Imagine if it WAS a jet powered F1 car. With an afterburner. Mach 1 down the Monza start finish straight and... straight into a wall... Also turbine engines have been used on railway locomotives. Which is probably a better application for them as opposed to cars.
We had helicopter engines in trains (in France), it was hell. They drank like Lemmy Kilmister and were almost as loud. Drivers hated them, passengers hates them and I guess the people living near the train stations weren't too happy about it.
If people complain about it being difficult to follow in dirty air now, I could only imagine what they'd say when someone had their front wing melted off by someone else's afterburner. It would be hilarious.
PS I liked your Chapman slide. He was a brilliant racing (and sports) car designer. But far too often people claim he invented things when it would be far more accurate to say he 'cleverly and successfully applied' exiting ideas into his cars. That still doesn't diminish his achievements.
I love the experimental Indy 500 cars that were created during the 60's. IIRC one guy showed up with a car that had 3 wheels on the right and 1 wheel on the left. Smokey Yunick showed up with a car that had the driver hanging off to the left of the main body of the car.
15 years later these same engines made their way into indoor motorsports, tractor pulling in particular. Thanks to thousands of them being decommissioned by the US marine corps and air force during the post vietnam drawdown, they became dirt cheap, and many tractor builders/owners turned to them because you could buy two for less than 1/3 the total cost of 3-4 custom built traditional v type engines which could easily run into the six figure range (depending on who the builder was). The two most famous ones were The Green Monster and Dragon Lady, which were driven by land speed world record holder Art Arfons and his daughter Dusty. Art won multiple USHRA national championships with "The Monster" in the early/mid 80's, the twin turbo jets on it could turn the rear wheels at speeds in excess of 150 mph at full throttle which made pulling the 50.000 pound pull sled too a full distance pull (200/250 feet depending on the venue) a trivially in any competition that wasn't a "pull off" to decide a winner of an event if there were multiple full pulls during the competition. They eventually stopped competing in the general 7200 pound tractor class and chose to run in the exhibition class instead.
And don't forget the Rover gas turbine car that ran at Le Mans in the 60s. It's in the Gaydon Museum which I think is fairly close to you. (Sorry if you mentioned it and I missed that part). They also did a road car idea in the 50s. The American big car makers (Chrysler) also got excited about turbine cars in the 50s (it was the jet age after all). Seeing them now reminds me of the Nuclear powered cars in Fallout. 😃
Speaking of Lotus pushing the boundaries, it still bugs me that the Lotus 88 was banned outright without getting chance to race even once. I guess Ferrari and Williams were afraid of Chapman making their cars obsolete again.
By all accounts the Lotus 88 was completely numb to drive and it played fast and loose with the rule book though I have no doubt that it was within the letter of the law in terms of passing scrutineering, the fact that it passed aero loads from the outer chassis direct to the wheel hubs it was just asking to be excluded! Its a shame that innovation is often stifled in F1 and they always fear an "arms race" but the reality was prior to the budget cap that the teams would always spend all they had (sometimes more) on making the car as fast as possible and all that "cost saving" measures like testing bans do is force the teams into spending even more money on tech like driver in loop simulation that costs more and is less effective!
@@philipbain I both totally agree and disagree at the same time. Agree 100% on innovation missing from F1, makes F1 not F1 anymore, and totally disagree with the rule book not needing people to play fast and loose with it, to produce innovation. In the middle of both, there's the incurable disease that Formula One has always had, and that is favouritism. There's no doubt that certain teams can cuddle up to the rule makers at certain times. This is why every time equality is talked about, one team still dominates. When switching to hybrids, the sport switched to Mercedes. Red Bull caught up, so ground effect suddenly reappeared after being banned decades ago. Now Red Bull dominate. Ferrari, Williams, McLaren all had their time too, and that cannot be coincidence, especially given that all other teams never fail to complain about the dominant team, as if they get preferential treatment. As you ended your comment, we are back in agreeance. Let Formula One innovate completely, because that was always the nature of the formula.
Possibly another reason Carroll Shelby and Dan Gurney were not interested in the Ken Wallis turbo-car design: Both had their racing endeavors financially underwritten by Ford at that time. Shelby with the endurance sports car racing efforts; Gurney with Indy and sports cars.
Now I'm just imagining a late 70s F1 car with some insanely weird powertrain, like a 3 rotor with proper torque-split AWD, and then demolishing the field for the quarter of the season they didn't have mechanical issues in.
I knew about the STP turbo IndyCar, as Parnelli Jones' Ford dealership was in my home town, and he had one on display. But I did not know it also ran in F1, so thanks for the interesting story!
Nice recap of an interesting era. The STP Indy Turbines captivated me as a 14-year old budding race fan, and I also followed the Lotus 56's short foray in F1. I had the thrill of seeing the original side-by-side Turbine car in the museum at Indy twenty years ago. If you can get a hold of a copy, I heartily recommend reading Andy Granatelli's autobiography "They call me Mister 500". There is a hilarious scene in there of Andy having a business breakfast with Colin Chapman. What a pair of characters!
Great video. Now you've got me thinking about using an actual APU and a pair of electric motors as a turbo-electric hybrid. Maybe a hypothetical Garage 56 project...
Some Americans did get this concept to work. In a car. By effectively having turbo wastegates as a throttle. So the jet engine section could be left at a high power but the driver could have that gas bypass the power turbine so Meaning instant throttle response but massive fuel use And as you said brakes where the downfall
Minor correction. The turbines weren't banned by USAC after the 1968 Indy 500, the rules were just changed to make them hopelessly uncompetitive. A guy named Jack Adams entered a turbine car from 1969-1971 but was nowhere near fast enough to make the show
True. Andy Granatelli documented USAC's underhanded rule changes in his book. It's funny, because it was not the turbine engine that made both the Paxton and Lotus Indy cars fast in race trim, it was the AWD.
@@AidanMillward Yup! USAC and CART had a long history of doing this sort of thing, changing the rules to neuter any perceived competitive advantage. Similar fate befell Penske's beast Mercedes engine after the 1994 Indy 500.
The Indy version exists in Project Cars 2. Not sure if it has been ported to AC. I have not yet found the F1 version. But the Indy version was raced on a road course at least once in the 1968 season.
it was weird watching trackside it was so quiet you could hear the tyres thudding on the track at night when it fired up in the garage was like being at raf coningsby
4:30 If you haven't seen it yet Captain Joe just did a rally good deep dive on how the PT-6 works. His video is on the turbo-prop variant, but it's valid for any PT-6 variant because all you need to do is swap what the free power turbine is attached to.
You're thinking about the 1967 Indy 500, when Parnelli Jones' STP Turbine lost a transmission bearing just before the end of the race. In 1968, both leader Joe Leonard and Art Pollard had the fuel pump shafts break on lap 192
@@arthuralford yes, completely accurate. I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers the details of those cars. The 1967 STP Turbine is still my favourite race car of all time.
Fun fact something like 11% of the thrust on king air or like aircraft with the pt6 come from the exhaust And when using a turbine engine it has to stay spooled up like the turbo on a regular car to put power down think about how long a jet has to spool up before take off on the run way when they release the breaks they are producing so much thrust it can tear up the assault but it spools up so slow in comparison to a ICE it’s like a top fuel drag car vs a 1996 ford ranger they both go when you throttle one just way faster than the other
Hey I gave my dad that same model kit he races garden tractor 🚜 like the one behind the F1 car lol that's bloody awesome to see thanks mate for the picture of the fully assembled kit
I like the engine description, explains its a turboshaft and then proceeds to show a turbofan aircraft and calls it a jet 🤣😆🤣😆 (yes, I'm an ex aircraft mechanic and now an engineer 🤣😆) Love the video's! Keep up the good work!
The Chapparal 2J used a rear mounted fan - like the 1978 Brabhams at Sweden - to vacuum air from underneath the car - "sucking" it to the pavement - a very different proposition from Lotus's "wing body" chassis. But yes - Jim Hall was every bit as innovative as Colin Chapman.
Actually, the 56 did run at Indy. Joe Leonard was leading the race with about 8 laps left in the race. There was a full course yellow on that point and when the flag went green, Leonard stepped on the accelerator and something inside the engine broke. A second turbine car broke at the same time (Graham Hill had crashed just past the mid-point). Bobby Unser won in one of Gurney's cars, sporting the first turbocharged engine to win at Indy.
Turboshaft engines ARE "Internal Combustion" in that they burn fuel internally. Turboshaft is the same as Turboprop, it's just that the latter is, by definition, tied to a propeller while a Turboshaft could be connected to anything. But basically they're the same.
I reckon the pt6 could make a return if you set up brakes on 4wd system like a monster truck with a lever near the driver so there could be drag braking or even add brake flaps that pop up on braking like a bugatti
the engineer in me feels the undying need to point out that a gas turbine is indeed an internal combustion engine as the combution process that drives it is indeed taking place inside the the combution section of the turbine.... sorry i cant help it! the word that dissasociates the two is the dfv and all susequent f1 engines are piston engines. a p&w pt6 is indeed an intenal combution engine albiet not drven by pistons
With how far technology and design has come, both with cars AND engines of both the Helicopter and Jet Variety, I kinda wonder if such a thing would be worth attempting this time. We're at a point were we have a far better understanding of things like packaging and overall integration so I'd be intrigued to see if someone is willing to tackle it.
It's interesting how Indycar nearly became the roadgoing equivalent to Unlimited Hydroplanes if it weren't for USAC going..."Hmmmm...Maybe we need to restrict that a bit more..." It's interesting how with all the turbine hype at Indy in those days, the only two real forms of competition that kept the turbine viable was the aforementioned lobster-claw-nosed racing boats (and pretty much all of them use the Lycoming T55, a bigger engine for a bigger helicopter than the P&W in the 56)...and Tractor Pulling. Though the tractors use whatever turbine they can find, and unlike the hydros the tractors still also use either several large supercharged automotive V8s, industrial engines, or aircraft piston engines, or a combination of whatever. There's only one hydroplane running a V12 Allison anymore, and the rest are on turbines.
I was thinking just seeing the title that an F1 application of this idea just would not work. All the starts and stops around a road course. It is fine for Indianapolis. Jay Leno had a good episode about the old Chrysler turbine car. He explains that it was terrible for fuel economy for reasons you cover in this video, that it had to keep the revs up even when stopped.
Turboprop. Turboshaft. Turbojet. Tomato Tomahto. First three are * all * turbines. Simple. Fun fact (former commercial pilot here), FAA put out an AD to have ‘turbo’ (you know ..in that 80s cool gradation font with the t bottom curling 90degrees. Well .. adding another to the mix. It was a gas piston engine and TURBO NORMALIZED (has a turbo)…you TURBO CHARGE at alts closer to sea level. Gaining additional power. You’re fighting to maintain anywhere close to 100% power at altitude. This could get tricky for the layperson, eh??? Damnit! Editing. Forgot to tell you WHY the Airworthiness Directive was removing that decal from the side of the engine cowl(s). Your piston engine burns 100LL. Your local line boy who isn’t hip to the lingo had more than once given a soon to be excited pilot a fill up with Jet A (refined kerosene), thinking it was a TurboProp. It says turbo, right??? Hehe.
the trick with keeping turbo shaft engines responsive in such an application ist to keep the engine running at 80-90% all the time and make the throttle close the bypass valve. i think this was the indy design aswell
There’s some more modern engines that can be more responsive. Using things like variable stators can make the powerband wider so you’ll get better power at lower rpm. But, there hasn’t been much development in making turbine engines that are responsive. For aircraft it isn’t really much of a concern. Would be interesting if the experimentation from the 50’s and 60’s with turbine road vehicles had carried on. Might have ended up with turbine engines that could run much more like a traditional engine.
So technically with the Concord agreement you could run a Diesel engine if you wanted? This is providing the vehicle is V, Inline, Slant Inline, or Flat.
1:21 I just can't move forward with the video from staring the picture of Nina Rindt. In this picture she actually looks a bit like my first real crush, but better of course. People used to arrange a date under the warehouse Stockmann's clock. Mobile phones were already introduced then but it was kinda romantic and exiting to meet your date there. The clock's not shown in the pic but it's behind her Nina Rindt's right shoulder, above the entrance
Really enjoyed this. Sorry to be that guy, but re the opening sentences I should mention that a jet engine, turboprop, turboshaft or other type of gas turbine IS an internal combustion engine. What it's not is an internal combustion PISTON engine
Ambitious but rubbish was a very necessary part of Formula One. Just as square windows were deadly on the de Havilland Comet, until oval ones were discovered to hold internal pressures without stressing the airframe in the same way. This is the most legitimate complaint that traditional F1 fans have. It's not about safety, as important as that aspect of racing is, but in the way that the envelope of engineering was pushed not only to known boundaries, but beyond. F1 can no longer claim to be the pinnacle of motor racing, just because of having so much money involved. By staying with only a single design to work with, it has reduced the formula to that of any other. It only took a second season of cars under current regulations to have people comment on how unexciting the 2023 cars look, which was always going to be the case when the body is integral to the ground effect, so can't be radically altered. Nobody wants a return to the deadly days of the late 60's, but without innovation, that sport might not have made it this far, and will struggle in future once the fanboys realise that the regulations hold any team back that wants to get ahead with ideas outside the box box box, without being able to innovate. This same issue is now starting to affect Nascar, where changing any standard part will get a team a 100 point penalty. Instead, teams like Aston Martin closed the gap by just copying Red Bull, and I guess that F1 and the F.I.A are just counting on 20 cars being identical pretty soon, because that will happen should the same format be kept for much longer.
The engines used in most commercial airlines are propjet engines just larger than what would fit in a heli . Actually now that I think about it why do they call that a propjet engine . Yes it's a jet engine that powers a propeller , but the prop is contained in a tube like a fanjet . Shouldn't it be called a fanpropjet engine . Sorry got distracted .
Turbine engines are also internal combustion engines, because, you know, they combust fuel inside...It's obvious you don't really know what you're talking about here, just reading from wikipedia...maybe not even that.
a clutch would seperate the power from the drivetrain but would still not provide braking force as there is never a time in the power cycle of a turbine(that is actively running anyway) that would provide braking force. it going to keep on spinning that shaft as long as it is running. piston engines provide braking due to the vacuum created behind the throttle blade when closed and the tires actively trying to turn it, there is no throttle blade to block the airflow into the compressor and if there were. the air would just cavitate behind it as opposed to creating a vacuum.
The story of, once again, the FIA stifling innovation - okay, 10 years after - but imagine a 4-wheel drive jetcar with today's computing power onboard!!! But no, because F1 has to be a tiny, tiny subset of engineering possibilities that are supposed to promote close racing but never, ever do, then we're corraled into a minute volume of possibility-space that bore the tits off a statue.
Imagine if it WAS a jet powered F1 car. With an afterburner. Mach 1 down the Monza start finish straight and... straight into a wall...
Also turbine engines have been used on railway locomotives. Which is probably a better application for them as opposed to cars.
if it went Mach 1 I wouldn't imagine brake cooling would be an issue
i swear some of the early 2000's ferrari's had jets in the back.
@@Ramtamtama Ye of little faith...
We had helicopter engines in trains (in France), it was hell. They drank like Lemmy Kilmister and were almost as loud. Drivers hated them, passengers hates them and I guess the people living near the train stations weren't too happy about it.
If people complain about it being difficult to follow in dirty air now, I could only imagine what they'd say when someone had their front wing melted off by someone else's afterburner. It would be hilarious.
PS I liked your Chapman slide. He was a brilliant racing (and sports) car designer. But far too often people claim he invented things when it would be far more accurate to say he 'cleverly and successfully applied' exiting ideas into his cars. That still doesn't diminish his achievements.
I love the experimental Indy 500 cars that were created during the 60's. IIRC one guy showed up with a car that had 3 wheels on the right and 1 wheel on the left. Smokey Yunick showed up with a car that had the driver hanging off to the left of the main body of the car.
3 wheels on one side? Thats fucking sick
15 years later these same engines made their way into indoor motorsports, tractor pulling in particular.
Thanks to thousands of them being decommissioned by the US marine corps and air force during the post vietnam drawdown, they became dirt cheap, and many tractor builders/owners turned to them because you could buy two for less than 1/3 the total cost of 3-4 custom built traditional v type engines which could easily run into the six figure range (depending on who the builder was).
The two most famous ones were The Green Monster and Dragon Lady, which were driven by land speed world record holder Art Arfons and his daughter Dusty.
Art won multiple USHRA national championships with "The Monster" in the early/mid 80's, the twin turbo jets on it could turn the rear wheels at speeds in excess of 150 mph at full throttle which made pulling the 50.000 pound pull sled too a full distance pull (200/250 feet depending on the venue) a trivially in any competition that wasn't a "pull off" to decide a winner of an event if there were multiple full pulls during the competition.
They eventually stopped competing in the general 7200 pound tractor class and chose to run in the exhibition class instead.
And don't forget the Rover gas turbine car that ran at Le Mans in the 60s. It's in the Gaydon Museum which I think is fairly close to you. (Sorry if you mentioned it and I missed that part). They also did a road car idea in the 50s.
The American big car makers (Chrysler) also got excited about turbine cars in the 50s (it was the jet age after all).
Seeing them now reminds me of the Nuclear powered cars in Fallout. 😃
Jay Leno has the only one still able to run.
Speaking of Lotus pushing the boundaries, it still bugs me that the Lotus 88 was banned outright without getting chance to race even once. I guess Ferrari and Williams were afraid of Chapman making their cars obsolete again.
The Lotus 88 was never raced because the Drivers despised the cars so much due to instabilities in the design when properly tested.
indeed... it was a pig
@@ShazotoTouge
No, the FIA wouldn't let it run so the drivers didn't have a chance to hate ti.
By all accounts the Lotus 88 was completely numb to drive and it played fast and loose with the rule book though I have no doubt that it was within the letter of the law in terms of passing scrutineering, the fact that it passed aero loads from the outer chassis direct to the wheel hubs it was just asking to be excluded! Its a shame that innovation is often stifled in F1 and they always fear an "arms race" but the reality was prior to the budget cap that the teams would always spend all they had (sometimes more) on making the car as fast as possible and all that "cost saving" measures like testing bans do is force the teams into spending even more money on tech like driver in loop simulation that costs more and is less effective!
@@philipbain I both totally agree and disagree at the same time. Agree 100% on innovation missing from F1, makes F1 not F1 anymore, and totally disagree with the rule book not needing people to play fast and loose with it, to produce innovation. In the middle of both, there's the incurable disease that Formula One has always had, and that is favouritism. There's no doubt that certain teams can cuddle up to the rule makers at certain times. This is why every time equality is talked about, one team still dominates. When switching to hybrids, the sport switched to Mercedes. Red Bull caught up, so ground effect suddenly reappeared after being banned decades ago. Now Red Bull dominate. Ferrari, Williams, McLaren all had their time too, and that cannot be coincidence, especially given that all other teams never fail to complain about the dominant team, as if they get preferential treatment. As you ended your comment, we are back in agreeance. Let Formula One innovate completely, because that was always the nature of the formula.
Possibly another reason Carroll Shelby and Dan Gurney were not interested in the Ken Wallis turbo-car design: Both had their racing endeavors financially underwritten by Ford at that time. Shelby with the endurance sports car racing efforts; Gurney with Indy and sports cars.
Now I'm just imagining a late 70s F1 car with some insanely weird powertrain, like a 3 rotor with proper torque-split AWD, and then demolishing the field for the quarter of the season they didn't have mechanical issues in.
I knew about the STP turbo IndyCar, as Parnelli Jones' Ford dealership was in my home town, and he had one on display. But I did not know it also ran in F1, so thanks for the interesting story!
Nice recap of an interesting era. The STP Indy Turbines captivated me as a 14-year old budding race fan, and I also followed the Lotus 56's short foray in F1. I had the thrill of seeing the original side-by-side Turbine car in the museum at Indy twenty years ago. If you can get a hold of a copy, I heartily recommend reading Andy Granatelli's autobiography "They call me Mister 500". There is a hilarious scene in there of Andy having a business breakfast with Colin Chapman. What a pair of characters!
Best moment in Indy 500 history? ,Andy kissed Mario when thay won the race!
Do Chapperal next.
Editing Aidan is a great addition.
Nice save on explaining the helicopter reference.
The engine WAS later used in a helicopter.
Turboshaft is also an internal combustion engine
Great video. Now you've got me thinking about using an actual APU and a pair of electric motors as a turbo-electric hybrid. Maybe a hypothetical Garage 56 project...
Some Americans did get this concept to work. In a car. By effectively having turbo wastegates as a throttle. So the jet engine section could be left at a high power but the driver could have that gas bypass the power turbine so Meaning instant throttle response but massive fuel use
And as you said brakes where the downfall
th-cam.com/video/GAgLSy371us/w-d-xo.html
I was at IMS when Graham Hill did a 177 mph lap in a qualifying run!
Minor correction. The turbines weren't banned by USAC after the 1968 Indy 500, the rules were just changed to make them hopelessly uncompetitive. A guy named Jack Adams entered a turbine car from 1969-1971 but was nowhere near fast enough to make the show
True. Andy Granatelli documented USAC's underhanded rule changes in his book. It's funny, because it was not the turbine engine that made both the Paxton and Lotus Indy cars fast in race trim, it was the AWD.
At that point, you might as well just ban em.
Stupid rule makers. 😤
@@AidanMillward Yup! USAC and CART had a long history of doing this sort of thing, changing the rules to neuter any perceived competitive advantage. Similar fate befell Penske's beast Mercedes engine after the 1994 Indy 500.
The original 1967 Torbine car crashed during practice and never attempted to qualify, let alone race in 1968.
5:42, hey.. Air Canada!!
somebody needs to make a mod of this car. sounds very interesting to drive in a sim
The Indy version exists in Project Cars 2. Not sure if it has been ported to AC. I have not yet found the F1 version. But the Indy version was raced on a road course at least once in the 1968 season.
It's part of a 1971 F1 mod: th-cam.com/video/F_acuqRwR_8/w-d-xo.html
Really loving the content mate, always a treat to watch your videos!
it was weird watching trackside it was so quiet you could hear the tyres thudding on the track at night when it fired up in the garage was like being at raf coningsby
Funnily enough that Hornet takeoff was at Waddington. 🤣
4:30 If you haven't seen it yet Captain Joe just did a rally good deep dive on how the PT-6 works. His video is on the turbo-prop variant, but it's valid for any PT-6 variant because all you need to do is swap what the free power turbine is attached to.
The only useful information I've come across on these cars. Thank you!
Imagine if Joe Leonard didn't have a transmission-bearing failure in the Indy 500. I remember hearing it was a 25-cent part.
You're thinking about the 1967 Indy 500, when Parnelli Jones' STP Turbine lost a transmission bearing just before the end of the race. In 1968, both leader Joe Leonard and Art Pollard had the fuel pump shafts break on lap 192
@@arthuralford yes, completely accurate. I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers the details of those cars. The 1967 STP Turbine is still my favourite race car of all time.
So much shafting in this vid!
Fun fact something like 11% of the thrust on king air or like aircraft with the pt6 come from the exhaust
And when using a turbine engine it has to stay spooled up like the turbo on a regular car to put power down think about how long a jet has to spool up before take off on the run way when they release the breaks they are producing so much thrust it can tear up the assault but it spools up so slow in comparison to a ICE it’s like a top fuel drag car vs a 1996 ford ranger they both go when you throttle one just way faster than the other
I drove the indy version in pcars2 and damn not having engine braking is weird
So, you've never raced a 2 stroke then? lol
Not that it matters, but I heard 'they" limited the intake size and that kind of killed it....Thanks for the help.
Hey I gave my dad that same model kit he races garden tractor 🚜 like the one behind the F1 car lol that's bloody awesome to see thanks mate for the picture of the fully assembled kit
I like the engine description, explains its a turboshaft and then proceeds to show a turbofan aircraft and calls it a jet 🤣😆🤣😆 (yes, I'm an ex aircraft mechanic and now an engineer 🤣😆) Love the video's! Keep up the good work!
Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
Nice video, as pilot, I'm always following aircraft stuff, and this was great.
The Chapparal 2J used a rear mounted fan - like the 1978 Brabhams at Sweden - to vacuum air from underneath the car - "sucking" it to the pavement - a very different proposition from Lotus's "wing body" chassis. But yes - Jim Hall was every bit as innovative as Colin Chapman.
Lotus/Pratt&Whitney. Now, isn’t that the best carname EVER? Batmobile doesn’t even get close!
Interesting decal of a Smurf at 1:05.
Reminds me of Bertrand Gachot who at one point also had a Smurf decal on his helmet.
It’s from zandvoort so Belgium was next door.
Smelled like a David Brown Cropmaster, saw it race one, could smell it all over Silverstone.
Actually, the 56 did run at Indy. Joe Leonard was leading the race with about 8 laps left in the race. There was a full course yellow on that point and when the flag went green, Leonard stepped on the accelerator and something inside the engine broke. A second turbine car broke at the same time (Graham Hill had crashed just past the mid-point). Bobby Unser won in one of Gurney's cars, sporting the first turbocharged engine to win at Indy.
Turboshaft engines ARE "Internal Combustion" in that they burn fuel internally. Turboshaft is the same as Turboprop, it's just that the latter is, by definition, tied to a propeller while a Turboshaft could be connected to anything. But basically they're the same.
I reckon the pt6 could make a return if you set up brakes on 4wd system like a monster truck with a lever near the driver so there could be drag braking or even add brake flaps that pop up on braking like a bugatti
There's so much to talk about with these videos
awesome video
Rover built a turbine car in 1949/50. Hill and Stewart raced a Rover BRM turbine car at Le Mans in 1965.
There was an earlier gas turbine powered sports car called a Howmet, it’s still running in historic racing events all over Europe.
It would have won Indy if not for a minor component failing due to heat stress. A fascinating machine.
There are PT6’s used in helicopters, so Aiden is technically correct -the best kind of correct.
the engineer in me feels the undying need to point out that a gas turbine is indeed an internal combustion engine as the combution process that drives it is indeed taking place inside the the combution section of the turbine.... sorry i cant help it! the word that dissasociates the two is the dfv and all susequent f1 engines are piston engines. a p&w pt6 is indeed an intenal combution engine albiet not drven by pistons
“The sort of internal combustion engines we associate with f1” would have been a better line.
2:29 It had a different kind of engine altogether. (sorry was watching Airplane! last night)
A turbine engine is still an internal combustion engine
Pretty sure a gas turbine is an internal combustion engine, maybe you should have said "instead of using a piston engine"
With how far technology and design has come, both with cars AND engines of both the Helicopter and Jet Variety, I kinda wonder if such a thing would be worth attempting this time. We're at a point were we have a far better understanding of things like packaging and overall integration so I'd be intrigued to see if someone is willing to tackle it.
It's interesting how Indycar nearly became the roadgoing equivalent to Unlimited Hydroplanes if it weren't for USAC going..."Hmmmm...Maybe we need to restrict that a bit more..."
It's interesting how with all the turbine hype at Indy in those days, the only two real forms of competition that kept the turbine viable was the aforementioned lobster-claw-nosed racing boats (and pretty much all of them use the Lycoming T55, a bigger engine for a bigger helicopter than the P&W in the 56)...and Tractor Pulling. Though the tractors use whatever turbine they can find, and unlike the hydros the tractors still also use either several large supercharged automotive V8s, industrial engines, or aircraft piston engines, or a combination of whatever. There's only one hydroplane running a V12 Allison anymore, and the rest are on turbines.
Didn't Rover/BRM do a LM Turbine? (I'm sure you'll mention it, just commenting before watching)
I was thinking just seeing the title that an F1 application of this idea just would not work. All the starts and stops around a road course. It is fine for Indianapolis.
Jay Leno had a good episode about the old Chrysler turbine car. He explains that it was terrible for fuel economy for reasons you cover in this video, that it had to keep the revs up even when stopped.
No one could touch Colin Chapman back in the day. Adrian Newey takes it forward to today.
no fkin way I literally searched your channel 2 days ago wondering if you'd done one on the 56
A KERS would go a long way towards dealing with the poor engine response as would a hybrid power-train.
I like how nobody, as far as i've scrolled down in the comments, has mentioned that this is STILL an internal combustion engine, just not a piston one
It was one of the first comments on the video.
Imagine the PT6 in an endurance race car at lemans
I'm fairly sure that Rindt's nose was the one he was born with rather than being that shape as a result of a break
Turbine engines have found a home in tractor pulling and unlimited hydroplane racing.
Follow up with 4wd 1969? And include the curious Cosworth 4wd?
Turboprop. Turboshaft. Turbojet. Tomato Tomahto.
First three are * all * turbines. Simple.
Fun fact (former commercial pilot here), FAA put out an AD to have ‘turbo’ (you know ..in that 80s cool gradation font with the t bottom curling 90degrees. Well .. adding another to the mix. It was a gas piston engine and TURBO NORMALIZED (has a turbo)…you TURBO CHARGE at alts closer to sea level. Gaining additional power. You’re fighting to maintain anywhere close to 100% power at altitude. This could get tricky for the layperson, eh???
Damnit! Editing. Forgot to tell you WHY the Airworthiness Directive was removing that decal from the side of the engine cowl(s). Your piston engine burns 100LL. Your local line boy who isn’t hip to the lingo had more than once given a soon to be excited pilot a fill up with Jet A (refined kerosene), thinking it was a TurboProp. It says turbo, right??? Hehe.
the trick with keeping turbo shaft engines responsive in such an application ist to keep the engine running at 80-90% all the time and make the throttle close the bypass valve. i think this was the indy design aswell
Spose it was easier to do at Indy given the nature of the track.
There’s some more modern engines that can be more responsive. Using things like variable stators can make the powerband wider so you’ll get better power at lower rpm.
But, there hasn’t been much development in making turbine engines that are responsive. For aircraft it isn’t really much of a concern.
Would be interesting if the experimentation from the 50’s and 60’s with turbine road vehicles had carried on. Might have ended up with turbine engines that could run much more like a traditional engine.
@@AidanMillward yes, they were better suited to ovals than road courses, but you have to give Chapman credit for giving it a go.
The worlds finest small gas turbine engine. Had a bit to do with them over the years. Power response for motor racing would be horrendous though.
So technically with the Concord agreement you could run a Diesel engine if you wanted? This is providing the vehicle is V, Inline, Slant Inline, or Flat.
Imagine a F1 car with a self righting mechanism!
1:21 I just can't move forward with the video from staring the picture of Nina Rindt. In this picture she actually looks a bit like my first real crush, but better of course. People used to arrange a date under the warehouse Stockmann's clock. Mobile phones were already introduced then but it was kinda romantic and exiting to meet your date there. The clock's not shown in the pic but it's behind her Nina Rindt's right shoulder, above the entrance
Really enjoyed this. Sorry to be that guy, but re the opening sentences I should mention that a jet engine, turboprop, turboshaft or other type of gas turbine IS an internal combustion engine. What it's not is an internal combustion PISTON engine
This was already pointed out
This thing is a rocket in PC2
Well, Austin did put their jet turbine into a car before handing the project over to Rolls Royce.
Looking at the samey cars of the past couple of decades, it always baffles me how radical some F1 cars were. The title is still clockbait af tho 😅
FYI, a gas turbine IS an internal combustion engine.
Oh the irony of an agreement banning the use of jet engines in motorsport called The Concord Agreement
Ambitious but rubbish was a very necessary part of Formula One. Just as square windows were deadly on the de Havilland Comet, until oval ones were discovered to hold internal pressures without stressing the airframe in the same way.
This is the most legitimate complaint that traditional F1 fans have. It's not about safety, as important as that aspect of racing is, but in the way that the envelope of engineering was pushed not only to known boundaries, but beyond. F1 can no longer claim to be the pinnacle of motor racing, just because of having so much money involved. By staying with only a single design to work with, it has reduced the formula to that of any other. It only took a second season of cars under current regulations to have people comment on how unexciting the 2023 cars look, which was always going to be the case when the body is integral to the ground effect, so can't be radically altered. Nobody wants a return to the deadly days of the late 60's, but without innovation, that sport might not have made it this far, and will struggle in future once the fanboys realise that the regulations hold any team back that wants to get ahead with ideas outside the box box box, without being able to innovate.
This same issue is now starting to affect Nascar, where changing any standard part will get a team a 100 point penalty. Instead, teams like Aston Martin closed the gap by just copying Red Bull, and I guess that F1 and the F.I.A are just counting on 20 cars being identical pretty soon, because that will happen should the same format be kept for much longer.
The engines used in most commercial airlines are propjet engines just larger than what would fit in a heli . Actually now that I think about it why do they call that a propjet engine . Yes it's a jet engine that powers a propeller , but the prop is contained in a tube like a fanjet . Shouldn't it be called a fanpropjet engine . Sorry got distracted .
Why is there a Smurf on the windscreen of the car in the Rindt photo?
The Smurfs are from Belgium. Maybe the owner of the car is from tbere.
Please sir, please sir, please sir. I've got a pedantic point I have to make. Gas turbines are internal combustion engines
Turbine engines are also internal combustion engines, because, you know, they combust fuel inside...It's obvious you don't really know what you're talking about here, just reading from wikipedia...maybe not even that.
I'm surprised they didn't use a clutch system to modulate the power instead of the brakes.
Maybe that was a bit too complicated for what they were doing.
a clutch would seperate the power from the drivetrain but would still not provide braking force as there is never a time in the power cycle of a turbine(that is actively running anyway) that would provide braking force. it going to keep on spinning that shaft as long as it is running. piston engines provide braking due to the vacuum created behind the throttle blade when closed and the tires actively trying to turn it, there is no throttle blade to block the airflow into the compressor and if there were. the air would just cavitate behind it as opposed to creating a vacuum.
A turboshaft is a type of turbine.
Yea but not a *jet* turbine
@@derrickstorm6976 Didn’t say it was a jet, did I?
Correct. A jet engine is a type of turbine engine while a turbine engine, on it's own isn't a jet engine.
A gas turbine *is* a type of internal combustion engine. Just saying.
Shame that rotaries were banned, really. Their downsides wouldn’t have mattered in F1, and their advantages might have been all the more obvious.
Suppose it depends whether you think 10 fuel stops in a race would make it better or worse
Totally nailed the top gear part... Ambitious, but rubbish.
The story of, once again, the FIA stifling innovation - okay, 10 years after - but imagine a 4-wheel drive jetcar with today's computing power onboard!!! But no, because F1 has to be a tiny, tiny subset of engineering possibilities that are supposed to promote close racing but never, ever do, then we're corraled into a minute volume of possibility-space that bore the tits off a statue.
The gp smurf
Ngl if I end up being an adult film actor I'll call myself that 5:08