Steam-Powered Car Breaks Century-Old Speed Record 187
mcgrew writes "New Scientist reports that a steam-powered car has broken the 1906 record of 204 km/hr (127 mph) for the fastest steam-powered automobile, the Stanley Steamer. The Inspiration made a top speed of 225 kilometres per hour (140 miles per hour) on August 26. 'The car's engine burns liquid petroleum gas to heat water in 12 suitcase-sized boilers, creating steam heated to 400C. The steam then drives a two-stage turbine that spins at 13,000 revolutions per minute to power its wheels.The FIA requires two 1.6-km-long runs to be performed in opposite directions — to cancel out any effect from wind — within 60 minutes.'"
All oficial times (Score:2)
are from two runs of the same vehicle.
They don't ahve to be opposite directions.
Re:All oficial times (Score:5, Insightful)
The Stanley Steamer record is vastly more impressive. Tires, brakes, and suspension in 1906 were primitive, materials were not nearly as reliable, and design was done on a drawing board.
"That smashes the previous official record of 204 km/hr (127 mph) set in 1906 by Fred Marriott of the US in a modified version of the then-popular steam car known as the Stanley Steamer."
Sorry, but only going thirteen (13) miles an hour faster than a record more than a _century_ old is shit. He might have done better by using a replica Stanley engine made from modern materials (to allow heat increase without a boiler explosion) instead.
Re:All oficial times (Score:5, Insightful)
Another thing to consider is that during speed runs, brakes, and suspension are not really a factor. The car is driven in a straight line at maximum speed. It's not taken on a touring expedition to test is comfort and handling performance. The tires need only be capable of not blowing at high speeds.
Re:All oficial times (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:All oficial times (Score:4, Funny)
Is there really anything scientific or technological that we cant do vastly better now that 1906? Its like the captain of the senior football team boasting about stealing lunch money from a 7th grader.
In the US? yeah I'd say we can't do 7th grade math any better without using some sort of damn dirty machine...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:All oficial times (Score:4, Informative)
Ah yes. A common myth about the "illiterate past" that is simply not true.
According to de Tocqueville who traveled the U.S. and documented what he saw, the literacy rate during Thomas Jefferson's term (circa 1804) was nearly 100%. Parents bought "readers" for their children and expected these kids to self-teach themselves how to read and write. They recognized that their new Republic would only work if the voters were educated enough to read the weekly newspapers.
By 1906 every state had mandatory education upto 9th grade, so "the chance" your average American knew 7th grade math was effectively 99.9%.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there really anything scientific or technological that we cant do vastly better now that 1906?
My guess is yes, but I can't come up with a good example at the moment.
Here's an unbroken 1960's land speed record set by one guy with very little money working in his garage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burt_Munro [wikipedia.org]
Very fun flick too, if you like hackers.
Re: (Score:2)
The only remaining record listed there is fastest speed for an Indian motorcycle, and that's just a little bit silly. Might as well have a list of records for fastest pink vehicle.
I'm not scoffing what he did, but his class record of 183.586 miles/hour has been broken at least 18 times, and a quick glean at the certified LSR records [scta-bni.org] puts the new record in that class at 240.913 miles/hour, which is 31% faster.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Turbine versus reciprocating parts has to be a huge factor. A 1906 Stanley was ran like those old steam locomotives. This new one is arguably closer in design to a modern turboshaft.
Steam is simply a lost art in automobiles. What's old becomes new again, though. An old steam car saved energy as hot water. Insulation around the boiler facilitated that heat storage. I recently read that the latest Toyota Prius saves its heated engine coolant in a vacuum flask when you shut it off.
Re: (Score:2)
No we haven't but I've seen some pretty amazing designs from small low-budget outfits.
Re:All oficial times (Score:4, Informative)
Um, no, they don't. Coal-fired ships generated steam to drive a reciprocating piston engine. Nuclear powered ships use their superheated steam to drive turbines.
Also, "naval", unless the ships you're referring to are in fact associated with belly buttons.
Untrue (Score:5, Informative)
In 1905, the British Admiralty announced all new ships of the line would be turbine driven.
Babcock & Wilcox built coal fired boilers through the 50's - most of these driving turbines.
By the time of the Stanley record, piston steam was on it's way out for capital ships
Now, some WWII naval ships used piston steam driven pumps for damage control, but it sounds like you're talking about main propulsion.
Re:All oficial times (Score:4, Informative)
> Coal-fired ships generated steam to drive a reciprocating piston engine
References?
Here's one to the contrary :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbinia [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine#Marine_propulsion [wikipedia.org]
Also from that latter article:
"Steam turbine locomotives were also tested, but with limited success."
which, I think, is what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
my Cyclopedia of Engineering Vol. II dated 1913 has a chapter on steam turbines and mentions their use in dreadnought class warships, thats hand stoked coal boilers feeding steam turbine engines.
It isn't steam powered at all (Score:3, Insightful)
The steam age never ended because it didn't exist. There was the wood age, the coal age, the current oil age and i'm guessing the next age will either be nuclear, or wood again, depending on how the coming resource wars go.
Re: (Score:2)
"If it was that easy, it would have been broken before now. "
What supports that asserted conclusion?
There wasn't much of a steam car enthusiast community after they went out of popular use. Hot rodding the simple petrol engines of the time was easy (carbs, manifolds, cams, compression, OHV conversions) and there were plenty of them. If you blew an engine, more were available cheap or free. Steam cars even at their height of popularity were a niche market.
The Model T Ford, the flathead Ford, the small block
Suspension not a factor? (Score:2)
You pretty quickly dismiss the suspension as not being a factor. That lake bed isn't exactly as smooth as a billiards table. If you want to keep control of the car and keep going in a straight line, a decent suspension is a good thing to have when your going over 100mph.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Suspension is a big factor in keeping the wheels on the ground, and since this is not jet or wind powered, I think that's quite important.
Re:All oficial times (Score:4, Insightful)
"If it was that easy, it would have been broken before now."
An economist and his son were talking a walk. "Look Dad," said the boy, "There's a $20 under that bench over there." The man looked down at the boy, "That's not possible son, passers-by would pick up any free money laying about."
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know the next time you see a $20 lying around in a public place. Then your story will make the point you seem to desire, and not the opposite.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. There are a vast number of things which are easy to do, but NOBODY cares enough to bother with... Steam-powered vehicles being one of them.
Even if some new million-dollar racket could guarantee you'd win every round of badminton, do you really think anybody would buy one? Even at the Olympic level... who cares?
Re:All oficial times (Score:4, Insightful)
Tires, brakes, and suspension may have been primitive, but in 1906, steam propulsion was a mature, well-understood technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Tires, brakes, and suspension may have been primitive, but in 1906, steam propulsion was a mature, well-understood technology.
But steam technology was not easily adaptable to the automobile.
The "cold" start-up could take twenty minutes, so you kept the pilot light burning. The Stanley did not have a condenser until 1915, which severely limited its range.
Re:All oficial times (Score:5, Insightful)
I was thinking the same: 100 years of technology and only 10% faster? However, at the end the article says "... the team is planning another run on Wednesday, to try to get even closer to the car's theoretical top speed of 274 km/hr (170 mph)." My interpretation is that they didn't want to go flat-out right away so that any engineering problems could show up at lower speed first. So they are doing progressively faster runs, and this just happened to be the first that was faster than the old record.
Re: (Score:2)
Which leads to the question "What would be the best way to make a modern steam-powered land speed record contender?"
I reckon it would be based on a turbine instead of pistons, cranks and rods. Maybe the turbines should be in the wheel hubs. Is a two-stage necessary?
What are the best modern materials? Metal? Ceramic? Best Fuel? Is there a fundamental limit to how fast a wheel-driven steam car can run on a given course?
I wonder what the total boiler volume was in this one. i.e. did they leave the starti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, the 1906 record is far more impressive, and that's what actually struck me. In 1906 my late grandmother was only three years old, as was powered flight. It took over a hundred years to break that record.
However, in 1906 steam technology was at its height, or nearly so. As TFA points out, at the time steam powered cars wer the norm, and internal combustion autos were rare due in part to the danger of the hand crank to start them, while unlike steam trains, steam cars were safe. In 1906 most if not al
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the OP understands that aero drag isn't linearly related to speed. Aerodynamics haven't stopped IC cars from improving by more than 13 MPH. This record is notable mostly because the old record is so very old.
BTW, it says 225 km/h which does convert to 140 U.S.
Congratulations to the U.K. on another cool land-speed record.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Being able to hold high-temp steam at high-pressure should be one major factor. Materials have improved hugely since 1908.
Lowering friction should be another. The piston in a Stanley was crude compared to a modern turbine shaft.
I think 10% was the right goal. 20% would have been harder to capture and made it even harder to reclaim the record next year.
All that being said, the old record is more impressive. Long live the Stanley Steamer!
Re: (Score:2)
Try sitting on the smokestack. It'll make an impression.
Check that off the obscure to-do list (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What do you mean? An African or European cockroach?
Re:Check that off the obscure to-do list (Score:4, Informative)
That style of bike is called a Penny-farthing.
It's not like we use steam for cutting-edge tech like nuclear power plants or anything.
Re: (Score:2)
That style of bike is called a Penny-farthing.
I've head of geese laying golden eggs, but penny-farting? That is a whole new level! ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a nuclear/steam-powered penny-farthing!
Re:Check that off the obscure to-do list (Score:5, Informative)
The name of the bike you are, presumably, referring to is called a penny farthing. They worked by direct drive. The cranks were tied directly into the front hub. You would generally get the largest wheel your legs would allow so that you could travel as fast as possible. The bigger diameter of the front wheel the further you would go with one rotation.
Interestingly the first geared bicycles, that resemble the ones we ride now, were called safety bicycles. Presumably this was because you were closer to the ground and had less distance to fall. However the invention of gearing on the safety bicycle allowed a rider to travel much faster than would of even been possible on a penny farthing. Bicycles today are far more dangerous than a penny farthing. Even going downhill, the penny farthing rider is limited to how fast they can pedal (the cranks never stop spinning) but todays bicycles employ multiple gearing ratios and free wheels/hubs that allow for extremely fast speeds. As I understand it penny farthings quickly died out after the invention of the safety bicycle.
-Will
Re:Check that off the obscure to-do list (Score:5, Insightful)
Even going downhill, the penny farthing rider is limited to how fast they can pedal
Until the bike picks up enough speed to throw your feet off the pedals. Then there is no hope of stopping without losing skin until you reach the flat again.
Re:Check that off the obscure trivia (what isn't?) (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Next up...ridiculously large front-wheeled bicycle speed record.
You may have a challenge ahead of you [pennyfarth...ldtour.com].
And slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or how about this:
Skydiving Car [youtube.com]
Slow down.. (Score:5, Funny)
Slow Down you damn Steam Punks! And stay the hell off my lawn.
Stanley Steamer? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't think a Stanley Steamer is the same as a Cleveland Steamer. A Cleveland Steamer involves shitting on a girl's face while covering it in Saran Wrap. A Stanley Steamer uses tin-foil. Now you know.
High RPM Turbines? (Score:2)
That seems like cheating. I guess the Stanley Steamer Rocket still retains the record for the fastest piston-powered steam car.
(Interestingly, this [conceptcarz.com] article also claims that the Rocket unofficially hit 150mph right before it crashed and was totaled in 1907.)
Meh (Score:4, Interesting)
I have to agree with the underwhelming nature of only 13MPH faster.
We now have a much better handle on material science and metallurgy. We actually have the capability to model the predicted performance and make design tweaks. We have the ability to machine to tolerances only dreamed about back then. And we have composites and alloys that weren't available.
I realize that it's not a linear scale from a drag standpoint, but our victory could be due only to 1906 measurement error.
Sheldon
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree with the underwhelming nature of only 13MPH faster.
We now have a much better handle on material science and metallurgy. We actually have the capability to model the predicted performance and make design tweaks. We have the ability to machine to tolerances only dreamed about back then. And we have composites and alloys that weren't available.
I realize that it's not a linear scale from a drag standpoint, but our victory could be due only to 1906 measurement error.
Sheldon
"Our" victory? We as the people of 2009 banded together to defeat those godawful sons of bitches from 1906?
I think it's impressive to even make a steam powered car now. Sure, the 1906 record is more impressive, but this one is cool too. It's like getting back to the Moon would be pretty impressive after we basically abandoned the related technology.
Re: (Score:2)
"Our" victory? We as the people of 2009 banded together to defeat those godawful sons of bitches from 1906?
Side hurts, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
We now have a much better handle on material science and metallurgy [etc]
Sure, but in the early 1900's, I'd bet they were putting a lot of money and man-hours into researching steam engines.
This was done as a student project.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps they've made 100 years worth of improvements to the car from a reliability and usability point of view.
TFA is wrong in saying that 100 years ago steam cars were easier than petrol ICE cars, but that's not to say petrol ICE was easy. The management lingo term "turn-key" was invented a long time AFTER cars were invented that's for sure. Cause cars back then weren't exactly "turn-key" regardless of the engine under the bonnet.
This video of Jay Leno's sort of shows what steam cars were like, though this
hybrid (Score:5, Funny)
Cool, a hybrid! Where can I get the government coupon to purchase one?
More details would be nice (Score:2)
NABT (not a boiler technician) but I'd like to know how much pressure the thing generates. I've been around 600 pound and 1200 pound boilers, and learned some of the problems with the high pressure system. (basically, it was shit) I'm curious how much pressure this thing is using, and why and how. 400 degrees really means next to nothing, I don't know why they even put that little detail in the story.
Re:More details would be nice (Score:5, Informative)
Sure the temperature means something. You don't get steam above 212F without increasing the pressure. So the temp tells you roughly the pressure. I did a quick search for a chart, and it says 400 degrees would be around 235 PSIG. In comparison, your 600 PSIG boiler ran about 489 degrees and the 1000 PSIG ran about 546 degrees.
http://www.indpipe.com/images/PDF/steam_temperature_pressure_table.pdf [indpipe.com]
(Just the first link I found.)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice, thanks.
TBH, after I posted my remark above, I got to thinking a little. Yes, it's obvious that temp and pressure are related, but didn't really have any idea if it's a linear relation or what. Temps in that chart look a little higher than memory tells me - but again, I wasn't a boiler tech.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law [wikipedia.org]
Assuming that in a boiler, the volume of the boiler and amount of water in it is constant (i.e the amount of steam leaving is the same as the amount of water coming in), then the temperature and pressure are directly proportional.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what's not clear is what the boiler is producing in saturated steam before it's superheated, I found that the car in the article is in fact superheated to 782F, where the stanley's boiler ran at 600PSI and gives the temperature as 488F, so the extra 150 degrees of superheat brings the system up to 638 F.
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Out of steam (Score:4, Interesting)
The fate of the steamers is a cautionary tale for backers of projects like the Tesla.
They were handcrafted for the extremely wealthy.
The total production run for the Stanley was 11,000 cars in 25 years. Stanley Steamer [stanleymotorcarriage.com]
No matter how you price such a car, you never generate enough cash to remain competitive in R&D - never enough to survive hard times.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the usual reason... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Steam engines are heavy, prone to explosion, need regular top ups of water and fuel, take a long time to reach operating temperature, they emit dirty smoke, are noisy, mechanically complex and expensive. They are also larger for an equivalent power output compared to ICEs. Would Ferrari ever have existed if it had had to fit a boiler, firebox, coal bunker, external pistons and rods, chimney, water tank, and a fireman just to make it move ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. Steam cars did not emit dirty smoke. Unlike steam trains, steam ships, and very early steam cars, the later steam cars only used liquid fuels. It burns fuel like a propane stove, and burns very clean. Internal combustion engines bur
Ferrari is a division of Fiat. (Score:2)
Has been for more then 40 years.
Here's what's impressive (Score:4, Interesting)
What impresses me about this accomplishment is that it must have been achieved among a small group of enthusiasts.
With the internal combustion engine, an amateur can draw on a huge pool of professional resources and documented knowledge to build up a high performance vehicle. In fact, very few people, if any are a master of every component on a modern race car - usually your race team will have access to suspension specialists, tire specialists, engine builders, aerodynamic and chassis design guys...
There really can't be that many experts on the automotive uses of steam engines, and a huge amount of new development must have gone into this car - that's something fantastic.
Materials have come a long way... But how much of of an advantage does that give you against the massive loss of experience we must have had over the last 100 years?
I'm a motorcycle racing enthusiast, and even at my amateur level it's amazing how much knowledge is only available through experienced teachers. There are literally more in-depth books about programing in ruby than books about motorcycle chassis engineering and physics.
Re: (Score:2)
Well think about it. If you write a book on motorcycle racing, how many prospective buyers do you think you will have? Not nearly as many as a book on Ruby. Perhaps now with micro publishing we will see more. Also there is a wealth of info in the intarweb, well maybe not so much on actual chassis design, but you can get quite a background just from reading some of the amateur racing websites.
Have you read Kevin Cameron's "Sportbike Tuning Handbook"?
Sad lack of historical relevance (Score:3, Interesting)
The Powell steam engine and it's associated motor vehicle was far more advanced than the Stanley systems and also more powerful and reliable than the Packards, Duesenbergs, Auburns, etc. of it's day. Powell was devastated by the collapse of the economy in the late 20's and his patents and inventions remain locked away somewhere to this day.
Cars and Parts magazine ran a month's long series on this revolutionary inventor and his motor car in the early 70's.
It was, as I recall, a horizontally opposed, 4 cylinder engine, ran completely silent and exhaust-free, with none of the dire explosion risks the Stanley Bro's systems had.
Worth a read if you can locate the article series.
More pics here (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Bah, electric cars are just glorified golf carts, dontcha know.... ;)
One of my favorite lead-ins to an article about electric cars:
"The one-million-dollar Ferrari Enzo can do zero to 60 in about 3.5 seconds. So can Mike Willmon's 1978 Ford Pinto."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Always undersell and overdeliver. Starting a conversation about electric cars by comparing one to a supercar can only backfire.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, if you want to talk motorcycles, the Killacycle does 0-60 in under a second, and there are faster ones than that out there. We're not talking motorcycles; we're talking cars. It doesn't matter how you cut it; 0-60 in 3.5 seconds is *fast* for a car. And for a Pinto? An amateur conversion Pinto? I mean, come on! Pintos aren't exactly optimized for racing. And this conversion used heavy lead-acid batteries to boot, rather than lightweight, higher-power li-ions.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
... But, speaking of acceleration, how does the Pinto do going from 60mph to 0?
Doesn't that depend on how solid the wall that it hits is?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it also has to do with the minimum amount of remaining car that you time to get that 0-60 speed. For example, if you rear-ended a 1978 Pinto and only the car from the front seats forward accelerated away, does that count toward the record?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Top speed, OTOH is dominated by outright power and drag. Mass features little, hence top speed is typically dominated by heavier cars with massive amounts of power.
Incidentally 60-0, and also cornering, should be dominated by mass & traction, but traction itself is influenced strongly by mass, making traction a
Re: (Score:2)
"I was wondering. What does acceleration has to do with top speed?"
It's how you get there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since neither the term airplane or helicopter indicate it's power source, I'm going with airplane or helicopter
Re:did anyone else besides me (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently [wikipedia.org] both airplanes and helicopters have been powered by steam.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the article, the car is capable of another 30mph, they just haven't managed to get there yet.
Re: (Score:2)
liquid petroleum gas
Is the fuel a liquid or a gas?
yes. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I think a steam powered car is more of a Jay Leno thing than a Dave Letterman thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Most production sports cars don't weight three tons. On the other hand, bentley makes a 2.5 ton 198 mph car.
Apples and Oranges (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, when someone wins an Olympic medal for the 100 yard dash, do you chime in about how they're not very impressive because you could cover a hundred yards much faster in a Ferrari?
Re: (Score:2)
> 140mph...most production sports cars can do that
I've been done for speeding on my motorcycle at that speed. OK, that's a lie...it was 139 (I think the police were being generous, or I'd already slowed somewhat by the time they clocked me).
So, yeah, 140 isn't anything much as speeds go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was attempting ot highlight that 140mph is not a high speed by saying that I've travelled that speed on my own personal transportation vehicle, *and* I have documentation to prove it.
What's *your* point?
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently that I'm about 4.2667 times studlier than you.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Well, that could well be true irrespective of vehicle.
Anyway, I have also traveled on Boing 777 - though I'm not sure if that particular vehicle is has a noteworthy top speed compared to other airliners. Does it?
Try factoring in the number of passengers or top acceleration - I'd expect the bike to win then, or at least it to be very close.
Very Optimisitic Speedo. (Score:2)
Just my guess regarding your 136mph rabbit.
That or you pushed it off a cliff.
Re:Very Optimisitic Speedo. (Score:4, Funny)
I was tempted to put up a picture link for "very optimistic speedo" but on second thought, I'm afraid of what Google might turn up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mod parent up! This is basic physics folks; I would have hoped more people on Slashdot new this. Wind resistance is the single most limiting factor in land speed records.
To illustrate, this high-powered modern steam vehicle hit 225 km/h, or 140 mph. Bruce Bursford beat this by nearly 50% on a bicycle [britannia.com], setting the world record of 334.6 km/h or 207.9 mph. He biked on a treadmill, with no wind resistance.
Re: (Score:2)
no wind resistance, no variations in flooring, no vibrations to speak of other than from the bike itself (which should be nil for that ridiculously expensive bike) and its rider, etc.
Ask anybody skeelering / inline skating / rollerskating. It's all fine and dandy on a dedicated track, easypeasy.. now go do it out on the open road, through a park, etc. and revel in the agglomeration of pain that used to be your calves.
--
on wind resistance and its other effects, I always liked the Bugatti Veyron team's notes
Power not drag (Score:2)
Drag only increases by the square.
Re: (Score:2)
By "liquid petroleum gas [wikipedia.org]" they probably mean LP, or liquid propane though it could also be liquid butane or a mix of the two. It is significantly cleaner burning than gasoline. Consider that it is used to heat the water and not drive the pistons, you are using significantly less petroleum to move the same size vehicle.
Also, steam is much more efficient in powering a piston than gasoline explosions. Steam expands continuously through the piston stroke, as opposed to just a "bang" and push from the combust