37 replies to this topic

[Roger Clark]

Of all the things I've lost, it's my mind I miss the most, and some things I remember as clear as yesterday never happened and others are a total blank to me despite well documented evidence. Howeveer, just occasionally something turns up which suggests thre is some memory activity after all.

One such was the entry of steam powered cars for Indianapolis in 1969. It was immediately after the almost successful turbine cars in 1967 and 68, so Indy was ready for another challenger to the internal combustion engine. Two teams wer apparantly building steam powered cars. One was sponsored by the Lear corporation of Learjet fame, the other by STP. Jackie Stewart ws among the drivers rumoured for the Lear car, presumably Mario Andretti would have driven for STP. The Lear car apparantly had 6 cylinders and 12 pistons. Ken Wallace, who was involved with the first STP turbine car was the designer. Autosport (December 6th 1968) said that it had a rear mounted steam engine 18 inches in diameter with the boiler mounted beside the driver.

THe STP project was apparantly abandoned in late December or early January, Granatelli saying that it was because there was no equivalency formula for steam cars. The Lears were withdrawn in March.

Autosport in January 1969 said that Lear had gone as far as to build a full-sized replica of the Indianapolis track in REno, Nevada. Bill France was said to be interested in staging a NASCAR race there.

Can anybody tell me more? Were any cars built and did they run, if so who drove them?

[Vitesse2]

The Lear Vapordyne looked a bit like the 68 turbines, with an offset cockpit. At least one car was built and did the rounds of various American car shows, but whether it was a runner or just a bare chassis I don't know. This from "Indianapolis Chronicle" by Spencer Popely:

"Few people took William Lear's entry seriously> But Following two years of near misses by the exotic turbine-powered cars, others felt anything could happen. What Lear, of aircraft fame, proposed was using space-age technology to harness one of man's oldest sources of power. Lear's "Vapordyne" Indy car was to be powered by steam. It sounded farfetched, until one realized the simplicity of the idea.
The racer was to carry a small tank of keroseneor propane to operate the boiler, with pitstops made to replenish water as the primary fuel source. Lear's Delta Motor design was a 6-cylinder with 12 driving pistons operating three crankshafts in a triangular arrangement. The four-wheel drive chassis was super light, and the horsepower output was said to be higher than the conventional Ford or Offy. Calculations had the car going the distance on two pit stops.
However, even though the sleek racer did the rounds of the auto shows, time ran out on the project before May 69. And after the fallout from the new rules governing the turbines USAC never did arrive at a definite way to measure the Lear Delta's horsepower.
Eventually Bill Lear dropped the project. But the concept behind the Vapordyne still gives pause to those who understand the power of steam."

[Vitesse2]

Roger: I took the liberty of asking about this at TrackForum Nostalgia which is hosted by our old friend Eagle104. It appears that the Lear car still exists and is in NATMUS in Indiana. However, from its condition it may never have been a functioning vehicle at all, according to my source, so it might just have been a show car. Here's a link to the museum - no on-line virtual museum I'm afraid, but some further links to the Auburn-Cord-Duesenberg Museum on the same site.

http://www.clearlake.../natmus/nat.htm

If I can come up with anything else I'll let you know.

[Rainer Nyberg]

I have found this drawing of William Lear's Delta engine.
It shows the general layout of the design.
Supposedly intended for the 1969 Indy 500. The article claims up to 800 hp continously, but considerably more available during 10-20second bursts.

[karlcars]

The car's designer was Ken Wallis, not Wallace. Jackie Stewart confirmed to me that he was in line to race the car. It was never brought to a running condition. Bill Lear did build some other steam-powered cars, using turbines instead of pistons. I drove his steam-powered bus!

I don't believe that STP ever announced steam-racing-car plans.

[Joe Fan]

Very interesting concept. I imagine that someday in the future when we run out of fossil fuel that racing will resort to steam-powered or electric cars.

BTW, since Vitesse has mentioned TrackForum.com, I would like to add that this an excellent site for those who like IndyCar racing or have IndyCar questions. IRL driver Robbie McGehee posts there on ocassion (I confirmed that it was actually him that was doing the posting when I met him at an autograph signing last week) and RPM2Nite anchor John Kernan recently started posting there as well. The Nostalgia Forum that Eagle104 hosts, like here, has very knowledgable posters with their expertise being IndyCar or sprint car racing.

[Ursus]

The racer was to carry a small tank of keroseneor propane to operate the boiler, with pitstops made to replenish water as the primary fuel source.

Not that I know much about steam power but when I read something like this i tend to get a bit suspicious.
The fuel must be the kerosene/propane not the water. You'd also expect that the engine would need about the same amount of fuel as a conventional engine unless it had an incredible efficency.
That also puts in doubt the small (I assume significantly smaller than a conventional car) fuel tank and pitting only to replenish water not fuel.

Sounds too good to be true.

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by karlcars
Jackie Stewart confirmed to me that he was in line to race the car.

And if you don't believe Karl Ludvigsen...

[scheivlak]

Fascinating stuff, the Indy 1940s startlists.
How about this 1948 entry:

Car: Suttle Steamer
Entrant:Lawrence D. Suttle
Engine: Steam, Front drive
Status: Car not finished
see: http://www.geocities.../dnq/1940s.html

How serious was this try?

[Vitesse2]

I dug out a book I bought years ago (and never read! ) : Steam Cars by Lord Montagu and Anthony Bird. Nothing about the Suttle (but see below) but a little bit more about the Lear and confirmation that the STP project never got off the drawing board. Lear apparently spent $4 million on the whole steam car project, but abandoned it when it became clear he would have to spend at least another $5 million to get it to work: he was also offered $20000 by the California Highway Patrol for a steam patrol car - development costs were estimated at $1.2 million

Doug Nye's Motor Racing Mavericks has a passing mention of the Suttle - it was allegedly front-drive, with a two-cylinder engine and just sixteen moving parts.

[FrankB]

Originally posted by Joe Fan
I imagine that someday in the future when we run out of fossil fuel that racing will resort to steam-powered or electric cars.

The only tiny problem that we will be left with is where we get the energy to create the steam or generate the electricity.

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by Vitesse2
Doug Nye's Motor Racing Mavericks has a passing mention of the Suttle - it was allegedly front-drive, with a two-cylinder engine and just sixteen moving parts.

"Allegedly"- does that mean the car was after all constructed? A pic of a late 1940s Indy steam racer would be nice......

[Vitesse2]

Scheivlak: here is the entire quote - I don't think Nye knew either ....

The third post-war 500's most interesting entry failed to appear in Indiana that spring: the two-cylinder front-drive 'Suttle Steamer' from Detroit, which was claimed to include only sixteen moving parts!

[scheivlak]

Last year I stumbled on this: http://www.steamcar.co.uk/

Quote:
"In 1906 a steam powered car built by the Stanley brothers of Newtown, Massachusetts, and driven by Fred Marriott, set a new world land speed record of 127.66 mph at Ormond Beach (now called Daytona Beach), Florida. The absolute record stood until 1910 when an internal-combustion-engined Benz beat it by the narrow margin of 3.5mph. Over the years various attempts have been made to challenge the Stanley/Marriott record but it remains the highest speed for a steam powered car recognised by the FIA.

Charles Burnett III intends to set a new record in strict conformance with current FIA regulations. Following the example set by the Stanley brothers, the record car will be light and streamlined but with the advantages of the most up-to-date materials and technology. Charles intends to set new records for both the measured mile and measured kilometre. The initial target is 150mph but the car is being designed for speeds of 200 mph or more.

We invite you to follow the progress of the team and join in our triumph when the record is finally broken."

Latest update: June 2, 1999: News will be posted here as it happens...



It strikes me as rather funny what they consider to be needed to beat a 1906 record set on a beach (see the car's design). And it looks like that, as a result, they couldn't get this act together financially.
Of course it says something about the performance of that Stanley steamer too....

[2F-001]

Interesting, too, that the Stanley's 1906 record is slightly quicker than the record speed for a steam locomotive - LNER ''Mallard'' - set in 1938. Admittedly it was hauling a rake of railway carriages (weighing over 200 tons) but did have benefit, of course, of running on rails down a slight incline and wrecked a big-end in the process. When you consider how technology and engineering developed in the first third of the century, the Stanley Steamer's performance is noteworthy...

[dmj]

Scheivlak,
I found that site too a few months ago when I researched for a newspapers article about steam cars and connection of their demise with foot and mouth disease... Thank you for remembering me of that link. I'll watch it too but I believe I had read somewhere about Burnett's attempt failed...

[Vitesse2]

Came across these again the other day, so I thought I'd revive this oldie:



Bill Lear is the chap in shirtsleeves in the picture bottom right.

Perhaps Doug could enlighten us further on the Suttle?

[DOHC]

Very interesting thread.

A remark to support Ursus. The kerosene is of course the fuel. And even if by using superheaters you generate steam at a pressure of 4 MPa (=40 atmospheres) corresponding to 525 K (=250degrees C), the efficiency can't exceed some 30% (assuming that the condenser works at atmospheric pressure). Internal combustion engines can reach a similar efficiency. Fuel consumtpion would most likely be of the same order in both cases (at least if the power output is the same).

Further superheating of the steam and higher pressures may improve on that a little bit, but not by much. Also, to handle higher pressures you need heavier equipment for steam generation. In general, a piston steam engine would be heavier than a steam turbine (which would also have very few moving parts). So there couldn't have been a lot of advantages with the Lear machine. The one that stands out is that a gearbox could probably be eliminated.

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by 2F-001
Interesting, too, that the Stanley's 1906 record is slightly quicker than the record speed for a steam locomotive - LNER ''Mallard'' - set in 1938. Admittedly it was hauling a rake of railway carriages (weighing over 200 tons) but did have benefit, of course, of running on rails down a slight incline and wrecked a big-end in the process. When you consider how technology and engineering developed in the first third of the century, the Stanley Steamer's performance is noteworthy...

It gets better still.

the following year (1907) Marriott tried again. This time they upped the boiler pressure - the boiler was wound with SEVEN layers of piano wire!

Anyway, the story goes that Marriott was travelling at about 190 mph when the car hit a bump and became airborne - and disintegrated when it hit the ground. The boiler was found a quarter of a mile away... (No downforce you see)

Amazingly Marriott survived - with 54 broken bones and his "right eye literally forced from its socket" The doctor on the spot replaced it there and then and it remained his better eye until his death in 1954!

PdeRL

[Doug Nye]

I never did find out much more about the Suttle steamer - and frankly nor did I care. I put it down simply to pre-Indy promotional BS. Regarding the Marriott exploit with the Stanley Steamer record car - 'Wogglebug' was it called? - the man himself placed great emphasis upon the alleged '190mph' during later life, but I recall evidence surfacing at some point which suggested a speed closer to 127 or 154 - both pretty shattering achievements at the time - as proved, literally, to be the case... Having driven an early steam car I would vouch for the excellence of their performance, quietness and ease of control - over short(ish) distances they were infinitely superior to contemporary internal-combustion engined cars which tended to be - in contrast - fantastically noisy, smelly, difficult to handle, in (or un?) tractable, temperamental and unreliable.

DCN

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
I never did find out much more about the Suttle steamer - and frankly nor did I care. I put it down simply to pre-Indy promotional BS. Regarding the Marriott exploit with the Stanley Steamer record car - 'Wogglebug' was it called? - the man himself placed great emphasis upon the alleged '190mph' during later life, but I recall evidence surfacing at some point which suggested a speed closer to 127 or 154 - both pretty shattering achievements at the time - as proved, literally, to be the case... Having driven an early steam car I would vouch for the excellence of their performance, quietness and ease of control - over short(ish) distances they were infinitely superior to contemporary internal-combustion engined cars which tended to be - in contrast - fantastically noisy, smelly, difficult to handle, in (or un?) tractable, temperamental and unreliable.

DCN

Yes, I think that the 190 mph was an informal measurement - but 127 was the definite speed recorded in 1906. Funny that I cannot remember where I read the story - but it was in the days when I had a memory (?).

Steam (or perhaps electricity) is the perfect motive power for a road vehicle: maximum torque at zero revs.

Imagine what could be done with modern electronic control of burners etc! An even the "greens" would have to agree that the energy saving from the cessation of manufacture of gearboxes and clutches would be substantial. Just hit a switch for reverse; Doble got steam from cold in under thirty seconds in the 1920s.

It is often said that it was the petrol companies that killed steam - personally I suspect that the insurance companies were afraid of exploding boilers, yet they are happy to cover cars carrying gallons of potentially explosive gasoline around. And a steam car can be adapted to run on any fuel desired: with efficient burners, no nitrous oxides would be produced; fuelled with hydrogen, only water.

I remain baffled that this excellent approach has not been followed.

Of course, no steam car is going to sound like a Testa Rossa or V16 BRM....

PdeRL

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by 2F-001
Interesting, too, that the Stanley's 1906 record is slightly quicker than the record speed for a steam locomotive - LNER ''Mallard'' - set in 1938. Admittedly it was hauling a rake of railway carriages (weighing over 200 tons) but did have benefit, of course, of running on rails down a slight incline and wrecked a big-end in the process. When you consider how technology and engineering developed in the first third of the century, the Stanley Steamer's performance is noteworthy...

Mallard lives a couple of miles from me at the NRM and is of some tangential racing interest -- the streamlining on it is derived from Bugatti railcars, which is derived from the Bugatti "tanks"

pete

[Doug Nye]

Originally posted by petefenelon


Mallard lives a couple of miles from me -- the streamlining on it is derived from Bugatti railcars, which is derived from the Bugatti "tanks"

pete

????Chronology????

DCN

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by Doug Nye


????Chronology????

DCN

The streamlining on Mallard and its A4 Pacific brethren (entered service in '35) was derived from the Bugatti railcars (entered service in '32). Gresley had travelled on one of the Bugatti vehicles in France and the design of the streamlined A4s was down to him and a Prof Dalby. and the railcars have the same basic lines as the 1923 T32 "Tank" with an engine that was essentially that of the T41 Royale (1927).

There were later "Tanks" at Le Mans in '38 and '39, IIRC.

sources for Bugatti dates -- Conway's "Le Pur Sang des Automobiles" 5th ed
sources for Gresley dates -- http://www.wandleys.....uk/chronol.htm

I'll nip into the NRM and take a few pictures of the display of Bugatti info near Mallard some time.

[Vitesse2]

T32 I think Pete, not T22. And I assume Doug must be thinking of the T57G? I've seen both models described as Tanks.

[ehagar]

Originally posted by FrankB

The only tiny problem that we will be left with is where we get the energy to create the steam or generate the electricity.

Exergy sources are everywhere. The problem is using 'natural' methods like wind generators etc... would require a ridiculous amount of land usage to produce a fraction of what is required.

There is an answer for a non-fossil based exergy source, called Nuclear Power which you could use to generate hydrogen, but the mere mention of the word usually sends people into fits of anxiety.

I can't see much of a future for electric cars. It's such a stupid idea for long distance travel. For cases like that, using a convertor technology like a fuel cell makes far more sense.

[FrankB]

Originally posted by ehagar


Exergy sources are everywhere.

Yes - I agree - energy sources, including nuclear power are abundant, the problem being how the energy is stored or converted.

In my original post I was trying to address the implication in an earlier post that steam power could be used as a direct substitute for diminishing fossil fuel resources. A similar misconception was picked up by Ursus, after a reference to a car with a "small tank of kerosene or propane to operate the boiler", which would have to stop "to replenish water as the primary fuel source".

As for the future of electric cars - who can say whether it's a stupid idea or not. I should imagine that a car owner in 1902 would think it stupid if you told him that cars with 100mph+ capability and 10000 mile service intervals would one day be commonplace. He would be even more amazed to think that "artisans" would be able to afford those cars, and not just the aristocracy and professionals.

[ehagar]

Actually, my point on electric cars is that batteries are a stupid way to go. Using fuel cells as a convertor technology for hydrogen or a hydrogen rich gas or liquid is the way to go. It makes far more sense than the plug in the wall vehicles.

[Vitesse2]

July's C&SC has a picture of the now restored Lear steam racer. It had somehow passed to an employee of Lear and apparently languished in a field of alfalfa in Nevada until 1998 when it was rescued by a chap called Ron Shakespeare. It may now be sold on by the museum.

[Geoff E]

Originally posted by DOHC
Very interesting thread.

A remark to support Ursus. The kerosene is of course the fuel. And even if by using superheaters you generate steam at a pressure of 4 MPa (=40 atmospheres) corresponding to 525 K (=250degrees C), the efficiency can't exceed some 30% (assuming that the condenser works at atmospheric pressure). Internal combustion engines can reach a similar efficiency. Fuel consumtpion would most likely be of the same order in both cases (at least if the power output is the same).

Further superheating of the steam and higher pressures may improve on that a little bit, but not by much. Also, to handle higher pressures you need heavier equipment for steam generation. In general, a piston steam engine would be heavier than a steam turbine (which would also have very few moving parts). So there couldn't have been a lot of advantages with the Lear machine. The one that stands out is that a gearbox could probably be eliminated.

One or two notes:-

The most efficient steam locomotives (by Chapelon) could only manage about 12% overall effiency. Steam locomotives (except for a few experimental prototypes) did not produce steam at higher pressures than 2MPa (temp 216C). If you generate steam at 4MPa it will have a temperature of 250C (as you state) - having a superheater (as the name suggests) will increase this temperature, but not its pressure.

While having a high superheat temperature may be desirable from pure thermodynamic considerations it may not necessarily be desirable - with Gresley's "Hush Hush 10,000" locomotive a superheat temperature approaching 500C could initially be achieved, but this was deemed too high, so shorter superheater elements were fitted, giving a temperature of 370C.

In terms of its configuration, the Lear Delta engine was identical to the English Electric "Deltic" diesel engine, initially used (I believe) for Motor Torpedo Boats. It was then used in locomotives and gave a diesel-electric locomotive of unrivalled power to weight ratio. For several years the Deltic locomotives were the most powerful single unit diesel locos in the world.

[dretceterini]

I thought all steam cars built after 1950 had to be owned and driven by government officials, so no fuel would have to be burned; they would run on the driver's hot air..

[MrAerodynamicist]

British attempt on the steam powered land speed record:
http://www.telegraph...7/mfsteam07.xml

[Geoff E]

Originally posted by MrAerodynamicist
British attempt on the steam powered land speed record:
http://www.telegraph...7/mfsteam07.xml

So ... a 4MW "boiler" is needed to supply a 430kW turbine ... an indication of the low thermal efficiency involved with steam devices, I suppose.

[Charles Helps]

1 bhp = 0.746 Kw

so the Telegraph's "320bhp steam turbine" produces around 240 Kw.

The British Steam Car website quotes 300 bhp (225KW).

This site has an interesting set of definitions of horsepower including the concept of boiler horsepower being over 13 times electrical horsepower. The original article in Saturday's Daily Telgraph stated "should produce a formidable four megawatts of energy, which, in electrical terms, would be enough to power about 2,500 houses for a year " which seems wrong as time isn't included in power. The online article has "a formidable four megawatts of energy, which, in electrical terms, would be enough to power about a house for a day ". I wonder if they are actually giving the boiler output in kilowatt hours, say?

Having now thoroughly confused myself perhaps someone with more recent engineering experience can take this further.

Incidentally the profiles of the team make interesting reading - several ex-Lotus people there.

[Geoff E]

Originally posted by Charles Helps
1 bhp = 0.746 Kw

so the Telegraph's "320bhp steam turbine" produces around 240 Kw.

Oops! I divided by 0.746 instead of miultiplying

Yes, the "2,500 houses for a year" bit had me puzzled too.

[Stoatspeed]

I have a foggy recollection of another British "fast steam car" project some decades ago. Was it not a Peter (or maybe Paul) Pelham, who was also trying to build a steam sprots car ...?
I tried Googling him with no success ... maybe I am off beam with the name, or maybe the whole thing was so long before the Internet era that history has erased his name
... actually, that's a good reason to raise old topics here at TNF, at least it creates some kind of record for generations to come!

Any ideas, TNFers?

EDIT: With more creative Googling, I have now got to "Peter Pellandine" of Ashley Laminates and Falcon fame .... seems he never got the car to car to go fast enough, so he exiled himself to Australia!!

[bradbury west]

Merged
http://forums.autosp...366#post3566366
RL

[Sisyphus]

Can someone tell me the recent volume of Motor Sport that had the article on the Lear steam powered Indy Car? It was maybe 6 months ago.

I work with an engineer who worked for McCulloch on the motor before Lear took it up and I wanted to show him the article but I can't find the right volume in the pile (Motor Sport's index being a bit lacking) and although I swear I scanned the article I can't find it now that I want it

Thanks!