and BRM wondered why he left for a start up french outfit.... oh wait it was ran by his old mate and team boss Ken Tyrrell and had the Cosworth DFV Engine!!! 😂😂😂
@@adammercer6004 sad but true, the h16 was a brave attempt to do something completely different for more bhp, it was afaik underfunded and underdeveloped, plus the materials technology of the time wasn't sufficiently advanced to do it reliably.
@@monteceitomoocher Interestingly BRM did make a even more powerful, lighter version of the H-16 Engine containing four value per cylinder with a total of 64-Valves for 1968 season which was tested but they already the V12 Engine which raced in the back of the Mclaren in 67 which was a simpler design and had shown abit more reliability overall and so BRM decided to go with that engine instead.
@@monteceitomoocher Yeah the engine practially sitting on the floor on it's own little trolley in the Doddington Park Grand Prix Collection with the rest of there BRMs cars they have there.
I hope you're being sarcastic. Build an engine that blows up, and the same thing happens to your reputation. Build an engine that's fast & reliable, and you get more & more customers.
It's also thinking out of the box. If you copy someone (make a V12 for example), you might be 5% better. If you make a brand new engine design, you are either totally sucky or 50+ % better, revolutionating the entire sport.
@@barath4545 BRM weren't rolling in piles of excess funds at the time to build completely new engines, so they had to work with what they had. Hence the decision to take the existing 1.5L V8 design, modify it to a flat layout and then stack one on top of another. While a novel adaptation to the then-new rule set, the mashed-up development was somewhat predictable in its lack of success.
Note that the winning driver with the H16 was none other than Jimmy Clark. And I was fortunate enough to witness it. Watkins Glen, 1966, and I held admission ticket number 8.
I'd say you're just showing off now. Or today that would be called a major flex.. Cool thou. Bet they screamed loud. .. Have heard modern F1 cars, they are LOUD....
Fun fact: Repco still exists in Australia. They're a big chain of stores in Australia. But they just sell spare parts, camping gear, oil etc these days. They don't manufacture engines.
H engines are pretty rare but there's one more famous than the others : the Napier Sabre family of H24 powering the Hawker Tempests of the Royal Air Force during the second world war. And one of the main goal was to have compatibility of pieces between it and the inline-6 it was born from (take 2 i6s and make them into a flat 12 then stack those 2 flat engines on top of eachother and voila) It also had a sleeve-valve system, that's interesting to say the least.
There was a rather infamous dual linked engine in ww2 as well from rolls Royce, the vulture. Every problem they had with the h16, effected that engine in one way or another, though with obviously much more serious repercussions.
LJK Setright, a great enthusiast for the engineering prowess of D Napier and Son, once wrote that BRM failed to learn from Napier's experience, hence neglecting to incorporate various refinements brought about by that hard won experience with the Sabre.
Listened to old audio of it gloriously echoing around a track and highly recommend it. Always heard it was unreliable but didn't realize to that extent! Excellent overview and so excited to see you cover it
Hi Scott, can you do an episode on Ferrari's F135A engine, I first saw it at the Modena Museum of Enzo. They said it's a V12 with 2 crankshafts but only 6 combustion chambers, which is beyond my imagination. And there's almost no data on the internet talking about it... I believe it'll be a great milestone for Driver61 to properly explained it. Thanks!
And it would be a 2 stroke like the old 3 cylinder horizontally opposed piston Commer "knocker" diesel from UK, which had 1 crankshaft, but 4 con rods per cylinder & 2 heavy duty rocker arms per cylinder. It made a great sound.
@@elroyfudbucker6806 That engine is a derivitive of the German Junkers design of the 30's. Napier build this design into a three bank delta design railroad and marine engine.
The new Chief Petrol Engine Designer at the Longbridge (Austin-Morris) factory started the same day as a new petrol engine designer (me) in January 1970. His name was Geoffrey D Johnson and 'GDJ' was my new boss. We soon learned that he had designed the BRM H16 and I recall Geoff unrolling his BRM drawings over my drawing board to show me the H16's cylinder head and porting arrangement. Agh! Those were the days.
Geoffrey was my Grandfather. Unfortunately he passed a few months ago. It was so cool to see your comment and I’m so happy to hear that you remember him!
BRM also ran their 2.1L Tasman Series V8 while the H16 was being developed. The real reason they went with a 16 was chief engineer Rudd convinced the owners they could save money by using the pistons, rods, valves and cams from the 1.5 V8. The weights were added because the upper cylinder bank had less rotational mass than the lower and would gain and lose RPM faster causing excess vibration. They weighted the upper crank to give it the same characteristics as the lower which had the flywheel and clutch assembly attached.
I didn't know that BRM had a 2.7 litre V8 but unless i'm mistaken Tasman rules only allowed engines up to 2.5 litre that why you get 2.5 litre Cosworth DFVs and Brabham Repco engines and Ferrari using the 2.4 litre Dino V6 rather than V12 in tasman series.
@@johnjones928eah that sound more like it I knew anout the upsized V8 unit and the upsize V8 was fairly successful as it won the 1966 Monaco GP driven by Jackie Stewart and nearly won it again with in 67 until the car develop a problem and forced Stewart to retire considering that the car it was mounted in dated back to 64 that's a impressive achievement.
Surprisingly those V8 DFV Not because it's contain magical technology or anything. But you can put much more powerful ground effect diffuser with those narrower engine
The only driver who was able to bring that engine home for it`s sole victory was this man: JIM CLARK - By far the greatest driver ever - no doubt. He is and was "The Best of the Best" (Fangio, Senna, Prost, Stewart and countless others about Clark). No other driver in history until today was so superior as Clark - No other driver as so much "Grand Slam" - Pole/Win/Fastest Lap/Leading every lap of the race - like him. And all that from just 72 starts... ! This man is the Olymp of driving - the Michelangelo of racing - a dynamic art at the highest level. So smooth, so precise, so fast....simply out of this world. One, who won in Spa by 5 minutes (!) in monsoon rain with only one hand at the wheel (!) because of gearbox trouble...One, who takes back a complete lap (!) in Monza and back into the lead... One, who took pole on the original 22,8 km Nürburgring track by 9 (!) seconds and more....One who won Indy by 2 whole (!) laps...For eternity and by lightyears unmatched in the sport. That`s just four examples of his mesmeric unique genius...
I love the story that when the H16 was first delivered to Lotus, it took 4 men to lift it off the truck it was just so heavy. I try to imagine 2 Porsche Flat 8s balanced one on the other!
the H16 was essentially 2 V8s that were unfolded and stacked. they used the same heads that were on a BRM V8. The solution to it's problems was the Cosworth V8.
One thing worth noting : multiplying the cylinders like that, you also increase the friction quite dramatically. I guess a lot of the missing power went into that. Cool engine, though. Engineers had fun!
@@negergreger666 Heared the V16 (ua-cam.com/users/shortshecudBFYrlw). When it reved out of control I could hear it was a 1500. For the rest, indeed very nice and deep, And WHAT a beautifull car. Looks exact as my Airfix slotcar from the 60's.
I remember a slightly different scenario. BRM had just developed an 8 cyl. 1.5 ltr boxer which was just becoming sorted out when FIA changed the formula to 3 ltr. The obvious solution was to use two previously developed engines. It was a very good running engine for a few minutes at a time but reliability was the real problem.
More cylinders also have more surface area per liter. So there is relatively more surface area for the combustion gases to act against relative to an engine with less cylinders.
The main limitation to engine performance and reliability is keeping the exhaust valve cool. The contact surface for doing this is the surface area of the valve seat. Multiple smaller exhaust valves will have a greater surface area than fewer but larger exhaust valves. There was some method in this madness, however carrying the extra weight of two crankshafts probably should have rung alarm bells before the design left the back of fag packet. But what an amazing noise though.
My dad was at a mixed car/bike test day at Snetterton pre 67 TT on his Bantam and Jackie Stewart overtook him on the Home Straight at full chat. Chatting afterwards, Jackie reckoned he was doing about 170mph to my dad's 70ish. BRM engine did not last the whole test day apparently 😬🤣
This episode on the BRM H16 F-1 engine technologies is intresting. The late, great Jimmy Clark was in being entered in the 1966 Indianapolis "500" had owner/operator, Colin Chapman along with the Granatelli brothers: Andy, Vince & Joe, with their STP Petroleum sponsrship, to have Clark in a BRM H-16 powerplant...Thank God, they decided against it early on in the month of May of '66 and went with the proven Ford Motor DOHC V 8 that was on a winning streak in 1965. The Lotus car was entered as # 10...and replaced with Clark's Lotus-Ford # 19 that placed 2nd in the "500" of 1966. As far as I can remember, Jim Clark was the only F-1 driver to get the BRM H-16 a Grand Prix win...and that was in 1966.
BRM also was working on a 4.2L version of the engine for Indianapolis 1967 but that never saw the track. Lotus had the 16 on the entry list but switched to the Ford v8. BRM was good when they kept to conservative goals but like the 1.5L V16 they built in the late 1950's they never knew what their limits were.
And now we Know why the Ford DFV series were the Winningest Formula 1 Engine of all time . Perhaps still are . Compact , Quite Light , Good Power and RELIABLE . You gotta Finish to Win .
The key innovation that killed this kind of design madness was Keith Duckworth's tumble swirl inlet ports in the DFV. The DFV had much better combustion from a 4 valve head that allowed higher rpms without having to resort to more cylinders. The DFV engine is really year zero for modern engine design. Most engines today owe their combustion chaimber and port design to Duckworth.
The Napier Sabre was supposed to replace the Rolls Royce Vulture X-24, which had severe and insurmountable lubrication problems. However, the Napier was also unreliable, for many of the same reasons mentioned in this video. That said, the Hawker Tempests and Typhoons did manage to do some serious damage to the Germans in the last year or so of the war.
That's the problem with today's racing series. The boundaries of regulations are far too tight. If you watch events like Battlebots, each year they are vastly superior to the previous year.
@@AndyFromBeaverton agreed, I can't remember the name but there's a pike's peak run with very limited regulations and they get such a wide assortment of things! Biggest issue is driver safety, I'm kinda stunned nobody has done remote controlled full size series. The tech is more than ready, FPV drones for example. I guess the danger is part of the attraction, kinda fucked up.
@@julian1000 you dont experience g-forces doing it by remote. no bump steer, feedback from the road. THATS the point. it isnt the event. it isnt the spectators. it isnt the car. or engine. its feeling those wheels screeching on the limit of traction, the pressure of your body being flung out on each turn, the harness on your chest as you brake hard, feeling the front locking up and backing off enough to still hit that apex, then finally slamming it down a gear and flooring it with the rear end kicking out sideways as you scramble to get back in a straight line and set up for the next turn...
@@AndyFromBeavertonhere’s the problem with that mentality costs, Motorsport has always been a money pit. With modern car technology being so mature any gains you make will come with a 9 figure price tag. And you can only do that for so long before someone questions the worth of the project.
The story is that lotus first ordered a 3L enginge from another manufacturer, but as they could not deliver and time was running away they went to BRM who delivered the 1,5 l and asked if they can do something quick for the next season. So this frankenstein was born. The engine was not created out of genius, but out of lack of time.
A friend of mine was thinking ( long-term) about building performance sports cars, with the goal of a real super-car. It didn't happen but I roughed out a plan for an H-16 engine for it. It would have been 10 litres and about 1,000 hp naturally aspirated, with quite a lot more if fitted with turbos. It would have an economy mode, where the lower bank of eight cylinders would shut down and the power would be provided by the top half. The engine would drive a hydraulic CVT, with 4WD to make the best use of the power. The entire engine would about 900 mm long and 300mm high. It would however, have been fairly heavy.
The ultimate racing engine wins the race then explodes crossing the finish line. If it happens to make a sound like the hubs of hell failing, that’s a bonus
Lotus was using the Coventry Climax 1.5 litre V8. Coventry climax Did not want to build a larger engine. Repco made a V8 for Brabham from an Oldsmobile block that was superoior to any other formula 1 engine. When the Cosworth V 8 came out, all other engines were superfluous.
Very interesting! Someone should do a serie of videos about the tecnolical and regulation development of the cars in Formula 1, from the beginning until today.
The initial version of the BRM H16 was not 4 valves per cylinder. The Napier Dagger aircraft engine of 1935 far preceded the BRM H16. I wouldn't be surprised if BRM got their inspiration from it.
The Napier Sabre is a H 24 engine powering the Hawker Typhoon fighter aircraft of WWR 2 .producing 2000BHP and up to 5000 BHP on development test. The Rolls Merlin is a V12 and back then produced about 1200 BHP After a long Development period the Sabre was reasonably reliable and the Typhoon and Tempest were very successful in Fighter/ Bomber attacks. I Guess BRM was influenced by the success of the Sabre in designing their H16 engine.
Might have worked better if, when studying the successful H-24 Napier Sabre aero-engine, BRM had taken note of how Napier geared the Sabre engine's two crankshafts together using self-centering idler gears to eliminate harmonic imbalances. Instead BRM choose to gear their H-16's two cranks together using a rigid idler. This resulted in several harmonic vibration induced problems, mainly self-destroying dry-sump pumps and chronic ignition mis-firing issues. BRM were supposedly building a 4.2 litre version of the H-16 for Lotus to run in the 1967 Indianapolis 500, but rumour has it that both examples they actually built grenaded big-time while being dyno-tested.
According to some sources, Japanese engineers at Honda were developing a 32-cylinder "X" architecture engine for Formula 1 in 1960. Obvious, reasons of complexity and reliability convinced them to abandon it.
9:41 in a normal passenger Me: dabbling in amateur desgin: you need at least four of everything, minus a few items if you keep it simple doors headlights brake light and so on // to say the least it was ambisous.🤑
Bit of a misconception there. Engine water pumps don't add pressure at all, they provide coolant flow. The engine's temperature is what provides coolant pressure until equilibrium. The BRM engine had two water pumps because a single water pump big enough to provide enough coolant flow around all of those cylinders would have been enormous and impractical. Single water pumps also don't scale up very well, one big pump wouldn't provide a lot of coolant flow at low rpm's, then risk cavitating at high rpm's. Two smaller pumps is more optimal.
Imagine being the season mechanic for this formula and it blows an engine early season. Goodbye family, friends, days off, everything else. 64 valves :O
Honestly, I wish f1 went back to simple displacement and fuel capacity regulations. So for the next gen motors, just have it be like 1.3 litres and x kw batteries.
The real reason that more and smaller cylinders can rev higher than an engine with fewer is the ratio of valve area to displacement. That is also why a large single cylinder makes more grunt smaller valves so better cylinder filling at low RPSs Honestly I am not shocked that BRM went for an H bloc look at the Sabre engine from WWII. The UK really seems to like odd engines like the H-Blocks, sleeve valves, the Deltec, and so on.
Ah I remember, the craziest thing they did with tank engine is bolting 5 separate car engine into single housing and connecting all 5 crankshaft with gear. But it was run on detune anyway so no big deal in terms of reliability
I remember a Puch moped engine with two pistons, one combustion chamber, but not opposed piston. Picture a single cylinder engine- block, crank, con rod, piston. Then connect a second con rod to the first one, pivoting near the head of one of the first con rod’s bolts. Add another piston and cylinder parallel to the first. Both pistons rise, then the first piston passes TDC while the second is still rising. Second piston passes TDC, now both are descending. Why on earth would you make such a thing? You get very complete combustion because the thing has nearly constant combustion chamber volume for a rather long period of crank rotation. It wasn’t a bad idea, but the heat loss due to large surface area of the combustion chamber rather overcame the benefits of long combustion times.
This engine lay-out was known from the Napier-Lion aero engine that powered one of the later Supermarine fighter-bombers. Back then it was a very complicated engine with a lot of teeding problems. The 50's are not that far behind the second world war.
I have one of the cylinder heads piston and con rod from a brm 16, not sure if its a v16 or h16 engine, i believe its a h16, it has butterfly valve springs rather the usual coils
@@alexhogarth184 So it's one half of the eight cylinder bank of the V16. The camshaft drives were in the in the middle of both engine banks, and my engine diagram does actually show halved cylinder heads.
@@alexhogarth184 Don't want to rain on your parade mate, but surely it belongs in a museum? It's 25% of the head castings for the most amazing engine ever built by anyone anywhere. It sounds like Beethoven''s 5th symphony all rolled up into one. The engine was also a fundamentally sound design and unlike its ten years younger sister (the H16), could have become reliable given the investment.
The real reason BRM used an H-16 is because in 1965 they ran a boxer 8 not a V8. The FIA changed the formula at the end of the season forcing all teams to scramble. The obvious solution for BRM was to use two of their newly developed flat 8. The series was won by Brabam powered by a Repco modified Oldsmobile 215 cu. in. aluminum V8
Jackie Stewart ran 12 races with an H16 in his BRM, resulting in 11 DNF's and a 2nd.
and BRM wondered why he left for a start up french outfit.... oh wait it was ran by his old mate and team boss Ken Tyrrell and had the Cosworth DFV Engine!!! 😂😂😂
@@adammercer6004 sad but true, the h16 was a brave attempt to do something completely different for more bhp, it was afaik underfunded and underdeveloped, plus the materials technology of the time wasn't sufficiently advanced to do it reliably.
@@monteceitomoocher Interestingly BRM did make a even more powerful, lighter version of the H-16 Engine containing four value per cylinder with a total of 64-Valves for 1968 season which was tested but they already the V12 Engine which raced in the back of the Mclaren in 67 which was a simpler design and had shown abit more reliability overall and so BRM decided to go with that engine instead.
@@adammercer6004 thanks for that info, i wasn't aware of the four valves per cylinder design, that must've been unbelievably complex!.
@@monteceitomoocher Yeah the engine practially sitting on the floor on it's own little trolley in the Doddington Park Grand Prix Collection with the rest of there BRMs cars they have there.
If youre paid to build engines that go fast, if they blow up you have to build more, so you get paid more - genius
With the downside that you must also spend more before you are paid more
Build an h16? Talk about job security
@@ennote91 If you were an engineer, would you rather do what everyone else is doing or take a risk?
I hope you're being sarcastic. Build an engine that blows up, and the same thing happens to your reputation. Build an engine that's fast & reliable, and you get more & more customers.
It was a great time to be a grenade salesman
How much do you think "yeah but it'd be really freaking cool" factored into the decision to use the H16?
In a millisecond I would make that choice.
It's also thinking out of the box.
If you copy someone (make a V12 for example), you might be 5% better.
If you make a brand new engine design, you are either totally sucky or 50+ % better, revolutionating the entire sport.
Yeah
The sound. Automotive Stradivarius.
@@barath4545 BRM weren't rolling in piles of excess funds at the time to build completely new engines, so they had to work with what they had. Hence the decision to take the existing 1.5L V8 design, modify it to a flat layout and then stack one on top of another. While a novel adaptation to the then-new rule set, the mashed-up development was somewhat predictable in its lack of success.
Note that the winning driver with the H16 was none other than Jimmy Clark. And I was fortunate enough to witness it. Watkins Glen, 1966, and I held admission ticket number 8.
What was the race like?
That's so cool! Those roars from the engines must've sound so amazing.
That is a great moment in Motorsport history to have witnessed.
I'd say you're just showing off now.
Or today that would be called a major flex..
Cool thou.
Bet they screamed loud.
..
Have heard modern F1 cars, they are LOUD....
the BRM 16's were the greatest sounding engines ever made, bar none. at full tilt, the howl was absolutely incredible.
But the previous v16 (1,5 litre) sounded way better than the H16 this video is about.
At that time yes up to the 80s but v12s of the 90s and v10s of the 00s those were the pinnacle of engineering power and sound
The 787b sounds better honestly
@@sigmamale4147 If your ears don't bleed.
@@sigmamale4147 compared to the h16 yes
The question is: Would it fit on the KA?
With enough work, everything fits on the KA
key word on not in
@@r1l426 but it would no longer be the KA. it would be KAAAAAAAAAAAAAH16
@@groundedgaming What is KA?
@@Miklos82 Ford Ka, is what I think they are refering to. It's one of the >$500 challenge cars used by the OVERDRIVE team.
Fun fact: Repco still exists in Australia. They're a big chain of stores in Australia. But they just sell spare parts, camping gear, oil etc these days. They don't manufacture engines.
H engines are pretty rare but there's one more famous than the others : the Napier Sabre family of H24 powering the Hawker Tempests of the Royal Air Force during the second world war.
And one of the main goal was to have compatibility of pieces between it and the inline-6 it was born from (take 2 i6s and make them into a flat 12 then stack those 2 flat engines on top of eachother and voila)
It also had a sleeve-valve system, that's interesting to say the least.
😂 men
Or sorry I'll take it back
There was a rather infamous dual linked engine in ww2 as well from rolls Royce, the vulture. Every problem they had with the h16, effected that engine in one way or another, though with obviously much more serious repercussions.
LJK Setright, a great enthusiast for the engineering prowess of D Napier and Son, once wrote that BRM failed to learn from Napier's experience, hence neglecting to incorporate various refinements brought about by that hard won experience with the Sabre.
Listened to old audio of it gloriously echoing around a track and highly recommend it. Always heard it was unreliable but didn't realize to that extent! Excellent overview and so excited to see you cover it
More parts = more problems
Love that audio!
Most audio i heard is actually the V16 from the 50s. The H16 is rarer to hear but man is is a meaty sound and it resonates everywhere!
Hi Scott, can you do an episode on Ferrari's F135A engine, I first saw it at the Modena Museum of Enzo. They said it's a V12 with 2 crankshafts but only 6 combustion chambers, which is beyond my imagination. And there's almost no data on the internet talking about it... I believe it'll be a great milestone for Driver61 to properly explained it. Thanks!
That won’t be a V12 - it’ll be an opposed piston engine. 😊
Yeah, that's sounds like an opposed piston engine
And it would be a 2 stroke like the old 3 cylinder horizontally opposed piston Commer "knocker" diesel from UK, which had 1 crankshaft, but 4 con rods per cylinder & 2 heavy duty rocker arms per cylinder. It made a great sound.
@@elroyfudbucker6806
That engine is a derivitive of the German Junkers design of the 30's. Napier build this design into a three bank delta design railroad and marine engine.
@@rstone286the pistons could’ve went the opposite way
0:07 I love how he sounds so hyped up when he says "H16 ENGINE"
The new Chief Petrol Engine Designer at the Longbridge (Austin-Morris) factory started the same day as a new petrol engine designer (me) in January 1970. His name was Geoffrey D Johnson and 'GDJ' was my new boss. We soon learned that he had designed the BRM H16 and I recall Geoff unrolling his BRM drawings over my drawing board to show me the H16's cylinder head and porting arrangement.
Agh! Those were the days.
Geoffrey was my Grandfather. Unfortunately he passed a few months ago. It was so cool to see your comment and I’m so happy to hear that you remember him!
BRM also ran their 2.1L Tasman Series V8 while the H16 was being developed. The real reason they went with a 16 was chief engineer Rudd convinced the owners they could save money by using the pistons, rods, valves and cams from the 1.5 V8.
The weights were added because the upper cylinder bank had less rotational mass than the lower and would gain and lose RPM faster causing excess vibration. They weighted the upper crank to give it the same characteristics as the lower which had the flywheel and clutch assembly attached.
I didn't know that BRM had a 2.7 litre V8 but unless i'm mistaken Tasman rules only allowed engines up to 2.5 litre that why you get 2.5 litre Cosworth DFVs and Brabham Repco engines and Ferrari using the 2.4 litre Dino V6 rather than V12 in tasman series.
@@adammercer6004 Yes, i meant to say 2.1 V8 that was used in the P261 in the Tasman series.
@@johnjones928eah that sound more like it I knew anout the upsized V8 unit and the upsize V8 was fairly successful as it won the 1966 Monaco GP driven by Jackie Stewart and nearly won it again with in 67 until the car develop a problem and forced Stewart to retire considering that the car it was mounted in dated back to 64 that's a impressive achievement.
I absolutely love the placement of the flywheel and clutch 👍
Respect to the BRM Engineers for building something unique. I guess a Flat12 would have been a better idea?
🎉in the 80s someone tried to make a Flat 12, but it sucks too.
@@gustiwidyanta5492 Ferrari used from 1970 to 1980 the flat V12 engine
@@klbandini6140And Porsche had great success with the flat 12 engines in their Le Man's cars.
Surprisingly those V8 DFV
Not because it's contain magical technology or anything. But you can put much more powerful ground effect diffuser with those narrower engine
The only driver who was able to bring that engine home for it`s sole victory was this man:
JIM CLARK - By far the greatest driver ever - no doubt. He is and was "The Best of the Best" (Fangio, Senna, Prost, Stewart and countless others about Clark). No other driver in history until today was so superior as Clark - No other driver as so much "Grand Slam" - Pole/Win/Fastest Lap/Leading every lap of the race - like him. And all that from just 72 starts... !
This man is the Olymp of driving - the Michelangelo of racing - a dynamic art at the highest level. So smooth, so precise, so fast....simply out of this world. One, who won in Spa by 5 minutes (!) in monsoon rain with only one hand at the wheel (!) because of gearbox trouble...One, who takes back a complete lap (!) in Monza and back into the lead... One, who took pole on the original 22,8 km Nürburgring track by 9 (!) seconds and more....One who won Indy by 2 whole (!) laps...For eternity and by lightyears unmatched in the sport. That`s just four examples of his mesmeric unique genius...
For those who are curious, here’s the firing order: chief designer, his assistant, the interns.
Those 60s F1 cars look so cool, without spoilers spoiling the appearance
I suggest you go watch the James Garner movie Grand Prix. There are a few shots of these incredibly identifiable engines in it.
Brief clip from Grand Prix w/ James Garner. It's one of my favorite films. That and Le Mans w/ Steve McQueen.
This is the most British tech story I've ever heard. "It's not broken, it's British!"
08:52 - wait, what?! The Forth Road Bridge?? Bonkers.
This engine was the definition of "Why the hell do we do things without thought"
My Grandad, Geoff johnson designed this engine alongside tony rudd. I couldn’t be prouder
4:35 no way someone posted their engine on a dyno with a pipe falling off
I love the story that when the H16 was first delivered to Lotus, it took 4 men to lift it off the truck it was just so heavy. I try to imagine 2 Porsche Flat 8s balanced one on the other!
Jackie Stewart said, The H16 would have been better used as a ship's anchor than as a power plant."
Scott's back with some top notch content again! Excellent! 😎
the exhaust part falling off at 4:35 caught me off guard
the H16 was essentially 2 V8s that were unfolded and stacked. they used the same heads that were on a BRM V8. The solution to it's problems was the Cosworth V8.
One thing worth noting : multiplying the cylinders like that, you also increase the friction quite dramatically. I guess a lot of the missing power went into that.
Cool engine, though. Engineers had fun!
One of reasons I refuse to watch Formula 1, is that I believe, a series with such name, should have absolutely NO REGULATIONS.
All before CAD. Mad respect!
Wow, that was super interesting! I'd never heard of the H16. What a contraption! 😮
By FAR the best engine sound ever.
The previous brm v16 (1,5 litre) sounded way better than the 3 litre H16 this video is about, in my opinion.
@@negergreger666 Heared the V16 (ua-cam.com/users/shortshecudBFYrlw). When it reved out of control I could hear it was a 1500. For the rest, indeed very nice and deep, And WHAT a beautifull car. Looks exact as my Airfix slotcar from the 60's.
You are a very good UA-camr, I love your contents.
Designing a complex engine from scratch and putting it in a race car is truly a optimistic plan.
It's been happening in F1 for 100 years
It’s awesome to start seeing Ange’s simulator in automotive videos!
I remember a slightly different scenario. BRM had just developed an 8 cyl. 1.5 ltr boxer which was just becoming sorted out when FIA changed the formula to 3 ltr. The obvious solution was to use two previously developed engines. It was a very good running engine for a few minutes at a time but reliability was the real problem.
More cylinders also have more surface area per liter. So there is relatively more surface area for the combustion gases to act against relative to an engine with less cylinders.
Awesome! These are the best videos.
Shame F1 will never be this cool again.
Props to the guy smoking in the workshop 😅
There are a few shots of these incredibly recognizable engines in the James Garner movie Grand Prix.
I just watched it on YT yesterday! Left a note on when the H16 appears.
The main limitation to engine performance and reliability is keeping the exhaust valve cool.
The contact surface for doing this is the surface area of the valve seat. Multiple smaller exhaust valves will have a greater surface area than fewer but larger exhaust valves.
There was some method in this madness, however carrying the extra weight of two crankshafts probably should have rung alarm bells before the design left the back of fag packet.
But what an amazing noise though.
"they also looked at a V24"
V24?
V24???
😂😂😂😮😮that was my reaction too like wtf 😮😮😮😅
V24 makes more sense than straight 16. ;)
My dad was at a mixed car/bike test day at Snetterton pre 67 TT on his Bantam and Jackie Stewart overtook him on the Home Straight at full chat. Chatting afterwards, Jackie reckoned he was doing about 170mph to my dad's 70ish. BRM engine did not last the whole test day apparently 😬🤣
So the Bantam eventually caught and went past it.Reliability wins out everytime.
The engineering race (the F1 arms race) has been more exciting than when engines ceased to be exciting in 2014. For a spell within most decades, too.
The H16 is what would happen if you let Jeremy Clarkson design a Formula 1 car.
This episode on the BRM H16 F-1 engine technologies is intresting.
The late, great Jimmy Clark was in being entered in the 1966 Indianapolis "500" had owner/operator, Colin Chapman along with the Granatelli brothers: Andy, Vince & Joe, with their STP Petroleum sponsrship, to have Clark in a BRM H-16 powerplant...Thank God, they decided against it early on in the month of May of '66 and went with the proven Ford Motor DOHC V 8 that was on a winning streak in 1965. The Lotus car was entered as # 10...and replaced with Clark's Lotus-Ford # 19 that placed 2nd in the "500" of 1966.
As far as I can remember, Jim Clark was the only F-1 driver to get the BRM H-16 a Grand Prix win...and that was in 1966.
BRM also was working on a 4.2L version of the engine for Indianapolis 1967 but that never saw the track. Lotus had the 16 on the entry list but switched to the Ford v8. BRM was good when they kept to conservative goals but like the 1.5L V16 they built in the late 1950's they never knew what their limits were.
nICE! sO EVEN A W16 IS ALSO COMPLEX! THANKS FOR SHARING
Every great engineer makes risks, that’s what makes them better.
Great explanation! Thank you. I’ve been wondering about this since the late 1960s.
And now we Know why the Ford DFV series were the Winningest Formula 1 Engine of all time . Perhaps still are .
Compact , Quite Light , Good Power and RELIABLE . You gotta Finish to Win .
The key innovation that killed this kind of design madness was Keith Duckworth's tumble swirl inlet ports in the DFV. The DFV had much better combustion from a 4 valve head that allowed higher rpms without having to resort to more cylinders. The DFV engine is really year zero for modern engine design. Most engines today owe their combustion chaimber and port design to Duckworth.
Oh myself and dad will be watching this on the smart telly later tonight. Thank you 😎😎
The Napier Sabre Engine for the Hawker Tempest springs to mind.
It's amazing they didn't go down the Deltic 2 stroke route!
The Napier Sabre was supposed to replace the Rolls Royce Vulture X-24, which had severe and insurmountable lubrication problems. However, the Napier was also unreliable, for many of the same reasons mentioned in this video. That said, the Hawker Tempests and Typhoons did manage to do some serious damage to the Germans in the last year or so of the war.
I'd love to see what modern designers could do given more freedom.
That's the problem with today's racing series. The boundaries of regulations are far too tight. If you watch events like Battlebots, each year they are vastly superior to the previous year.
@@AndyFromBeaverton agreed, I can't remember the name but there's a pike's peak run with very limited regulations and they get such a wide assortment of things!
Biggest issue is driver safety, I'm kinda stunned nobody has done remote controlled full size series. The tech is more than ready, FPV drones for example. I guess the danger is part of the attraction, kinda fucked up.
@@julian1000 you dont experience g-forces doing it by remote. no bump steer, feedback from the road.
THATS the point. it isnt the event. it isnt the spectators. it isnt the car. or engine.
its feeling those wheels screeching on the limit of traction, the pressure of your body being flung out on each turn, the harness on your chest as you brake hard, feeling the front locking up and backing off enough to still hit that apex, then finally slamming it down a gear and flooring it with the rear end kicking out sideways as you scramble to get back in a straight line and set up for the next turn...
@@AndyFromBeavertonhere’s the problem with that mentality costs, Motorsport has always been a money pit. With modern car technology being so mature any gains you make will come with a 9 figure price tag. And you can only do that for so long before someone questions the worth of the project.
guys really forget LMP1 exist. You can do whatever the f you want with your engine.
Guess what they do? 20.000 RPM V12? Nope, boring V4 turbo hybrid
That's some BRM! British Racing Madness!
Very cool and educational. I loved those Lotus cars back then. Great racing Thank You.
The story is that lotus first ordered a 3L enginge from another manufacturer, but as they could not deliver and time was running away they went to BRM who delivered the 1,5 l and asked if they can do something quick for the next season. So this frankenstein was born. The engine was not created out of genius, but out of lack of time.
I love how this venue allows us to fill in the blanks in these histories. Thanks for your comment.
I'm not sure if this is common knowledge, but a few more are being built with modern materials for a hefty price tag, I might add.
This is bonkers! Thanks for the great content Scott! ❤️fr 🇨🇦
Had read about it but never seen this, well explained, thanks!
A friend of mine was thinking ( long-term) about building performance sports cars, with the goal of a real super-car. It didn't happen but I roughed out a plan for an H-16 engine for it. It would have been 10 litres and about 1,000 hp naturally aspirated, with quite a lot more if fitted with turbos. It would have an economy mode, where the lower bank of eight cylinders would shut down and the power would be provided by the top half. The engine would drive a hydraulic CVT, with 4WD to make the best use of the power. The entire engine would about 900 mm long and 300mm high. It would however, have been fairly heavy.
Nothing new here, the Napier Sabre aero engine was a H24 during the war. They were incredibly complicated and had reliability issues too.
Can't believe Ange's engine simulator made it to a Driver61 video
5:19 never heard of the porsche sla 16?
The ultimate racing engine wins the race then explodes crossing the finish line. If it happens to make a sound like the hubs of hell failing, that’s a bonus
Lotus was using the Coventry Climax 1.5 litre V8. Coventry climax Did not want to build a larger engine.
Repco made a V8 for Brabham from an Oldsmobile block that was superoior to any other formula 1 engine. When the Cosworth V 8 came out, all other engines were superfluous.
Very interesting! Someone should do a serie of videos about the tecnolical and regulation development of the cars in Formula 1, from the beginning until today.
The initial version of the BRM H16 was not 4 valves per cylinder.
The Napier Dagger aircraft engine of 1935 far preceded the BRM H16. I wouldn't be surprised if BRM got their inspiration from it.
This vid should've been titled "And then it blew up."
The Napier Sabre is a H 24 engine powering the Hawker Typhoon fighter aircraft of WWR 2 .producing 2000BHP and up to 5000 BHP on development test.
The Rolls Merlin is a V12 and back then produced about 1200 BHP
After a long Development period the Sabre was reasonably reliable and the Typhoon and Tempest were very successful in Fighter/ Bomber attacks.
I Guess BRM was influenced by the success of the Sabre in designing their H16 engine.
Might have worked better if, when studying the successful H-24 Napier Sabre aero-engine, BRM had taken note of how Napier geared the Sabre engine's two crankshafts together using self-centering idler gears to eliminate harmonic imbalances. Instead BRM choose to gear their H-16's two cranks together using a rigid idler. This resulted in several harmonic vibration induced problems, mainly self-destroying dry-sump pumps and chronic ignition mis-firing issues. BRM were supposedly building a 4.2 litre version of the H-16 for Lotus to run in the 1967 Indianapolis 500, but rumour has it that both examples they actually built grenaded big-time while being dyno-tested.
My dad did the full rebuild on Denny Holmes Cooper climax with the 16 cylinder engine at MOTAT in Auckland NZ
Needlessly, NEEDLESSLY COMPLICATED!
Just like people. So what ??
the nuttiest thing about this design? no CAD/CAM.
.
this was all *hand drafted*.
According to some sources, Japanese engineers at Honda were developing a 32-cylinder "X" architecture engine for Formula 1 in 1960. Obvious, reasons of complexity and reliability convinced them to abandon it.
9:41 in a normal passenger Me: dabbling in amateur desgin: you need at least four of everything, minus a few items if you keep it simple doors headlights brake light and so on // to say the least it was ambisous.🤑
Bit of a misconception there. Engine water pumps don't add pressure at all, they provide coolant flow. The engine's temperature is what provides coolant pressure until equilibrium.
The BRM engine had two water pumps because a single water pump big enough to provide enough coolant flow around all of those cylinders would have been enormous and impractical.
Single water pumps also don't scale up very well, one big pump wouldn't provide a lot of coolant flow at low rpm's, then risk cavitating at high rpm's. Two smaller pumps is more optimal.
i heard that they had flat 8 season before and when displacement doubled they stacked 2 together and made H16
Imagine being the season mechanic for this formula and it blows an engine early season. Goodbye family, friends, days off, everything else. 64 valves :O
Honestly, I wish f1 went back to simple displacement and fuel capacity regulations. So for the next gen motors, just have it be like 1.3 litres and x kw batteries.
That's like 50 Rolex watches welded together and expecting reliable time keeping. Ticking time bomb. Cool adventure into the unknown! 👍 😃
I love seeing K Grizzly here
The real reason that more and smaller cylinders can rev higher than an engine with fewer is the ratio of valve area to displacement. That is also why a large single cylinder makes more grunt smaller valves so better cylinder filling at low RPSs Honestly I am not shocked that BRM went for an H bloc look at the Sabre engine from WWII. The UK really seems to like odd engines like the H-Blocks, sleeve valves, the Deltec, and so on.
the guys making the 2 litre v12 engines should commission the `H16
I believe H style engines were used a fair amount in tanks.
Nah, they use V12 and V8
The closest craziest thing they did is just opposite-5. Which made big diesel reaching twice its RPM and subsequently, power
Ah I remember, the craziest thing they did with tank engine is bolting 5 separate car engine into single housing and connecting all 5 crankshaft with gear. But it was run on detune anyway so no big deal in terms of reliability
Never thought I'd see Kyriakos Grizzly in a F1-related video
Scott…great vid…but please…redo…and…insert…some…pauses…in…your…breathless…non-stop….flow……..thank…..you.
That is the most insane engine i've ever heard of.
A nightmare kind of
I remember a Puch moped engine with two pistons, one combustion chamber, but not opposed piston. Picture a single cylinder engine- block, crank, con rod, piston. Then connect a second con rod to the first one, pivoting near the head of one of the first con rod’s bolts. Add another piston and cylinder parallel to the first. Both pistons rise, then the first piston passes TDC while the second is still rising. Second piston passes TDC, now both are descending. Why on earth would you make such a thing? You get very complete combustion because the thing has nearly constant combustion chamber volume for a rather long period of crank rotation. It wasn’t a bad idea, but the heat loss due to large surface area of the combustion chamber rather overcame the benefits of long combustion times.
You could have mentioned the BRM 1.5 litre V16 from 1953. Just to underline their strange affection to the unusual.
They probably wanted to build engines for tanks but unfortunately the war was already over.
I LOVE AUTOMOBILISTA 2! BEST SIM EVER. LOVE DRIVING THESE CARS
So when will we see a video about the Cosworth DFV? That seems like the next logical step
8:09 JAMSI!!
This engine lay-out was known from the Napier-Lion aero engine that powered one of the later Supermarine fighter-bombers. Back then it was a very complicated engine with a lot of teeding problems. The 50's are not that far behind the second world war.
The Napier Lion was a W-engine. Three banks of 4 cylinders with a single crankshaft.
@@andyharman3022
You are correct, the Sabre was the late/post war H engine. The Lion was the pre war W engine. I mixed them up.
LOL - amazing. I would love to see one of these H 16 engines work!
So did BRM
Took the great Jim Clark to win a race with that beast.
I have one of the cylinder heads piston and con rod from a brm 16, not sure if its a v16 or h16 engine, i believe its a h16, it has butterfly valve springs rather the usual coils
That's easy - the V16 is eight cylinders long and the H16 is four cylinders long. Also the V16 has hairpin valve springs and the H16 helical ones.
@1258-Eckhart that cannot be correct this head has hairsprings but it a 4 cylinder
@@alexhogarth184 So it's one half of the eight cylinder bank of the V16. The camshaft drives were in the in the middle of both engine banks, and my engine diagram does actually show halved cylinder heads.
@1258-Eckhart that makes sense, it was recovered from a pile of engines in the brm factory,
@@alexhogarth184 Don't want to rain on your parade mate, but surely it belongs in a museum? It's 25% of the head castings for the most amazing engine ever built by anyone anywhere. It sounds like Beethoven''s 5th symphony all rolled up into one. The engine was also a fundamentally sound design and unlike its ten years younger sister (the H16), could have become reliable given the investment.
The real reason BRM used an H-16 is because in 1965 they ran a boxer 8 not a V8. The FIA changed the formula at the end of the season forcing all teams to scramble. The obvious solution for BRM was to use two of their newly developed flat 8. The series was won by Brabam powered by a Repco modified Oldsmobile 215 cu. in. aluminum V8