Cockpit Revealed For Bloodhound Supersonic Car 81
Zothecula writes: Unveiled at a special event in Bristol, U.K., the Bloodhound land speed team showed off the cockpit that will be driver Andy Green's "office" for his record attempt run in 2015 and 2016. Although Green holds the current world land speed record of 763 mph (1,227 km/h), the challenges in attempting to break the 1,000 mph (1,600 km/h) barrier will be significant for both pilot and the design team.
Shouldnt it be "Greyhound"? (Score:1, Interesting)
Bloodhounds aren't exactly known for their speed.
Should it even be called a "car"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Cars have the capacity to turn. A rocket with wheels on it does not seem to meet even the most minimal requirements for a "car".
Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (Score:4, Informative)
It does turn, though it takes 240 meters to do a full turn.
Re: (Score:2)
Ouch... really???
Of course it can't turn at full speed in just 240m. 240m is the distance across the circle (diameter) for the vehicle to "Turn Around" (turning radius 120m [bloodhoundssc.com].)
Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Should it even be called a "car"? (Score:1)
Oh is that all?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you would barely notice the turn if you were in the car.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, you would barely notice the turn if you were in the car.
Mod this guy up! This deserves at least a 5 insightful.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it isn't actually turning that sharply at 1000mph? You don't do a three-point-turn at 70 mph, do you?
You haven't met my wife, it would seem.
Regulations say it can (Score:1)
There are strict rules and regulations for the land speed record and they are met by this vehicle. If you disagree, come up with a new record committee with new rules and see if people want to set a record for that.
Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (Score:5, Informative)
The word "car" [etymonline.com] really just means a "wheeled vehicle". There is no requirement for turning.
Re: (Score:2)
so a maglev train can't have "cars"?
Re: (Score:2)
point is "cart" can be built without wheels, we need to redefine CAR and CART for our modern age
Re: (Score:2)
Or we could just not care too much about requirements when using a word.
"Cars" on a magnetically-levitating train are called "cars" because they are analogous to the real cars on a wheeled train. Perhaps "segments" is a better term, but now the usage is common enough that there will be no confusion in colloquial discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
they do call cars "units" in the railroad biz
"segment" already has special meaning, a run of track with distinguishing characteristic: weight or speed or number of cars constraint, from station to station, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As stated though, that's just the impression I was under, so I could be miles off-base here...
Reverse (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed, there has been much controversy surrounding these attempts since at least the 60's. When Craig Breedlove broke the 400 mph limit in the Spirit of America, the FIA wasn't sure if they could classify it as a "car" since it only had three wheels and was powered solely by thrust. The FIM however was more than happy to classify it as a motorcycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_America_(automobile)). The many different configurations have resulted in the myriad of classifications available (pi
Re: (Score:1)
As an American, I don't think you have the right to talk about the cornering ability of cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Turn? Maybe not, but I bet it can rotate!
Re: (Score:3)
The world record requires them to do one run, turn the car (by itself), and repeat the run within 1 hour, so it definitely can turn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Neither is Greyhound [greyhound.com].
boring (Score:2)
The cockpit looks exactly like what I'd expect it to. The only thing interesting about the article is the speedometer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This one goes to 11.
Re: (Score:1)
That's a mighty long... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely a low flying rocket... (Score:5, Interesting)
The comment on not using aerodynamic down force is rather telling. Only reason I can think of for not doing so is that if they did, it would consume power that could otherwise be used for more speed. And since motive power isn't being supplied through the wheels, traction isn't all that important. I do wonder if steering will be entirely via the wheels, or if they're using aerodynamic means.
Re:Definitely a low flying rocket... (Score:5, Informative)
Racing cars try to dump down force when they don't need it - ie in straights and high speed corners. Down force is good for traction in low to medium speed corners, but it becomes a huge hindrance elsewhere. McLaren pioneered stalling the rear wing of their 2010 F1 car along the straights, giving them a couple of dozen extra MPH over their rivals, which makes all the difference when you are trying to pass them. This was later adopted by the FIA and became the Drag Reduction System.
When the goal is "go fast in a straight line", a parallel goal is "eliminate drag", of which down force is a huge component.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the comment is better interpreted as "we want some downforce, but not so much that it crushes the front suspension." I suppose ideally you would have zero downforce on the wheels, so that you have essentially zero rolling resistance. But as a practical matter you need to have some for stability. better to have some than risk having none, or negative (airborne!). Plus, if the wheels aren't actually in contact with the ground, it c
Re: (Score:2)
The reason is explained in the video - when you're traveling at that speed, the loads you put through the suspension are huge. You don't want to have the suspension compressed before hand or it'll just break.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the ancillary wheels to make this a "car," consider the equally-ancillary driver in the cockpit. I cannot think of a good reason to have a person onboard, beyond creating a (very real) element of danger.
The driver very much drives it. See this on-board video of Andy Green (who will also driver the Bloodhound) in the Thrust SSC.
http://youtu.be/vHnNxMJLfvA
Re: (Score:2)
Just like the space elevator (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Crushed red velvet would be almost purely an aesthetic decision. There are aesthetic considerations in the cockpit, sure. (The Rolex chronometer is a pretty piece of work, but a good wristwatch would function just as well.) But the videos present substanti
not impressed (Score:2)
a jet craft with wheels isn't impressive, let's see wheel driven vehicle speed record attempts. jet engines are for flying, any other use is stupid
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, I think that "land speed" records using what amounts to jet aircraft on wheels is kind of bogus.
I do think the idea of using a gas turbine for a power source driving the wheels isn't really a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
of course, concept cars over half a century ago did that, they get lousy fuel economy and are very loud and shrill (most people thought the sounded like vacuum cleaners). On the plus side, acceleration was *outstanding*
Re: (Score:3)
jet engines are for flying, any other use is stupid
I respectfully disagree. [youtube.com] (1 minute video, worth a watch if you haven't seen it)
Re: (Score:2)
jet engines are for flying, any other use is stupid
I respectfully disagree. [youtube.com] (1 minute video, worth a watch if you haven't seen it)
Wouldn't it be awesome to put wheels on a Saturn 5 first stage? Even an SRB would be cool.
Then again, I wouldn't think as much of it as a wheel driven car.
Years ago at a drag strip, they had some races between two jet cars, one with a transmission, and one with afterburner and jet only propulsion. The races were pretty even, the main difference was the almost quarter mile line of rubber laid by the transmissioned car.
For sheer entertainment value, the afterburner burped on the other car, sending ou
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
They can cook the hell out of a hot dog, too.
Re:not impressed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Studded tires? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
don't tell that to Bruce Wayne!
Re: (Score:2)
a jet craft with wheels isn't impressive, let's see wheel driven vehicle speed record attempts. jet engines are for flying, any other use is stupid
Not quite right. Any wheeled vehicle, that can go that fast, is damned fucking impressive. The powerplant has little to do with it at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
Why open cockpit? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Speedometer from hell (Score:2)
Take a look at the speedometer:
http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/s... [bloodhoundssc.com]
It is graduated from 1 to 11. At the bottom is the subscript "MPH x 100". I'm used more to "RPM x 100"! Oh, and instead of an outstanding graduation at 55 MPH, it has an outstanding graduation at Mach 1!
Re: (Score:2)
For a mass production vehicle, the display may not make a lot of sense. But for the one guy who is ever going to drive the car, I think we can trust him to understand what it means. It's no worse than an aircraft altimeter [google.com].
So it goes up to 11?? (Score:2)
They'll have no problem getting to 1000mph in that case! Wonder if Spinal Tap will do the after record party music?
Product Placement in at least one of those (Score:2)
I guess it's an expensive business.
Not on the Black Rock: Leave No Trace Fail (Score:1)
Not convinced by the safety arguments (Score:3)
It may well be one solid piece of carbon fibre with a 2 cm thick windscreen and a front struct that can take 30 tons of force , but it wouldn't make any difference if it was made out of reinforced unobtanium - if he looses it and has a rollover at 1000mph he's dead. Even if the structure survives - which I doubt - the G forces will probably kill him anyway.