RE: Bloodhound SSC project enters administration

[Equus]

Mave said:

This isn't about taking a slow car and making it faster....

You clearly don't know much about the history of the LSR.

Given sufficient funding, cars can be re-engined, re-chassied, re-bodied, or just plain re-placed.

Malcolm Campbell's Bluebird went from this:


To this:



...from 146mph to 300mph, via different chassis, different bodies, Sunbeam, Napier Lion, and finally Rolls Royce R-Type engines, different gearboxes, you name it... but always with some parts carried forward. Some variants were successful, some weren't.

Art Afons went from this:



to this:


... in a similar way.

There's an entire book ('Rainbow Coloured' by Fred Blois) that is filled with nothing but pictures of the different variations of Donald Campbell's Bluebird K7 boat, over the years it was developed (again with two different engines).

Noble is, in fact, almost unique in his approach of throwing an entire car away and starting again with a completely fresh and different design for a series of records (there was Craig Breedloves' Spirit of America and SoA Sonic One, too, I guess, but that was driven by rule changes).

[Mave]

Equus said:

Mave said:

This isn't about taking a slow car and making it faster....

You clearly don't know much about the history of the LSR.

Thanks.
It's not about the history of LSR, it's about engineering evolution. Sometimes you're flogging a dead horse. Like the change from wheel driven to jet driven, and the change from subsonic to supersonic. Sometimes the best lesson history can give you is reminding you that sometimes you need to change direction.

[Equus]

Mave said:

Sometimes you're flogging a dead horse.

For sure, but in Noble's case he was responsible for creating horses that turned their hooves up and died after one race.

Thrust II was designed with transonic speeds in mind, and Thrust SSC, at least, was designed to go supersonic from the outset. With a little forethought they could have designed a basic concept that was fundamentally capable of development throughout the necessary speed range.

Don't be fooled by the blarney that supersonic speeds in ground effect are some sort of black magic that the Thrust team has had to pioneer solutions to... the Budweiser Rocket almost certainly went supersonic (briefly) in 1979, well before even Thrust II hit the salt, and the Blue Flame (whose design the Rocket copied) had aerodynamics designed for supersonic speed back in the late '60's. Blue Flame's speed was ultimately limited to <700mph because it ran pneumatic tires, and Goodyear wouldn't authorise their use at speeds above that). The aerodynamics are well understood, and have been for decades.

Also don't think that this is just me being clever after the event. Somewhere on the main Bloodhound thread you'll find me criticising the 'clean sheet' design approach of the three Noble cars for precisely the reason that has now killed the project: failure to progressively develop from one design to the next means that you've got to solve a fresh set of problems each time, which - guess what? - massively increases overall development time and costs.

[Mave]

Equus said:

Mave said:

Sometimes you're flogging a dead horse.

For sure, but in Noble's case he was responsible for creating horses that turned their hooves up and died after one race.

.....having moved the game on so far that no other horse has taken the record since the 80s. Compared to previously when the record was changing hands regularly.

Equus said:

Thrust II was designed with transonic speeds in mind, and Thrust SSC, at least, was designed to go supersonic from the outset. With a little forethought they could have designed a basic concept that was fundamentally capable of development throughout the necessary speed range.

So which is it - should they have evolved from previous designs cheaply, or taken a more expensive fresh design capable of higher speeds from the outset? You can't have it both ways!

Equus said:

Don't be fooled by the blarney that supersonic speeds in ground effect are some sort of black magic that the Thrust team has had to pioneer solutions to... the Budweiser Rocket almost certainly went supersonic (briefly) in 1979, well before even Thrust II hit the salt, and the Blue Flame (whose design the Rocket copied) had aerodynamics designed for supersonic speed back in the late '60's. Blue Flame's speed was ultimately limited to <700mph because it ran pneumatic tires, and Goodyear wouldn't authorise their use at speeds above that). The aerodynamics are well understood, and have been for decades.

So if it was all doable so long ago (when I would argue that we may have understood some of the aero, but not necessarily known what to do about it!) why hasn't anyone done it? Despite all the challengers over all the years? Why hasn't anyone taken the Blue Flame rocket and just put some metal wheels on it? Or rerun the Budweiser with the rocket turned up to 11?
Maybe even more important than money and a fast car is actually running it to prove what it can do.

[Equus]

Mave said:

.....having moved the game on so far that no other horse has taken the record since the 80s. Compared to previously when the record was changing hands regularly.

Not really. There had been a fit of activity in the 1960's, with the jet battle between Breedlove and Arfons, but that had been over for 20 years, and prior to that the record stood from 1947 to 1963.

The Breedlove-Arfons battle was very much the exception to the rule. After that, and Blue Flame, there had been no real interest.

Mave said:

Equus said:

Thrust II was designed with transonic speeds in mind, and Thrust SSC, at least, was designed to go supersonic from the outset. With a little forethought they could have designed a basic concept that was fundamentally capable of development throughout the necessary speed range.

So which is it - should they have evolved from previous designs cheaply, or taken a more expensive fresh design capable of higher speeds from the outset? You can't have it both ways!

I don't want it both ways: if you know you're going to have to run at least at transonic speeds to take the record (bearing in mind that the last three contenders had been designed to go supersonic), it would have been sensible to design for supersonic, from the outset.

In fact, Noble knew that Thrust II was only just capable of scraping the record, even as he was having it designed and built.

Mave said:

So if it was all doable so long ago (when I would argue that we may have understood some of the aero, but not necessarily known what to do about it!) why hasn't anyone done it?

You remember what I told you the most important factor was?

Edited by Equus on Friday 19th October 12:39

[IN51GHT]

Wammer said:

chrisironside said:

Europa1 said:

cookie1600 said:

chrisironside said:

I contacted Universal Studios about this.
I seem to remember that Thrust was converted and used as a Batmobile in one of the films.

Really???

I'm sure the Coventry Transport Museum would have noticed it being pushed out of the door:

https://www.transport-museum.com/visiting/biffa_aw...

There has been more than one record breaking car called Thrust - google Thrust 2. Still sounds like an iffy claim - I would have thought it would be a lot cheaper to get a props department to build a Batmobile than convert an actual jet powered car.

Yep, doesn't seem to be one ounce of truth in it!

Should have done a little due diligence first. It was the Batman/Batman Returns one I thought it applied to.

Doubt Universal will take my proposal seriously now ??

You all seem not to be able to read, the original poster said that Thrust had been bought by Universal studios not Thrust 2 or Thrust SSC. Thrust was the test vehicle built by Richard Noble before Thrust 2 was built for the Land Speed record. There could definitely be some truth as the Batman returns Batmobile looks fairly similar to Thrust.

Thrust also crashed & bares no resemblance to any Batmobile.

[IN51GHT]

Equus said:

IN51GHT said:

800mph is hardly ambitious.

I thought that the target was 1,000mph?

In any case, it's not what they were trying to achieve, but the way they were trying to achieve it.

Back in the 1960's, you could do 400mph using a completely bespoke 4-wheel drive drivetain, in a monocoque body/chassis using the best current aviation structural technology, with specially developed tyres, the best available telemetry, etc., etc., all supplied by the leaders in each technological field.

...or you could use a second-hand jet engine bolted to a ladder frame chassis, using hot-rod parts.

History records which worked best.

Formula 1 engines driving bespoke turbopumps, just to deliver the fuel supply, wasn't it?

Maybe that would have been necessary, to achieve the big step up from the current 763mph to 1,000mph, but I'm sure that there are simpler, cheaper ways to do it if you're 'only' aiming at 800.

800mph was the initial target for year one.

Take a look at my previous, then preach about LSR racing to me.

Edited by IN51GHT on Friday 19th October 08:32

[IN51GHT]

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.

His first attempt was Thrust, not Thrust 2, it was self built & nearly killed him. From then on he employed proper engineers.

[IN51GHT]

Equus said:

Mave said:

This isn't about taking a slow car and making it faster....

You clearly don't know much about the history of the LSR.

Given sufficient funding, cars can be re-engined, re-chassied, re-bodied, or just plain re-placed.

Malcolm Campbell's Bluebird went from this:


To this:



...from 146mph to 300mph, via different chassis, different bodies, Sunbeam, Napier Lion, and finally Rolls Royce R-Type engines, different gearboxes, you name it... but always with some parts carried forward. Some variants were successful, some weren't.

Wrong, the Bluebirds are two totally separate cars, I know because I was helping to run the car in the first picture at Pendine in 2015.

Edited by IN51GHT on Friday 19th October 08:32

[Equus]

IN51GHT said:

800mph was the initial target for year one.

So you're confirming that 1000mph was the overall project target?

IN51GHT said:

His first attempt was Thrust, not Thrust 2, it was self built & nearly killed him. From then on he employed proper engineers.

Thrust 1 was never intended as an LSR car: that's an absurd suggestion, and you know it.

Noble always knew and intended it to be merely a 'demonstrator'; something to generate funding interest (including the funds to pay a proper Engineer).

The damn thing had a centrifugal compressor Derwent engine producing what, 3,500lb of thrust, compared to 17,500 for Green Monster and SoA Sonic 1? Even Noble wasn't daft enough to believe he could build a record car around that.

[IN51GHT]

Equus said:

So you're confirming that 1000mph was the overall project target?

1000mph is still the overall target, but 800mph comes first, then after that the chances of hitting 1000mph are clearer.

[Equus]

IN51GHT said:

Wrong, the Bluebirds are two totally separate cars.

I didn't say they weren't.

I said that components carried forward across the evolution.

Certainly, they had different engines (Sunbeam V12 in the Sunbeam-Bluebird, Napier Lion then Roll Royce R-type in the Campbell-Railton Bluebirds) and chassis.

IIRC, without digging my books out, the gearbox and back axle of the Sunbeam were originally transferred to the Napier-Campbell Bluebird, which was itself later redesigned/evolved by Reid Railton through several further versions (replacing the axle and gearbox, as well as new chassis, ultimately Rolls Royce R-type engine, and several variations of bodywork).

The gradual evolution was a deliberate strategy to keep costs in check.

I doubt that a single component was shared between the first car and the last, but there was a continuity of design and components between them.

[oilrag1]

Harsh but true time,
The money burnt on bloated salaries and frivolous junket spending is possibly the main factor behind this latest funding predicament, i saw at first hand at several F.O.S events the wastefullness,money squandered without a care, ie in the camping area 2017 approx 10 tents/cars/ vans were occupying an exclusive SSC area large enough for maybe 50 mere mortals, i cannot believe goodwood gave that space for free,.....one has to wonder how much Noble &co has "earnt " from just this project ,there's many a good reason for starting from scratch each time ,enhanced salary ,and associated benefits being one of them.
I for one will no longer donate to this project ,admirable in many ways tho it was,much of our cash was wasted.

[IN51GHT]

oilrag1 said:

Harsh but true time,
The money burnt on bloated salaries and frivolous junket spending is possibly the main factor behind this latest funding predicament, i saw at first hand at several F.O.S events the wastefullness,money squandered without a care, ie in the camping area 2017 approx 10 tents/cars/ vans were occupying an exclusive SSC area large enough for maybe 50 mere mortals, i cannot believe goodwood gave that space for free,.....one has to wonder how much Noble &co has "earnt " from just this project ,there's many a good reason for starting from scratch each time ,enhanced salary ,and associated benefits being one of them.
I for one will no longer donate to this project ,admirable in many ways tho it was,much of our cash was wasted.

Yes, the space was free, so back in your box.

Who was on a bloated salary? I was on around £10p/h less than I could get elsewhere.

Edited by IN51GHT on Friday 19th October 10:31

[IN51GHT]

Equus said:

I doubt that a single component was shared between the first car and the last, but there was a continuity of design and components between them.

Contradictory, you "doubt that a single component was shared between the first car and the last" but then say "there was a continuity of design and components between them"

[oilrag1]

IN51GHT said:

Yes, the space was free, so back in your box.

Touched a nerve !

Your dismissive attitude is incredible, no wonder incoming funds have dried up , i have as im sure did many others , donated hundereds of pounds to your project over the last few years,but that is a tap you have just turned off my dear lead engineer.
Im sure you will not miss my few bob,but when your P45 arrives i for one wont shed a tear.

Edit I claim no inside knowledge of what went on within the company , neither do i have any expertise in this project, but i raise my perspective as a donator seeing much waste of cash going on at events such as FOS ,Carfest etc
Its noted too that your bio has just been edited today removing its title as lead engineer and its thrust web link .

Edited by oilrag1 on Friday 19th October 11:09

Edited by oilrag1 on Friday 19th October 11:14

[IN51GHT]

oilrag1 said:

IN51GHT said:

Yes, the space was free, so back in your box.

Touched a nerve !

Your dismissive attitude is incredible, no wonder incoming funds have dried up , i have as im sure did many others , donated hundereds of pounds to your project over the last few years,but that is a tap you have just turned off my dear lead engineer.
Im sure you will not miss my few bob,but when your P45 arrives i for one wont shed a tear.

You comment as if you have a clue what went/goes on, you demonstrated you actually have no idea whatsoever. Another armchair expert.

For the record I am no longer involved in the project so have nothing to lose or gain regardless of the outcome of the administration period.

However there were a lot of very good people there who gave everything they had to get to where the car is now, including massive financial & personal hardship, there is no way the people on the coalface were milking the project at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

I left of my own accord after Newquay test runs, I had issues with the project I wished to discuss with the management, nobody was willing to discuss so I left with a clear conscience as I stand by my principles.

Edited by IN51GHT on Friday 19th October 10:57

Edited by IN51GHT on Friday 19th October 11:28

[Equus]

IN51GHT said:

Contradictory, you "doubt that a single component was shared between the first car and the last" but then say "there was a continuity of design and components between them"

You've heard of Trigger's Broom?

No contradiction at all.

Edited by Equus on Friday 19th October 12:39

[Zirconium]

RB Will said:

Quick question just popped into my head. Why does Bloodhound use a car engine as a fuel pump? I'm guessing in the normal system of fuelling a jet engine its just a normal electric pump?

The engine was to power the pump for the rocket fuel (hydrogen peroxide) not the jet fuel, as I understand it.

[IN51GHT]

Zirconium said:

RB Will said:

Quick question just popped into my head. Why does Bloodhound use a car engine as a fuel pump? I'm guessing in the normal system of fuelling a jet engine its just a normal electric pump?

The engine was to power the pump for the rocket fuel (hydrogen peroxide) not the jet fuel, as I understand it.

That is correct, an electric drive for the pump would be perfect, very short duration (around 22s) instant torque, high power. Easily doable.