The Most Complicated F1 Engine Ever
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มี.ค. 2024
- Join the membership to fuel this channel on its way:
/ @visioracer
- Patreon -
/ visioracer
- Patreons -
Peter Della Flora
Brendan
Bill
andre surles
Michael Guerin
Crashbandit
John Stuart
EpicSeaDragon
John Johnson
Wilford Brimley
- Disclaimer -
This video is fair use under U.S. copyright law because it is transformative in nature, uses no more of the original than necessary and has no adverse effect on the market for the original work.
- Credits -
“Lotus 43 BRM” by 911redrobin
• Lotus 43 BRM
“BRM P83 1966” by Peter Dobi
• BRM P83 1966
“1966 BRM P83 F1 Car Sound Warming Up Its 3.0L 16-Cylinder, H-Layout Engine!” by 19Bozzy92
• 1966 BRM P83 F1 Car So...
“Grand Prix (1967)” by British Pathé
• Grand Prix (1967)
“Grand Prix - 1966 - Zandvoort - Scott Stoddard - BRM” by Math427
• Grand Prix - 1966 - Za...
“Lotus 43” by Tonza1701a
• Lotus 43
“1966 Lotus 43 BRM Goodwood 2016” by Martin Collins
• 1966 Lotus 43 BRM Good...
“„Formula One™ -- Versenyben a technológiával" BRM P83” by 0rgb0
• „Formula One™ -- Verse...
“Grand Prix Miniatures (1968)” by British Pathé
• Grand Prix Miniatures ...
“Lotus 43 - Forth Road Bridge” by Andrew Sebastian
• Lotus 43 - Forth Road ...
“What if Honda used two K20 engines to produce a 4.0L VTEC V8? - Engine Simulator” by L4zuc
• What if Honda used two...
“V8 engine animation” by TheRenalicious
• V8 engine animation
“V12 engine animation” by TheRenalicious
• V12 engine animation
“V16 engine animation” by TheRenalicious
• V16 engine animation
“24 cylinder engine” by TheRenalicious
• 24 cylinder engine
“Jim Clark's Come Back (1966)” by British Pathé
• Jim Clark's Come Back ...
“British Grand Prix (1967)” by British Pathé
• British Grand Prix (1967)
“BUGATTI: A New Age - “Pour L’Éternité”” by Bugatti
• BUGATTI: A New Age - “... - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
These may have been ridiculously complex but they followed the exploration of what is mechanically possible which is what F1 is supposed to be about. They are exceptionally cool! And very beautiful!
Yeah! Shame its not anymore all racing is too set on general acceptance nowadays! Innovation is dead
@@Grimm-Gaming
The maximum amount of cylinders was set at 12 after this. Not because of BRM but because of fears of what Honda could do with motorcycle technology. Pity. Hondas were revving to 20,000 rpm in the 60s.
@upsidedowndog1256 yeah honda has always made some insane racing engines in both cars and especially motorcycles
Yeah thats whats its all about!! I hate F1 now because all the cars are "the same"... no crazy engines anymore :/
@@memorimusic420
Me to. Fanatic F1 fan 1973-2013.
BRM engines were not just the most complex in Grand Prix history but they were also the only ones that could say the company name: bbbbbrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm
😂
Haha! 😂
This has got to be one of the most detailed explanations of the BRM H16 engine I've ever seen, either in video or print . . . and I've been following F1 racing since the 1960s.
In all other publications [either in video or print] I've seen about the H16, the author would simplistically say/write that two 8 cylinder engines were mated together, making the casual viewer/reader come to the conclusion that two of the BRM 1.5 liter V8 engines were bolted together. Myself being a serious gearhead, I never bought into that, as seeing the H16 being a flat-plane crank configuration.
I found it annoying that published works of the BRM would gloss over the details of the H16.
So, I'm most appreciative of the details presented here about the H16; where I'm also impressed that the depth of the subject also covered the abandoned 4.2 liter Indy project, too.
My pleasure!
These engines hail from a time when technological progress was encouraged by participating in F1. Now the sport has become so locked down and overburdened with rules that neither fans or teams want that it's killing what is left of the sport.
Even without restrictive rules things tend to converge as specific combinations become dominate. There were many of these technological developments that while cool also didn’t perform well enough to really be viable.
That engine is insanely complicated. Between gears, chains, and bearings, the engine was probably robbed of 100hp from the friction
Imagine what it was like to sync the fuel injection throttle linkage with that configuration.
Imagine doing a valve job (like lash adjustment) and forgetting where were you in the process and START OVER.
Or the timing skips and the interference engine decides to do an explosive view in real time.
@@droman608 trying to degree cams must have been a 2 week job
And no diagnostic computer aid
@ visioracer, I find an engine that I want you to do a story on. Here's an engine that's rarely seen since they were only ever designed to be disposable.
This is the 4 cylinder radial engine from a WWII German G7A torpedo. It ran on Decaline fuel (decahydronaphthalene), which was first burned. The combustion byproducts were then passed through a device called a 'wet heater', which also introduced water (from a 57 litre onboard storage tank) to produce superheated steam. This high pressure mixture of superheated steam and compressed air was finally sent through the engine to drive the pistons.
Since the internal combustion/steam generator system was self-contained and fuelled by a chemical reaction instead of ambient air, it could run underwater. The 4 cylinder, 'X' type radial engine produced up to 350 horsepower at its maximum power setting, which was enough to push the 26' 6" torpedo along at 44 knots (nearly 50mph) while submerged.
Standard Kriegsmarine torpedo produced from 1934 until the end of the war.
I agree!!!
This one this one!!
Flop or not, this engine produces one of my absolute favorite engine songs.
"Sounds”
Nope, sound is from their v16 not this engine
@@psk5746 I think their English is a second language
*1995 Ferrari 412 T2 has entered the chat*
A perfect example of irrational exuberance in engineering.
But truly worh a trying. Similar construction was brilliant in aeroplane. Many technologies that are introduced recently was already used in ww2 aero piston engines.
Put up a link to your channel so you can impress us all with your superior knowledge. I’m sure it’s full of engineering marvels right?
This is obviously the engine design F1 should move to in 2026.
Quite remarkable that a team of experienced engineers did not realize on the way of prototyping that H16, that it is going to be a overcomplicated, underpowered and unreliable race engine.
In the pursuit of more power rationality is lost. They convinced themselves as bias is a hell of a drug. “We can use the bits we already have from our 8 cylinder motor saving us money”
It's definitely strange that they thought hmmm..... Taking two mediocre engines and trying to make them work together, not just work together but work at 10,000RPM and endure extreme stresses during long races, and do it with mostly original parts from the initial engine, there is no way that they thought it was a good idea..... There must have been some reason for trying to make it work, but I suppose it's possible that they were just a little bit more uhhh, absolutely out of their fecking mind than the rest of us 😂 but hey, at least they tried, and now we know that it's not a good idea 😂
Experienced Engineers strive for simplicity…..and you have to work very hard to get to “simple”. These engineers lacked the necessary experience to realise their folly….and once this focus is lost the result is wasted time and wasted money.
How ironic is it that a heavy, overly-complex engine was bolted to a chassis by Lotus, with their historic emphasis on low weight and simplicity.
[in a tone of enthusiasm] Say! I'm impressed that the 4.2 liter Indy engine was brought up in this video.
It was all worth it for the sound alone
This video has the wrong sound. The BRM v16 sound is what you hear here, not this piece of rubbish
Thank you; this is most interesting. I knew about the BRM H-16 from when it was introduced, but great to hear about the developent problems and see all the visuals. I think it might be the case that the problem was more in the execution rather than in the concept. BRM was actually a rather small organization and simply did not have the resources to do what was needed for such a complex engine. I think it possible that if it were done today, with more thorough design work, the much more precise engineering available through computer controlled machining of parts, more durable materials, and digital engine management, the theoretical gains from the small pistons enabling faster engine acceleration, shorter length, and functioning as a stress bearing chassis member, could possibly be realized. But no one will ever try it, so we will never know.
Oh, by the way, the in-car camera footage, starting at 9:45 and from Zandvoort, shows a car with the words "Jordan Racing" on the side. This was the name used in the film "Grand Prix" for the team portrayed by BRM, and that footage was generated by the film crew, as you noted. The lack of coolant pipes along the chassis reveal that this was not an H-16 powered car, and that was most certainly not Jackie Stewart in the tartan helmet.
11:46 That intake placement made me feel anxious just by looking at it!
Rubber injection 😮
@@fastinradfordable Rubber would be the best case! What about rocks and sand? :D
It's about time thanks visio
That amazing growl at the end is from their prior engine, a 1.5 liter supercharged V-16. It was essentially two 750 liter V8's mated end-to-end and was rated at 550 hp somewhere around 10500 rpm but would keep building power past that, actually peaking somewhere between 12500 and 14000 outputting 600-800 hp. The length and complexity are what drove BRM to aim for the parameters of their H16... by going naturally aspirated they were allowed to double the displacement to 3.0L and - as the video noted - the length of a V16 was a big consideration for adopting the H16 layout. It all comes from a time when the rules seemed to welcome pioneering. By the 80s things had become a lot more... formulaic.
Gotta Love the old Watkins Glen footage at the very end of the video, going up through the "Esses" and then coming around "the 90" to the old start finish line that's between the current 1 & 2
There was a 36.7 litre H24 aircraft engine called the Napier Sabre in WW2. None of the survivors are able to run, but hopes are high that that situation will change in a few years
Pure art - by definition.
The biggest design failure was the attempt of simultaneous fire. This with the intake sucking in road and rubber simply can't work. But, if you change the firing order to single pot and craft an ram air box to it, or even turn the setup to double VR8 (Bugatti) it just might last a full race.
Cheers from Brazil! Keep your content!
Well known to be a complete failure, it's still beautifully looking with these exhausts that looks like some kind of monster from the Cthulu lore.
Also have a monstrous sound.
Didn't knew it was inspired by Napier designs. Doesn't surprise me...
In the end can we say that the BRM H16 is a distant cousin of the quare Jumo 223/224 engine?
Not really, not an opposed piston engine. Also not 2 stroke.
Napier had H engines from 1929.
@@paulqueripel3493
Napier seems to have believed that the path to success was paved with complexity.
@@mpetersen6well he thought that a 2stroke cann make more power since each Revolution makes one bang instead of every 2 on a 4stroke and he was fighting against shity low octan fuel detonating at hot spots on the piston and too be fair how too cool a piston in a 2 stroke if not with Charge air but for that it should enter opposite of the exaust (so it dosnt Mix with the spent hot exaust Gases) and near the piston so sleeve valve was kinda the best solution for that
As always getting two engines to work together is one of the most difficult things in racing.
The H-16 was just one engine. Two cranks geared together.
"So how many pistons do you want?"
"Yes"
Earliest I caught a video here.. shout out from South Africa 🇿🇦
Crazy engine but just wonderful, sounds awesome!!
Nope. Sound is the BRM v16 not the H16
@@psk5746 The sound is awesome whatever engine it comes from.
That BRM engine and other high cylinder count engines were made obsolite once Duckworth discovered tumble swirl would allow more conventional 4 valve engines to breath better and have much more rapid and stable combustion. It changed engine design forever and stopped all this mechanical insanity.
BRM shot themselves in the foot with that engine and nailed their own coffin when they didn't need to get so technical and complicated, sheer madness!!.
Good video! The sound at the end is the 1953 BRM V16 though.
Thank you for the great content
I say turbo it
These engine would have their title of being the most complicated taken away by the Hybrid engines of 2014-2024. Grossly expensive and complicated. At least the H16 would have sounded better than the hybrid horrible V6 gargle.
The best however on TH-cam 😂😂
I struggle with that word 🥵
You are amazing visio
Certainly with the precision of modern machine tools this engine would be more reliable if it were manufactured today even if the design with 2 crankshafts remains poor. Great photo with the Ford Zodiac MK3, my father had someone one in France it'was an English Ford ,👍🏻
Charade mentionned 🇨🇵🇨🇵🇨🇵 N I C E
It may have been a piece of crap but what an interesting piece of crap it was
That last bit sounds like the P15 V16 1.5 litre from '51-'52.
Probably the managers were megalomaniac,and the engineers were trolls :D
Okay, that was checky, using the sound of the 1.5 litre supercharged BRM V16 to close the video - you bad boy!
The H engine package really only works well using sleeve valves, using poppet valves leads to an excessively large engine.
Tony Rudd came to BRM from Rolls-Royce to design the centrifugal supercharger used in the V16. He would have been well aware of the Rolls-Royce Eagle 22, a sleeve valve H24 inspired by the Napier Sabre .
Just to add insult to injury the Cosworth DFV was introduced at the time of the H16, according to sources, Tony Rudd, after seeing the DFV and watching it on track, is reputed as saying "that's it, game over".
"The weight difference of the BRM H16 and Ford V8 Indy engine was one Jim Clark" - That's all what's needed to be said. If you want to make the others talking about you, go for an H16; but if you want to win, go for the good, old V8.
The H16 would have made for a cool concept, but it clearly wasn't a suitable racing engine because it missed the necessary balance between power and lightness.
Who really cares if this engine was apparently a failure.
If we stopped trying there would be no progress.
The engine would have probably been reliable and make good power given more time , money and development.
Unfortunately things move fairly quickly and regulations change frequently hence another reason dropping of the engine .
At the end of the day we all now drive around in 16v twin cam engines with rubber cam belts , variable vale timing etc etc which are far more complicated than a basic pushrod/ side valve.
Anytime you start gearing cranks together you’re on your way to a historical footnote.
Top tier comment should be much higher up
They should have made it into a x block. With one crankshaft.
With a master and link connecting rod setup? That would have been scary.
Maybe two side by side fork and blade rod setups.
A four-on-a-pin rod arrangement has never been tried.
@@andyharman3022why not.
If you can do 2
You can do more
@@fastinradfordable And double the bending stress on the crank fillets? Have at it.
I'm sure you won't have any trouble figuring out the cross-drilling scheme to feed the inner rod bearings.
When you consider how high some big US pushrod V8s can rev, you realize how much engine technology has advanced.
DAT SOUND THO ! 🤤
Considering the valve train is always a weak link in high HP, high revving motors, adding a bunch of it is just chasing your own tail.
The engine didn't design of the cranks not rotating opposite directions to each other, didn't help its effective power & torque generation much and likely added somewhat to the unreliability issues with primary and secondary rocking couples compounding together,.. along with it being a prototype engine too.
Had the engine been better performing relatively to the competition, and had been followed by further improved iterations of it, it likely a later one would have gotten to a contra-rotating cranks version, perhaps with 2 pairs of (left & right pairings of) idle gears in a square pattern equally between each of the cranks (upper & lower) drive gears. - The 4 idler gears to spread the loading & forces across as much tooth area as possible, while keeping the six gears relatively small and lower in gyroscopic mass before the connection to the final engine output for/to the gearbox.
But even so, it is still an engineering marvel & a generator of truly awesome N/A exhaust sounds for its cylinder size(s) & overall capacity.
The engine at the end of the vid was Nick Mason's BRM V16.
Visio, the final track is not the H16 but the 1954 1,5 l V16 which you have already featured.
Correct. H16 didn't sound good or make good power, was just a piece of rubbish
@@psk5746 exactly. I don't like it whan real experts like Visioracer mix them up. One is epic, the other is a failure.
Imagine traveling back in time with a k24 and a modest turbo…
Or even better travelling back in time and staying there . 🤔. Don’t think I could do the flairs and hair styles etc though 😂
The flat 16 FWMW Coventry Climax, 1,5 l, is good also
I like the purity of the first two years of the 3.0L F1 formula, 1966-67. Simple, good-looking cars without wings. Gurney's 67 Eagle was the best looking, in my opinion. And sounded gorgeous with the Weslake V12. Wings started coming in 1968, and F1 cars have been ugly ever since.
I love driving the BRM in Grand Prix Legends. True to form, it is heavy, sounds wonderful, and the times I have driven it somewhat competitively have resulted in premature engine failure!
Shouldn’t the 2 cranks go in opposite directions for balance?
Great now they gotta start over again from the ground up😮
I mean..... Yea..... Sure....... An LS engine is simple and makes power, but it's pretty boring at this point....... In this time we have the ability to throw a solid block of billet material in a CNC machine and make ANYTHING...... best believe that if I had the funds I absolutely would be having all kinds of crazy awesome designs made, the guys that turned a v10 Ford truck motor into a 03/04 Terminator cobra headed v10, if I had the funds I absolutely would be onboard with that project, we are getting too caught up in going fast, we have been able to go more than fast enough to just be unrealistic for many years, it's not just about fast it's how you go fast, I want to see 35 Briggs and Stratton lawnmower engines running on nitromethane in a freakin 91 Ford Taurus or something 😂 and then hit it with nitrous until it flies apart 😂 would so much more awesome than an LS swapped anything, just saying,
I wonder if they could have turned it into an X16 instead. It would still have double the parts in most places though, so probably wouldn't be any better.
I wonder if they would have put all 16 cylinders on a single crankshaft, and had each bank of 4 cylinders say 90° apart, if it would have been reliable? Then you would have a flat 8 and V-8 all on the same crank! Juat an idea. Too bad there wasn't more funding and pursuit back then to find this out.
Many focus on how the thing failed but if Bugatti today embarked on ground up build of an h16, rather than a parts bin special... It would most like be magnificent. Expensive as fuck, but magnificent.
a lot of room for improvement, how much torque?
What if they use advance computer technology, how far can it do?
One of the best sounding engines ever.
Disagree. The Audi inline 5's are the best sounding engines I know of. Especially a boosted one.
Also sound clip is from their vet not this engine
What about a 26B quat rotor.......
@@76629online I said one of the best sounding engines. There’s more than one best sounding engines. We love them all as true car/engine people.
My 2002 maxima ,3,ltr v6 24 valve makes 222hp
SI units please
Two things.
1) l wonder why BRM just didn't scale up their V-8.
2) l also wonder if BRM employed former engine designers from Napier.
The clip around 3:20. I would swear its from Grand Prix
Doubling the size of a race engine does not come easily. Even with the technical expertise and resources Porsche had in the late 1960s when it came to endurance racing, they had struggles bumping up the size of their 2.2 liter engine [used in the 907s] to 3 liters for their 908 sports car.
There's also egos involved when it comes to engineering designs, as some people like to come up with something innovative to impress their peers. Sometimes the innovation pays-off, other times, not.
It is from Grand Prix.
Dare to Fail.
**NOTE** If it leaks oil, it's not "modern".
I can't understand half of what he is garbling.
❤
Why couldn’t they just use a production engine? It would have been a lot easier, as they can just use off the shelf speed parts.
What production engine exactly? 🤔
In the 50s it was rare to have more than 100hp in a road car, especially one with under 3.0lt capacity.
Yes, there were engines making more than 100hp, but I can't think of any approaching 300hp like they needed in F1.
F1 development like this filters down to road cars and production vehicles, that's where we get today's modern combustion engine technology from.
A humble 2.0lt family car engine makes around 110kw (150hp), can be started and driven in temperatures below freezing and up to 45°C without special treatment, servicing every 10,000km and uses around 7lt/100 while producing the least possible emissions.
This tech all came from F1 and their pursuit of efficiency and power. 🙂👍
Yeah it was heavy, but made up for it by being less powerful. Just what you want in an F1 engine. It's a testament to British fortitude that they eventually got it good enough to win a race.
I never knew they had a 4.2l Indy version.
What might have been if they had used two-plane cranks and phased them at 45 degrees to get even firing.
It was a bad idea from the start given that the open induction stacks on the eight lower cylinders were doomed to breathe in road debris. And all they put on them were some chicken wire. Sealed airboxes would have been good to have.
bahh. Go full Sabre and make it a twenty-four-cylinder H engine with sleave valves.
1
Would have been better with English dialogue.
actually H16 is not that uncommon in tanks. Russians did and do have em. the concept it self is actually very good, but this execution was seriously flawed.
@@Turnipstalk well I did not look it up but it does ring a Bell.
Multibanks are not a bad engine design to begin with indeed.
Back this given engine , it would had been fun if they had a bit of sense of humor and had made it a 2 stroke.
Instead of 8 cams, no cams. Instead of 2 crank shafts would had 4 crankshafts.
Likely they could have saved enough on mass , and very likely get the power they had been seeking.
Likely that would had been the most insane stunt in f1 history.
There are no H16 tank engines, never were. Russians use V12 engines.
@@Turnipstalkthe only reason why that engine was made is because they needed some tank engines as fast as possible so Chrysler threw some automobile engines together because they were able to do it with existing tooling. The 21 liter 30 cylinder Chrysler A57 multibank engine generates 370hp.
@@purplestrawberrysunset the most common one is the one called "V2" that is indeed a v12 diesel.
Russians don't call em H engines. Technically they are right to call em X engines .
Armata uses the latest.
Simular engine layouts are built , refined , and tested since the mid 1980's in russia , not specificly for tanks. Usually as high power stationary engines, gensets, pumps etc...
@@nagyandras8857well the modern russian tanks use heavily modernized versions of the V-2 engine but they are not x-engines but typical inline configuration v12 diesel engines and the armata's 12H360 which is 12 cylinder x-engine has nothing to do with H16 engine since it's completely different layout and design. I don't know about other x-engines but the one in armata is specifically made for armata.
VisoRacer, please remove the BRM v16 sound from this video. It is confusing everybody.
This engine does not have the advantage of a great sound like the v16, it is but a boat anchor
Why are these videos always narrated by someone with a strong foreign accent, I don't open up this crap anymore.
What's worse than an AI Narrator? An AI Narrator with a Belgian accent.
Me thinks the fantastic audio is in fact of the BRM V-16 and not the H-16. The H-16 would have sounded exactly like all the other competition V-8 engines owing to the "Long bang" firing order you mentioned. The V-16 of either the BRM V-16 or the Auto union Type C are unique and gloriously rich sounding beasts. I don't know why BRM didn't try X-plane cranks to solve their harmonics issue if they were going to bother with making 8 pin cranks in each deck of the engine block. They were already nearly there by splaying the split pins 45 degrees each, why not go to 90. Then vary each crank by 45 degrees to get the correct firing order again.