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!

Cockpit Revealed For Bloodhound Supersonic Car

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the zoom-zoom dept.

Transportation 81

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.

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

Shouldnt it be "Greyhound"? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47229627)

Bloodhounds aren't exactly known for their speed.

Should it even be called a "car"? (2, Insightful)

popo (107611) | about 4 months ago | (#47229645)

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".

Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (3, Informative)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about 4 months ago | (#47229739)

It does turn, though it takes 240 meters to do a full turn.

Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47230031)

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.

Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47230403)

Which lane are you going to do that in? Here in Georgia, all lanes seem to be clogged up with blue hairs form Michigan and Ontario.

Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (1)

Smerta (1855348) | about 4 months ago | (#47234943)

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 [bloodhoundssc.com] .)

Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (5, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 4 months ago | (#47230227)

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.

Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (2)

91degrees (207121) | about 4 months ago | (#47230291)

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

Re: Should it even be called a "car"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47230461)

Oh is that all?

Re: Should it even be called a "car"? (2)

davester666 (731373) | about 4 months ago | (#47230947)

Yes, you would barely notice the turn if you were in the car.

Re: Should it even be called a "car"? (0)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 4 months ago | (#47231045)

Yes, you would barely notice the turn if you were in the car.

Mod this guy up! This deserves at least a 5 insightful.

Re: Should it even be called a "car"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47235091)

dieser Wagen ist schnell

Re: Should it even be called a "car"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47231097)

You wouldn't be IN the car for long.

Re: Should it even be called a "car"? (2)

ttucker (2884057) | about 4 months ago | (#47231257)

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

Re: Should it even be called a "car"? (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 4 months ago | (#47235485)

Yes! I mean you'd have to be a wimp to not be able to handle suddenly weighting over 6 tonnes.

Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 4 months ago | (#47231223)

You are right, I was wrong. Feeling stupid, using g where I should have used m/s^2.

Re:Should it even be called a (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47230577)

Perhaps it isn't actually turning that sharply at 1000mph? You don't do a three-point-turn at 70 mph, do you?

Re:Should it even be called a (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 4 months ago | (#47231243)

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.

Re:Should it even be called a (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47236041)

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

Re:Should it even be called a (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 4 months ago | (#47231431)

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.

Regulations say it can (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47229761)

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.

Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (4, Informative)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 4 months ago | (#47229765)

The word "car" [etymonline.com] really just means a "wheeled vehicle". There is no requirement for turning.

Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47229863)

You're a faggot.

Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47230089)

LOL... Guys, although the parent poster is a troll, you gotta hand it to him. After reading that wheeled vehicles don't need to be able to turn to be called "cars" and then seeing this guy's response, I couldn't help but laugh. It was totally unexpected and I'll never understand how some people think.
Too funny!

Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47230345)

LOL... Guys, although the parent poster is a troll, you gotta hand it to him. After reading that wheeled vehicles don't need to be able to turn to be called "cars" and then seeing this guy's response, I couldn't help but laugh. It was totally unexpected and I'll never understand how some people think.
Too funny!

You're a straight person.

Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 4 months ago | (#47229907)

so a maglev train can't have "cars"?

Re:Should it even be called a (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47230005)

Where are the wheels ("Wheeled vehicle" requirement) on a Maglev train?

Re:Should it even be called a (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 4 months ago | (#47230573)

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 (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 4 months ago | (#47230793)

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.

Re:Should it even be called a (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 4 months ago | (#47230969)

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 (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 4 months ago | (#47232279)

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

Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (1)

KevReedUK (1066760) | about 4 months ago | (#47237901)

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...

Reverse (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47230729)

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 "car"? (2, Informative)

Major Blud (789630) | about 4 months ago | (#47229835)

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.

Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47230369)

As an American, I don't think you have the right to talk about the cornering ability of cars.

Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (1)

RatherBeAnonymous (1812866) | about 4 months ago | (#47230633)

Turn? Maybe not, but I bet it can rotate!

Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (2)

beelsebob (529313) | about 4 months ago | (#47230659)

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.

Re:Should it even be called a "car"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47230885)

Learn how to use a dictionary. The word "car" does not dictate what type of propulsion system it must contain.

Re:Shouldnt it be "Greyhound"? (1)

Mysticalfruit (533341) | about 4 months ago | (#47229791)

I think it's because they're on the hunt for the record.

Re:Shouldnt it be "Greyhound"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47230383)

It's dog slow.

Re:Shouldnt it be "Greyhound"? (2)

necro81 (917438) | about 4 months ago | (#47230425)

Bloodhounds aren't exactly known for their speed.

Neither is Greyhound [greyhound.com] .

Happy Days Are Here Again (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47229655)

It’s Friday, Friday
  Gotta get down on Friday
  Everybody’s lookin’ forward to the weekend, weekend
  Friday, Friday
  Gettin’ down on Friday
  Everybody’s lookin’ forward to the weekend

boring (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 months ago | (#47229719)

The cockpit looks exactly like what I'd expect it to. The only thing interesting about the article is the speedometer.

Re:boring (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47229793)

This one goes to 11.

Re:boring (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47229977)

I modded you funny, but then I looked more closely and it does go to 11! Which is just all kinds of awesome. :)

That's a mighty long... (1)

pahles (701275) | about 4 months ago | (#47229767)

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

Re:That's a mighty long... (1)

pahles (701275) | about 4 months ago | (#47229773)

the second one should have been 2016, hmmpf. So much for the pun...

Definitely a low flying rocket... (4, Interesting)

jcochran (309950) | about 4 months ago | (#47229775)

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.

Re:Definitely a low flying rocket... (4, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 4 months ago | (#47229997)

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.

Re:Definitely a low flying rocket... (1)

necro81 (917438) | about 4 months ago | (#47230463)

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."

Re:Definitely a low flying rocket... (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 4 months ago | (#47230687)

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.

Re:Definitely a low flying rocket... (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 4 months ago | (#47230965)

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.

Re:Definitely a low flying rocket... (1)

mgscheue (21096) | about 4 months ago | (#47232551)

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

Re:Definitely a low flying rocket... (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 4 months ago | (#47232925)

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 (2)

tompaulco (629533) | about 4 months ago | (#47229797)

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.

Re:Just like the space elevator (1)

necro81 (917438) | about 4 months ago | (#47230493)

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 (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 4 months ago | (#47229925)

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

Re:not impressed (1)

swb (14022) | about 4 months ago | (#47230039)

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.

Re:not impressed (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 4 months ago | (#47230361)

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*

Re:not impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47231143)

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

Re:not impressed (2)

MachDelta (704883) | about 4 months ago | (#47230065)

jet engines are for flying, any other use is stupid

I respectfully disagree. [youtube.com] (1 minute video, worth a watch if you haven't seen it)

Re:not impressed (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 4 months ago | (#47231533)

jet engines are for flying, any other use is stupid

I respectfully disagree. [youtube.com] (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.

Re:not impressed (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 4 months ago | (#47230075)

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.

Re:not impressed (1)

Lord Lemur (993283) | about 4 months ago | (#47230085)

They can cook the hell out of a hot dog, too.

Re:not impressed (5, Informative)

BenFenner (981342) | about 4 months ago | (#47230181)

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?

Re:not impressed (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 4 months ago | (#47230307)

Surely this is what makes it interesting.

Studded tires? (1)

Radical Moderate (563286) | about 4 months ago | (#47232315)

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:not impressed (1)

necro81 (917438) | about 4 months ago | (#47230495)

jet engines are for flying, any other use is stupid

don't tell that to Bruce Wayne!

Re:not impressed (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about 4 months ago | (#47231849)

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.

Re:not impressed (1)

Radical Moderate (563286) | about 4 months ago | (#47232331)

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.

Why open cockpit? (1)

hermitdev (2792385) | about 4 months ago | (#47230025)

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.

Re:Why open cockpit? (2)

BenFenner (981342) | about 4 months ago | (#47230133)

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

Speedometer from hell (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | about 4 months ago | (#47230199)

Take a look at the speedometer:
http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/s... [bloodhoundssc.com]

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!

Re:Speedometer from hell (1)

necro81 (917438) | about 4 months ago | (#47230517)

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 [google.com] .

So it goes up to 11?? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 4 months ago | (#47231449)

They'll have no problem getting to 1000mph in that case! Wonder if Spinal Tap will do the after record party music?

Product Placement in at least one of those (1)

bagorange (1531625) | about 4 months ago | (#47230323)

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 (1)

cxbrx (737647) | about 4 months ago | (#47230381)

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

Not convinced by the safety arguments (2)

Viol8 (599362) | about 4 months ago | (#47231477)

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.

Re:Not convinced by the safety arguments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47233723)

I can see no reason to have a person in that car when they first test it.

Not a barrier (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47233631)

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.

Re:Not a barrier (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47235789)

Good point. Please direct me to your 1000mph+ land speed record.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?