What Shocked You Today

Currently reading:
What Shocked You Today

Exhausts are tuned for power and torque which can improved or even moved up or down the rev range but think of noise as a byproduct.
Many factors involved in exhaust design but the aim is that it should help extract or scavenge gases from the engine. If you use a silencer that is really efficient at noise reduction then chances are it will cause some back pressure which is bad for gas flow.
Your Golf R doesn’t need to play silly sounds I agree and it could be made quieter with a more restricted silencing system but it would lose some performance all other things being equal. Some of these valves you mention apart from changing exhaust note bypass cats or divert
On a side note, again harking to the late 60s on the Kart racing, we used to use different length inlet tracts, longer made the engine more tractable, I am guessing giving the air/fuel load more inertia and the shorter ones gave a quicker throttle response if I remember rightly.
Tuning was a bit more basic in those days.
I recall if asked, roughly what revs you should change up a gear, the answer was when you hear the valves bouncing. (two stroke;))
Back to the Ford Anglia with a 1500 engine as an apprentice on a low wage, a lightened flywheel would cost a little money, but the flywheel from the 997cc original cost nothing and certainly allowed a quicker throttle response.
Negative Camber was a great improvement for handling and cheaply managed by redrilling the front cross member along with tracking adjustment.
Cheapskating yes! But if you are on apprentice wage, at that point of training around £12 per 40 hour week?
 
Exhausts are tuned for power and torque which can improved or even moved up or down the rev range but think of noise as a byproduct.
Many factors involved in exhaust design but the aim is that it should help extract or scavenge gases from the engine. If you use a silencer that is really efficient at noise reduction then chances are it will cause some back pressure which is bad for gas flow.
Your Golf R doesn’t need to play silly sounds I agree and it could be made quieter with a more restricted silencing system but it would lose some performance all other things being equal.
Some of these valves you mention apart from changing exhaust note bypass cats or divert the gases to bypass a silencer and hopefully if they are well designed increase power a little.
At one end of the spectrum something like a limo ideally needs to be very quiet and smooth at low rpm so the designer must concentrate more on this. Ultimate power is not needed so a bit of extra silencing and back pressure is fine to filter out the necessary evil of noise.

On Mikes racing engines the exhaust can be tuned for maximum power and minimal back pressure as nothing much in the way of silencing is needed as noise is not a concern.

Road going cars have to comply to regulations and will be between these two examples so customer base will dictate how much noise is acceptable.


Sorry for the disjointed reply but there seemed to be a browser problem last night.
 
On a side note, again harking to the late 60s on the Kart racing, we used to use different length inlet tracts, longer made the engine more tractable, I am guessing giving the air/fuel load more inertia and the shorter ones gave a quicker throttle response if I remember rightly.
Tuning was a bit more basic in those days.
I recall if asked, roughly what revs you should change up a gear, the answer was when you hear the valves bouncing. (two stroke;))
Back to the Ford Anglia with a 1500 engine as an apprentice on a low wage, a lightened flywheel would cost a little money, but the flywheel from the 997cc original cost nothing and certainly allowed a quicker throttle response.
Negative Camber was a great improvement for handling and cheaply managed by redrilling the front cross member along with tracking adjustment.
Cheapskating yes! But if you are on apprentice wage, at that point of training around £12 per 40 hour week?
The valve bouncing bit on your 2 stroke made me smile, just whats needed to start the day. Thanks Mike.
I set the mixture on my chainsaws up so they are “four stroking “at high rpm so presumably you used to do something similar to limit the rpm?

I also seem to remember something about the inlet tracts but never got involved in them but that sounds about right.
I did weld up the bits of an exhaust for a guy who was building a single seater though. I don’t know how much science was involved but he did quite well so perhaps he got it right.
 
Exhausts are tuned for power and torque which can improved or even moved up or down the rev range but think of noise as a byproduct.
just to try put an end to keep going round in circles, manufactures today, do not tune the exhausts to get the most power and torque, the engines are plenty powerful enough, the exhausts and inlets offer plenty of flow. They will tweak the software to get the car in the power band that they want, then they will offer several models with the same engine, exhaust, turbo, etc, in different power outputs, depending on what the customer wants to pay. A prime example of this are things like the Mini Cooper D and the Mini Cooper SD versions which these days use the same everything, but have a different engine map for 150hp or 180hp. This has been going on for years, the old Mondeo I started this thread about was offered in a 1.8 and 2.0 petrol engine, about 120hp versus about 135hp. To make sure that the difference in the engines was notable, despite using the same exhaust and inlet system, they fitted a restricted throttle body to the 1.8 to deliberate reduce the power, so that people would buy the 2.0 thinking they were getting a much more powerful car, but with the larger throttle body on the 1.8 the power difference was virtually undetectable to the driver.

Obviously in the engineering process a decision will be made about a theorectical maximum potential power that the engine and exhaust set up will be capable of, this however will be well above the specs that the car is actually sold with.


Your Golf R doesn’t need to play silly sounds I agree and it could be made quieter with a more restricted silencing system but it would lose some performance all other things being equal. Some of these valves you mention apart from changing exhaust note bypass cats or divert
I don’t have the Golf R it was an example.
The car does not need to play “silly sounds” to make it quieter, but it does because it is already too quiet, it doesn’t need to be made quieter, they have already fitted all the required silencers etc, but customers want there high performance car to sound a certain way and so they have programs which play the sound of an engine that is louder, to keep customers happy, someone takes it for a test drive and thinks the engine sounds super powerful when really it is an artificial sound being played. It’s a perfect example of people thinking a noisy engine is a powerful engine.

The electronic valves, I am talking about are usually fitted to high performance cars, they are a mechanical/more tactile way of increasing engine sound without the piped electronic sounds being played.
They do not bypass catalytic convertors, they are manufacturer fitted and usually bypass if anything a stage of silencers to let more of the engine sound out, or route the exhaust through a silencer that is tuned to make more noise, However, there is no indication from the manufacturers that this increases power in anyway, it is purely done for sound because again, people buying performance cars, expect the car to sound a certain way. but buying a car that makes a racket all the time gets tiresome very quickly so they give you a way to switch it off.

Going back to my example above, they can easily overcome any power loss from an exhaust silencer, by plugging it into the computer again. So say opening the valve in the exhaust did freed up 5 - 10hp the car may easily be capable of 20 - 30 even 50+ more BHP with a software tweak and not touching the exhaust, so the manufacture could just make the car super quiet and then use the software to regain any power losses.


An extreme example of how the customer expects a powerful car to sound a certain way with this piped artificial sound is the new Electric 500 Abath which plays a loud engine sound track in and outside the car for everyone to hear, even though the car doesn’t even have an internal combustion engine.

An extreme example of the cars that can be massively tuned just with software and no engine modifications are things like the AMG C63 and E63 models which can go from ~450bhp to 600BHP+ with software tweaks and the Audi RS6 which depending on the exact engine and year can yield over 700BHP with nothing more than a remap of the engine software from around 500BHP to start with.

My old Punto Diesel sporting with 120 BHP was apparently easily capable of 150BHP with a software update. So at least a 25% power increase without touching the exhaust or intakes.

So just to reiterate the point once more, these days and for a very long time, car makers have not been fettling the exhausts of their cars to squeeze the most power out they can. Even in the highest performance cars where the exhaust is probably designed to a very high standard to get the most out of the engine, there will always be a few extra horse power to be gained in software.

Things have moved on a lot from the 1970s and we are not building race cars or tuning go-karts. You seem to think I am confused by how an exhaust system works…. I am not.
 
On a side note, again harking to the late 60s on the Kart racing, we used to use different length inlet tracts, longer made the engine more tractable, I am guessing giving the air/fuel load more inertia and the shorter ones gave a quicker throttle response if I remember rightly.
I had a small Yamaha RD125 when younger (before realising west of scotland was not good for bikes). I had a few different exhausts, and the difference they made to power deliver was massive. The pure race one was almost undrivable, only had power above 7500 rpm. 3rd gear and above would just die below that.
 
I had a small Yamaha RD125 when younger (before realising west of scotland was not good for bikes). I had a few different exhausts, and the difference they made to power deliver was massive. The pure race one was almost undrivable, only had power above 7500 rpm. 3rd gear and above would just die below that.
Very narrow power band, as you say pure race, expansion box type exhausts.
I thought it would be fun to make a Honda air cooled CR 125 MX into a road bike, it was an ex works Honda dealer team one, so breathed on a bit more still. Mot regulations were less stringent in those days ;). But as you were saying once the revs dropped you had to go down about four gears to get it back and then every gear you were on the back wheel even with my weight. When I decided to sell it I wasn't around when the buyer came and the lad couldn't start it, so my brother in law at the time got it going for him and he road tested and bought it. I found out afterwards the lad bought it to run on L plates as he hadn't passed his test!!!
In an earlier thread there was a reference to Go Karts, I would say we always referred to Go Karts as the things on the pier etc. with the Honda four stroke engine.The karts we raced mostly at RAF airfields on short circuits around 80Mph but also I did one race meeting in the early 70s at Thruxton in excess of 100Mph, though due to the gearing required for the top speed, a rolling start was needed as only 197cc, known as Class four Villiers. Also at a local Hill Climb meeting one almost equaled the FTD (fastest time of the day) against a wide range of open single seater racing cars and rally cars etc. so not quite Go Karts ;). On short circuits they were quite capable of turning in their own length with a quick throttle blip.
 
I forget to add , people may say 100Mph nothing! Try it with no roll cage,suspension or seat belts, with direct steering, drum brakes and your arse 2 inches of the ground, just racing leathers and a helmet.;)
 
Last edited:
I'd be interested in what speed the car enters the advert at...

Yes it's designed for maximum impact in all senses but it's got to be 40 plus with no braking. Saw a thing on this year's ago, if you brake before impact it tends to be you carry the pedestrian on the bonnet and dump them off as you stop, steady speed would lead to them to going over the roof.

Seems to be going very significantly faster than the cars in the background....so the underlying message may actually be don't step into the motorway.
 
It's like the idots on motorbikes wearing shorts and t-shirt, blissfully unaware how much damage high-speed tarmac can do to skin and bone.
 
Or This

I suspect some of these videos if put on UK TV by the GOV would get banned as "Too OTT" or "Too disturbing"
I agree , though sometimes people need to be shocked to pay attention and if it saves their lives, how shocking is too much!
We used to have two young children liviung nearby who thought it was funny running across the road as cars came along,luckily it was a slow road so drivers stopped quickly, many people warned them and their parents, later they moved to a different address, but sadly one did get knocked down.
 
Or This

I suspect some of these videos if put on UK TV by the GOV would get banned as "Too OTT" or "Too disturbing"
No point doing something like this in the UK because “jaywalking” isn’t a crime here…. Also it was an invention of the American automobile industry who didn’t like the bad rap cars were getting from customers mowing down children so they lobbied government to make it a crime to cross the road !!

But this has to be probably the most shocking public safety ad shown in this part of the world (I think maybe Ireland?)

 
Costs my employer £26 for me to park in Greenwich for 8 hours, bit of a kick in the teeth really
I can park in St John’s Wood for £20 for 24hrs I know that’s no where near Greenwich but it’s on the bakerloo which goes direct to the centre
You get 4 hours for that in some OX postcodes.. (n)
Cambridge is very similarly priced, I think I once paid £20ish for about 5 hrs, my old company used to have premises with a carpark so this time of year I used to park there for Christmas shopping, take a day off work midweek but still park there and walk into town. All the security guys knew what I was doing lol
 
I've not been to this one before as it has no A and E. I'm assuming the beds in the other 2 we'd "usually" end up at are full so we're at this one.

The parking is significantly more expensive than the 2 hospitals with A and E. This one is generally associated with treatment of long-term and chronic conditions (not why we're there).

Can just imagine if you were visiting a relative on the cancer ward it would become ruinous rather quick.. especially given the hospital is in the clean air zone..so euro 5 cars need not apply as of January.
 
It's the small things like making hospital car parks free in scotland that keep the scottish governement in higher regard than westminister here.
 
Back
Top