RE: Bloodhound SSC project enters administration
Discussion
Mave said:
We'll have to disagree on that point.
Well, here's a simple exercise for you: - make a list of all the unlimited LSR cars that have made it as far as the salt.
- make a list of all those that failed to break the record
- make a list of all those that failed to break the record simply because they proved not to be fast enough (not due to track or weather conditions, or because the project ran out of money).
Equus said:
Mave said:
We'll have to disagree on that point.
Well, here's a simple exercise for you: - make a list of all the unlimited LSR cars that have made it as far as the salt.
- make a list of all those that failed to break the record
- make a list of all those that failed to break the record simply because they proved not to be fast enough (not due to track or weather conditions, or because the project ran out of money).
Make a list of all the cars that have definitely gone supersonic on land.
It's an even shorter list.
Mave said:
Here's a simpler exercise for you.
Make a list of all the cars that have definitely gone supersonic on land.
It's an even shorter list.
That's because it didn't happen until well after the world had lost interest completely in the LSR.Make a list of all the cars that have definitely gone supersonic on land.
It's an even shorter list.
There's no evidence to show that supersonic speeds are fundamentally any more difficult than subsonic speeds.
In fact, of the cars that have attempted it, there's been a 100% success rate, so far.
Equus said:
Mave said:
Here's a simpler exercise for you.
Make a list of all the cars that have definitely gone supersonic on land.
It's an even shorter list.
That's because it didn't happen until well after the world had lost interest completely in the LSR.Make a list of all the cars that have definitely gone supersonic on land.
It's an even shorter list.
There's no evidence to show that supersonic speeds are fundamentally any more difficult than subsonic speeds.
Equus said:
In fact, of the cars that have attempted it, there's been a 100% success rate, so far.
There's been a 50% success rate, and all those that have attempted it have either had, or been about to have, significant control and stability issues.Mave said:
There's been a 50% success rate, and all those that have attempted it have either had, or been about to have, significant control and stability issues.
You're talking about Spirit of America Formula Shell/Sonic Arrow, I assume?It had an off in early trials, due to sidewinds at subsonic speed. Nothing to do with supersonics... and it was repaired and made ready to run again. The reason it hasn't is money. Breedlove ran out, sold the car to Steve Fossett, who promptly killed himself in a plane crash. The car still exists and the only thing stopping it from running is lack of funding.
...which, on topic, makes it incredibly unlikely that any American billionaire or organisation will pick up Bloodhound. Why should they, when there is an American-built car, by a genuine American LSR legend, standing ready to run with minimal funding?
Equus said:
Mave said:
There's been a 50% success rate, and all those that have attempted it have either had, or been about to have, significant control and stability issues.
You're talking about Spirit of America Formula Shell/Sonic Arrow, I assume?Equus said:
It had an off in early trials, due to sidewinds at subsonic speed. Nothing to do with supersonics... and it was repaired and made ready to run again. The reason it hasn't is money. Breedlove ran out, sold the car to Steve Fossett, who promptly killed himself in a plane crash. The car still exists and the only thing stopping it from running is lack of funding.
Even if there were money to run it again, that's no guarantee it would take the LSR.Lots of LSR cars lose contact with the ground, momentarily. And all teams like to hype the danger... it makes for good press. At high speeds, they're primarily aerodynamic projectiles, so what the wheels are doing is of secondary importance.
We've covered Thrust SSC previously: whatever possessed them to use a broad planform, that is very susceptible to underbody airflow, is beyond me. And rear wheel steer as well. It doesn't work on forklifts, FFS, so whoever thought it would be a good idea on an LSR car must have been smoking something illegal. It's a miracle that it worked at all.
There is no guarantee that if some poor sap spent £25 million putting Bloodhound on the salt, that it would take the record either. Given the relative costs involved, I know where I'd rather put my money, if I were in the market for buying a record.
We've covered Thrust SSC previously: whatever possessed them to use a broad planform, that is very susceptible to underbody airflow, is beyond me. And rear wheel steer as well. It doesn't work on forklifts, FFS, so whoever thought it would be a good idea on an LSR car must have been smoking something illegal. It's a miracle that it worked at all.
There is no guarantee that if some poor sap spent £25 million putting Bloodhound on the salt, that it would take the record either. Given the relative costs involved, I know where I'd rather put my money, if I were in the market for buying a record.
Equus said:
Lots of LSR cars lose contact with the ground, momentarily. And all teams like to hype the danger... it makes for good press. At high speeds, they're primarily aerodynamic projectiles, so what the wheels are doing is of secondary importance
It's of utmost importance because it gives you some insight into what the aerodynamics are doing - which is especially important if they're not doing what you expected.Mave said:
It's of utmost importance because it gives you some insight into what the aerodynamics are doing...
No it isn't, and no it doesn't.Case in point, since you quote Budweiser Rocket as an example: Stan Barret wasn't aware that the rear wheels had left the ground until he viewed the video footage, afterwards.
Thrust II apparently spent some time airborn, too - the only reason they knew about it was because there were gaps in the mud where the metal wheels had failed to leave tracks.
Equus said:
Mave said:
It's of utmost importance because it gives you some insight into what the aerodynamics are doing...
No it isn't, and no it doesn't.Case in point, since you quote Budweiser Rocket as an example: Stan Barret wasn't aware that the rear wheels had left the ground until he viewed the video footage, afterwards.
Mave said:
Whether or not he knew it is irrelevant. They came off the ground.
But you said that the matter was of the 'utmost importance' (do you know what 'utmost' means? it means most extreme or greatest... you are saying that there is NO matter of more importance).How can it be of the 'utmost' importance because of 'the insight it gives', when nobody even knew about it until afterwards?
Mave said:
There are various theories as to why they came off the ground, but they all lead to the same conclusion - the car didn't behave the way they expected it to as it got close to Mach 1
Thank f
k you're not an engineer, if you're extrapolating that conclusion. The most likely reason was simply surface irregularities (the car had no rear suspension). Nothing to do with Mach 1. Hit a bump with a suspensionless car at high speed and, guess what, the wheels are likely to leave the ground momentarily. Exactly how anyone with the average 12-year olds grasp of physics would expect it to behave, I'd have said.Edited by Equus on Saturday 20th October 12:19
Equus said:
Thank fk you're not an engineer, if you're extrapolating that deduction. The most likely reason was simply surface irregularities (the car had no rear suspension). Nothing to do with Mach 1.
How about you wind your neck in you arrogant tk you're not an engineer, if you're extrapolating that deduction. The most likely reason was simply surface irregularities (the car had no rear suspension). Nothing to do with Mach 1.t? Do you want a discussion, or a pissing contest?anonymous said:
[redacted]
^^^ This.If you want to be treated with respect, how about actually thinking?
You don't need wild, foundationless speculation about the effects of sonic shockwaves to explain why a lightweight, suspensionless car, running on metal wheels, might momentarily lose contact with the ground at high speed.
Equus said:
Mave said:
Whether or not he knew it is irrelevant. They came off the ground.
But you said that the matter was of the 'utmost importance' (do you know what 'utmost' means? it means most extreme or greatest... you are saying that there is NO matter of more importance).How can it be of the 'utmost' importance because of 'the insight it gives', when nobody even knew about it until afterwards?
Mave said:
Oh, who's speculating now?
Not me. The rear wheels left the ground - I accept that, I've seen the video. There may be more than one explanation, but basic physics tells me that surface irregularity would be enough to do the job, for sure, so in the absence of other data, I'm happy not to come up with any wild conspiracy theories.The wheels of LSR vehicles frequently leave the ground, even when they're running at much less than Mach 1.
If you could back your speculations up with any actual evidence of a connection, I'd be willing to listen, but there is none.
Mave said:
There's also plenty of evidence that changes in incidence of the order of magnitude that Budweiser experienced can cause serious stability problems.
And yet Budweiser Rocket remained stable and safely completed its run. I'd see that as a credit to the design and proof that it didn't have serious stability problems. Clearly, you wouldn't. 
There's certainly plenty of evidence that such angles of incidence generate major forces in wide planform, flat bottomed cars (such as Thrust II)... we use it as a basic means of generating downforce on circuit racing cars that are doing trivial speeds, in comparison.
Equus said:
Mave said:
Oh, who's speculating now?
Not me. The rear wheels left the ground - I accept that, I've seen the video. There may be more than one explanation but basic physics tells me that surface irregularity would be enough to do the job, for sure, so in the absence of other data, I'm happy not to come up with any wild conspiracy theories.Equus said:
The wheels of LSR vehicles frequently leave the ground, even when they're running at much less than Mach 1.
Which is much less of a concern because there's no risk of a shock / incidence interaction.Equus said:
Mave said:
There's also plenty of evidence that changes in incidence of the order of magnitude that Budweiser experienced can cause serious stability problems.
And yet Budweiser Rocket remained stable and safely completed its run. I'd see that as a credit to the design and proof that it didn't have serious stability problems. Clearly, you wouldn't. I think Budweiser may have had acceptable stability up to the speed it achieved, or it may have been on the ragged edge.
Equus said:
There's certainly plenty of evidence that such angles of incidence generate major forces in wide planform, flat bottomed cars (such as Thrust II)... we use it as a basic means of generating downforce on circuit racing cars that are doing trivial speeds, in comparison.
There's plenty of evidence of it occurring in slimmer cars as well, hence SOA.Equus said:
Mave said:
The point you're missing is that even with sufficient money, designing and building the car is difficult.
No, it isn't. Really it isn't.Now you two, grow up, play nicely & stop talking like world experts in a field that I'm assumming non of you have actually worked in (LSR racing)
Mave said:
Did Bluebird have serious stability problems just before it flipped?
Yes, absolutely.She was well known for violent tramping, and had become completely airborne on several occasions previously (at Lake Canandaiga for example), at lower speeds than that at which she crashed..
She had exhibited the tramping throughout the run during which she flipped. The tramping was not thought to be a problem - just an unpleasant characteristic. She gave no warning that she was about to take off on the final run, until it was too late to recover.
Mave said:
There's plenty of evidence of it occurring in slimmer cars as well, hence SOA.
No such evidence on SOA... she veered off course sideways due to crosswinds. Nothing to do with lift.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff