Slashdot Mirror
Steam-Powered Car Breaks Century-Old Speed Record
mcgrew writes "New Scientist reports that a steam-powered car has broken the 1906 record of 204 km/hr (127 mph) for the fastest steam-powered automobile, the Stanley Steamer. The Inspiration made a top speed of 225 kilometres per hour (140 miles per hour) on August 26. 'The car's engine burns liquid petroleum gas to heat water in 12 suitcase-sized boilers, creating steam heated to 400C. The steam then drives a two-stage turbine that spins at 13,000 revolutions per minute to power its wheels.The FIA requires two 1.6-km-long runs to be performed in opposite directions — to cancel out any effect from wind — within 60 minutes.'"
Next up...ridiculously large front-wheeled bicycle speed record.
0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
"to cancel out any effect from wind" - and any slope, otherwise we'd have people dropping cars off cliffs claiming speed records like nobody's business =).
The Stanley Steamer record is vastly more impressive. Tires, brakes, and suspension in 1906 were primitive, materials were not nearly as reliable, and design was done on a drawing board.
"That smashes the previous official record of 204 km/hr (127 mph) set in 1906 by Fred Marriott of the US in a modified version of the then-popular steam car known as the Stanley Steamer."
Sorry, but only going thirteen (13) miles an hour faster than a record more than a _century_ old is shit. He might have done better by using a replica Stanley engine made from modern materials (to allow heat increase without a boiler explosion) instead.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Slow Down you damn Steam Punks! And stay the hell off my lawn.
Stanley Steamer...you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. *shudder*
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
If it was that easy, it would have been broken before now. You belittle the achievement without understanding the challenges involved.
Another thing to consider is that during speed runs, brakes, and suspension are not really a factor. The car is driven in a straight line at maximum speed. It's not taken on a touring expedition to test is comfort and handling performance. The tires need only be capable of not blowing at high speeds.
Is there really anything scientific or technological that we cant do vastly better now that 1906? Its like the captain of the senior football team boasting about stealing lunch money from a 7th grader.
Is there really anything scientific or technological that we cant do vastly better now that 1906? Its like the captain of the senior football team boasting about stealing lunch money from a 7th grader.
In the US? yeah I'd say we can't do 7th grade math any better without using some sort of damn dirty machine...
I have to agree with the underwhelming nature of only 13MPH faster.
We now have a much better handle on material science and metallurgy. We actually have the capability to model the predicted performance and make design tweaks. We have the ability to machine to tolerances only dreamed about back then. And we have composites and alloys that weren't available.
I realize that it's not a linear scale from a drag standpoint, but our victory could be due only to 1906 measurement error.
Sheldon
Cool, a hybrid! Where can I get the government coupon to purchase one?
The fate of the steamers is a cautionary tale for backers of projects like the Tesla.
They were handcrafted for the extremely wealthy.
The total production run for the Stanley was 11,000 cars in 25 years. Stanley Steamer
No matter how you price such a car, you never generate enough cash to remain competitive in R&D - never enough to survive hard times.
Tires, brakes, and suspension may have been primitive, but in 1906, steam propulsion was a mature, well-understood technology.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
although i'd be REALLY impressed if someone invents a steam powered aircraft/ helicopter
Apparently both airplanes and helicopters have been powered by steam.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I was thinking the same: 100 years of technology and only 10% faster? However, at the end the article says "... the team is planning another run on Wednesday, to try to get even closer to the car's theoretical top speed of 274 km/hr (170 mph)." My interpretation is that they didn't want to go flat-out right away so that any engineering problems could show up at lower speed first. So they are doing progressively faster runs, and this just happened to be the first that was faster than the old record.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Sure the temperature means something. You don't get steam above 212F without increasing the pressure. So the temp tells you roughly the pressure. I did a quick search for a chart, and it says 400 degrees would be around 235 PSIG. In comparison, your 600 PSIG boiler ran about 489 degrees and the 1000 PSIG ran about 546 degrees.
http://www.indpipe.com/images/PDF/steam_temperature_pressure_table.pdf
(Just the first link I found.)
Um, no, they don't. Coal-fired ships generated steam to drive a reciprocating piston engine. Nuclear powered ships use their superheated steam to drive turbines.
Also, "naval", unless the ships you're referring to are in fact associated with belly buttons.
I was tempted to put up a picture link for "very optimistic speedo" but on second thought, I'm afraid of what Google might turn up.
What impresses me about this accomplishment is that it must have been achieved among a small group of enthusiasts.
With the internal combustion engine, an amateur can draw on a huge pool of professional resources and documented knowledge to build up a high performance vehicle. In fact, very few people, if any are a master of every component on a modern race car - usually your race team will have access to suspension specialists, tire specialists, engine builders, aerodynamic and chassis design guys...
There really can't be that many experts on the automotive uses of steam engines, and a huge amount of new development must have gone into this car - that's something fantastic.
Materials have come a long way... But how much of of an advantage does that give you against the massive loss of experience we must have had over the last 100 years?
I'm a motorcycle racing enthusiast, and even at my amateur level it's amazing how much knowledge is only available through experienced teachers. There are literally more in-depth books about programing in ruby than books about motorcycle chassis engineering and physics.
The Powell steam engine and it's associated motor vehicle was far more advanced than the Stanley systems and also more powerful and reliable than the Packards, Duesenbergs, Auburns, etc. of it's day. Powell was devastated by the collapse of the economy in the late 20's and his patents and inventions remain locked away somewhere to this day.
Cars and Parts magazine ran a month's long series on this revolutionary inventor and his motor car in the early 70's.
It was, as I recall, a horizontally opposed, 4 cylinder engine, ran completely silent and exhaust-free, with none of the dire explosion risks the Stanley Bro's systems had.
Worth a read if you can locate the article series.
In 1905, the British Admiralty announced all new ships of the line would be turbine driven.
Babcock & Wilcox built coal fired boilers through the 50's - most of these driving turbines.
By the time of the Stanley record, piston steam was on it's way out for capital ships
Now, some WWII naval ships used piston steam driven pumps for damage control, but it sounds like you're talking about main propulsion.
> Coal-fired ships generated steam to drive a reciprocating piston engine
References?
Here's one to the contrary :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbinia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine#Marine_propulsion
Also from that latter article:
"Steam turbine locomotives were also tested, but with limited success."
which, I think, is what you're talking about.
Max.
"If it was that easy, it would have been broken before now."
An economist and his son were talking a walk. "Look Dad," said the boy, "There's a $20 under that bench over there." The man looked down at the boy, "That's not possible son, passers-by would pick up any free money laying about."
Ah yes. A common myth about the "illiterate past" that is simply not true.
According to de Tocqueville who traveled the U.S. and documented what he saw, the literacy rate during Thomas Jefferson's term (circa 1804) was nearly 100%. Parents bought "readers" for their children and expected these kids to self-teach themselves how to read and write. They recognized that their new Republic would only work if the voters were educated enough to read the weekly newspapers.
By 1906 every state had mandatory education upto 9th grade, so "the chance" your average American knew 7th grade math was effectively 99.9%.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall