49 replies to this topic

[buddyt]

over in the teck ni cal forum the are asking the weight of the BRM H 16 engine and suggest that someone pretend they are 60 years old and ask us at the nostagia forum whats its weight is....if I can get up from this chair I will beat him with my cane...the young whipper snapper...

[Bernd]

What an eloquent chap you are Buddy.

The H16 in 1967 weighed 484lb.
Against 356lb for the all conquering DFV.

The P83 BRM weighed 1,450lb. The (Lightweight ) P115 BRM weighed 1,381lb.
Against the 1,105lb of the Lotus 49.

My source was Autocourse

[Mike Argetsinger]

Originally (1966) 555 lbs. (252 kg) plus 118 lb. (53.5 kg) of gearbox and clutch according to Tony Rudd (who ought to know!) - In his book "It Was Fun -My Fifty Years of High Performance". By 1967 he quotes 508 lbs. (231 kg). Ultimately they developed a 64 valve light weight engine with magnesium crankcase castings sandwiching five titanium blocks that came in at 398 lbs. (180.5 kg) - this development however never produced the targeted power.

I would like to provide more but the old folks home I am in has a limited library!

[Vitesse2]

Colin Chapman is reputed to have said something along the lines of:

"We knew we had a weight problem with the H16 when it arrived from BRM and it took four men to lift it off the lorry"

Can I have my Viagra now please nurse?

[Gary Davies]

Originally posted by Mike Argetsinger
Originally (1966) 555 lbs. (252 kg) plus 118 lb. (53.5 kg) of gearbox and clutch according to Tony Rudd (who ought to know!) - In his book "It Was Fun -My Fifty Years of High Performance". By 1967 he quotes 508 lbs. (231 kg).

And what a whopping contrast to the plan! Setright (The Grand Prix) quotes a preliminary study from within BRM which suggested they could come in at 380lb.

Pordon the font size. The old eyes are playing up tonight.

Vanwall.

[Roger Clark]

As I remember, the original H16 design had a single cylinder head a three camshafts on each side, the middle camshaft operating the inlet vales for both banks of cylinders. Casting difficulties made this impractical and the revised design of separate cylinder heads made the engine more bulky and heavier.

Of course, life was harder in those days, we had to get up three hours before we went to bed...

[marion5drsn]

BRM H-16, The people who designed this engine must have been related to the people the made the Napier Sabre. The designers who wasted all the time and money forgot the first rule of K.I.S.S. Overcomplicated and under funded is a sure way to design failure. The Sabre was so touchy that the engine had to have heated air warning before it could even be started before a mission! I sometimes think that the men who talked the moneylenders into these projects must have been super salesmen. At least I can give the people at Hispano-Suiza and Sunbeam Arab (The worlds worst V-8 engine) the benefit of designing in a period of just lack of knowledge in the sunrise of piston engine development. A plague on both their houses, (BRM & Napier)!
M.L. Anderson

[930fly]

H16 layout would not have seem ed so absurd from the context of 1965 when it was designed. The end of the 1.5 era saw two twelve cylinder designs racing and the Climax flat 16 waiting in the wings. The trend must have seemed obvious. 16 cyls must have seemed essential for 3litres, but a 3.0 V16 would have been surely too long. Yes, it was heavy, but other engines (e.g. Honda's enormous roller bearing V12 were no lightweights. We now no that a high-revving lightweight V8 was the way to go, but that is with hindsight.The H16 was a glorious -if doomed - attempt to push back the frontiers of technical achievement. It's this sort of thing that has always separated F1 from lesser series in my view.

The H16 engine will never be remembered as a great success, but in less than two years of racing it managed one GP win, one second, and numerous points placings. That's about the same success rate as the Weslake and Honda V12s. Both of these were relatively simple designs but they don't get slagged off like the H16.

[Gary Davies]

Originally posted by marion5drsn
BRM H-16, The people who designed this engine must have been related to the people the made the Napier Sabre ...The Sabre was so touchy that the engine had to have heated air warning before it could even be started before a mission!

Funny you should say that! Setright cites Tony Rudd's paper to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in 1968 (chronicling the failure of the H-16) in which he states: "Experience was available on H engines including the Napier range."

Setright goes on to say: "Available it may have been, but it does not seem to have been drawn upon in matters of detail. The Sabre, for instance, had an exquisite system of floating gears to balance the loading imparted to the drive train from each of the two crankshafts; but the BRM just had undersized torsion shafts and a crude spur gear connection between the two shafts, and this was developed on the wicked old basis of 'make it stronger if it breaks'. When it stops breaking, something else usually starts; and in fact most of the really serious trouble was the result of torsional vibration problems originating in the shafts. As a temporary measure, heavy steel rings were bolted onto four of the webs of each crankshaft to increase the inertia, and the engine was raced like this through 1966 ..."

Doesn't it make you cringe?

Finally back to the Sabre (as fitted in the Hawker Typhoon 1B) ... I am amused by the words one of the pilots from 198 (Fighter) Sqn caused to have painted on the radiator fairing: "IF THIS ENGINE CATCHES FIRE ON STARTING, DON'T JUST WAVE YOUR ARMS AT THE PILOT, TRY PUTTING THE BLOODY THING OUT AS WELL."

Vanwall

[bobbo]

. . .And, If I remember correctly , that Maserati V12 Cooper used wasn't exactly a featherweight, either!!

Actually, I heard the H-16 run at The Glen in 1966, and it sounded pretty neat (when it was running right!!)

Bobbo

[MOTORSPORT RESORT]

Does anyone know where one might be hiding? We are looking at a project with the Lotus and can't find a engine...The one in the Donington Museum is the wrong version...
There must be at least one made into a coffee table?
museum@f1power.com

[bobbo]

. . .Must be a D**N heavy coffee table!

Bobbo

[MOTORSPORT RESORT]

Ha ha ha... what's your name? Bobo or bo bo ?Who's going to lift it...? and who care's ? Can't we be sometimes be serious, I am!
Peter

[karlcars]

My new book, Classic Racing Engines, has a chapter on the H-16. It includes these sentences:

"Although a 12-cylinder engine was considered, Rudd’s choice fell on a radical 16-cylinder engine composed of two horizontally-opposed eights placed one atop the other and geared together. Estimates were that it would weigh 380 pounds and produce 500 bhp – figures which, in the event, were destined to be interchanged."

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by karlcars
My new book, Classic Racing Engines, has a chapter on the H-16. It includes these sentences:

"Although a 12-cylinder engine was considered, Rudd’s choice fell on a radical 16-cylinder engine composed of two horizontally-opposed eights placed one atop the other and geared together. Estimates were that it would weigh 380 pounds and produce 500 bhp – figures which, in the event, were destined to be interchanged."

Karl,

First Roger and now YOU! -- Did I detect a whiff of cynicism in that last line: "...figures which, in the event, were destined to be interchanged.."

[mat1]

Originally posted by 930fly
We now no that a high-revving lightweight V8 was the way to go, but that is with hindsight.

Well, i think in the end the 180-degree V12 turned out to be the best idea.

The H16 engine will never be remembered as a great success, but in less than two years of racing it managed one GP win, one second, and numerous points placings. That's about the same success rate as the Weslake and Honda V12s. Both of these were relatively simple designs but they don't get slagged off like the H16.

Right. All engines designed is the beginning turned out to be not so good ideas. Only the Repco's did well. And as a result the DFV was designed.

Of all the starting teams, only Ferrari (with the very succesfull flat12) and BRM (with a conventional V12) took a second chance. And also the BRM V12 was not without success. in the end of 1971 the BRMs were the cars to beat.

mat1

[Barry Lake]

Originally posted by marion5drsn
The Sabre was so touchy that the engine had to have heated air warning before it could even be started before a mission!

Just like any Formula 1 engine in 2001!

Is this progress?

[MOTORSPORT RESORT]

What about the Coventry Climax "Flat-16"....too bad they quit racing in 1965..
Peter

[Roger Clark]

In Motor Racing Mavericks Doug Nye says that the early H16s "demanded cross-over exhaust systems above and below..." He goes on to say that the chassis designers could not accommodate the system on the lower bank but did fit one on the top. He also says that the 'eight-throw' crankshafts, introduced late in 1966 removed the need for cross-over exhausts.

Can anyone point me to a picture of a BRM or Lotus with the cross-over exhaust?

[Macca]

No.

 

All the photos and drawings in the many reprinted articles in the Unique Motor Books volume on BRM Cars show 4 independent bunches of exhausts, with various components on top of the engine (including a large oil filter), under a spine in the engine cover when fitted, which would have prevented such a system. Tony Rudd's own paper presented to the IMechE makes no mention of cross-coupled exhausts, even for dyno tests. 

 

I have seen it mentioned somewhere that Richie Ginther suggested reversing the cylinder heads of the V8 so that the exhausts would be close enough to be cross-linked like the early Climax FWMV, but again have never seen such an arrangement on the centre-exhaust V8s.

 

Oddly, a displayed Climax FWMV that was in the Donington Collection last time I visited had a high-level exhaust system fitted, but with no cross-connection of the collectors; I thought that flat-crank FWMVs always had low-level tailpipes, so perhaps it was a modern inaccurate replica system.

 

Paul M

[Roger Clark]

That's exactly what I thought about the H16, yet Doug said that Len Terry told him the story about cross-linked exhausts.  

 

There is some discussion about the Climax FWMV exhaust in this thread: http://forums.autosp...cts/?hl=+climax

 

I think the conclusion was that from some point in 1963, all Climax V8s were flat-crank and had no need of linked exhausts.  Some manufacturers preferred to retain high-level exhausts even though the were no longer linked.  The same is true of cars in historic racing today.

[SJ Lambert]

[SJ Lambert]

upload photos

[SJ Lambert]

[SJ Lambert]

[Allen Brown]

BRM may have underestimated the weight of the H16 when talking to journalists, and to customers.  In Team Lotus, Andrew Ferguson quotes 565 lbs for the Indy version, against a promised 425 lb, which ties in with Tony Rudd's number.  The Indy engine - which only ran in the back of a Lotus 42 once - shared major vibration problems with its F1 sister, and the solution in F1 was to strengthen it, which can only have added weight.  The Indy engine was simply abandoned.  

 

I wrote a bit about the Lotus 42 here: 
http://www.oldracingcars.com/lotus/42/

[StanBarrett2]

Brian Hatton / John Way sketches on the H-16 out of Motor  June 4th 1966

 

and a piece out of AutoSport 24/31 December 1965

 

macoran

[Charlieman]

In the 1930s, Italians experimented with two engines in a GP class or Formule Libre car. I don't recall any significant win.

 

The BRM H16 is brilliantly packaged but it comprises two engines on a common crankcase (or output shaft). There are two of every ancillary component. There's too much stuff to go wrong.

[Roger Clark]

In the 1930s, Italians experimented with two engines in a GP class or Formule Libre car. I don't recall any significant win.

 

 

There are several cars to which you may be referring.

 

The V4 Maserati had two straight 8 2-litre engines from the 26B, mounted side-by side on a common crankcase.  It won the Tripoli Grand Prix in 1930.  The V5 was a larger engined version.  The Tipo A Alfa Romeo had two six-cylinder 1750cc engines, similarly mounted side-by-side.  It won the 1931 Coppa Acerbo.  The Maserati and the Alfa appeared at a time when Grand Prix racing was run to Formule Libre.  Their weight and power frightened the authorities and encouraged the introduction of a new formula in 1934, limiting maximum weight, and intended to encourage smaller and lighter cars.  It was not entirely successful in this.

 

In 1935, Scuderia Ferrari built the Bimotore Alfa Romeo which had engines in front of and behind the driver.  It was very fast but could not get close to the weight limit so was confined to Formule Libre events.

[Charlieman]

Thanks, Roger.

[D-Type]

Don't forget the AAC 815 built by Enzo Ferrari.  Its straight eight engine was essentially two Fiat 508 4-cylinder engines on a common crankshaft and crank case.

[Bloggsworth]

In the 1930s, Italians experimented with two engines in a GP class or Formule Libre car. I don't recall any significant win.

 

The BRM H16 is brilliantly packaged but it comprises two engines on a common crankcase (or output shaft). There are two of every ancillary component. There's too much stuff to go wrong.

 

I give you "Chatter." Same problem Ron Marchant had with his V12 Arial Arrow engined Lotus 23.

[Lee Nicolle]

you see F1 did not always use 13" wheels. This car was on 14"

[GreenMachine]

... and some even used 15s, IIRC.

[bradbury west]

OT a bit, and it is a while since I have thought about this sort of stuff, but ISTR Bugatti making a U16 motor, and there was a Stutz device using , was it 2 Millers?, on a common crank, in the 1920s, and ages ago I came across a U8 built by Matra Simca based on 2 Ranchero engines, and Bolster put 2 engines in line in one of his devices.

Sorting the crank vibrations out on Ron Marchant's Ariel device must have been optimism over expectations, as the engine was in fact two banks, each of 3 vertical twins, the banks being laid out in a V formation, but I always applaud people who try something different with the potential for achievement. Bolster was very enthusiastic when he wrote about its test at Silverstone in period, ISTR, and the noise it made at the FoS a while back was excellent, albeit seemingly on a limited throttle opening.
I think overheating was always likely to be a problem, but I have/have seen programme entries for it in several events in period.
Roger Lund

[Bloggsworth]

OT a bit, and it is a while since I have thought about this sort of stuff, but ISTR Bugatti making a U16 motor, and there was a Stutz device using , was it 2 Millers?, on a common crank, in the 1920s, and ages ago I came across a U8 built by Matra Simca based on 2 Ranchero engines, and Bolster put 2 engines in line in one of his devices.

Sorting the crank vibrations out on Ron Marchant's Ariel device must have been optimism over expectations, as the engine was in fact two banks, each of 3 vertical twins, the banks being laid out in a V formation, but I always applaud people who try something different with the potential for achievement. Bolster was very enthusiastic when he wrote about its test at Silverstone in period, ISTR, and the noise it made at the FoS a while back was excellent, albeit seemingly on a limited throttle opening.
I think overheating was always likely to be a problem, but I have/have seen programme entries for it in several events in period.
Roger Lund

 

I recall looking down upon it in his garage in Cuffley and shaking my head in disbelief...

[Roger Clark]

The U16 Bugatti was an aero-engine produced during the 1914-18 war but without any success. The story of the engine and it’s influ on subsequent American designs is told in detail in Bugatti By Borgeson.

[Odseybod]

If the old Racing Legends sim is anything to go by - and it seemed quite realistic in many other ways - the BRM H16 had a particularly narrow power-band, which is presumably why it came with a six-speed gearbox when five speeds seemed enough for everyone else. Keeping the Beast on the boil while pandering to the car's other foibles must have been, shall we say, interesting.

[Ray Bell]

Isn't that why they paid the drivers the big money?

I don't know why, however, it would have a narrow torque band.

[Charlieman]

I don't know why, however, it would have a narrow torque band.

Nobody complained that the 1.5 litre V8 had a narrow torque band, so it is unlikely that anything significant changed for the H16. Apart from mass. In 1967, the H16 was about 35% heavier than a DFV. The same problem applied to McLaren's modified Ford Indy engine or Cooper's ageing Maserati.

[Allen Brown]

Apart from mass. In 1967, the H16 was about 35% heavier than a DFV. The same problem applied to McLaren's modified Ford Indy engine or Cooper's ageing Maserati.

 

At Indy, the difference in weight between a Ford quad-cam and a BRM H16 was almost exactly the same weight as Jim Clark!

[Michael Ferner]

The U16 Bugatti was an aero-engine produced during the 1914-18 war but without any success. The story of the engine and it’s influ on subsequent American designs is told in detail in Bugatti By Borgeson.

That's an old Bugatti myth. The only influence the engine can have had on American designers is how not to do it! As Roger already remarked, the U16 was a total failure, and none of its design features were found in subsequent US racing engines of note.

[StanBarrett2]

I don't know why, however, it would have a narrow torque band.

A piece out of an issue of Motor Racing in which John Blundsen Blunsden goes into the power and torque characteristics of the H-16

 

macoran

 

Edit John Blunsden's name spelling

Edited by StanBarrett2, 01 August 2018 - 22:31.

[Roger Clark]

That's an old Bugatti myth. The only influence the engine can have had on American designers is how not to do it! As Roger already remarked, the U16 was a total failure, and none of its design features were found in subsequent US racing engines of note.

In fairness to Griffith Borgeson, he does make that clear. A lot of his book is concerned with debunking Bugatti myths.

[Roger Clark]

It’s interesting that John Blunsden, in the Motor racing article, mentions the influence of the H24 Eagle engine. I don’t think Tony Rudd mentions the Eagle in his autobiography in either the Rolls-Royce or the H16 chapters. He does say that the only successful H configuration engine had been the Napier Sabre.

[Ray Bell]

It's also interesting that they assume the 1.5's torque curve will carry over to the 3.0-litre despite there being twice as many firing strokes...

The Tasman cars also had 6-speed boxes, of course.

[oldjonesfan]

It’s interesting that John Blunsden, in the Motor racing article, mentions the influence of the H24 Eagle engine. I don’t think Tony Rudd mentions the Eagle in his autobiography in either the Rolls-Royce or the H16 chapters. He does say that the only successful H configuration engine had been the Napier Sabre.

 

Well I suppose Rolls "copied" a lot of the Napier Sabre's features for the Eagle particularly the "Flat" H arrangement and sleeve valves after their experience with the unsuccessful "X" configuration Vulture.  So with Rudd working for Rolls and only about 15 Eagles being produced and only being used in prototype Westland Wyverns (where the only one left today is at the FAA Museum at Yeovilton IIRC) I suppose it would only be natural to refer to the more widely used and "successful" Napier Sabre when talking about "Flat" H Engines.  

 

What they should have known and is possibly hinted at by his Lordship's comments about not expecting immediate results was that the Napier Sabre really only reached acceptable levels of reliability and much higher power after a LOT of development through about 8 Number Variants and 2 Experimental Versions.  You only have to compare an early model Typhoon with the Sabre I of about 2000hp to the Fury LA610 with the Sabre VII of just over 3000hp.  At that rate a BRM H16 may have been competitive in about 1974 - imagine that in the back of the P201!  

 

I wrote "Flat" H up there as well because it always intrigues me that slapping two "Flats" on top of each other doesn't really look like a "H" but more like a "Capital i".  To me the "real" "H" configuration engines are the Napier Rapier and Napier Dagger.  

Edited by oldjonesfan, 02 August 2018 - 17:30.

[Roger Clark]

It's also interesting that they assume the 1.5's torque curve will carry over to the 3.0-litre despite there being twice as many firing strokes...

The Tasman cars also had 6-speed boxes, of course.

What impact would doubling the number of firing strokes have on the torque curve? I’m not doubting you - I just don’t know. In fact the early H16s fired two cylinders at once; it was only at the end of 1966 that they began to fire like a genuine 16.

I think most V8 BRMs had six speeds from the introduction of the P62 ‘box in 1963. The old five-speed P27 had been inherited from the 2.5-litre cars and was far too heavy. They also experimented with a six-speed Colotti on Ginther’s car in 1962 but without success.

[Paul Taylor]

Assuming the Lotus 49 had a 55-56% rearward weight bias, my estimations are that the original P83 would have had around 57-58%.

Since they lightened the chassis by 55kgs with the magnesium cockpit, but the engine by only 20kgs, wouldn't have that sent the weight bias even further rearward and made the P115 a worse handling car?

Just making LOTS of assumptions of course...

[Glengavel]

Assuming the Lotus 49 had a 55-56% rearward weight bias, my estimations are that the original P83 would have had around 57-58%.

Since they lightened the chassis by 55kgs with the magnesium cockpit, but the engine by only 20kgs, wouldn't have that sent the weight bias even further rearward and made the P115 a worse handling car?

Just making LOTS of assumptions of course...

 

Jackie Stewart supposedly liked twitchy cars but probably not the BRM. 1966 and 1967 must have been desperate years for him.