The Land and Water Speed Records Thread
Discussion
malcolm speed said:
The UIM rule book may not be as interesting as some reading material but it does set out the intentions of the world governing body. Always read the rules before entering into any sport ....
In section 500.01 they define a 'boat'. "By boat we understand any vessel used in powerboating (hydroplane, monohull, catamaran ...)".
"A boat is a vessel that floats on the water when stationary and continuously derives support, directional control or propulsive effort from hydrodynamic forces".
So a seaplane or WIG is not eligible as they do not take part in 'powerboating'.
Aerodynamic controls alone do not meet with the rules, as you have to use 'hydrodynamic forces'.
Of course with a jet or rocket boat the propulsive effort words would not apply.
You can use the sea, lakes, rivers for speed record attempts if the waterway has been accepted for making a record attempt, but as the timing through the mile or kilo has to be from the shore you cannot go into the middle of the ocean.
Might be wrong but, I would find it improbable that the custodians of Coniston Water will allow an outright water speed record bid at 400 mph on their max 5 mile lake. Some one should ask them.
Malcolm.
Hmm.. I think they need to update a bit. The symbol used on K7 was an infinity symbol with a line underneath, with K7 underneath that. The infinity symbol came from Lloyds Register to indicate that it was an unlimited boat. Lloyds Register seem to consider that a WIG falls under both their and the ICAO remit which suggests that a WIG could be used.In section 500.01 they define a 'boat'. "By boat we understand any vessel used in powerboating (hydroplane, monohull, catamaran ...)".
"A boat is a vessel that floats on the water when stationary and continuously derives support, directional control or propulsive effort from hydrodynamic forces".
So a seaplane or WIG is not eligible as they do not take part in 'powerboating'.
Aerodynamic controls alone do not meet with the rules, as you have to use 'hydrodynamic forces'.
Of course with a jet or rocket boat the propulsive effort words would not apply.
You can use the sea, lakes, rivers for speed record attempts if the waterway has been accepted for making a record attempt, but as the timing through the mile or kilo has to be from the shore you cannot go into the middle of the ocean.
Might be wrong but, I would find it improbable that the custodians of Coniston Water will allow an outright water speed record bid at 400 mph on their max 5 mile lake. Some one should ask them.
Malcolm.
Snoggledog said:
Hmm.. I think they need to update a bit. The symbol used on K7 was an infinity symbol with a line underneath, with K7 underneath that. The infinity symbol came from Lloyds Register to indicate that it was an unlimited boat. Lloyds Register seem to consider that a WIG falls under both their and the ICAO remit which suggests that a WIG could be used.
An "unlimited boat" is what the UIM want, they do not see a requirement for WIG vessels and ekranoplans, and a boat is defined by the governing body as they see fit, not what Lloyds Register now record. If you have an air boat (as seen in Florida swamps)you can run that for a record. Malcolm.
malcolm speed said:
An "unlimited boat" is what the UIM want, they do not see a requirement for WIG vessels and ekranoplans, and a boat is defined by the governing body as they see fit, not what Lloyds Register now record. If you have an air boat (as seen in Florida swamps)you can run that for a record.
Malcolm.
Thank you for your input re the rules. For clarity, it appears to me that directional / attitudinal / trim control via aerodynamic devices would be acceptable, if for no other reason that a sailing boat would use aerodynamic devices (i.e. sales) for all of those things. Would you agree?Malcolm.
skwdenyer said:
malcolm speed said:
An "unlimited boat" is what the UIM want, they do not see a requirement for WIG vessels and ekranoplans, and a boat is defined by the governing body as they see fit, not what Lloyds Register now record. If you have an air boat (as seen in Florida swamps)you can run that for a record.
Malcolm.
Thank you for your input re the rules. For clarity, it appears to me that directional / attitudinal / trim control via aerodynamic devices would be acceptable, if for no other reason that a sailing boat would use aerodynamic devices (i.e. sales) for all of those things. Would you agree?Malcolm.
malcolm speed said:
An "unlimited boat" is what the UIM want, they do not see a requirement for WIG vessels and ekranoplans, and a boat is defined by the governing body as they see fit, not what Lloyds Register now record. If you have an air boat (as seen in Florida swamps)you can run that for a record.
Malcolm.
The more I read the more obvious it becomes that for the purposes of a WSR, you have to be in contact with water at all times. WIG's might be possible but it would still need to retain a contact area.Malcolm.
Snoggledog said:
malcolm speed said:
An "unlimited boat" is what the UIM want, they do not see a requirement for WIG vessels and ekranoplans, and a boat is defined by the governing body as they see fit, not what Lloyds Register now record. If you have an air boat (as seen in Florida swamps)you can run that for a record.
Malcolm.
The more I read the more obvious it becomes that for the purposes of a WSR, you have to be in contact with water at all times. WIG's might be possible but it would still need to retain a contact area.Malcolm.
dr_gn said:
skwdenyer said:
malcolm speed said:
An "unlimited boat" is what the UIM want, they do not see a requirement for WIG vessels and ekranoplans, and a boat is defined by the governing body as they see fit, not what Lloyds Register now record. If you have an air boat (as seen in Florida swamps)you can run that for a record.
Malcolm.
Thank you for your input re the rules. For clarity, it appears to me that directional / attitudinal / trim control via aerodynamic devices would be acceptable, if for no other reason that a sailing boat would use aerodynamic devices (i.e. sales) for all of those things. Would you agree?Malcolm.
Life Saab Itch said:
dr_gn said:
Doubt it: A sailing boat is not a "vessel used in powerboating".
It doesn't say (unless it does elsewhere in the regs) that you can't have aero controls as well as hydro controls.ETA You could even have a perforated fin and blow air through it (a la the skvarm torpedo), and that would get rid of most of the drag.
Edited by dr_gn on Tuesday 3rd May 22:41
D E said:
WATERBORNE VEHICLE STEERED BY A WATER RUDDER.
That's what I *thought* the rules would stipulate, but where does it say that in the rules that were put on this thread?D E said:
Jeez! just build a "BOAT" and quick trying to cercomvent the rules by thinking a plane is a boat. IF someone wants to set an air speed record go ahead but all this plane talk does a diservice and makes a mockery of those who set WATER SPEED RECORDS WITH WATERCRAFT! If those interested can't find a floating craft I have an actual WATERCRAFT design and could build you an actual BOAT! With the rational being used here why can't you just get an F-16 or equivilent and fly across the desert at mach two and get credited for the land speed record?
It's not circumventing the rules. If the rules don't happen to define your particular idea of what a WWSR craft should look like, then hard luck. If the craft is going to be effectively a low flying aircraft, then why not build an aircraft capable of flying low - over water. If - *if* - it's within the rules, it's a valid concept and good luck to anyone willing to try new ideas.Hi guys, more LSR related - but does anyone recall back in the early nineties (I think) when Mclaren announced they would be tackling the LSR with a machine called "Maverick". I believe the name was in reference to Mclaren Advanced Automotive something or other and that Senna was at the time mooted to be a possible driver.
Apparently it was eventually canned as they didn't want to compete against another Brit, especially when it could easily have been viewed as a David and Goliath battle.
Would love to see what the proposed designs looked like!
Apparently it was eventually canned as they didn't want to compete against another Brit, especially when it could easily have been viewed as a David and Goliath battle.
Would love to see what the proposed designs looked like!
ringerz said:
Hi guys, more LSR related - but does anyone recall back in the early nineties (I think) when Mclaren announced they would be tackling the LSR with a machine called "Maverick". I believe the name was in reference to Mclaren Advanced Automotive something or other and that Senna was at the time mooted to be a possible driver.
Apparently it was eventually canned as they didn't want to compete against another Brit, especially when it could easily have been viewed as a David and Goliath battle.
Would love to see what the proposed designs looked like!
I remember that, I think it was a three wheel design, but may have mis-remembered that bit.Apparently it was eventually canned as they didn't want to compete against another Brit, especially when it could easily have been viewed as a David and Goliath battle.
Would love to see what the proposed designs looked like!
dr_gn said:
I remember that, I think it was a three wheel design, but may have mis-remembered that bit.
It would have been a four wheeler to meet the FIA rules of an unlimited jet car. Engine would probably have been the one now to be seen in Bloodhound, it was then brand new. MAVerick mock up is under secure storage at the Science Museum large items facility.No photographs were allowed at the press launch of the mock up (a McLaren christmas event) so everyone there with an interest in this activity tried to remember what the mock up looked like and make sketches. I think there is consensus that it looked a bit like Craig Breedlove's Sonic Arrow (which is now the Fossett car) with support from Rolls Royce.
Another story is that the death of Ayrton Senna meant an end to the project.
Would a single engined vehicle have made it through the sound barrier?
Malcolm
D E said:
WATERBORNE VEHICLE STEERED BY A WATER RUDDER. Jeez! just build a "BOAT" and quick trying to cercomvent the rules by thinking a plane is a boat. IF someone wants to set an air speed record go ahead but all this plane talk does a diservice and makes a mockery of those who set WATER SPEED RECORDS WITH WATERCRAFT! If those interested can't find a floating craft I have an actual WATERCRAFT design and could build you an actual BOAT! With the rational being used here why can't you just get an F-16 or equivilent and fly across the desert at mach two and get credited for the land speed record?
The reason behind attempting to find loopholes is due to the very small fact that water is roughly 1,000 times more dense than air. If you look at any fast (150+ Mph) boat when it's travelling, you'll notice that it's almost completely out of the water. The issue doesn't wholly lie with getting a boat to move fast as more thrust can achieve this. The major problem comes when coming off the power. As your craft comes off the power the nose will inherently dip down. At over 150mph, this dip down becomes a problem because as more of the crafts wetted surface area comes into contact with water the greater the resistance becomes due to the density of water. As such this can result in a forward pitching (rotating) moment which exceeds the bouyancy in the front. So the craft can flip. My contention with using a WIG or derivation thereof is that as the wing is inherently stable if designed and built correctly, the chance of forward pitching is reduced.ETA... Interesting craft you have there and good luck with your attempts. I've always had a soft spot for hydroplanes.
Edited by Snoggledog on Wednesday 4th May 16:03
I guess we can disagree on what is a watercraft. The record is listed under the circuit unlimted section and most reference is to a waterborn vehicle. My hull design is the current 1/4 mile record holder at 4.58sec and has run 270.2 mph. We have data from hundreds of runs 220-250mph. Currently have an outboard kilo hull for a 200mph attempt and a wsr hull in the works, (these are both differnt than the drag hull). I will drive both hulls myself. I believe with any such attempt the craft should be designed for intended use. I am looking for marketing partners/sponsors to finnish both projects. I wish all luck with any such attempt.
D E said:
I guess we can disagree on what is a watercraft. The record is listed under the circuit unlimted section and most reference is to a waterborn vehicle. My hull design is the current 1/4 mile record holder at 4.58sec and has run 270.2 mph. We have data from hundreds of runs 220-250mph. Currently have an outboard kilo hull for a 200mph attempt and a wsr hull in the works, (these are both differnt than the drag hull). I will drive both hulls myself. I believe with any such attempt the craft should be designed for intended use. I am looking for marketing partners/sponsors to finnish both projects. I wish all luck with any such attempt.
Don't get me wrong, my idea of using is WIG is that it would not be fully airborne and would remain in constant contact with water. Your hydroplanes follow similar principles to WIG's in that they ride on a cushion of air. What I'm proposing is to try to maintain stability over a wide range of speeds by using a wing form rather than a hull form. Essentially I'm suggesting a wing with a hull, rather than a hull with a wing. The intention would not be to use this as a flying craft, more as a craft which can maintain high speeds with minimal contact with the water.Must admit Im with D_E on this one. I stepped back from the discussion when it started getting about WIGs, etc. because to me frankly its just not cricket.
Riding on 3 or 2 lots of 1/4" blades repesenting the very edges of your outriggers/booms/sponsons/hydroplanes is one thing, thats still your hull riding the water. WIGs, etc to me isnt what its all about.
My idea in all this isnt just about exploiting loopholes to gain a record, yippee. Its about the spirit of the thing, the glory. its not like going from piston engines and props to jets, they were still boats, just propulsion changed. Changing the whole ethos, spirit, definition of what a boat technically is just to gain a record? Sorry thats not what its about. That wouldnt be the record that Malcolm and Donald competed for.
Riding on 3 or 2 lots of 1/4" blades repesenting the very edges of your outriggers/booms/sponsons/hydroplanes is one thing, thats still your hull riding the water. WIGs, etc to me isnt what its all about.
My idea in all this isnt just about exploiting loopholes to gain a record, yippee. Its about the spirit of the thing, the glory. its not like going from piston engines and props to jets, they were still boats, just propulsion changed. Changing the whole ethos, spirit, definition of what a boat technically is just to gain a record? Sorry thats not what its about. That wouldnt be the record that Malcolm and Donald competed for.
malcolm speed said:
The UIM rule book may not be as interesting as some reading material but it does set out the intentions of the world governing body. Always read the rules before entering into any sport ....
"A boat is a vessel that floats on the water when stationary and continuously derives support, directional control or propulsive effort from hydrodynamic forces".
Colin Chapman would be sorely disappointed at your lack of imagination in interpreting rules for loopholes..."A boat is a vessel that floats on the water when stationary and continuously derives support, directional control or propulsive effort from hydrodynamic forces".
The operative word is 'or'.
You don't need support and directional control and propulsive effort from hydrodynamic forces; as you yourself pointed out, if you did, then jet and rocket propelled boats would be ineligible (as would monohulls, which are rarely continuously supported hydrodynamically in anything but smooth water.
malcolm speed said:
In section 500.01 they define a 'boat'. "By boat we understand any vessel used in powerboating (hydroplane, monohull, catamaran ...)".
So a seaplane or WIG is not eligible as they do not take part in 'powerboating'.
Unless they take part on powerboating. In which case they do. So they are. So a seaplane or WIG is not eligible as they do not take part in 'powerboating'.
The very act of participating in a record attempt would automatically provide compliance with this rule.
The UIM accepts records for boats of all classes, and defines one of the classes of jet/rocket propelled boats as 'prototypes', which gives a great deal of freedom. Basically, if it complies with the 'continuous support directional control or propulsive effort' rule ..which a seaplane would not, of course, but a WIG with an immersed rudder or an immersed propellor (don't mention the word 'Excalibur' to Noel Edmonds in this context, however.. he gets very angry, apparently) might.
malcolm speed said:
Might be wrong but, I would find it improbable that the custodians of Coniston Water will allow an outright water speed record bid at 400 mph on their max 5 mile lake. Some one should ask them.
I have. They're fine with it. The length of the lake is basically self-regulating, in that the measured kilo has to be pretty much central on the course due to the requirement for opposite runs, therefore you have, by definition, as much space to slow down as you have to accelerate. Water brakes are only prohibited if they produce 'sudden braking effect, causing water excessive spray, reducing visibility' (a result of suspicions that K7's water brake contributed to the accident, by setting up a large wake on her first run). Air brakes, drogue chutes or water brakes that can be applied controllably, are acceptable (I've checked interpretation of the latter explicitly).The Officers of the Lake District Special Planning Board got very, very nervous about the transport and storage of hypergolic fuel to the lake though, although they didn't rule it out altogether, subject to suitable safety precautions.
DJRC said:
I stepped back from the discussion when it started getting about WIGs, etc. because to me frankly its just not cricket.
I understand where you're coming from, and agree with it to some extent, but (as Snoggledog has also pointed out) you do have to appreciate that even a conventional 3-pointer acts as a sort of 'semi WIG' when it's propriding (the air being forced through the trap in ground effect provides the majority of support to the hull, not the planing surfaces).Very fast boats operate in a grey area between aerodynamic and hydrodynamic control and support, so the UIM wording that allows flexibility in aerodynamic control/support/propulsion, provided all three are not total, is a clever and pragmatic response.
To take such a purist view would otherwise ultimately lead you back to displacement hulls with no means of control apart from immersed rudder and no form of propulsion apart from immersed propellor, which would be equally unconscionable.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff