Slashdot Mirror
The Bloodhound Will Stay On the Ground At 1,000 mph
Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that engineers designing the world's fastest car, the Bloodhound SSC, built to smash the world land speed record of 763 mph set by the Thrust SuperSonic Car in 1997, believe they have a solution to keep the vehicle flat on the ground at 1,000 mph after initial iterations of the car's aerodynamic shape produced dangerous amounts of lift at the vehicle's rear. John Piper, Bloodhound's technical director, said: 'We've had lift as high as 12 tonnes, and when you consider the car is six-and-a-half tonnes at its heaviest — that amount of lift is enough to make the car fly.' The design effort has been aided by project sponsor Intel, who brought immense computing power to bear on the lift problem. Before Intel's intervention, the design team had worked through 11 different 'architectures' in 18 months. The latest modelling work run on Intel's network investigated 55 configurations in eight weeks. By playing with the position and shape of key elements of the car's rear end, the design team found the best way to manage the shockwave passing around and under the vehicle as it goes supersonic. 'At Mach 1.3, we've close to zero lift, which is where we wanted to be,' says Piper. In late 2011, the Bloodhound, powered by a rocket bolted to a Eurofighter-Typhoon jet engine, will mount an assault on the land speed record, driving across a dried up lakebed known as Hakskeen Pan, in the Northern Cape of South Africa."
Righto, time to ask the serious questions! But what happens when they hit 88 miles per hour?
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Why don't they make it drive on a treadmill?
Seriously, you rip the wings off of a fighter jet and make it stay on the ground does it become a car? To really be a "car" I would almost argue it needs to be propelled by the wheels.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
763 mph=1 228 km/h
1000 mph=1609 km/h
Chronologically late.
At last!
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
If there was a bug, it's unlikely the final result would make sense. "It would go fastest with the engine in the ground!", or "it would go fastest with the engine backwards!". With that many calculations, one error would be magnified.
A floating point conversion error caused an Ariane 5 rocket to explode back in 1996
http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/ariane.html
The only thing it has in common with a car is that it has wheels and runs on the ground. Given its size and weight it would be more accurate to call it a jet powered truck.
IMO the real land speed record is the wheel driven ones , not the one where you just strap a huge rocket on the back and try and stay on the ground.
Depends on if it's a fixed aero-surface vehicle or not. F1 cars had variable surface aero-parts for one or two years before they were outright banned. The idea was that you could increase the angle of attack to increase downpressure in the corners, but make the car aerodynamically neutral in the straightaways so you're spending more power on thrust rather than dividing it between thrust and downforce. Depending on how the rules for "world's fastest car" are written, how the aero is done determines how impressive this really is. If John Carmack can write a javascript to control thrust for a vertical takeoff rocket (Armadillo Aerospace), you can design a fast car with dynamic aerosurfaces. Building a fixed aero car that's neutral at 1000mph but won't fly into the air and flip when you hit a rock is a lot harder to do. Check out this hella sweet video of a Le Mans car doing exactly that at 220mph: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM4guvo6Ifo
I'll admit this post was an excuse to post that video, but damn if it isn't cool. And that's at a quarter of the speed at which they'll be attempting this. It's not as easy as it looks.
Here's another cool video of the same thing happening. It's relatively common, even though they design against this exact sort of thing from happening. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y65oUlBMSUs
moox. for a new generation.
Once again it fails to get off the ground.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile#Etymology
The...name car is believed to originate from the Latin word carrus or carrum ("wheeled vehicle"), or the Middle English word carre ("cart") (from Old North French), or karros (a Gallic wagon).
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
That has nothing to do with the fact that this simply isn't a car. It's a rocket/jet with wheels attached. Just because a plane has wheels doesn't make it a car either. Yes, it's very difficult (to understate the issue) to keep any object traveling 1000 mph on the ground, but that doesn't negate the GP's point. It's not a car. It's not designed like a car would be, it's not propelled like a car would be, and it's not driven like a car would be.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
i would argue that not the design method, but rather the designed purpose would determine what an object is.
This thing is designed to move accross a hard surface supported by wheels, pretty much making it a car (notice i explicitely said wheels to rule out any funnymen with the 'but but hovercraft is a car' argument).
It might not be a car in the traditional ford sense of the word, you wont drive your kids to school in it, and it isnt practical for everyday use, but its purpose is still driving accross terain.
People, what a bunch of bastards