Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rise of fake engine noise

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 303 posts

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#271

Post by galago »

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?

To me, the term "rice burner" has always evoked a comparison to rice-cookers, which are typically cheap, small appliances. Its the kind of term that was more apt when Asian automakers mainly imported compact cars to the US, and is becoming less so as they branch out to other models. (e.g. Toyota Tundra) In the pantheon of racist terminology, its about the least-bad.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#272

Post by thaumasiotes »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #233
Animats wrote: post #72

This may be a transient problem as people get used to new technology. It's like using Filmlook to put scratches and grain on HD video. The 2013 Lotus Evora, a series hybrid vehicle with an electric motor and a fixed gearbox, took this to the point of silliness. Not only did they provide fake engine sounds, they provided shift paddles and required the driver to shift software-simulated gears . They even provided a mom…

I still want one that makes the sounds of the vehicles in The Jetsons. Why aren't loadable and customizable sounds a thing?

What digikata said. The law doesn't require outside noise for your benefit, it requires it in the hopes that the people in front of you will hear you coming and get out of the way.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#273

Post by burger_moon »

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.

They you don't have enough backpressure to need a cutout valve. Why even have it on there at that point?

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#274

Post by michaelcampbell »

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?

The subculture to whom I'm referring wear the badge proudly, like I do "geek".

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#275

Post by CalRobert »

freehunter wrote: post #267
CalRobert wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We disagree on a more basic level. I know people can run in to the street without warning. I know drivers get away with no punishment if somebody darts in to the street. In fact, my point was that drivers get away with no punishment _almost every time they kill a pedestrian_. In NYC they have less than a 5% chance of even being arrested, much less convicted. Driving a car is probably a great way to commit murder. Als…

I think you're disagreeing with something I never said. From what I understand, you're asking me for a source stating that drivers can hit someone and not be at fault, while your argument is that drivers are never at fault? I guess I still don't get what kind of source you're asking me for. But apparently you believe there is such a thing as a speed so low that you cannot hit a pedestrian. Have you ever watched some…

This is apparently a downvote magnet but to clarify, you wrote:

    "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."
This is the statement with which I disagree. There are many situations where drivers don't face penalties if they hit and injure/kill a pedestrian, not just one. Anyway, my views on this are clear and I am obviously in the minority. Regardless, I still think that if one operates a heavy, dangerous vehicle near people who may be killed by it the onus of responsibility for not killing people falls on the driver.

If a person leaps in front of a big rig in order to kill themselves, then no, the driver is not responsible. If a kid runs after a soccer ball in the street and gets run over because they driver didn't stop in time, then the driver was probably going too fast for the circumstances.

Mind you, I like cars. I may walk to work but I drive very quickly on the autobahn a few times a year and it's a blast. Limited access roadways with _incredibly_ good visibility and road conditions are great places to go fast. Cities and towns with cars, bikes, walkers, and anything else you can imagine all using the same street space are great places to go slow.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#276

Post by CalRobert »

allendoerfer wrote: post #181
rprospero wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the one hand, you're right. On the other hand, a friend of mine was sued by the driver of the car that hit him to pay for cleaning his blood off of the car and fixing the dent his body left in the frame. It'd be nice if they didn't add insult to injury.

In Germany it is generally the other way round, especially when children are involved. The driver of a car has to take care of pedestrians and cyclists. Even if a driver follows the rules perfectly fine, § 1.1 of the law (you have to take care of others) always beats the rest.

Interestingly, Germany is also the most wonderful place I know for a drive. They're well-trained, considerate, and skilled.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#277

Post by qntm »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #233
Animats wrote: post #72

This may be a transient problem as people get used to new technology. It's like using Filmlook to put scratches and grain on HD video. The 2013 Lotus Evora, a series hybrid vehicle with an electric motor and a fixed gearbox, took this to the point of silliness. Not only did they provide fake engine sounds, they provided shift paddles and required the driver to shift software-simulated gears . They even provided a mom…

I still want one that makes the sounds of the vehicles in The Jetsons. Why aren't loadable and customizable sounds a thing?

It would be good to have a rigid specification for this kind of thing, same as for the colour and blink frequency of signal lights, road sign designs and number plate fonts. Predictability and standardisation is super valuable on the road.

However, I see no reason why the specification can't specify a particular electronic burbling noise from The Jetsons.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#278

Post by tlrobinson »

burger_moon wrote: post #273
tlrobinson wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They you don't have enough backpressure to need a cutout valve. Why even have it on there at that point?

I like the sound (and I'm shameless about it).

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#279

Post by arthurfm »

pluma wrote: post #196
arthurfm wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "…

> silence is not the absence of noise, it's just the presence of a significantly smaller amount of noise.

Thanks for your explanation.

Considering that other animals can produce or hear sounds that humans can't, I guess I shouldn't have used the word 'any'? :)

When I think of silence I tend to think of passively cooled heatsinks or cases for PCs that do not produce any noise that I can hear (even up close). Compare that to a slow-spinning fan that can be effectively silent at a certain distance, but still produces an audible sound if you get really close.

> 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?

You're right, although what one person thinks of as cold may not be what another person thinks of as cold. e.g. temperatures in winter in the UK vs Russia or the North Pole. It's all relative.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#280

Post by baddox »

gambiting wrote: post #107
baddox wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it's because I have no interest whatsoever in cars, but I have trouble seeing the distinction. If the idea is that certain sounds are merely the side effect of attributes which are themselves desired for reasons other than their sound, like a powerful engine, then it seems like any intentional design to produce or amplify those sounds are completely useless. What the driver wants is the actual attributes whic…

It's the same as hearing a recording of someone playing the violin vs. the real thing. Even with the best audio system you can still tell it's just a recording. And I don't treat the sound the engine makes as a side effect of other attributes - it's just as important as acceleration or fuel consumption.

In that case, it sounds like you wouldn't mind if a car was able to play audio recordings of engine noises that you could not distinguish from noises coming from the engine.
Post reply on HN