22 replies to this topic

[irvine99]

irvine99

[Bladrian]

Two things about this car that was a bit unlike Chunky's usual designs:

The design was a dead-end street, and

the car was just plain OGLY.

[WGD706]

In 1971 Chapman sprang a major surprise. One of the Indy 56 turbines was converted to comply with the F1 regulations. In went a Pratt & Whitney STN76 engine of 500 bhp, mated to the existing four-wheel drive system. The whole concept fascinated Chapman. Though the car was bulky compared to the 72, which had become the F1 standard-setter, it was only intended as a prototype for a much more advanced contender for 1972.
The 56B's story is simply told. It was too heavy and was generally unloved by its drivers. But given a choice between a sorted 72 and the experimental 56B, it was not surprising that Emerson Fittipaldi and Reine Wisell plumped where possible for the former. Initially the car only appeared in non-championship races, failing to finish its first three for niggling reasons that lay mainly in the suspension, but it would run strongly at Hockenheim later in the year in a combined F1/F5000 non-championship race, before an uncharacteristic engine failure.
But its great day so nearly came at the wet Dutch GP at Zandvoort that year. Test driver Dave Walker was entrusted with the car on his GP debut. He only qualified on the back row in dry practice, but come the race he was in sensational form. After only five laps he was 10th, and lapping quicker than established rainmasters Jacky Ickx and Pedro Rodriguez who would fight throughout for the lead. But then Walker slightly misjudged his braking going into the Tarzan hairpin at the end of the main straight, and Chapman matched the turbine's internal temperature as he saw his great chance evaporate as the unfortunate Australian parked the big car in the sand.

The 56B ran poorly at Silverstone in July, but Fittipaldi brought it home eighth at Monza. But that marked the end of turbines in F1. Observers felt the 56B could have won the Dutch GP that year but for Walker's spin, but much of the credit for the car's performance that day was put down to its four-wheel drive system. The engine had terrific low-speed torque but needed to operate in its high-rev range to gain maximum advantage. It was therefore thirsty. It also made heavy demands on the brakes as a result, because of its high idle speed. But in the wet...
Could the turbine have another chance, if the rules were changed to enable it to race again? Williams' technical director Patrick Head is cautious. 'Normally you wouldn't readily use a gas turbine engine for circuit racing because the speeds vary so much; turbines don't like that. But at Indy that wasn't the case. If an engineer were to look at the STP Paxton turbocar now, he would say that some bright minds were used to design it.'
It's interesting that Chapman blamed the failure of the 56B on its heavy four-wheel drive system which so many others thought to be one of its strengths, and planned a much lighter two-wheel drive version to take better advantage of the turbine's ability to convert torque.
http://www.grandprix...ft/ftdt014.html
http://8w.forix.com/b1-1298.jpg

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by Bladrian
Two things about this car that was a bit unlike Chunky's usual designs:

The design was a dead-end street, and

the car was just plain OGLY.

I'd argue with both.

The second's subjective, but as far as the first's concerned, look at the influence the 56 had on the 63, and the 64, and probably at least to some extent the shape of the '72 - not a dead end at all.

pete

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by petefenelon


I'd argue with both.

The second's subjective, but as far as the first's concerned, look at the influence the 56 had on the 63, and the 64, and probably at least to some extent the shape of the '72 - not a dead end at all.

pete

Completely right - and to me the car was simply beautiful in its own way.

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by WGD706
Initially the car only appeared in non-championship races, failing to finish its first three for niggling reasons that lay mainly in the suspension [B]

But don't forget Fittipaldi's brilliant 3rd place in heat #2 of the Silverstone BRDC International Trophy race!

[B] But its great day so nearly came at the wet Dutch GP at Zandvoort that year. Test driver Dave Walker was entrusted with the car on his GP debut. He only qualified on the back row in dry practice, but come the race he was in sensational form. After only five laps he was 10th, and lapping quicker than established rainmasters Jacky Ickx and Pedro Rodriguez who would fight throughout for the lead.

I've read this at other places, and indeed I saw him marching through the field like most Firestone shod competitors (see final result!), but is there any proof that his lap times were consistently quicker than those of Ickx and Rodriguez?
Based on the memory of my first hand experience I'm rather sceptical.

[Barry Boor]

In one of those remarkable co-incidences, this very morning I was scanning in all my Donington museum images from 3 different visits. This is one of the images:

[Gary C]

Great pic Barry!! This car is fresh from Monza 1971!!

[Kpy]

Originally posted by scheivlak





I've read this at other places, and indeed I saw him marching through the field like most Firestone shod competitors (see final result!), but is there any proof that his lap times were consistently quicker than those of Ickx and Rodriguez?
Based on the memory of my first hand experience I'm rather sceptical.

Good memory

Ickx's first five laps:

1' 49.62"
1' 45.53"
1' 41.82"
1' 41.33"
1' 40.92"

Walker's:

2' 08.30"
1' 50.46"
1' 49.90"
1' 49.16"
1' 46.00"

Source: Autocourse 1971-72, back when they published properly detailed lapcharts.

[Gary C]

...........and it's still a great looking car!

[Pete Stowe]

There's lots of pics of a 56 Indy car undergoing restoration at
www.avonaero.com/indycar.htm

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by Kpy


Good memory

Ickx's first five laps:

1' 49.62"
1' 45.53"
1' 41.82"
1' 41.33"
1' 40.92"

Walker's:

2' 08.30"
1' 50.46"
1' 49.90"
1' 49.16"
1' 46.00"

Source: Autocourse 1971-72, back when they published properly detailed lapcharts.

Thanks for the info, great!
I just began to wonder....

This puts remarks like "Observers felt the 56B could have won the Dutch GP that year but for Walker's spin" (from the www.grandprix.com article) in a certain perspective.

Even stranger is this: - from the usually infallible 8w !
"After its debut at the Race of Champions, Dave Walker was drafted in it to try it at Zandvoort. The young Australian could not believe his luck when the track was flooded by a huge thunderstorm. In the pouring rain, having started 22nd, Walker was leading the race within 5 laps, his four-wheel driven mount having helped him to the front with leaps and bounds."

Mattijs! How come?
To begin with, there wasn't a thunderstorm at all, and neither the track was flooded...
Just a cold, moderately wet and rather windy day between the dunes.....

[Manfred Cubenoggin]

I saw the grand daddy of this turbine F-1 project run at Mosport in the USAC event at Mosport in 1968. The entry featured no less the Graham Hill in the chair and I watched with some awe the car's performance through the esses and down the pit straight. Fast and handling well with very competitive speed. A huge plume of heat haze emerged from the car and shot skyward from the exhaust as it rocketed down the pit straight. Under power, it was virtually silent but off throttle, a distinct whistle was discernable. Sadly, the four-wheel drive did little to help Graham save the day when he skidded on oil from somebody's blown engine at corner three and he shunted the car with terminal damage. It was a DNS. Pity.

[DOHC]

Originally posted by petefenelon
I'd argue with both.

The second's subjective, but as far as the first's concerned, look at the influence the 56 had on the 63, and the 64, and probably at least to some extent the shape of the '72 - not a dead end at all.

As for ugly, I think that the 56B with all the add-on wings, air intakes and various paint jobs was far from a beauty. The original 56 from 1968 though, was a stunning beauty with its low, sleek, clean lines. Even the "Granatelli green" livery was better than what came later. Of course, it would have been nice to see the original 56 in BRG with the yellow stripe, but in 1968 it was already too late. Nevertheless, a bit of the striking appearance of the original 56 was in the livery.

On the technical side, I tend to agree that it was a dead end. 4WD wasn't the right way to go when wings entered the scene. Turbines were good at high speed circuits where the throttle lag didn't matter much. But it was splendid technology in the right environment. No wonder they banned it at Indy.

The dead end aspect is fairly visible in the 63 and the 64 though. Both were wasted efforts. It seems that the useful ideas were put into the 72. Wedge shape, 2WD but inboard front brakes, back to piston engine for better throttle response (including wins at Monaco, that would be hard fought in a turbine car!), a lighter chassis, sidepod radiators, wings and aero design that were well integrated, and could be developed and adapted to the fast changing aero understanding and regulations.

Of course, Maurice Phillippe did all those cars, and it's reasonable to believe that the highly successful 72 came out as the final evolution of a set of ideas he had experimented with between 1968 and 1970.

[Doug Nye]

The Formula 1 chassis with the 3-litre equivalency Pratt & Whitney gas turbine engine was essentially the same chassis in which poor Mike Spence had been fatally injured at Indy in 1968 - unless my kneejerk memory fails me. England v. South Africa rugby at the moment...now that IS important (...having given up on the Ashes cricket in exasperation...)

DCN

[Bladrian]

Yes. AND we're getting our sorry butts kicked ......

[Doug Nye]

Bladrian, mate - Field a bunch of stupid thugs - as opposed to a bunch of quite shrewd thugs - and you deserve it... Hurrah!



DCN

[Bladrian]

I can't believe it. Total match time - 240 minutes: tries - One. Crikey, the ladies in the canteen at our local rugby club can do better than that!

Ah, well. Back to cricket. I see the current ICC rankings put Aus first at 1.54, and us second at 1.53. Now - winning the series against Sri Lanka AND Pakistan (up next) will push us past the Aussies ......

Pity about the Ashes, Doug.

[Doug Nye]

Curses.... you noticed...

DCN

[Bladrian]

Nemmind, chum. England have now beaten the (previous) three best rugby teams in the world, one after the other. That's quite an achievement.

[Doug Nye]

[Racer.Demon]

Originally posted by scheivlak
Even stranger is this: - from the usually infallible 8w !

Mattijs! How come?

Felix, Rainer and Leif are usually infallible, I agree, but I'm afraid you can't say the same of yours truly - especially in his 1998 guise, when everything pre-'76 was clouded in mystery and he had to be tought just about everything by "Jedi master" Felix!

This is one of those things I meant to deal with when creating the new 8W - getting rid of all the errors in the early game answers - but this one clearly slipped through. Thanks for noticing.

I guess now is the time to be pleased with ourselves for strictly keeping to our amateur status... :

[Mac Lark]

Originally posted by Bladrian
Nemmind, chum. England have now beaten the (previous) three best rugby teams in the world, one after the other. That's quite an achievement.

They haven't played the NZ 1st XV yet.

England being so strong between world cups is a bit like when Ferrari used to win the winter world championship.

Remember when the scarlet cars would produce wonderful times and then crumble when the crunch came. The winter of 90/91 comes to mind.

England will have a very old team in Australia this time next year...