POWERED BY ROCKET FUEL! The Story of the Brabham BT52 (1983)
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 07. 2024
- F1 teams are always trying to think up the next best thing to extract maximum performance. Aero, engines, turbos... Fuel?
That's what Brabham attempted in 1983. They used this weird blend of fuel that allowed them to get rid of a detonation issue in the engines that allowed them to turn up the engines a little bit. Then a little bit more, and a bit more, and a bit more still. It's because of this car, that turbo engines went crazy in the mid 1980s.
So how did they do it? Let's have a look!
Enjoy! And remember to like and subscribe for more!
AFFILIATES:
F1 Store: f1.pxf.io/n19my9
Mick's Garage: www.micksgarage.com/home?ref=...
-----
Wikipedia images used under the following CC Licenses:
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Flickr images used under the following CC Licenses:
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
------
Business enquiries: amsimracing@gmail.com
Patreon: www.patreon.com/aidanmillward
Discord: / discord
Instagram: amillward67
Twitter: Aidan_Millward
Steam: AdmiralLaWind
----
CPU: Ryzen 5 5600 @3.7gHz
Motherboard: MSI B450 Mortar Micro ATX
RAM: Corsair Vengeance 2x 8gb @ 3000mHz
GPU: nVidia GeForce RTX 3060
Editing Software: Sony Vegas 14 Steam Edition
Wheel: Simucube 2 Pro - Cube Controls Formula Pro Rim/DIY Ascher D Shape Rim
Pedals: Heusinkveld Sprints - Hry
British GP swag now on the F1 store! Until Monday you can use F130 for 30% off. Exclusions Apply and other legal stuff.
I still can't believe they had these 1200 BHP engines. Just imagine, 1300 BHP engines. It must have been like stepping on a bomb, throttling a 1500 BHP engine. Why were these 1700 BHP engines so powerful anyway? Kudos to BMW for designing a 2000 BHP engine. No wonder the lap records were so low with 2500 BHP on tap.
I saw what you did there ;)
I heard in qualifying trim they could almost hit 2 or 3 % the speed of light at hockenhiem.
chuckle
@@89natobus true ,but for one lap only!
It's really impressive how the tyres could even put down 3000hp let how strong a gearbox that can handle 3200hp has to be. Hockenheim straights must have been terrifying with 3500hp
My favourite Charlie Whiting quote, refering to his time at Brabham, "We never had a legal car" ...it takes a cheater to catch a cheater...
I love how people think octane means more explosive when it actually means the opposite
Haha, exactly 😂
"A problem that is looked upon ... with great fondness".
As someone who lived through that time period ... ain't that the truth.
i dont know how to put this in words but a sound comes to mind that used to be on wide world of sport ad breaks in Melbourne. - 'wowbaaaaaaawowbaaaaaaaawowow.....baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah'
when you know you know.
none of this pop and whistle VL Calais crap so it doesnt go bang....
“A small amount is a big amount in Formula 1” this quote should go on your head stone because it is flawless.
Hey I feel proud knowing you used my BT52 pic of Patrese's car at the 1983 Detroit Grand Prix garage at 13:08. Woot!! ;) Also as usual love your historical video's. I saw the BT52 in Detroit and for a 6 week design it was very well packaged tidy design. It looked brilliant.
One other great fact about the BMW M12 engine in the BT52 is the block was the same cast iron block used in the BMW M10 engine used in so many BMW road cars. To get better heat annealing of the M12 blocks, Paul Rosche would get used M10 blocks from BMW employee factory cars and use them. Later on BMW would install ovens to perform the heat treating of new blocks, but in 1982-3 the BMW M12 engines were originally production car blocks. Pretty amazing.
FYI; the Methylbenzene that they used, is also known as Toluene, and is one of the T's in T.N.T. So potent stuff and good and burning quickly.
It's also a solvent used in things like paint thinners, so that's why it was destroying the other engines and that guys watch.
I've heard mention of Toluene being used back in the day in Sprint Cars here in the US. A saying I've heard is "If the flame is green, they're running toluene"
tl;dr biiiiiiiigbadaboom
@@user-re6sg9em5j "No Ricky Bobby, youre not on fire...."
That turbo and ground effect period between 1978 and 1988 is arguably the most interesting era of F1 on the engineering front. F1's not even my primary racing series of choice but being able to go back to that era and watch a race at Monza or Hockenheim would be the dream, even if I need to wear a Hazmat suit and armor to protect myself from fumes and debris.
2 things.
1, the BT52 is one of the most beautiful F1 cars ever.
2. I have heard that the fuel was a mix of Toluene and Heptane and, during one of the US rounds, the EPA was horrified that the pit crews were wearing HAZMAT gear and demanded to know what was in the fuel. The teams, already on their way out of the country for the next race, simply blew them off.
I've heard similar, and that it was that chemical cocktail that essentially precipitated the banning of the turbo cars, because the fuel was so dangerous in every conceivable way. Even the nitro used in drag racing isn't *that* dangerous!
fuel definitely had toluene, you can find a paper by honda on it, in qualifying trim they were running in excess of 80% toluene
Such a gorgeous car and an insane engine. I had a BMW 320i in high school in 83 and remember being so excited that Nelson Piquet won with “my” engine 😂
kids these days just dont know what it was like when an f1 car was just a road car tuned into a hand grenade.
the old saying about bathurst here was 'win on sunday, buy on monday' - worked well until it turned into mercedes benz's that dont exist, nissan... somethings... that dont exist, and two other cars that outsold anything else for decades being 'not popular any more' because tv and disappeared entirely, now we get to watch boilerplate v8s in boilerplate chassis with plastic panels to make them look like american cars, one of which you cant buy here, and the other one just makes the owner look trashy. ArE SPorT NuT PopULaR NeMOr Y U no WAtCh? from one side and 'no one watches this any more, its not popular, so now we can get rid of it.... SAVE THE TREES!' - gassed up from both sides. if they would just throw their fingers up at the fanbase and say 'f you we going full electric' we could walk away and save time, and they would be honest.
My grandfather used to work for a large Chemical Company in the United States in the 70's. this company produced propylene oxide among other high-test fuel additives. He had a friend that worked at the local military base. he would slide some 110 or higher octane fuel under the fence every so often. This fuel would go in the race car on Saturday nights and it's safe to say he went through many a big block Chevrolet engine. but while it lasted that car was setting track records whist being a bomb on four wheels😂
You can buy 110 at most tracks
German coal was so poor as coal that it leant itself to being used as synthetic oil. The chemical put in the rocket fuel was the same additive that went in to C3 and C4 fuel for the luftwaffe. I'll have to dig through a load of old research papers from the end of the war and see if I can find the name of it
There were unholy mixes of benzene, toluene and even xylene in some cars. BMW has some god awful stuff involving paraffins and aromatics.
Most people eventually settled on about 78% toluene solutions.
@@richardpurves the anti knock chemicla was one specific chemical that they added. Thee fuel itself wasn't much better than the peroxide/alcohol fuel mix for the v2
I have a pic of the BT-51 i can show you, it was what Murray called a "pit stop" car with an undersized fuel tank and pneumatic, on board jacks and looked like a slimmed down BT-50. And not all of the 80's turbo's suffered as badly as the BMW did with lag, the fact is the inline 4's only used one big turbo where the V6's used two of different sizes. Honda actually had a inter-cooler bypass that sent boost directly to the engine at lower RPM the slowly phased in the longer inter-cooler path as revs rose. And the secret ingredient was
Toluene, which is the second T in TNT and also used in paint thinner. It reduces the engine's habit of pre-igniting the fuel under high boost and temps. the team members the fueled the cars wore chemical proof overalls and respirators. To be fair the fuel isn't too much more dangerous than what Merc and Auto Union used in the 1930's.
Brabham was what I term a "1.5" car team. The second entry was superfluous. Patrese's reliability was atrocious.
I was at the Long Beach Grand Prix from 1979 to 1983. I loved the looks of the Brabham BT52. All of the cars were looking the same with the side pods for ground effects, I was so happy to see them disappear, and the cars started to look unique again. That is one BIG gripe I have about so much of top tier racing, they all look the same.
Still, Furious Facist Fighter Fuel would be a brand name one would remember.
FFFF
sounds like a right wing uk party
The fast and de Führer-ist
"The Master Race...ing Fuels"
@@cornishcat11 *slow clap* feel better now you have that off your chest? have a snickers.
There was an article or articles in the US based Roundel BMW Club magazine that had some other historical information. The engine was developed in Group 5 Touring cars and also once at Le Mans. Look at the Rodenstock 2002 and the factory 320i race cars. The supposed Le Man entry was up to 900hp and lasted, if I remember, 13 laps. Yes, Renault did F1 first but BMW started before that actually racing with the 2002. Lastly, make F1 use stock blocks.
Edit: The fuel was said to be worth about 200hp when the kinks were worked out.
The merlin was supercharged, it didn't use exhaust gas to drive the compressor (that would be a turbocharger). The exhausts on the merlin simply pointed backwards in the airflow to add direct thrust to the plane.
The supercharger was at the back, though; closer to Ferrari's F1 motor than Merc or Honda's split turbo.
Detonation is when the air fuel mixture in the cylinder explodes before the spark plug sets it off. It happens when the temperature inside the combustion chamber are too high for the fuel being used
The additives that they added to the fuel were actually more stable than the basic fuel that you could get from the pump. That means that they could withstand those higher temperatures in the combustion chamber and would be set off by the plugs
No it's not.
Pre-ignition is when the air-fuel mixture lights before the spark plug fires.
Detonation is after the spark plug fires.
@@Surestick88detonation is not burning. Detonation is the mixture exploding and expanding faster than the normal rate. Whether it’s before or after ignition the goal is to burn the fuel, not have little “bombs” go off in the combustion chamber whenever they want.
Pilot handbook 8083-25B. Can’t really argue FAA definitions.
What is generally (and technically incorrectly) called detonation (or knock) in an engine is when the fuel ignites too early, or too close to the piston, resulting in the expanding shockwave hitting the piston while the rest of the engine is still pushing the piston upward. This puts enormous strain on the piston, connecting rods, and crankshaft. It can be caused by excessive compression heating, or hot spots on the: piston, cylinder wall, head, valves, etc..
To put it into basic terms, if normal combustion is like a hand gently pushing the piston down, detonation is slamming the piston down with a sledgehammer.
I used to work in a printing plant that had Gravure presses so tolulene was used that stuff is no joke
Methylbenze is toluene. Toluene is used in small amounts in regular fuel. It's still used as a homebrew octane booster by some as it can be purchased at the hardware store and a gallon or two in your tank will cause a good octane increase.
The big problem with it as a fuel is it vapourizes at 70C (if memory serves) so it generally needed to be heated (I believe they used a coolant to fuel heat exchanger for this) to be used in large percentages like in F1 engines.
It's got a good octane rating though, 114-ish I think?
Tetraethyl lead is, of course, the daddy of octane boosters (WWII aviation fuel got up to 150 octane using it) but it's bad for a number of reasons (neurotoxicity both as a chemical and from the lead in the exhaust, incompatibility with O2 sensors which affects the ability to use really accurate engine management, deposits and fouling in the combustion chamber).
Just because something melts a commonly used material doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. We drink ethanol which will destroy some fuel hoses, and the DEET in insect repellent that we spray on our skin will very quickly melt lycra.
Pure toluene has a RON rating of 130, RON being the rating system used in most of the world, except notably the US where it is AKI
I know there’s way different design philosophies behind them, but the BT52 and Nissan Deltawing shape, like you said that dart shape, just makes the cars look super fast and super cool. It makes me want to put that Brabham livery on a Deltawing to see how it looks.
Ah, the best looking f1 car of all time. Good stuff.
in old books for car mechanics here there can be found a formula or recipe for racing /high octane fuel. its a combination of every liguid that burns + a little of petrol. its there only for starting the engine when its cold .
Hey Aidan! Got a few things about fuel detonation and the way it works: Detonation is when the fuel ignites _too early_ from the fuel-air charge in the engine becoming _so hot_ as it's compressed by the piston that it exceeds the auto-ignition temperature of the fuel. This is a BAD thing in any spark-ignition engine because you don't want the fuel-air charge to combust until the spark sets it off, so that the ignition can be timed to exactly when it's needed for most efficient burn with most power extracted from it. Detonation, also called predetonation and pinging for the characteristic sound an engine makes when it's happening, can also utterly WRECK an engine. It can burn holes in pistons, cause rough running, and a whole lot of other nasty effects. Octane boosters are fuel additives that increase the auto-ignition temperature of the fuel so that it's less susceptible to detonation, and is the reason why we had leaded fuel for way longer than should have been necessary at the pump, and also why the general aviation industry _still_ uses leaded fuel, although there are already viable drop-in replacement unleaded fuels currently seeking FAA approval.
In germany, Aral offers drop-in replacement for avgas and it’s EASA approved. A use a lot in my track-day car
Rumor has it that the engine pushed out as much power as the dyno of that era could handle...1200hp maximum...which means it could push a lot more...
Another rumor is that those BMW engines where based on used M15 BMW 316 blocks that where taken from customers cars because they where stressed enough to handle that insane power...they where kept in a backyard where the staff was going and pissing them to help with the strength of those blocks!
Always enjoying the content, and the opening music
Really appreciated
Hell yeah video posted 2 seconds ago gang
I love these, please never stop
Thanks, ive been asking for this one. Legend ❤❤❤
Well done, another good one M8y!!
I love this stuff.
Great video Aidan. Thanks for the education :)
Best looking F1 car 👍
The BT52 reminds me the pre wingcars from the 70s. Small sidepods close to the rear wheels. A concept launched by Lotus 72... Murray was looking back for solutions...
The goodwood festival of speed pictures are always good 👍🏻
Like you, I love these history videos. Please keep looking for any reason to make them 😊
'Load the Brabham with the Rocket Fuel, load it with the Warriors..."
A “Rulebenders” series would be awesome, especially if you could get the designers involved too
BT52 my beloved
The big takeaway really is Gordon Murray invented the racing strategic fast pit-stop, not just for short fuelling but also pre-heated tires and single release wheel nuts. Clever stuff.
Probably the best combination of all times a: Nelson Piquet + BT52.
1983, not only the year of my birth, was also the 2nd time in F1 history, and hasn't happened since, that the World Champion didn't drive for a team that finished in the top 2 in the constructors.
Piquet won and Brabham were 3rd and the year before, 1982, Rosberg won and Williams were 4th
Supercharging was pretty standard on fighters in WW2 for altitude compensation and power. Turbos were frequently stacked on top of them, eg the P47 or P38.
Not just fighters, bombers and transports also used supercharging, the Douglass Dakota for example.
Rocket fuel can't melt steel beams
True but some of the hypergolic fuel substances (self igniting on mixing) could corrode aluminium which is where that reputation comes from.
@@MsZeeZedI'm just taking the piss
Oh sweet summer child! There is much more than just one rocket fuel.
Look online for _"Ignition! An informal history of liquid rocket propellants"_ by John D. Clark. It is a jaw-dropping account on the topic, a full history lesson on some of the most vile and nasty chemicals that can be concocted. It is a fascinating read, if you have some basic understanding of chemistry.
The Soviets used to love Devil's Venom for their rockets, which was a nickname for a hypergolic combo (meaning instant ignition if the fluids get in contact) of red fuming nitric acid and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH). Both are highly corrosive and UDMH is very very toxic as a bonus.
@@Hydrazine1000 see above
@@judethedude96 taking the piss is _actually_ another legend, when it comes to the turbo era. BMW, it is said, took line-4 engine blocks from high mileage cars, left them outside, had factory workers pee on the blocks while on breaks, and use those properly broken in blocks as basis for their turbocharged inline four F1 engines.
And seriously, _Ignition!_ is a really fascinating read, so grab the public domain PDF if you can.
Some would say that in 82 Cossie DFV engines were used to push BMW engine development.
I never knew that about the fuel!
Fun fact, Rosche was responsible for the engine in the McLaren F1. Undeniably best looking car ever built!
it was toluene in a 80-83% mix with the rest being race-gasoline and a dab of acetone as stabilizer ;)
Speaking of rockets, how about the Indy race car who ran by Tony Kanaan that a jet fuel was used?
An episode about what fuel Honda engines used a few years later would be fun, because that fuel used toluene. A lot of it.
Also: detonation is fuel exploding before the spark, not unburnt fuel burning afterwards.
yeah the famous qualifying spec fuel, if you let a drop fall it would evaporate before reaching the floor
@9.05 82 standings up to canada
As I understand it, the fuel resisted igniting under compression alone, which you can imagine is the real hassle with a forced-induction car. Toluene, if you hadn't noticed already, can be combined with three nitrogens to create trinitrotoluene, or TNT. That fuel must've been lovely stuff. (Also, I think the V-2s ran on peroxide fuel. Insert "blond master race" joke here.)
The V2 used Peroxide / Permanganate to drive its fuel pressure pumps. The main fuel mix for thrust was Alcohol & LOX.
The Me163 “rocket plane” used Hydrogen Peroxide as its main fuel. The stock was found to be so contaminated post WWII the US Army sold it all off to a hair care company who diluted it down for that 50s bottled blonde look.
V2 main fuel was Ethanol and Liquid Oxygen. The stuff you're thinking of was to power the turbo pumps, which as memory serves was calcium permanganate and hydrogen peroxide.
I have been looking at JOHN FORSE on drag funny car racing the last of the greats
I think the idea may have come, at least in part, from the Indy teams using nitromethane, hydrazine, and propylene oxide as fuel additives during qualifying. Of course, with straight methanol as the "base" fuel, Indy didn't really have a detonation issue to solve. BTW, most all additives cause the fuel to burn SLOWER as a means of curbing detonation. A slower burning fuel is less likely to reach its auto-ignition point under high boost and high heat conditions.
Methylbenzene is another name for toluene (which you did pronounce correctly). It won't dissolve you, but it'll have a damgud go at rubber or many plastics.
Lotus-Renault 98T = Big Bag Car Mk3.
Brabham BT52 = The World's Fastest Milk Float. With or without that rocket fuel.
Bam
I've never heard someone accurately describe an electronic boost controller in such a inaccurate way.
Your definition and understanding of detonation is wrong. Detonation is where the fuel air mixture in the cylinder ignites without the spark plug firing, and before the plug fires, usually well before top dead centre. This causes the pressure in the cylinder to be at maximum while the piston is still on it's compression stroke. Generally detonation is caused by too much pressure in the cylinder, which causes the charge to become very hot and spontaneously combust. The octane rating of a fuel is essentially a rating of how resistant too knock, or detonation it is. 99 octane will put up with more pressure and heat before it combusts than 95. it has nothing to do with left over fuel in the cylinder . .
Ooooh nice topic. (30 seconds ago :o )
Shame that the BT51 was destroyed - a few of the 1st Gen Ground Effect cars are extinct. The early TG183 no longer exists either sadly…
...but hey you can have a piece of them on your wrist now...
😅😅😅😅😅
Next the Brabham BT55 ?
That one is so tragic as it looks fantastic and I think it might be one of the first ever cars in general (not just racing cars) to have a 7-spped Manual.
Then you had Ferrari with the 2018/19 engine that was rumored to have used vaporized intercooler oil via a controlled leak for that power boost.
That was Mercedes actually. Ferrari was injecting extra fuel in between the intervals that the FIA sensor was gathering fuel flow measurements...allegedly.
@@WushuMR2 To be a fly on the wall in those closed door sessions
Luxembourg and drugs, I count that as a win 🇱🇺😂
Those price estimates for the fuel sound highly dubious to me.
If it was mostly methlybenzene (i.e. toluene), then it shouldn't cost much more than ordinary petrol.
All of the petrochemicals listed by name are mass produced and cheaper than chips.
If the numbers are true, then BASF were taking the piss.
Derek Daly called Witches Brew
Oh, course it was.
In 2050 people will start saying those cars had 2500hp
why do i feel like youtuge will demonetise this
a great exampl of turbo lag in cars today have a drive of the Smart Roadster its just like the formula 1 cars of the time
@@fredericktennant9151 my dad’s 3008 diesel has AWFUL lag as well.
A question for you. When did F1 and Indycar stop Friday qualifying and why? I liked that format better.
@@karlkramberger6256 f1 stopped it end of 1995. Went to a one hour session on Saturday which was better for TV.
Thanks.
If you want to get the correct power values for vintage cars you need to read literature from the time. I watched the 1983 season and have plenty of literature from that year. BMW themselves released a press statement before the European GP at Brands Hatch (The penultimate race of the season), claiming their engine was producing 700bhp in Qualifying and 640bhp in the races. They were most definitely not producing 1200bhp or anywhere near it, the engine was developed over the years to indeed produce those sort of figures. The BMW engine wasn't even the most powerful engine for most of the 1983 season. It was at Zandvoort where the BMW surpassed the Ferrari in terms of horsepower.
Detonation is pre-ignition, right?
Bro, can you put more adverts in. Just cos you're becoming a decently sized channel doesn't mean you have to rinse every single opportunity to cash in
Ahh, the 80s, when car designers took 12 shots of gin, 3 injections of heroine, 5 lines of cocaine, and looked at a sheet of tracing paper and said "I MAKE RACING CARS."
Weren't the turbo engines lighter than the atmos?
@@pablohabibefigueiredo7142 they were heavier. Tyrrell had to ballast the hell out of the car in 84 to get it up to the minimum weight.
You make me wonder what the Apartheid-era Sasol plants were producing \m/
Not literal rocket fuel
Is that even possible from a chemistry standpoint, just what would you need to build the car out of to have it powered by quite literal rocket fuel though. Need to break out the textbooks for this one
Not a lot. They burn hydrogen. Unless you mean the solid fuel they burn on takeoff, so a steam engine, I guess
It depends on what kind of rocket fuel you choose. The most common fuel is kerosene, which is closer to diesel than to petrol, so a diesel engine, then. Next more common is hydrogen, which is totally impractical for F1. Hypergolic rocket fuel is not really suitable for internal combustion engines, and is really toxic.
Nitromethane is commonly used in dragsters and has enough oxygen bound inside it for it to work as a monopropellant (ie it can burn without oxygen and could be used as a rocket fuel or explosive). Iirc the stochiometric air:fuel ratio is something like 1.5:1 (compared to 14.7:1 for gasoline) but in dragsters they use something closer to 0.5:1 as it will still burn like that
And of course you can build a hydrogen combustion engine like BMW did, but that isn't really rocket fuel without an oxidizer and will actually put out less power because the air:fuel ratio has to be something like 80:1. BMW's hydrogen 7 series got 200-odd hp out of a big V12...
Remember in addition that rocket engines do not rely upon atmospheric oxygen - they wouldn't operate in the vacuum of space if they did. Instead, rocket engines are operated using a mixture of fuel and oxidising agent, both of which are carried aboard the rocket in separate tanks (I'll omit the complications of solid fuels and monopropellants at this point, or this post will become an encyclopaedia volume!).
Now, if you decide to run an engine on rocket propellants, you don't need atmospheric oxygen. But you DO need to take account of the fact that oxidisers used in rocket propulsion are VERY chemically reactive. Which means that even at room temperature, they can react with numerous structural metals - hello corrosion/rust on a grand scale.
Finding structural materials that will resist chemical attack by powerful oxidising agents AND possess excellent mechanical strength, as you can imagine, isn't easy. Use titanium and that rules out using hydrogen in your propellant, because one weak point of titanium chemically is hydrogen embrittlement. The SR-71 is a case study to cover in detail here, as well as the need for cadmium free tools to work on titanium artefacts.
Then you have the elevated temperatures to consider. Which is why exotic alloys involving small, but VERY expensive, quantities of rhenium start to play a part. Rocket propellants are capable of generating a LOT more heat energy than standard internal combustion fuels, and building an engine to keep that heat energy under control will soon introduce you to numerous design headaches.
Plus, a structural failure in an engine using rocket propellants is ALWAYS spectacularly explosive. It will not take the diligent long to find nice video clips of rocket engines undergoing "rapid unscheduled disassembly". NOT a phenomenon you want to see materialise on an F1 racetrack.
If you want to learn about the hilarious and terrifying world of experimental rocket propellants, pick up a copy of "Ignition!" by John D. Clark. That's a verbal white knuckle ride many here will enjoy. :)
If it already costs, say, $50 million to build an F1 engine using regular-ish internal combustion fuels, imagine the cost of building one to run on rocket propellants. Not going to happen any time soon.
why would they use *40 year old* rocket fuel anyway? there's surely something newer you could find.
Bernie strikes again.
But Piquet isn’t an all-time great! 😅😅😅😅😅😅
You guys always get this wrong!
Boost numbers are in absolute numbers...geez...not one CZcamsr gets this right.
Everything in fia or IMSA is in ABSOLUTE PRESSURE.. fmd..
Spoiler alert ⚠️ The butler did it ⚠️
Here’s a list of errors in this episode:
5:03 The only turbo/electric combination cars I know of are Formula 1 cars and the new 911. That's why the MGU-H, as it's called, is being dropped for 2026 because, up to now, nobody is using it on the road. Turbo lag is reduced by turbo geometry these days.
5:12 The clever thing that Mercedes came up with is splitting the driving turbine from the compressing turbine via a driveshaft, making the packaging better and keeping the compressor cooler because it's farther away from the very hot driving turbine. This has nothing to do with the Merlin engine of the Spitfire, which was supercharged. In a supercharged engine, the compressor is driven by being physically coupled with the rotation of the crankshaft not by exhaust gas as in a turbocharged engine.
11:30 The Aggregat 4 / V2 shown used a mixture of alcohol and water as fuel (approximately 75% alcohol) plus liquid oxygen. That's how liquid rocket motors work: you mix more than one liquid in the combustion chamber and ignite it. Bonus points for hypergolic fuels that ignite themselves on contact!
Aiden, you are an awesome storyteller, but please have someone check the technical details. It's not the first error I spotted in one of your videos. For example, I don't think you ever realised that DFV (Double Four Valve) doesn't mean 'britsch' for 8 cylinders, but rather refers to 2 camshafts per cylinder bank and four valves per cylinder. At least you didn't say that in both the old and new DFV video.
PS: 10:05 I'm not sure about that one, but I think I read somewhere that the problem was not detonation but pre-ignition, which is very similar. However, pre-ignition involves the fuel igniting too early.
The original fuel of satan
"Spooly uppy thing" i wish u would stop using technical terms like that!