-
Hey Guest!
British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Boring comparison
- Thread starter DrEntropy
- Start date
Share this page
mikephillips
Yoda
Offline
The Ferrari as I recall was initially a 3L overall displacement, not that big when divided by 12 individual cylinders
Online
How about a 1.5 litre V16 BRM
Offline
Online
I was lucky enough to be competing at Shelsley walsh when they were celebrating the BRM marque
So could get up close and personal. And to hear the ridiculously glorious sound
One V16 is a factory recreation.
And how about this rear brake system on another model !!
So could get up close and personal. And to hear the ridiculously glorious sound
One V16 is a factory recreation.
And how about this rear brake system on another model !!
Online
it’s reported to be 12000rpm and equates to about 185mph subject to gearing. In period. But notoriously unreliable.
Perhaps the recreation has had the bugs removed ?
But what a car for the period.
Offline
I noticed that monster trucks have one big disc located on each drive shaft.
None I think on the axles.
Offline
A bit more on the V16 (showed up on my Facebook feed)
The idea of a 1.5L V16 seems hilarious by modern racing standards, especially to us in the land of BangShift where 900-cube V8s are prowling drag strips. That being said, in the world of Formula One racing back in the early 1950s engine designers had a choice. They could design a 4.5L naturally aspirated engine or a 1.5L blower motor.
BRM (British Racing Motors) decided to go the 1.5L route with their V16. It sported a comical 1.95-inch bore and 1.9-inch stroke. It was capable of 12,000 rpm and when equipped with a Rolls-Royce two stage centrifugal blower the engine made 600hp. Reportedly that Rolls blower was forcing 82 pounds of boost through the engine!
Interestingly, the engine featured two valves per cylinder. We’re guessing the tiny bore may have been a factor in that. These valves make Buick Nailhead valves look massive! How about 1.25in on the intake and 1.09in on the exhaust?
It’s no wonder why Formula One cars were revered so much back in this era. An engine like this in a custom racing chassis was the space shuttle of the day.
The idea of a 1.5L V16 seems hilarious by modern racing standards, especially to us in the land of BangShift where 900-cube V8s are prowling drag strips. That being said, in the world of Formula One racing back in the early 1950s engine designers had a choice. They could design a 4.5L naturally aspirated engine or a 1.5L blower motor.
BRM (British Racing Motors) decided to go the 1.5L route with their V16. It sported a comical 1.95-inch bore and 1.9-inch stroke. It was capable of 12,000 rpm and when equipped with a Rolls-Royce two stage centrifugal blower the engine made 600hp. Reportedly that Rolls blower was forcing 82 pounds of boost through the engine!
Interestingly, the engine featured two valves per cylinder. We’re guessing the tiny bore may have been a factor in that. These valves make Buick Nailhead valves look massive! How about 1.25in on the intake and 1.09in on the exhaust?
It’s no wonder why Formula One cars were revered so much back in this era. An engine like this in a custom racing chassis was the space shuttle of the day.
Offline
But strangely, that photo isn't of the BRM 1.5L V16...It's a photo of BRM's 3.0L H16.
Can't recall who said it... Someone once pointed out to me that "today" (60s-80s), the best & brightest engineers design spacecraft, but in the 1930s-50s the same cream-of-the-crop engineers were designing automobiles.
Seems to me "today" the best are designing "bitcoins" and other fictional nothings
Offline
Those aren't the best.Seems to me "today" the best are designing "bitcoins" and other fictional nothings
GregW
Yoda
Online
I'd argue the Webb telescope and landing on a comet hurling through space. Helicopters on Mars anyone?Seems to me "today" the best are designing "bitcoins" and other fictional nothings
Offline
Agreed.