Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

Cockpit Revealed For Bloodhound Supersonic Car 81

Posted by Soulskill from the zoom-zoom dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cockpit Revealed For Bloodhound Supersonic Car More

Cockpit Revealed For Bloodhound Supersonic Car

Comments Filter:

  • Shouldnt it be "Greyhound"? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Bloodhounds aren't exactly known for their speed.

    • 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)

        by 3.5 stripes ( 578410 ) on Friday June 13, 2014 @09:35AM (#47229739)

        It does turn, though it takes 240 meters to do a full turn.

      • Regulations say it can (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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)

        by Sarten-X ( 1102295 ) on Friday June 13, 2014 @09:39AM (#47229765) Homepage

        The word "car" [etymonline.com] really just means a "wheeled vehicle". There is no requirement for turning.

        • so a maglev train can't have "cars"?

          • Not a rail guy by any stretch of the imagination, but I was always under the impression that the units in a train, maglev or conventional, were called "carriages". Based on this assumption, "cars" would be an abbreviation of this that has fallen into colloquial usage, rather than a formally "correct" term for them.

            As stated though, that's just the impression I was under, so I could be miles off-base here...

        • Reverse (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward
          At one point (maybe still true today) there was a requirement that the speed record breaking car be able to go in reverse. One car obliged with a reverse gear that moved it at a fraction of a mile per hour.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Major Blud ( 789630 )

        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)

        by Anonymous Coward

        As an American, I don't think you have the right to talk about the cornering ability of cars.

      • Turn? Maybe not, but I bet it can rotate!

      • 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.

    • I think it's because they're on the hunt for the record.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by necro81 ( 917438 )

      Bloodhounds aren't exactly known for their speed.

      Neither is Greyhound [greyhound.com].

  • 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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This one goes to 11.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I modded you funny, but then I looked more closely and it does go to 11! Which is just all kinds of awesome. :)
  • attempt run in 2015 AND 2015. How much fuel will he be carrying along?

  • Definitely a low flying rocket... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jcochran ( 309950 ) on Friday June 13, 2014 @09:41AM (#47229775)

    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)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Friday June 13, 2014 @10:06AM (#47229997)

      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)

      by necro81 ( 917438 )

      The comment on not using aerodynamic down force is rather telling

      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

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mgscheue ( 21096 )

        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

        • Oh, I realize it's not equipped for remote control. I was simply pointing out that it could be, and it would be a lot safer obviously. But I guess that's like pushing a mannequin out the door of an airplane to go skydiving.

  • Just like the space elevator (Score:3)

    by tompaulco ( 629533 ) on Friday June 13, 2014 @09:43AM (#47229797) Homepage Journal
    This is just like those breakthrough articles about the space elevator where some fascinating new development has brought us that much close to building the space elevator, such as the decision to use crushed red velvet for the upholstery.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by necro81 ( 917438 )

      This is just like those breakthrough articles about the space elevator where some fascinating new development has brought us that much close to building the space elevator, such as the decision to use crushed red velvet for the upholstery

      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

  • 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)

      by swb ( 14022 )

      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.

      • 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*

    • 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)

      • 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

    • Well, I wouldn't say it's completely unimpressive. Although most of the impressiveness is keeping it from taking off or ramming into the ground.

    • They can cook the hell out of a hot dog, too.

    • Re:not impressed (Score:5, Informative)

      by BenFenner ( 981342 ) on Friday June 13, 2014 @10:27AM (#47230181)
      No one has stopped doing wheel driven land speed cars. This is just a different class. If you want wheel driven, you can look to those classes and there is still plenty of partisipation. However, the wall of air encountered by a wheel driven car causes traction issues (imagine trying to accelerate pressed up against a birck wall) and at some point (I think it is around 400-500 MPH) the wheels just start spinning. it is not an issue of power. Power is easy to come by these days. The traction is the problem, especially on poor surfaces like salf flats. I agree it would be impressive to see these traction issues overcome, but it has been an issue since the ''60s and I don't see a solution in sight. Do you?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by necro81 ( 917438 )

      jet engines are for flying, any other use is stupid

      don't tell that to Bruce Wayne!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jawnn ( 445279 )

      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.

    • If you were sitting a couple feet off the ground going 500+ MPH, you might be more impressed than you think. And of course it's stupid, but that's not the point.
  • I'd assume you'd want a closed shell around the driver to reduce drag & aerodynamic disturbances. Also, I'm curious what effect this will have on the driver with only a helmet to protect them at supersonic speeds.

  • 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)

      by necro81 ( 917438 )

      It is graduated from 1 to 11. At the bottom is the subscript "MPH x 100". I'm used more to "RPM x 100"!

      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].

    • They'll have no problem getting to 1000mph in that case! Wonder if Spinal Tap will do the after record party music?

  • Look out for the cringe tastic swiss watch co. placement.....

    I guess it's an expensive business.

  • Sadly, the run won't be on the Black Rock Desert, http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/p... [bloodhoundssc.com] says:

    In light of this impressive record, surely BLOODHOUND will return to the Black Rock Desert? Sadly, no. A lack of rain over the last decade, together with increasingly heavy use for the playa surface (principly by the annual Burning Man festival) has left the Black Rock surface in poor condition. It is bumpy, crumbly, rutted and uneven for much of its 140+ square mile surface and is not currently a suitable surface on wh

  • Not convinced by the safety arguments (Score:3)

    by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Friday June 13, 2014 @01:04PM (#47231477) Homepage

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close