1000-mph Car Planned

Smivs notes a BBC report on a British team planning a 1000-mph record-breaking car. The previous land-speed record broke the sound barrier. The proposed vehicle will get from 0 to 1,050 mph in 40 seconds. "RAF pilot Andy Green made history in 1997 when he drove the Thrust SSC jet-powered vehicle at 763 mph (1,228 km/h). Now he intends to get behind the wheel of a car that is capable of reaching 1,000 mph (1,610 km/h). Known as Bloodhound, the new car will be powered by a rocket bolted to a Typhoon-Eurofighter jet engine. The team-members have been working on the concept for the past 18 months and expect to be ready to make their new record attempt in 2011."

Comments

1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency

[Drakkenmensch]

I can't help it but giggle when these speed-record setting land vehicules are referred to as "cars" when they're basically rockets with wheels and a seat.

Re:1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

plus, it's not over nine thousaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaand!!

Re:1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Well, what is your definition of a car?

Re:1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

A car is a vehicle driven primarily a motor turning the cars wheels and pushing against the ground.

Not a rocket strapped to a sled.

Re:1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency

[Drakkenmensch]

A land vehicule designed for the transportation of people, with a motor specced for activating the circular motion through a drive shaft of two (or more) wheels. Preferably with speed limitations that allow for surviving a turn higher than 10 degrees or hitting a pebble smaller than a cheerios.

Re:1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency

[idontgno]

"Car"

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Not a car (no passenger capacity)

Not a car (no drive shaft--in-hub electric motor)

Not a car (doesn't corner for crap)

Re:1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency

[Drakkenmensch]

Did you read the BBC article linked in the slashdot article? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7685049.stm Because it uses the word "car" 15 times. The fact that the word car was used 15 times kind of fooled me into thinking that this was some sort of CAR.

Re:1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency

[Baton Rogue]

(no passenger capacity)

His description never said anything about passenger capacity.
Also, by his definition, some motorcycles would be considered cars (drive shaft, with 2 wheels).

Re:1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency

[idontgno]

Look, if you're going to be pedantic, try the saving grace of being correct.

A land vehicule designed for the transportation of people

"transportation of people"... plural... which, unless you know of any kind of land vehicle with two primary driver positions, incontrovertibly means at least one passenger.

Re:1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency

[coren2000]

INCONCEIVABLE!

Re:1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency

[timeOday]

I agree there is something perverse about a 1000 mph car, since wheels are mainly just a liability at that point. The the force of gravity pushing down on the wheels will be insignificant compared to aerodynamics. At that speed you could just as easily "drive" on water if it were smooth enough. It's like saying an airplane is a car while it's on the runway.

Re:1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency

[tompaulco]

It's like saying an airplane is a car while it's on the runway.
Yup. And of course, most passenger airplanes attain speeds of only between 100 and 150 mph before separating from the runway. You probably wouldn't want to be in a passenger plane going 300 MPH on the ground, even if the runway was virtually unlimited.

Re:1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency

[NitsujTPU]

Indeed. I was just thinking that I'd really like to see a separate speed record for the fastest car that moves by spinning it's wheels.

Re:1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency

[Jonathan_S]

"transportation of people"... plural... which, unless you know of any kind of land vehicle with two primary driver positions, incontrovertibly means at least one passenger

Some longer articulated fire engines have a secondary (but not backup) rear driving position (well, steering position) so the back end can be steered. That allows the rear end to be swung wide going through a corner so the vehicle can get around a tighter corner. (Otherwise the rear end would clip the corner)

It's not a 2nd primary driver, but that's more than just a passenger. (And also completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand)

Re:1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency

[davester666]

Can I borrow it? I promise not to speed.

Re:1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency

[cecil_turtle]

There is a separate record for it, google for "fastest wheel driven car". The problem is that it's a bit less interesting because somewhere just north of 400 mph you run out of traction to overcome air resistance. They have plenty of engine power for more speed, but they can't get enough of it to the ground through the wheels. Imagine doing a 400mph power slide.

Re:1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency

[chord.wav]

Yes, I don't think any state or country would dare to issue a car license plate for that thing. People should name a vehicle a "car" only after it a car license plate has been issued for it....But on the other side, racing cars from whatever category do not have license plates so where's the limit?

I've got a better idea

[elrous0]

How about a 1000 mpg car?

Re:I've got a better idea

[Idbar]

Well, if you don't need to brake the momentum (I assume they have had a good aerodynamics work) will give you a fairly good mpg. (After all companies have their tricks to measure it)

But, yeah, I agree it's pointless, specially when in the US, the average highest speed limit is 70mph.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a bicycle.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Ice Tiger]

How many land speed record attempts do you know that were done by vehicles intended for commercial production and sale?

Part of this project is to inspire the younger generation whilst at school that engineering and science isn't dull and boring and something worth getting fired up about. The UK has a shortage of home grown talent when it comes to engineering and this is helping change that for the future.

Re:I've got a better idea

[X0563511]

Yes, because military jet engines are known for their high fuel efficiency...

Re:I've got a better idea

[elrous0]

Did I not mentioned that I'm very lazy?

Re:I've got a better idea

[Wrath0fb0b]

Some simple calculations will show you that 1000 mpg (for g as in gallon of gasoline) is physically impossible.

(1) Energy content of gasoline --- 36.6 kWh/US gallon. Let's assume that your engine works at the absolute thermodynamic limit (40%) for a combustion engine so you get 16 KWH of work out of it.
(2) The power to move your vehicle through air is P = (1/2)(density)(projected area)(drag coeff)(velocity^3)
(4) At sea level, 25C, 60 MPH, A = (1 m)^2, CD = .1, you have to expend P = 1.25 KW to continue moving.
(5) In one hour, therefore, you have consumed 1.25 KWH ~ (1/12) gal. You have also moved 60 miles, giving you 60*12= 720 mpg.

So, even under the most generous conditions, you cannot possibly do better that 700 mpg. Of course, we have neglected rolling friction of the tires and assumed that your regenerative braking system is so good that you expend no net energy starting and stopping. 720 mpg is just the energy required to move the air out of your way as you cruise to work.

At first, I was going to mod you OT and move on, but I felt like there was something important to be said here -- efficiency is not like performance. In performance, one can always throw more energy at the problem (he's using a jet engine FFS, new sports cars are always breaking HP limits) but when going for efficiency, you are going to see diminishing returns. 100 mpg is doable, 200 mpg is doable with severe sacrifices (mainly in the comfort/cargo dept). Past that, I feel like the laws of physics are not going to be particularly kind.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a 1000 mpg car?

How about a 1000 mpg car?

boy if you are stupid

Re:I've got a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of this project is to inspire the younger generation whilst at school that engineering and science isn't dull and boring and something worth getting fired up about.

Yes, lord knows we need more Men in engineering.

Where are the Mach 2 ponies? The 1000mph handbag?

(No, seriously, if people insist on showing men having fun with cars as 'fun engineering' then what impression do women get? Labs don't have to be sausage-fests.)

Re:I've got a better idea

[codeButcher]

It said something about "Green" in the summary. Not that I read it or anything.....

Re:I've got a better idea

[SydShamino]

Energy content of gasoline --- 36.6 kWh/US gallon. Let's assume that your engine works at the absolute thermodynamic limit (40%) for a combustion engine so you get 16 KWH of work out of it.

And what if you can capture some of the excess heat energy and use it to charge an electrical assist? It seems that you just derived the maximum theoretical mpg for a combustion engine, but you didn't derive the theoretical mpg for a car that may have a combustion engine + other parts.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Idbar]

"How many land speed record attempts do you know that were done by vehicles intended for commercial production and sale"

Precisely what I was saying pointless. How many NASCAR cars you can buy and drive on the streets?

I agree more on the F1 perspective, aerodynamics, handling, efficiency, safety, etc. Do you think land speed records provide mor "fun" than a circuit race?

I believe the old CART (now mixed with IRL) and F1 have more to take from.

Yes, you won't see an F1 in commercial production, but yet many of the technologies they have used are now available, such as semi-automatic sequential 7 gear transmissions, efficient gas engines, ultra light/safe materials. Now, what is it that this will provide to make the "engineering" world better and funnier except someone irresponsible driving at higher speeds?

Re:I've got a better idea

[Bender0x7D1]

Yeah... Physically impossible.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Miseph]

Of course, one can always ignore your calculations by doing things differently than how you expect.

For example, what is the thermodynamic limit of fuel cells? What are the thermodynamic limits of every other alternative fuel or alternative engine type? What if we use more highly refined fuel that carries more energy per unit? What if you do not travel at 60 mph in order to lower wind resistance? Speaking of wind resistance, what if you were to travel through specially designed low air pressure conduits to make air resistance nearly 0? We can change all sorts of things about the situation to make your math, while good, completely irrelevant to the scenario.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a 1000 mpg car that can go to 1000 mph? Then I'd like to see this car take a corner at that speed.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

"How about a 1000 mpg car?"

That would be foolish. Where would all the Oil Tycoons get their money then...?

Re:I've got a better idea

[j79zlr]

1 gallon of gas has approximately 115,000 BTU's of energy. That translates to 89,500,000 lbf-ft of energy or 16,950 lbf-miles of energy. To get 1,000 MPG, you could only exert 17 lbs of force for the duration of 1 mile. I don't think that is very practical.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Retric]

(velocity^3) so at 55mph you could do 900mph we already have 46% effecent powerplants. And nothing is stopping us from hitting 50%. http://w1.siemens.com/innovation/en/news_events/ct_pressemitteilungen/index/e_research_news/2008/index/e_22_resnews_0814_2.htm

As a side note at highway speeds drafting can significantly increase fuel efficiency by moving to a computer controlled highway system we could increase average fuel economy above what simple drag calculations would suggest.

PS: I don't think you will see out highway system getting this good but saying it's breaking some laws of physics is a different argument.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Kagura]

If you do that, then you win the Nobel prize for building a perpetual motion machine.

Re:I've got a better idea

[cawpin]

Wrong. For something to be physically impossible you can't assume an efficiency at any point. You need to use all of the energy in the gasoline to make your calculations. Also, some engines have already broken the 40% barrier.

Re:I've got a better idea

[swillden]

That was at 15 mph. If you can get to work in a reasonable amount of time at that speed, ride a bike.

Re:I've got a better idea

[MartinSchou]

That has already been done.

In the Shell Eco Challange 2007 the winning team drove the equivalent of 3,039 km on one liter of fuel, or 7,148 miles per gallon.

But I'm sure people will complain that "that's not a car", "a car has to have seven seats, room in the back for 2 cubic meters of crap, be able to haul a semi trailer and yada yada yada". Well, in that case, I'm pretty sure the land speed record for a "car" isn't above 120 miles/hour let alone the speed of sound.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Kjella]

Yeah... Physically impossible.

They've actually reached 3169 mpg for a one-man vechicle - that's not the problem. The problem is that it's not anywhere near a car and making it anything like a car would completely ruin that MPG, which was what the parent was calculating. For example, would you like to sit in your car? These "cars" have you lie down like on a skeleton sleigh - not something I'd like to regularly do for extended periods of time. Next up, you'd better weigh 130 pounds and as the car weighs less than 100 pounds itself, if you're 200 pounds that's going to make a huge difference. Or if you want to bring any luggage, not that I think there's room for any. You definately won't have any passengers. And to continue on the weight that brings me to another issue, these are paper thin vechicles built completely without regards to safety. They're designed to run a completely flat race track and probably have very poor acceleration, braking and I doubt they are most MPG efficient at their top speed, which is low anyway. Quite frankly, it doesn't look like it would ever get out of my driveway nor past the speed bump down the road. It's a bit like asking the question "What's the best MPG for a car?" and getting the answer "It's a 150 MPG scooter". Well, technically they're both a form of transport but it's not exactly a car, is it?

Re:I've got a better idea

[Lifyre]

He specified g is for gallon of gas. So while it's nice you're trying to think outside a box, he's already implicitly addressed your concerns by applying bounds to the problem/equations. Stepping outside those bounds doesn't make you a maverick it makes you an idiot who can't read. His scenatio is based upon using current infrastructure and gasoline. Yours is some 1960's vision of the year 2000. -Timmons

Re:I've got a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't mention gallon of what. I bet gallons of plutonium can handle 1000 mpg easily with the proper engine.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Miseph]

"Stepping outside those bounds doesn't make you a maverick it makes you an idiot who can't read."

But at least I can punctuate. Seriously though, aside from being a horrid cliche, "thinking outside the box" is the only way progress is ever really made. He made up an arbitrary constraint and I called it as such... that doesn't mean I can't read, it means I don't give two shits for his arbitrary limitation.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

At sea level, 25C, 60 MPH, A = (1 m)^2, CD = .1, you have to expend P = 1.25 KW to continue moving.

Funny thing is, birds seem to need way less than that to continue moving...

AC

Re:I've got a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Your assuming in this equation that gasoline is the only source of energy being utilized. A hybrid providing 60 mpg does not use fuel for that entire 60 miles, but instead using multiple energy sources, net's the vehicle 60 mpg.

Re:I've got a better idea

[shewfig]

With all the people on this topic posting that it's an "engineering feat" to go 1000mph - tops of wheels at Mach 2.8 relative to the surrounding air, rims subject to 173 G of force - your response is to say that 1000mpg is "impossible" - and OT?

I appreciate that your math makes certain generous assumptions, e.g. cd=.1, A=1m^2, and "maximum" efficiency for an internal combustion engine burning gasoline. I will also admit that your knowledge of the physics here is better than mine. However, I wonder if there are hidden assumptions that you are not factoring. I say this, knowing that the maximum theoretical speed of a modem is 9600 baud, but higher bps are possible, and knowing that the death of Moore's Law has been predicted for the last several years - both of which predictions are based in seemingly sound physics calculations.

I would also like to point out that the Bugatti Veyron's 1000+ HP apparently is also physically impossible in less than a 16L engine (@ 6000RPM), unless some game-changing technology is added.

Two other responses to your comment have already pointed out that a) the SAE Supermileage contest had several entrants whose mileage exceeded 1000mpg, and b) the methods you provide in your calculations may not be inclusive of all potential energy capture mechanisms. In short, YMMV. (Sorry, couldn't resist :-)

Reading this discussion, it seems to me that the 1000mpg problem requires much more subtlety than the 1000mph problem, and is, to me, the far more interesting one.

I do hope that Slashdot won't degrade to a point where 1000mph = exciting, 1000mpg = off-topic.

Re:I've got a better idea

[roguetrick]

He didn't make up the arbitrary constraint, the entire discussion was around miles per gallon. You came in and acted like you were talking about something revolutionary, but it had the same effect as some guy with a jester hat jumping in and yelling "Gotcha!"

But hey, I like you regardless, you smell nice.

Re:I've got a better idea

[markass530]

I'm saying this as a question, because your math (physics?) is obviously way fucking better then mine, I saw in print some article about a guy who got an extra stroke (or 2?) out of an IC engine using the heat given off. So how much would this add to your equation?

Re:I've got a better idea

[gunnk]

I believe that the excess heat of a combustion engine derives from the fact that it is not running at the absolute thermodynamic limit. If you're at the limit you have no excess heat to harvest.

Re:I've got a better idea

[gunnk]

It was also only 26 inches wide -- slightly wider than my handlebars.

Re:I've got a better idea

[nasch]

Fail! BMW is working on it, it's called a steam engine. Take waste heat that would ordinarily go to the radiator or the exhaust pipe and use it to boil water and run a generator. Use the electricity to charge batteries, power spark plugs, run ac, turn electric motors, whatever.

Re:I've got a better idea

[2short]

If you can't, move, then ride a bike. :)

Re:I've got a better idea

[2short]

"What if we use more highly refined fuel that carries more energy per unit? "

If you know of a way to store energy much more densely than gasoline, do tell. Besides, the point of increasing MPG is presumably not to have a smaller tank in the car, it's to use less oil as it comes out of the ground. "More refined" petroleum (jet fuel) doesn't help.

Other than that, Your ideas seem a bit speculative, but that's OK. There's lots of things, speculative and practical, we might do to reduce the energy required by transportaion. But not many of them wind up looking much like driving around in cars much the way we do now and just having them be more efficient. You might argue around the detailed math of the GP, but it's not completely irrelevant. His larger point stands: More efficient car technology doesn't look like it's going to be the better part of a solution to our energy crisis.

Re:I've got a better idea

[AndersOSU]

This project is much more like advanced-F1 than NASCAR. NASCAR sucks from a technology standpoint because it basically hasn't progressed past the '60s. 16 valve cam-in-block 358 carbureted V8 engines... are you kidding me?

This project is less practical than F1, but at least it is forward looking, which makes it more practical than NASCAR.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Carnildo]

(2) The power to move your vehicle through air is P = (1/2)(density)(projected area)(drag coeff)(velocity^3)
(4) At sea level, 25C, 60 MPH, A = (1 m)^2, CD = .1, you have to expend P = 1.25 KW to continue moving.

A drag coefficient of 0.1 is outstanding for a car-shaped car, but you can streamline better than that. A teardrop-shaped car, for example, has a drag coefficient of 0.04, giving a fuel economy of 1800 miles per gallon.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Kehvarl]

If we work with the axiom that at the thermodynamic limit is still only 40% efficient then the other 60% of the energy has to go into things other than generating motive force; things like: friction, noise, and heat.

Assuming we're at the thermodynamic limit, I'll assume we're also looking at minimal to no frictional losses. No friction will also cut down on noise from friction-based sources. This leaves that remaining 60% of energy being lost as heat. This heat could be used to run another heat engine using a source 60% as "hot" as the initial source. In theory we could stack these engines, losing 40% of our "heat" as "work" in each stage. Of course, at some point there won't be enough difference between the "hot" and "cold" sides of a heat engine to perform at all, so there is a limit. That being said, this is in no way a "perpetual motion" machine. The output of none of the engines is sufficient to run the engine itself, meaning that fuel needs to be consumed to supply out primary heat source.

This principle is used in other places than automotive engines. Steam locomotives frequently would use the "cold" low-pressure steam being exhausted from one set of drive cylinders to power a second set (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_locomotive). Obviously a steam locomotive was not at the thermodynamic limit, but even if that initial set of cylinders was at this limit, the exhaust would still have been steam under pressure, and potentially suited to driving another set of pistons to generate additional tractive effort.

Re:I've got a better idea

[gunnk]

I know -- but I *think* that saying an internal combustion engine is running at the maximum theoretical efficiency then we are harvesting all possible energy from the combustion temperature down to ambient. If so, then we can extract no useful work from the residual heat as there is no difference between the residual temperature and ambient temperature.

Then again, what the heck do I know. My college thermodynamics course was held at 8:00 -- how the heck did I even pass that course???

Re:I've got a better idea

[mcpheat]

Perhaps they could try offering scientists and engineers an attractive salary and good career prospects instead.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Wrath0fb0b]

Of course, one can always ignore your calculations by doing things differently than how you expect.

Of course. I thought I made it clear that I was talking about the consumption of gasoline by internal combustion, nothing more.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Wrath0fb0b]

Very good points. A few quibbles:

(1) Power plant efficiency cannot be compared to internal combustion (Otto Cycle) efficiency. On a theoretical level, they are very different thermodynamic systems. On a practical level, power plants use combined-cycle where the output from each level is fed into the input for the next level (some have 5-6 turbines in descending order of energetics).

(2) You are correct that I computed the efficiency for a car who is aerodynamically uncoupled from all the other cars (or driving down the lonesome road, as a fellow once said). Drafting cars behind one another would reduce drag quite a bit and, in fact, I do enjoy drafting behind large trucks -- not for the mpg difference but because in a manual car with a tight throttle and a loud engine, you can viscerally hear and feel the difference as you move into the vacuum.

Finally, who the heck wants to drive controlled by a computer?! I like driving. :-)

Re:I've got a better idea

[Wrath0fb0b]

40% is the absolute limit for the Atkinson Cycle, which is itself the absolutely most efficient method of extracting energy from combustion. These limits are derived from the basic laws of thermodynamics -- if you violate them, you win a nobel prize (or crash the computer simulating the universe, if you think that's how it works).

If you want to quibble about parameters, my figure of 0.1 for the drag coefficient and (1m)^2 for the orthogonal area are much better targets. I got the former from the most aerodynamic car ever made and the latter as a guess for the smallest cross-sectional area for what would still be called a car (as opposed to a motorcycle).

Re:I've got a better idea

[Wrath0fb0b]

How many birds do you know that have a cross-sectional area of (1m)^2 and travel at 60MPH?

Furthermore, birds are masterful at using thermal drafts and to extract energy from the atmosphere -- they ride a thermal draft upwards and use the potential energy to continue moving. So, indeed a humongous bird zipping at 60MPH does in fact use ~1 KW, just not all of that is provided internally.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Wrath0fb0b]

However, I wonder if there are hidden assumptions that you are not factoring. I say this, knowing that the maximum theoretical speed of a modem is 9600 baud, but higher bps are possible, and knowing that the death of Moore's Law has been predicted for the last several years - both of which predictions are based in seemingly sound physics calculations.

Well, I have detailed my assumptions pretty clearly, I thought. If you can reduce the drag coefficient or the area of the car, that will help (although, the extent to which you can call the SAE entrants "cars" at all is highly dubious -- they are wonderful feats, just not cars). As another commenter pointed out, if you couple the aerodynamics of the cars (drafting), you can throw my figure out the door.

As to the BPS/Moore's law arguments, those were based on "limits" that are not exactly the same as thermodynamic limits. Moreover, 56k modems do operate incredibly close to the Shannon Limit, which is as absolute as the 2nd law of thermodynamics (from which the maximum efficiency of combustion engines is derived). The death of Moore's law is complicated by our incomplete master of quantum physics (part of my area of research, I'm not afraid to admit we have a long way to go). At the moment, the limits are in the photolithography which is optics -- an area in which clever tricks go a long way. There is a saying posted on the wall in our department "The diffraction limit is for undergrads" -- if you understand what that means you'll go a long way towards understanding the difference between "limit" used in the absolute sense and "limit" used in the operational sense.

Bugatti's car breaks the "rules" by using air at much higher pressure -- the friendly turbocharger on every WRX and riced-out-Civic in your neighborhood. It's a long-known trick for beating the gas/air density mixture problem.

Finally, I don't know what "potential energy capture mechanisms" are. The 40% efficiency figure comes from an engine that, consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which is absolutely absolute), uses all the energy in the gasoline and emits only enough waste heat to satisfy entropy. That is to say, it uses all the free energy (which is a technical term, wikipedia it for a quick intro) available. The rest of the energy is not "free" (to be used to do useful work) but must end up as waste heat.

Reading this discussion, it seems to me that the 1000mpg problem requires much more subtlety than the 1000mph problem, and is, to me, the far more interesting one.

Absolutely. MPG is orders of magnitude more difficult because of diminishing returns -- at least level that you remove waste, smaller and smaller effects (wave drag, rolling friction, turning friction) become more pronounced.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Wrath0fb0b]

Yup. To some extent this becomes semantics -- what constitutes a "car". I know one when I see one and the SAE/Shell vehicles were just not cars.

Quibble: my calculation wasn't for the fuel efficiency of an actual car. It was for the maximum attainable efficiency given aerodynamic resistance. There are many things (rolling friction, imperfect regenerative breaking, internal resistance of the components) that make the number much lower. So a CD=.04 has a theoretical maximum mpg of 1800. Like I said, just a quibble.

Re:I've got a better idea

[giorgist]

With the exception of the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_F1

Re:I've got a better idea

[cawpin]

I'm not arguing with the math done or the resulting numbers. I simply stated that a "physical limit" in terms of numbers must be done at 100% efficiency. Otherwise, it isn't the physical possibility limit but the limit of current efficiency possibility. If the Atkinson cycle is limited to 40%, it simply isn't the most efficient method of getting energy from combustion. I'm not talking about hitting 80% here. When I say 40% was surpassed, it was only a percent or two and under very controlled conditions.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Wrath0fb0b]

We have a difference in language here. When I say 40% efficiency is the absolute maximum, I mean we can only extract usable work equal to 40% of the energy density of gasoline by burning it in internal combustion. The reason is that the system is irreversible and therefore must have some form of energy waste (or else it wouldn't add entropy to the system and that would mean it was reversible). I can prove (or at least I did once) that the Atkinson cycle is the absolute limit allowed by thermodynamics, you just can't do any better without violating the laws of physics as we currently understand them. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency for more details.

Now, you could say that a real gasoline engine that gets 39.5% of the usable work out of gasoline is really 99% efficient because it is operating at 99% of the theoretical maximum, but that doesn't appear to be what you are talking about. The sad fact is, there's no way to get 100% of the energy out of gasoline -- this is why chemists talk about the free energy. I would quote the free energy content of gasoline, but the exact number depends on the process used to extract it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_free_energy

Re:I've got a better idea

[Wrath0fb0b]

Unless you are charging the batteries from an outlet, all the energy has to have come from gasoline.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

what if you start at the top of a really big hill?

Re:I've got a better idea

[shewfig]

Ah, the 40% ideal is far more ideal than I'd realized. Is this specifically for the Otto cycle? (Reciprocating pistons, Wankel, etc.) Your explaination is phrased in the second law, which implies that even "weird" stuff like the Atkinson cycle can't bend the rules (third law) - although I found some numbers on Wikipedia that the Brayton (Joule) cycle could achieve up to 60%. There may be different definitions of "efficiency" in use.

The other question is whether heat exchange engines could be used to capture the entropic "waste" heat. Just as turbochargers change the power game by tweaking the input, it may be possible to change the efficiency game by harnessing the output. (See the other branch in the comment tree re: BMW using a secondardy steam engine.) I know I've got a Carnot engine stashed around here somewhere...

My apologies for the accidental use of the terms "potential" and "energy" congruently: I meant (potential (energy capture)), not ((potential energy) capture). Your answer clearly answers the larger question by addressing free energy.

Re: the SAE entrants: agreed. (Although 3169 mpg is damn impressive - 2008 winner, Laval Universite)

Also, thanks - your replies are thoughtful, patient, and polite, and provide a good chance for me to learn something new.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Miseph]

And my point is that gasoline based internal combustion has no particular reason to be used other than that it was the best option available at the time. if we simply use a better option, then we can do all sorts of crazy/unimaginable things. It's only cheating if you mistake the way things are for the way things have to be.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, I think trying to get high speed turbines to work inside a car would be fairly difficult due to all the vibration etc. But, considering the recent adoption of hybrid cars I think we can start looking into other types of engines with higher efficiency and lower maximum output. I would like to see someone try and scale this down and hook it up to a hybrid engine, but I don't know how this would work at a smaller scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Sulzer_RTA96-C

With a 42.7 MJ/kg fuel, the efficiency is 22.1 MJ/kg / 42.7 MJ/kg = 51.7%.

IMO, the most obvious long term solution is to try and electrify the highway system so individual cars don't need their individual power sources. Add in a reasonably battery pack and there would be little need for gas 95% of the time. Granted this would create a giant drain on the grid in rush hour but that's a whole other set of issues.

PS: I don't think we are going to have completely automated driving any time soon rather "Safety features" like the Collision Monitoring Breaking System that's optional on new Acura RL's is probably just the start. And like Airbags they are going to end up as standard features sooner than you might expect. Hell a hundred years from now it might be difficult to get your car to let the driver cause a crash.

Re:I've got a better idea

[ishmaelflood]

Absolute rubbish, many internal combustion engines have an overall efficiency greater than 40%.

Here's a list

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

That is to say, you can go and buy a car with an engine more efficient than whatever you think you have proved.

 

Re:I've got a better idea

[ishmaelflood]

The Atkinson cycle , at least as embodied in the Prius, is not very weird, Heywood merely classes it as an over-expanded engine.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

That heat is not "waste heat". It's required to maintain the difference in temperatures with which the engine operates.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said sir! That's exactly the point the other scientists and engineers I've discussed this project with have made.

They can try and inspire the youth with this project all they like, but those of us who work in science and engineering in the UK will be on hand to counter this and tell the youth "don't go into science and engineering, the pay is not marvellous, and you will get treated with disdain."

When they say it is a project to inspire the younger generation into science and engineering, we all know they mean inspire the youth to go into science and engineering to be paid mediocre wages, dumped when they are an age deemed to be expensive (around 30-35 in my experience) or shunted into dead end jobs.

Drayson, the new UK Science Minister, is either a liar or a fool if he believes the spin. Or probably both.

Re:I've got a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

> The UK has a shortage of home grown
> talent when it comes to engineering

Complete rubbish.

I can find you many engineers and scientists in the UK who do not work in science and engineering or who are unemployed, purely because they are regarded as too expensive compared with the cheap labour that can be brought in from abroad, or are regarded as too old when they reach 30.

You really need to open your eyes if you think there's a shortage of home grown talent. There is a wealth of talent, largely ignored, as your comments demonstrate.

I actually know a competent UK rocket scientist who was laid off for being too expensive at 25, and now washes dishes in a restaurant.

Yeah, real shortage of home grown talent.

Re:I've got a better idea

[mr3038]

Some simple calculations will show you that 1000 mpg (for g as in gallon of gasoline) is physically impossible.

True, as long as you take the following "facts" as constants:

• A single internal combustion engine
• Projected area: one square meter
• Drag coeffient: 0.1
• Travelling speed: 60 mph

It is not physically impossible to create a car that does not have all the above limitations. Such a car could do more than 1000 mpg. Obviously, it would not behave or look like a typical SUV...

Re:I've got a better idea

[Kehvarl]

Actually, you may be right. I think we need a better definition of what the original poster meant. If we're extracting energy from heat all the way down to ambient, and still only 40% efficient, where is the remaining 60% going?

The real question...

[xcog]

How many MPG will it get? And where can I dock my iPod?

Re:The real question...

[tritonman]

I think the real question is: where are they going to test it? So it gets to top speed in 40 seconds, well if you start at one end of britian you will probably be at the other end of britain in 40 seconds at that speed!

Re:The real question...

[innit]

Yeah, if Britain was 11 miles long.

Re:The real question...

[somersault]

Even at top speed, it would only travel 11 miles in 40 seconds..

Re:The real question...

[djveer]

It will be in a desert obviously as they discuss Here. Breaking and setting most top speed records of this calibre have been attempted at the Bonneville Salt Flats, Utah, USA so my bet would be there however I don't believe they have figured out exactly where they want to do it yet.

Re:The real question...

[MiniMike]

They're looking at sites all over the world. Maybe they're worried about having TSA arbitrarily confiscate the car at the border?

Re:The real question...

[MrMr]

...And where can I dock my iPod?
Must.
not.
bite.

Re:The real question...

[Anonymous Coward]

where can I dock my iPod

Visit goatse for some ideas.

Re:The real question...

[sqldr]

Having cycled from Lands End to John o' Groats twice, I can tell you that the shortest route from the two most distant points on great britain are 857 miles apart. The route we took was 1050. Based on this, by the time he hits 1050 mph, he would barely be out of cornwall. Then again, it's quite mountainous around there, so he would probably be quite high in the air by that point.

Re:The real question...

[Anonymous Coward]

and how many cupholders does it have?

Re:The real question...

[Woogiemonger]

More like 5 and 5/9 miles! *geeky snort*

Re:The real question...

[HTH NE1]

But then there's braking distance to consider.

Re:The real question...

[caluml]

barely be out of cornwall. Then again, it's quite mountainous around there, so he would probably be quite high in the air by that point.

I think the term "mountain" in Britain is actually English for "small undulating hill". Ben Nevis is what, 1300 metres high. I might jog up it one day.

Re:The real question...

[arethuza]

Check the weather though - Ben Nevis may only be 1300m high but the winter conditions on the Ben can be grim. Don't go up the Ben without foul weather gear or you may well end up dead - at any time of the year.

Re:The real question...

[stuckinarut]

Whoops, read that as "cornwall ... it's quite monotanous" and couldn't agree more!

Re:The real question...

[stuckinarut]

and no wonder he'd "be quite high by that point"

Re:The real question...

[sqldr]

Actually, "mountain" by english definition is anything over 1000ft. Cornwall has at least 4 "mountains". Neighbouring dartmoor goes up to 1800ft. Feel free to jog up that one, but real men cycle up it :-)

Re:The real question...

[isorox]

Actually, "mountain" by english definition is anything over 1000ft. Cornwall has at least 4 "mountains". Neighbouring dartmoor goes up to 1800ft. Feel free to jog up that one, but real men cycle up it :-)

Maybe to southern pansies, but a mountain is 1000m, 3000ft if you want to be generous and include some in England.

Bodmin is a speed bump.

Re:The real question...

[isorox]

Based on this, by the time he hits 1050 mph, he would barely be out of cornwall.

Even assuming a very high acceleration rate to start with, matching 1000mph in the first second, he'd be somewhere around Penzance. He wouldn't even have triggered a speed camera.

I wonder ...

[RAMMS EIN]

I wonder how many stars it will score on the crash test ...

Car? Or rocket on wheels?

[Madball]

While technically any wheeled vehicle is a car, this is not a car in any common sense meaning of the word.

1. You can't (and won't ever be able to) buy one.

2. You can only drive it at speed on salt flats.

3. You can't drive it on public roads (driver and pedestrian safety, shooting flames of death, etc).

4. Even if you could drive it on-road, its turning radius is probably a mile!

A better title might be "British team seeks to break land speed record, again." or even better "Yaaaawn"

Car?

[bcmm]

At that sort of speed, presumably all control is going to be aerodynamic anyway, making this basically a rocket-plane designed to fly so close to the ground that the wheels touch it, right?

thats a big splat

[hierophanta]

the last person i heard of strapping a rocket to a car to see how fast they could go ended up driving into a mountain because he couldnt stop - and this was in the salt flats of utah (at least thats where he started, clearly it wasnt so flat where he ended up)

Re:thats a big splat

[drerwk]

the last person i heard of strapping a rocket to a car to see how fast they could go ended up driving into a mountain because he couldnt stop

The intention was not to stop, but an actual test of the Overthruster.

and this was in the salt flats of utah (at least thats where he started, clearly it wasnt so flat where he ended up)

Certainly the 8th dimension would not be described as flat!

Re:thats a big splat

[Anonymous Coward]

remember,
    no matter where you go, there you are.

When does it stop being a car?

[jonas_sten]

is it a car as long as it has wheels?

Re:When does it stop being a car?

[MadKeithV]

Then they should just run a Eurofighter on a runway trying not to take off... Just as much a "car" as this thing.

Re:When does it stop being a car?

[Abstrackt]

is it a car as long as it has wheels?

I'm going to say yes as it justifies my making vrooming noises when I ride my chair around the office.

Re:When does it stop being a car?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Then they should just run a Eurofighter on a runway trying not to take off... Just as much a "car" as this thing.

Fighter jet landing gear and tires are not built for 1,000mph. Maybe 300-350 absolute max. Rebuild it to do 1,000mph, and you'll end up with something that looks quite a lot like this thing does.
One similar speed record 'car' is literally an F-104 body, sans wings.

Re:When does it stop being a car?

[R2.0]

I believe the sanctioning bodies have decreed that a car must have 4 wheels - that's about it. For instance, the Blue Flame, the long time record holder, was technically a motorcycle due to its single nosewheel.

Re:When does it stop being a car?

[caluml]

When you can't spin the wheels. I.e. when the wheels aren't driving it. Also, when you can't do a handbrake turn, or theoretically drive it to the shops.

falling forwards

[dnwq]

(1050/40) (mph / second) = 1.19661658 g. Neat. Accelerating just above the rate one falls. No excessive gee forces to worry about, at least.

Re:falling forwards

[SirLoadALot]

You are assuming constant linear acceleration. I think it is safe to say that the acceleration when the rocket motor is turned on will be somewhat more dramatic than that. Even if you use your figure, bear in mind that gravity will still be there, and the combined force will be sqrt(1.19g + 1g) = 1.55g, so the pilot would feel 55% heavier than normal.

Re:falling forwards

[Anonymous Coward]

You are assuming constant linear acceleration. I think it is safe to say that the acceleration when the rocket motor is turned on will be somewhat more dramatic than that. Even if you use your figure, bear in mind that gravity will still be there, and the combined force will be sqrt((1.19g)^2 + (1g)^2) = 1.55g, so the pilot would feel 55% heavier than normal.

Fixed that for you.

Re:falling forwards

[Barterer]

If the power output is constant, you'd start off like a rock out of a slingshot. Then as you reached top speed the acceleration would taper off asymtotically. Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass x velocity^2 I think.

Re:falling forwards

[IcyHando'Death]

To calculate the acceleration the driver/pilot experiences, you should also take into account the force of gravity. The two vectors are perpendicular in this case, so it's a simple calculation:

a = (1g^2 + 1.196g^2)^.5
    = 2.196^.5 g
    = 1.482g

Still quite tolerable, but 48% more than what you get by ignoring gravity.

Re:falling forwards

[Fourpole]

a = (1g^2 + 1.196g^2)^.5
= 2.196^.5 g

1^2 plus 1.196^2 does not equal 2.196.

Re:falling forwards

[hairykrishna]

Yep. According to the interview I saw he's going to be pulling about 2.5g when the rocket kicks in.

Re:falling forwards

[Anonymous Coward]

True but I doubt the acceleration would be linear.

Re:falling forwards

[JLDohm]

Fixed that for you.

Oh my god....I think that might be the first time I've actually seen someone fix something when they say that.....

Re:falling forwards

[EchaniDrgn]

I was wondering how this would compare to professional drag racing. I knew some drag racers were seeing physical side effects. I guess at 2.5 G's this isn't quite the acceleration that we're used to seeing in the NHRA.

A Top Fuel dragster accelerates from 0 to 100 mph (160 km/h) in as little as .8 seconds, subjecting the driver to a force about 5.7 times their weight.

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

Re:falling forwards

[Anonymous Coward]

If force is constant, the acceleration would increase as the mass decreased (rocket fuel is used up). See the rocket equation.

Re:falling forwards

[CopaceticOpus]

The force of the rocket may be constant, but as speed increases the forces of wind resistance and friction become dominant.

Re:falling forwards

[SpinyNorman]

Except that the acceleration isn't uniform from 0-1000mph.

Per the video, the driver says the top acceleration is about 2.5g (or 0-60 in 1 sec).

I rather liked the stat that it can outrun a handgun bullet. Think about it... the car blasts past you at 1000mph, and just as it's passing you fire a gun in the same direction the car is travelling - and the car stays ahead of the bullet! Holy fuck!!!!

Watch out for Italians

[Anonymous Coward]

Italians will try to use these cars to take their nefarious ices across our borders. They nthey will evade law enforcement and distribute their illicit ices to the proletarian centers of Chicago and Pittsburgh. Then what? Italians are bad news and they should not have this car.

How can you call it a car...

[John Hasler]

...when it is not kept on the ground by gravity?

Re:How can you call it a car...

[Gordonjcp]

Can you call a Formula 1 racing car a car? Look at what happens when one of those loses a wing...

Re:How can you call it a car...

[somersault]

So.. supercars and racing cars aren't "cars" either?

Re:How can you call it a car...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I was wondering this myself. I feel that these cars, if they are powered through rockets are not really cars at all. In my mind you should have to accelerate the car through a torque through the wheels to really be a car. These apply the force directly to the air surrounding it, making it in my mind more of a rocket that also lies on the ground. The wheels spin really fast, but they aren't the propelling force.

Re:How can you call it a car...

[John Hasler]

Well, at least they are driven by the wheels. These rocket "cars" would go faster without any.

Re:How can you call it a car...

[John Hasler]

Would they go faster or slower without wheels?

Re:How can you call it a car...

[somersault]

I would think a lot slower.

First of all, that doesn't actually have anything to do with your original comment of a car having to be kept on the ground by gravity!

Secondly, are you suggesting a rocket powered car would go go faster without its wheels too (without being given skis, or wings and control surfaces)? I doubt it.. it would probably just slide along a bit at first, then dig into the ground, possibly flipping over and flopping around a bit, perhaps taking off for a moment if it gets upside down and is travelling fast enough to create any lift.. but it would destroy itself before getting anywhere near 1000mph.

Re:How can you call it a car...

[Gordonjcp]

Oh yes, I mean it's more akin to a taxi-ing jet aircraft than a car.

There's a point. Would it be cheaper just to buy a Eurofighter and saw the wings off?

Re:How can you call it a car...

[John Hasler]

> Secondly, are you suggesting a rocket powered car would go go faster without its wheels
> too (without being given skis, or wings and control surfaces)?

It has wings and control surfaces: that's how it stays on the ground. Change the trim a bit and off you go. Literally.

> it would probably just slide along a bit at first...

Obviously, it needs wheels for taxiing. I suspect that the changes needed to turn it into a ground-effect machine would not be major, though. Then you could use lighter wheels with less drag (maybe even retractable) and get more speed.

How about this: it's a land vehicle if it normally remains within 10% of it's length of the land?

Re:How can you call it a car...

[somersault]

How about this: it's a land vehicle if it normally remains within 10% of it's length of the land?

That would be pretty cool. Then we could have real life pod racing :)

Sadly the land speed record for hovercraft seems to be pretty low.. a quick google turns up about 85mph in 2004 at least, but now I must go home as I finished work over 1.5 hours ago and should stop posting!

Re:How can you call it a car...

[giorgist]

A F1 car at speed with it's ground effect can run or the ceiling of a tunnel if it was allowed to do so. It would make for some spectacular overtaking

G

Re:Car? Or rocket on wheels?

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with your not-a-car sentiment, I think it is still a valid pursuit to attempt to break prior records. Generally, progress is measured by either surpassing previous measurements of progress, or by managing something entirely new. I think this qualifies for the former.

To the moon!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many stars it will score on the crash test ...

I wonder how many stars it will PASS on the crash test ;)

Better metric

[number17]

I want to know what the litres per second are.

Re:Better metric

[Anonymous Coward]

35 L/s. but that's not including the engine to drive the fuel pump or the solid-fuel rocket.

From the wired write-up: "V12 engine will drive Bloodhound's hydraulic system, serve as a starter motor for the EJ200 and pump high test peroxide fuel through the rocket at the rate of one ton every 22 seconds."

so if the density of the fuel is 1.3g/cc (95% H202/Kerosene), then that's about 35 L/s

Two words..

[2phar]

Cup Holders

Re:Two words..

[somersault]

I think a more practical item would be brain and intestine holders! Nobody is walking away from something like that in a crash.. :s

It's not like a 1000mph car is even useful for anything - it is still impressive to develop the tech, and it could be useful for other applications, but personally I'd just design an AI to pilot the car rather than risk someone's life like that. I love my cars, but if you need to move that fast, you move through the air where stuff like bumps in the ground and wheel bearings aren't going to cause problems. I think anything over 200mph in a car is asking for trouble - you get to the horizon almost as soon as you can see it.

It wasn't this guy was it?

[reality-bytes]

Snopes - JATO car embedded in cliff

Re:It wasn't this guy was it?

[hierophanta]

uhh.. yes, yes it was.

Re:It wasn't this guy was it?

[FrameRotBlues]

Pictures, or it didn't happen.

Splat

[FrostedWheat]

I'd hate to be a bug on that windscreen. Ooch.

Re:Splat

[Anonymous Coward]

At those ridiculous speeds, birds and insects go through the window. These collisions are called BASH (Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard). Take a look: Porsche vs Bird

Re:Splat

[gstoddart]

I'd hate to be a bug on that windscreen. Ooch.

To the bug, once you reach the speed of "splat", any faster is irrelevant.

I figure anything past the first 60mph isn't going to really change anything. :-P

Cheers

Re:Splat

[TheLink]

How fast do sensory signals travel in a bug?

Basically once the bug goes splat fast enough that the brain is gone before the signals get to it, then there's not much difference to the bug.

Otherwise if it's slower the bug's brain will get the signals - though the brain may not quite perceive it fully.

I think sensory nerve impulses in a human can travel at about 270kph. The pain impulses are about 90kph.

The bug might tend to bounce or be pushed aside, so the actual collision speed might be different.

Anyway it's safe to assume there's no difference between 800 mph and 1000mph to the bug. Since 800mph is faster than the speed of sound.

Re:Splat

[Aqua_boy17]

Q. You know what the first thing is that goes through a mosquito's mind when he hits your windshield?

A. His ass.

Re:Splat

[sexconker]

A bug can easily handle 60 MPH on a windshield/window.

It's the acceleration that gets em.

I've seen some hang on casually at 80 MPH

Stupid rules

[gnasher719]

I'd prefer to have car speed records for something that is remotely sensible, like 10 laps at Indianopolis, or 1 lap of the complete Nürburgring. Or something like: Start at an arbitrary point X, come to a complete halt at a point Y that is at least 10 miles away, move within 1 meter to the original point X, and stand still again.

Re:Stupid rules

[meringuoid]

I'd prefer to have car speed records for something that is remotely sensible, like 10 laps at Indianopolis, or 1 lap of the complete Nürburgring.

You can. But if you're interested in sheer speed, then it's straight-line records like this which are interesting.

Re:Stupid rules

[caluml]

Argh! The fastest laptime is a Dodge Viper.

I'll have to stop mocking American cars' handling now. Or something.

1000 mph?

[drunkennewfiemidget]

1000mph? Pssh. That's nothing. Have you driven on Highway 401 in Toronto at 2am on a Sunday? You'll get highbeamed and honked at for anything less than 750 in the right lane.

Re:1000 mph?

[ZDRuX]

Haha, yes I have.. after a night of clubing. I call them "Serious contenders" - my friend though it was pretty funny :)

Sponsors?

[speroni]

Is this an ACME funded project?

ACME

Re:Sponsors?

[Instine]

..,o%80o== Meep meep!

Re:Sponsors?

[Anonymous Coward]

Product development for the Coyote.

Re:Sponsors?

[ParanoiaBOTS]

Acme...we strap rockets to everything!

Re:Car? Or rocket on wheels?

[speroni]

Airplanes have wheels... even the space shuttle has wheels. They don't make any claims to be cars.

The video...

[PearsSoap]

"Are you telling me I can dodge bullets?"
"When you're ready, you'll be able to outdrive them."

MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Shivetya]

I know it is not currently but it will be one day.

I like achievements like these. I know it costs a lot of money but my hat off to the engineers who can come up with these machines let alone the driver who dares to do it. Too many people want to sit on their couch and bitch secure in the safe little world and never get out to live life.

I know many will scream "whats the point". Well the point is that no one has done it, people claim it cannot be done, and throw in the challenge of trying. It gives kids something to dream about, perhaps sparking some enthusiasm for different careers.

Besides we might just learn something

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

And how exactly does that make MPG "obsolete?"

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Ice Tiger]

Using a jet engine off the shelf isn't the hard part, btw the rocket is a HTP hyrbid rocket that is developed for this project.

The real brain cruncher is how you design a vehicle that can survive an environment where supersonic shock waves are being reflected off of a desert floor back onto the body of the craft and so on. Remember the wheels are travelling on the ground at mach 1.4, if they were uncovered the top of the wheel would be travelling at mach 2.8 with regards to the local airflow. That's up there with the SR71 in terms of velocity.

Hardly off the shelf.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, the entire US customary measuring system is obsolete...

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[spideysense]

Yeah, and I bet the Dodge Neon you strap those rockets to hold up real good at 1000mph. It takes some engineering to withstand those kind of forces without blowing the car and the driver into tiny pieces. But please give me a call when you try your little experiment - I'd love to watch.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[jcr]

. They're taking an off-the-shelf jet engine and rocket and putting it in a car.

They're also making the car stable and making it remain on the ground. It's not as easy as you make it out to be.

-jcr

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[ATMD]

I expect my lecturer would disagree with you on that point. I'm an undergraduate at Swansea University, where a lot of the work (such as the aerodynamics) is being done. The computational fluid dynamics code that's being used to allow this thing to go 1000mph was developed here, powers aerospace firms like Airbus, BAE Systems and Rolls Royce, and has been decades in the making.

Which means that you sir, are trolling.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it is not currently but it will be one day.

I like achievements like these. I know it costs a lot of money but my hat off to the engineers who can come up with these machines let alone the driver who dares to do it. Too many people want to sit on their couch and bitch secure in the safe little world and never get out to live life.

I know many will scream "whats the point". Well the point is that no one has done it, people claim it cannot be done, and throw in the challenge of trying. It gives kids something to dream about, perhaps sparking some enthusiasm for different careers.

Besides we might just learn something

that's a fair point in and of itself. but there's hypocrisy to be pointed out... hedge fund managers are rightfully regarded as self-indulgent a&@holes, selfish and single-minded even. often, nerds aren't much better ("oh, that's a cool gadget!!!" doesn't strike me as much more righteous or useful for the world than "oh, this will make me rich!")

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[SharpFang]

the wheels are travelling on the ground at mach 1.4, if they were uncovered the top of the wheel would be travelling at mach 2.8 with regards to the local airflow. ...and the surface of the wheel accelerates from zero to mach 2.8 on distance of diameter of half the circumference of the wheel.

Say, the wheel is 1m diameter. The circumference is pi meters. 2.8 mach is 953m/s. That's 0.00164s to travel half the circumference (distance of half of turn of the wheel). 2.8m/s / 0.00164s. 1698m/s^2, that's 173 g.
And that's the bottom cap on the actual value, because it's not linear and doesn't take the upward motion into account.

In other words, the fact the wheels aren't ripped apart by centrifugal/centripetal force.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[NoNeeeed]

As JFK once put it very succinctly...

"We choose to go to the moon, and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard"

If all we ever do is the easy stuff, nothing ever changes.

And for all the people saying this is easy, why don't you give it a try then? It isn't just the money, this stuff takes serious engineering and real talent on the part of the driver/pilot.

What amazing stuff have you done in your life?

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Sockatume]

To misremember the words of some journalist covering the Thrust SSC: while getting to the sound barrier in a vehicle with wheels is easy, doing so without inadvertently turning your car into a new kind of aircraft or tunneling machine is rather more difficult.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[famebait]

I know many will scream "whats the point".

WHAT IS THE POINT?

Now, I get the point of getting something to go that fast. I understand the point of getting a manned vehicle tho got hat fast. I get the point of getting one of the two to go that fast close to the ground.

It's just the wheels bit that seems patently silly to me. It is simply not a rational choice at those speeds, and the only reason to have them is because it supposedly 'makes it a car' so you can compete in that category in stead of as a rocket or plane.

I makes no sense. It's like setting a world record in the category "speed skating with a double-bass strapped to your ass". No, it does not further humanity. The necessary tech and theory probably did, but they could easily be employed in, and prompted by, a more sane project in stead.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[hey!]

Asking the point of engineering feats like this is like asking the point of sex being enjoyable. The point of sex being enjoyable is to encourage procreation. The point of engineering being enjoyable is to encourage creativity.

Of course, engineers like to see their creations at work, doing useful things, just like chefs love to see people eating. But speaking as an engineer who grew up in a restauranting family, you've got to be a little bit insane to go into either business. Nobody would become a chef unless they had a bizarre compulsion to cook. My brother went into that business, and you literally can't keep him away from the stove or the grill if there is cooking going on. The only reason he can sit still in a restaurant, I think, is professional interest in other aspects of the diner's experience, but even then he can't resist the temptation to host the meal, to buy drinks, to make suggestions for what to select from the menu. Some of his buddies have actually put full restaurant kitchens in their garages and spend their time off cooking.

When I visit my relatives, on the other hand, I find myself fixing their computer problems. I can't not fix their problems, even though I hate dealing with those kinds of messes. If cars were as easy to work on from general knowledge as they were forty years ago, I'd probably be fixing their cars too. I'm just addicted to the satisfaction of getting everything sorted out.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the axle is traveling 1.4Mach. The wheels on the ground are moving same speed as the ground.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the point of engineering is to build things. Teachers encourage creativity. Generally engineers are discouraged from being creative if the solution can be met using established standards and specs that have been proven over time.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

Like on a dictionary for farmers who cant' spell "elsewhere". BTW, do you think the money was just put in a pile and burnt? It went to people with jobs, like you and me...

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

Please do not compare hedge fund managers to a&@holes. It is unfair to real a&@holes.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[FatdogHaiku]

I agree, out with MPG! Personally, I have already switched over to what I hope will become the new standard....
Furlongs Per Hogshead

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[snspdaarf]

I makes no sense....

Your words, not mine, but I agree.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the part of the wheel that is touching the ground is not moving at all.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[hierophanta]

it become obsolete when we stop using gasoline -- gallon of what? in the future we might be seeing measurements like miles per kilowatt

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[HTH NE1]

To be fair, the entire US customary measuring system is obsolete...

And yet its powers of two make it far easier to represent in binary memory without incurring rounding errors.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

I like achievements like these. I know it costs a lot of money but my hat off to the engineers who can come up with these machines let alone the driver who dares to do it. Too many people want to sit on their couch and bitch secure in the safe little world and never get out to live life.

Yeah, and too many people are bitching about their hard-earned tax money being pissed away funding projects like this too. As long as it's being funded privately by people with nothing better to do with their millions, fine.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Shotgun]

Stop insulting trolls. He's just a clueless idiot.

BTW, most people don't realize that their tires are speed rated. Tires are just rubber balloons, after all. Just ones with really thick walls. They will deform and even come apart if pulled hard enough. The faster a car goes, the more pull on the tire's tread and sidewall. Once the pull starts, it will most likely deform to an out of balance shape. In this case that out of balance will translate to a vibration, which translates to a bump, which translates to a lot of pieces to pick up off the desert floor.

A post above gave the figure of 173g for a 1m wheel travelling at 1000mph. That 1m wheel will be spinning at 8542 RPM. A slight imbalance at that rotational rate? Even the engineering of the tire will need novel ideas for strengthening the sidewall and lightening the tread to keep it balanced.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

But the airflow is moving equally in the opposite direction...hence the posters comment. Idiot.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Shotgun]

Engineers who are paid for what they are doing are encouraged to use established solutions. That's why engineers go home and work on their own projects. Then they get to do something different, just for the sake of doing something differently.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Retric]

Your at 4x the correct g. The rate of rotation is based off of the speed of the car relative to the speed of the ground. The top of the tire is moving at twice the speed of the car relative to the ground but the bottom is not moving relative to the ground. However, it's all 1x the speed of the car relative the center of the tire. Which is the frame of reference you need to calculate the centripetal force. PS: It's also a good idea to note only the outside edge of the tire is under that much g loading as to move to the center of the tire the g forces drop to zero. (It's still an insane speed to rotate a tire.)

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

Reasonable men adapt to the world around them; unreasonable men make the world adapt to them. The world is changed by unreasonable men.

-- Edwin Louis Cole

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Retric]

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

For the most part the money might as well just have been burnt. Which would have cost the economy nothing vs the fuel and other resources wasted building this stupid waste of cash.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[jointm1k]

Strapping a jet fighter engine to a car isn't considered innovation in my book. If they came up with some new technology or developed something new, I might be impressed.

I would say that a car that travels faster than any plane on low altitudes is pretty innovative.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[2names]

Besides we might just learn something

Yes, we might just learn if Fruit of the Looms can withstand the force of a 1000 MPH "Oh SHIT!" moment.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[HTH NE1]

A missile that never leaves the ground won't be detected on radar scanning the air, nor by seismic sensors.

Though perhaps "missile" is the wrong term, as would be "torpedo". Would it just be a ram?

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[kazamx]

I sometimes get the feeling the readership of Slashdot has aged over the last few years. The wonder excitement and enjoyment of doing something seems to be on the way out and cost/benefit productivity gains and other boring crap seem to be what people worry about. There was never a reason to go to the moon. There was never a reason to climb Everest. There was never a good reason to go to the North or South Poles. There was never good reason to do many of the cool things we did, that is until we did them.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[famebait]

If it was really powers of 2 based, sure, but it has lots of 3s too, meaning the practical difference is marginal.

Sure, 10 is a really crappy base, but we're pretty much stuck with that by now, it so it makes sense to have the measurement system match the numeric system.

For computing, a base with only 2s as factors (e.g. 8 or 16) would be "better", but
then the whole point of computers is to make things easier for _us_, so that's not really a concern.

What would be the most useful for us (as a counting base _and_ measurement base)?

    12.

It's in the right order of magnitude for us to handle mentally, and it has the very everyday-useful factors of 2, 3 and 4. Counting on your fingers would be slightly harder, but most people seemed to be able to deal just fine with dozens long before any education was widespread, so that can't be that bad.

10 only has the factors 2(very useful) and 5 (mostly useless except for stuff that arises directly or indirectly from its role in our base number)

Now I know imperial measures does employs 12, but not repeatedly and consistently, and neither it nor the others are consistent with our numeric system, so it remains hell to work with.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Gilmoure]

Maybe someone could figure out how to use the force of the air rushing past the car to help support it or even totally suspend it so one wouldn't have to use wheels at all. That would be cool!

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Medievalist]

To be fair, the entire US customary measuring system is obsolete...

Really? I had no idea that all my measuring devices, textbooks, and construction techniques had suddenly ceased to perform their functions adequately.

"You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inego Montoya

The traditional US measuring system, which is derived from the pre-imperial English anthropic system, is in many ways superior to the metric system for common tasks like home construction. Basing your system on 12 instead of ten is extremely practical (outside the ivory towers and groves of Academe) because carpenters, artists and architects can easily achieve aesthetic and functional balance without generating excessive trim waste or requiring computers to figure out how to center a window frame.

Daniel Fahrenheit went to a great deal of trouble to set up his temperature measuring system so that the most practically useful values (water freeze point & human body temperature) were on 32 and 96 degrees respectively. Easily manipulable numbers are a good thing. The metric system is best relegated to the lab, and even their its essential arbitrariness makes it inferior to systems based on natural units.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. This is just someone looking for fame in some category. It is basically a game. "Can you do X while following the rules of the game?" In this case you must have wheels touching the ground.

It is as pointless and arbitrary as when that blind person climbed Mt Everest. For all he knew he could've been on a mountain in Alaska with people guiding him the whole way. All of the "This is for you!" explanations are bull, it is really about personal glory and "me firsts". Which is fine, just be honest about it.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Gilmoure]

Back in '88, I had sex with three women at once; blond, brunette, and red-head. Was 19. I think that was the high point of my life and I'm now on a long down-hill slide into obscure dotage. Ah, well, someone had to do it.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[powerslave12r]

My $10 says you can't.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Chris Daniel]

measurements like miles per kilowatt

Kilowatt-hour is what you want here. The watt is a _rate_ of energy consumption (power), not a lump of energy. Kilowatt-hour is the equivalent of one kilowatt consumed over the course of one hour: 1 kWh = (1000 joules / second) * 3600 seconds = 36000 joules

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Chris Daniel]

Oops -- 3600000 joules.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe someone could figure out how to use the force of the air rushing past the car to help support it or even totally suspend it so one wouldn't have to use wheels at all

You mean the vehicle would kind of plane through the air? Awesome idea! But what would we call such a vehicle?

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[gunnk]

Kind sir! I beg to differ!
Personally, I've found that as I get older the desire to create for its own sake has grown. I still love working as a sysadmin, but I need more diverse intellectual undertakings.
Are my efforts at Linux-based home automation particularly practical? Maybe not, but my back porch tiki lights come on exactly at sunset every night.
Are my efforts at manufacturing plastic parts from recycled styrofoam in my kitchen going to revolutionize the world? Er... no.
I don't think the tendency to say "what's the practical application" or (even worse to me) "why bother if it isn't useful" has any age basis. It just shows a lack of curiosity and an inability to understand why someone wants to do something simply for the sake of tackling an interesting problem.
Doing something because you can. Doing something because it's hard. Doing something because no else has. Doing something because it's dang cool.
You either get it or you don't -- regardless of age.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[locnar42]

Back in '88, I had sex with three women at once;...

the good news is that you should be able to make lots of money with 3 penises

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[fishbowl]

> It went to people with jobs, like you and me...

Well, at my job we do calculus on the whiteboard, but I've learned that's not very common.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[pz]

Remember the wheels are travelling on the ground at mach 1.4, if they were uncovered the top of the wheel would be travelling at mach 2.8 with regards to the local airflow. That's up there with the SR71 in terms of velocity.

Not only that, but it happens at close to 1 atm whereas the SR71 hits those immense speeds in the stratosphere. This car is an incredible aerodynamic engineering challenge!

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember the last time I was at the Museum of Science and Industry, I spent a good 15 minutes checking out the wheels and tires on the Spirit of America. Velocity itself is only half the problem, having a tire hold up against that much friction is the other.
I know what the tires on my 600cc look like after a day at the track and I only hit sustained speeds of 150/60 mph for a mile and a half.
Amazing tech and my hats off to the guys who build them and run them. I think everyone should make it to SpeedWeek at Bonneville at least once in their lives. The VW engine bonfire last time I was there was fantastic!

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[rbunker]

As JFK once put it very succinctly...

"We choose to go to the moon, and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard"

If all we ever do is the easy stuff, nothing ever changes.

And for all the people saying this is easy, why don't you give it a try then? It isn't just the money, this stuff takes serious engineering and real talent on the part of the driver/pilot.

What amazing stuff have you done in your life?

Hmmm. I thought the Apollo program was a way to get funding for development of ICBM technology. Perhaps I am just cynical.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[riker1384]

The full quote is actually "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."

He pronounced "decade" in an unusual way. I could never understand what he was saying as a kid, but I eventually Googled it and found out.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[shutdown -p now]

Metric is superior for one simple reason: it uses the same base for its units as our numbering system. If you Americans would have gone over base 12 completely (and revamp your measuring system to use base 12 consistently), you would have had a point. As it is, it really doesn't buy you anything, and creates a host of problems.

Daniel Fahrenheit went to a great deal of trouble to set up his temperature measuring system so that the most practically useful values (water freeze point & human body temperature) were on 32 and 96 degrees respectively.

And? What good are the magic numbers 32 and 96?

Of course, Fahrenheit vs Celcius is even less funny than metric vs Imperial - 0 as water freezing point is easy to remember and makes a lot of practical sense in any country with proper winter, and once you pick that, it just makes sense to put water boiling point at the other end of the scale (and it's easy for a person to compare those and grasp what a difference of 1C is).

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

What amazing stuff have you done in your life?

I invented the Internet! ... oh, wait... Al Gore beat me to it, didn't he?

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[WGR]

Daniel Fahrenheit went to a great deal of trouble to set up his temperature measuring system so that the most practically useful values (water freeze point & human body temperature) were on 32 and 96 degrees respectively.

Actually he did not choose those points. He chose 0 as the lowest temperature he could reach with a salt/water mixture as being the lowest outdoor temperature he would reach in Germany. He did want to use human body temperature, but measured it on someone with a fever, giving 100 incorrectly as that.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[NeutronCowboy]

10 only has the factors 2(very useful) and 5 (mostly useless except for stuff that arises directly or indirectly from its role in our base number)

I think you grossly underestimate the usefulness of a factor of 5 when the base is 10. It's actually far more useful than 4, which is just 2*2, and also far more useful than 3, which is non-trivial to computer for large numbers. Quick - what's 387 divided 5? Divided by 3?

12 is an idiotic system to work with if your day-to-day base is 10. Standardize on either, but mixing them is just stupid.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of them do it so they can work on something worthwhile.

I have been witness to many projects that get shut down after a couple of years. You want to drive a bunch of engineers nuts. Put them on projects and shut them down after they have worked 60 and sometimes 80 hour weeks to keep the project on deadline.

You do this a couple of times and you start finding projects you can do at home and quit worrying about the projects at work.

But this is also the reason people hire young engineers. Older engineers have seen this cycle and don't want to participate and if the project takes a bad turn they bitch the loadest and have factual ammunition to back it up. It's much easier and cheaper to get younger engineers eager to work 60+ hours a week.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[NeutronCowboy]

Have you ever tried to work on home construction with the metric system? It's just like the imperial system, because you either measure things out directly, or you use fractions as derived by geometric methods.

Yes, easily manipulatable numbers are good. Base 10 is no better than base 12 when it comes to geometric relationships, but far easier when it comes to numeric relationships.

And seriously? Using computers for figuring out how to center a window frame in the metric system? I'll suspect you've never done this, because the same methods you use to do it in the imperial system work in the metric system (Hint: it generally involves a long string that may or may not be marked at regular intervals).

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[VeNoM0619]

I don't know, but I think Johnny Knoxville proved how easy it was to go to the moon... or did he...?

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you got 12 fingers? Or 12 toes? Didn't think so.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

Only you can prevent word mangling.

The word "your" is entirely different than the phrase "you are" and its contraction "you're".

This English service announcement has been brought to you by the letter "e" and the number 7.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Gilmoure]

Nope, just one penis, one tongue and one ear I can wiggle really well.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't comment on the CFD, but given what you say, I have no doubt this side of it will be excellent.

I would question the choice of rocket motor supplier however. Mention his name to most in the rocketry community, and they will laugh - he's generally seen as in the same category as the Tate and Lyle sugar rocket guy. I can tell you now, even looking at the car, that the figures he is quoting do not add up. Hardly the first time, but I suspect you may catch a cold from this. I know people who know more about the actual project than I, and they have said the same thing. Rest of the vehicle, exceptional, but the rocket supplier, not a sensible choice.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[clustermonkey]

Um.... that's called an airplane.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Gilmoure]

Yeah, but is kinda' low flying, with a loud *Whoosh* sound. /duck!

Damn, now I want to build a jet powered ground effect vehicle, that doesn't really fly but depends on air cushion between vehicle and ground.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Gilmoure]

A Wind Shiv!

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Sinbios]

Basing your system on 12 instead of ten is extremely practical (outside the ivory towers and groves of Academe) because carpenters, artists and architects can easily achieve aesthetic and functional balance without generating excessive trim waste or requiring computers to figure out how to center a window frame.

Please explain how a base 12 system is easier than a base 10 system for carpenters, artists, and architects to achieve aesthetic and functional balance.

Daniel Fahrenheit went to a great deal of trouble to set up his temperature measuring system so that the most practically useful values (water freeze point & human body temperature) were on 32 and 96 degrees respectively.

And Celsius is set up with useful values like 0, 100, and 37 (water freeze point, boiling point, and human body temperature respectively). I don't see how 32 and 96 are better.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever tried to work on home construction with the metric system? It's just like the imperial system, because you either measure things out directly, or you use fractions as derived by geometric methods.

Yes, easily manipulatable numbers are good. Base 10 is no better than base 12 when it comes to geometric relationships, but far easier when it comes to numeric relationships.

And seriously? Using computers for figuring out how to center a window frame in the metric system? I'll suspect you've never done this, because the same methods you use to do it in the imperial system work in the metric system (Hint: it generally involves a long string that may or may not be marked at regular intervals).

I'm not sure what you mean. When I use 8-foot 2x4s to frame a wall, the resulting room is the appropriate height for humans using human-sized furnishings and appliances. If I've had my 2x4s supplied as 24, 16, 12, or 8 foot lengths, the cut-off pieces are exactly the size needed for other parts of the structure, minimizing waste.

In western platform construction, we use 8 foot 2 inch by 4 inch studs on 16 inch centers to build a typical wall. In some applications we use 12 foot centers for extra load bearing or 24 inch centers for non-bearing applications. We put 2 inch by 6 inch rafters on 24 inch centers for roofing, and use 12 inch by 2 inch joists to support the first floor of a multi-floored building. All these numbers were empirically derived from hundreds of years of practical experience and are part of a complete system for allocating resources to serve human comfort optimally. By contrast, the metric system uses base 10 because we have ten fingers. That's the only reason. All the other supposed reasons are actually derivatives of that base reason.

Centering a window in the US system? You walk over and put it in the center. In many cases no measuring is required, no strings or anything, you just put it where an existing board ends; the center is self evident because you can see the relationships between all the framing members with your naked eye. In a difficult case, OK, I see you've got three 8-foot runs there, I want to center a 36 inch wide window, I measure 30 inches from the end of either of the joints between 2x4s and double-check myself by measuring the other side too. (I just did that in my head after nearly 20 years of not doing that kind of work.)

In the problems that normally arise in construction and fabrication, you are going to get 1/3 and 2/3 fractions quite frequently. When I get one of those in the base 12 system, the resulting measurement is going to align with a mark on my measuring tape - there isn't going to be any repeating fraction. If you've ever worked as part of a crew of frame carpenters, you'll know that's a real issue. Tony the toothless has to be able to do the math and get the same answer as Manny the mathematician.

I'm sure Europeans have come up with clever ways to build under the metric system. But they are conforming their methods to their paradigm, which is the opposite of what has happened in the USA - here various competing systems fought it out and the most efficient one for our purposes beat out the others. Remember, the metric system was invented *before* the European settlement of North America! We use a decimal system for money, and a base 60 timing system, because those systems worked out best for those purposes. We use feet and inches for measurement of distance because that works best for us in practice.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

#csc laughs at you taking the bait.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Sinbios]

I know it is not currently but it will be one day.

Even assuming that 100% of the energy in the fuel is converted to kinetic energy, I really, really doubt a gallon of it would keep you going for 1000 miles.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

I know many will scream "whats the point". Well the point is that no one has done it, people claim it cannot be done, and throw in the challenge of trying. It gives kids something to dream about, perhaps sparking some enthusiasm for different careers.

Whoa... do you still want kids to dream about more big f*****g useless cars? Is building projects like that good because it encourages kids to dream about Hummers?

We could nominate parent to "The Most American Comment of The Year". It has: kids dreaming, lots of gas burning, speed, money wasting, cool engineering, doing absurd things juts because noone did it before.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[rtfa-troll]

The whooosh you hear is the sound of the car going over your head.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

Not bad, but hardly compares to this ground effect vehicle

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Medievalist]

Care to enumerate this "host of problems" we seem to be overlooking over here?

If you wish to understand Fahrenheit's reasoning I recommend to you the wikipedia article or Fahrenheit's own writing on the subject. If you can't see the use of a numeric system that optimizes for common divisors and whole numbers it might not make any sense to you, though.

I think the most difficult units to defend in the US system are the large ones; miles and acres in particular are only preferable because that's what all our stuff is already calibrated in.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[tsa]

I never found out what the other things were.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[tsa]

I take it you mean kilometres per kilowatt hour.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[jd]

Talking of Thrust SSC, the engineers noted afterwards that if the car had gone even marginally faster, it would have been utterly destroyed. During the practice runs, they also had the downforce too great, causing the car to gouge massive tracks in the desert. This car will be traveling 300 mph faster, giving them far far less margin for error. With a vertical layout, rather than the horizontal arrangement of engines used for Thrust SSC, their ability to use what past data exists is also greatly reduced.

I wonder if any aerodynamics guru can answer something for me - given that the shockwave was one of the biggest problems, why are they using a tubular design? Wouldn't something closer to a waverider be better, since that should experience far less stress? (I would have also thought it would experience a more controllable and predictable amount of turbulence, which should give them a better chance of reaching or exceeding their target speed.) I'm basing this partly on claims that waveriders can go a hell of a lot faster than tubular aircraft, but also on claims that they'd be more fuel-efficient as well, fuel consumption being a function of air resistance where some air resistance is necessary to supply lift and anything in excess of that is presumably just burning fuel for no gain. Since these guys are experts (Breedlove, in comparison, only managed to build a car that did spectacular roll-and-burn shows) they picked this design for a reason and we can assume it's a very good reason, but it's not a reason that is obvious to me. They can't be going by "that's the way it has always been done" or "that's the design for which we have the most data", because nobody has gone this fast in a car and the changes mean the data they do have isn't truly applicable. Besides, as already noted, Thrust SSC's design almost destroyed itself.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[cecil_turtle]

I'm pretty sure human body temperature is 98.6 degrees F, not 96. Also I don't see how 12 is any better than 10 in centering a window frame, they both divide by two pretty well.

Honestly I can't believe anybody is even trying to make the case that the imperial system is superior in any way to the metric system. Momentum is the only reason the US isn't on the metric system.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Medievalist]

Basing your system on 12 instead of ten is extremely practical (outside the ivory towers and groves of Academe) because carpenters, artists and architects can easily achieve aesthetic and functional balance without generating excessive trim waste or requiring computers to figure out how to center a window frame.

Please explain how a base 12 system is easier than a base 10 system for carpenters, artists, and architects to achieve aesthetic and functional balance.

The easiest way for you to understand is to build an entire house on the US system. (Seriously. When you see how everything aligns easily and consistently together using primarily simple whole numbers, you'll get it.)

But try this: To center two windows on a facade, you divide the total length by three to find the distance from the edges to the centerline of your windows. Mark them. Then, measure out from these centerlines half the width of the windows in each direction to find and mark the window edges. In base 12 (because you can get halves and thirds cleanly) you are going to have a mark on your measuring tape without any crazy repeating fractions etc. that Joe Carpenter doesn't want to fuss with. In fact, Joe with a 4th grade USA education can figure this out and can do the math in his head.

Base ten is arbitrary and has only four whole divisors (1,2,5,10) while base 12 is empirically derived from real use cases and has six (1,2,3,4,6,12) and generates fewer infinitely repeating fractions from division by lesser whole numbers.

Remember, the metric system was invented before the USA was settled, and the metric system beat out the old system where it was more useful - like in money, for example. The metric system didn't beat the standard system in the construction trades because American craftsmen like inches and feet better, they are more useful.

Daniel Fahrenheit went to a great deal of trouble to set up his temperature measuring system so that the most practically useful values (water freeze point & human body temperature) were on 32 and 96 degrees respectively.

And Celsius is set up with useful values like 0, 100, and 37 (water freeze point, boiling point, and human body temperature respectively). I don't see how 32 and 96 are better.

Celsius is actually pretty damn good, I think (It hasn't gotten buggered up as much over time, either). I was referencing Fahrenheit's work because he explicitly engineered his scale for usability and he used numbers that had important relationships and common properties in real use.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Medievalist]

#csc laughs at you taking the bait.

Yeah, I did, but I'm going to stop now.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never done anything amazing. But rest assured if I ever do, there will be an actual point behind it.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[NeutronCowboy]

We use a decimal system for money, and a base 60 timing system, because those systems worked out best for those purposes. We use feet and inches for measurement of distance because that works best for us in practice.

Not really. They're used because everyone is used to them.

Centering a window in the US system? You walk over and put it in the center.

Have you built houses in Europe? It works the same exact way. That's because the center depends on the building blocks used. If you know the relationship between size of your building block and size of the wall, you're set. What unit is used to measure that building block is completely irrelevant.

As for your examples - I know them well, because my parents' house is built exactly like it. Everything is a multiple of 4 - generally a multiple of 8, with an occasional multiple of 6 thrown in. Rooms are 16x24, 8x8, 12x16, etc. That's because the base building block is the 2x4 with a length of either 4 or 8 feet. Why is the base building block that size? Absolutely no reason other than arbitrary decision making, with some concession to minimal strength required to build a frame and siding. It would work the same if I'd tell you that the base building block is 2 hogshead by 1 barleyrod.

As for fractions - yes, 1/3 and 2/3 appear quite often. Something to consider is that with a 2x4 and 2x8, 1/3 and 2/3 are just as painful to construct as in anything based on 5s or 10s. You're working with trigonometry then, not algebra. The only magic number there is 3 - and that 3 only matters if the base building block is small enough to be often used in 3s.

Finally, as for lining up with a hash mark or a fraction between hash marks, there's the old engineering joke:
"What's the difference between a nut of size 5 and of size 5.0?"
"$100".
With millimeters and 10's of inches on tape measures, you're really down to what kind of accuracy you need, instead of what kind of accuracy you have. And again, that's not mentioning the fact that it depends on the base building block, not the base of the number system. Dividing a 16 foot wall into threes is just as a much pain using inches as it would be if it were 5 meters. It is only easy if it is 12 feet - but then again, it would also be easy if it would be 3 meters.

Seriously, there is nothing magical about base 12 in construction. What matters is the size of the basic building block - and that one is only occasionally divisible by 3.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[giorgist]

As an eight year old to add

1mm + 6mm +12mm +25mm

ask an Engineer to add

1/16" + 1/4" + 1/2" + 1"

Start the stop watch, award the winner the best system.

Not convinced ? Receiver the activity, start the wall clock

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Chosen Reject]

What does that have anything to do with anything? When you count on your hands and feet you aren't counting with base 10, you're counting in unary. Or do you actually have 10 different and easily recognizably unique positions for each of your fingers?

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

4 Wheels are one of the very few requirements for this class of record.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm - go re-read the parent, re-read your reply, and then tell me which one of these applies:

1. You fired off your reply too quickly.
2. You misunderstood the parent.
3. You are an idiot.

If you are still in a hurry, you could just read the quoted part - and then wonder why you wrote that first sentence.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

then it would not be eligible for a land speed record. It needs wheels in contact with the ground...

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

"Please explain how a base 12 system is easier than a base 10 system for carpenters, artists, and architects to achieve aesthetic and functional balance."

I think he means that a base12 system is more practical for direct human use, since it can easily be divided by 2, 3, 4 and 6. A base10 system only has divisors 2 and 5. You would be surprised what a difference this makes with practical arithmetic.

Of course, if you want sophistication, you might use the Babylonian base60 system.....

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

..and the world is changed to worse by unreasonable men..

yeah sure, lets all waste the precious little oil left on FUN RIDE

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Upphew]

The traditional US measuring system, which is derived from the pre-imperial English anthropic system, is in many ways superior to the metric system for common tasks like home construction. Basing your system on 12 instead of ten is extremely practical (outside the ivory towers and groves of Academe) because carpenters, artists and architects can easily achieve aesthetic and functional balance without generating excessive trim waste or requiring computers to figure out how to center a window frame.

Basing on 12... so 12 inch to foot, 12 foot to yard 12 yards to mile? Hmh, last one is probably wrong... so it must be 144 yards to mile? Still waaaay too short so it must be 1728 yards? (quite close in fact! :)

I can understand that imperial system is more intuitive in some (many?) cases, but _based_ on 12 it is not.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[tehcyder]

Centering a window in the US system? You walk over and put it in the center. In many cases no measuring is required, no strings or anything, you just put it where an existing board ends

Whereas centering a window in the metric system, you walk over and put it in the center and in many cases no measuring is required, no strings or anything, you just put it where an existing board ends...

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[HTH NE1]

If your coordinate system is coded such that 1 unit == 1 inch, you're fine as long as you stick to inches. It gets tricky when your software needs to handle both millimeters and inches accurately. You end up needing a coordinate system where 10 units == 1 millimeter and 254 units == 1 inch.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Trackster]

My understanding is that they use metal wheels. Check it out Scroll down to see.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds impracticable...You would still have to have wheels for when you start off and when you slow down and stop. Since you have to have wheels anyway you may as well use them for the whole trip and save having extra features that you would only use for part of the time.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[giorgist]

I am talking about the coding in your head. It is hard to work in imperial units by hand, or to keep it all in your head and relate he smaller to the larger units.

In the case of the metric system a young student will outrun an Engineer any day in mental arithmetic

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement

[Medievalist]

I'm pretty sure human body temperature is 98.6 degrees F, not 96. Also I don't see how 12 is any better than 10 in centering a window frame, they both divide by two pretty well.

Human body temperature is actually variable, but in Fahrenheit's original work it was believed to measure at 96, in Wunderlich's later work average armpit temperature was found to be 98.6, and fairly recently the AMA revised the nominal "standard" average to 98.2. Your mileage will most certainly vary - I recommend you record your temperature three times a day for a couple of years and prepare to be surprised.

Honestly I can't believe anybody is even trying to make the case that the imperial system is superior in any way to the metric system. Momentum is the only reason the US isn't on the metric system.

Groupthink is why you can't believe it. "Common knowledge" (aided by lots of money spent to plant memes in your head by companies who would profit by a single global measurement system) has taken the place of critical thought.

Why is metric better? Is it based on any real world usage - or is it just an outgrowth of an absurd spooky pseudo-religious mathematical jiggery-pokery?

Do the research. Build an entire house, or, just research where the metric system originates and read the writings of its originators. Your supposition that the metric system is superior for all things (it is superior for some things) is based on the same unthinking acceptance of "Common Knowledge" that your supposition that human body temperature is at 98.6 degrees.

Hmm.. that sounds kind of harsh. I'm not saying you're an idiot or a robot - we can't all investigate every single thing we are taught to believe - but you have not supported your argument by any real experimentation, so you should consider it unproven, and at least as suspect as my argument, which I have supported in several posts now.

The Darwin Awards...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they've just seen the movie and thought it looked like a wild way to go out.

Britain is 909 Miles long. So it'd take just under an hour to get to the waters edge! Though as its only planned to take 40 seconds to get to top speed I very much doubt it'd be a major problem ;-)

Re:The Darwin Awards...

[sexconker]

You forgot about refueling 3 times along the way.

Thats not a car

[192939495969798999]

A jet that just happens to not take off (or so they hope) is not a "car". I personally set the limit of car speeds as those achieved by a combustion engine, and even then, the top drag cars are held to the earth by giant down-force-generating wings.

Re:Thats not a car

[gstoddart]

A jet that just happens to not take off (or so they hope) is not a "car". I personally set the limit of car speeds as those achieved by a combustion engine, and even then, the top drag cars are held to the earth by giant down-force-generating wings.

Same goes for Formula 1 cars -- if it weren't for wings which push down, they'd take flight.

At what point does it stop being a car? Why stop at internal combustion? What about electric cars? Mr Fusion???

It's not like there isn't a category of jet powered cars at drag strips. They're still classed as cars. At present, if it's intended to travel on the ground with wheels, at what point (other than the completely arbitrary one you've given) does it stop being a car??

Cheers

Re:Thats not a car

[AikonMGB]

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine

Specifically, there are a number of types of engine

that classify as "internal combustion", and jet engines (in the general case, e.g. pump-jets on SeaDoos don't count) are one of those types. And before you go off the handle, rockets are actually a sub-class of jet engine.

Aikon-

Re:Thats not a car

[No2Gates]

AMEN!!! This is a airplane that doesn't have wings made for lift.

Re:Thats not a car

[trongey]

Is this a car? It has wheels and travels on the ground.

Re:Thats not a car

[Migraineman]

Consider where the motive force comes from. A "car" uses traction between the wheel and the ground, regardless of how that wheel is turned. A "jet car" or "rocket car" uses the reactive force from a high-speed exhaust stream, but is still designed to stay in contact with the ground. An "aircraft" may strongly resemble a "jet car" with the aerodynamic surfaces inverted, having the intent to leave contact with the ground.

As with the legal system, intent often makes the biggest distinction.

Re:Thats not a car

[ShadowRangerRIT]

If you want a better definition of car, you might require that the primary motive force be applied by means of the wheels.

Re:Thats not a car

[gstoddart]

Is this [jimsrepair...actors.com] a car? It has wheels and travels on the ground.

*laugh* We're getting into a discussion of philosophy here.

What is a table? What defines table? If I make the table 30 feet high is it still a table? What if I turn it on its side? What if it's only two inches wide but 5 miles long? What if it had 5 legs? How about a chair? What specific characteristics can we point to about chair that define it exaclusively as chair, and how do we know at what point we've ceased to be chair??

Similarly, at what exact point does a car stop becoming a car and become a lawn-tractor? Is it because it's green? Because it has a mower attachment? Because its function is different from that of a car? Because we think of it differently? Because you sit upright and unenclosed?

See, philosophers have been grappling with this problem for a few thousand years. They don't really have good answers either.

My point was ... other than some arbitrary restrictions which people in this thread seem to be applying, at what point does our rocket-powered, land-traversing projectile cease to be a car?? Is your distinction arbitrary or objective?

I suspect in this case, someone has already given a 'reasonable' written definition for what counts as car. But, in general, I have no friggin' idea at what point this "rocket car" would realistically stop being a "car". Nor do I really know if your lawn tractor would, or would not, be a 'car'.

Cheers

Re:Thats not a car

[John Hasler]

> Same goes for Formula 1 cars -- if it weren't for wings which push down, they'd take
> flight.

A short flight as they lose thrust when they lose contact with the ground.

> At present, if it's intended to travel on the ground with wheels, at what point (other
> than the completely arbitrary one you've given) does it stop being a car??

Another completely arbitrary one, evidently.

Re:Thats not a car

[gstoddart]

"At present, if it's intended to travel on the ground with wheels, at what point (other
than the completely arbitrary one you've given) does it stop being a car??"

Another completely arbitrary one, evidently.

Actually, that was my point. :-P

Cheers

Re:Thats not a car

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

YES. wish that i had some mod points for you...

Re:Thats not a car

[caluml]

Same goes for Formula 1 cars -- if it weren't for wings which push down, they'd take flight.

Apparently, they can drive upside down at 150 mph, sticking to the roof by the downforce they'd generate.

Re:Thats not a car

[AGMW]

Consider where the motive force comes from. A "car" uses traction between the wheel and the ground, regardless of how that wheel is turned.

WA WA OOOPS!

Re:Thats not a car

[AGMW]

But car is the parent classification for a number of offshoots, including ones driven by their wheels, as in the automobiles we see on the roads, but also cable cars, train wagons (commonly called 'cars' by some), wind-powered cars, and of course jet and rocket powered cars, many of which have their own records (eg WindJet for wind powered vehicles). Interestingly, the 'driven wheel' cars speed record (itself split into sub-groups by engine type - petrol/diesel/steam! - and engine size for the Combustion Engine speed records) is higher than the wind ones, and the highest car speed records of them all are the jet and rocket ones ... hey ... that'd make them the fastest cars of all eh!

Re:Thats not a car

[John Hasler]

> Apparently, they can drive upside down at 150 mph, sticking to the roof by the downforce
> they'd generate.

Where's the video?

Re:Thats not a car

[iworm]

Wouldn't that then be "upforce"? Inquiring minds want to know.

Re:Thats not a car

[sexconker]

A car must be propelled by the wheels.
You must also be able to steer and stop.

If you use a rocket, you're doing it wrong.

Re:Thats not a car

[sexconker]

Car.
Carriage.

Pedantic.
Dipshit.

Re:Thats not a car

[AGMW]

er ... Profit?

Re:Thats not a car

[Migraineman]

That's "rolling stock," and doesn't contribute motive force by itself or as a component of a larger assembly. Would've been better if you had pointed out that locomotives are wheel-driven, but are not considered "cars."

not a car?

[hegleran]

So electrically powered vehicles do not qualify? No internal combustion there...

Jeremy Clarkson:

[Anonymous Coward]

Hamster! You want to try it out ?

Re:Jeremy Clarkson:

[Anonymous Coward]

Hamster was asked about that on BBC Breakfast TV yesterday. Have you ever seen a face turn so green? I'm sure there'll be some mention on the new series of Top Gear too...

Re:Jeremy Clarkson:

[Drathos]

Jezza already promised that he would test out all the fast cars after Hamster's crash. Personally, I think Captain Slow should drive it. After all, he was the one to go max speed in the Bugatti.

At least we can count on the two of them not to shouting out "I am a driving god!"

Re:Car? Or rocket on wheels?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you could drive it on public roads 1000 MPH top speed does you no good when you're constantly stuck behind the asshat who just has to drive 5 miles UNDER the speed limit in the passing lane.

Of course, on the flip side, shooting flames of death might be a nice feature for dealing with tailgaters...

Re:Car? Or rocket on wheels?

[wiz_80]

1. You can't (and won't ever be able to) buy one.

If I showed up with a suitcase of cash after the attempt had been completed, I would think they would be happy to take my money. Also, by this reasoning any sort of limited-numbers, not-for-public-consumption car (prototypes, racers, etc) are also not cars.

2. You can only drive it at speed on salt flats.

Your point being...?

3. You can't drive it on public roads (driver and pedestrian safety, shooting flames of death, etc).

The same would apply to F1 or NASCAR cars, but those are definitely cars. Ok, maybe not the shooting flames of death part.

4. Even if you could drive it on-road, its turning radius is probably a mile!

Why would you want to take the thing on the road?

It looks like your definition of "car" is "a vehicle which can be bought by a member of the public and operated legally on public roads". By that reasoning, Yamaha, Ducati, Aprilia, and Harley-Davidson all make "cars".

We all know it was

[rmallico]

Buckaroo Bonzai... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gNJ1z-ulB4&feature=related

Faster than a plan....

[Anonymous Coward]

The low altitude speed record for planes is just shy of 1000mph.

[starfighters.net]

988.26mph

And probably about 100ft about the desert floor.

Andy Green

[Anonymous Coward]

And can we just say *massive* kudos to W/Co Green for having the balls to strap into this beast and hit the throttle. Listen to him in interviews talking about Thrust jumping 15 feet from side to side at 650 mph and just *dealing with it*. 'Nerves of steel' doesn't begin to cover it.

From the Submitter

[Smivs]

I did wonder about calling this a 'car' when I submitted the story. A true 'car' should have driven wheels and either an electric or internal combustion engine. But it is designed as a terrestrial vehicle, and has wheels. 'Car' is a short form of 'motor car' which in turn is a contraction of 'motor carriage', and as this vehicle carries a man it is a carriage of sorts and it certainly has a 'motor' (well two actually) so ultimately, yes, it is a car.

Re:From the Submitter

[NotBornYesterday]

In this sense, when they say "car" they mean "we're trying very hard to make sure that when it moves under its own power, it only does so on the ground".

Although the lexiconography of the word car is interesting, it also brings to mind another comparison: a 1000mph jet car compares to regular an internal combustion car a lot like an internal combustion car compared to a horse-drawn carriage in the 19th century.

Urban Legend

[BrunoBigfoot]

I seem to recall an urban legend involving a rocket car. Police find a smouldering wreck on the side of a cliff. From what they piece together, some genius straps a JATO unit to the roof of his car and takes off, only to be unable to steer and promptly hits the cliff and explodes.

Gentlemen, I think we have an episode of MythBusters here.

Re:Urban Legend

[Anonymous Coward]

They did that one already.

Re:Urban Legend

[Ellis D. Tripp]

They did that one already.

Twice, in fact.

First one failed to get airborne, but it did get moving pretty fast.

On the revisit, the (much larger) rocket motors failed immediately on ignition, destroying the car in a huge fireball.

Re:Urban Legend

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.snopes.com/autos/dream/jato.asp

Re:Urban Legend

[John Hasler]

> ...and that the real incident just had the car on a railroad track that led into an
> abandoned mine...

I hate to have to break it to you, but that was made up as well. There was no "real incident" (yet).

Re:Urban Legend

[Greatweirdo]

Doh...that's right. I actually remember that Mythbusters episode as well.

But this does pose another question . . . can they (with further modifications to the vehicle) achieve escape velocity by simply having a quarter pipe at then end of a runway?

100 Days of Games

[Anonymous Coward]

After years of underfunding science, education and the arts the UK government decides to conjure up another circus to distract the populace while they fill up their own pockets during an economic meltdown...

Wake up people! This isn't Kennedy promising to put a man on moon.

So?

[Locke2005]

The proposed vehicle will get from 0 to 1,050 mph in 40 seconds.
Yeah, sure, but... how well does it corner?

Re:So?

[Sabz5150]

The proposed vehicle will get from 0 to 1,050 mph in 40 seconds. Yeah, sure, but... how well does it corner?

Like a missile.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol something going that fast cant. at those speeds it litterly is flying. the gforces litterly pull it off the ground and its riding on them.

Re:So?

[Sockatume]

IIRC in order to qualify for the record, it must be able to turn corners, but not at its maximum speed. It just has to be steerable in principle.

Re:So?

[Just Some Guy]

lol something going that fast cant. at those speeds it litterly is flying. the gforces litterly pull it off the ground and its riding on them.

I feel dumber for having read that.

Re:So?

[Toll_Free]

Like most dragsters, it only has to be able to drive off the course. Most top fuel dragsters only turn SLIGHTLY, so they can exit the 1/8th or 1/4 mile strip.

I wonder how fast this thing will be in the quarter mile? Seriously, it will hit top speed after what, 40 or so seconds it said...

Would be interesting to see if a regular internal combustion engine would be more efficient in getting to the 200 to 300 mph barrier faster.

Although, I'm sure, it could be made to beat an IC engine, if top speed wasn't the primary concern. I'd LOVE to see Big Daddy Garlitz or Cha Cha come back and race this thing in a quarter mile, vs. the rocket car.

--Toll_Free

Re:So?

[raddan]

Probably about as well as a Mustang.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

No doubt, get that kid a Mythbusters "I reject your reality and substiute my own" T-shirt.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

The proposed vehicle will get from 0 to 1,050 mph in 40 seconds.

Yeah, sure, but... how well does it corner?

Probably better still than most American Cars ;)

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like a fish, moves like a fish, steers like a cow.

Re:So?

[tompaulco]

Yeah, sure, but... how well does it corner?
Like it's on rails.

Rails that go straight.

Right

[SmallFurryCreature]

1. You can't (and won't ever be able to) buy one.

I can't buy a McLaren F1 either. So the F1 ain't a car. There are MANY custom made cars, you cannot buy. So they don't qualify either. Hell, you can't buy my car. So my car is not car.

2. You can only drive it at speed on salt flats.

If you were able to find a 9 mile long straight and wide piece of asfalt it would do as well.

3. You can't drive it on public roads (driver and pedestrian safety, shooting flames of death, etc).

The salt flat is public property.

4. Even if you could drive it on-road, its turning radius is probably a mile!

Never seen turning radius as a definition of a car.

A better title might be "British team seeks to break land speed record, again." or even better "Yaaaawn"

A good title for you might be "twit who doesn't belong on slashdot but some kind of barbie website". I take that back. It is an insult to all 12yr old girls.

Re:Right

[Madball]

I guess I should have bolded the "Common Sense Definition of a Car", as the flamers react to the first sentence only...

The point is NOT whether it meets some dictionary definition of a car (for which there will always be some real-world usage mismatch), but whether it is a car in any real & reasonable sense. I merely am proposing that it is not, not to a car guy! Just as ATV's aren't cars, trucks aren't cars, buses aren't cars.

The point of the post is to say it's not about cars or applicable to cars in any real shape or manner--because it has exactly zero relevance to anything car-related (you could argue something about aerodynamics and downforce here, but you've likely learned all you need to know about this at about 750 mph slower). As for an F1, NASCAR, etc... You could drive them to work and probably get where you're going (safety/legal issues aside). You wouldn't get anywhere with this thing.

the point

[confused one]

Whatsthepoint

"Candy doesn't have to have a point. That's why it's candy" -- Charlie Bucket, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

If you can't see the analogy... We may not be able to save you.

Re:the point

[Anonymous Coward]

if you see the analogy, you should really hate candies..
now stop wasting fuel and take a walk.

It will be a successfull

[VincenzoRomano]

waste of money and resources not to count the extra pollution!
Why doing this? For fun? C-mon!

Re:It will be a successfull

[John Hasler]

> Why doing this?

Why do anything other than squat in the mud and wait for the sun to go out?

When's the SUV coming out?

[tjstork]

I'm really not impressed with the 1000mph car. I mean, it would help me get to work on time more quickly but what if I need to run out for some beers and firewood before the game and my wife wants me to take the kids with me? For that, I really need a 1000mph station wagon or SUV? Dodge are you hearing this? :-)

You should see the 'other' guy.

[Locklin]

First you have to build a wall that won't be obliterated when hit by a 2 ton missile traveling at 1000mph.

these fast car challenges are kinda dumb

[jollyreaper]

I mean, it was cool and everything when we're talking about powered wheels pushing these suckers this fast. But when we're talking about what's essentially a jet aircraft using massive aerodynamic engineering to keep it wedded to the ground with fancy tires designed not to explode under the stress, it just seems ridiculous. It's a jet aircraft, let it fly above the ground and not be subject to the difficulties of staying in contact with the ground. If you still want to be pedantic and not make it a true airplane, maybe make it one of those ground effect aircraft like the eraktoplanes the Russians built, it can't fly above the ground effect air cushion.

Re:these fast car challenges are kinda dumb

[AGMW]

But when we're talking about what's essentially a jet aircraft using massive aerodynamic engineering to keep it wedded to the ground with fancy tires designed not to explode under the stress, it just seems ridiculous.

I know! It's just crazy isn't it! Where's the speed record attempt where they're not allowed to look into aerodynamics and tyres and stuff, that's what I'd like to know! Sheeez!

Re:these fast car challenges are kinda dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

".. it just seems ridiculous.."

This wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the US has failed to build anything faster since 1970, them...?

Darwin award?

[js_sebastian]

If your wife keeps yelling "faster, FASTER!" in bed, maybe it doesn't mean you should attach a jet engine to your car...

Or at least don't count on her getting your life insurance after you crash...

Re:Darwin award?

[Anonymous Coward]

Erroneous Slashdot Beliefs Vol. 4572:

Women love a man who can do it fast.

Re:Darwin award?

[wpiman]

This is slashdot: the men here don't sleep with women.

huh

[thatskinnyguy]

Smivs notes a BBC report on a British team planning a 1000-mph record-breaking car. The previous land-speed record broke the sound barrier. The proposed vehicle will get from 0 to 1,050 mph in 40 seconds.

I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? I think I got some crazy in my ear.

Wait to 2012

[Bunderfeld]

This way you can give some credence to the Mayan's prediction that something tragic will happen.

Will they let Richard Hammond try it ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time he drove a jet car is didn't end well for the car .
And that was less then 300mph .

does it run on a treadmill ?

[Anonymous Coward]

what if you put the car on a treadmill ? will it move .. i mean it's no airplane right ? :D

Budweiser rocket

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Sidewinder missile motor AFAIK...

Question

[ParanoiaBOTS]

I know very little about the physics behind this. But I do know that when it comes to stress on the pilot it is all about acceleration. It seems to me that this is accelerating very, very quickly. What kind of G force will be exerted on the pilot and how do they handle that?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Just over 1 G Nothing a normal person can't handle.

Stupid

[Quiet_Desperation]

Can we please stop calling these "cars?"

Re:Stupid

[SpinyNorman]

If someone's got the cohones to drive this fucker at 1000mph, he's earned the right to call it whatever he hell he wants!

Godspeed, my friend!

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

"Can we please stop calling these "cars?"

This would be for the same reason that, once the Americans had got the Blue Riband, they redefined anything else that sailed across the Atlantic as 'not a liner'?

And the same way that the Wright brothers defined the 'first flight' of an aeroplane as being the first one to go more that 100 yards, having three axis controls, but without necessarily being able to take off without assistance?

Seems to me that the US has a lot of sour grapes it needs to lose somewhere!

Re:Car? Or rocket on wheels?

[asc99c]

D'oh, they're going to have to rethink the designation of race 'cars' as well.

Very nice..

[Terrorwrist]

This is going to be useful when cops chase after you.

I always liked this one...

[zogger]

..and to me still the best example of a fine US car (engineering + style) during the muscle car/pony car era Avanti Scroll down, you'll see the references to some land speed records. Some other efforts were achieved with other models of Studebaker, just pop it into google, ton of hits.

Speedo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you get a speedo that goes up to 1000 mph?

Re:Speedo?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Where do you get a speedo that goes up to 1000 mph?

Michael Phelps.

In Binary

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's nothing. My car's top speed is 1111000mph.

But can cell towers

[DarkAges]

...hand over calls that quickly?

Yes, but does it run Linux?

[HeavyDevelopment]

Sorry I had to ask.....

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

what is the use ?

What value does it provide just to break the previous 700MPH (but satisfaction of ego)?

What does this investment/expenditure ensure and what is the value ?

So many more important (scientific) things to pursue.

Urban Legend

[Greatweirdo]

I wonder if these people realize that strapping a rocket to a car is not an original concept. I realize that it's just a legend and that the real incident just had the car on a railroad track that led into an abandoned mine but still!

At the same time, I'd love for them to put a ramp at the southern end of the England and see if they can clear the English Channel.

I'd Rather Have...

[Nom du Keyboard]

Instead of this I'd rather have a 100 mpg car.

Or a car with 1000 miles range between refuelings.

Re:Car? Or rocket on wheels?

[JLDohm]

1. You can't (and won't ever be able to) buy one.

If I showed up with a suitcase of cash after the attempt had been completed, I would think they would be happy to take my money. Also, by this reasoning any sort of limited-numbers, not-for-public-consumption car (prototypes, racers, etc) are also not cars.

If you find a way to fit that much cash into a suitcase, tell me where you found your Bag of Holding.

Tire Tech

[Toll_Free]

Having suffered a shredded tire in a race car (I used to race Mustangs, late model Fox bodied cars, culminating in a 460 powered fuel / nitrous injected big block), I'd LOVE to know the tire technology.

Shoot, getting tires to stay together at 175 MPH is no small feat. 1000MPH even for a mile or three, would be a SERIOUS beating on them.

Anyone know who / what type of tires they are using?

--Toll_Free

Re:Tire Tech

[Anonymous Coward]

900 mm diameter all Titanium wheels (no rubber tread proposed at this time). Quite a few tech details buried on the different pages & sub pages on their website, http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/car.cfm http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/adventure/the_record_run.cfm and also http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/adventure/the_desert.cfm

Note that unlike Formula 1 and other car racing, land speed racing is very open about technology--sounds like they will be "open sourcing" most of the engineering as part of the educational focus.

Re:Tire Tech

[Toll_Free]

Thanks for the info....

Land speed record cars are interesting, if you're into that sort of thing. If not, then I'd suspect it's boring, overrated, and a waste of money.

However, at one time, 75 mph was a land speed record. Now, it's considered the residential speed limit by some people (sarcasm intended, but not totally off base) :)

Again, thanks for the input.

--Toll_Free

Re:Tire Tech

[dave420]

They use solid metal wheels, with no tires. As you mention, anything short of that will simply disintegrate.

Re:Tire Tech

[Anonymous Coward]

TYRES (to give them their proper name, since they were invented in Britain) will not stand going much above 250-300 mph.

So this car (and Thrust SSC, and all the other cars doing these speeds) use solid metal wheels. In this case probably made out of Titanium. The g-forces at the rim of a 10,000 rpm spinning disk are going to be huge, and require special design to ensure that the wheel does not break apart as it spins up.

Copy / Paste???

[bopo_the_mofo]

"a Typhoon-Eurofighter jet engine"? Funny, that's just how the BBC mis-named it, too.

Company name: Eurofighter
Aircraft name: Typhoon

So, that would be a Eurofighter Typhoon jet engine, surely?

Right, I'm off home in my Golf-Volkswagen.

But what if the car were placed on....

[cellocgw]

.... a treadmill that moves in the opposite direction at the same speed as the wheels?

My only question

[SoulRider]

how does the driver keep his face on his head with acceleration like that?

cars or other things

[jfischet]

it's not a car unless the engine drives the wheels. imho. ;)

Freudian slip or what?

[onkelonkel]

eraktoplanes - Ah yes the famous Russian erecto-plane. I think you want "Ekranoplan".

It's not 173 g, it's over 46000 g

[lars-o-matic]

Your typo: putting 2.8 (mach) in as 2.8 m/s.

Start over: centripetal a = v^2 / R

Plug in v = 476.5 m/s, R = 0.5 m (half of diameter); a = 454,000 m/s^2 approx.

Compare to g = 9.84 m/s^2 ; a is over 46,000 gee.

He does not.

[ElboRuum]

Pretty messy.

Indeed, the record is an order of magnitude...

[istartedi]

Indeed, the record is an order of magnitude beyond what he says is impossible. That link is from 2005 too. The current record is probably even better. Of course, as you say, the performance numbers are radically different. Sacrifices were made. At least it's a cool-looking vehicle though. I wish some of the 50-mpg jelly-beans they put on the road looked that good.

Re:Indeed, the record is an order of magnitude...

[Wrath0fb0b]

Yes, those are impressive feats of engineering.

I think they beat my estimates because they are (a) much smaller than my 1m^2 cross section, (b) go significantly slower (recall that drag goes up at the cube of velocity and (c) use a fuel-cell that is much more efficient (90%) than internal combustion. They are a bit dishonest in reporting an "equivalent mpg" for use of hydrogen -- are they computing based on the total energy content of gasoline/hydrogen or the available energy after efficiency is computed. Moreover, are they figuring in that an internal-combustion engine that burns gasoline weighs much more, has much more complex emissions control (the fact that we do not allow cars to pollute the air actually adds significantly to their inefficiency) and would not allow their novel steering mechanism.

Like I said, they are very impressive. They do not, however, answer the same question that I answered.

Re:Indeed, the record is an order of magnitude...

[istartedi]

Yes of course it's apples and oranges on some level. "Equivalent mpg" is a bit suspect. All other factors aside, I'd like to see what happens if they fuel it with ordinary gasoline and go 35 mph. 35 is waaaaay slower than we're used to driving; but I've heard it's actually the optimal speed for traffic flow. Apparently if you go faster than 35, most drivers will spread out too much (if they don't you'll have an accident and not move any vehicles until it's cleared). Go slower than 35, and you move fewer vehicles for the obvious reason that you are simply going slower.

Re:Indeed, the record is an order of magnitude...

[Wrath0fb0b]

You have to figure on the utility value of our time too -- if I drive to work at 35mph instead of my usual 70mph (well, now I live 1 mile from my job -- it's really awesome) then I will spend twice as much time. If my time is worth something, then it might be worth it to spend more gas for the utility of being at the office sooner.

Driving slower is not the answer, IMO, unless you want people trying to cram more and more utility out of their car-time. It's bad enough with people yapping on their phones and eating their breakfast.

Well, I guess that's just it.

[ElboRuum]

This is the easy stuff. All the major hurdles to this task are already behind it. Breaking the sound barrier in a ground-based vehicle is really the only tough part.

Doing this advances nothing, says nothing, except that there might be a thrill-seeking idiot out there willing to roll the dice for walking away from the event alive. And of course there is some dopamine-starved person out there who WILL do it. This we know already.

This isn't at all amazing unless you are easily amazed.

If you think this is cool, I once pooped out a three-foot perfect coil of shit-rope. I was hesitant to flush it because it was just so... so... amazing.

Talk about amazing feats... I've tolerated the incessant yammerings of the easily amused, vapidly motivated, sub-human droolers and mouth breathers around me without going fully off the pier. Now, THAT'S fucking amazing. I should be clinically insane by now, and so should I.

What'd I just say?

Oh shit.

You can test drive the Thrust SSC

[WGR]

"RAF pilot Andy Green made history in 1997 when he drove the Thrust SSC jet-powered vehicle at 763 mph (1,228 km/h). Now he intends to get behind the wheel of a car that is capable of reaching 1,000 mph (1,610 km/h). Known as Bloodhound, the new car will be powered by a rocket bolted to a Typhoon-Eurofighter jet engine. The team-members have been working on the concept for the past 18 months and expect to be ready to make their new record attempt in 2011."

The Coventry Transport Museum in Coventry, UK has a very good exhibit on this, with the actual vehicle and a simulation ride of the 1997 run. Interestingly, much of the money to create the Thrust SSC was raised over the Internet with the help of Digital Equipment Corp. It was an early use of the Internet to create user backed creative development.

Sound barrier with driven wheels

[Tired and Emotional]

I cannot help thinking this would be a much stiffer engineering challenge. It is, of course, an official separate land speed record. Otherwise going from ~700mph to ~1000mph in a rocket propelled car seems to be more a question of how deep a brown you can die the seat cover.

Premature...

[GameboyRMH]

I think your life climaxed too early, causing a lack of satisfaction.

Re:Premature...

[Gilmoure]

Oh, I'm still looking forward to when the barren patch of dust and gravel in front of my house has a nice green lawn and I can go and yell at the kids to get off it. For now, I'm content to just grumble under my breath.

Re:Premature...

[GameboyRMH]

On a serious note, if I were you, I'd easily coast off the happiness from '88 for the rest of my life. I mean not just one, but three, women not only looked at you or talked to you out of their own free will, but slept with you, AT THE SAME TIME. I know it's been 20 years but just let that sink in.

Re:Premature...

[Gilmoure]

Oh hell yeah. We were all pretty drunk. Was a hell of a Halloween party. Am still in touch with one of the ladies and since then, she's led a pretty normal life; married/kids, and says the other women have too. Nothing like being in the right place at the right time, with the right booze flowing. Still, building a 1000 MPH car would be pretty cool...

Common British problem.

[GameboyRMH]

I don't know why British people do that (well with cars anyways, I think this is the first time I've seen it done with an aircraft). I've even seen it done on Top Gear a few times. Also "Purjoe" is among the worst possible ways to pronounce Peugeot, right up there with the redneck "Pewjeit"

Tires?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then don't use tires. Use legs instead.

What's the point?

[bareman]

Someone asked "What's the Point?" to which I can only respond "Obviously you are not a member of Pave the Earth!"

but...

[Anonymous Coward]

will it have an oscillation overthruster?
laugh while you can monkey boy!

No, we have Fahrenheit's letters and journals.

[Medievalist]

You're thinking of Ole RÃmer's scale (and the fever thing is a myth). I recommend you read the wikipedia article on Fahrenheit, it's not too horrible.

Since we have Fahrenheit's own words describing how he obtained his temperatures, and why he used the specific numbers and intervals that he did, there's no controversy really.

It is an airplane...

[hyperventilate]

Anything going 1000mph is an airplane. It has plenty of power to fly away from the ground, and it would be far safer to do so. Because aerodynamic effects can cause it to pitch and roll and ascend and descend rapidly. It is never safe to fly airplanes (Or airplanes masquerading as cars) within inches of the ground for sustained distances.

Re:Car? Or rocket on wheels?

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

Let me guess - a few years ago your great-grandfather was asking "where does the horse go"?

Bloodhound?

[glitch23]

I'd name the car Vista if I were him. Oh the irony.

Why Say "What For???"

[DarkHorseman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, (and the /. masses would know) but wouldn't an achievement like this be great as there are alot of different variables involved in people going fast. Sure humans have gone 1000+ mph, but usually that is very high up. Couldn't this bring into aspect some of the more interesting faults of succeeding at such a feat at ground level, or does it make no difference? Couldn't this have some, if even a little, help to the scientific or aerodynamic community?

Re:Why Say "What For???"

[Anonymous Coward]

"...but wouldn't an achievement like this be great ..."

Nope, you've got it wrong. Repeat after me:

American speed record - good, heroic, useful
Any Other Country speed record - bad, dangerous, pointless

Same applies to military weapons, space exploration, technology in general, or, indeed, anything....