The video I didn't link because I'm an eejit: th-cam.com/video/8h4EBDn5Hg0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=FlQ4EuKnoFTMpaaK TH-cam editor working overtime today. Just been one of those days when you try to do too much at once. Not that anyone's watching this video XD
I have always been fascinated by the BRM H-16 since I saw the Road and Track cover article about it in early 1966. Much was expected of it. There was even a plan for a 4.2 litre version for the Indy 500. It really was a hugely over-ambitious project for BRM, which did not have anything like the resources to build such a thing properly. I have the idea that if it were to be built today with the far higher engineering standards now used it could work, but the small outfit that BRM was then did not have a chance, and it is so surprising they could not see that. Tony Rudd's massive 3 volume history of BRM avoids the H-16 altogether, so I suppose he realized the blunder, but far too late. Oh, I heard the engine that Clark used at Watkins Glen was, by the end, more of an H-15 or H-14.
Like many F1 innovations, the H-configuration came from the aero industry. Napier built a series of H-configuration aero engines thoughout the 1930s, culminating in the Napier Sabre - an enormously powerful H 24 cylinder aero engine with sleeve valves. Development on the Sabre began years later than the famous Rolls Royce Merlin and was a lower priority, so it took until mid-war before it entered service with the Hawker Typhoon. But it became a strong contender for the best aero engine of the war and also powered the Hawker Tempest, one of the fastest piston-engine aircraft of the war (at low & medium altitude).
Doug Nye says in one of his books that before the FIA banned more than 12 cylinders a Japanese manufacturer (Honda)? was working on a 3.0 litre X32 engine. Can you imagine the noise that thing would make? Before it exploded obviously.
Well, if anyone could make such a beast work, it would be Honda. Remember, this is the company who built a 5-cylinder 125cc engine that revved to 22,000rpm. In the '60's. Or, there was the Honda RC116, a 50cc twin, putting out 13.7hp at 21,500rpm - winning races & titles in 1966. If anyone was capable of both building as mental an engine as an X32, and getting such a beast reliable enough to race, it would be Honda...
You forgot to mention that the 1951 V-16 was a 1.5 liter (that’s right 1,500 cc) supercharged engine. Years ago I read a circa 1970s magazine article on both the 1951 V-16 and 1966 H-12. Rolls Royce designed the centrifugal supercharger (relying on WW II Merlin experience) for the V-16. BRM did not use the intended fuel injectors but rather 2 SU carbs that were too small (venturi diameters too small). Thus the engine started out throttled and could not produce the intended power. The second problem was like the turbo era with power lag while the centrifugal super spooled up; then the power came on as if one flipped a switch. In a WW II fighter the engines ran in a narrower RPM band. In the first race the car started at the back and the driver revved the engine to spool-up the boost, let the clutch out. The car jerked forward and stopped having sheared off the final drive axles. Supposedly the design of the sealing at the cylinder deck - head inter face - would allow coolant to spray into the cylinder with explosive results. The theory behind the 3.0 liter H-16 was that many of the components (pistons, rods, valves, cams, …) of the proven 1.5 liter V-8 could be used. Turned out this didn’t work out as intended. And as you noted the torsional vibration and power pulses simply tore the inners up. Once the Ford Cosworth DFV was plentiful, most contractors could focus on chassis, aeros, 6 wheelers, fan cars and ultimately ground effect (Lotus 79, FW-08 (?)) until Renault showed up with their turbo V6. The V-12 was mainly a Ferrari & Matra theme.
By the end of 1965, BRM had the reputation of having the best engine in F1. The Climax V8 won more races because, well, Jim Clark and Colin Chapman. Oddly enough, they also came up with a V12 that could have been a more viable engine, but BRM didn't put the team effort into it until the H16 had failed. The main distinction the H16 engine had was that it was stiff enough that Chapman used it as a stressed chassis member in the 43. That idea carried over to the 49 with the DFV, which made it the default design strategy.
It's a classic of the very British genre of "Clever Professor" engineering - design something massively over-complicated, then spend years engineering it until it just about works right as the window of opportunity is closing.
Adrian, the H16 had TWO crankshafts geared together, hence the vibration. It's not possible for them to turn at exactly the same speed at the same time so there will be harmonic vibration, the bane of engineers. It's a more feasible idea nowadays with digital engine management. The Lotus 43 was designed to carry the h16 but only as a stopgap before the Cosworth came along, the 43 was actually the first car to have a stressed engine full monocoque, before the 49.
Raymond Mays wrote an excellent book - BRM which is a very interesting read. He was a legendary driver from the early days of motor racing. i would love to have Adrian do a history of his life.
About 20 years ago I remember visiting the stunning Donnigton collection and seeing a cutaway BRM 1.5 supercharged V16 display engine that would turn over for the princely sum of 20p.Transfixed by it's complexity I must have put about two quid into it. For anyone interested in Racing mainly F1 this museum was amazing don't know if its still there.I think it may have been split up after Tom Wheatcroft passed away.
There is a BRM P83 complete with H16 with another H16 on a stand at the Caister Castle car collection in Norfolk. It sits next to a Jim Clark Lotus Type 33 (chassis R14). The Lotus and P83 could do with being restored, but I believe it's a covenant of the collection that they will be left as is.
The H engine is as stated in the comments earlier basicly two flat eights on top of eachother. It was modelled after the well known Napier Sabre sleeve valve H24 aero engine of the second world war. The Rolls Royce Vulture was basicly two RR Kestrel (V12) engines bolted together to make an X shape with a shared cranckshaft. This is the shape you get when bolting together two V 8ths
One particularly annoying thing is that there exists tons of videos of the H-16 engined BRM mated to the sound of the supercharged BRM V-16 of 1951. Even though I have pointed this out countless of times to the video makers they STILL don't change the title or the click-to-watch image. I've heard the H-16 and the best thing you can say about it is that it has an "interesting" sound, but nothing like the 1,5 liter supercharged V16 of the early 50's.
The H16 was theory slamming head first into practice, And it never made any where near what the other conventional engines in it's practical form, it topped out at around 370, and it was actually two FLAT 8's stacked one on the other. Designer Tony Rudd got nearly EVERY one of his calculations wrong to the point where the cost saving plan of using the previous 1.5's pistons, rods and valve gear had to be abandoned. They should have stuck with developing the Weslake V12 while using the Taismen series engine in the interim.
Well there would/could have been 16 cylinder engine on the grid during the same period without the rule changing. Coventry Climax built and dyno tested a 1.5L flat 16 as the next step on from the V8, but pretty much abandoned it when the 1.5L rules were dropped. Apparently they considered turbocharging it for the new 3L rules, except it didn't go anywhere, and didn't bother with developing a 3L engine. That's why Lotus used the BRM H16 and jumped to Cosworth, because Climax didn't want to develop a new engine
I always enjoy your productions and this one was no different. I just have one correction to make: the Lotus 43 was not based on the 33 - it was actually derived from the Lotus 38 Indy car. If you look at the two side-by-side, it's easy to see. But keep up the good work!
Chris Barrie stated in his Massive Engines series (which still holds up really well), BMW would have the engines put down out the back of the factory and, for reasons, get pissed over. It apparently worked given how bloody quick and how good those engines were. That and they were basically the same as you could buy in a road car at the time but I forget which car it was
It was to help identify cracks in the blocks they remove the surface rust after a few weeks of peein pissed,any cracks would be rusty lines on the block no rust lines means no cracks and its suitable for turning into a turbo monster.
The BMW M12* series of engines had been used in Formula 2 and Touring car racing since the 1960s, the 2.0L F2 engines were developing well over 300hp by the late 1970s. The M12/13* F1 engine was basically a downsized F2 engine fitted with a Turbocharger. These engines were all based on the cast iron M10 blocks which had been built by BMW since 1962 in stuff like your hum-drum 3-Series and 5-Series.
The story goes that BMW didn't use new engine blocks for their F1 turbo engine, but used old used blocks taken from the BMW 2002 road car. The reasoning was that old engine blocks would have lost any structural stresses from the manufacturing processes. (Also any weak blocks would have failed already.) They were also thought an old-fashioned cast iron cylinder block would be more reliable and less prone to failure (albeit with a significant weight penalty, and probably torsional rigidity - important in an F1 car where the designer would like to be able to used the engine as a fully stressed component of the chassis). The leaving the cylinder blocks outside and occasionally getting urinated on was also supposed to be part of the process of letting the cylinder blocks relieve themselves of manufacturing stresses. (As for the truth to the story... that's anyone's guess.)
@@ibex485 I'd always heard that the reason they synthetically rusted the blocks was to reduce weight, because the rules disallowed machining of blocks based on production motors (which sounds pretty suspect now that I'm thinking about it).
@@d00dEEE I'm not aware of F1 ever having rules which restricted modifying components taken from production cars. F1 has always been a catagory for pure prototypes. When iron rusts (or other metals oxidise) it actually gains mass, from the oxygen atoms bonding to the iron to make iron oxide.
If you want to learn more about this moving disaster. There's a few videos on TH-cam with Tony Rudd, the designer of the H16 . I highly recommend that you watch.
Please do the BRM V16! Info and pictures should be easy to find now that they have made a few exact replicas to go with the ultra rare original cars that are still running.
I'm currently writing a video on Ferrari 1969 season and i have to go back to when the 312 was debut with its main issue being the v12 that was stripped out of a sports car
I can, sort of, understand the rationale of the H16. All the major parts, cranks, rods, pistons, heads, etc. were carried over from the very capable 1.5 litre V8. Theoretically (!), it should have reduced the development time/costs. Shame it didn't work out. I'm with you about Jim Clark being the greatest all round driver. "Pah!" to those who disagree.
The weird thing is that Napier _somehow_ made both the W12 (The Lion) and H-type engine...an _H24,_ (the Sabre,)...work. Reliably. in aircraft. Maybe BRM looked at a Hawker Typhoon and thought "Well, if Napier can do it, _surely_ we can!"
I had an idea for a potential video: I'm hoping you have seen the episode of WILTY with Bob Mortimer? Specifically the one about Damon Hill, and giving him a Scotch egg that helped win a grand prix. Any backstory from the racing side of things would be incredible. I tried looking once after a few beers but had no idea where to start. It was on my mind this morning and thought I'd ask someone who is quite knowledgeable and resourceful. Cheers!
We’re now in the “best part of 2000bhp” era, as we’ve just moved on from the 1500bhp era. I reckon by 2030 we’ll have reached the “over 2000bhp” era though.
I would love to re-do that concept.. Or maybe shorten it a bit and make it H12. That should open up the power band to more usable range. It still won't make a lick of sense, but when race engines have?
I now wonder what might have happened, if someone had thought of miniaturising a Deltic loco engine and using that in a 1960s F1 car. 18 cylinders? Even more hilariously, that would have opened the possibility of a diesel powered F1 car, which is probably about as acid trip an idea as the H16 was. Just out of curiosity, has anyone thought of running a rotary engine in F1, Mazda 787 style? Only that could stir things up, especially given how rotaries burn oil and blow seals if you push them too hard. Then there's radial engines ... a miniature version of the monster used in the B36 intercontinental nuclear bomber sounds like a good idea for a "Wacky Races" version of F1. Look around the Internet, and there's a whole zoo of weird engine designs that are waiting for someone to try. Quite literally, the sky's the limit here. That's a video topic that's begging to be done just for comedy reasons alone. :)
IRL the engine looks quite small, and you can see H16 cars at the likes of Goodwood. Why did they need the one crankshaft when they could have made it one engine per wheel. That would have been much more fun.
The thing is, the two engines welded together isn't actually that bad of an idea. Maybe it was with technology back then, but don't forget the Bugatti Veyron has two V8 engines welded together to make a W16. And there are other examples of this with high performance road cars as well. The theory is correct, the execution wasn't.
Took a listen (Surprised its from a channel I normally watched, shocked I somehow missed this video) and yeah, its..certainly an engine. Its existence alone is quite abit of an ask given its list of disadvantages (the opposite of compelling reasons you'd want one) and yet somehow, it worked just enough to win once. I guess its abit like Pastor Maldonado: Rubbish 99% of the time but brilliant just enough to steal one while nobody was looking (only to then have people look in shock and go "Wait, WHAT?" while the universe began to eat itself alive).
Is the h16 the configuration used in yue Veyron? I vaguely remember it being described in the bit of the early 00s when it was still in development as “2 v8s bolted together”. And melting. A lot.
Interesting question. I looked and it appears that it has two banks with 8 cylinders each that share a crankshaft. Bugatti website has a block only picture
They use the term W16, which would imply two v8's bolted together. But it actually is more like two nested v8's. 4 banks of 4 cylinders, the nested design does a better job with vibrations.
@@tobyhall8048 i can remember a vw w12 perplexing car press then too. Lots of “if i’m buying a supercar, why a vw, especially given the other brands i could align myself with within vw group?”
I don't care! The H16 is an awesome engine! Big power, 16 cylinders and a meaty roar. I wonder if it would've improved even more than it did had BRM stuck with it
The biggest reason I've lost a lot of interest in F1 these days is down to how tightly ring fenced the rules are. I mean, I get it. Costs how they are, we've seen how certain teams will throw obscene amounts of money at things, so I know it's inevitable. But I wish in a pure fantastical way, that we could have far more room to breathe in the rules and let engineering and innovation have a bash more. When Bounr had that open day a few years ago and had a lot of the BRMs and other classics driving through the streets, I was ill and couldn't go but I made sure I got my missus to record the H16. She asked "I won't know which that is" and although I gave her details I said "you'll know".
Why are motor designers fixated with glueing engines together? IT NEVER WORKS! As an aviation nerd I refer you to the god awful Heinkel He 177 Nazi bomber from WW2….
I wish F1 cars still use tuned exhaust!!!! The press core at Indy referred to the exhaust of the Ford Motor as "a bucket of snakes." The 16 cylinders must have been magnificent!
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
The video I didn't link because I'm an eejit: th-cam.com/video/8h4EBDn5Hg0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=FlQ4EuKnoFTMpaaK
TH-cam editor working overtime today. Just been one of those days when you try to do too much at once. Not that anyone's watching this video XD
LITER, not "litre" 😂 j/k, love you 😊
They had an H16 on display in the Donington museum. If you put a quid in the machine, the pistons and so on would start moving. remarkable.
I have always been fascinated by the BRM H-16 since I saw the Road and Track cover article about it in early 1966. Much was expected of it. There was even a plan for a 4.2 litre version for the Indy 500. It really was a hugely over-ambitious project for BRM, which did not have anything like the resources to build such a thing properly. I have the idea that if it were to be built today with the far higher engineering standards now used it could work, but the small outfit that BRM was then did not have a chance, and it is so surprising they could not see that. Tony Rudd's massive 3 volume history of BRM avoids the H-16 altogether, so I suppose he realized the blunder, but far too late. Oh, I heard the engine that Clark used at Watkins Glen was, by the end, more of an H-15 or H-14.
Like many F1 innovations, the H-configuration came from the aero industry.
Napier built a series of H-configuration aero engines thoughout the 1930s, culminating in the Napier Sabre - an enormously powerful H 24 cylinder aero engine with sleeve valves. Development on the Sabre began years later than the famous Rolls Royce Merlin and was a lower priority, so it took until mid-war before it entered service with the Hawker Typhoon. But it became a strong contender for the best aero engine of the war and also powered the Hawker Tempest, one of the fastest piston-engine aircraft of the war (at low & medium altitude).
Doug Nye says in one of his books that before the FIA banned more than 12 cylinders a Japanese manufacturer (Honda)? was working on a 3.0 litre X32 engine. Can you imagine the noise that thing would make? Before it exploded obviously.
I can’t even fathom what a 32 cylinder engine would sound like but it would be a noise you’d pay big money just to hear
Well, if anyone could make such a beast work, it would be Honda. Remember, this is the company who built a 5-cylinder 125cc engine that revved to 22,000rpm. In the '60's. Or, there was the Honda RC116, a 50cc twin, putting out 13.7hp at 21,500rpm - winning races & titles in 1966. If anyone was capable of both building as mental an engine as an X32, and getting such a beast reliable enough to race, it would be Honda...
@@gchampi2the honda grand Prix racers of the 60s weren't all that competitive though. They always had a lot of power but they were extremely heavy
I always thought BRM stood for British Racing Misery. You learn something everyday.
It started to be that by the 70s
@@hecksters423 They were like that when they started, it improved in the 1960s, then reverted to their old self afterwards...
bloody rubbish motors
You forgot to mention that the 1951 V-16 was a 1.5 liter (that’s right 1,500 cc) supercharged engine. Years ago I read a circa 1970s magazine article on both the 1951 V-16 and 1966 H-12. Rolls Royce designed the centrifugal supercharger (relying on WW II Merlin experience) for the V-16. BRM did not use the intended fuel injectors but rather 2 SU carbs that were too small (venturi diameters too small). Thus the engine started out throttled and could not produce the intended power. The second problem was like the turbo era with power lag while the centrifugal super spooled up; then the power came on as if one flipped a switch. In a WW II fighter the engines ran in a narrower RPM band. In the first race the car started at the back and the driver revved the engine to spool-up the boost, let the clutch out. The car jerked forward and stopped having sheared off the final drive axles. Supposedly the design of the sealing at the cylinder deck - head inter face - would allow coolant to spray into the cylinder with explosive results.
The theory behind the 3.0 liter H-16 was that many of the components (pistons, rods, valves, cams, …) of the proven 1.5 liter V-8 could be used. Turned out this didn’t work out as intended. And as you noted the torsional vibration and power pulses simply tore the inners up. Once the Ford Cosworth DFV was plentiful, most contractors could focus on chassis, aeros, 6 wheelers, fan cars and ultimately ground effect (Lotus 79, FW-08 (?)) until Renault showed up with their turbo V6. The V-12 was mainly a Ferrari & Matra theme.
Didn’t forget anything
By the end of 1965, BRM had the reputation of having the best engine in F1. The Climax V8 won more races because, well, Jim Clark and Colin Chapman. Oddly enough, they also came up with a V12 that could have been a more viable engine, but BRM didn't put the team effort into it until the H16 had failed. The main distinction the H16 engine had was that it was stiff enough that Chapman used it as a stressed chassis member in the 43. That idea carried over to the 49 with the DFV, which made it the default design strategy.
It's a classic of the very British genre of "Clever Professor" engineering - design something massively over-complicated, then spend years engineering it until it just about works right as the window of opportunity is closing.
I eye-witnessed Clark's victory with the H-16. I was awed by how Clark was just a little smoother and a tiny bit faster than anyone else that day.
Adrian, the H16 had TWO crankshafts geared together, hence the vibration. It's not possible for them to turn at exactly the same speed at the same time so there will be harmonic vibration, the bane of engineers. It's a more feasible idea nowadays with digital engine management. The Lotus 43 was designed to carry the h16 but only as a stopgap before the Cosworth came along, the 43 was actually the first car to have a stressed engine full monocoque, before the 49.
Hello Aidan: Thank you for this. I didn't know that the H16 actually won a race. Have a lovely day.
It's the Pastor Maldonaldo of engines.
13:56 did you forget to leave that link in the description? Of the motor in a historic display run?
You are a motorrace legend Aidan. Keep up the great work! You make a race niche very alive
Thank you, Aiden, this was one of your best. Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
Raymond Mays wrote an excellent book - BRM which is a very interesting read. He was a legendary driver from the early days of motor racing. i would love to have Adrian do a history of his life.
About 20 years ago I remember visiting the stunning Donnigton collection and seeing a cutaway BRM 1.5 supercharged V16 display engine that would turn over for the princely sum of 20p.Transfixed by it's complexity I must have put about two quid into it. For anyone interested in Racing mainly F1 this museum was amazing don't know if its still there.I think it may have been split up after Tom Wheatcroft passed away.
There is a BRM P83 complete with H16 with another H16 on a stand at the Caister Castle car collection in Norfolk. It sits next to a Jim Clark Lotus Type 33 (chassis R14). The Lotus and P83 could do with being restored, but I believe it's a covenant of the collection that they will be left as is.
Yeah, I'm going to die on that hill with you, man... Clack is the greatest in my book too.
The H engine is as stated in the comments earlier basicly two flat eights on top of eachother. It was modelled after the well known Napier Sabre sleeve valve H24 aero engine of the second world war. The Rolls Royce Vulture was basicly two RR Kestrel (V12) engines bolted together to make an X shape with a shared cranckshaft. This is the shape you get when bolting together two V 8ths
One particularly annoying thing is that there exists tons of videos of the H-16 engined BRM mated to the sound of the supercharged BRM V-16 of 1951. Even though I have pointed this out countless of times to the video makers they STILL don't change the title or the click-to-watch image. I've heard the H-16 and the best thing you can say about it is that it has an "interesting" sound, but nothing like the 1,5 liter supercharged V16 of the early 50's.
Exactly. H16 sounded like shit, but v16 sounded awesome
The H16 was theory slamming head first into practice, And it never made any where near what the other conventional engines in it's practical form, it topped out at around 370, and it was actually two FLAT 8's stacked one on the other. Designer Tony Rudd got nearly EVERY one of his calculations wrong to the point where the cost saving plan of using the previous 1.5's pistons, rods and valve gear had to be abandoned. They should have stuck with developing the Weslake V12 while using the Taismen series engine in the interim.
Cheers from Australia Aidan.
Well there would/could have been 16 cylinder engine on the grid during the same period without the rule changing. Coventry Climax built and dyno tested a 1.5L flat 16 as the next step on from the V8, but pretty much abandoned it when the 1.5L rules were dropped. Apparently they considered turbocharging it for the new 3L rules, except it didn't go anywhere, and didn't bother with developing a 3L engine. That's why Lotus used the BRM H16 and jumped to Cosworth, because Climax didn't want to develop a new engine
I always enjoy your productions and this one was no different. I just have one correction to make: the Lotus 43 was not based on the 33 - it was actually derived from the Lotus 38 Indy car. If you look at the two side-by-side, it's easy to see. But keep up the good work!
Great video but what’s going on with the bots with nudity in the comment section??, TH-cam fix up!!
Chris Barrie stated in his Massive Engines series (which still holds up really well), BMW would have the engines put down out the back of the factory and, for reasons, get pissed over. It apparently worked given how bloody quick and how good those engines were. That and they were basically the same as you could buy in a road car at the time but I forget which car it was
It was to help identify cracks in the blocks they remove the surface rust after a few weeks of peein pissed,any cracks would be rusty lines on the block no rust lines means no cracks and its suitable for turning into a turbo monster.
The BMW M12* series of engines had been used in Formula 2 and Touring car racing since the 1960s, the 2.0L F2 engines were developing well over 300hp by the late 1970s. The M12/13* F1 engine was basically a downsized F2 engine fitted with a Turbocharger.
These engines were all based on the cast iron M10 blocks which had been built by BMW since 1962 in stuff like your hum-drum 3-Series and 5-Series.
The story goes that BMW didn't use new engine blocks for their F1 turbo engine, but used old used blocks taken from the BMW 2002 road car. The reasoning was that old engine blocks would have lost any structural stresses from the manufacturing processes. (Also any weak blocks would have failed already.) They were also thought an old-fashioned cast iron cylinder block would be more reliable and less prone to failure (albeit with a significant weight penalty, and probably torsional rigidity - important in an F1 car where the designer would like to be able to used the engine as a fully stressed component of the chassis).
The leaving the cylinder blocks outside and occasionally getting urinated on was also supposed to be part of the process of letting the cylinder blocks relieve themselves of manufacturing stresses. (As for the truth to the story... that's anyone's guess.)
@@ibex485 I'd always heard that the reason they synthetically rusted the blocks was to reduce weight, because the rules disallowed machining of blocks based on production motors (which sounds pretty suspect now that I'm thinking about it).
@@d00dEEE I'm not aware of F1 ever having rules which restricted modifying components taken from production cars. F1 has always been a catagory for pure prototypes.
When iron rusts (or other metals oxidise) it actually gains mass, from the oxygen atoms bonding to the iron to make iron oxide.
If you want to learn more about this moving disaster. There's a few videos on TH-cam with Tony Rudd, the designer of the H16 . I highly recommend that you watch.
Speaking of 16-cylinder, have you seen Bugatti's new Cosworth-built V16? Absolutely bonkers, a 16-cylinder that revs like an S2000.
awesome video
Isn't Jim Clark technically the only driver to win a World Championship Grand Prix in a car with 2 engines?
I recommend talking about Colin Chapman's first f1 design the lotus 12 - the REAL first car with a sequential gearbox
Favorite engine...? By Aidan Millward???? OH YEAHHHHH
A few years there was auto union v16 on shelsy Walsh climb. The hill shock when it was running. No idea what formula it was in but it was loud
Please do the BRM V16! Info and pictures should be easy to find now that they have made a few exact replicas to go with the ultra rare original cars that are still running.
I'm currently writing a video on Ferrari 1969 season and i have to go back to when the 312 was debut with its main issue being the v12 that was stripped out of a sports car
I can, sort of, understand the rationale of the H16. All the major parts, cranks, rods, pistons, heads, etc. were carried over from the very capable 1.5 litre V8. Theoretically (!), it should have reduced the development time/costs. Shame it didn't work out.
I'm with you about Jim Clark being the greatest all round driver. "Pah!" to those who disagree.
The weird thing is that Napier _somehow_ made both the W12 (The Lion) and H-type engine...an _H24,_ (the Sabre,)...work. Reliably. in aircraft. Maybe BRM looked at a Hawker Typhoon and thought "Well, if Napier can do it, _surely_ we can!"
Don"t forget the Alfa V8 turbo
Did the engine only win one race? - Love the subject. Thanks Aidan.
I had an idea for a potential video: I'm hoping you have seen the episode of WILTY with Bob Mortimer? Specifically the one about Damon Hill, and giving him a Scotch egg that helped win a grand prix. Any backstory from the racing side of things would be incredible. I tried looking once after a few beers but had no idea where to start. It was on my mind this morning and thought I'd ask someone who is quite knowledgeable and resourceful. Cheers!
I saw that episode and immediately said it was a lie when he said he did that in 1996.
Villeneuve won the race and Damon crashed out.
Thank you! I knew you'd know! Hope you're well man, much love and appreciation for all you do.
Yeah, that was a truly insane engine. I'm also a big fan of Jim Clark tbh.
yeah those 2000hp bmw engines were awesome
2,500 isn’t it? 😅
We’re now in the “best part of 2000bhp” era, as we’ve just moved on from the 1500bhp era. I reckon by 2030 we’ll have reached the “over 2000bhp” era though.
BRM: The International Rescue of F1!
Don't forget that Porsche when developing the Can Am 917 Spyder tried a flat 16 in it before getting a flat eight Turbo to work.
Flat 12?
13:15 430 bhp? I've heard it was 470!
(I'm going BMW turbo with the figures!)
Sure Andy middlehurst had one of these in at his Nissan dealership St Helens
there was a company recreating the v16 engine a few years back
The 1.5 formula was much maligned, but it birthed the modern era and produced some good races, especially at Monaco.
I would love to re-do that concept.. Or maybe shorten it a bit and make it H12. That should open up the power band to more usable range. It still won't make a lick of sense, but when race engines have?
I now wonder what might have happened, if someone had thought of miniaturising a Deltic loco engine and using that in a 1960s F1 car. 18 cylinders? Even more hilariously, that would have opened the possibility of a diesel powered F1 car, which is probably about as acid trip an idea as the H16 was.
Just out of curiosity, has anyone thought of running a rotary engine in F1, Mazda 787 style? Only that could stir things up, especially given how rotaries burn oil and blow seals if you push them too hard. Then there's radial engines ... a miniature version of the monster used in the B36 intercontinental nuclear bomber sounds like a good idea for a "Wacky Races" version of F1.
Look around the Internet, and there's a whole zoo of weird engine designs that are waiting for someone to try. Quite literally, the sky's the limit here. That's a video topic that's begging to be done just for comedy reasons alone. :)
The mid 1930s Auto Union V16s, with superchargers, were better 😎
Those things are the result of giving Germans access to a bottomless budget, meth, and a "whatever it takes to win" mentality.
IRL the engine looks quite small, and you can see H16 cars at the likes of Goodwood. Why did they need the one crankshaft when they could have made it one engine per wheel. That would have been much more fun.
Hear for BRM stories :D
13:11 hmmm, 64 cylinders is a bit much? ;) Guess you meant valves :P
Imagine the valve tuning 😂
This was mentioned in the pinned comment
BRM was never really a Garagiste team, they built their own cars and engines. The only British team to do so for a sustained period.
The thing is, the two engines welded together isn't actually that bad of an idea. Maybe it was with technology back then, but don't forget the Bugatti Veyron has two V8 engines welded together to make a W16. And there are other examples of this with high performance road cars as well.
The theory is correct, the execution wasn't.
Personally I place Tazio Nuvolari as the greatest, in 2 wheels or 4 racing, the little man with the yellow helmet was the GREATEST Aidan
Took a listen (Surprised its from a channel I normally watched, shocked I somehow missed this video) and yeah, its..certainly an engine. Its existence alone is quite abit of an ask given its list of disadvantages (the opposite of compelling reasons you'd want one) and yet somehow, it worked just enough to win once. I guess its abit like Pastor Maldonado: Rubbish 99% of the time but brilliant just enough to steal one while nobody was looking (only to then have people look in shock and go "Wait, WHAT?" while the universe began to eat itself alive).
auto union type d....maybe :D
Auto Union using a V16 engine won grand prixs pre-war
i know what it sounds like it reminds me of a naiper sabre the engine that powered the hawker typhoon and tempest
Bring back V12s!
Pedant here, Auto Union v16 won Grand Prix.
Wasn’t part of the world championship though.
@@AidanMillwardsame thing, i.e. there was a championship. F1 was just a name change
Is the h16 the configuration used in yue Veyron? I vaguely remember it being described in the bit of the early 00s when it was still in development as “2 v8s bolted together”. And melting. A lot.
Interesting question. I looked and it appears that it has two banks with 8 cylinders each that share a crankshaft. Bugatti website has a block only picture
@@evanwilliams3645 their media describe it as a “w16”. I am not technically minded enough to understand the difference, but am confident there is one.
They use the term W16, which would imply two v8's bolted together. But it actually is more like two nested v8's. 4 banks of 4 cylinders, the nested design does a better job with vibrations.
Interestingly I believe a w12 exists somewhere, which is more like what I would expect from a "w" engine with 3 banks.
@@tobyhall8048 i can remember a vw w12 perplexing car press then too. Lots of “if i’m buying a supercar, why a vw, especially given the other brands i could align myself with within vw group?”
I don't care! The H16 is an awesome engine! Big power, 16 cylinders and a meaty roar. I wonder if it would've improved even more than it did had BRM stuck with it
The biggest reason I've lost a lot of interest in F1 these days is down to how tightly ring fenced the rules are.
I mean, I get it. Costs how they are, we've seen how certain teams will throw obscene amounts of money at things, so I know it's inevitable. But I wish in a pure fantastical way, that we could have far more room to breathe in the rules and let engineering and innovation have a bash more.
When Bounr had that open day a few years ago and had a lot of the BRMs and other classics driving through the streets, I was ill and couldn't go but I made sure I got my missus to record the H16. She asked "I won't know which that is" and although I gave her details I said "you'll know".
Why are motor designers fixated with glueing engines together? IT NEVER WORKS!
As an aviation nerd I refer you to the god awful Heinkel He 177 Nazi bomber from WW2….
Neat
It was a useless engine with an amaaaaaaazing sound!! Best sound ever ...
No. The sound you are hearing is from the v16 BRM not the H16
What did the W-style engine and the NWO have in common?
They were both f-f-f-for Life
Wah wah guitar intensifies.
64 cilindrers seems legit😂. But who would't make that mistake 🤷♂️
I spent so long trying to make sure that I got displacement right. It's been one of those days
I wish F1 cars still use tuned exhaust!!!! The press core at Indy referred to the exhaust of the Ford Motor as "a bucket of snakes." The 16 cylinders must have been magnificent!
You’re being pessimistic on that BMW turbo engine. I bet we can boost its power to 2000 by next year.
Commiserations on having to suffer living in Holbeach, It's almost as bad as Wisbech.
Used to gig in the Five Bells quite often
Audi grand prix 1935???
Auto Union
Enjoying your content Aiden. Can we get content from you about Senna being a raging Nonce?
eww brother whats thaat 😂 great vid
Sounds beautiful until you hear it run on fifteen cylinders
These bots are crazy
C'est magnifique, mais c'est pas le guerre!
Thats the problem with F1 today.
Nobody can do anything thats just "bonkers" 🤣
I believe the Auto Unions pre 6 year summer vacation would like to have a word over a v16 winning an F1 race. So two veeks, ze cooler.
Grand Prix, yes
F1, was it called that then?
Before the world championship though.
@@AidanMillward I could edit my faux pas from F1 to Grand Prix as MTG pointed out, so we'll call it BRM as the lone title holder in Modern F1 😀
Over weight over complicated under powered sound like modern stuff