RE: Bloodhound SSC project enters administration
Discussion
3.8 MOD said:
Technically over ambitious...
Isn't that the raison d'etre of any record attempt?
No, though that's where the British have traditionally got it wrong.Isn't that the raison d'etre of any record attempt?
The raison d'etre of any record attempt is to go faster than anyone has gone before.
The vehicle you use for it is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The Americans learned that long ago... we seem to struggle to grasp the idea.
Equus said:
No, though that's where the British have traditionally got it wrong.
The raison d'etre of any record attempt is to go faster than anyone has gone before.
The vehicle you use for it is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The Americans learned that long ago... we seem to struggle to grasp the idea.
The last 2 land speed records were in British vehicles, we aren't struggling that much.The raison d'etre of any record attempt is to go faster than anyone has gone before.
The vehicle you use for it is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The Americans learned that long ago... we seem to struggle to grasp the idea.
Dr Jekyll said:
Equus said:
No, though that's where the British have traditionally got it wrong.
The raison d'etre of any record attempt is to go faster than anyone has gone before.
The vehicle you use for it is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The Americans learned that long ago... we seem to struggle to grasp the idea.
The last 2 land speed records were in British vehicles, we aren't struggling that much.The raison d'etre of any record attempt is to go faster than anyone has gone before.
The vehicle you use for it is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The Americans learned that long ago... we seem to struggle to grasp the idea.
Edited by RemyMartin81D on Thursday 18th October 14:57
3.8 MOD said:
And both headed up by Richard Noble.
And ironically, his first attempt (Thrust II) was closest us British have got in recent years to the pragmatic 'American' approach of KISS. In fact, it was basically an updated copy of Green Monster.Meanwhile, Thrust SSC is quoted as having cost £2.8 million.
Form your own judgement on how far Bloodhound must have gone astray, if they're reckoning on £25 million to just to add the finishing touches and run it.
Equus said:
3.8 MOD said:
And both headed up by Richard Noble.
And ironically, his first attempt (Thrust II) was closest us British have got in recent years to the pragmatic 'American' approach of KISS. In fact, it was basically an updated copy of Green Monster.Meanwhile, Thrust SSC is quoted as having cost £2.8 million.
Form your own judgement on how far Bloodhound must have gone astray, if they're reckoning on £25 million to just to add the finishing touches and run it.
I know the one time lead designer has been on here stating how hard he was working and didn't get paid but it does sound like a massive gravy train for someone.
Equus said:
3.8 MOD said:
And both headed up by Richard Noble.
And ironically, his first attempt (Thrust II) was closest us British have got in recent years to the pragmatic 'American' approach of KISS. In fact, it was basically an updated copy of Green Monster.Meanwhile, Thrust SSC is quoted as having cost £2.8 million.
Form your own judgement on how far Bloodhound must have gone astray, if they're reckoning on £25 million to just to add the finishing touches and run it.
Google 'diminishing returns'...then come back once you've understood what the rest of us are talking about...
havoc said:
Google 'diminishing returns'...then come back once you've understood what the rest of us are talking about...
Now wind your neck in and read what I wrote earlier about aiming for manageable increments.I understand the laws of diminishing returns just fine, thanks.
I also understand that there's such a thing as biting off more than you can chew.
Equus:
"I also understand that there's such a thing as biting off more than you can chew."
From the comfort of your armchair, you might well understand that.
One wonders however, if you understand anything about record breaking.
Why are you so antagonistic towards people who try to achieve their ambitions?
RemyMartin; I now understand your earlier comment, (prior to editing!) 😉
"I also understand that there's such a thing as biting off more than you can chew."
From the comfort of your armchair, you might well understand that.
One wonders however, if you understand anything about record breaking.
Why are you so antagonistic towards people who try to achieve their ambitions?
RemyMartin; I now understand your earlier comment, (prior to editing!) 😉
3.8 MOD said:
One wonders however, if you understand anything about record breaking.
Well, I've been involved as part of the team in water speed record breaking.Have you?
What do you find particularly antagonistic about the statements I've made above? They are all perfectly reasonable opinions (even if your opinions differ) based on the facts and a good historical knowledge of record breaking on both land and water.
Edited by Equus on Thursday 18th October 15:59
Joey Deacon said:
Think that puts it all into perspective, if it is £25 million to finish, how much have they spent already? I cannot believe all that money and the best they managed in 11 years is 200 MPH.
I know the one time lead designer has been on here stating how hard he was working and didn't get paid but it does sound like a massive gravy train for someone.
Presumably you're of the view that you just lick the stamp and send it then? Straight out of the trailer...1000mph. In the real world it doesn't work like that, and with the speeds involved, you inevitably have to creep up on it. Any sort of high-speed drama wouldn't be just a small setback, it would be project over as you're picking up debris that's scattered over a few miles (and then experts on the internet will diagnose what you did wrong). I know the one time lead designer has been on here stating how hard he was working and didn't get paid but it does sound like a massive gravy train for someone.
IIRC, the 200mph test runs were merely a system check - in the same way that when you built your last race car, you took it testing before you entered into national / European competition. That's my approach to going fast at least, based on common sense, which is still a necessity even when trying to rotate the Earth in a car.
With the benefit of hindsight, it's easy to criticise the ethos / design / management of the project, and clearly there's stuff happening behind the scenes that made it a difficult environment to work in, but the impression I got was that beyond the willy waving and 'our car's faster than yours', it served as a great centrepiece for STEM, to entice a new generation into science and engineering. Unfortunately though, based on many of the comments on this thread, it appears that man shouldn't have left the cave, or strive to achieve new heights.
Equus said:
3.8 MOD said:
One wonders however, if you understand anything about record breaking.
Well, I've been involved as part of the team in water speed record breaking.Have you?
What do you find particularly antagonistic about the statements I've made above? They are all perfectly reasonable opinions (even if your opinions differ) based on the facts and a good historical knowledge of record breaking on both land and water.
Edited by Equus on Thursday 18th October 15:59
Your experience sounds terribly interesting though.
May I ask in what capacity were you involved and which record was broken?
3.8 MOD said:
May I ask in what capacity were you involved and which record was broken?
Oh nothing important: engineering, design and general dogsbody; R1000 hydroplanes. But enough to make me peevish when someone who has, I assume, never been involved suggests that I know nothing about record breaking. Am I wrong? What is your expertise and knowledge of the subject, exactly?I also worked on R-infinity and Unlimited WWSR projects that came to naught... the latter at least partially because Nigel MacKnight's Quicksinker project has been getting in everybody else's way for literally decades (my involvement was back in the late '80's/ early 90's, and he's still little further forward today than he was then).
Like Bloodhound, Quicksinker takes the traditional British 'money no object, champion-of-engineering' approach, and so will cost £millions to do a job that could be done for a fraction of the cost.
Equus said:
And ironically, his first attempt (Thrust II) was closest us British have got in recent years to the pragmatic 'American' approach of KISS. In fact, it was basically an updated copy of Green Monster.
The 'pragmatic American' approach hasn't got them a Land Speed record for nearly 50 years - Whereas the Thrust SSC approach has seen the record held for the longest, unchallenged period in Land Speed history. What makes you think the 'pragmatic American' approach (exemplified by North American Eagle) is so much more likely to succeed?Mave said:
What makes you think the 'pragmatic American' approach (exemplified by North American Eagle) is so much more likely to succeed?
Well, without wishing to rub salt in the Bloodhound's wounds, the North American Eagle project has not declared insolvency yet, for one thing. Actually, Craig Breedlove's car would have stood the best chance, had it not been for Steve Fossett's untimely death.
Equus said:
Well, without wishing to rub salt in the Bloodhound's wounds, the North American Eagle project has not declared insolvency yet, for one thing.
Is that all you need to be able to take the Land Speed Record? To not be insolvent? How come the Americans haven't done it in nearly 50 years if that's all you need?Mave said:
Is that all you need to be able to take the Land Speed Record? To not be insolvent?
Not the only thing, but it's certainly the most important. And it's certainly the thing that stops most projects: there's been no shortage of wannabes - I could reel off a list of dozens, if you want me to - but the one thing, above all, that prevents them is lack of funding.You can have the best design, the bravest driver, and the slickest project management in the world, and you're still not going to get a record if you can't afford to pay for it.
Equus said:
Mave said:
Is that all you need to be able to take the Land Speed Record? To not be insolvent?
Not the only thing, but it's certainly the most important. And it's certainly the thing that stops most projects: there's been no shortage of wannabes - I could reel off a list of dozens, if you want me to - but the one thing, above all, that prevents them is lack of funding.You can have the best design, the bravest driver, and the slickest project management in the world, and you're still not going to get a record if you can't afford to pay for it.
Mave said:
How on earth can it be the most important thing? It may be equally important as other things, but if you are trying to break a Land Speed Record, it's also at least equally important to have a car that's faster than the current record holder!
Because plenty of cars have proved too slow at first attempt (again, I can write you a long list of them, if you wish), but with money can be made faster, go back and try again..Without solvency a project will fail totally, and forever.
Equus said:
Mave said:
How on earth can it be the most important thing? It may be equally important as other things, but if you are trying to break a Land Speed Record, it's also at least equally important to have a car that's faster than the current record holder!
Because plenty of cars have proved too slow at first attempt (again, I can write you a long list of them, if you wish), but with money can be made faster, go back and try again..Without solvency a project will fail totally, and forever.
This isn't about taking a slow car and making it faster. To go faster than the speed of sound you need to start off with a car designed to go faster than the speed of sound. You can't start off with a subsonic car and then try to make it go faster. The same reason Concorde wasn't designed like a Boeing 737 with really big engines.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff