The rise of fake engine noise • Hacker News Board

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#191

Post by digi_owl » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 1:11 PM UTC

tlrobinson wrote: post #121

mikepalmer wrote: post #79

Recently drove a Tesla Model S P85D... best thing about it is that the torque is immediate and silent. Not only can you blow other cars away at lights, you can do it casually, with no noise or fuss. Car is here; put car over there. It's like piloting a UFO.

My car has "cutout valves" on the exhaust which can bypass the muffler (making it louder), and I've noticed an interesting phenomenon: the car actually seems faster (to it's occupants) when it's in the quieter mode. I've dynoed it in both modes, the torque and horsepower curves are nearly identical, so it's not actually faster.

http://www.gizmag.com/soundracer-vx-sound-racer/34898/

The tester claims that the beefier engine noise made him a more aggressive driver, or something of that nature.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#192

Post by ska » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 1:15 PM UTC

tacon wrote: post #68

yummyfajitas wrote: post #33

This is hardly new. In college, we had a guest lecture from a mechanical engineer at $POPULAR_MOTORCYCLE_MANUFACTURER. He described how his team cooked up a new engine design that achieved some significant performance increase over the old design. Only problem? It didn't sound like a $POPULAR_MOTORCYCLE. The new engine was delayed for a year while they cooked up a mechanical noisemaker to adjust the sound.

Harley Davidson filed for a sonic trademark on their engine sound back in 1994[0]. (I think it failed, not sure.) But it's pretty easy to reproduce the sound to remind people: Potato, potato, potato, potato, potato, ... [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_trademark

If I recall correctly The sound originally came from cost cutting engineering choices. Beyond the fairly tight angle (a little over 60 degrees) which gives you a asymmetric "gap" between ignitions, they simplifies the ignition timing so that it fired every stroke instead of every other stroke. So the exhaust strokes had a little ignition going on due to unspent fuel/air, giving the quieter sounds. Not a good design for efficiency but it sure gave them a distinctive idle.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#193

Post by CalRobert » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 1:15 PM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #159

CalRobert wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"These switch off above 25 MPH or so, so they don't contribute to freeway noise." Ugg. So they only contribute to the destruction of the street-level soundscape to the detriment of walkers, cyclists, sidewalk cafes, and birds.

They contribute to being heard by walkers and cyclist relying on their ears to know whether a car is coming, which is the legal point of adding these things (and why they can be disabled at high speed)

I am a former Los Angeles bike commuter, and a current walking-commuter (can't think of an elegant word for that). I very much appreciate knowing when a car is coming, but the constant roar on the every street means that conversations have to stop when a truck drives by, you can't hear people talking even when they're only 6 or 7 feet from you, and any sound quieter than an internal combustion engine is diminished. It has left our city streets' as sad, desolate landscapes in many places. If we want to add noise to cars, let them have a bell, like bicycles.

I could walk around screaming at the top of my lungs to warn people when I'm walking by, but maybe I should just try not to hit them instead (and face prison time if I kill someone by doing so.)

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#194

Post by troels » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 1:19 PM UTC

jeza wrote: post #178

firethief wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a pedestrian hit by a car, legal liability is often not the main concern.

Though in some countries, hitting a pedestrian gets the driver an automatic jail term. Collisions with pedestrians don't happen all that often in such countries.

I'd still rather be the driver in that scenario (Which I believe was the parent's point)

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#195

Post by JosephHatfield » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 1:19 PM UTC

When I first drove my 2012 VW Golf R, I was startled by how rumbly the engine sounded. Found out the sound was produced by a device called the soundaktor that was attached to the windshield frame. The device would send low-frequency vibrations to the windshield as needed to "enhance" the engine sound.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#196

Post by pluma » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 1:22 PM UTC

arthurfm wrote: post #184

ncza wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a casual slow cyclist myself I already find it impossible to rely on audio too Mich, visuals are always needed. I have had several near collisions with other cyclists in the past who silently sneak up from behind or around corners. Afterwards I made sure to always look around before changing direction and treat every obscured corner as potential "devil puppet on a spring box" (no idea what they are called :) ). I…

> I would love car traffic to be more silent A minor nitpick, but you can't get more silent than silent since silence is the absence of any noise.

Sure, but absolutes are rarely used in their literal meaning.

"Silence" doesn't refer to the absence of any noise, it refers to a very low level of noise. The absence of any noise at all is very difficult to achieve (although you can come close: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXVGIb3bzHI). The same goes for other absolutes like "black" (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack is arguably "blacker" than other "black" materials).

You're technically correct (the best kind of correct), but your point is moot. Very few words that describe absolutes can be used "correctly" in practice. The logical conclusion is that these words (despite their dictionary definition) don't refer to actual absolutes but rather extremes: silence is not the absence of noise, it's just the presence of a significantly smaller amount of noise.

Heck, even words like "pregnant" aren't absolute in practice. With "pregnant" the implication commonly is "will give birth" (which is why we have euphemisms like "expecting"), so someone who is nearly due can be said to be "more pregnant" simply because they are closer to giving birth (and therefore also have a higher chance of delivering successfully) whereas someone within their first months of pregnancy may often not even want to disclose their state because so many things can still go wrong.

In practice "silent" or "black" is no more absolute than "cold" -- and it would be silly to expect people to refer to zero kelvin when they say "cold", don't you think?

Disclosure: I spent way too much time around linguists as a student.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#197

Post by vacri » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 1:29 PM UTC

upofadown wrote: post #88

vacri wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make it sound like it's only car drivers that ignore road rules.

Only someone who strongly defined themselves by their method of transport would interpret the statement like that.

I take it you've never been driving along and had a pedestrian absent-mindedly step into the road in front of you. That's the kind of thing that engine noise helps avoid. Read some of the other comments on this page.

For what it's worth, most of my travel is on trams - not foot, cycle, or car. Thanks for the patronising comment, though.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#198

Post by mabbo » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 1:31 PM UTC

yaeger wrote: post #91

mikepalmer wrote: post #79

Recently drove a Tesla Model S P85D... best thing about it is that the torque is immediate and silent. Not only can you blow other cars away at lights, you can do it casually, with no noise or fuss. Car is here; put car over there. It's like piloting a UFO.

Don't you see any problem with the silence in terms of safety? There is a reason bicycles need to have a bell. Because these you also cannot hear when they approach you. Although, it would be funny seeing a Tesla with a nice little bell and the tacked on law that you have to use it to alarm others in front of you that you are approaching. That'll be a sight to behold.

You know, deaf people have managed to survive by looking around before they step onto the road.

Anyone who thinks we need cars to make loud noises just so that everyone can feel safer, I will personally make sure to blare my horn as loudly as possible as I drive past their house at 2 am.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#199

Post by mabbo » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 1:32 PM UTC

mikepalmer wrote: post #79

Recently drove a Tesla Model S P85D... best thing about it is that the torque is immediate and silent. Not only can you blow other cars away at lights, you can do it casually, with no noise or fuss. Car is here; put car over there. It's like piloting a UFO.

I was a passenger in a Model S my friend owns the other day. The biggest thing I noticed was that we were able to have a conversation at very normal volume levels. I had never noticed that I always needed to speak up in a car- until I didn't need to.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#200

Post by embro » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 1:33 PM UTC

I have a Nissan Leaf so yes, there is no fake engine sound, only a sound in front at low speed to warn pedestrians.

Not only I would not want a fake engine sound but I would be willing to pay more to have my car sound proof, with insulation or something, it would be quieter, colder in the summer and warmer in the winter.