• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Inside the Engineering of the World's First 1,000mph Car

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
darkswordsman17 said:
No, it's substantially different and talk about missing the forest for the tree. You missed the forest, ran right into the tree, and then somehow missed the bear taking a shit on your statement because that's about what it is worth.
Click to expand...

6a00d8345190b469e20192ac5da1b6970d-pi
 
What is the fun in having a car that can only go straight ahead for a few minutes ? One bump or pothole and it crashes.
Such speeds are only fun in the air.
 
Although it will be a challenge to prevent it of coming of the ground at that speed. Aerodynamics designed to push it down. Although the weight will also help.
 
darkswordsman17 said:
Very cool and will be interesting to see how it goes for them.



It originally was to have an F1 engine in that role but it fell through (can't recall why off the top of my head, there's been a ton of articles about this thing over the past few years so it should be easy to find if you're interested).



No, it's substantially different and talk about missing the forest for the tree. You missed the forest, ran right into the tree, and then somehow missed the bear taking a shit on your statement because that's about what it is worth.

That speed difference is kinda exactly the reason why this vehicle is different from a jet while on the ground.



Can you people just stop with the stupid shitass analogies? It's literally a purpose built vehicle for trying to go 1000mph on a salt flat. A jet "flying" on the ground 🙂|) and a car "driving" in the sky 🙂|) both have to deal with aerodynamics, gravity, friction, and more or less the same things, just at varying levels.
Click to expand...
Blah Blah Blah... What some of us are saying is that they could have cut off the wings of an aircraft and just worry about aero bits for the ground, save them from all the "engineering" for the fuel pumps, etc...

Some of you really do think you're too smart for your own good.
 
SSSnail said:
Blah Blah Blah... What some of us are saying is that they could have cut off the wings of an aircraft and just worry about aero bits for the ground, save them from all the "engineering" for the fuel pumps, etc...

Some of you really do think you're too smart for your own good.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like that guy in the mirror. If that were a viable solution don't you think that's what this team of expert engineers would have gone with? Instead they've gone with a plan that has them reinventing the wheel and running the risk of not even getting close to a record due to issues with intermittent sponsorships. It's really too bad they didn't hire you to explain things for them.
 
Ruptga said:
Yeah, like that guy in the mirror. If that were a viable solution don't you think that's what this team of expert engineers would have gone with? Instead they've gone with a plan that has them reinventing the wheel and running the risk of not even getting close to a record due to issues with intermittent sponsorships. It's really too bad they didn't hire you to explain things for them.
Click to expand...
No, it is, just that because they're engineers and there are probably rules against doing what I just said, doesn't make it any less valid. Sometimes engineers aren't the most practical of people.

Then there's probably cost as well. If you really think about it a bit, what's the difference? Intrinsically they're just metal tubes with jet engines for propulsion. One is "engineered" with a V8 fuel pump. :wackoffemoticon:
 
SSSnail said:
No, it is, just that because they're engineers and there are probably rules against doing what I just said, doesn't make it any less valid. Sometimes engineers aren't the most practical of people.

Then there's probably cost as well. If you really think about it a bit, what's the difference? Intrinsically they're just metal tubes with jet engines for propulsion. One is "engineered" with a V8 fuel pump. :wackoffemoticon:
Click to expand...

"probably", k. He's fact, they could have made it a ground-effect vehicle if they had really wanted to, that's a hovercraft by the way. The rules for the record and an explanation of them, for anyone interested.

Another fact that's not as apparent if you know dick about aerodynamics is that it takes a lot more than just a metal tube to have something controllable anywhere near mach 1. Cutting off the wings of an F16 and adding some spoilers and castrol decals would result in a spinning metal tube a few hundred feet in the air as it lifted off the ground, and its jet engine wouldn't even be enough to meet their speed target. By the time you redo its entire body and frame to have the aerodynamics you need and accommodate a rocket engine you'll have a completely different vehicle, which would obviously be more expensive that going with a purpose-built design in the first place.
 
Wait... So what's this jet engine with the V8 fuel pump puts out?

Lol@ your other assumptive simplistic assumptions...
 
SSSnail said:
Wait... So what's this jet engine with the V8 fuel pump puts out?

Lol@ your other assumptive simplistic assumptions...
Click to expand...

Oh it's comparable to the thrust of the F16's engine, but it's still only good enough to get the car up to ~300mph, the rocket handles the rest. The F16's maximum sea level speed is of course far faster than 300mph, but it's not going to hit that speed a single mile downrange from a dead stop, which this car will. Also, the car engine is for delivering high purity hydrogen peroxide to the solid fuel in the rocket engine, it's not for the jet engine at all.

Now look, we both know you're trolling, but try to make your trolls less retarded. You're embarrassing the other trolls.
 
I recall a previous record attempt...where they did modify a jet, lopped off the wings and added wheels. It failed miserably, I recall it only hitting like half the speed (record is like 800MPH, so ~400MPH). So it can work, but clearly it's not at all effective. The extra drag and aerodynamic effect of the ground seems to adversely affect "normal" jets.
 
Is there a separate category for top speed where the power is delivered through the wheels? This seems like cheating since the thrust is applied directly from the jet/rocket.
 
JTsyo said:
Is there a separate category for top speed where the power is delivered through the wheels? This seems like cheating since the thrust is applied directly from the jet/rocket.
Click to expand...

there is a group and subgroup to fit every possible description of land vehicle. for the absolute record, the FIA mandates only that the car run the required 2 runs in opposite directions within an hour, and safety features.

the absolute record holder has been thrust-driven since 1963.
 
angminas said:
Man, how long was that bear holding that shit, waiting for a human to come by and crash into a tree?
Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_50YDI98Q

SSSnail said:
Blah Blah Blah... What some of us are saying is that they could have cut off the wings of an aircraft and just worry about aero bits for the ground, save them from all the "engineering" for the fuel pumps, etc...

Some of you really do think you're too smart for your own good.
Click to expand...

And what some of us are saying is that you are wrong for saying that and so you using that trite phrase to act like they're being idiots is missing the point entirely.

No, it is more that when we see someone disparaging work like this as though some middle school science class could point out something obvious, it just shows that you don't understand what is going on to such a degree that I think a middle school science class could point that out.

And yes, I was overly harsh and dick in saying so. I don't know why people try to make analogies when they're unnecessary in the first place. And then to not even apply them correctly such that you either don't understand the analogy or don't understand the situation you're applying the analogy to. Thus, I felt that some colorful reworking of said analogy to better fit was warranted.
 
JTsyo said:
Is there a separate category for top speed where the power is delivered through the wheels? This seems like cheating since the thrust is applied directly from the jet/rocket.
Click to expand...

yeah, call me old fashioned, but if the power doesn't come through the wheels, it's not a car
 
I understand it is more difficult than chopping the wings off a jet. All they actually need to do is lay a Saturn Rocket on a flatbed trailer, strap it together, and light the match.

j/k, but it does take a little away from the accomplishment given that the amount of thrust needed isn't really a challenge to obtain.
 
twinrider1 said:
I understand it is more difficult than chopping the wings off a jet. All they actually need to do is lay a Saturn Rocket on a flatbed trailer, strap it together, and light the match.

j/k, but it does take a little away from the accomplishment given that the amount of thrust needed isn't really a challenge to obtain.
Click to expand...

If you can find a way to refuel and reset your Saturn rocket for another successful run within one hour, you can hold the record too. That's in the link I already posted, that apparently nobody clicked on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top