news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/8/...m
And to think that 55 years on that same badge would appear on a nasty Indian import.
Chris M
|
|
Reckon the Indian import will better 90mph, 0-60 in 14secs and 7 to 8 mpg though!
|
But which one would you prefer sitting on your driveway?
I remember seeing JET1 at the Science museum when I was about 10 years old. It still looked fantastic when I took my kids there last year.
Chris M
|
|
I agree it looks great and was certainly pioneering. The idea of a gas turbine engine in a car is great, ultra smooth, verry compact, high power-to-weight ratio etc however the almost complete lack of torque makes it impractical still today.
|
|
No problem with torque, the Lotus 56 was quick off the mark (by holding on the brakes) - so much torque that no gearbox. Main problems appear to be cost and fuel cons.
|
|
It used to pull a caravan, but the caravan disapeared in a pile of ash.
|
|
|
|
I think the main problem was fuel consumption couldn't be reduced in line with what manufacturers had hoped. They assumed that the gas turbine would replace the piston engine in cars in much the same way as it had done aeroplanes. How wrong could they have been?
|
|
|
|
Torque was/is a problem with gas turbines, they really only produce efficient power and torque at high engine speeds, you cannot just tickle the throttle and let the clutch out. I.e. rather all or nothing. Recopricating petrol or diesel engines are actually amazingly flexible in respect of useable engine speed/loads.
|
I recall that Motor magazine were loaned a road registered gas turbine BRM sports car in the 1960's. They complained about the length of time to fill it up from the gallon by gallon paraffin dispenser at their local garage.
--
I wasna fu but just had plenty.
|
For an interesting write up on the Lotus 56 referred to by SP, have a look at www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.php?file=car.php&car...6
With a bit more development, who knows?
|
|
Understand that the 56 had no gearbox, i.e. only one ratio though it did have a torque converter.
|
Lotus 56 - no clutch, no gearbox, no torque convertor - just direct drive (4WD) from power turbine. The PT is not connected directly to the gas generator (the 'core' engine), so the GG can run at high power at low or zero PT speed therfore a high torque is available at low or zero vehicle speed. This car worked so well they had to change the rules to ban it!
I agree that not much power is available at low GG speed (just like your petrol engine doesn't do much at 1000 rpm), and the throttle respose was poor. This was overcome by drivers by left foot braking (only 2 pedals, one foot for each!).
|
>> Lotus 56 - no clutch, no gearbox, no torque convertor - etc...
OK, so that's clear, the "torque conversion" was effectively within the engine, the non-linear conection between the GG and PT. At Zero vehicle speed the PT would not be turning at all so the CG would build up pressue behind it which would be "released" as the brakes were let off, max torque would be somewhere between zero PT speed and the PT speed that GG's ability to maintain pressure behind the PT reduced.
|
|
|
