Cockpit Revealed For Bloodhound Supersonic Car

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cockpit Revealed For Bloodhound Supersonic Car

Posted by Soulskill on Friday June 13, 2014 @02:16AM from the zoom-zoom dept.

Zothecula writes: Unveiled at a special event in Bristol, U.K., the Bloodhound land speed team showed off the cockpit that will be driver Andy Green's "office" for his record attempt run in 2015 and 2016. Although Green holds the current world land speed record of 763 mph (1,227 km/h), the challenges in attempting to break the 1,000 mph (1,600 km/h) barrier will be significant for both pilot and the design team.

81 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Shouldnt it be "Greyhound"? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 02:19 · Score: 1, Interesting

Bloodhounds aren't exactly known for their speed.
1. Re:Shouldnt it be "Greyhound"? by Mysticalfruit · 2014-06-13 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's because they're on the hunt for the record.
  
  --
  Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
2. Re:Shouldnt it be "Greyhound"? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  It's dog slow.
3. Re:Shouldnt it be "Greyhound"? by necro81 · 2014-06-13 03:56 · Score: 2
  
  Bloodhounds aren't exactly known for their speed.
  Neither is Greyhound.
Should it even be called a "car"? by popo · 2014-06-13 02:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Cars have the capacity to turn. A rocket with wheels on it does not seem to meet even the most minimal requirements for a "car".

--
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
1. Re:Should it even be called a "car"? by 3.5+stripes · 2014-06-13 02:35 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It does turn, though it takes 240 meters to do a full turn.
  
  --
  
  He tried to kill me with a forklift!
2. Re:Should it even be called a "car"? by Sarten-X · 2014-06-13 02:39 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The word "car" really just means a "wheeled vehicle". There is no requirement for turning.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
3. Re:Should it even be called a "car"? by Major+Blud · 2014-06-13 02:47 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Indeed, there has been much controversy surrounding these attempts since at least the 60's. When Craig Breedlove broke the 400 mph limit in the Spirit of America, the FIA wasn't sure if they could classify it as a "car" since it only had three wheels and was powered solely by thrust. The FIM however was more than happy to classify it as a motorcycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_America_(automobile)). The many different configurations have resulted in the myriad of classifications available (piston engined, powered wheels, thrust, etc etc).
  I wish Andy Green the best, hitting 1,000 mph is going to be a tough nut to crack.
  
  --
  If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
4. Re:Should it even be called a "car"? by iggymanz · 2014-06-13 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  so a maglev train can't have "cars"?
5. Re:Should it even be called a "car"? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  I can*t see how something moving 1000 mph can even turn in 240 meters.... That*s a crazy speed for land.
  Wow, I would love to drive from Michigan to Florida at 1000 mph down I-75! If that were possible, which it is not, I would reach The Georgia-Florida border in 1 hour.
6. Re:Should it even be called a "car"? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2014-06-13 03:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The centripetal acceleration for something going at 1000 mph with a turn radius of 240 m, is = (v^2/r) = 823 g. Even aircraft do not pull that kind of g.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
7. Re:Should it even be called a "car"? by 91degrees · 2014-06-13 03:39 · Score: 2
  
  I make it 832m/s^2 which is only 85g.
8. Re:Should it even be called a "car"? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  As an American, I don't think you have the right to talk about the cornering ability of cars.
9. Re: Should it even be called a "car"? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  Oh is that all?
10. Re:Should it even be called a "car"? by RatherBeAnonymous · 2014-06-13 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Turn? Maybe not, but I bet it can rotate!
11. Re:Should it even be called a "car"? by beelsebob · 2014-06-13 04:32 · Score: 2
  
  The world record requires them to do one run, turn the car (by itself), and repeat the run within 1 hour, so it definitely can turn.
12. Re:Should it even be called a "car"? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  Learn how to use a dictionary. The word "car" does not dictate what type of propulsion system it must contain.
13. Re: Should it even be called a "car"? by davester666 · 2014-06-13 05:08 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, you would barely notice the turn if you were in the car.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
14. Re: Should it even be called a "car"? by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-06-13 05:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, you would barely notice the turn if you were in the car.
  Mod this guy up! This deserves at least a 5 insightful.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
15. Re: Should it even be called a "car"? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  You wouldn't be IN the car for long.
16. Re:Should it even be called a "car"? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2014-06-13 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  You are right, I was wrong. Feeling stupid, using g where I should have used m/s^2.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
17. Re: Should it even be called a "car"? by ttucker · 2014-06-13 05:39 · Score: 2
  
  One of those, "you wouldn't even know if the dynamite exploded", kinds of things.
18. Re:Should it even be called a "car"? by Smerta · 2014-06-13 16:54 · Score: 1
  
  Ouch... really???
  Of course it can't turn at full speed in just 240m. 240m is the distance across the circle (diameter) for the vehicle to "Turn Around" (turning radius 120m.)
19. Re: Should it even be called a "car"? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 18:03 · Score: 0
  
  dieser Wagen ist schnell
20. Re: Should it even be called a "car"? by 91degrees · 2014-06-13 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yes! I mean you'd have to be a wimp to not be able to handle suddenly weighting over 6 tonnes.
21. Re:Should it even be called a "car"? by KevReedUK · 2014-06-14 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  Not a rail guy by any stretch of the imagination, but I was always under the impression that the units in a train, maglev or conventional, were called "carriages". Based on this assumption, "cars" would be an abbreviation of this that has fallen into colloquial usage, rather than a formally "correct" term for them.
  
  As stated though, that's just the impression I was under, so I could be miles off-base here...
  
  --
  Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
boring by Charliemopps · 2014-06-13 02:33 · Score: 1

The cockpit looks exactly like what I'd expect it to. The only thing interesting about the article is the speedometer.
1. Re:boring by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 02:42 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  This one goes to 11.
2. Re:boring by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  I modded you funny, but then I looked more closely and it does go to 11! Which is just all kinds of awesome. :)
Regulations say it can by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 02:39 · Score: 1

There are strict rules and regulations for the land speed record and they are met by this vehicle. If you disagree, come up with a new record committee with new rules and see if people want to set a record for that.
That's a mighty long... by pahles · 2014-06-13 02:39 · Score: 1

attempt run in 2015 AND 2015. How much fuel will he be carrying along?

--
Sig?
1. Re:That's a mighty long... by pahles · 2014-06-13 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  the second one should have been 2016, hmmpf. So much for the pun...
  
  --
  Sig?
Definitely a low flying rocket... by jcochran · 2014-06-13 02:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

The comment on not using aerodynamic down force is rather telling. Only reason I can think of for not doing so is that if they did, it would consume power that could otherwise be used for more speed. And since motive power isn't being supplied through the wheels, traction isn't all that important. I do wonder if steering will be entirely via the wheels, or if they're using aerodynamic means.
1. Re:Definitely a low flying rocket... by Richard_at_work · 2014-06-13 03:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Racing cars try to dump down force when they don't need it - ie in straights and high speed corners. Down force is good for traction in low to medium speed corners, but it becomes a huge hindrance elsewhere. McLaren pioneered stalling the rear wing of their 2010 F1 car along the straights, giving them a couple of dozen extra MPH over their rivals, which makes all the difference when you are trying to pass them. This was later adopted by the FIA and became the Drag Reduction System.
  When the goal is "go fast in a straight line", a parallel goal is "eliminate drag", of which down force is a huge component.
2. Re:Definitely a low flying rocket... by necro81 · 2014-06-13 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  The comment on not using aerodynamic down force is rather telling
  I think the comment is better interpreted as "we want some downforce, but not so much that it crushes the front suspension." I suppose ideally you would have zero downforce on the wheels, so that you have essentially zero rolling resistance. But as a practical matter you need to have some for stability. better to have some than risk having none, or negative (airborne!). Plus, if the wheels aren't actually in contact with the ground, it can't claim the record as a "car."
3. Re:Definitely a low flying rocket... by beelsebob · 2014-06-13 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  The reason is explained in the video - when you're traveling at that speed, the loads you put through the suspension are huge. You don't want to have the suspension compressed before hand or it'll just break.
4. Re:Definitely a low flying rocket... by timeOday · 2014-06-13 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Besides the ancillary wheels to make this a "car," consider the equally-ancillary driver in the cockpit. I cannot think of a good reason to have a person onboard, beyond creating a (very real) element of danger.
5. Re:Definitely a low flying rocket... by mgscheue · 2014-06-13 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Besides the ancillary wheels to make this a "car," consider the equally-ancillary driver in the cockpit. I cannot think of a good reason to have a person onboard, beyond creating a (very real) element of danger.
  The driver very much drives it. See this on-board video of Andy Green (who will also driver the Bloodhound) in the Thrust SSC.
  http://youtu.be/vHnNxMJLfvA
6. Re:Definitely a low flying rocket... by timeOday · 2014-06-13 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I realize it's not equipped for remote control. I was simply pointing out that it could be, and it would be a lot safer obviously. But I guess that's like pushing a mannequin out the door of an airplane to go skydiving.
Just like the space elevator by tompaulco · 2014-06-13 02:43 · Score: 2

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

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
1. Re:Just like the space elevator by necro81 · 2014-06-13 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  This is just like those breakthrough articles about the space elevator where some fascinating new development has brought us that much close to building the space elevator, such as the decision to use crushed red velvet for the upholstery
  I disagree. Crushed red velvet would be almost purely an aesthetic decision. There are aesthetic considerations in the cockpit, sure. (The Rolex chronometer is a pretty piece of work, but a good wristwatch would function just as well.) But the videos present substantial engineering and design content that, if it had not been properly considered and addressed, would have sunk the entire endeavor.
not impressed by iggymanz · 2014-06-13 02:58 · Score: 1

a jet craft with wheels isn't impressive, let's see wheel driven vehicle speed record attempts. jet engines are for flying, any other use is stupid
1. Re:not impressed by swb · 2014-06-13 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, I think that "land speed" records using what amounts to jet aircraft on wheels is kind of bogus.
  I do think the idea of using a gas turbine for a power source driving the wheels isn't really a problem.
2. Re:not impressed by MachDelta · 2014-06-13 03:13 · Score: 2
  
  jet engines are for flying, any other use is stupid
  I respectfully disagree. (1 minute video, worth a watch if you haven't seen it)
3. Re:not impressed by 91degrees · 2014-06-13 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I wouldn't say it's completely unimpressive. Although most of the impressiveness is keeping it from taking off or ramming into the ground.
4. Re:not impressed by Lord+Lemur · 2014-06-13 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  They can cook the hell out of a hot dog, too.
5. Re:not impressed by BenFenner · 2014-06-13 03:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No one has stopped doing wheel driven land speed cars. This is just a different class. If you want wheel driven, you can look to those classes and there is still plenty of partisipation. However, the wall of air encountered by a wheel driven car causes traction issues (imagine trying to accelerate pressed up against a birck wall) and at some point (I think it is around 400-500 MPH) the wheels just start spinning. it is not an issue of power. Power is easy to come by these days. The traction is the problem, especially on poor surfaces like salf flats. I agree it would be impressive to see these traction issues overcome, but it has been an issue since the ''60s and I don't see a solution in sight. Do you?
6. Re:not impressed by 91degrees · 2014-06-13 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  Surely this is what makes it interesting.
7. Re:not impressed by iggymanz · 2014-06-13 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  of course, concept cars over half a century ago did that, they get lousy fuel economy and are very loud and shrill (most people thought the sounded like vacuum cleaners). On the plus side, acceleration was *outstanding*
8. Re:not impressed by necro81 · 2014-06-13 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  jet engines are for flying, any other use is stupid
  don't tell that to Bruce Wayne!
9. Re:not impressed by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  I preferred the nuclear powered concept car /s. Though micro-turbines are possibly making a comeback for hybrid cars where the throttling difficulties are meaningless due to the completely separate drive train.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#Microturbines
10. Re:not impressed by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-06-13 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  jet engines are for flying, any other use is stupid
  I respectfully disagree. (1 minute video, worth a watch if you haven't seen it)
  Wouldn't it be awesome to put wheels on a Saturn 5 first stage? Even an SRB would be cool.
  Then again, I wouldn't think as much of it as a wheel driven car.
  Years ago at a drag strip, they had some races between two jet cars, one with a transmission, and one with afterburner and jet only propulsion. The races were pretty even, the main difference was the almost quarter mile line of rubber laid by the transmissioned car.
  For sheer entertainment value, the afterburner burped on the other car, sending out a huge ball of flame that caught someone's porch on fire right next to the strip.
  No one there ever forgot that day. Testosterone levels peaked.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
11. Re:not impressed by Jawnn · 2014-06-13 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  a jet craft with wheels isn't impressive, let's see wheel driven vehicle speed record attempts. jet engines are for flying, any other use is stupid
  Not quite right. Any wheeled vehicle, that can go that fast, is damned fucking impressive. The powerplant has little to do with it at that point.
12. Re:not impressed by Radical+Moderate · 2014-06-13 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  If you were sitting a couple feet off the ground going 500+ MPH, you might be more impressed than you think. And of course it's stupid, but that's not the point.
  
  --
  Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Re:Should it even be called a by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 03:06 · Score: 0

Where are the wheels ("Wheeled vehicle" requirement) on a Maglev train?
Why open cockpit? by hermitdev · 2014-06-13 03:08 · Score: 1

I'd assume you'd want a closed shell around the driver to reduce drag & aerodynamic disturbances. Also, I'm curious what effect this will have on the driver with only a helmet to protect them at supersonic speeds.
1. Re:Why open cockpit? by BenFenner · 2014-06-13 03:23 · Score: 2
  
  It is a closed cockpit. In the second video he states as such.
Speedometer from hell by dotancohen · 2014-06-13 03:29 · Score: 1

Take a look at the speedometer:
http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/s...
It is graduated from 1 to 11. At the bottom is the subscript "MPH x 100". I'm used more to "RPM x 100"! Oh, and instead of an outstanding graduation at 55 MPH, it has an outstanding graduation at Mach 1!

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
1. Re:Speedometer from hell by necro81 · 2014-06-13 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  It is graduated from 1 to 11. At the bottom is the subscript "MPH x 100". I'm used more to "RPM x 100"!
  For a mass production vehicle, the display may not make a lot of sense. But for the one guy who is ever going to drive the car, I think we can trust him to understand what it means. It's no worse than an aircraft altimeter.
Product Placement in at least one of those by __aarzwb9394 · 2014-06-13 03:43 · Score: 1

Look out for the cringe tastic swiss watch co. placement.....
I guess it's an expensive business.
Not on the Black Rock: Leave No Trace Fail by __aapopf3474 · 2014-06-13 03:51 · Score: 1

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

In light of this impressive record, surely BLOODHOUND will return to the Black Rock Desert? Sadly, no. A lack of rain over the last decade, together with increasingly heavy use for the playa surface (principly by the annual Burning Man festival) has left the Black Rock surface in poor condition. It is bumpy, crumbly, rutted and uneven for much of its 140+ square mile surface and is not currently a suitable surface on which to run a car like BLOODHOUND. Hence an alternative surface is required – and we need to find one, wherever in the world it may be.
Re:Should it even be called a by iggymanz · 2014-06-13 04:19 · Score: 1

point is "cart" can be built without wheels, we need to redefine CAR and CART for our modern age
Re:Should it even be called a by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 04:19 · Score: 0

Perhaps it isn't actually turning that sharply at 1000mph? You don't do a three-point-turn at 70 mph, do you?
Reverse by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 04:41 · Score: 1

At one point (maybe still true today) there was a requirement that the speed record breaking car be able to go in reverse. One car obliged with a reverse gear that moved it at a fraction of a mile per hour.
Re:Should it even be called a by Sarten-X · 2014-06-13 04:49 · Score: 1

Or we could just not care too much about requirements when using a word.
"Cars" on a magnetically-levitating train are called "cars" because they are analogous to the real cars on a wheeled train. Perhaps "segments" is a better term, but now the usage is common enough that there will be no confusion in colloquial discussion.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:Should it even be called a by iggymanz · 2014-06-13 05:10 · Score: 1

they do call cars "units" in the railroad biz
"segment" already has special meaning, a run of track with distinguishing characteristic: weight or speed or number of cars constraint, from station to station, etc.
Re:Should it even be called a by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2014-06-13 05:37 · Score: 1

In a three point turn you come to a full stop twice. So there is no one speed for a three point turn. If a single speed is specified for a turn it is a simple curvilinear path.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Re:Should it even be called a by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-06-13 05:59 · Score: 1

Perhaps it isn't actually turning that sharply at 1000mph? You don't do a three-point-turn at 70 mph, do you?
You haven't met my wife, it would seem.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
So it goes up to 11?? by Viol8 · 2014-06-13 06:01 · Score: 1

They'll have no problem getting to 1000mph in that case! Wonder if Spinal Tap will do the after record party music?
Not convinced by the safety arguments by Viol8 · 2014-06-13 06:04 · Score: 2

It may well be one solid piece of carbon fibre with a 2 cm thick windscreen and a front struct that can take 30 tons of force , but it wouldn't make any difference if it was made out of reinforced unobtanium - if he looses it and has a rollover at 1000mph he's dead. Even if the structure survives - which I doubt - the G forces will probably kill him anyway.
1. Re:Not convinced by the safety arguments by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 11:19 · Score: 0
  
  I can see no reason to have a person in that car when they first test it.
Re:Should it even be called a by Sarten-X · 2014-06-13 07:29 · Score: 1

Fair enough. I'm clearly not a railroad guy.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Studded tires? by Radical+Moderate · 2014-06-13 07:35 · Score: 1

What could possibly go wrong?

--
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Not a barrier by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-13 11:00 · Score: 0

attempting to break the 1,000 mph (1,600 km/h) barrier
1000 mph (1600 km/h) is not a barrier. The speed of sound is a barrier. The speed of light is a barrier. Nothing special happens at 1000 mph. If you can make it to 999 mph, you only need a bit more power to reach 1001 mph, not a complete redesign or fundamental scientific breakthrough.
1. Re:Not a barrier by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-14 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  Good point. Please direct me to your 1000mph+ land speed record.
Re:Should it even be called a by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-14 01:47 · Score: 0

Okay, well you don't go full lock on your steering wheel at 70mph, do you?