Noise Levels

[Bob Riebe]

---"nevertheless being arrogant, insular and selfish about our sport is a sure fire way to get us marginalised and under severe pressure from the environmental lobby & Parliament."---

This is the oppositions attitude, and they will not change.
Taking the so called "high road" does not work.
You either fight fire with fire, or quit and go home.
As I said before, if the Pro side continually gives, there is NEVER going to be an end until the Con side gets everythng it wants. We give they take. They have ZERO, NADA, NOT ONE DARN THING TO LOSE!
Will the Pros lose in the end, maybe, but in the name of Heaven, at least go down fighting for what one loves.
Bob
PS--Half a loaf, is not better than none. That one half, they allowed you will eventually rot, just like the half they stole.

[dtype38]

Anyone been to Rockingham? I've raced there and personally think its a great track. Best bit is that those great big stands and embankments mean that you can't hear much of what's going on from outside, but inside the noise is contained and bounced about for the full enjoyment of the spectators. Way to go Rockingham Is this the way forward?

[Anuauto]

As we lose some non-permanent venues (ie sprints ,hillclimbs, stage rallies)the quest for replacements invariably founders on potential noise problems, particularly in the South East of the UK (eg Top Gear already having upset the locals at Dunsfold when clubs looked into it for sprints). The problem was highlighted at Castle Combe last Saturday when sprint competitors were exposed to race noise limits (same Db, different revs). We may need to face up to the problem of temporary venues with major reductions in our noise levels. What we cannot continue to have is piecemeal reductions as seen to date. For many cars that can mean new exhaust systems each time. What is particularly galling is that most testing is now done by the "stick it up the exhaust pipe" method. Rallies in particular used to be "from the side at 8 metres". Both are allowed in GRs. Older engines seem to suffer more under the first method than more modern (inherently smoother?) multi-valves.
Funny, but I dont see many local residents with their heads 1 metre from competing cars exhaust outlets......

[StephenRae]

I have never understood why, for instance Oulton Park has to be quiet after 6.30. There is apparantly a lone complainant who reports transgressions. Surely the countryside is at times noisy, tractors, combines etc.. For a tiny minority to have such power is wrong.
That is not to say that I haven't got sympathy with those who have to suffer when flight paths are changed, or road noise has become intolerable. I can't imagine how bad it must be to live near a major football ground.

[Chris Y]

I believe people who move to an area that already has a race track there, lose the right to complain about it. It was their decision to move there, and chances are they would have been made aware of the noise 'issue'.

Having said that, I think it must be far preferable to live in the vicinity of a race track, than an airport, a shopping centre, a football ground, or even a busy pub. Race meetings happen once a week - ok, there may be trackdays and the like operating every day, but usually they are far quieter, with less cars on track mostly.

Oulton Park is particularly annoying. It's such a great track, yet they aren't allowed to run on most Sundays because of the 'disturbance' to the local population of Little Budworth. I think that it's an outdated rule that probably dates back to more 'peaceful' times, when Sunday was considered more a day of rest, when the shops were closed, etc.

I believe Jonathan Palmer is looking at this very subject though, and hopes to get more activities planned for Sundays at Oulton, which is great news.

[listernoble]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Y
[B]I believe people who move to an area that already has a race track there, lose the right to complain about it. It was their decision to move there, and chances are they would have been made aware of the noise 'issue'.

I wish you were right,but I believe they can move in near an established venue and make life a misery the next day!
Prescott hillclimb is a good example,so is Curborough sprint,Harewood hillclimb,and Goodwood ,I'm sure there are many others.
Goodwood is amazing because if the noise reaches a certain aggregated level the racing stops for several minutes to get the average down,but the helicopters and planes still fly around making lots of noise.
I have run in French hillclimbs in last few years where we can run open exhausts, and all the locals,including the police turn up to cheer!
Lister

[kickstart]

I was in the process of being noise tested at Goodwood in the spring when a very noisy helicopter hovered overhead, which meant that the noise testing had to wait until it had moved away.
There is no more justification for noise from private aircraft than from motorsport and yet airfields seem to be immune. Lets not forget that the motorsport injustry in the UK is a significant one that employs many tens of thousands of people. Cutting already low noise levels to appease the few will only have a temporary effect and each few years it will reduce further until our competitors are racing in Europe and our F1 teams have decamped abroad.
However I do think that circuits are somewhat short sighted when it comes to buying up properties close to their operations. There is a house for sale at Oulton Park which actually overlooks one of the bends - if this ends up in the hands of someone who finds the noise a problem this could cause the circuit a bigger problem - why doesn't JP do a buy to let deal and then if the tenant causes a problem you get a new tenant.
I should correct something that has appeared in this thread - it is no defence at law to say that the Claimant has come to an area with an existing nuisance (eg noise). If the nuisance exists then the Claimant can either issue proceedings themselves or more likely contact the council to try and get them to impose an abatement order.

[JimW]

My personal preference would be for no racing car to be quieter than about 105dB.

Certainly cars silenced to road levels take away one of the dimensions of enjoyment of raceing.

You have now given me my first real justification for going to an FIA-GT round.

Of course events going to temporary or new venues have as a matter of decency and common sense to pay appropriate regard to off-venue noise.

Regards

Jim

[graham blackwell]

I was noise tested at Harewood on Sunday, and the reading was 96.5db, 2.5db higher than it should be. Thats almost twice as loud as she normally is.

The noise test was performed with my car reversed in to her parking space in the paddock, parked about 2 metres from my tow car, so the noise test was invalid as there wasn't sufficient free space around the car. No fear of failing, but I suspect one or two others may have been close to the limit.

Still no one has convinced me yet that noise levels that cause permanent hearing damage are worth paying money to see/hear.

[qaz]

IMHO if the noise is a problem for you wear ear plugs.

[listernoble]

I am a bit confused.
Sound levels for 2004 hillclimbs are ;
110db - single seater and sports racers
108db saloons-which I think is what you have?
In either case you were well under unless Harewood have altered their regs,but reading this years entry forms and regs I can't see that they have.
Normally they are not officious about sound, although they do now have a problem with someone on the other side of the valley.
Anywat it's a brilliant venue and I hope you enjoyed your day.
Lister

[graham blackwell]

I was well under, but others with louder cars weren't, and noise tests in the paddock parking spots aren't the right place for them.

Harewood was great. We managed four runs in dry conditions, then packed up to come home. Those who stayed for 2 more runs later in the afternoon were treated to torrential downpours, and one competitor sat for 25mins on the starting line, waiting for the rain to stop! Hope he wasn't in a single seater.

I think that there are extra cones on the chicane after the first corner. I'm sure I could take more kerb last year, but now theres a forest of plastic poles waiting to remove bits of body work. Still had fun though, only one sideways moment. 8)

[R59]

The sounds of a full chat V8 with conventional crank is awesome, as is straight 6, V12, etc...

F1 V10's are schrill screaming demonic creatures that do nothing for me at all (and I have worked in the environment). While they are awesome pieces of engineering they do nothing for me in terms of "sound-sex".

Many 4 pot cars that race on our hallowed tarmac these days sound more like muffled f*rts. Formula drone.

I remember a competitor being hauled in for a noise test because his car was too noisy. They tested it at the exhaust (as per the blue book) and it passed.

The noise was up front. Intake roar!!

Now on a technical note.

Hillclimbs have the restrictions of 110 and 108dBA for the single seaters and saloons. 2dBA is only just noticeable by the human ear, only properly by gadgetery. 1dBA is called "JND" (Just noticeable Difference)

Now for the inverse square rule. For every time you double the distance, you quarter the sound level. So, here is a link for you to look at, read, and understand.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/isprob.html

Far too much is given to hype, and knee-jerk reaction.

One of the biggest problems with noise is the craze for tailpipes like industrial chimneys. They make the engines sound dead-pan flat, worse than a stifled f*rt! And probably cost the engine a sackload of horsepower too.

I remember my cousin tuning the exhaust system on his 3.8 Jag, cutting and shutting until it produced peak power, and what's more crackled, flamed, and sounded awesome. Took him ages, but worked fantastically.

[Morris 1100]

In Australia the noise limit is 95db and everyone has to comply (with the exception of the GP)

[dtype38]

If anyone has problems with passing noise tests then you might want to consider some of the following:

Firstly its well worth taking the time to read up in the Blue Book about exactly how your sound level should be tested (sec E 12.17 for most). I am often surprised that officials at some tracks aren't fully conversant with the options and sometimes don't use the right test or do it in the correct way... Important footnote : telling an official he isn't doing his job properly is unlikely to achieve favourable results - you have been warned.

Anyway, its surprising what can be done to reduce measured sound readings from a car without expensive silencers or retuning. As you'll see from the Blue Book, normally a meter will be held 0.5m away, level with, and at a 45deg angle from your tailpipe. From personal experience, fitting a pipe which exits horizontally and has a 45deg chamfer in the outlet will lead to horrendous readings, even on a reasonable quiet car. By comparison, I managed a 4-5dBA reduction in readings by simply changing to a square cut pipe with a nice radius on the end, pointing about 20-30 deg down towards the ground.

If that doesn't get you enough reduction then consider going twin outlet to "spread the noise out". Generally testers will accept that readings should be taken "to the outside" of twin exhausts, which means that part of the sound is further away than the required 0.5m and therefore gives a lower reading. If the outlets can be separated by more than 1.5m (say to opposite rear corners of a saloon) then reductions of up to 3dBA can be achieved in the reading.

Finally bear in mind that sound measurement is an imprecise science. British Standards even for high quality metres don't expect a tolerance of much better than +/- 0.5 dBA even when newly calibrated. Most hand held noise metres achieve a repeatable accuracy of +/- 1-2dBA, REGARDLESS of how many decimal places they read to. So don't buy a metre and calibrate your car to 104.9 dBA and expect a track official to get the same reading.

[listernoble]

As has already been stated,make sure there is clear space around the car as a lot of noise can be reflected back from other cars,walls etc.
I also have a sound meter but it bears no relation to the official readings,so it could just get me into trouble if I relied on it.
Another thing ,if you have a repackable make sure it is re-packed regularly.
I read 115db earlier this season,I had a look inside the silencer and there was absolutley no packing left ,I managed to get a bit of packing in and luckily they let me run.
When I got home I did a a proper repack it came down to 106db.
Lister

[Cameron Winton]

The environment the noise test is carried out in has a big bearing on the reading. My car regularily tests at 98 dB and sounds like one of the quieter cars. However when I run it in the garage with the doors open, because the driveway is tight between two houses, I can rattle the windows in the dining room!
Where the engine is in the car also has an effect. I have heard of 911 owners having a real struggle passing noise tests because of engine & cooling fan noise rather than exhaust noise.
I believe noise is one of the fundamental attractions of motorsport. My 3 yr old daughter says "That's a nice noise" when a 911 accelerated by.
Ask the question: Why are "comedy" exhausts such a big thing with the boy racers?
There are enough problems getting people to attend race meetings, getting people to compete and getting sponsors to part with their hard earned cash without neutering the spectacle. sensible restrictions on the timimg of events usually keeps people happy.
I live a mile and a half from Prestwick Airport and nuisance is getting woken up at 12.30am by a US air force Galaxy taking off.

[Eric Falce]

I'v just returned from Portland,Oregon .They take there readings from the grandstand,105 etc except for the good American metal,even I left the grandstands partly more deaf but with a smile on my face,marvelous sound

[Eric Falce]

I'v just returned from Portland,Oregon .They take there readings from the grandstand,105 etc except for the good American metal,even I left the grandstands partly more deaf but with a smile on my face,marvelous sound