Why fans experience of F1 noise is unlikely to change much with 2026 rules

The publication and pre-announcement of the 2026 Formula 1 regulations was heralded as giving the fans what they asked for and to some extent this is true. The ‘nimble’ car may still be a dream in absolute terms but at least there was an arresting action of the relentless increase in both size and weight of the cars.

One major area that wasn’t fan-driven, though, was the new power unit. This was an amalgam of the requests of the corporate boards of the manufacturers involved, together with measures designed to ease the path for newcomers that was ultimately finessed by the technical directors of the manufacturers’ racing departments.

The outcome of this convoluted process can be debated forever and a day but it landed in a place far from the original intentions – and led to regulations that made energy recovery and deployment critical. This in turn forced the need for chassis and aerodynamic regulations to be very exact if the performance objectives were to be met.

One aspect that’s always on the fans’ wish list and wasn’t specifically addressed was the subject of sound. While Bernie Ecclestone’s comments in Australia in 2014 about sound weren’t helpful and detracted from the real message of power unit efficiency, there’s no doubt a substantial number of fans would like a more exciting and emotional aural output from the engines.

PLUS: The turmoil of F1's 2026 rules shift

Ignoring some unwanted mechanical noises, the loudness from an engine comes from both the intake and exhaust. On the intake side this arises from pulsing in the inlet tract. On the exhaust it’s a function of the cylinder pressure at ignition. In both cases sound will be muffled by anything in the inlet or exhaust such as an air filter or exhaust silencer. In the case of an F1 engine, the turbocharger and compressor both dampen the sound. Also, in the current engines, the MGU-H reduces the sound intensity since it recovers energy from the exhaust, some of which is sound energy.

The difference between noise and sound is subjective but probably a function of frequency. The slow thump of a single-cylinder diesel on a narrowboat is evocative but isn’t exciting. The sound of a multi-cylinder engine approaching 20,000rpm is definitely exhilarating.

The 2026 F1 engine rules were not formed with engine noise in mind

Photo by: FIA

The human perception of sound is a complex subject. Bearing in mind sound is a waveform, the pressure of those waves, or more precisely the energy in them, is what determines loudness and the spacing between the waves determines frequency. For loudness or intensity, engineers refer to the Sound Pressure Level, measured in decibels(dB). A decibel is a ratio of the observed amplitude, or intensity level, to the reference of 0dB which corresponds to a pressure of 20 micro-Pascals, this being the threshold of human hearing.

Unfortunately, it gets more complex as decibels are a logarithmic measure, so a doubling of the decibel number does not mean a doubling of the loudness. Normal conversation is around 60dB, a loud siren 100dB and about 160dB will burst your eardrums. Of course, the loudness also depends on distance and measurements are normally made at one metre with loudness halving as distance is doubled.

So the perception of the sound quality and intensity of a Formula 1 car depends on the engine speed and your distance from the car. Since the exhaust is a single outlet which points backwards there will also be some attenuation if you’re to the side of the car. Spectators are generally at least 25 metres to the side and probably some metres above the exhaust as they watch a race, so the sound they hear may peak at around 115dB as the car is passing. Still pretty loud but far less than if one were closer.

One novel suggestion made during the development of the regulations was to split the exhaust and aim it sideways so it reached the trackside spectators more directly

The removal of the MGU-H in 2026 will influence the sound pressure levels. If we assume the combustion pressures will be similar, and I expect it will, we could see somewhere around a 6dB increase in sound. But the frequency will not change since the fuel-flow limitation,
which governs the engine speed, is unchanged in that the maximum flow occurs at 10,500rpm.

Now, through the wonders of log scales, one might expect 6dB to be a huge increase in sound and in true physics it is, but the human ear has complex responses. The perceived increase in noise will depend on the frequency as the engine accelerates through the gears. At a given frequency it will, at best, represent a 50% increase in sound. This is significant but will still be directed rearward rather than towards the fans.

One novel suggestion made during the development of the regulations was to split the exhaust and aim it sideways so it reached the trackside spectators more directly. Some aero simulations of this were done and it looked feasible if somewhat unusual. However, it appears the idea has gone no further, probably since the teams were concerned about the plume of hot gases impinging on structural carbon fibre components.

With engine sound firing backwards, most of the impact is lost to the fans trackside

Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images

The fact is that a turbocharged engine, providing it’s running efficiently and not burning fuel in the exhaust, will always have a quieter exhaust than a normally aspirated engine since energy in a turbo engine is recovered from the exhaust. The quality of sound will also differ and, although it’s subjective, most fans probably prefer the distinct beat of cylinders firing rather than the smooth and sinusoidal sound emanating from a turbo.

Perhaps, as has been mooted recently, the only solution is to return to high-revving, normally aspirated engines. If they’re running on sustainable fuels, why not?

At the last race of the V8 era in 2013, Red Bull free-revved its Renault engine for a defeaning send-off

Photo by: Charles Coates / Motorsport Images