Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cockpit Revealed For Bloodhound Supersonic Car

Posted by Soulskill on 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.

18 of 81 comments (clear)

  1. Should it even be called a "car"? by popo · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 140Mandak262Jamuna · · 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
    5. Re:Should it even be called a "car"? by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      I make it 832m/s^2 which is only 85g.

    6. Re:Should it even be called a "car"? by beelsebob · · 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.

    7. Re: Should it even be called a "car"? by davester666 · · 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!
    8. Re: Should it even be called a "car"? by ttucker · · Score: 2

      One of those, "you wouldn't even know if the dynamite exploded", kinds of things.

  2. Definitely a low flying rocket... by jcochran · · 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 · · 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.

  3. Re:boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    This one goes to 11.

  4. Just like the space elevator by tompaulco · · 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.
  5. Re:not impressed by MachDelta · · 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)

  6. Re:Why open cockpit? by BenFenner · · Score: 2

    It is a closed cockpit. In the second video he states as such.

  7. Re:not impressed by BenFenner · · 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?

  8. Re:Shouldnt it be "Greyhound"? by necro81 · · Score: 2

    Bloodhounds aren't exactly known for their speed.

    Neither is Greyhound.

  9. Not convinced by the safety arguments by Viol8 · · 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.