# New world record for steam powered car



## zephyra (Jan 2, 2008)

It only took 103 years!

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_...Area.0


----------



## FH&PB (Jan 2, 2008)

The record-holding Stanley Steamer made 127mph in 1906. After a century and what looks like a multi-million dollar computer-controlled carbon-fiber streamlined beast, they only make ... 136mph and 151mph? 

I'm not nearly as impressed by that as by the Stanley going 127!


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

You, Sir, have struck the nail firmly on the head.

The disappointment of making less than a 15% increase after all the technological advances achieved in other areas in the last 103 years must be crushing.

I remain ho-hum about the new record-breaking car, but in total awe of the first one, and the man who drove it.

tac
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Given that there has been zero development on steam cars for almost the same a mount of time when compared to other forms of propulsion, I think the result has been pretty remakable. 

Especially as the record is now held by the Brits.


----------



## Dave -- Use Coal (Feb 19, 2008)

I am still impressed by the Stanley. I wonder what the Stanley would be able to do with the new technology in body work. I was fortunate enough to see a Stanley several years ago at a Steamboat meet here in Texas. The road ready version of the Stanley is quite a machine.


----------



## hawkeye2 (Jan 6, 2008)

Actually there was quite a bit of development done on steam powered cars well into the 1920's by the Doble brothers, see the link below and do a search for Doble steam car as there is quite a bit of info avaliable. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doble_Steam_Car 

I am very interested in Land Speed Raceing and drove a modified 57 Studebaker to 160.5 (it ran 204.9 mph that weekend) just a few weeks ago. I am quite disapointed that there is not a steam powered vehicle out there that is capable or running in excess of 200 mph (Jay Leno are you listening?). That should be an atainable goal for a reciprocating engine and a turbine should be capable of far greater speeds. Checking the East Coast Timing Assocation rule book I can't find a class for external combustuion reciproating engines though suprisingly there is a class for "vehicles using turbine power (external combustion)" which must be wheel driven. There doesn't seem to be a class for internal combustion turbines. I'm sure that if someone showed up with a steam powered vehicle that passed tech inspection it would be allowed to run.


----------



## John Allman (Jan 2, 2008)

Top end speed varies with the square of the drag area and horsepower imposes an absolute limit on speed. A 15% increase is statistically a very significant increase. I can understand our bias towards a 100 year old steamer, but its bear skins and stone knives compared to the new car.


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

I'll second the remark by John as to the remarkable achievement given the second run at a peak speed of 150+ mph. That is impressive when one takes into consideration: The 3-ton, 25-foot-long vehicle has 12 boilers, and its steam gets superheated to 400 degrees Celsius before being injected into the turbine.


----------



## zephyra (Jan 2, 2008)

I think this is even more impressive....


----------



## Jeff Williams (Jan 8, 2008)

The team that is doing this has a nice website which gives a lot of technical details and photos at:

http://www.steamcar.co.uk/index.html


Relative to the post with video of the Besler steam-powered airplane, I was fortunate enough to have met Bill Besler and see the engine from the airplane (don't remember if the boiler was there as well) in 1966 or 1967 while I was a student at the University of California, Berkeley. Bill had leased or perhaps owned the former Doble Motors factory building in Emeryville, CA for his continuing development of steam-powered vehicles and was a consultant for William Brobeck and Assoc, the engineering firm for which I worked part-time while a student at UC. He also had possession of all of the original Doble drawings, which were all done with India ink on linen - real pieces of engineering artwork. WAAAY before CAD and laser jet printers!


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

Pretty sad that a twin cylinder motor and a single boiler did 127 and it took a steam turbine with 12 boilers to do 151.


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Kovacjr on 28 Aug 2009 04:46 AM 
Pretty sad that a twin cylinder motor and a single boiler did 127 and it took a steam turbine with 12 boilers to do 151. 



My point entirely.

A gentleman we meet up with once a year at the Welshpool gala has three Stanley steamers, and they are the epitome of silent engineering design with zero harmful emissions....

tac
http://www.ovgrs.org/


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Yep sad day with all the high tech stuff and could not muster more speed than what they did. I'll vote for the Stanly as still the best. Later RJD


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Pollution: Yes and no.... like the electric car and hydro power transports it all depends on the fuel source being utilized. Yes, the emission from the out the tailpipe is zero but no in that petro was being used and thus the refining has a pollution factor to it.


While I love the Stanley steamers (kinda the Babe Ruth of steam cars) and it would win a "road race" vs. the hi-tech version it lost in the "drag race" by a significant speed about 20% faster(1/4 mile race it would be 10 sec vs 13 sec cars). Another way of looking at the 20% increase would be to race a Honda Civic vs. Caparo T-1 (0-100-0 in 11 sec and 0-60 in 2.5 ). Then there is the mpg of a Stanley: 
The main fuel, kerosene, could give you a range of MPG of between 8 - 12 miles per gallon. Water usage also varies. On a non-condensing car you could get between 0.5 - 2.0 MPG. On a condensing car this usage could go as high as 8 - 12 MPG. Finally, the practical aspect of riding in one...On today's modern roads a Stanley can easily and comfortably do 35 MPH. Greater speed is possible if you and your passengers are comfortable driving with rudimentary suspension, primitive friction brakes, and skinny tires. 











In fact one of the people involved with the promotion of Stanley Steamers located in the Tri-State area: 
Mr. Thomas C. Marshall Jr. of Auburn Heights
http://www.auburnheights.org/stanley/stanley.asp









Our Stanley then the real deal



























Mr. Marshall out for a drive around the property with the steam powered bus











Refreshment...steam powered what else would one expect:









By the way one should see the operating live steam locomotives on the property!!


----------



## StevenJ (Apr 24, 2009)

I know that everyone here is a steam nut and well it wouldn't be a live steam forum if it weren't for us fellow steam nutters. Even newbs like myself factor into that. However, as nice as a hobby steam cars are I can see how the gasoline internal combustion engine won out in the long term. Just wanted to make a few statements along with some questions. 

First of all, when running these engines, I assume just like on a steam train, the water gets condense in the cylinders when first fired up and there must be some kind of drain cock on them. Is there any kind of drain cock? Also as a thought, what kind of safety would have against theft? No I'm serious about this question. If all it takes to start is someone to light a bbq lighter to fire up the hexane. What keeps someone from stealing it? Would padlocking the firebox door be suficient? Do they have safety valves that pop off after reaching a certain pressure? 

There are a lot of things to consider. From my basic understanding, based upon some preliminary reasearch on the Stanley Steamers, it has a kerosene tank that starts af flame that ignites the gasoline fuel load to heat up the boiler. Now I hear individuals here noting about the 'dangeorus' carbonmonoxide emissions internal combustion gasoline makes. Now wouldn't burning gasoline cause the same effect as being combusted by a spark plug? I really am not sure to be honest but I mean heck either way the fuel is being ignited. Also, doesn't a little bit of oil expel out of the exhaust pipe as the engine runs? My little live steam locos do this, the cylinders also leak excess oil as well. I'm just not buying the whole 'enviornmentally' friendly thing. Again, I think the Stanely Steamers and the steam cars are neat and definitely have their place. However, liking them doesn't mean that you have to knock the internal combustion engine.


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Stanley steamer could have run on peanut or cooking oil like some are promoting with diesel- truly a "flex fuel vehicle". Efficiency and reducing pollution (well ahead of the times)- Fuel is atomized and then the updated Stanley steamers used condensers to collect the steam exhaust of water to to used to preheat into water tank. As to stealing, it would had been a time consuming task, Yet, like today those who want your car simply override all the alarms and just drive them away on a flatbed truck.
[script removed]


----------

