sound is very personal and subjective. I prefer the sound of the newer engines to the “screaming” old ones you speak of. I also love the sound of an electric vehicle. I do still like the sound of many ICEs, and I appreciate that others have different opinions, but that makes mine no less valid, nor yours or Witan’s.

        1. So what you’re point? What do you disagree with me about? You’re just rambling random truisms @drmouse.

          1. The point is, you’re pitying him for not just enjoying a screaming engine as much as you do. However, the same could be said in reverse: I could pity you for not enjoying the sound of the current engines as much as I do. I don’t think it’s right to do so, though, so I don’t, I accept that you obviously have different preferences to me and don’t belittle you for them.

    6. Noise is the best bit. Has to be somewht tuneful though. V8 era was painful, to thin but as loud as previous. V10’s were amazing especially when at 20k plus revs but V12 was the greatest. If had kept V12’s imahgine them at 20k plus revs. When buying road cars I always go fo noise, just bought a Jag F Type R to hell with rubbish EV’s. They could realky do V12’s on e fuel. Its entertainment to hell with the charade of trying to be overly eco.

      1. To each their own. When looking for a daily runner, I’m generally looking for something quiet and comfortable, with decent performance. EVs win on this hands down. My Tesla is fast, comfortable, quiet, and still fun to drive. The noise or makes is also quite interesting and enjoyable, to me.

        My fun car is a classic mini. That’s loud and fun, but I wouldn’t want it for day to day use.

    7. David J Crandon
      24th June 2023, 0:23

      So, bicycling is your favorite sport?

      1. I adore cycling and that has its own “soundtrack” with the wind rushing by on the descents, the freewheel hubs clicking away, the crazy fans on the mountain passes.

        The debate about the sound of F1 is pretty interesting – one thing that is rarely mentioned is that higher volume is almost always perceived as better (lots of remastered music is simply louder – if you level match it, sometimes it sounds worse!). So rolling out an old V10 will obviously sound more exciting nowadays. I have yet to hear the V6 in person but I like the idea of hearing more of the rev range and being able to get nearer without hurting my ears. Personally I find them a bit dull (on TV) but maybe nicer than the yammering V8 sound, which got very wearing by the end of a long race.

        If cycling’s governing body mandated that freewheel hubs must be silent, I am certain there would be outcry but of course it wouldn’t really change the underlying spectacle. I think the same is true of F1 – I feel far more strongly about the more obvious tangible problems with racing today.

  2. I couldn’t really care less & people generally have been seemingly indifferent about sound levels for a while.

    1. I wouldn’t say we’re indifferent about it – there’s just no point in complaining about something that isn’t going to change. For me, the change to weak sounding engines is certainly a factor in me not being interested in going to see F1 live anymore.

    2. It’s not something that bothers me much either. I have only seen one race in the flesh with the new engines. It was fine.

      On TV I think it’s actually quite good to be able to hear the roaring of the crowd sometimes instead of it being blotted out by the engine noise.

  3. If there’s more noise it’s because the PUs are less efficient.

    The PUs will be less efficient because Porsche and Audi forced the FIA to throw out the one unique piece of technology that set the Formula 1 PU apart.

    And in typical Volkswagen fashion, they still didn’t keep their end of the ‘bargain’, and now Formula 1 will be stuck with worse PUs, an Audi team that doesn’t appear to even try to be competitive, and no Porsche at all.

    Brilliant work, guys.

    1. Porsche and Audi didn’t force anything, the current teams voted for it…

    2. Correct.

      No MGU-H means more sound out of the turbo because that sound is not being converted into electrical energy.

    3. @proesterchen this isn’t necessarily true. The heat energy that they will no longer capture will not automatically turn into sound.

    4. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
      25th June 2023, 23:08

      Not true in the slightest, the quieter sounds now is due to the muffled effect from the MGU K, which is being removed. This comment is like saying a gun with the silencer removed is not as efficient.

      1. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
        25th June 2023, 23:13

        The internal combustion element of a current engine will be in isolation very loud, it’s just muffled by the time it exits the exhausts by turbos and mgu k. So please don’t think they’re adding inefficiency by letting us hear that sound (yes I know turbos aren’t going, just highlighting they reduce the sound we hear also).

        1. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
          25th June 2023, 23:14

          Sorry replied to wrong comments. Whoops

  4. It’s not about loudness. A teenager with a 50ccm tuned scooter is loud but it sounds horrendous. F2 is quiter than F1 but sounds pretty cool, bassy with turbo whine/flutter and backfire. Taking away MGU-H will make F1 sound a bit better, but more displacement and a different firing order would probably help too.

    1. F2 is louder than F1 at this point in time.

      1. So is my Ford Focus.

  5. Electroball76
    23rd June 2023, 10:21

    The next engine formula will be a single- cylinder range extender. With a phat exhaust for moar loudnesses.

  6. in the grim darkness of the far future, F1 will probably end up going electric.

    There are laws coming into action across Europe and other parts of the world that will ban the sale of petrol and diesel cars over the next decade or two.

    If F1 is still using combustion engines in 2050 it might look like a bit of a dinosaur when new petrol road cars are long gone in a lot of places.

    This doesn’t reflect my opinion or where I want F1 to be, I love a good engine! But it might be where things end up.

    1. Maybe F1 can move to (green) Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engines.
      And if they primarily race in drought areas they can help nature even further.

      If there is enough water coming out or the exhaust, then we might get the sprinkles Bernie was suggesting. Another reason to increase the field!

    2. @napierrailton The energy required to do an F1 race at F1 speeds is substantial. It is not possible to fit all of that into batteries without making the cars close to three times their current weight. Swapping out batteries is perhaps possible, but they’d have to be very big batteries or you’ll end up with so many pitstops that it becomes a joke.

      Maybe this changes in the future, maybe it won’t. People are certainly trying to improve capacity and lower the weight of batteries, but that’s no guarantee it’ll work (no matter what the more zealous EV-proponents say).

      1. Batteries will get better.

        Look at how far formula e has come in 10 years. When it started, they had to change cars half way through the race just to get to the finish.

        Now the cars are way faster, lighter, and they can finish longer races.

        They are still a long way from F1 levels of performance, but I’m sure it will be possible one day.

  7. Of course we need to be a hybrid, we’re going to hybrid for the future.

    Hybrids aren’t the future, they’re the past. They are a stop-gap solution at best, slightly improving the efficiency and emissions of an inefficient, dirty form of propulsion which will be phased out fairly quickly.

    Not that I think EV tech is ready for F1 levels of performance. Hybrid is a good stepping stone while other technologies mature, but pretending they are the future is laughable.

    1. Liberty can’t say anything different at this moment in time, with the FIA having sold the exclusive rights to a fully electric World Championship to a series that has no value other than that very exclusivity.

      1. They could exclude inaccurate statements about hybrids being the future altogether…

        1. Maybe they are hoping to attract Toyota. 😂

    2. @drmouse i don’t think hybrids are a stop gap solution. If anything it’s a much better solution than full electric in a different parts of the world. Developed countries can maybe afford to have multiple charging stations around the city, but for bigger countries with less condensed population, or not fully developed electric networks, it’s much more difficult. I’m Argentinean, and I can’t see electric vehicules being affordable and usable in the near future at all… if they were to implement anything, would be cheaper hybrid options, because it’s just a plug and play solution: it still uses petrol, but it’s much more efficient for city use.

      1. That doesn’t make them the future, though. If anything, it reinforces that they are outdated technology, as the places you say they are a better option are those without an up-to-date electricity grid. IMHO it also shows that they are a stop gap solution, in this case until the power delivery infrastructure in those countries is brought up to date.

        Also, I didn’t necessarily mean that BEVs were the only future path. There are other technologies which will be more suited to some applications, for instance fuel cells.

        There will be a place for ICEs, in one form or another, for a long time to come. But then, there is still a place for coal-fired power stations. That doesn’t make them “the future”.

        1. @drmouse, electric engines are a couple of decades older than internal combustion engines.
          The car builders of the 19th century, like Ferdinand Porsche, preferred to have used electric engines, but like now they ran into severe practical problems to use electrical engines.
          Given the type and amount of resources current battery tech needs/uses and the infrastructure that it needs to make them useful. Mining of the resources is harmful to biome and therefore the climate. Apart from emissions, biodiverse nature needs to be maintained to achieve a sustainable future.

          In alot of parts in the world internal combustion is simply the more practical solution, this is includes the “first world” countryside.
          Production of synthetic fuel and further development of internal combustion engines is simply essential for a sustainable future.

          1. ICEs have been popular because of an abundance of cheap* fossil fuels. The cost and availability outweighed their massive inefficiencies.

            In a world of more and more constrained energy resources, this is reversing. The production of synthetic fuels will never be close to 100% efficient, and these are then generally consumed by engines which are around 30% efficient at best. This probably means consuming more than 5x as much energy than running a BEV, or more than double the amount of a FCEV. With the constraints on available energy, this will become untenable and expensive very quickly.

            * Yes, even now they are comparatively cheap in monetary terms. In the UK, even with taxes, a litre of petrol costs around £1.50 and supplies about 9.5kWh, so about 16p/kWh. That’s significantly less per kWh than residential electricity at current prices (over 30p/kWh) and not much more than residential gas (about 10p/kWh).

          2. With the constraints on available energy, this will become untenable and expensive very quickly.

            Ironically, the way it’s done now, the main resource that is ‘constrained’ in the production of synesthetic fuels is CO2. The process by which hydrogen is separated from water uses renewable energy sources; which – like with electricity in general – does also require the use of solar panels, windmills, dams, etc. and all the materials required to make those. Crucially though, synthetic fuels do not require batteries, which themselves are a rather problematic part of the supposed ‘green’ EV story.

          3. @drmouse not in the 19th century when the choice was made for ice’s over electric engines. Batteries were heavy and didnt have enough capacity for practical use.

            New fossil fuel reserves are discovered every day. There is enough coal in the world to fuel the world for centuries. The point isn’t availability, it’s sustainability.

            Synthetic fuels don’t need to be 100% efficient, they don’t even need to be 50% efficient, they need to be practical and sustainable.
            When they are made from sustainable green energy and the proces to produce them is sustainable efficiency is not very important when they fulfill a practical application and are affordable.

            There is also a reason why a location like Punta Arenas is chosen to produce synthetic fuels, apart from the subsidies. The potential to produce green energy is large, there are low energy demands from local populations and there is plenty of space and resource to produce the synthetic fuels and it has natural harbors to ship them out.

            The same can be done in a location like Iceland, where geothermal energy is practically infinite and its just waiting to be converted into synthetics or hydrogen.
            Also there is enough uranium in seawater to fuel nuclear for ages. And by the time it runs out the prospects of fusion being exploitable are big.

          4. The thing is that combustive fuels are several times more energy-dense than batteries, and things like turbines and even Formula One engines aren’t too far off the efficiency of electric motors.

            That combination is almost impossible to beat and the sole reason that synthetic fuels might be commercially viable for many applications, even if they are a net loss of energy (assuming that the overall economy runs a surplus, of course).

          5. things like turbines and even Formula One engines aren’t too far off the efficiency of electric motors.

            Turbines, I’ll grant you. The very large steam turbines themselves can be 90% efficient when run under very specific conditions. But that’s not an internal combustion engine.

            A gas turbine typically has an efficiency of around 30%. If then connected in a combined cycle system, like in most power stations, most of the excess heat can be captured by a steam turbine, making it 90%+ efficient. That can’t effectively be done to drive a vehicle, though, due to the complexity and weight involved.

            F1 power units are around 50% efficient. That’s not just the engine, though, that’s utilising all the hybrid systems, the ERS-H etc. The ICE itself is nowhere near that efficient.

            Electric motors themselves are alive 90% efficient. When taking into account charging and discharging the battery and delivering the power over the national grid, this drops to around 80%. That’s already getting half as much again out of the energy input as an F1 engine.

            Now let’s take into account the efficiency of producing the synthetic fuel. Electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen is around 80% efficient at best. Capturing carbon from the air is an energy intensive process itself, and then it must be combined with the hydrogen. I’d generously estimate producing the fuel to be 50% efficient in total at best.

            So, even if all the engines it was running in were as efficient as an F1 power unit, you’re looking at using over 3x the energy as a battery vehicle, ignoring the cost of transporting the fuel.

          6. Production of synthetic fuel and further development of internal combustion engines is simply essential for a sustainable future.

            The problem is that making an ICE more efficient is extremely difficult. There are practical limits on current designs, and other designs (I have designed a couple myself) are much more mechanically complex.

            After that, it’s a matter of adding things to recover wasted energy, similar to a combined cycle power station or an F1 engine’s ERS-H. This still adds significant complexity and, often, a fair amount of weight.

            Hybrids do a good job for now. They allow electric power to take over the areas where ICEs are at their least efficient. But battery technology is far more likely to advance more quickly than ICE technology because ICEs are near the limits of what can be achieved. Car manufacturers have been developing the ICE for over a century, whereas battery technology remained fairly stagnant until quite recently. There are regular announcements about new battery technology which will improve energy density and sustainability. EVs are already suitable for a large proportion of the first world population’s personal vehicle use.

            For road-going cars, synthetic hydrocarbon fuel and hybrid engines are definitely a stop gap on the transition to something else. It could be BEVs, it could be FCEVs, or it could be something else.

      2. I’m Argentinean, and I can’t see electric vehicules being affordable and usable in the near future at all…

        You won’t like the price of ICE cars, parts, and maintenance when volumes drop as other parts of the world transition away from them, production rates crumble, and existing vehicles age out of fleets.

        1. We’ll see. Car companies aren’t dumb. They know the wind the politics are blowing and won’t make a fuzz when it has no benefit. Plus there are definitely great use-cases for EVs, so investing in them makes sense. However, it’s not a one-stop solution. Just like petrol engines have never been the only kind of vehicle on the roads. These huge global companies are not investing in – for example – synthetic fuels because they’re transforming into a high school science club. They’re keeping their options open.

          1. The huge global companies investing in synthetic fuels are generally oil companies who don’t want their business to die. They’ve got too much riding on petrochemicals.

            Plus, there will be many uses for synthetic fuels where practicalities outweigh efficiency. Personal transportation is unlikely to be one of those except in the short term and will be exceedingly expensive for that. Aircraft and spacecraft will likely need it for some time. Big trucks are likely to need hydrocarbon fuel for longer, though even they will likely have better options in a relatively short time.

  8. The focus should be on how to incentivise smaller teams to get closer to the top teams instead of what noise comes out of the engine.

  9. Luckily we won’t see (resp hear) the ear-melting exaggerately loud V8 engines again, but I agree the current formula is nor fish nor flesh soundwise. The main “problem” is the MGU-H which is only relevant for tecnical aficionados, so if liberty would get the sound of the 80’s V6 I think everybody should be satisfied. Or at least the Indycar sound.

  10. I’ve never been to an actual F1 race, so I only have TV to go by. For me the sound is interesting, but hardly an essential part of the show. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    1. First time I went to see a F1 GP was in 94, I think. Ferrari was running with a V12, Renault with a V10, Ford with the V8 Cosworth… It was quite amazing to hear the different screaming, a big part of the show…

      1. I’ve heard cars from both eras. I much prefer the present one trackside. Earlier cars, I need ear protection to be able to enjoy a race, and conversing about the race with friends is much more difficult. Now, I get a lovely sound at a tolerable level, can discuss what’s going on, don’t get a headache… Much more better, as Jack Sparrow would say.

        This is, of course, only my opinion. I’m aware some people want eardrum-splitting noise.

        1. I totally agree with you on this…

          I went to Sepang in 2010 for MotoGP session without an ear plug (I never knew they were so loud). I almost ran mad. I heard the sound of the bikes in my brain for weeks.

          Would I want that again? Hell no! I also want to be able to converse esp. about strategies, tyre wears, etc. with friends freely while the race is going on

          Besides, there are distinct differences between music, sound and noise. F1 wants noise; a type of sound though. What do I know?

    2. I only have TV to go by

      This is what Mr Domicenicali overlooks. For most fans the sound they hear is via TV or computer, where the sound has been attenuated, filtered, equalised, etc, so it fits within the broadcast expectations. Increasing the loudness is simply a matter of turning up the volume.

  11. Removing the RPM limiter would help in creating screaming engines but are they loud…

    Current engines are loud (dB) (my ears are bleeding after hearing them when i remove my earplugs) but the sounds is dull not very ecxiting. Increasing the RMP to 16k-18k would give the v8-v10 feel back but i would recommend to put a simple demper to keep the dB not too high.

    My work as a sonar operator was a fun time but loud music would take me several days to recover for work.

    1. None of the engines currently run up to the RPM limiter. There’s a fuel flow rate limit in the regulations that prevents the cars from being able to spin much faster than 11-12K rpm. The only way to spin the engine faster while complying with the fuel flow rate limit is to run the engine much leaner than they can even handle.

      They could change the regulations to say ‘no engine RPM limit’ and the engines still wouldn’t spin faster than they already do. The fuel flow rate limit has to change first to do that.

      1. That’s not completely accurate.

        There is nothing at all stopping the teams running at higher revs. They have control over the amount of air entering the cylinder (by controlling the turbo), so they could easily make it so that the engine consumed the correct amount of air for the fuel they are injecting. There is no need to “run the engine leaner”.

        The reason they don’t is efficiency. I’m not talking “saving fuel”, MPG-style, but technical efficiency (the proportion of the energy input they can usefully extract). Exceeding 11-12k doesn’t allow them to put more energy in (as they are already at the fuel flow limit), but it does increase the amount of energy lost in the engine, so the power output actually falls. It would be detrimental to the engine’s performance at that point to rev any higher.

  12. It’s not the loudness that’s the problem, is the sound of it. I never liked the V8s particularly, as they were loud but rough compared to the fine sound of the V10 or V12. I don’t think on TV the Indycars are that much louder than the current F1s, but they sound way nicer. I don’t think a good sound is possible with the setup they have (and will continue to have).

  13. Frentzen Button
    23rd June 2023, 14:04

    It’s not about volume, it’s the higher pitch that made the old engines sound aggresive. Higher RPMs = higher pitch. Of course a low rumble can sound amazing too but people associate Formula 1 cars with a higher pitch. When you make the “neeeooowww” sound, do you sound more like Spongebob or more like Patrick?

  14. “It is really what our fans want to hear”

    Did.. did he really said that. Or am I dreaming.. In the end it will be made artifically of course. It’s just a false advertising.

  15. It ia not about volume at all… it is about the screaming of the engines, the high RPM’s, that gives fans goosebumps.

    Dont get me wrong, you still need aome volume to heae them comming in the far distance, ever growing louder when they come closer. But there is absolitely no need at ALL for anything artificial. Whatsoever.

    Likewise there is no need for the artificial cheers and shouts on the live tv feed.
    And the artificial bird shadow during COTA

  16. Great news.

    All doh the argument about cylinder amount is a false one, from experience I can say that VW Beetle fun cup that runs 4 cylinder boxer engines make more noise than the current F1 engines.

    1. My 1275cc Mini (proper one, not the new BMW things) makes a lot of noise. Does it sound better than a current F1 car? That’s very much a matter of opinion.

      In case anyone cares, I think it sounds better than both current and previous F1 cars. But then I love the sound of a well-tuned A-series engine on an SU carb. I wouldn’t recommend them for F1, though lol

  17. I’m not a climate change negationist and I don’t think that everything would fantastic if we just went back to some semi-fictional glory days. The world evolves and those who don’t evolve with it get left behind.

    But, having witnessed and felt (which is a more accurate word than ‘heard’) the sound and power of former F1 engines (80s-90s, specifically), it is undeniable that there was a whole physical, sensory dimension there that F1 no longer provides.

    But, where Domenically and Liberty are wrong, as usual, is thinking that something essentially superficial can compensate for what fundamentally ails the sport. Closer racing on good racetracks is what makes for good F1. Everything else is just flavouring.

  18. My first GP was the 2013 Monaco GP. My 2nd was the 2014 one. The difference between the two cars a year a part was the most distinct thing I can remember from between those two experiences outside of the weather. I have been to several GP’ s around the globe since my first two and honestly, nothing has compared to that first one in Monaco 10 years ago. Though I’ll admit that it might have something to do with the fact it was my first ever GP I saw live, most of it is due to the noise that those V8’s were screaming out. We need the noise back and I am all for it.

  19. I totally agree with you on this…

    I went to Sepang in 2010 for MotoGP session without an ear plug (I never knew they were so loud). I almost ran mad. I heard the sound of the bikes in my brain for weeks.

    Would I want that again? Hell no! I also want to be able to converse esp. about strategies, tyre wears, etc. with friends freely while the race is going on

    Besides, there are distinct differences between music, sound and noise. F1 wants noise; a type of sound though. What do I know?

  20. Having to listen to painfully loud engines for hours on end may bring joy to the heart of some loud noise proponents, but it is soul destroying, and it can lead animals to the point of insanity. As far as I know damaged hearing is permanent, and I’m fairly sure the race track owners won’t want to be paying compensation to the people whose hearing has been damaged. Will the FIA be supplying everyone who has to attend the race to be given ear muffs when they turn up at the track, and allow wearing them to be part of the dress code? No, I don’t think so.
    Mr Domenicali has spent too much time listening to proponents of loud engines and not enough time standing in close proximity to the loud engines. I suspect he would turn down the offer of a permanent seat right beside the pitlane exit or the starting grid. This idea should be quietly filed in the rubbish bin.

    1. Grand prix attendance was higher 30 years ago when engines were louder so the public isn’t a problem. Also Mr Domenicali had a seat next to both the pitlane and the starting grid when he had to sit on the pit wall in his more than 20 years working at Ferrari.

    2. Stuart Barker
      1st July 2023, 18:00

      Couldn’t agree more. Hearing damage IS permanent, and the extend and nature of the damage is willfully misunderstood and misreported. Tinnitus (permanent screeching in your head) can be a result of Loud Noise Induced Hearing Damage and there is no cure, no relief, for the rest of your life. Some people can adapt, some commit suicide. This obsession with loud noise is similar to the tobacco lobby’s tactics from 20 years ago. Part of the “joy” of pubs was the smokey atmosphere, and other such nonsense. If I put on a light show and blinded half the audience I would be legally responsible. If I deafened them I could walk away Scot free.

Comments are closed.