How about the Lotus 56 turbine car?
I can understand how the concept was great for Indy, but for F1?? I know hindsight is 20:20, but even so.....
now thats a subject
key to their sucess or lack of it in the end is the equivalent formula
I mean the size restriction regulation in comparison to displacement in piston engines.
Indy came up with the idea to restrict the flow areas to a given number if square inches
that in a nutshell is it
If You want to give turbines a leg up, then allow them large diameters and as a consequence a power advantage
in this case only available fuel and thermal efficency limits the power.
Racing in general chose to do precisely the opposite
intake area of turbines was quickly, arbitrarily and severely limited to make sure that the revolution did not happen
turbines never got a fair chance
technical issues notwithstanding
same thing in a way happend to Wankel engines
as the rotors a 3 sided they, do 3 power strokes per revolution of the rotor
for a given displacement they will allways make more power than a 4 stroke reciprocal piston engine
for instance the NSU Ro 80 had about a litre of displacement but gave as much power as 2 litre conventional engine
note: efficiency per swept volume is about twice but not thrice as much as conventional engines.
reason for that are scavenging and filling issues
Wankel engines were - more or less deliberately - hobbled by applying a factor of 3 to the swept volume which was unfair
pls note that a Wankels greated win was Mazda at Le Mans under fuel efficiency regulations with swept engine volume unlimited
irony in that of course is, that Wankel engines are not very fuel efficient