And what did we trade it for? -- Now you can't use a wind tunnel as much as other teams depending on your standing! ooooo so exciting. peak F1. ::sigh::
Never say never but we are definitely not going towards that direction. Especially F1 bosses perhaps have no desire to do it at all since F1's popularity have already went up quite significantly but because of mainly social media reasons and not so much because they were overly creative about making better rules.
@@mateagoston8145 They are banking on people caring about the inter-driver drama which is non existent and entirely manufactured. It's a soap opera with cars.
It's a shame because racing is the best way to try out unusual technologies. But F1 is far too heavily-regulated now and it may as well be declared a spec-series. Innovation is illegal.
@@CriticoolHit Agreed, I first starte to use similar expressions when I described my feeling towards DRS, or to be more precise, the rules around it. I think if the driver behind the other one gets artifical support then that's just car theater not actual racing.
I thought that you may have mentioned that this car influences the shape and layout of F1 cars to this day. When Lotus went back to normal engines Chapman wanted to keep the wedge nose for optimal aero, so split the radiators and shoved them on the sides. Equaling the hugely successful Lotus 72 and the layout used by everyone to this day.
yes its a turbine engine, like the stp indycar andy grannetalli tried to put forth driven by parnelli jones who recently passed away, it nearly won, though it was more due to the all wheel drive systom for power distribution was just 4 laps shy and a 8 doller bearing failed taking it out of the race, they nerfed down, and wrote the use of turbines out of the rules the next year or so.
@@manga12 turboshafts, turboprops turbojets and turbofans are all turbine engines. The difference is how they move the vehicle. Turboshafts (as the name implies) work by connecting an output shaft to the engine, those are usually used on helicopters to spin the rotors, but there's a handful of cars that also have those. Turboprops are similar to turboshafts, but they spin a propeller, and that's what moves the vehicle. Turbojets work by accelerating the air that passes through, and creating a jet that moves you forward. Turbofans are turbojets that have a fan that bypasses the core (you can go forward by accelerating a bit of air a lot, or a lot of air a little). They are basically more efficient turbojets (which is why they pretty much completely replaced turbojets).
I love that you put subtitles under the man you're interviewing, as if he's harder to understand than you. It reminds me of the skit of the lady interviewing the terrorists and suddenly "wait, what are those!?! I'M SPEAKING ENGLISH!"
@9:55 - a turbine engine IS an internal combustion engine... it's just not a reciprocating piston internal combustion engine with discreet combustion events (however a turbine engine does combust fuel INTERNALLY - it just does it continuously, leading to a much better power-to-weight ratio).
Just fyi the clip at the start both of those are gas turbines, the second one was a turbofan and like 80% of a turbo fans thrust is from its fan not the jet exhaust
😅I miss the creativity in F1 engines. Why do they all have to be V6 with prescribed V angle, bore and stroke. Just set the fuel flow limit and let the engineers go nuts.
Because they want the engine to be a weight bearing part of the car to help in case of violent crashes. An inline 4 cylinder would ask a frame to do that weight bearing support, and the FIA and racing teams don't want that... So they went with a V6 instead. I like the idea you have, though. And I think that maybe any V-engine would work as a weight bearing part of the chassis; albeit, don't quote me on that last bit. So maybe the FIA and the racing team could have just written "any V engine is legal, inline are not." But that's speculation on my part.
@@rienkhoek4169 Because it doesn't have enough resistance to the stress in an F1 car if mounted longitudinally - at least that's what I understand. A motorcycle is smaller, has less weight, and less stresses. Also, mounting it sideways in an F1 isn't done anymore: it's too wide and not good for the aero... The weird part is it seem that the one responsible for using a V6 might be Adrian Newey. The original proposal, before revision was a 4 cylinder. Then you had engineers like Adrian Newey reacting, and Newey specifically said publicly that to a V6 enables to carry the engine as a stressed member and an inline-4 would require a space frame. The reaction was to move to a V6 as a sort of compromise solution that makes everyone unhappy.
a 'shaft turbine' that's own shaft drive turbine impeller is separate to core turbine's own turbine, effectively acts as a CVT automatically, albeit depending upon whichever gearboxes, and/or finaldrive's gear ratios are.
Have the engine driving a generator, then use wheel hub electric motors (see this years Audi Dakar cars). Doable now, not so much with 1960s tech (as well as adding weight).
Williams had a prototype with an ICE engine and a CVT. Supposedly it was blisteringly fast and all other teams immediately protested it and got it sh**canned.
Jet engines are still engines, even rocket engines are engines, even a steam engine is an engine. In fact a jet engine is more similar to a piston engine than it is to a rocket engine. You could theoretically replace just about any piston engine in a car or plane with a turboshaft or turboprop jet engine.
@@TimRobertsen yeah the 2nd set of turbines in a regular turbjet engine is a bit like supercharger turbocharger hybrid It powers another set of turbines to compress and suck in more air, but the interesting thing is that it's powered by what is essentially exhaust gases but it still saps power because (in a regular turbojet engine) the exhaust gases are what push the plane forward essentially. So it's powered by exhaust gases but saps power. But obviously like a supercharger it helps the engine make more power to begin with.
@@TimRobertsen The biggest difference, is that in an ICE, the compression is separate from the combustion. I.e. you spend energy compressing only cold gasses, then ignite it, and then gain energy from expanding hot gasses. In a jet engine, the compressor has to shove air into a burning hot combustion chamber.
I hope this message finds you well. I've always liked your content. I have a question: As a driver running laps, how can you tell what the vehicle issues are in the moment? Example: how do you know when the tires are degrading or not up to temp? And if it's a matter of grip and control, how can you tell that it's not an incorrect setup or some sort of misalignment somewhere else in the car?
Great video. I saw the 56B at the 1971 Race of Champions (Brands Hatch) in my last year at school. It was great to hear the ''whistle" as it went passed and all that heat coming out of the back.
There should be a racing series with very little rules which would be mainly for safety. That way you can lead it to the teams to come up with cars and engineer them.
15:58 shows the gauges rotated 16:07 shows the gauges in the museum setup with no rotation. In old aircraft it was common to rotate the gauge so the pointer was vertical at normal readings (temp, load etc), possibly the museum corrected something that looked wrong but wasnt?
I wish there was a racing series today where we could see that level of creative engineering. Want to use an all electric drivetrain, but you have to swap batteries every 10 laps? Go for it. Want to use a gas turbine? Go for it. Want to build a fan car? Go for it. Want to use hypergolic fuel? Well make sure you don't kill anyone or set the pits on fire, but then go for it. Want to spend 5 billion to develop your car? Go for it. I would love to see the outcome of a minimum rules racing series!
There are several. They just do not receive the attention that, say, f1 does. Take lemans, for example. There is a huge range of classes, from prototype and experimental to spec and homologation power trains and chassis, all racing on the track at the same time. If you look for it, you can definitely find it.
I saw this car racing at Brands Hatch in the Race of Champions in '68. Very interesting to see it compared to the other F1 cars of the day. Slower off the mark out of corners, but quickly made up for it and sped past the others on the longer straights. The 'whoosh' sound of it accelerating was pretty cool.
I made my Pinewood Derby car in Cub Scouts to look like the Lotus 56. I didn't paint it orange though. I didn't get past the 2nd round, not enough weight.
A turboshaft engine feeding batteries and electric motors seems like a solid idea for the next generation of race cars. That way the turbine only rarely needs to spool up or spool down, and you get the insane torque of electric motors.
The transition to tightly controlled equalization of everything in F1 was a major failure. A better solution would have been to require cars to remain the same on all tracks for the whole season. Thus a car that did well on a street course would do less well on a high speed circuit. Car makers would be forced to compromise designs and make tradeoffs, and creativity could be returned to the track. Requiring all the cars to be exactly the same performance in a given race is ultimately boring and antithetical to innovation.
I'd love to see a series where you are restricted on the the budget and body (for safety, weight and aero reasons) but when it comes to the drivetrain anything goes.
Huh, i wonder why no clutch was used if you had to hold the brake against the throttle. You can literally be in idle revs clutch up and brake, turn the car and at apex slowly find the friction and be home free. Its probably best if its a wet multiplate clutch to keep diameter small and use the oil to cool the clutch. There's probably a million reasons why they wouldn't use one but it escapes me since im not an expert
I wondered the same thing, and it would resolve the issue with the turbine needing to spool up. I would be curious what F1 engineers of the time would say
Well you have to keep the compressor spooled up, so there will still be a lot of combustion. I think if you take the load off the drive turbine shaft it will very quickly start to overspin and disassemble itself. Maybe if you had a freewheel mechanism between the shafts to lock them together when you clutch in.
The below comment pasted from another post in the comment thread line, answers that perfectly... _@Sir_Cactus_ _"Another benefit is that this engine is impossible to stall, _*_as the compressor's turbine & the power turbine are separated._*_ To launch you just go full throttle and as soon as you release the brake it goes."_
9:25-- I remember someone on parnelli's team that built that turbine car that they were warning some other teamate that if they built part of the car a certain way it would mess up those bearings. But they didn't listen. And fittapadi said that turbine F1 car scared the crap out of him and he said it was the worst F1 Car he ever drove.
and as a RC Jet Turbine flyer and hobbyist, i wonder, why dont we have Jet Turbine engine´s in F1 for the 2026 season, i mean, you can run those turbines on anything almost. Sure i use A1 Jet Fuel but i can use th "Green fuel" HVO 100, problem with that is HVO 100 is more "dirty" and lacks a bit of power compared to real jet fuel. but it still work with fuel made of pine tree oil.
I was around the circuits when the 56B was being run. There is no doubt it was a challenge, but it was equally obvious that the challenges could have been addressed. Just like the challenges the early turbo ICE cars suffered from, the 56B would have been developed I believe to become a potential winner. Pity Mr. Mansell didn't mention that Indycars ran on ethanol, not petrol, and even more volatile fuel than gasoline or diesel fuel.
Howmet TX was somewhat successful turbine racer in sportscars, winning Watkins Glen 6 hours, 1968. interesting how similar delay problems they had with the first engines of the turbo charged era.
I wish so often for a return to the innovation and sheer excitement of F1 racing during the golden years. I don't mean for F1 to ditch 50+ years of rule making, I just want a new racing series that allows for anything with 4 wheels and a powertrain - like canam but with modern safety... I can dream right
I feel like F1 should open up the tech and design rules and just impose a budget cap on teams (perhaps with some budget increases allowed to develop new tech or renewable tech). We're in a time where transportation tech is changing drastically and this would help F1 stay relevant. Want active suspension or moveable aero? Fine, you can develop it but it's coming out of your budget so your powerplant might suffer. Oh but wait, you want to develop a 100% alcohol fueled turbine electric hybrid? Then you get a budget bump. Costs would be kept under control, less issues with cheating, new tech that could apply to road cars will be developed, and the series will stay relevant.
Turbine powered cars were a cool concept that was ultimately killed by the price of the turbine and the lack of sophisticated control mechanisms back when. Had it been tried out in the year 2000 instead of in the 60s, the BEV might have had a much harder time taking the lead.
This video made me miss the times when the F1 teams had different engines. 1967 was epic, the small Brabham with the least powerful engine won the championship because it was the most reliable car. Times where you knew which car was coming around the corner before seeing it, just by hearing its sound. There was much innovation between the 60s and 80s, much experiments, some failures, some so awesome powerful that they were banned. Today F1 cars look basically all the same, DTM is no more, it changed to boring GT3 cars. My wish is that they would go back to a more open set of rules, allowing engines from 4 to 16 cylinders, just with a limit of fuel consumption. Tires that could withstand the whole race length, pushing the car all the time, no more tire management except tire temperatures. Let the engines roar and cry.
(04:42) "But Lotus has something even more radical in mind." Hold on. It was "in mind" not simply because Chapman was *aware* of Granitelli's near miss at winning the 1967 Indy 500 with his 4WD STP Paxton turbine car and independently decided to take the same path. Rather, Granitelli (who knew he needed a better chassis) approached an initially skeptical Colin Chapman after the 1967 race and persuaded him to take on the project to design a car for the 1968 race. *That's* how this technology was "in mind" at Lotus. BTW, sanctioning organization USAC didn't wait until the end of the '68 race to restrict turbine intake...they did it first after the 1967 Indy 500 and then again after the 56 raced (and dominated) in 1968. Oh, well...at least you gave Jim Hall due credit for creating the Chaparral 2J in 1970 rather than the "regionally commonplace" heaping of praise on Gordon Murray for applying the same idea with the BT46B...some 8 years later.
I watched the Indy 500 where Andy Granatelli (?spelling) ran his turbine car. If memory serves me, his driver was 2 or 3 laps ahead of 2nd place with about 7-8 laps to checkered flag when an engine malfunction stopped it. Bummer. Of course, engine was banned after that, and the rest is history.
I have been following the sport since 1966, and the 1970s were something special, with turbine engines six wheels, totally wacky aero designs, one does wonder sometimes if some designers, were experimenting with psychedelic drugs like everyone else...
These were not "jet" engines! They were turbine engines, similar but produce shaft power not air thrust! Also, the Lotus 56 was not the first turbine powered car at Indy - Parnelli Jones almost won the 1967 Indy 500 in the STP Paxton Turbine car, leading until a transmission failure in the last couple of laps. I'm only 6 minutes into the video, and I've already found two issues with the narative!
It would be really cool if there was formula type race series that had a super low budget cap and open rules other than engine size and safety. So that you could get a bunch of people from everywhere inventing ways to go faster. Kinda formula student for people not in school with out space age tech
I'm thinking a turbine/electric hybrid would alleviate most of the downsides of turbine vehicles. It could use a smaller battery than a typical hybrid. Since the electric motor only needs to run for a few seconds until the turbine spools up. The car wouldn't need regenerated breaking since the turbine is more then capable of recharging the battery with little noticeable loss of power. That's how every jet aircraft creates electricity. I mean theres a reason why almost every city, factory and hospital uses gas turbine generators for backup power. Its just a thought I had when he mentioned the turbine lag time. I'm sure there's some issues/downsides to a turbine hybrid that i haven't considered. Plus turbine cars are banned anyway.
Much better then as you did not have cars that looked like clones, although the safety was not there , but with materials today it would have been a lot better and more entertaining .
It may have been handful back then, but with today's technology and even off the shelf components for engine management, how much improvement and practicality would it be compared back then. I know it wouldn't make sense with EV being the future.
Kerosene has a higher density yet gasoline has slightly more energy in it? Can you just go ahread and circle that square for us script writer? As written these are contradictory statements.
racers: so we have this engine on a car FIA: looks promissing you should try during a race FAA: you think you can put a jet engine on a racetrack? without asking me? nope, you will need 30 hours on a simulator and a type rating certificate + checkride races/FIA: but it´s not a plane... FAA: listen buddy I want help here, you know what now you need 50 hours on a simulator + 2 checkrides
Another benefit is that this engine is impossible to stall, as the compressor turbine and the power turbine are seperated. To launch you just go full throttle and as soon as you release the brake it goes.
Scott I swear mate, maybe it's the years of racing killing your hearing. Pick a mic sound, and stick with it! (EQ the highs a bit louder while you're at it)
22:00 that was the reason i fell in love with F1, sure there rules in 1991 then i started watching, but it was not even close to what it is today. Thing is people who like F1, they have their drivers, but they have their teams also. cuz the technology development is a BIG part of F1. its not like IndyCar or NASCAR there you watch for the driver more or less all drives the same car. i am not interested in having a "levelled plane field" so we can pick out the best and most pure driver on the grid. i hear oft Americans just talking and comparing drivers only.. and they want the cars to be the same... well that´s not my cup of tea for sure. they can have it, i respect it. but i dont want it.
The variety of F1 cars from that time was absolutely unmatched... It's a shame we will never see such creativity again.
And what did we trade it for? -- Now you can't use a wind tunnel as much as other teams depending on your standing!
ooooo so exciting. peak F1. ::sigh::
Never say never but we are definitely not going towards that direction. Especially F1 bosses perhaps have no desire to do it at all since F1's popularity have already went up quite significantly but because of mainly social media reasons and not so much because they were overly creative about making better rules.
@@mateagoston8145 They are banking on people caring about the inter-driver drama which is non existent and entirely manufactured. It's a soap opera with cars.
It's a shame because racing is the best way to try out unusual technologies. But F1 is far too heavily-regulated now and it may as well be declared a spec-series. Innovation is illegal.
@@CriticoolHit Agreed, I first starte to use similar expressions when I described my feeling towards DRS, or to be more precise, the rules around it. I think if the driver behind the other one gets artifical support then that's just car theater not actual racing.
@3:16 "its made of Lexan so it'll survive a 200MPH hit"
Proceeds to kick it to demonstrate a 200MPH hit 😂😂 just made me laugh
Me too. Quality that right there! whack!
the fact that it nearly collapsed from that kick made me doubt that 200mph statement.
@@wortexinternational2598yeah not with the monster Chevrolet all aluminum 427 ZL1 making 650hp and weighing 1800 pounds..
I know right. Even though, steel, aluminium, and titanium turn to paper at those speeds.
@@MorzakEV not true I hit steel golf clubs and titanium and swing over 150mph they don’t turn to paper on impact 🤣
I thought that you may have mentioned that this car influences the shape and layout of F1 cars to this day. When Lotus went back to normal engines Chapman wanted to keep the wedge nose for optimal aero, so split the radiators and shoved them on the sides. Equaling the hugely successful Lotus 72 and the layout used by everyone to this day.
It's technically a turboshaft, the type of engine they use in turboprops and most modern helicopters.
yes its a turbine engine, like the stp indycar andy grannetalli tried to put forth driven by parnelli jones who recently passed away, it nearly won, though it was more due to the all wheel drive systom for power distribution was just 4 laps shy and a 8 doller bearing failed taking it out of the race, they nerfed down, and wrote the use of turbines out of the rules the next year or so.
@@manga12 turboshafts, turboprops turbojets and turbofans are all turbine engines.
The difference is how they move the vehicle.
Turboshafts (as the name implies) work by connecting an output shaft to the engine, those are usually used on helicopters to spin the rotors, but there's a handful of cars that also have those.
Turboprops are similar to turboshafts, but they spin a propeller, and that's what moves the vehicle.
Turbojets work by accelerating the air that passes through, and creating a jet that moves you forward.
Turbofans are turbojets that have a fan that bypasses the core (you can go forward by accelerating a bit of air a lot, or a lot of air a little). They are basically more efficient turbojets (which is why they pretty much completely replaced turbojets).
I love that you put subtitles under the man you're interviewing, as if he's harder to understand than you. It reminds me of the skit of the lady interviewing the terrorists and suddenly "wait, what are those!?! I'M SPEAKING ENGLISH!"
@9:55 - a turbine engine IS an internal combustion engine... it's just not a reciprocating piston internal combustion engine with discreet combustion events (however a turbine engine does combust fuel INTERNALLY - it just does it continuously, leading to a much better power-to-weight ratio).
The 56 developed into the 72 and became a world beater and McLaren took the concept in the MP series.
Project Cars 2 has a Lotus 56 included. Mad car to drive, huge lag, crazy gauges, all wrapped up in a 60's chassis. Well worth the fun.
Colin in the 60's: Why attach a turbo when I can just make the whole engine a turbo...
Just fyi the clip at the start both of those are gas turbines, the second one was a turbofan and like 80% of a turbo fans thrust is from its fan not the jet exhaust
😅I miss the creativity in F1 engines. Why do they all have to be V6 with prescribed V angle, bore and stroke. Just set the fuel flow limit and let the engineers go nuts.
Because they want the engine to be a weight bearing part of the car to help in case of violent crashes.
An inline 4 cylinder would ask a frame to do that weight bearing support, and the FIA and racing teams don't want that... So they went with a V6 instead.
I like the idea you have, though. And I think that maybe any V-engine would work as a weight bearing part of the chassis; albeit, don't quote me on that last bit. So maybe the FIA and the racing team could have just written "any V engine is legal, inline are not." But that's speculation on my part.
Because the rules are created by socialists they can't bare anyone no doing exactly what they planned
@@therrydiculeWhy can't one use an inline four as a stressed member? They do this in motorcycles although those are mounted sideways.
@@rienkhoek4169
Because it doesn't have enough resistance to the stress in an F1 car if mounted longitudinally - at least that's what I understand. A motorcycle is smaller, has less weight, and less stresses. Also, mounting it sideways in an F1 isn't done anymore: it's too wide and not good for the aero...
The weird part is it seem that the one responsible for using a V6 might be Adrian Newey.
The original proposal, before revision was a 4 cylinder. Then you had engineers like Adrian Newey reacting, and Newey specifically said publicly that to a V6 enables to carry the engine as a stressed member and an inline-4 would require a space frame.
The reaction was to move to a V6 as a sort of compromise solution that makes everyone unhappy.
@@therrydicule the V8s, V10s and V12s of the past were all stressed members bolted to the back of the tub.
What if a gas turbine mated with a cvt where the turbine is at a near constant speed and just change the ratio as needed?
a 'shaft turbine' that's own shaft drive turbine impeller is separate to core turbine's own turbine, effectively acts as a CVT automatically, albeit depending upon whichever gearboxes, and/or finaldrive's gear ratios are.
Sounds thirsty! 😅
Have the engine driving a generator, then use wheel hub electric motors (see this years Audi Dakar cars).
Doable now, not so much with 1960s tech (as well as adding weight).
Williams had a prototype with an ICE engine and a CVT. Supposedly it was blisteringly fast and all other teams immediately protested it and got it sh**canned.
That's a pretty big gear ratio change to go from stopped to full speed on an F1 car for a CVT and keep the turbine in a narrow speed range.
Jet engines are still engines, even rocket engines are engines, even a steam engine is an engine.
In fact a jet engine is more similar to a piston engine than it is to a rocket engine.
You could theoretically replace just about any piston engine in a car or plane with a turboshaft or turboprop jet engine.
A turbo-powered piston engine is like a turbine/jet engine with a piston engine between the compressor section and the turbine section :p
@@TimRobertsen yeah the 2nd set of turbines in a regular turbjet engine is a bit like supercharger turbocharger hybrid
It powers another set of turbines to compress and suck in more air, but the interesting thing is that it's powered by what is essentially exhaust gases but it still saps power because (in a regular turbojet engine) the exhaust gases are what push the plane forward essentially.
So it's powered by exhaust gases but saps power. But obviously like a supercharger it helps the engine make more power to begin with.
As long as nobody tries to replace a turboprop in a plane with a steam engine...
Yeah, but when I fire my turbo shaft Prius up at 7.00am for my Sunday morning drive, it really pisses the neighbors off.
@@TimRobertsen The biggest difference, is that in an ICE, the compression is separate from the combustion. I.e. you spend energy compressing only cold gasses, then ignite it, and then gain energy from expanding hot gasses. In a jet engine, the compressor has to shove air into a burning hot combustion chamber.
I hope this message finds you well. I've always liked your content. I have a question: As a driver running laps, how can you tell what the vehicle issues are in the moment? Example: how do you know when the tires are degrading or not up to temp? And if it's a matter of grip and control, how can you tell that it's not an incorrect setup or some sort of misalignment somewhere else in the car?
Great video. I saw the 56B at the 1971 Race of Champions (Brands Hatch) in my last year at school. It was great to hear the ''whistle" as it went passed and all that heat coming out of the back.
Yo when you and redbull driving upside down again?
Need to yap in more money for the nose beers 😂
There should be a racing series with very little rules which would be mainly for safety. That way you can lead it to the teams to come up with cars and engineer them.
The phrase that you are looking for is "Can-Am"
15:58 shows the gauges rotated 16:07 shows the gauges in the museum setup with no rotation. In old aircraft it was common to rotate the gauge so the pointer was vertical at normal readings (temp, load etc), possibly the museum corrected something that looked wrong but wasnt?
I was looking for this comment haha, it seems not many people noticed.
Thats one of the main reasons why i like old motorsport,
the variety.
$6 in 1967 is about $55 today. Not a cheap bearing. But to a race team? Might as well be pennies.
Even in period it was considered a cheap part that cost them the race.
I wish there was a racing series today where we could see that level of creative engineering. Want to use an all electric drivetrain, but you have to swap batteries every 10 laps? Go for it. Want to use a gas turbine? Go for it. Want to build a fan car? Go for it. Want to use hypergolic fuel? Well make sure you don't kill anyone or set the pits on fire, but then go for it. Want to spend 5 billion to develop your car? Go for it. I would love to see the outcome of a minimum rules racing series!
There are several. They just do not receive the attention that, say, f1 does. Take lemans, for example. There is a huge range of classes, from prototype and experimental to spec and homologation power trains and chassis, all racing on the track at the same time. If you look for it, you can definitely find it.
Josh Revell made a video on this 5 days ago, it spread like wildfire
something tells me mr mansell knew
Well, since this guy got up close to the car, this might be a more detailed explanation of the josh revell video
Pure coincidence, actually. There's no way we can turn a video around in that time.
Absolutely I'm just busting your balls:-) love your content!! @@Driver61
Rosh Jevell doesn't hold a lap record at Brands Hatch though.
I have a feeling that Randy Marsh warped the space time and showed Colin how his Pinewood derby car did..
16:48 looks like the typical Boy Scout pinewood derby car!
I saw this car racing at Brands Hatch in the Race of Champions in '68. Very interesting to see it compared to the other F1 cars of the day. Slower off the mark out of corners, but quickly made up for it and sped past the others on the longer straights. The 'whoosh' sound of it accelerating was pretty cool.
I made my Pinewood Derby car in Cub Scouts to look like the Lotus 56. I didn't paint it orange though. I didn't get past the 2nd round, not enough weight.
If you had made it look like an extended Jaguar E-type, with most of the weight as far rearward as possible, you'd have won (ask me how I know 🙂)
12:19 old chap has some balls riding around with no helmet
A turboshaft engine feeding batteries and electric motors seems like a solid idea for the next generation of race cars. That way the turbine only rarely needs to spool up or spool down, and you get the insane torque of electric motors.
The transition to tightly controlled equalization of everything in F1 was a major failure. A better solution would have been to require cars to remain the same on all tracks for the whole season. Thus a car that did well on a street course would do less well on a high speed circuit. Car makers would be forced to compromise designs and make tradeoffs, and creativity could be returned to the track. Requiring all the cars to be exactly the same performance in a given race is ultimately boring and antithetical to innovation.
I'd love to see a series where you are restricted on the the budget and body (for safety, weight and aero reasons) but when it comes to the drivetrain anything goes.
Huh, i wonder why no clutch was used if you had to hold the brake against the throttle. You can literally be in idle revs clutch up and brake, turn the car and at apex slowly find the friction and be home free. Its probably best if its a wet multiplate clutch to keep diameter small and use the oil to cool the clutch.
There's probably a million reasons why they wouldn't use one but it escapes me since im not an expert
I wondered the same thing, and it would resolve the issue with the turbine needing to spool up. I would be curious what F1 engineers of the time would say
Well you have to keep the compressor spooled up, so there will still be a lot of combustion. I think if you take the load off the drive turbine shaft it will very quickly start to overspin and disassemble itself. Maybe if you had a freewheel mechanism between the shafts to lock them together when you clutch in.
The below comment pasted from another post in the comment thread line, answers that perfectly...
_@Sir_Cactus_
_"Another benefit is that this engine is impossible to stall, _*_as the compressor's turbine & the power turbine are separated._*_ To launch you just go full throttle and as soon as you release the brake it goes."_
Saving weight.
clutch = weight
9:25-- I remember someone on parnelli's team that built that turbine car that they were warning some other teamate that if they built part of the car a certain way it would mess up those bearings. But they didn't listen.
And fittapadi said that turbine F1 car scared the crap out of him and he said it was the worst F1 Car he ever drove.
It sold a lot of STP. Telling the story of the turbine at Indy without including Andy Granatelli isn’t telling the whole story.
Many thanx Scott. The turbines were GR8 & I'm both glad & thankful for the vid. Enjoy the week. 👍👍
and as a RC Jet Turbine flyer and hobbyist, i wonder, why dont we have Jet Turbine engine´s in F1 for the 2026 season, i mean, you can run those turbines on anything almost. Sure i use A1 Jet Fuel but i can use th "Green fuel" HVO 100, problem with that is HVO 100 is more "dirty" and lacks a bit of power compared to real jet fuel. but it still work with fuel made of pine tree oil.
What makes Colin Chapman legendary is his mustache.
I was around the circuits when the 56B was being run. There is no doubt it was a challenge, but it was equally obvious that the challenges could have been addressed. Just like the challenges the early turbo ICE cars suffered from, the 56B would have been developed I believe to become a potential winner. Pity Mr. Mansell didn't mention that Indycars ran on ethanol, not petrol, and even more volatile fuel than gasoline or diesel fuel.
The rule makers have ruined so much in Motorsport! Leave the engineers and drivers alone and we’d have exciting racing again.
Howmet TX was somewhat successful turbine racer in sportscars, winning Watkins Glen 6 hours, 1968.
interesting how similar delay problems they had with the first engines of the turbo charged era.
I wish so often for a return to the innovation and sheer excitement of F1 racing during the golden years. I don't mean for F1 to ditch 50+ years of rule making, I just want a new racing series that allows for anything with 4 wheels and a powertrain - like canam but with modern safety... I can dream right
That Turd Ferguson is dope.
Nice to see Tony Soprano at 4:22
I feel like F1 should open up the tech and design rules and just impose a budget cap on teams (perhaps with some budget increases allowed to develop new tech or renewable tech).
We're in a time where transportation tech is changing drastically and this would help F1 stay relevant.
Want active suspension or moveable aero? Fine, you can develop it but it's coming out of your budget so your powerplant might suffer. Oh but wait, you want to develop a 100% alcohol fueled turbine electric hybrid? Then you get a budget bump.
Costs would be kept under control, less issues with cheating, new tech that could apply to road cars will be developed, and the series will stay relevant.
great video! please make a post with more details about it's drivetrain!
Turbine powered cars were a cool concept that was ultimately killed by the price of the turbine and the lack of sophisticated control mechanisms back when. Had it been tried out in the year 2000 instead of in the 60s, the BEV might have had a much harder time taking the lead.
Lightweight, all wheel drive, they should have raised it 5", given it dirt tyres and taken it to Pike's Peak.
I have sat in one of these it’s a funky getting in over the front diff
An excellent video as ever Scott. Many thanks.
This video made me miss the times when the F1 teams had different engines. 1967 was epic, the small Brabham with the least powerful engine won the championship because it was the most reliable car. Times where you knew which car was coming around the corner before seeing it, just by hearing its sound. There was much innovation between the 60s and 80s, much experiments, some failures, some so awesome powerful that they were banned. Today F1 cars look basically all the same, DTM is no more, it changed to boring GT3 cars.
My wish is that they would go back to a more open set of rules, allowing engines from 4 to 16 cylinders, just with a limit of fuel consumption. Tires that could withstand the whole race length, pushing the car all the time, no more tire management except tire temperatures. Let the engines roar and cry.
What happened to the project upside down? If it is just canceled tell us please.
Great video. Formula 1 should contract you to produce these unique historical & technical videos. 👏👏👏
Any updates on the driving upside down experiment?????
(04:42) "But Lotus has something even more radical in mind." Hold on. It was "in mind" not simply because Chapman was *aware* of Granitelli's near miss at winning the 1967 Indy 500 with his 4WD STP Paxton turbine car and independently decided to take the same path. Rather, Granitelli (who knew he needed a better chassis) approached an initially skeptical Colin Chapman after the 1967 race and persuaded him to take on the project to design a car for the 1968 race. *That's* how this technology was "in mind" at Lotus. BTW, sanctioning organization USAC didn't wait until the end of the '68 race to restrict turbine intake...they did it first after the 1967 Indy 500 and then again after the 56 raced (and dominated) in 1968.
Oh, well...at least you gave Jim Hall due credit for creating the Chaparral 2J in 1970 rather than the "regionally commonplace" heaping of praise on Gordon Murray for applying the same idea with the BT46B...some 8 years later.
14:22 use Senna’s infamous throttle technique 😂
I watched the Indy 500 where Andy Granatelli (?spelling) ran his turbine car. If memory serves me, his driver was 2 or 3 laps ahead of 2nd place with about 7-8 laps to checkered flag when an engine malfunction stopped it.
Bummer.
Of course, engine was banned after that, and the rest is history.
Can we get a series where you analyze techniques and racing situations in MF Ghost and/or Initial D series? 🙏
I have been following the sport since 1966, and the 1970s were something special, with turbine engines six wheels, totally wacky aero designs, one does wonder sometimes if some designers, were experimenting with psychedelic drugs like everyone else...
I wonder whether a generator / motor with capacitor directly connected to the drive shaft might not have provided the ability to change power quickly.
These were not "jet" engines! They were turbine engines, similar but produce shaft power not air thrust! Also, the Lotus 56 was not the first turbine powered car at Indy - Parnelli Jones almost won the 1967 Indy 500 in the STP Paxton Turbine car, leading until a transmission failure in the last couple of laps. I'm only 6 minutes into the video, and I've already found two issues with the narative!
They should have added a piston compressor to compensate the lag...
Mea plane lebanon 🇱🇧
Nobody ever mentions the Chaparral 2J iconic engine from Chevrolet the all aluminum 427 ZL1 monster making 650 hp!
It would be really cool if there was formula type race series that had a super low budget cap and open rules other than engine size and safety. So that you could get a bunch of people from everywhere inventing ways to go faster. Kinda formula student for people not in school with out space age tech
We need a racing series with turbine powered cars ONLY it would be awesome and sound unreal.
I sadly chose the wrong major myself but I deeply respect engineers and their creativity to create unfathomable solutions
I'm thinking a turbine/electric hybrid would alleviate most of the downsides of turbine vehicles. It could use a smaller battery than a typical hybrid. Since the electric motor only needs to run for a few seconds until the turbine spools up.
The car wouldn't need regenerated breaking since the turbine is more then capable of recharging the battery with little noticeable loss of power.
That's how every jet aircraft creates electricity. I mean theres a reason why almost every city, factory and hospital uses gas turbine generators for backup power.
Its just a thought I had when he mentioned the turbine lag time. I'm sure there's some issues/downsides to a turbine hybrid that i haven't considered. Plus turbine cars are banned anyway.
that kick into lexan gets me every time 😂
A gas turbine is basically a giant turbocharger with the fuel being burnt inside it. Lag was always going to be an issue
The 56 B would have been fitted with a reverse gear due to F1 regulations making it compulsory for the cars to have a reverse gear.
Where/when updates on the reverse drive challenge
I wondering in race with BOP or spec part car what make a team can go fast compare to the other. It would be an interesting topic
Much better then as you did not have cars that looked like clones, although the safety was not there , but with materials today it would have been a lot better and more entertaining .
Turbine IS internal combustion 😊
Imagine the fuel consumption?
Im tuning my guitar rn
Does this have to do with the video?
@@LorenzoCorrado19 I think so
Wait what key?
Did you win?
It may have been handful back then, but with today's technology and even off the shelf components for engine management, how much improvement and practicality would it be compared back then. I know it wouldn't make sense with EV being the future.
Great video 👍
Kerosene has a higher density yet gasoline has slightly more energy in it? Can you just go ahread and circle that square for us script writer? As written these are contradictory statements.
Can't wait for your next upload!
I would
Love Lotus!
I would love to see a class just dedicated to having a turbine engine
racers: so we have this engine on a car
FIA: looks promissing you should try during a race
FAA: you think you can put a jet engine on a racetrack? without asking me? nope, you will need 30 hours on a simulator and a type rating certificate + checkride
races/FIA: but it´s not a plane...
FAA: listen buddy I want help here, you know what now you need 50 hours on a simulator + 2 checkrides
Not the Lotus 56, the 56B¡ The 56 had a piston engine 😢
Another benefit is that this engine is impossible to stall, as the compressor turbine and the power turbine are seperated. To launch you just go full throttle and as soon as you release the brake it goes.
Scott, are my eyes playing tricks on me, or was that you I spotted standing next to Martin Brundle during the FP1 broadcast in COTA?
Do a collab with Ben Collins akfa the stig on driving styles
Turbine engines are still the main power source for the H1 Unlimited Hydroplane racing series
GREAT MACHINE !
[the on-screen info at 05:20 is imprecise as Graham Hill won in a Lola-Ford : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Indianapolis_500#Race ]
Scott I swear mate, maybe it's the years of racing killing your hearing. Pick a mic sound, and stick with it! (EQ the highs a bit louder while you're at it)
Lotus built some formula one car's that were unlike others
Pilot safety wasn't a priority in that era. Particularly for Chapman.
Who knew Kevin Webster knew so much about gas turbine race cars.
You just pointed out why I don't like F1 anymore, the constant evolution each year was the draw!
Just remember Chrysler turbine car.😊 M1 Abrams tank also use gas turbine engine..
imagine being able to dump that excess power into the battery of a hybrid system instead of your brakes
Thanks.
Wow!
Imagine if designers today were given a bit more freedom with their car concepts? Just what would they come with?
22:00 that was the reason i fell in love with F1, sure there rules in 1991 then i started watching, but it was not even close to what it is today.
Thing is people who like F1, they have their drivers, but they have their teams also. cuz the technology development is a BIG part of F1. its not like IndyCar or NASCAR there you watch for the driver more or less all drives the same car. i am not interested in having a "levelled plane field" so we can pick out the best and most pure driver on the grid.
i hear oft Americans just talking and comparing drivers only.. and they want the cars to be the same... well that´s not my cup of tea for sure. they can have it, i respect it. but i dont want it.
One single 8. Place finish is still better than stake right now 😂😂😂
1:45 "explained why it was so impressive. But he wouldn't let me sit in the car." ?
May be if allowed, the turbine engine would gone through a similar set of innovations as the ICE over the course of history.