The Worst Race Car Design Ever

Join the membership to fuel this channel on its way:
/ @visioracer
Patreon -
/ visioracer
Patreons -
Peter Della Flora
Brendan
Bill
andre surles
Michael Guerin
Crashbandit
John Stuart
EpicSeaDragon
John Johnson
Wilford Brimley
Disclaimer -
This video is fair use under U.S. copyright law because it is transformative in nature, uses no more of the original than necessary and has no adverse effect on the market for the original work.
Credits -
“Grand Prix 1935” by kohli79
• Grand Prix 1935
“Blender 3D Model 1935 MONACO - TROSSI DA COMPETIZIONE” by Joachim Bornemann
• Blender 3D Model 1935 ...
“Blender 3D Model Finished 1935 Monaco - Trossi Da Competizione” by Joachim Bornemann
• Blender 3D Model Finis...
“1935 Gran Premio d'Italia - Monza” by sagitt76
• 1935 Gran Premio d'Ita...
“Monaco-Trossi (1935) testing, RFactor GP Fantasy mod” by sagitt76
• Monaco-Trossi (1935) t...

[@CaptHollister]

I would think that the superchargers main purpose wasn't so much to create boost, but to provide scavenging which is otherwise near impossible on a radial two-stroke. If ever a video needed sound, this would be it: I don't think any of us has ever heard a screaming radial 16-cylinder two-stroke twingle.

[@m1sst4k37]

you are right about scavengning, but supercharger was installed to made boost too if you time ports in a way that exhaust ports closed before intake port closed, you will have some time to create positibe pressure in the cylinder

[@CrusaderSports250]

It would perform the same task as that used on a two stroke diesel, crankcase induction or a blower is the only way any two stroke works, the post forgets to mention that as a two stroke fires on every cycle it makes it more powerful than the figures would suggest, also a light back end is less critical in a front drive car, yes it may well brake away but provided the front wheels point where you want to go and you keep it lit it would be fine, would have been interesting to see it race.

[@CaptHollister]

@@CrusaderSports250 That's not quite true. All two-strokes used in motorcycles and power equipment use crankcase induction. The air-fuel-oil mixture is pulled into the crankcase by the low pressure caused by the rising piston. When the piston descends it pushes on the mixture which forces it up transfer ports and into the cylinder. This is referred to as piston-port induction as all the gas movements, intake or exhaust are controlled by the moving piston blocking or unblocking different openings (ports) in the cylinder. Big two-stroke diesels use blowers and exhaust valves to achieve the same control, whereas the two-stroke in the video used the split-single design to separate the intake side from the exhaust side of the cylinder, obviating the need for an exhaust valve, but, being a radial, it couldn't achieve the separate sealed crank chamber for each cylinder required for crankcase induction, so the designer went with a blower instead.

[@a64738]

@@CrusaderSports250 250hp is 250hp and it is 100hp less and that is WITH the fireing on every cycle...

[@ItsDaJax]

​@@CrusaderSports250 Unless you're drag racing, a light rear on a fwd is very critical if you want it to handle well. If you've ever driven a fwd car heavy, you'll know, especially one with no downforce.

[@billsmith5166]

What on earth was he thinking? Maybe it would have worked better if he had 300 pounds of luggage in the rear.

[@ziffer90]

looks like the fuel tank was in the rear...meaning the rear gets lighter during the race. like they were trying to make it as hard to control as possible

[@krzysztofwaleska]

Brilliant desingn. Never heard of it. Big + for bringing such ideas.

[@jwalster9412]

Why wouldn't they just flip the engine around, and myore the driver back a little? Then they could have had more ventilation for the engine and a less front flip balance.

[@MattBrownbill]

​@@jwalster9412cooling might be tougher? Would cook the driver also 😂

[@jwalster9412]

@@MattBrownbill if you move the driver back it won't be an issue, because you could have vents in front and behind the engine.

[@CyanRooper]

This is the kind of car someone would make in Automation as a joke. It's like the automotive equivalent of a flightless bird.

[@fastinradfordable]

It was a hundred years ago bro

[@tacticalidiot175]

Ah yes, the v16 quad turbo shopping cart build

[@Terraceview]

There's nothing like this you can make in Automation, you can't really build anything weird in that game.

[@jwalster9412]

This car was designed by shiny odds chat lol.

[@jwalster9412]

This reminds me of that time I built a car that was meant to rival toronado. I put a 8L all cast V8 in a FWD chassis. Didn't end well when it got into beamng

[@actuallyusingmyrealnameher5061]

5:00 Storing it next to the propellor car gives me an idea 😉

[@fidelcatsro6948]

Add wings to make it fly?

[@tartarsauce447]

I think you may accidentally just invited aircraft.

[@kiwijonowilson]

Wow they tried to put a lot of different technologies, all at once, into the car! Kudos for having the guts to try this. Certainly the weight distribution was an issue but overheating and under preforming would be the nails in the coffin. I found the side by side 2 stroke "split" pistons quite an interesting idea - Fairbank Morse made 2 stroke engines (used during WW2) with 2 pistons per cylinder (2 crankshafts - one at each end of the bank of cylinders) that worked well (again allowing good scavenging but requiring a supercharger to work) so there was reason to try something similar. To me maybe the air cooling was the biggest issue as good consistent cooling would be critical to getting the best performance + you would then be able to get the weight distribution right (and drive rear wheels) if you liquid cooled.

[@ItsDaJax]

Radial engines were known for overheating, and in cars just exacerbates it.

[@HariSupriono]

Radial? Front wheel drive? *Two-stroke?* This is the most overkill racecar i've ever seen, right up there with the Porsche 917/30 Edit: *SPLIT-CYLINDER TOO?* My god, the creator of that thing is either super smart or has completely lost his mind Edit 2: *Or both*

[@NeurodivergentSuperiority]

It's always fun to watch smart people go insane and create things like this

[@mikebell2750]

Great video, I like how you always hunt down the obscure stuff. 👍🏼

[@sagitt76]

Years ago I tried to simulate the car for a mod, as seen in the final clip. The car literally overturned when braking...extremely dangerous!!

[@epicseadragon1692]

Thanks for the vid! No surprise no other car ever used radial engines again - but it's interesting to learn that at least someone tried!

[@michaelgideon8944]

I dont think the general design is as bad as everyone thinks. Tires at the time did not generate the accelerations they do now. So the weight transfer off the front wasn't as significant as would be today. If you look at the tracks of the era, they are mostly long high speed with few corners. They were obviously trying for a low drag shape. The exceution was clearly flawed, but philosophy of the design wasn't completly crazy. The engine was probably the biggest issue, being overly complicated and a high CG.

[@flameburstgt6503]

This reminds me of another FWD race car. The GTR which took part at Le Mans in 2015. Although it was considered by many people to be the worst LMP car to be built. It was very interesting. Do you think you could do a video about it

[@Giuliana-w1f]

kinda depends on the specific motorsport and the time. FWD can be quite good in rally (ofc, then AWD took over)

[@stevie-ray2020]

Also, traction definitely wasn't helped by woeful wheel-camber angles, and that was probably because Monaco was using universal-joints on the front axle-shafts to deal with steering-angle, then another set inboard of those to manage suspension-angle, and presumably another set on the gearbox output-shafts!

[@brianb-p6586]

That is a double-Cardan joint serving as a constant-velocity joint, not a universal joint for steering and another for suspension travel. For the era, it's suitable... and perhaps the best-designed feature of the car.

[@logantheoneandonly6294]

That was an awsome video. I love two stroke engines. What a time that was. So many different attempts in engine design. The car industry is so boring today.

[@exothermal.sprocket]

Regulations are the reason. Enough of them, and manufacturers will only do what is financially safe. Everything will look the same, function the same, have the same colors, will be the least expensive to manufacture, and will not have the end user's uniqueness as a design consideration. In a statement: Communist infrastructure.

[@PUNCHARD800ftlb]

all it needs is a cartoon character driving it

[@Momo_Kawashima]

Of course an italian made it. Only us can pull off such crazy stunts and think "this is fine"

[@geoffreypiltz271]

Oil-cooled radial in the front is OK, but they should have used rear wheel drive with a transaxle for a balanced weight distribution.

[@AngryBassist66623]

Exactly. And maybe more wheelbase too.

[@howardosborne8647]

I bet this engine was very loud. DKW made 'split single' blown 2 stroke racing motorcycles which were raced here at the Isle of Man TT in the 1930s.....they were said to be the loudest racing motorcycle ever heard on the TT course.

[@adamweston4152]

Is that foot next to Carlo Trossi doing throttle practice?!😂.

[@MrHasherd]

Thanks for another interesting piece of history Visio.

[@smallengineexpert6607]

Love to hear it run !!

[@renegadeflyer2]

Guessing he never taxed a tail wheel aircraft.

[@timberwolfdtproductions3890]

It’s fascinating how sometimes people become so obsessed with their own invention that they pursue it far beyond any attachment to reason. No amount of re-engineering on this machine could mitigate the fundamental engineering flaw of placing so much of the car’s weight ahead of the front axle. It makes me think of Karl Marx and his single-minded promotion of his theories of collectivism/communism. He was so obsessed with trying to equalize society through redistribution of wealth and property, that he completely ignored the obvious fact that such a system can only function if you force people into it, which imprisons people rather than setting them free.

[@jcgabriel1569]

A bit of a trivia about Carlo Felice Trossi... Hes a gentleman driver, and by that i mean that hes basically racing for the fun of it. He's not slow by any means. Enzo Ferrari even said that if he would focus on his driving, he'll be a difficult man to beat... Trossi also _loves_ street circuits. Those circuits that required fast, consistent and precision driving, he liked them a lot. He retired from racing after 1948, and died of a brain tumour in 1949.

[@jamesleavy883]

*hits a blunt* "Bro, what if a plane was, like, for the ground? I could race it against cars."

[@PaulG.x]

The whole purpose of split single two strokes is to have non-symetrical port timing , so it is inevitable that the original design would have a "lagging" piston. Btw the "supercharging" wasn't - it is a scavenge pump as is used on most uniflow scavenged two strokes. The low pressure confirms that.

[@fastinradfordable]

Low pressure doesn’t mean it’s not a supercharger 0.1psi is boost

[@chrisridethatbloodything2044]

Without a charger this type of engine would not work as a 2-stroke. Normal 2-stroke engines use the crank case to pre-compress the mixture. This is not possible with the radial engine.

[@PaulG.x]

@@chrisridethatbloodything2044 It's a scavenge pump not a supercharger . Learn a few things about engines before you comment. Two strokes that use crankcase compression are "Loop scavenged" engines . Two strokes that use blowers are "uniflow scavenged" engines. Neither type is supercharged

[@CrusaderSports250]

​@@PaulG.xI think the gentleman was replying to the other poster, he was in effect agreeing with you, and from his comment I would say he knows his two strokes.

[@Mechazawa787]

TBH, would have enjoyed a longer video, a radial with an even number of cylinders? are those double U joints? what is even going on with that front suspension, are those equal length wishbones? why didn't it occur to them to move the power train to the rear axle?

[@bocahdongo7769]

Someone did move power train to rear side It keep explode due to overheat

[@mitchkelleher7972]

The even number is because it's a 2-stroke. I would have also liked to see more on the suspension. CV joints weren't common, but they were around. Not sure why they didn't use them. Maybe an issue getting them to reliably handle the power at the time?

[@mfree80286]

It's a two stroke, there's no concern for balancing the firing order because it's "yes, fire". Only reason odds are so common in 4 stroke radials is so every other cylinder fires, making a nice even firing order around the cylinders. 1-3-5-7-9-2-4-6-8 and so on. This? No other choice but 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 Edit: To put it demonstrably, if this was a 4 stroke it would have a balance issue because it would fire 1-3-5-7-2-4-6-8, and cylinder 8 is right next to cylinder 1, missing a "gap" in firing. But being a 2 stroke, the next cylinder always fires, so it doesn't matter.

[@jwalster9412]

Yeah, but what about adding Massive scoops onto he side and top, and why not use the fact that it's a literal airplane engine and put a fan on the front? So many questions. ​@@bocahdongo7769

[@jwalster9412]

​@@mitchkelleher7972probably cost. I can't imagine that car was cheap, so anything to bring the cost down probably was used.

[@JazzbLu]

What an amazing concept!

[@carltonleboss]

What an absolutely crazy engine.

[@angelsone-five7912]

I think you`ll find that this engine actually needed a supercharger as there would be little to no crakcase compression which a 2 stroke needs. Villiers once made a V4 2 stroke engine which had a supercharger for this very reason.

[@anthonyxuereb792]

I like the engineering which is first class, thankfully the car survived. The man thought outside the box (as we are encouraged to do) and should not be ridiculed for it. Don't forget that most modern cars are front engine/front wheel drive. I thought radial engines had to have an odd number of cylinders?

[@ItsDaJax]

And modern cars are ridiculed for being fwd all the time.

[@anthonyxuereb792]

@@ItsDaJax Ridicule has no place

[@ItsDaJax]

@@anthonyxuereb792 fwd is garbage.

[@The1Doktor]

Yes, many modern cars are front-wheel-drive. But do's front wheel drives are usually either economy shit boxes, basic grocery getters, or luxury cars that don't have much concern for handling. Torque steer is always an annoyance with FWD, and I've always found them a little bit harder to control when the rear end starts breaking loose. Take note that most of your high-performance cars are rear wheel drive, and those that aren't are all-wheel-drive. Personally I think front-wheel-drive is ridiculous unless it is used on a forklift. That is the one application where it is the proper choice.

[@anthonyxuereb792]

@@The1Doktor Well Doc, looks like you got it covered and I agree with you. however, front wheel drive has been with us for ages and even with all the new drive tech it looks like it won't be disappearing anytime soon.

[@Eggyteevee]

Damn my man found out about the colombian wheat long before Pablo Escobar to create this, respect for being this bold

[@Terraceview]

Your videos are getting shorter and shorter, why?

[@Freesavh1776]

It'd be more aerodynamic driving backwards. You know like the Porsche 924 944 😂😂😂

[@oscarzt1652]

2:38 my 2004 ford ST170 hatchback is 62% front weight

[@cake6420]

you could put a prop on the front with an oil cooler and radiator. the prop could turn as fast as an airplane to cool the engine down.

[@bccp32]

This is just straight insanity

[@fidelcatsro6948]

TOYOTA should make a replica of this engine with todays material im sure it can fly!

[@bocahdongo7769]

Mercedes already have flying car anyway on 1955 Le Mans, no need to recreated

[@ItsDaJax]

Radial engines still exist, you know.

[@fidelcatsro6948]

@@ItsDaJax Japanese tend to make them much more reliable and affordably however so!

[@Rose_Butterfly98]

I feel like the rotation from the engine would cause a roll to one side the whole time making it turn one way better than the other

[@PIasmaZombie]

i like the idea of a radial engine, like that more cylinders fit into an engine of the same physical length. if they had made it right, that car could have been the winner.

[@iee4g6]

Front wheel drive in major motorsports: TOTAL FAILURE

[@geoffreypiltz271]

You're wrong there. Two four cylinder FWD Alvis cars ran at Le Mans in 1928 and came 6th and 9th overall to win the 1500cc class.

[@mitchkelleher7972]

Not so much back then. With the way cars were built as body on frame and with the primitive tire, suspension, and chassis technology, FWD offered a lot of potential advantages in terms of weight, drivetrain power loss, height reduction (no driveshaft passing under the central seat of having to be canted diagonally to go around the driver, then back or with a severely offset differential), as well as traction (believe it or not). The problem here isn't the FWD, it's the . . . pretty much everything else thanks to inappropriate choice of engine and bizarre design of it. Besides the issues of the engine itself, it sits ahead of the axle (necessary for cooling, which was still insufficient, though it also looks like the shroud around it is merely a ring and not a NACA cowl that might have fixed that one problem) for terrible weight distribution and polar moment of inertia.

[@TylerLinner]

Austin Mini, Saab 96, and Lancia Fulvia HF were all successful rally cars. Rally cars need to perform well in poor conditions, and with an LSD, FWD delivered until AWD became practical. Also note the Miller FWD Indy cars, which while not dominating, were good enough to podium.

[@stevie-ray2020]

FWD still dominates in sub 2L amateur racing-classes! In fact, my neighbour regularly wins in his class with his Nissan Pulsar!

[@brianb-p6586]

@@stevie-ray2020 I agree, but to be fair there are few available modern cars with rear wheel drive and sub-two-litre engines, so those classes are inevitably filled with front wheel drive designs.

[@gnutscha]

2:36 lmao good one mate

[@matthewcarter5746]

Move the engine further behind the wheels, transmission in back with a torque tube, and better airflow. Maybe it would have worked out better then.

[@johncunningham4820]

OK , in Hindsight , this was just plain NUTS . 🤣

[@rjung_ch]

What a gem, thanks! 👍💪✌

[@Iowa599]

was the chassis wooden?

[@tomlobos2871]

drives into the wrong direction. imagine the same design as rear engine.

[@SONO4B11T]

At least the GT-R LM NISMO was mid-engined. But this looks waaaay better.

[@cidbidds5569]

Handles well in reverse

[@goosenotmaverick1156]

Holy hell. Ive never been this early!

[@philiptownsend4026]

Noone can say Italian cars lack character and innovation.

[@upsidedowndog1256]

Fantastic bit of history that I have never heard of! I am a history motorbuff since 1973. I read everything I could find until the hybrid era. No interest in those. Kudos to find this footage and the story that I have never seen before. Nice!

[@silaswolfsberger2119]

Just watch it at 1,5 Speed, and he talks in normal speed just fine.

[@johannpatrickvillena2081]

Oh wow, 4 mins, great vid btw

[@Timico1000]

I love your videos but i wish you would do subtitles as you are quite hard to understand sometimes.

[@Chr.Monika6469]

If understeer was a car:

[@hoodedcreeper2465]

They shouldlve just flipped the motor and transmission around.

[@Threetails]

If they'd made it AWD and moved the driver a bit back, and moved the engine behind the front wheels instead of in front, damn, they coulda nailed it.

[@Chr.Monika6469]

It would still have understeer. The perfect layout would be either 4WD or RWD with the engine behind the driver

[@jamest.5001]

The weight distribution may forgivable. If it had Downforce. A large rear wing could do wonders! Getting a literal ton of down force.

[@Gigaguenther]

I prefer your usual talking speed. This sounds a little like a church sermon

[@ItsDaJax]

I've been seeing this car on Pinterest for like three months. Disappointed at it being fwd.

[@adrianolacerda3410]

if only it had a rwd trans axle to save the weight distribuition

[@bocahdongo7769]

Welp, there's nothing advantageous of Radial engine racecar anyway Even if you put high performance supercharged radial engine on the rear, someone already did that in Convair B-36. They keep exploding mid air due to overheat You can force it like Sherman, but using abyssmally tuned-down engine and MASSIVE blower. Which work for tank but not race car

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

If they had more of sense of aerodynamics back then and worked out the bugs in the motor cooling this thing could have been a monster.

[@bocahdongo7769]

Someone did tried It keep explode

[@ItsDaJax]

Air cooled radials are prone to overheating and worse when used in cars. Air cooled engines in general have a higher risk, that's why Porsche and Harley stopped making them.

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

@@ItsDaJax Tucker made them work, USAO also got them to work in Sherman's.

[@ItsDaJax]

@@patrickradcliffe3837 And so did Tatra in cars and diesel trucks, so did VW, so do scooter manufactures to this day, lawn equipment manufacturers. Those engines also have fans, it's the prop that keeps radial engines cool along with flight speed. That race car did not have a fan to help keep it cool. All air cooled engines are more prone to overheat than water cooled engines, especially if they're sitting still, they also rely more on their oil to cool them than water cooled engines. Ask anybody who's ridden an aircooled motorcycle, they'll tell you sitting still is when they get real hot. A radial engine used in a car is usually mounted backwards where the prop would bolt on, which means the exhaust is between it and fresh cool air, too. A number of early cars didn't even use fans, the radiator simply worked on thermodynamics of heat exchange and expansion(I forgot the actual term) of the water moving through the radiator and engine.

[@charleshulsey3103]

Dude's name was Monaco??

[@jasonz7788]

Cool thanks 👍

[@jwalster9412]

Would itnhave been illegal in those days of racing, to just strap a propnto the front of the he engone and Remove wheel connections?

[@brianb-p6586]

It would have been ineffective, even if it were legal.

[@hardwaylearner]

i Bet driving that monstrosity was unbearable. Looks like you have a massive bonfire sitting in front of you

[@aliencraft18]

Maybe it would have worked better if the whole car was flipped, so the engine would be behind the rear axle.

[@bocahdongo7769]

Last time someone tried to put rear mounted radial engine is Convair They keep exploding mid air due to overheat

[@CrusaderSports250]

Rear engined cars tend to be rear heavy giving rather twitchy handling when pushed to the limit, so turning it round and keeping the same weight distribution would have been a bad idea.

[@aliencraft18]

@@CrusaderSports250 I was thinking about Porsche, they still made it feasable and I think it would still had more success if it would have been the other way around. Though it would still have lacked power so who knows.

[@jimsvideos7201]

Well that's odd.

[@fnorgen]

I'm in total awe! It's so cool, but it's so dumb!

[@GreenCanvasInteriorscape]

Should have just crafted a drive shaft and differential in the blacksmithing shop over the weekend and made it four-wheel drive,👌 I love a concept though

[@davidaugustofc2574]

New viewers will never know what the previous thumbnail looked like

[@fobbitoperator3620]

Well...shitballz...

[@kingacan629]

It looks amazing if the driving position is reversed 🚀

[@AndreasGlad-rq7vx]

No, "regulations" keep racing boring. "fair" is for losers.

[@marchess923]

I didn't finish the vid. It's possible that it could have been a success. Make a mid engine, rear wheel drive to start with. It will be interesting to see if anyone makes a worthwhile competitor. Any millionaire takers?

[@jamsbong]

Front wheel drive never works in racing against a competition of RWD

[@geoffreypiltz271]

You're wrong there. Two four cylinder FWD Alvis cars ran at Le Mans in 1928 and came 6th and 9th overall to win the 1500cc class.

[@RickZanardi]

Except from rallying: between the late 90s and early 2000s French manufacturers ran 2.000 cc naturally aspirated FWD cars under the kit car regulations and proved very successful on asphalt. So much that Peugeot got a couple of podiums in the world rally championship with the 306 Maxi and Citroën even managed 2 wins with the Xsara Kit, all this against the turbo AWD WRC factory cars. Even Italian rally star Paolo Andreucci was setting stage winning times with the Renault Mégane Maxi in the Sanremo Rally in (I think) 1997. Other kit cars were less successful on asphalt, like the Seat Ibiza Kit, because they had a wider operaring window and were not asphalt focused. And also in the golden era of WTCC, Alfa Romeo, Seat and Chevrolet were all facing (successfully) the RWD BMW 320 with their FWD cars. Probably, beyond 300 horsepower is where RWD becomes clearly superior in racing, before that there can be a fight between different drive types. Fun fact: in very particular (and extremely sad) circumstances, a privateer Fiat Uno Turbo came 3rd at the WRC Rally Portugal in 1986, the last year with Group B cars.

[@TassieLorenzo]

It does though. The 30kg compensation weight for RWD of BMWs was about right and saw plenty of front wheel drive success in Super Touring! Ideally you'd use mid-engine with a transxale for making a RWD car, but if you are using a gearbox, tail shaft and rear differential (like the BMW Super Tourer) that means higher drivetrain loss than the front wheel drives using a contained transaxle.

[@melvinkenyanya9613]

1.25x speed :)

[@elmafico7605]

I see you dont how to pronounce names but ok you know cars

[@aquilaaudax6033]

✋🏼🇦🇺👍🏼

[@Tom-Lahaye]

The strangest race car ever, never seen a 2 stroke radial, would to like to hear the engine better tough in the driving footage, so next time please stop talking if you have just a short clip of the actual car running. It could be an even cylinder count because it was a two stroke, it fires every cylinder in order 1 to 8 every revolution so it would be an even firing 8 cylinder.

[@paulreilly3904]

Explaining things isn't your strong point is it?

[@mfree80286]

@Turnipstalk Not really that complicated. Boil it down to a 5 cylinder engine, with a 4 stroke you fire every other stroke so to keep a good firing interval you fire 1-3-5-2-4, and as it wraps around the order 4 goes to 1, cyl 5 is between so it's a continuous cycle of every other piston firing smoothly around the rotations. A two stroke, firing every stroke, doesn't have the option... 1-2-3-4-5, with a single throw crank. And that's fine, because it's still a consistent angle of separation, even with an even count on cylinders. A single throw four stroke with even count though, has no choice but to fire two pistons next to each other. 6 cylinders? 1-3-5-2-4-6-1, and 6-1 is half separation angle, uneven. Cylinder 1 is going to be wickedly hard to tune because cylinder 6 has stepped on it's air flow and fuel mixture, and the two are going to be hotter than any of the other cylinders. You *can* build that, but it's a bad idea.