Oh look who is back and complaining again?
Anyway, on the noise debate here are the thoughts of Autosport's Dieter Rencken who I find myself once again agreeing with...
Autosport.com wrote:
The irony of F1's noise criticism
F1 has a noise problem, but it's not that the engines are too quiet - it's the complaints that are too loud, argues DIETER RENCKEN
Seldom, if ever, in the 65-year history of Formula 1 has there been so much noise about its very absence. Indeed, such has been the outcry about the eerie silence of F1's new-gen power units - mostly, it must be said, from those who have not heard the latest engines 'live' - that there are clearly various agendas at play.
That the powertrains - hybrid 1600cc turbo engines delivering 750bhp, the same as their ancient 2400cc predecessors, but on 40 per cent less fuel over a race distance - would be immeasurably quieter than the unfettered V8s was known to all who voted in 2009 for a set of outline regulations framed by an FIA then presided over by Max Mosley, Bernie Ecclestone's long-standing associate.
Indeed, the F1 tsar not only had first-hand experience of the aural differences between V8 and turbo engines due to his (Brabham) driver Nelson Piquet taking the 1981 and '83 world championships with such units, but played active roles in F1 Commission meetings convened in the run-up to ratification of the regulations by the FIA World Motor Sport Council in December 2009. He is chairman, by right, of the Commission, and WMSC member, again by right.
However, it's a matter of record that during the five years between publication of the regulations to the cars starting on the grid in Melbourne he has heard but a single new-gen (Ferrari) power unit run – in a dynamometer cell in Maranello.
During all three pre-season tests he was conspicuous by his absence, so with the greatest respect to the man, he is hardly qualified to judge on noise first hand.
In fact, many found it rather strange that the 83-year-old did not make the journey to Australia given the 'launch' of his latest product, his present legal challenges notwithstanding.
Still, after the opening test at Jerez he described the new formula as "farcical". That the beleaguered CEO of F1's commercial rights holder should describe his latest product in such derogatory terms remains baffling, for he, of all F1 folk, should surely be boosting the sport at every turn, regardless of his personal sentiments. But, as a team boss (apologetically) told this column in Spain, "That's Bernard..."
Ironically, in the same week, the foreword in F1's annual broadcasting report quotes Ecclestone as hoping the new powertrains would halt F1's dwindling TV ratings, which have dropped 30 per cent in five years.
"It is timely developments like [the new powertrains] that keep F1 at the forefront of sustainable and relevant technology. One thing I am sure of is that this coming season will not only offer a heightened level of unpredictability but renewed excitement and fierce competition," his company's report quotes him as saying.
Also on the F1 Commission throughout the period (nominated by close friend Ecclestone) was Ron Walker AC CBE, billionaire businessman, former Lord Mayor of Melbourne and chairman of the Australian Grand Prix Corporation, who two years ago began campaigning against the 2014 regulations – just when Ecclestone was pitted against the FIA over the expiring 2010-12 Concorde Agreement, the covenant which governs the sport and has yet to be officially renewed.
Ecclestone and Walker were not, though, alone in criticising the formula, which underwent a difficult gestation as the original inline fours made way for V6s and the introduction of arguably F1's most sweeping regulations ever was delayed 12 months after it became clear the mandatory three-year notice period would prove insufficient.
Team bosses constantly decried the additional costs – engine budgets doubled to £18m for a year's supply per two-car team, admittedly off an artificially low base agreed by the (now-defunct) Formula One Teams' Association back in 2008 as a sop to independents – despite sponsors and car manufacturers making clear that F1 had to go 'green'.
That the F1 Commission (and, by extension, teams, sponsors and promoters) could have torpedoed the new formula was made clear during last year's Italian Grand Prix (Friday) FIA press conference by Christian Horner.
"Where collectively we all made a mistake was not to say 'no'," Red Bull's team boss explained.
"Some of us did, but at the end of the day there's a process that these regulations have to go through and the teams, through the old Concorde Agreement, had the opportunity, through the Formula One Commission etc, etc, to stop it, and we didn't.
"We can only, in many respects, blame ourselves."
However, one would have thought that Walker, as head of a corporation reporting directly to the State of Victoria's Minister for Tourism and Major Events, would be more circumspect.
His comments seemed designed to put fans right off just when the 74-year-old's primary duty should be to ensure a full house to reduce a fiscal deficit running at hundreds of millions of dollars. But, said one (frustrated) AGPC staff member, "That's our Ronald..."
To many the noise issue is in any event chronically over exaggerated, for during the season engine sounds are heard 'live' by less than 0.5 per cent of F1's global audience, assuming every one of the 19 scheduled venues sells out.
Given an average of 100,000 seats, a full season sell-out 'live' audience would pan out at just under 2m versus a global TV audience of 600m viewers, who hear commentary over background noise.
Back in 1988, the iconic season which sparked the Senna blockbuster movie, the cars were arguably quieter than the current edition – and certainly did not have the additional 'layers' of sound created by ERS-K, ERS-H and brake-by-wire systems which generate energy under braking – yet the racing certainly didn't suffer for the comparative silence.
True, hard-core fans can hear the difference through their loudspeakers, but granny down the road cannot discern the difference – and her eyeballs are as important to sponsors and TV broadcasters as are the red-bedecked Tifosi who scour every F1 website going 24/7/365.
Tellingly, on a midnight flight out of Melbourne after the race, this columnist sat next to a local non-fan, who gleefully related that he had not heard the cars despite living 5km from Albert Park.
"They have annoyed me for almost 20 years," he said, "but if that's the new formula, they can carry on racing as far as I'm concerned. Now they can even go night racing as far as I'm concerned..."
Yes, the cars are quiet and sound most unlike the 750bhp monsters they are, but their increased torque makes them trickier to drive on the limit than their almost benign predecessors – as Valtteri Bottas can attest...
The irony is that, in health-and-safety-crazed Melbourne, fans have for 15 years been urged to use earplugs – with local charities selling 'survival kits' containing suntan lotion and earplugs at the gates.
In races held under the old formula the stands were filled with folk wearing earmuffs, whereas in Melbourne the roar of the crowd could be heard well above the noise of passing cars, adding to the atmosphere.
Consider that locals consistently vetoed night races on noise grounds, and that Melbourne's evening skyline is as good as it gets. Ecclestone has long pushed AGPC to convert Albert Park to host night races, even threatening to end its contract. Now there is one less excuse.
In the end Walker's fears that fans would stay away proved, no doubt to the relief of Victoria's taxpayers, utterly unfounded. Total attendance over the grand prix's four days was, at 323,000, within one per cent of last year's gate, with race-day sales receiving a last-minute boost due to Daniel Ricciardo's fine front-row qualifying performance.
In fact, corporate attendance was well up, proving that high-rollers, F1's ultimate target market, were intrigued enough by the engines to flash their companies' cash. This despite the global economic crisis having at last caught up with Australia, as proven by the recent dive of its currency.
London bookmakers offered odds of 33:1 that no cars would make the finish of the 58-lap race; others were 4:7 certain only half the field would reach the flag.
In the paddock bets were taken that cars would stall on the grid, causing serious accidents. Predictions in the media centre were pessimistic: half the field would qualify outside the regulatory 107 per cent cut-off.
In the event the doomsayers lost spectacularly: 15 cars were classified, while, of the seven retirements, two dropped out through a first-corner shunt – albeit caused by a KERS-linked brake-by-wire system on a Caterham going awry.
True, both Lotus cars eventually retired with engine issues, but what did the black/gold team expect after missing the Spanish test due to major cash shortages, and suffering Renault's well-documented reliability issues in the second and third tests held in the heat of Bahrain?
The new formula could hardly be blamed for the team's lack of preparation.
In the end 15 cars were (provisionally) classified - just three fewer than last year when the sport's outgoing technology was its 'maturest'.
True, there had been teething issues galore with the complex heat and kinetic energy recovery technologies, but this was to be expected given the challenges.
True, they sound strangled due to enormous turbos that extract every last milligram of energy from spent gasses.
And yes, some of the cars are pig ugly, but not for the first time in F1 history: when first the sport adopted narrow tyres in the '90s and gawky wings in 2009, fans went berserk.
Within a few races they were accepted as 'normal' – whatever that may be in F1 – and in Melbourne the new McLaren looked as sleek as ever and pretty fast, too, with both the team's cars finishing in the top four, which is more than could be said of its predecessor.
Much has also been made that the cars were two seconds per lap slower than last year, but, as FIA president Jean Todt pointed out to this column in an exclusive interview last month, it has always been thus.
"If you think when were the cars in Formula 1 the quickest – it was 10 years ago – normally the cars, between the beginning of the season and the end of the season it would be about two seconds [gain]," he said.
"So I think it's good when you start from scratch regulations, which happens every 10 years, that the cars become slower. That was always the intention."
On that basis they will be as quick as their predecessors by Sochi.
As a matter of interest, in 2013 Melbourne's fastest lap was slower than the best time posted in 2012, which was in turn faster than 2011's pacesetter. In 2005 Melbourne's fastest lap was 1m25.683s; in 2009 it was 1m28.358s and last year it came in at 1m29.274s. Funny Walker didn't squeal then.
There is no doubt that F1 had to change.
Put into the context of the music industry, which went from LP record to cassette to CD to iPod over a period of 20 years, the new formula bridged the yawning gap from vinyl to MP3 in a year – and still managed to stage an extremely exciting spectacle at its maiden showing at similar speeds to last year, all on 30 per cent less fuel.
There is nothing farcical about that, regardless of individual agendas.
And guess what: for the buffs, MP3 does not reproduce as wholesomely as does vinyl, but millions more are able to enjoy the sound.
Register
Login
FAQ
Search
