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!

Successful Engine Test in UK For Planned 1000 mph Car

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the pop-quiz-how-long-can-it-run-in-the-uk dept.

Transportation 262

amkkhan writes with this excerpt from International Science Times: "Scientists aiming to create a car that can break 1,000 mph cleared a large hurdle yesterday when they successfully tested their rocket engine. The engine will power the supersonic car known as the Bloodhound SSC — meant to become the fastest car in the world. The British team tested the engine in an aircraft shelter in Newquay Cornwall Airport, originally designed to protect fighter planes from bombs. Although the data hasn't fully been analyzed, the researchers said the engine reached 30,000 horsepower during the 10-second burn. Given enough time, they expect the engine to reach 80,000 horsepower and 27,500 pounds of thrust."

cancel ×

262 comments

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

Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? (5, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41549883)

I just got my old girl primered and re-upholstered and I'm thinking a new engine would really make her kick ass. I got $200 and and '86 Silverado (that just needs a new transmission) that I'm willing to part with, if you're interested in selling the engine after you break that record.

Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550115)

They barely held together with the smog equipped 120hp engine.

Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550209)

What?!? No El Camino?

You have a mullet, don't you? And live in the ....Carolinas or Texas? ... maybe Georgia.

You're going to vote Republican.

You are Christian. White. Own quite a few high cailber guns - maybe a pussy .40 (no Eurofag 9mm!) - but mostly .357, .44 mag, and a .45. Plus a 30-06 and at least one 12 gauge.

..

I'm really kidding and teasing - because EVERYTIME, without fail, when I stereotype people I am always wrong.

Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550343)

You can't be a republican AND a christian.

One hates helping people, the other is required to.

Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#41550425)

And apparently you build strawmen.

Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? (0)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#41550473)

Strawmen of truth!

Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? (1)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about 2 years ago | (#41550931)

You don't read much, do you?

Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? (1)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | about 2 years ago | (#41550267)

I just got my old girl primered and re-upholstered and I'm thinking a new engine would really make her kick ass.

Is your 'old girl' a rear-engine design? If not, you may be out of luck...

Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#41550577)

I just got my old girl primered and re-upholstered and I'm thinking a new engine would really make her kick ass.

Is your 'old girl' a rear-engine design? If not, you may be out of luck...

Firebirds of that era were front engine. I think Pontiac made anything but the Fiero with front engine and the Fiero is a frightening drive with the engine it had (I whipped out a few times in mine and it always spun around with the rear of the car going in the direction of travel. Couldn't sell that thing fast enough.)

Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? (1)

Racemaniac (1099281) | about 2 years ago | (#41550741)

Maybe he just wants to go backwards really fast? :)

I used to think this stuff was cool (1)

somersault (912633) | about 2 years ago | (#41549955)

I used to think this kind of stuff was pretty amazing. It certainly used to be amazing for a car to go hundreds of miles an hour. Now I think it's getting to the realms of stupidity. It's pretty likely that more people are going to die doing this stuff, but for what?

I think this type of research would be better directed towards getting planes to go faster, not cars. There is probably a lot of overlap though, since basically all of the challenge here will be the aerodynamics.

Alternatively, doing the same challenge without allowing rockets would be damn cool. I just don't get the point of rocket cars.

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (5, Informative)

dave420 (699308) | about 2 years ago | (#41550049)

This project is being used to get kids interested in science, technology, and mathematics. That's why it's being partly-funded by the government, including the loan of some Typhoon engines. It's not just rich guys going "what what" and driving like idiots - they actually put some thought into it. They tour the car model around schools and get the kids to make projects based on it. The car is also not a rocket car, but a rocket/jet hybrid. It has a rocket engine (which uses a Formula-1 car as the oxidiser pump - that in itself is pretty cool), strapped to one of the engines from a Eurofighter jet (the aforementioned Typhoon engine). It's a really fascinating project.

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41550093)

This project is being used to get kids interested in science, technology, and mathematics.

And what about a 1000 mpg car? Sounds much more interesting to me.

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (0)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 years ago | (#41550169)

Nothing is stopping you. Except the laws of physics. I'd suggest grifting the metric. Make it an electric car.

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (4, Insightful)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | about 2 years ago | (#41550285)

But far more boring to most kids. I admit, it sounds pretty boring to me too, even if it is the more responsible goal to aim for. The UK has a problem with getting kids interested in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths). Most kids love explosions, fire, noise and power. You lecture them on how you can make a car go 1000 miles on a gallon of fuel, and most would probably fall asleep.

This however, is fast, noisy, pushes science/engineering to its limits, and shoots a massive jet of fire out the back, what's not to love? It gets kids excited, which is its primary goal, it is an excellent world showcase for the high-technology design/manufacturing that the UK still has, and installs some pride in the UK populace. It is not a blueprint for all future cars, so the fact it gets 0.04mpg (uk gallons) is irrelevant, especially as it will probably only run a few times in its life.

Not to fret though, there are lots of challenges every year to see who can get the best mpg (I think we're up to 350mpg on diesel). Different strokes for different folks and all that. There is a lot of work on both sides of the fence :)

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550587)

This project is being used to get kids interested in science, technology, and mathematics.

And what about a 1000 mpg car? Sounds much more interesting to me.

Wrong room. You want down the hall, 3rd on left. This is the room for the 1000 gpm car.

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about 2 years ago | (#41550641)

Already been done [fueleconomy.gov] and beaten by an order of magnitude. Much like these ultra fast vehicles you wouldn't use it as a daily driver though.

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (1)

triffid_98 (899609) | about 2 years ago | (#41550689)

And what about a 1000 mpg car? Sounds much more interesting to me.

I believe those are the ones with the bicycle pedals and the streamers sticking out of the handlebars

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (1)

hackertourist (2202674) | about 2 years ago | (#41550997)

There are plenty of people (including schools) doing that, and one does not preclude the other.

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 2 years ago | (#41550481)

This project is being used to get kids interested in science, technology, and mathematics.

So they will use Raspberry Pis to control the engine and autopilot it on city streets?

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (1)

Loughla (2531696) | about 2 years ago | (#41550111)

I just don't get the point of rocket cars.

Because we were all twelve once?

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (2)

somersault (912633) | about 2 years ago | (#41550287)

I guess I'm maybe speaking to the wrong crowd since Americans are really into their drag racing, but I prefer cars that can turn corners well too. I love rallying and other types of motor racing. There's little practical purpose in being able to go over 200mph in a car though, given current roads. And you can still have flames shooting out of the exhaust in an ICE :D

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (3)

Loughla (2531696) | about 2 years ago | (#41550387)

But for a twelve year old kid, there's just something about the idea of strapping yourself to a missile for no other reason than to go really, really, really fast. Turns are great, and I agree, but come on - 1,000 mph? I'd do it, and I'm a full-grown human. Now imagine being a little kid and seeing this thing tearing ass across the desert.

In the words of the immortal bard, Shakespeare, "FUCK YEAH."

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (1)

triffid_98 (899609) | about 2 years ago | (#41550519)

There's little practical purpose in being able to go over 200mph in a car though, given current roads

Given that you're on an island 200 miles across, I'm going to strongly agree with that...and some of us Americans also enjoy cars that can turn both left AND right.

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41550123)

Planes already went fast. Supersonic passanger jet technology was introduced long ago. The difficult part is making it financially viable in the current economy - Concorde just cost too much to run.

The focus of civilian aviation now isn't on speed, but cost - finding new ways to make the planes ever more economical to operate, either by increasing fuel efficiency (Fuel being a major cost) or to cram more paying passangers onboard to reduce the per-passanger cost.

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 2 years ago | (#41550601)

The focus of civilian aviation now isn't on speed, but cost - finding new ways to make the planes ever more economical to operate, either by increasing fuel efficiency (Fuel being a major cost) or to cram more paying passangers onboard to reduce the per-passanger cost.

Ah, well if we aren't focussed on speed and want to optimize per passenger cost -- that's a solved problem too; they are called boats. :)

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#41551119)

Actually, they're not. Boats are much more efficient for cargo, but a fast boat from the UK to the USA takes over a week. That means that you need to take enough food for a week, have enough space to keep people entertained for a week, have people employed to clean the cabins en voyage and so on. Your passengers also have to be able to spare a week or two each way for the journey. Boats are fine for short trips, although loading and unloading can quickly become a bottleneck, which drives up the cost because harbour space is a finite resource.

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (1)

veganboyjosh (896761) | about 2 years ago | (#41550191)

In order for a 1,000 mph car to be approved for driving/testing by a human, i would imagine the funding agencies would require all kinds of safety gear. if, through the development of new safety tech brings us some new breakthrough that scales down/back and makes 80 mph crashes much safer, isn't that a worthwhile pursuit?

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550305)

It's not research to make cars go faster, it's a gimmick created by a group of private individuals, 'because they can'.
Actual research to make airplanes go faster has long since reached the point of diminishing returns.

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (3, Informative)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about 2 years ago | (#41550617)

If you want to see a raw speed challenge that uses a number of reciprocating piston engines you should go check out speed week [scta-bni.org] at the Bonneville Salt Flats [wikipedia.org] . I don't know how many rocket or jet vehicles compete but there are a number of regular vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles) and a ton of categories to compete in. I would love to go some day when I complete my project car.

Re:I used to think this stuff was cool (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about 2 years ago | (#41550737)

Sure, I mean, it would make no sense to have really-long-distance-highways with self-driving-buses in a couple of decades, right?

Laugh-a while you can, a-monkey boy! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41549981)

The rocket is the EASY part. What we need to know is, how is work on the Oscillation Overthruster going?

Re:Laugh-a while you can, a-monkey boy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550213)

Laugh while you can monkey boy!

Rockets have kicked in yo (1)

hattig (47930) | about 2 years ago | (#41549999)

Sweet, this'll make my commute sound* awesome.

* but I'll still be stuck in a traffic jam

On a more serious note, I guess it's pretty neat that they've designed a rocket that runs along the ground without taking off or digging itself into a crater, but what does it really prove in the end? It's just a record speed. Oh well, it's there to be done I guess, and that's a good reason.

Re:Rockets have kicked in yo (1)

Relayman (1068986) | about 2 years ago | (#41550521)

Traffic jam? There will be no traffic jam once this car goes through.

Rocket? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550005)

A rocket engine? Isn't that like...cheating? What kind of car has a rocket?

Re:Rocket? (1)

compro01 (777531) | about 2 years ago | (#41550177)

No. A wheel-driven car hasn't held the land speed record since 1965, when Blue Flame (a rocket car) beat Bluebird's record, though the most recent recordholders are jets rather than rockets.

Incidentally, the some of the same guys who made Blue Flame are the ones behind this vehicle.

Re:Rocket? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550179)

What kind of car has a rocket?

The good kind, that's what.

Re:Rocket? (1)

FunkyELF (609131) | about 2 years ago | (#41550275)

If a fighter jet touches its wheels to the ground, is it a car?

Re:Rocket? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550853)

Can it stay down on the ground at full speed for the whole mile?

Re:Rocket? (1)

dragon-file (2241656) | about 2 years ago | (#41550917)

No more so than a rocket boat or car that's gone airborne is a plane.

lol (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#41550013)

Did anyone else read that as MPG? I read the whole summary and was like "REALY??!!!!?!?!!?!?!!" Anyway, this is a 2-stage car that uses a jet engine to get past 200MPH-ish and then a rocket engine to get to 1000+. That really is the right way to do it, as rocket dragsters on drag strips tend to steer badly due to slight takeoff jumps and pushes in a direction other than straight.

Darwin Award Winner... (1)

Monkey-Man2000 (603495) | about 2 years ago | (#41550025)

...of the Decade in 5, 4, 3, 2...

Re:Darwin Award Winner... (2)

compro01 (777531) | about 2 years ago | (#41550289)

These guys have built the last 3 recordholding cars and drove them too. I am confidant they know what they're doing.

Top Award (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550033)

I sense a Darwin Award...

Re:Top Award (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41550137)

I sense a Darwin Award...

...awarded five seconds after the Collier Trophy?

Will it be tested in California without a driver? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550035)

Might be easier to just paint "Car" on the side of a missile.

Horsepower? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 2 years ago | (#41550131)

Why would you classify a rocket engine in horsepower? Thrust is really what you're after, though even peak thrust is a bit of a useless measure. An overall or maximum total impulse would have been a nice touch. Bonus if they'd use a standard, like N-s, as their unit.

Re:Horsepower? (1)

Relayman (1068986) | about 2 years ago | (#41550591)

Horsepower lets us visualize 80,000 horses and the manure that they produce. Now, since each of the 80,000 horses is limited in speed, you still have to figure out how to put them in series to get the desired 1,000 mph (they can't pull but they could push), but, still, it's important to some to think of the problem in this way.

Re:Horsepower? (1)

magarity (164372) | about 2 years ago | (#41550739)

Horsepower lets us visualize 80,000 horses and the manure that they produce. Now, since each of the 80,000 horses is limited in speed, you still have to figure out how to put them in series to get the desired 1,000 mph (they can't pull but they could push), but, still, it's important to some to think of the problem in this way.

They could be on a big treadmill that turns a drive train with a really high gear ratio.

Re:Horsepower? (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#41551167)

You have solved the first part of the puzzle. The second part is working out how to fit them all into a car.

You know what they say about when people assume... (1)

kevkingofthesea (2668309) | about 2 years ago | (#41550171)

...but if you assume constant acceleration over the 42 seconds to get to 1000 mph (~447m/s), it will take a distance of around 9.4km to reach top speed. That's a long drag strip.

Its not a car (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550189)

A rocket with wheels is still just a rocket, doesn't matter where its aimed.

Re:Its not a car (1)

White Flame (1074973) | about 2 years ago | (#41550219)

Yes, came to post this. I'd say a requirement of a "car" is that it is propelled solely through torquing the wheels. This is effectively a (steerable?) rocket sled.

Re:Its not a car (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550317)

Here's what a wheel-driven Land Speed Record car looks like: http://www.speeddemon.us/

Re:Its not a car (1)

Relayman (1068986) | about 2 years ago | (#41550635)

Alternatively, the requirement could be constant contact with the ground. Most objects will fly at 1,000 mph; I know the takeoff speed of my Corolla is around 120 mph.

Re:Its not a car (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550659)

Was the space shuttle a rocket or an aircraft? Yeah ... you're talking nonsense.

Re:Its not a car (1)

dragon-file (2241656) | about 2 years ago | (#41551015)

A rocket with wheels is still just a rocket, doesn't matter where its aimed.

True, but most rockets aren't meant to make contact with the ground. SAMs are suppose to leave the surface to contact enemy fighters. NASA's rockets leave the surface and don't come back until they are done. This rocket is meant to stay earthbound. It a completely different kinda of rocket, all together.

Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550207)

So, how many furlongs per square fortnight is it?

Re:Units (1)

TCPhotography (1245814) | about 2 years ago | (#41550319)

~7.75×10^10 (furlongs/(fortnight^2))

Re:Units (1)

durrr (1316311) | about 2 years ago | (#41550335)

They don't mention enough to calculate the acceleration.
In metric, a furlong per square fortnight is: 1.375*10^-10 m/s^2 so I guess the value we're looking at would be several gigafurlongs per square fortnight at least though.

Re:Units (1)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about 2 years ago | (#41551031)

Don't forget to factor in stone per rood and quid cubed.

It gave ZERO horsepower (2)

Brett Buck (811747) | about 2 years ago | (#41550233)

Pedantic, but we are among geeks - a rocket engine gives *NO* horsepower in a static test, because there is no work being done. The power is a product of the thrust and the speed times some constant to get it in the desired units. No speed = no power.

      They claim to get 80,000 hp at 1000 mph - that's about 30,000 lbs of thrust, which is reasonably consistent with the claimed final thrust. They could have just said that.

        Brett

Re:It gave ZERO horsepower (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550381)

Came here to make sure someone noted this. A lesson that was taught to me first in physics class but more realistically in discussion with Jack Bickhard of Boeing. -- Dale

Re:It gave ZERO horsepower (2)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 years ago | (#41550413)

Pedantic, but we are among geeks - a rocket engine gives *NO* horsepower in a static test, because there is no work being done.

Well, it is accelerating its fuel and oxidizer to a great speed out the back. We seldom think of a rocket as a big gas cannon that just happens to have a lot of recoil, but it wouldn't be incorrect.

Re:It gave ZERO horsepower (1)

Cid Highwind (9258) | about 2 years ago | (#41550447)

a rocket engine gives *NO* horsepower in a static test, because there is no work being done.

The exhaust gasses beg to differ!
(or would, if they were sentient and capable of speech...)

Re:It gave ZERO horsepower (4, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#41550461)

Au contraire! They slightly accelerated/slowed* the rotation of the earth.

* I don't know which way it was pointing, hopefully not north.

Re:It gave ZERO horsepower (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#41550695)

Oooooh! Out-pedanted, GP!

Re:It gave ZERO horsepower (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550471)

The body of the engine isn't moving but it's throwing rather a lot of stuff out of the back, rather fast. I think you'll find there is work being done.

Re:It gave ZERO horsepower (1)

insecuritiez (606865) | about 2 years ago | (#41550535)

Of course it is doing work. Work == energy (same units). Instead of making the rocket go forward it created sound, pushed air, increased temperature, etc. Exactly the same amount of work is done in a static test as is done in an actual launch.

Re:It gave ZERO horsepower (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550837)

Heat/Increased temperature is distinct from work (typically referring specifically to mechanical work), as typically illustrated in the quantitative statement of the first law of thermodynamics, dU = dQ - dW.

Re:It gave ZERO horsepower (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550749)

Yes, but no. It's a car article. They wanted a unit the car-gits would have excited car-talk with.

Also quite amusing that they have "scientists" not engineers.

Re:It gave ZERO horsepower (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550829)

They probably had a test load of some sort, running it unloaded would be a poor test. It probably got some break pads really hot.

Re:It gave ZERO horsepower (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550843)

wait, never mind, engine is directly producing thrust, not driving a crank shaft--doh!

Google should partner to make it driverless (2)

NinjaTekNeeks (817385) | about 2 years ago | (#41550259)

I'm all for cool science projects but at those speeds I think we can assume any accident will be fatal, especially if the fuel ignites. Why not partner with the google team to make it autonomous, it would be great press for google and would generate buzz for the project.

Re:Google should partner to make it driverless (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550523)

Good idea but Google aren't interested in Buzz anymore.

Re:Google should partner to make it driverless (1)

dragon-file (2241656) | about 2 years ago | (#41551079)

What is there to make autonomous? Engine start/stop and throttle control? It's not like you should try steering at those speeds.

Not A Car (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550261)

When a vehicle's primary means of forward momentum is no longer via the transmission of energy to the ground through wheels but instead via high speed ejection of gasses through a jet exhaust, it should no longer be considered a car. It's a rocket sled.

Re:Not A Car (1)

compro01 (777531) | about 2 years ago | (#41550355)

The Federation Internationale de l'Automobile disagrees with you.

Under your definition, no car has held the land speed record since 1965.

What's the point? (1)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | about 2 years ago | (#41550273)

I never saw the point of building Thrust SSC and its ilk.
Can the technology be transferred to street legal cars? No. Does it provide new insights into the science invlved, such as aerodynamics? No, since they use mostly existing rocket science (pun intended) to make it work. How does a project like this advances science?

Oh well, at least it's privately funded, so we can rest assured our tax money isn't being pissed in the wind.

Re:What's the point? (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 2 years ago | (#41550345)

Oh well, at least it's privately funded, so we can rest assured our tax money isn't being pissed in the wind.

Yes, fortunately it isn't solar or other green energy powered. If it was green you could kiss another $50 million of our tax dollars gone on it.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550559)

How does a project like this advances science?

It was the first supersonic car.

Re:What's the point? (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | about 2 years ago | (#41550675)

A street-legal rocket car....

California to New York in 2.5 hours. 3 hours trying to find a parking space.

Re:What's the point? (4, Insightful)

jareth-0205 (525594) | about 2 years ago | (#41550813)

Does it provide new insights into the science invlved, such as aerodynamics?

Actually, yes. It's extremely difficult to keep a car level with that much thrust, and not flying or burying itself. Also, before ThrustSSC nobody really knew what would happen with the sonic boom and how it would interact with the ground, reflect back onto the car, etc.

Also... it's *awesome*! Do we stop doing cool stuff because there's no immediate benefit??

All things considered... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 2 years ago | (#41550323)

All things considered, I'd rather have a 1000mpg car than a 1000mph car.

Hopes of breaking record dashed when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550389)

Their hopes of breaking a record were dashed when an F-18 pilot at Edwards AFB decided to get cheeky, register his plane as a "car" and cut in the afterburners without pulling the stick back. "I'm sorry" said Colonel Smith. "I figured I'd get a severe reprimand from my CO, and I did; but I didn't know I'd spoil so much hard work".

Richard Hammond (1, Redundant)

Pax681 (1002592) | about 2 years ago | (#41550391)

keep the FUCK AWAY FROM IT!!! that is all :P

Is it just me... (2)

Grundibular (2693025) | about 2 years ago | (#41550393)

...or do all these land speed records seem to boil down to just how fast you can scrape a de-winged jet aircraft along the ground?

Re:Is it just me... (1)

berashith (222128) | about 2 years ago | (#41550773)

your definition is correct, but I imagine that it isn't quite as easy as you make it sound.

The "not built here" lobby (5, Insightful)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about 2 years ago | (#41550483)

I've got plenty of karma so I'm just going to say it.

I've just been scrolling through the "what's the point" posts and all I can say is get the fuck over yourselves. If this thing were built in America you'd be calling it the greatest thing since the outside toilet. Same as how you pissed on Concorde, one of the greatest technical achievements of the 20th century, after you didn't get your act together with your own SST projects. Same s how you defend your suckiness at soccer by claiming "oh but we don't care about that game anyway."

But you know what? The Brits have made the land speed record their thing. I say good on them and I have to ask what ground-breaking records have you broken from the comfort of your mother's basement lately?

Lighten up, you depressing fucks!

Re:The "not built here" lobby (1, Flamebait)

DRJlaw (946416) | about 2 years ago | (#41550871)

I've just been scrolling through the "what's the point" posts and all I can say is get the fuck over yourselves. If this thing were built in America you'd be calling it the greatest thing since the outside toilet. Same as how you pissed on Concorde, one of the greatest technical achievements of the 20th century, after you didn't get your act together with your own SST projects. Same s how you defend your suckiness at soccer by claiming "oh but we don't care about that game anyway."

Actually, I wouldn't. Rocket and jet engines capable of powering objects to 1,000 mph are commonplace and a routine aerospace product.
Jet planes and rocket planes capable of traveling at sustained 1,000 mph speeds are unusual and more specialized, but still not a breakthrough.

A car design which which is capable of traveling at sustained 1,000 mph speeds other than as a jet plane or rocket plane, i.e., without becoming airborne, and by actually supporting at least its own weight on the ground surface (I certainly won't exclude downforce-utilizing designs), would be the greatest thing since the outside toilet from a technological perspective. That's neither been tested nor proven here. So piss off yourself.

Re:The "not built here" lobby (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41551109)

Actually, we've normally cheered for such things.

Richard Thompson's ``1952 Vincent Black Lightning'' is the most requested song on NPR and this image of Rollie Free setting the land-speed record (for a production motorcycle back in 1948) is unforgettable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rollie_Free,_record_run.jpg [wikipedia.org]

Shouldn't the title actually say 1609kph? (1)

BetaDays (2355424) | about 2 years ago | (#41550533)

I thought people across the pond use kph not mph when dealing with speed. If not then let me know what I'm missing. All I learn of that part of the world is from Doctor Who shows so sorry if I'm a bit confused. Although I do like the fish and chips not fish sticks and pudding.

Re:Shouldn't the title actually say 1609kph? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550865)

The UK uses pretty much every unit going:
miles/hour for speed (of cars) but m/s for most other speeds
miles for car based distance - but metres and cm for most other measurements (car/lorry heights are usually in feet)
feet and inches for peoples' heights (and penises)
stone for peoples weight, but kg for almost all foodstuffs, if you go fishing they generally still use ounce and pounds
litres for most things, except milk and beer - then its pints
fuel efficiency is usually in miles per gallon - but petrol is sold by the litre

There's a bunch of others but we use a messed up amalgamation of imperial and metric.

Re:Shouldn't the title actually say 1609kph? (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | about 2 years ago | (#41551009)

Last I heard British motor ways still had speeds posted in mph. Don't ask me why.

Car? (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | about 2 years ago | (#41550663)

If the only thing making this a "car" is the fact that it has ornamental wheels, then the Space Shuttle was a car, and it had already achieved speeds greater than 1000 mph.

I think that the definition of a "car" should include such facts as the wheels must be an important component supporting the weight of the vehicle while it is in motion. I suspect this "car" rarely touches the ground while it is in operation.

If I slap tires on a meteor, does that make it a car?

Yes but how fast will it go around our track? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550669)

For that we hand it over to our tame racing driver.

Some say that He toasts hot dogs backwards, and that given half a chance he too would put a ten thousand horsepower engine into a lawnmower.

All we know is, he's called the Stig.

How fast does it stop? (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 2 years ago | (#41550793)

All this talk about "breaking" the speed barrier and how fast this car goes with not one sentance devoted anywhere to how this thing stops reminds me of an earlier darwin award involving JATOs.

At 1050 MPH if course is perfectly flat at same alt you have between 6 to 15 seconds depending on height of obstruction to change course after any object can even be detected by any sort of optics over the horizon.

Re:How fast does it stop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41551037)

Maybe they will decide to check thoroughly for obstructions before the attempt?

Or maybe they will just say "sod it" and send the pilot into some trees, just for giggles ....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>