Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Transportation Toys Technology

1000-mph Car Planned 380

Posted by kdawson
from the zum-zum dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

1000-mph Car Planned

Comments Filter:
  • by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Friday October 24, 2008 @08:57AM (#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.
  • Re:falling forwards (Score:3, Informative)

    by SirLoadALot (991302) on Friday October 24, 2008 @09:13AM (#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 (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 24, 2008 @09:21AM (#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:So? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Sabz5150 (1230938) on Friday October 24, 2008 @10:29AM (#25497503)

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

    Like a missile.

  • by Woogiemonger (628172) on Friday October 24, 2008 @10:52AM (#25497805)
    More like 5 and 5/9 miles! *geeky snort*
  • by HTH NE1 (675604) on Friday October 24, 2008 @11:18AM (#25498143)

    To be fair, the entire US customary measuring system is obsolete...

    And yet its powers of two make it far easier to represent in binary memory without incurring rounding errors.

  • by Shotgun (30919) on Friday October 24, 2008 @11:24AM (#25498245)

    Stop insulting trolls. He's just a clueless idiot.

    BTW, most people don't realize that their tires are speed rated. Tires are just rubber balloons, after all. Just ones with really thick walls. They will deform and even come apart if pulled hard enough. The faster a car goes, the more pull on the tire's tread and sidewall. Once the pull starts, it will most likely deform to an out of balance shape. In this case that out of balance will translate to a vibration, which translates to a bump, which translates to a lot of pieces to pick up off the desert floor.

    A post above gave the figure of 173g for a 1m wheel travelling at 1000mph. That 1m wheel will be spinning at 8542 RPM. A slight imbalance at that rotational rate? Even the engineering of the tire will need novel ideas for strengthening the sidewall and lightening the tread to keep it balanced.

  • by Retric (704075) on Friday October 24, 2008 @11:30AM (#25498317)
    Your at 4x the correct g. The rate of rotation is based off of the speed of the car relative to the speed of the ground. The top of the tire is moving at twice the speed of the car relative to the ground but the bottom is not moving relative to the ground. However, it's all 1x the speed of the car relative the center of the tire. Which is the frame of reference you need to calculate the centripetal force. PS: It's also a good idea to note only the outside edge of the tire is under that much g loading as to move to the center of the tire the g forces drop to zero. (It's still an insane speed to rotate a tire.)
  • by Lifyre (960576) on Friday October 24, 2008 @12:14PM (#25499067)
    He specified g is for gallon of gas. So while it's nice you're trying to think outside a box, he's already implicitly addressed your concerns by applying bounds to the problem/equations. Stepping outside those bounds doesn't make you a maverick it makes you an idiot who can't read. His scenatio is based upon using current infrastructure and gasoline. Yours is some 1960's vision of the year 2000. -Timmons
  • by Chris Daniel (807289) on Friday October 24, 2008 @12:43PM (#25499507) Homepage

    measurements like miles per kilowatt

    Kilowatt-hour is what you want here. The watt is a _rate_ of energy consumption (power), not a lump of energy. Kilowatt-hour is the equivalent of one kilowatt consumed over the course of one hour: 1 kWh = (1000 joules / second) * 3600 seconds = 36000 joules

  • by Chris Daniel (807289) on Friday October 24, 2008 @12:45PM (#25499525) Homepage
    Oops -- 3600000 joules.
  • by pz (113803) on Friday October 24, 2008 @01:33PM (#25500331) Journal

    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.

    Not only that, but it happens at close to 1 atm whereas the SR71 hits those immense speeds in the stratosphere. This car is an incredible aerodynamic engineering challenge!

Guillotine, n.: A French chopping center.

Working...