40 replies to this topic

[908/3]

Offy has been the dominant engine in Indy racing for almost 40 years.
In the late '60s a turbo version was introduced to keep up with the opposition, can you tell me more about this, how much power did the turbo engine have, was it competitive right from the start, and how long did it remain competitive ?

thanks for the information

[McGuire]

The turbo Offy first appeared at the Speedway in 1966, first won in 1968, won five Indy 500s in a row 1972-1976 when it was displaced by the turbo Cosworth but hung around for some years after that. The last year in which an Offy qualified at Indy was '81 I believe; last entry in '83.

Those involved in turbocharging the Offy include Sonny Meyer, Dale Drake, Leo Goosen, Dick Jones, Bob De Bisschop, and Herb Porter. Porter for one had been experimenting with boosted Offies for decades. At the same time the turbo was being developed there was a parallel program matching the Offy to a GMC Roots blower (taken from a four-cylinder Detroit Diesel) but the turbo version soon showed greater potential. Early versions developed 570 to 620 hp but as the engine was developed, depending upon the boost regulations in effect and how brave was the guy turning the screw, it could make in excess of 1000 hp. There are one or two bench racing stories claiming over 1300 hp.

The turbo Offy's greatest advantage was its integral cylinder head and cylinder case, eliminating the need for a head gasket and stiffening the top of the engine, allowing it to tolerate extreme boost levels. Its greatest disadavantage: It had only four cylinders, forcing higher piston speeds and limiting its valve area. Drivers knew they had an Offy behind them -- they shook and rattled like they were alive.

See Gordon Eliot White's book Offenhauser; also Classic Racing Engines by Karl Ludvigsen, which includes a chapter on the turbo Offy. Both these bools are must-haves for any car enthusiast, I would think.

[fines]

Competitiveness suffered mostly from limited fuel supply thanks to new rules introduced in the wake of the Suez crisis in 1974, those engines were heavy drinkers!

Perhaps it should be mentioned that the Roots version won its second race, about a year before the Turbo's first win, but it never added to that score. Both engines were introduced at the same time, in 1966.

[MPea3]

Posted before but an interesting an fun read.

How to start an Offy.

[fines]

Quote

"You'll learn which one is real."

[pete3664]

Also Ken Walton's book"Offy,America's Greatest Racing Engine" which focuses more on the development of the Turbo Offy and some of the later variants of the Offy, the original 36 degree valve arrangement, then the 19 degree, then the 22 degree. It's a little more of a shop manual than Gordon's book, but they are both useful in understanding the Offy and why it was so successful.

[aaron]

Power output seemed to be dependant on the unlimited boost available, at least until waste gates were introduced. Different "snails" were used and when Donohue won in 1972 it was largely due to using a smaller, less powerful turbo. The leading cars including Penske teamate Bettenhausen, went out with engine failure and Donohue picked up his famous win. The Mclaren team had a guy "Boost" Bailey who worked on Revson's car. Apparently he had a screw driver in his pocket and would ask "how much do you want?" Up went the boost in a game of cat and mouse trying to get an engine that would last the qualification run, 4 flying laps. It was quite amazing that the Offy could be reinvented over decades to remain competitive and was without a doubt one of the greatest engines ever designed. Don't forget the work by Hilborn to pump enough fuel through to attain that power. Aaron.

[Bonde]

Fines,

Wasn't the main reason that fuel tankage for 1974 was reduced due to the rule change limiting capacity to one cell (I can't remember the volume OTTOMH), no fuel on the right hand side of the driver, as a consequence of the tragedies of the 1973 Indy 500?

[pete3664]

"Boost Bailey" is the same Roger Bailey that runs the Infinity Pro Series and used to run the ARS series as a support series to CART and now Indycar!

[fines]

Anders, I'm sure you're right. I guess Suez played a part as well, with all the political hoopla it entailed. We had carfree (not carefree ) Sundays in Europe, for example, don't know about the States. It was all a bit before my times, actually...

[McGuire]

Quote

Originally posted by pete3664
"Boost Bailey" is the same Roger Bailey that runs the Infinity Pro Series and used to run the ARS series as a support series to CART and now Indycar!

And one of the nicest people around.

[RA Historian]

Correct me if I am wrong, but technically didn't the name Offenhauser disappear from the engines along the way? That is, Meyer-Drake took over the engine in the 50s and the engines became known as Meyer-Drakes. Then, when Meyer and Drake split, the engines, especially the turbo units that ran in the 60s and 70s, were known as Drakes. But I may be wrong.

Tom

[fines]

Meyer-Drake always marketed their engines as "Offenhausers", and that's what was on the plaques - afaik, there was never any signage on the castings. When Meyer left the company, the engines were called Drake-Offenhauser, but hold on: I think I've made that mistake before, and the Drake-Offy really was the later narrow valve angle engine, mid-seventies? I have to consult the Gordon White Offy bible here, I just wish I knew which pile of books it was in!

Dear-o me-o!

[Bonde]

Fines,

I'm not sure the 1973-1974 'oil crisis' was instrumental, I think it was safety primarily. Methanol doesn't need to be sourced from crude oil...

Back on topic What's the story behind the 'DGS' lineage?

[TrackDog]

IIRC, DGS stood for Drake, Goossen and Sparks...Dale Drake, Leo Goossen and Art Sparks, to be exact.
The DGS was a V8, sort of an answer to the Cosworth. It was a good engine, but it never lit a fire with the Indy car crowd; the Cosworth was a sure thing, and the DGS wasn't.


Dan

[TrackDog]

Quote

Originally posted by TrackDog
IIRC, DGS stood for Drake, Goossen and Sparks...Dale Drake, Leo Goossen and Art Sparks, to be exact.
The DGS was a V8, sort of an answer to the Cosworth. It was a good engine, but it never lit a fire with the Indy car crowd; the Cosworth was a sure thing, and the DGS wasn't.


Dan

Okay, I blew this one...the DGS or SGD had an Art Sparks-designed valve head with a narrower angle than previous iterations of the 4 cylinder Offy; the idea was to increase combustion, which it did...the DGS wasn't a V8, after all. But...didn't Drake build a V8 to compete with the Cosworth? IIRC-- and sometimes I don't--there was such an engine, and while it performed well, it wasn't much different than the more well-established Cosworth, and the engine never caught on.


Dan

[ghinzani]

I recall an interview with the Drake people in the mid to late 70's where they said they hoped the drake v8 could run on petrol without a turbo and be sold to F1 teams.....

[fines]

Quote

Originally posted by Bonde
Fines,

I'm not sure the 1973-1974 'oil crisis' was instrumental, I think it was safety primarily. Methanol doesn't need to be sourced from crude oil...

Yes, I know, but it was a political move anyway. Auto racing doesn't burn more petrol than bicycle racing, and much, much less than football or baseball, but it's gotta be the one to take the rap. : And don't blame it on the politicians (again), it's really the people's fault because they believe what they want to believe...

[Henri Greuter]

Quote

Originally posted by TrackDog
Okay, I blew this one...the DGS or SGD had an Art Sparks-designed valve head with a narrower angle than previous iterations of the 4 cylinder Offy; the idea was to increase combustion, which it did...the DGS wasn't a V8, after all. But...didn't Drake build a V8 to compete with the Cosworth? IIRC-- and sometimes I don't--there was such an engine, and while it performed well, it wasn't much different than the more well-established Cosworth, and the engine never caught on.


Dan

There was indeed a Drake V8, it made a few races in 1978 but never a 500. Weak pont were the timing belts that were not durable enough.
Developping the engine was to cost money and for the same money you could get the by now well sorted out and available Cosworth DFX. pat Patrick was a strong supporter of Drake engines, if fact he partly fuinded the development of the DGS engines in late '74 and '75 and had them exclusively for him the first years.

I don't know how much value to give to that rumor but I have also heard that the reduction of the turbo boost in '74 waws also inspired by the fact that the ruugged Offy's could accept boost levels that the A.J. Foyt owned V8's couldn't handle anymore and as a result they had a power disadvantage tyhat left him near helpless at the true power tracks. In order to help the ever popular AJ, the boost level was reduced to that of a level that the Ford/Foyt could handle and still had a power advantage too!
Govern the stories I also heard about AJ bing very lucky with pop-off valves all the time at Indy as well.....
As well as the fact that once Porsche wanted to race at Indy in 1980 and USAC demanded an inspection of the Porsche Flat-6, Foyt's engine man Howard Gilbert being one of their representatives in Germany.....
No hard evidence I know but suggesting for sure....

Anyway: the power disadvantage of the turbo-Offy at 80 Inch of mercury boost against the Ford/Foyt was the reason why Drake Engineering searcherd for a new design cylinderhead to retain some of the power back.


Henri

[Bonde]

Fines,

I agree entirely with your sentiment that motor racing uses a lot less fuel than most other sports, and yet is receiving most of the attention; most fuel used in conjunction with sports is probably used by spectators and amateur participants travelling to football. My wife once 'complained' about the fuel I 'wasted' in my racing "career" - she stopped complaining when I proved to her that it was but a tiny fraction of the fuel needed to carry her on one of her business trips to the Far East. erhaps it's a fuel conservation move that Berniemax is onto by forcing the public away from the F1 venues... :

Henri,

Interesting story about Foyt VS Offy. Whhat chassis was the Drake V8 used in? I don't recall ever seeing a photo of the DGS V8 - are there any about?

[aaron]

The statistic I like to quote is that an entire season of F1 uses less fuel then a single transatlantic flight in a Jumbo. Who cares if its true? It has never stopped a Greenie saying something outragious. A1

[fines]

Quote

Originally posted by Bonde
Interesting story about Foyt VS Offy. Whhat chassis was the Drake V8 used in? I don't recall ever seeing a photo of the DGS V8 - are there any about?

Anders, the DGS was a 4-in-line, the V8 was a Drake! Different engines, you see?;)

As for the Drake V8 in combat, I'm not sure if I've seen any pictures, either! I do recall that Lindsey Hopkins and Alex Morales each had one in their Lightning chassis, driven by Johnny Parsons, Hurley Haywood, Pancho Carter and Bobby Olivero if I'm not mistaken, but I haven't looked into this for quite some time.

[Henri Greuter]

Quote

Originally posted by Bonde
Fines,

:

Henri,

Interesting story about Foyt VS Offy. Whhat chassis was the Drake V8 used in? I don't recall ever seeing a photo of the DGS V8 - are there any about?

Fines was quicker then me in answering.
If indeed true that Pattrick also used them then thr may well have been some outings with Wildcat-Drakes as well but I can't recall any Wlidcat being built specifically for the V8.
Pattrick went over to Penske PC 6 chassis for a while before in 1981 he had new Cossie-Wildcats built.

I have seen a Drake V8 once during one of my vacations in the USA, Lookw pretty much like a Cosworth.

Henri

[Henri Greuter]

Quote

Originally posted by aaron
The statistic I like to quote is that an entire season of F1 uses less fuel then a single transatlantic flight in a Jumbo. Who cares if its true? It has never stopped a Greenie saying something outragious. A1

That was in 1973. way before the endless test sessions by the big guns. When they had 480 hp Cosworths instead of the current 700+ hp V8's. And more hp's requires more fuel....

And I think that the energy amount consumed by windtunnels being operated 24/7 on behalf of F1 teams nowadays, (if not more tunnels then one...) consume way much more fuel then the cars do in race weekends and test sessions combined.....
Not mentioning what keeping those tunnels in operation demands for financial burden....
And we don't talk about all kind of simulators yet.....
If they want to make F1 cheaper.....


henri

[Sisyphus]

Here's a photo of the V-8 Drake engine in Johnny Parson's Lightning. Photo was taken by me at the 1979 Ontario 500.

I don't seem to have a photo of the complete car. I believe Parson's team was the only ones to run this engine--certainly at Ontario.

[MPea3]

Quote

Originally posted by fines

Perhaps it should be mentioned that the Roots version won its second race, about a year before the Turbo's first win, but it never added to that score.

Rodger Ward at Trenton in 1966?

[fines]

Corretto!;)

[Neil Smith]

Hi

just a few more things re the Drake Offy and the Drake V8.

When the CART cars came to the UK in 1978 there were two Wildcat entries - the North American Van Lines 20 car for Gordon Johncock and the Foreman Industries 40 car for Steve Krisiloff. The 20 car had a "Drake Offy" engine - that's what it said on the cam covers (champcarstats.com reports it as a 'DGS' engine...) - while the 40 car had the Drake V8. Both cars finished in the Silverstone race in 4th and sixth respectively but both had trouble at Brands where the 20 car finished 11th with a broken exhaust and Krisiloff binned the 40 car in qualifying. The Wildcats were different types - maybe type I or II for the 40 car and a type III (I think!) for the 20 car.

I have photos of both cars and both engines from the PR event that took place on the South Bank before the races happened (must have been about where the London Eye now is...). However at the moment I'm unable to post the photos here due to the vagaries and inconsistencies of ImageShack!!!

If there are any takers, if someone PMs me I'll email them the photos if they'll display them in this thread - about 7 photos in all. Please let me know...

cheers and Season's Greetings

Neil

[McGuire]

Technically, the D-G-S (Drake-Goosen-Sparks) and the Drake-Offy four are two different engines...or two somewhat different variations on the venerable Offy design, to put it more accurately. The D-G-S variant (42 degree valve angle) was designed by Leo Goosen, with input from Art Sparks, Dale Drake, George Bignotti, and Sonny Meyer. Bignotti was team manager for Pat Patrick, who supplied much of the funding (and for the Drake DT160 V8 as well).

Goosen passed in 1974, at which point Hans Herman became Drake's nominal designer, completing and expanding upon Goosen's revisions. The resulting engine with 38 degree valve angle was the Drake-Offy.

As a point of reference, the traditional Offy used a 72-degree valve angle, while the Cosworth DFV, which had largely led the campaign toward shallower valve angles and more compact combustion chambers, used a 32 degree valve angle.

[fines]

I recall that DGS and Drake-Offys are difficult to tell apart visually, i.e. if you can't make out the cam cover signage...;)

[Sisyphus]

Here are Neil Smith's photos of the Drake Offy Wildcats in the UK from 1978.

The photos are in order per Neil's note:

Wildcat Drake1
Wildcat Drake 2
Wildcat Drake 3
- these are the 40 Krisiloff car with the Drake V8

Wildcat Drake Offy 1
Wildcat Drake Offy 2
Wildcat Drake Offy 3
Wildcat Drake Offy 4
- these are the 20 Johncock car with the Drake Offy ...

[McGuire]

Quote

Originally posted by fines
I recall that DGS and Drake-Offys are difficult to tell apart visually, i.e. if you can't make out the cam cover signage...;)

With the Drake the magneto drive was done away with. Also, DRAKE is usually cast into these timing covers in raised letters.

[McGuire]

Quote

Originally posted by Henri Greuter



As well as the fact that once Porsche wanted to race at Indy in 1980 and USAC demanded an inspection of the Porsche Flat-6, Foyt's engine man Howard Gilbert being one of their representatives in Germany.....
No hard evidence I know but suggesting for sure....

To be fair, Porsche was demanding its own special boost limit exactly halfway between the Offy and the Cosworth.

CART had turned down Porsche flat, sticking to a "one boost limit" standard. But USAC, on the hunt for entrants and political points, had brought Porsche along, hoping a way could be found to accommodate the automaker. In the end, the Porsche engine was not banned at all-- it was simply given the same boost limit as the Cosworth. Porsche determined the engine could not be competitive at that boost level and withdrew.

[ghinzani]

Plus it was flat and thus not condusive to ground e.ff.e.c.t, boyee!

[Henri Greuter]

Quote

Originally posted by McGuire


To be fair, Porsche was demanding its own special boost limit exactly halfway between the Offy and the Cosworth.

CART had turned down Porsche flat, sticking to a "one boost limit" standard. But USAC, on the hunt for entrants and political points, had brought Porsche along, hoping a way could be found to accommodate the automaker. In the end, the Porsche engine was not banned at all-- it was simply given the same boost limit as the Cosworth. Porsche determined the engine could not be competitive at that boost level and withdrew.

USAC's manner of banning: making the rules so that the engine in question isn't exactly banned but left uncompetitive


The diesel was fast in 1952, yet uncompetitive due to its weight but still the capacity of Diesels was restricte.
in the mid 50's the (ehum, cough, cough) stock blocks were given a fuill liter extra capacity. When in tests such an engine was faster then an Offy the rule was withdrawn instantly and no favours given anymore to any type of normally aspirated petrol engine.
Turbines were still competitive in 1968 and then they were reduced yet again and had to be intended for automotive use or having a background on that. There were not passenger cars with turbines yet....
Let's not talk about the other (ehum cough cough cough) Stock block and pushrod technology promotion
promotion attempts of USAC


A boost level in between would have been a decent solution for the Porsche Flat-6. It made sense but I can't help feeling that had it been an American built engine, or at least not a Porsche factory supported effort they would have dared to take that option. But given the reign of the 935 at IMSA and the fate of CAN AM once Porsche stepped in, USAC had a feeling what could be coming their way and acted accordingly.



Henri

[Henri Greuter]

Quote

Originally posted by ghinzani
Plus it was flat and thus not condusive to ground e.ff.e.c.t, boyee!

In 1980 there were not so many ground effects cars within CART/USAC already, the best one was the "Yellow Submarine". Penske had the PC9 and the semi groundeffect PC7, Longhorn a derivative of the Williams FW07 and that was about it

Interesting enough, the first generation of ground effects cars at Indy had huge tunnels, later on they got more shallow. The Interscope that eventually debuted in 1981 was supposed to be Porsche Powered and then could have had only shallow tunnels. Thus in fact: being ahead of its time....

Rutherford in the "Yellow Submarine" crushed everything in sight. But Porsche could have performed creditable enough.

Henri

[McGuire]

Quote

Originally posted by ghinzani
Plus it was flat and thus not condusive to ground e.ff.e.c.t, boyee!

Exactly right.

Also must be noted that the Porsche Indy flat six was strictly a Jo Hoppen/Porsche North American initiative with minimal support (at best) from the mothership. The plug was pulled at the first decent opportunity.

[Henri Greuter]

Quote

Originally posted by McGuire


Exactly right.

Also must be noted that the Porsche Indy flat six was strictly a Jo Hoppen/Porsche North American initiative with minimal support (at best) from the mothership. The plug was pulled at the first decent opportunity.

I don't know if I read it in Ludvigsen's Porsche tome or in the Pippig Porsche Indy book.

But Porsche already realized that ground effects was to become an issue within Indycar racing too and that any attempt with the flat-6 was to be short lived. But the company still believed that there was a more than reasonable chance to succeed and that is why Porsche took it up.

As for your comment that it was only Porsche North America initiative, I am not sure of that. From what I've understood the factory in Germany was quite involved and supportive too and lots of the work on the engine itself being carried out in Germany.

Ground effect didn't take Indy by storm too: even in 1981 there were still a number of non ground effects cars that qualified for the race. A M24 McLaren Cosworth was third thad year. Now that may have had something to do with the fact that there were so many laps under the yellow (the Ongais aftermath....).
1982 was the first ever year with all 33 cars were ground effect machines.


Henri

[ghinzani]

Quote

Originally posted by Henri Greuter


In 1980 there were not so many ground effects cars within CART/USAC already, the best one was the "Yellow Submarine". Penske had the PC9 and the semi groundeffect PC7, Longhorn a derivative of the Williams FW07 and that was about it



Henri

dont forget the Phoenix and the latest Wildcat that Johncock had struggled with at the first race of 1980.

[aaron]

Jarry Karl ran a ground effects McLaren M16C 1979-81. Chev engine and big square side pods. A1

[Henri Greuter]

Quote

Originally posted by ghinzani


dont forget the Phoenix and the latest Wildcat that Johncock had struggled with at the first race of 1980.

That's why I wrote "that's about it. There were a few more out like the ones you mentioned but they either crashed out, DNQ or were not up to the level of the cars I mentioned.
But of course you entirely right to mention them and do them a bit more justice then I did.

Henri