Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

1000-mph Car Planned

Posted by kdawson on from the zum-zum dept.

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."

60 of 380 comments (clear)

  1. 1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

  2. I've got a better idea by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about a 1000 mpg car?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:I've got a better idea by Ice+Tiger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
    2. Re:I've got a better idea by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:I've got a better idea by Idbar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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?

    4. Re:I've got a better idea by Miseph · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    5. Re:I've got a better idea by Retric · · Score: 2, Interesting

      (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.

    6. Re:I've got a better idea by Lifyre · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
  3. The real question... by xcog · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:The real question... by innit · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, if Britain was 11 miles long.

    2. Re:The real question... by sqldr · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    3. Re:The real question... by Woogiemonger · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  4. I wonder ... by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  5. When does it stop being a car? by jonas_sten · · Score: 2, Insightful

    is it a car as long as it has wheels?

    1. Re:When does it stop being a car? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  6. falling forwards by dnwq · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    1. Re:falling forwards by SirLoadALot · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:falling forwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  7. Re:Car? Or rocket on wheels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. To the moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

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

  9. Splat by FrostedWheat · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  10. Re:thats a big splat by drerwk · · Score: 3, Funny

    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!

  11. Re:How can you call it a car... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

  12. Sponsors? by speroni · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is this an ACME funded project?

    ACME

    --
    Eschew Obfuscation
    1. Re:Sponsors? by ParanoiaBOTS · · Score: 2, Funny

      Acme...we strap rockets to everything!

  13. The video... by PearsSoap · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  14. MPG is an obsolete measurement by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by Ice+Tiger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
    2. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by spideysense · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

    3. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by jcr · · Score: 2

      . 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

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by ATMD · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Nobody else has this sig.
    5. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by SharpFang · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    6. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by NoNeeeed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Paul Leader
    7. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    8. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by snspdaarf · · Score: 2, Funny

      I makes no sense....

      Your words, not mine, but I agree.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    10. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by hierophanta · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    11. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    12. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by Shotgun · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    13. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by Shotgun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    14. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by Retric · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.)

    15. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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

    16. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by 2names · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    17. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by kazamx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    18. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by famebait · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    19. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by Gilmoure · · Score: 4, Funny

      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!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    20. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by Medievalist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    21. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by Chris+Daniel · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

      --
      Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
    22. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by Chris+Daniel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oops -- 3600000 joules.

      --
      Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
    23. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by pz · · Score: 2, Informative

      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!

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    24. Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement by rtfa-troll · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  15. Jeremy Clarkson: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hamster! You want to try it out ?

  16. Re:Stupid rules by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  17. We all know it was by rmallico · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    --
    sig goes here!
  18. the point by confused+one · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  19. Re:So? by Sabz5150 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    "Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
  20. Re:So? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  21. Re:Speedo? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    Michael Phelps.

  22. It's not 173 g, it's over 46000 g by lars-o-matic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    je ne suis pas un fou