Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

1000-mph Car Planned

kdawson posted about 6 years ago | from the zum-zum dept.

Transportation 380

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

1000 mph speed, 100 gallons per mile efficiency (4, Informative)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | about 6 years ago | (#25496485)

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.

I've got a better idea (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#25496487)

How about a 1000 mpg car?

MPG is an obsolete measurement (5, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | about 6 years ago | (#25496731)

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

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25496795)

And how exactly does that make MPG "obsolete?"

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25496811)

Why is your hat off to the engineers? It doesn't take that much engineering, just lots of money. They're taking an off-the-shelf jet engine and rocket and putting it in a car. I could do that if you gave me enough money.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement (5, Insightful)

Ice Tiger (10883) | about 6 years ago | (#25496919)

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.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement (2)

SharpFang (651121) | about 6 years ago | (#25497195)

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.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement (4, Funny)

spideysense (822379) | about 6 years ago | (#25496969)

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.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement (3, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | about 6 years ago | (#25497223)

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.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement (2)

jcr (53032) | about 6 years ago | (#25496975)

. 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

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement (4, Interesting)

ATMD (986401) | about 6 years ago | (#25496981)

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.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25496939)

To be fair, the entire US customary measuring system is obsolete...

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement (-1, Troll)

Farmer Pete (1350093) | about 6 years ago | (#25496945)

Strapping a jet fighter engine to a car isn't considered innovation in my book. If they came up with some new technology or developed something new, I might be impressed. Until then, this is just a bunch of rich people wasting good money that could be better spent else ware.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25497187)

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

that's a fair point in and of itself. but there's hypocrisy to be pointed out... hedge fund managers are rightfully regarded as self-indulgent a&@holes, selfish and single-minded even. often, nerds aren't much better ("oh, that's a cool gadget!!!" doesn't strike me as much more righteous or useful for the world than "oh, this will make me rich!")

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement (5, Insightful)

NoNeeeed (157503) | about 6 years ago | (#25497221)

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?

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement (1)

famebait (450028) | about 6 years ago | (#25497341)

I know many will scream "whats the point".

WHAT IS THE POINT?

Now, I get the point of getting something to go that fast. I understand the point of getting a manned vehicle tho got hat fast. I get the point of getting one of the two to go that fast close to the ground.

It's just the wheels bit that seems patently silly to me. It is simply not a rational choice at those speeds, and the only reason to have them is because it supposedly 'makes it a car' so you can compete in that category in stead of as a rocket or plane.

I makes no sense. It's like setting a world record in the category "speed skating with a double-bass strapped to your ass". No, it does not further humanity. The necessary tech and theory probably did, but they could easily be employed in, and prompted by, a more sane project in stead.

Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement (5, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | about 6 years ago | (#25497349)

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.

Re:I've got a better idea (1)

Idbar (1034346) | about 6 years ago | (#25496783)

Well, if you don't need to brake the momentum (I assume they have had a good aerodynamics work) will give you a fairly good mpg. (After all companies have their tricks to measure it)

But, yeah, I agree it's pointless, specially when in the US, the average highest speed limit is 70mph.

Re:I've got a better idea (4, Insightful)

Ice Tiger (10883) | about 6 years ago | (#25496839)

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.

Dummies will stay dummies (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25496935)

>The UK has a shortage of home grown talent when it >comes to engineering and this is helping change >that for the future.

I think you have bigger problems besides bad teeth.
But hey, put some lipstick above those ugly chompers and you'll convince people that its solved.

As for homegrown talent, your asian kids seem to be doing very well so maybe your country should look at how those kids are getting higher scores than the homegrown non-soccer hooligans types.

Re:I've got a better idea (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 6 years ago | (#25496955)

Yes, because military jet engines are known for their high fuel efficiency...

Re:I've got a better idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25496797)

It's called a bicycle.

Re:I've got a better idea (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#25497119)

Did I not mentioned that I'm very lazy?

Re:I've got a better idea (5, Insightful)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | about 6 years ago | (#25497251)

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.

The real question... (5, Funny)

xcog (698375) | about 6 years ago | (#25496491)

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

Re:The real question... (0)

tritonman (998572) | about 6 years ago | (#25496547)

I think the real question is: where are they going to test it? So it gets to top speed in 40 seconds, well if you start at one end of britian you will probably be at the other end of britain in 40 seconds at that speed!

Re:The real question... (5, Funny)

innit (79854) | about 6 years ago | (#25496727)

Yeah, if Britain was 11 miles long.

Re:The real question... (1)

somersault (912633) | about 6 years ago | (#25496761)

Even at top speed, it would only travel 11 miles in 40 seconds..

Re:The real question... (1)

djveer (1179631) | about 6 years ago | (#25496805)

It will be in a desert obviously as they discuss Here. [bloodhoundssc.com] Breaking and setting most top speed records of this calibre have been attempted at the Bonneville Salt Flats, Utah, USA so my bet would be there however I don't believe they have figured out exactly where they want to do it yet.

Re:The real question... (1)

MiniMike (234881) | about 6 years ago | (#25496867)

They're looking at sites all over the world. Maybe they're worried about having TSA arbitrarily confiscate the car at the border?

Re:The real question... (4, Funny)

sqldr (838964) | about 6 years ago | (#25497127)

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.

Re:The real question... (1)

MrMr (219533) | about 6 years ago | (#25496907)

...And where can I dock my iPod?
Must.
not.
bite.

Re:The real question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25497043)

where can I dock my iPod

Visit goatse for some ideas.

I wonder ... (2, Funny)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | about 6 years ago | (#25496495)

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

To the moon! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25496595)

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

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

Car? Or rocket on wheels? (0, Troll)

Madball (1319269) | about 6 years ago | (#25496521)

While technically any wheeled vehicle is a car, this is not a car in any common sense meaning of the word.

1. You can't (and won't ever be able to) buy one.

2. You can only drive it at speed on salt flats.

3. You can't drive it on public roads (driver and pedestrian safety, shooting flames of death, etc).

4. Even if you could drive it on-road, its turning radius is probably a mile!

A better title might be "British team seeks to break land speed record, again." or even better "Yaaaawn"

Re:Car? Or rocket on wheels? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25496591)

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.

Re:Car? Or rocket on wheels? (1)

speroni (1258316) | about 6 years ago | (#25496725)

Airplanes have wheels... even the space shuttle has wheels. They don't make any claims to be cars.

Re:Car? Or rocket on wheels? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25496877)

Even if you could drive it on public roads 1000 MPH top speed does you no good when you're constantly stuck behind the asshat who just has to drive 5 miles UNDER the speed limit in the passing lane.

Of course, on the flip side, shooting flames of death might be a nice feature for dealing with tailgaters...

Re:Car? Or rocket on wheels? (1)

wiz_80 (15261) | about 6 years ago | (#25496963)

1. You can't (and won't ever be able to) buy one.

If I showed up with a suitcase of cash after the attempt had been completed, I would think they would be happy to take my money. Also, by this reasoning any sort of limited-numbers, not-for-public-consumption car (prototypes, racers, etc) are also not cars.

2. You can only drive it at speed on salt flats.

Your point being...?

3. You can't drive it on public roads (driver and pedestrian safety, shooting flames of death, etc).

The same would apply to F1 or NASCAR cars, but those are definitely cars. Ok, maybe not the shooting flames of death part.

4. Even if you could drive it on-road, its turning radius is probably a mile!

Why would you want to take the thing on the road?

It looks like your definition of "car" is "a vehicle which can be bought by a member of the public and operated legally on public roads". By that reasoning, Yamaha, Ducati, Aprilia, and Harley-Davidson all make "cars".

From the Submitter (1)

Smivs (1197859) | about 6 years ago | (#25497067)

I did wonder about calling this a 'car' when I submitted the story. A true 'car' should have driven wheels and either an electric or internal combustion engine. But it is designed as a terrestrial vehicle, and has wheels. 'Car' is a short form of 'motor car' which in turn is a contraction of 'motor carriage', and as this vehicle carries a man it is a carriage of sorts and it certainly has a 'motor' (well two actually) so ultimately, yes, it is a car.

Right (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 6 years ago | (#25497169)

1. You can't (and won't ever be able to) buy one.

I can't buy a McLaren F1 either. So the F1 ain't a car. There are MANY custom made cars, you cannot buy. So they don't qualify either. Hell, you can't buy my car. So my car is not car.

2. You can only drive it at speed on salt flats.

If you were able to find a 9 mile long straight and wide piece of asfalt it would do as well.

3. You can't drive it on public roads (driver and pedestrian safety, shooting flames of death, etc).

The salt flat is public property.

4. Even if you could drive it on-road, its turning radius is probably a mile!

Never seen turning radius as a definition of a car.

A better title might be "British team seeks to break land speed record, again." or even better "Yaaaawn"

A good title for you might be "twit who doesn't belong on slashdot but some kind of barbie website". I take that back. It is an insult to all 12yr old girls.

Car? (1)

bcmm (768152) | about 6 years ago | (#25496537)

At that sort of speed, presumably all control is going to be aerodynamic anyway, making this basically a rocket-plane designed to fly so close to the ground that the wheels touch it, right?

thats a big splat (1)

hierophanta (1345511) | about 6 years ago | (#25496539)

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 - and this was in the salt flats of utah (at least thats where he started, clearly it wasnt so flat where he ended up)

It wasn't this guy was it? (1)

reality-bytes (119275) | about 6 years ago | (#25496609)

Re:It wasn't this guy was it? (1)

hierophanta (1345511) | about 6 years ago | (#25496829)

uhh.. yes, yes it was.

Re:thats a big splat (3, Funny)

drerwk (695572) | about 6 years ago | (#25496679)

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!

Re:thats a big splat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25496893)

remember,
    no matter where you go, there you are.

When does it stop being a car? (2, Insightful)

jonas_sten (1330435) | about 6 years ago | (#25496551)

is it a car as long as it has wheels?

Re:When does it stop being a car? (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | about 6 years ago | (#25496849)

Then they should just run a Eurofighter on a runway trying not to take off... Just as much a "car" as this thing.

Re:When does it stop being a car? (3, Interesting)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 6 years ago | (#25496997)

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' [landspeed.com] is literally an F-104 body, sans wings.

Re:When does it stop being a car? (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | about 6 years ago | (#25496915)

is it a car as long as it has wheels?

I'm going to say yes as it justifies my making vrooming noises when I ride my chair around the office.

Re:When does it stop being a car? (1)

R2.0 (532027) | about 6 years ago | (#25497213)

I believe the sanctioning bodies have decreed that a car must have 4 wheels - that's about it. For instance, the Blue Flame, the long time record holder, was technically a motorcycle due to its single nosewheel.

falling forwards (3, Interesting)

dnwq (910646) | about 6 years ago | (#25496557)

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

Re:falling forwards (3, Informative)

SirLoadALot (991302) | about 6 years ago | (#25496685)

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.

Re:falling forwards (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25496777)

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.

Re:falling forwards (1)

Barterer (878209) | about 6 years ago | (#25496785)

If the power output is constant, you'd start off like a rock out of a slingshot. Then as you reached top speed the acceleration would taper off asymtotically. Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass x velocity^2 I think.

Re:falling forwards (1)

IcyHando'Death (239387) | about 6 years ago | (#25496799)

To calculate the acceleration the driver/pilot experiences, you should also take into account the force of gravity. The two vectors are perpendicular in this case, so it's a simple calculation:

a = (1g^2 + 1.196g^2)^.5
    = 2.196^.5 g
    = 1.482g

Still quite tolerable, but 48% more than what you get by ignoring gravity.

Watch out for Italians (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25496559)

Italians will try to use these cars to take their nefarious ices across our borders. They nthey will evade law enforcement and distribute their illicit ices to the proletarian centers of Chicago and Pittsburgh. Then what? Italians are bad news and they should not have this car.

How can you call it a car... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about 6 years ago | (#25496581)

...when it is not kept on the ground by gravity?

Re:How can you call it a car... (2, Interesting)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 6 years ago | (#25496687)

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

Re:How can you call it a car... (1)

somersault (912633) | about 6 years ago | (#25496825)

So.. supercars and racing cars aren't "cars" either?

Re:How can you call it a car... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25497319)

Actually I was wondering this myself. I feel that these cars, if they are powered through rockets are not really cars at all. In my mind you should have to accelerate the car through a torque through the wheels to really be a car. These apply the force directly to the air surrounding it, making it in my mind more of a rocket that also lies on the ground. The wheels spin really fast, but they aren't the propelling force.

Better metric (1)

number17 (952777) | about 6 years ago | (#25496601)

I want to know what the litres per second are.

Re:Better metric (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25496933)

35 L/s. but that's not including the engine to drive the fuel pump or the solid-fuel rocket.

From the wired write-up: "V12 engine will drive Bloodhound's hydraulic system, serve as a starter motor for the EJ200 and pump high test peroxide fuel through the rocket at the rate of one ton every 22 seconds."

so if the density of the fuel is 1.3g/cc (95% H202/Kerosene), then that's about 35 L/s

Two words.. (1, Offtopic)

2phar (137027) | about 6 years ago | (#25496605)

Cup Holders

Re:Two words.. (1)

somersault (912633) | about 6 years ago | (#25496905)

I think a more practical item would be brain and intestine holders! Nobody is walking away from something like that in a crash.. :s

It's not like a 1000mph car is even useful for anything - it is still impressive to develop the tech, and it could be useful for other applications, but personally I'd just design an AI to pilot the car rather than risk someone's life like that. I love my cars, but if you need to move that fast, you move through the air where stuff like bumps in the ground and wheel bearings aren't going to cause problems. I think anything over 200mph in a car is asking for trouble - you get to the horizon almost as soon as you can see it.

Splat (2, Funny)

FrostedWheat (172733) | about 6 years ago | (#25496625)

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

Re:Splat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25496947)

At those ridiculous speeds, birds and insects go through the window. These collisions are called BASH (Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard). Take a look: Porsche vs Bird [crookedbrains.net]

Re:Splat (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 6 years ago | (#25497017)

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

To the bug, once you reach the speed of "splat", any faster is irrelevant.

I figure anything past the first 60mph isn't going to really change anything. :-P

Cheers

Stupid rules (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 6 years ago | (#25496637)

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. Or something like: Start at an arbitrary point X, come to a complete halt at a point Y that is at least 10 miles away, move within 1 meter to the original point X, and stand still again.

Re:Stupid rules (2, Insightful)

meringuoid (568297) | about 6 years ago | (#25496953)

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. [wikipedia.org] But if you're interested in sheer speed, then it's straight-line records like this which are interesting.

frist stoRp?! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25496643)

1000 mph? (1)

drunkennewfiemidget (712572) | about 6 years ago | (#25496663)

1000mph? Pssh. That's nothing. Have you driven on Highway 401 in Toronto at 2am on a Sunday? You'll get highbeamed and honked at for anything less than 750 in the right lane.

Re:1000 mph? (1)

ZDRuX (1010435) | about 6 years ago | (#25496865)

Haha, yes I have.. after a night of clubing. I call them "Serious contenders" - my friend though it was pretty funny :)

Sponsors? (4, Funny)

speroni (1258316) | about 6 years ago | (#25496701)

Is this an ACME funded project?

ACME [wikipedia.org]

Re:Sponsors? (1)

Instine (963303) | about 6 years ago | (#25496951)

..,o%80o== Meep meep!

Re:Sponsors? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25496987)

Product development for the Coyote.

The video... (2, Funny)

PearsSoap (1384741) | about 6 years ago | (#25496729)

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

The Darwin Awards... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25496737)

Perhaps they've just seen the movie and thought it looked like a wild way to go out.

Britain is 909 Miles long. So it'd take just under an hour to get to the waters edge! Though as its only planned to take 40 seconds to get to top speed I very much doubt it'd be a major problem ;-)

Thats not a car (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | about 6 years ago | (#25496757)

A jet that just happens to not take off (or so they hope) is not a "car". I personally set the limit of car speeds as those achieved by a combustion engine, and even then, the top drag cars are held to the earth by giant down-force-generating wings.

Re:Thats not a car (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 6 years ago | (#25496887)

A jet that just happens to not take off (or so they hope) is not a "car". I personally set the limit of car speeds as those achieved by a combustion engine, and even then, the top drag cars are held to the earth by giant down-force-generating wings.

Same goes for Formula 1 cars -- if it weren't for wings which push down, they'd take flight.

At what point does it stop being a car? Why stop at internal combustion? What about electric cars? Mr Fusion???

It's not like there isn't a category of jet powered cars at drag strips. They're still classed as cars. At present, if it's intended to travel on the ground with wheels, at what point (other than the completely arbitrary one you've given) does it stop being a car??

Cheers

Re:Thats not a car (1)

trongey (21550) | about 6 years ago | (#25497159)

Is this [jimsrepair...actors.com] a car? It has wheels and travels on the ground.

Re:Thats not a car (1)

AikonMGB (1013995) | about 6 years ago | (#25497011)

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine [wikipedia.org]

Specifically, there are a number of types of engine [wikipedia.org]

that classify as "internal combustion", and jet engines (in the general case, e.g. pump-jets on SeaDoos don't count) are one of those types. And before you go off the handle, rockets are actually a sub-class of jet engine.

Aikon-

Re:Thats not a car (1)

No2Gates (239823) | about 6 years ago | (#25497025)

AMEN!!! This is a airplane that doesn't have wings made for lift.

Re:Thats not a car (1)

Migraineman (632203) | about 6 years ago | (#25497231)

Consider where the motive force comes from. A "car" uses traction between the wheel and the ground, regardless of how that wheel is turned. A "jet car" or "rocket car" uses the reactive force from a high-speed exhaust stream, but is still designed to stay in contact with the ground. An "aircraft" may strongly resemble a "jet car" with the aerodynamic surfaces inverted, having the intent to leave contact with the ground.

As with the legal system, intent often makes the biggest distinction.

Re:Thats not a car (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | about 6 years ago | (#25497255)

If you want a better definition of car, you might require that the primary motive force be applied by means of the wheels.

not a car? (1)

hegleran (862794) | about 6 years ago | (#25496823)

So electrically powered vehicles do not qualify? No internal combustion there...

Jeremy Clarkson: (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25496871)

Hamster! You want to try it out ?

mo3 down (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25496923)

is the ultimate Theo de Raadt, one Users. Surprise Goodbye...she had c8eate, manufacture Maintained that too 3ould mar BSD's some of you have Due to the troubles Fortunately, Linux influence, the

Faster than a plan.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25497049)

The low altitude speed record for planes is just shy of 1000mph.

[starfighters.net]

988.26mph

And probably about 100ft about the desert floor.

Andy Green (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25497065)

And can we just say *massive* kudos to W/Co Green for having the balls to strap into this beast and hit the throttle. Listen to him in interviews talking about Thrust jumping 15 feet from side to side at 650 mph and just *dealing with it*. 'Nerves of steel' doesn't begin to cover it.

Urban Legend (1)

BrunoBigfoot (996441) | about 6 years ago | (#25497079)

I seem to recall an urban legend involving a rocket car. Police find a smouldering wreck on the side of a cliff. From what they piece together, some genius straps a JATO unit to the roof of his car and takes off, only to be unable to steer and promptly hits the cliff and explodes.

Gentlemen, I think we have an episode of MythBusters here.

Re:Urban Legend (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25497151)

They did that one already.

100 Days of Games (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25497103)

After years of underfunding science, education and the arts the UK government decides to conjure up another circus to distract the populace while they fill up their own pockets during an economic meltdown...

Wake up people! This isn't Kennedy promising to put a man on moon.

So? (1, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 6 years ago | (#25497157)

The proposed vehicle will get from 0 to 1,050 mph in 40 seconds.
Yeah, sure, but... how well does it corner?

the point (5, Insightful)

confused one (671304) | about 6 years ago | (#25497245)

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.

It will be a successfull (0)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | about 6 years ago | (#25497259)

waste of money and resources not to count the extra pollution!
Why doing this? For fun? C-mon!

This Just In From BBC (1)

Skeetskeetskeet (906997) | about 6 years ago | (#25497309)

ACME Corporation has just scored the exclusive contract to build the 1000mph car.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?