The rise of fake engine noise • Hacker News Board

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#241

Post by SyncTheory13 » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 3:57 PM UTC

My car has a "sound symposer" feature, and a 6-speed manual transmission. It has a tube coming off the engine, through a butterfly valve, then into the firewall of the car. The butterfly valve opens when the engine is under high load, so that the car is quiet normally, and loud if you get on it (inside).

I really enjoy this feature, and have actually redirected the tubes past the valve so that the sound is always on 100% of the time. This allows me to hear the engine RPMs while shifting, instead of monitoring the RPM gauge. It also reminds me to be more mindful of fuel economy because I can hear when I'm wasting gas.

I can understand a fully electronic sound being annoying - and the feature would annoy me on an electric car like a Tesla... But with the setup that mine has - I think people are just whining and that this article reeks of sensationalism. Also, it can be easily disabled in about five minutes by anybody who can watch some how-to videos on YouTube.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#242

Post by unreal37 » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 4:01 PM UTC

CalRobert wrote: post #224

freehunter wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but maybe I should just try not to hit them instead There's one situation where drivers don't face penalties if they hit and injure/kill a pedestrian: if that pedestrian caused the accident and the driver had no way of preventing it. For example, if a pedestrian assumes there is no traffic and steps into the road without looking, just feet from an oncoming-but-silent car.

Source please. I don't believe this is the case. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/opinion/why-drivers-get-aw...

Pedestrians can be at fault for an accident with a car.

"Here are a few common scenarios under which a pedestrian may be found at least partially at fault for an accident involving a vehicle:

* jaywalking, or crossing in the middle of the street, outside of a crosswalk

* crossing against the traffic signal (i.e. in the crosswalk but against a red "Do Not Walk" command)

* entering a street or highway while intoxicated, and

* walking along highways, bridges, or causeways where pedestrian access is prohibited."

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/auto-accident/pedestrian...

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#243

Post by jarek » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 4:02 PM UTC

listic wrote: post #202

jarek wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they shouldn't expect that then. Lots of cities have trolleybuses, trams, and other electric transport without carnage on the roads.

As a cyclist, I can confirm that, unfortunately, the pedestrians do rely on sound quite a lot in figuring out whether a vehicle is dangerous: if you're silent, they won't try to avoid you that much. Sometimes it becomes ridiculous: a pedestrian looks in your direction and proceeds walking across, in the middle of the street, forcing you to brake to a halt. They don't do that to cars.

Clearly not scalable in the future, where amount of electric vehicles will keep increasing (not just cars: scooters and e-bikes too). I'm a fairly passionate pedestrian but we can't expect to be able to stay safe by hearing alone.

Consideration for blind people is an important argument but it seems so much saner to require quiet vehicles to have a radio transponder that can send exact speed and direction rather than having people identify these by hearing beeps or fake engine noise.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#244

Post by JoeAltmaier » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 4:08 PM UTC

jarek wrote: post #243

listic wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a cyclist, I can confirm that, unfortunately, the pedestrians do rely on sound quite a lot in figuring out whether a vehicle is dangerous: if you're silent, they won't try to avoid you that much. Sometimes it becomes ridiculous: a pedestrian looks in your direction and proceeds walking across, in the middle of the street, forcing you to brake to a halt. They don't do that to cars.

Clearly not scalable in the future, where amount of electric vehicles will keep increasing (not just cars: scooters and e-bikes too). I'm a fairly passionate pedestrian but we can't expect to be able to stay safe by hearing alone. Consideration for blind people is an important argument but it seems so much saner to require quiet vehicles to have a radio transponder that can send exact speed and direction rather than…

Not following. How do radio signals help a kid stepping off a curb? Not everybody owns a phone; not everybody has it on and running the 'don't get run over' app.

We've been trained as a people to respond to environmental cues. The learning period to adjust to different cues (beeps, phone apps etc) is another phrase for 'lots of people get hit by silent cars'.

I'd suggest a period of dual cues - make noise, AND whatever else we imagine could help us not get run over. Eventually the noise part might fade away.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#245

Post by shiftpgdn » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 4:08 PM UTC

unreal37 wrote: post #236

michaelcampbell wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been aftermarket speaker setups to emit the "choosh" sound of the wastegate opening marketed to the ricer crowd for years.

Surely you are not using the term "ricer crowd" to refer to Asians?

Slow down there P.C. police. Ricer is a term for people who tackily modify japanese imports.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#246

Post by apendleton » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 4:09 PM UTC

unreal37 wrote: post #236

michaelcampbell wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been aftermarket speaker setups to emit the "choosh" sound of the wastegate opening marketed to the ricer crowd for years.

Surely you are not using the term "ricer crowd" to refer to Asians?

I think it refers to enthusiasts of Asian-made cars. Not much better, though.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#247

Post by nmeofthestate » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 4:14 PM UTC

skywhopper wrote: post #227

Weird. I would prefer the engine to be as quiet as possible. The proof of performance is in how the thing drives, not how it sounds. Tweaking the exhaust pipe on a car like the Mustang makes sense, but piping sound in through the speakers? As long as I can turn it off permanently.

Different people have different preferences, and some sounds provoke an emotional response in some people. Not that weird.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#248

Post by daxelrod » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 4:14 PM UTC

joezydeco wrote: post #221

This reminds me of one particular TV set I was messing with recently. Pulling the HDMI cord on an input resulted in the screen showing static . Had to think about it for a second, but the static had to have been simulated by a piece of code to pretend that the input had gone missing.

Lots of discussion about this when JWZ noticed it on his TVs: http://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/01/snow-crash-simulated/

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#249

Post by bholzer » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 4:25 PM UTC

apendleton wrote: post #246

unreal37 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you are not using the term "ricer crowd" to refer to Asians?

I think it refers to enthusiasts of Asian-made cars. Not much better, though.

Not quite. It's people who take these imports, and then add awful, flashy mods to them

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#250

Post by ethbro » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 4:35 PM UTC

unreal37 wrote: post #236

michaelcampbell wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been aftermarket speaker setups to emit the "choosh" sound of the wastegate opening marketed to the ricer crowd for years.

Surely you are not using the term "ricer crowd" to refer to Asians?

> Surely you are not using the term "ricer crowd" to refer to Asians?

No, he's using it to refer to Asian vehicles (and colloquially, people immersed in the culture surrounding them). It's a bit racist, but more of a subcultural epithet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_burner