The Lotus 56 was the car that took aerodynamics for open wheel race cars to the next level. The Lotus 72 was the piston engine version of this chassis which debuted in 1970. Bruce McLaren was at the Spanish GP in 1970 and when he saw the 72 said that this would be the design for his 1971 Indy car that sat on the pole and broke the qualifying record by more than 9 mph.
Thank you for returning the what was an amazing feat of engineering back to it's original glory ! What a remarkable piece of engineering and Indy history ! Maintained for generations to come ! What a beautiful job !
I am PROUD to say that I was sitting right there for the unveiling of this masterpiece. If they did not restrict it out of business, ALL cars would have been turbine in a few years. This was CLEARLY faster than anything else at that time! One of my TOP FIVE, Childhood memories!!
The real reason the turbines were regged out of competition is because the owners of piston engine cars and businesses that supported those engines would have lost too much money. Piston engines needed frequent and expensive overhaul several times each season. The turbines ran for years with just an oil change. The engine in the Indy Lotus racer is Pratt & Whitney PT6A turboshaft engine. It is one of the most successful and important aero engines with over 40,000 produced and still in high demand.
The turbine power plant was actually at a disadvantage as it’s throttle response was quite slow compared to that of a piston engine. The turbine car’s advantage-never mentioned in this video-was its 4WD system, which allowed to run a higher “groove” on the race track.
2-3 seconds slower turbo lag, but it keeps building bit by bit, they do have large power in a smaller package, and they have fewer moving parts, but the turbo lag is a big one and the hot exaust and noise is one reason they never made it to production cars beside the experamental phase, and a voracious appatite for fuel, though they can use almost any type of liquid fuel, some work better then others though. lets just hope indy dont get forced to go all electric while its pure torque batteries dont have the distance to go the whole time without running out of power, and they are too quiet, a turbine at least makes noise, and I for one love the sound of turbine engines.
The throttle response was not the problem, USAC cut air inlet from 23.999 sq in to 15.999 which robbed the car of about 15 mph on the straightaways. Joe Leonard in the race could go no faster than 190mph on the straights.
Its spec to hold costs down or else you many not even have teams to put on a race......or end up with one or two teams with usch a financial/technical advantage that you no longer have a competitive show anymore............for all the glory of innovation back then the racing wasn't near competitive......... and then when the digital age came into racing it skyrocketed costs on top of the technology................F1 is struggle with that in the areas of team dominance and cost controls today.....which they are attempting to address. It is important that motorsports lead technical advances in transportation but it becomes a two edge sword when considering the sporting or entertainment value of it at the same time.
If you purchase a car such as this, then start a complete ground up restoration alongside people that are as close to its creators as you can get in order to ensure it is done right and to its original specs. Then it couldn't have had a better owner. I don't even watch F1 but this is just perfect. I think id be a huge fan if i was around during such a crazy Era tho, jesus.
USAC really screwed the pooch on effectively banning turbines - allowed to race competitively the automotive landscape might have been significantly altered. Hats off to Granatelli and Chapman on the beautiful restoration.
@@HJBounell I could see that- it would be hard to keep it at peak torque because it needs to spool more but can’t But I feel like with modern technology (assuming turbines now have variable airflow mechanisms of sorts) could make it possible
USAC (I think) rules prohibited “bolt-on” rear wings onto Indy-style champ cars until 1972. Before then rear wings were only allowed onto Indy/Champ cars if they were an “integral” part of the car’s rear bodywork, although I am not sure what year that rule came into use. I am not aware of any champ car/Indy car teams attempting to use or even considering to use any kind of rear wing on an “Indy” car at the time of the 1968 Indy 500, although there were certainly a handful of them in use in the 1969, 1970, and 1971 Indy 500’s, most notably the original versions of the McLaren M-16 Indy cars first raced by Peter Revson, Mark Donahue, and Denny Hulme in the 1971 Indy 500, with Peter Revson winning pole position and blistering the then existing track record with that car that year. IMO, the 1971 McLaren M-16s were one of the most beautiful looking car designs ever used in Indy Car, and was the first Indy Car design to look generally similar to the (now spec) Indy car design of today. (Rear-engined open-wheel wide-tire race car with side pods and substantial front and rear wings) I heard that AJ Foyt practically insisted on having a rear wing put on to his 1971 Coyote Indy Car once he saw the looks and speeds of the 1971 McLaren M-16s, so he or his team fastened a full size rear wing onto the back of his 1971 Coyote car and somehow joined the rear wing to the cars’s bodywork using a thin strip of metal: and was able to claim to the race officials that this rear wing setup was an “Integral Body” rear wing,. He then did get away with using this kind of winged car for the 1971 Indy 500(ultimate finishing in 3rd with it) probably because he’s A.J.! 😂
great times, no rules, just new ideas
Of course there were rules.
Gram Hill is a racing legend.
What a piece of machinery....Colin Chapman you beautiful man🐐🔥🏁
Colin Chapman one of the greatest innovators in racing car design ever
The sound on the race track was the coolest thing ever it's like watching a flight race
The Lotus 56 was the car that took aerodynamics for open wheel race cars to the next level. The Lotus 72 was the piston engine version of this chassis which debuted in 1970. Bruce McLaren was at the Spanish GP in 1970 and when he saw the 72 said that this would be the design for his 1971 Indy car that sat on the pole and broke the qualifying record by more than 9 mph.
Thank you for returning the what was an amazing feat of engineering back to it's original glory !
What a remarkable piece of engineering and Indy history !
Maintained for generations to come !
What a beautiful job !
I am PROUD to say that I was sitting right there for the unveiling of this masterpiece. If they did not restrict it out of business, ALL cars would have been turbine in a few years. This was CLEARLY faster than anything else at that time! One of my TOP FIVE, Childhood memories!!
that is such an awesome moment to witness, mustve been insane to hear it at full tilt
This was the future but it was denied by the powers that were in charge at that time but their all gone now so lets bring back the turbine .
YEAH
Awesome innovation. They should have let them continue competing.
The real reason the turbines were regged out of competition is because the owners of piston engine cars and businesses that supported those engines would have lost too much money. Piston engines needed frequent and expensive overhaul several times each season. The turbines ran for years with just an oil change.
The engine in the Indy Lotus racer is Pratt & Whitney PT6A turboshaft engine. It is one of the most successful and important aero engines with over 40,000 produced and still in high demand.
@@davem5333 - oil change AND fuel pump drive shaft.... !!!
The turbine power plant was actually at a disadvantage as it’s throttle response was quite slow compared to that of a piston engine. The turbine car’s advantage-never mentioned in this video-was its 4WD system, which allowed to run a higher “groove” on the race track.
2-3 seconds slower turbo lag, but it keeps building bit by bit, they do have large power in a smaller package, and they have fewer moving parts, but the turbo lag is a big one and the hot exaust and noise is one reason they never made it to production cars beside the experamental phase, and a voracious appatite for fuel, though they can use almost any type of liquid fuel, some work better then others though.
lets just hope indy dont get forced to go all electric while its pure torque batteries dont have the distance to go the whole time without running out of power, and they are too quiet, a turbine at least makes noise, and I for one love the sound of turbine engines.
The throttle response was not the problem, USAC cut air inlet from 23.999 sq in to 15.999 which robbed the car of about 15 mph on the straightaways. Joe Leonard in the race could go no faster than 190mph on the straights.
Just the fact that Richard Pettty owned this for so long adds a whole other dimension to it.
Sad to see that the Indy 500 has become a race for spec cars.
Most race series now are spec races. Very little room for real tech innovators like Chapman and Penske.
Its spec to hold costs down or else you many not even have teams to put on a race......or end up with one or two teams with usch a financial/technical advantage that you no longer have a competitive show anymore............for all the glory of innovation back then the racing wasn't near competitive......... and then when the digital age came into racing it skyrocketed costs on top of the technology................F1 is struggle with that in the areas of team dominance and cost controls today.....which they are attempting to address. It is important that motorsports lead technical advances in transportation but it becomes a two edge sword when considering the sporting or entertainment value of it at the same time.
There were always specifications.
If you purchase a car such as this, then start a complete ground up restoration alongside people that are as close to its creators as you can get in order to ensure it is done right and to its original specs.
Then it couldn't have had a better owner.
I don't even watch F1 but this is just perfect.
I think id be a huge fan if i was around during such a crazy Era tho, jesus.
Thanks, good video
USAC really screwed the pooch on effectively banning turbines - allowed to race competitively the automotive landscape might have been significantly altered.
Hats off to Granatelli and Chapman on the beautiful restoration.
the chevrolet turbine car (sedan) had been on sale a few years prior .. . not many takers..
I would love to see some team take this technology and put it in a 2018 spec Indy car.
The turbine was actually a terrible auto racing engine. Good at Indianapolis on the longer runs but a stone at the smaller ovals and road courses.
@@HJBounell I could see that- it would be hard to keep it at peak torque because it needs to spool more but can’t
But I feel like with modern technology (assuming turbines now have variable airflow mechanisms of sorts) could make it possible
A great car that never got the chance...
grazie by Italia
Graham was just the best! Wish he could take it around the track today, we lost a legend when we lost him!
Did that bearing fail?
Or did its lubrication fail?
STP users want to know.
Incredibly odd that the turbines always broke down after about 190 laps... almost like they were cursed at Indy.
Hill crashed, and the 2 other have fuel pump issue ...
Turbine can't be blamed :)
Then why didn't they start a new bracket for turbine powered cars...more money with great attendance at the tracks.
I believe they nicknamed the turbine cars "The Whooshmobiles"
素晴らしい！
STP PTA or TPE?
So, what was its top speed again?
Joe Leonard in #60 won the pole position with a speed of 171.559 mph with Hill in the #70 2nd@ 171.208
No rear wing? What the hell???
Because 1968.
USAC (I think) rules prohibited “bolt-on” rear wings onto Indy-style champ cars until 1972. Before then rear wings were only allowed onto Indy/Champ cars if they were an “integral” part of the car’s rear bodywork, although I am not sure what year that rule came into use. I am not aware of any champ car/Indy car teams attempting to use or even considering to use any kind of rear wing on an “Indy” car at the time of the 1968 Indy 500, although there were certainly a handful of them in use in the 1969, 1970, and 1971 Indy 500’s, most notably the original versions of the McLaren M-16 Indy cars first raced by Peter Revson, Mark Donahue, and Denny Hulme in the 1971 Indy 500, with Peter Revson winning pole position and blistering the then existing track record with that car that year. IMO, the 1971 McLaren M-16s were one of the most beautiful looking car designs ever used in Indy Car, and was the first Indy Car design to look generally similar to the (now spec) Indy car design of today. (Rear-engined open-wheel wide-tire race car with side pods and substantial front and rear wings) I heard that AJ Foyt practically insisted on having a rear wing put on to his 1971 Coyote Indy Car once he saw the looks and speeds of the 1971 McLaren M-16s, so he or his team fastened a full size rear wing onto the back of his 1971 Coyote car and somehow joined the rear wing to the cars’s bodywork using a thin strip of metal: and was able to claim to the race officials that this rear wing setup was an “Integral Body” rear wing,. He then did get away with using this kind of winged car for the 1971 Indy 500(ultimate finishing in 3rd with it) probably because he’s A.J.! 😂
Suprise it didn't take off
@@LonelyHearts.Co24 Simulators agree with you.... ua-cam.com/video/dCyrY9fJUm4/v-deo.html&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE&t=23
@@LonelyHearts.Co24the jet exhaust (behind driver's head ) has a vertical vector . .. may have helped push it to the road !!
Colin chapman
Tour de cars
How the hell was that legal? xD
Because the one-class rules and regulations which exist today in Indycar - and which have emasculated the class - did not exist.