Blue Flame/Thrust 2 issue?

[kiwi belly tank]

it was me, in 1998, who pointed Al on that mistake in his FIA certification....and Al, directly contact the FIA to clarify and correct this mistake....as it needs so long from the FIA to do,
Tom Burkland became a victim of that slow reaction....meanwhile, Tom got also the other record certified...

the reason why Al was not aware of this mistake, the FIA shows the speed of the flying Kilometer on the certification in KPH....not in mph....

Al never convert this kilo speed into miles......so, he couldn't know......

Another shambles: Al Teague's 425.050 mph in 1991.

At least the FIA got to the right answer eventually ... in 2016.

But that takes us away from the original topic.

Yep! That's all true, we just ran the liner & the time keepers kept the time. It's like giving an American a metric tape measure & saying cut me a three footer! It just doesn't relate.
I agree with Stainless that the fastest squirter is still the fastest no matter how is working.
  Sid.

[TrickyDicky]

After reading replies I'm now happy that my interpretation of the rules is correct. With the knowledge that the 1% rule was in play this leads to the conclusion that Thrust failed to break the Official record and in fact BF held the record until SSC arrived. .

Sorry Gazza, but your second sentence tells me that your interpretation of the rules is incorrect (unless your point is restricted only to the km class record).

Thrust 2 very much did break the official absolute land speed record (according to the FIA's interpretation of its own rules).

[tortoise]

Per Appendix D, Special Automobiles "may be sub-divided according to the type of engine used (jet, rocket, etc.)". This suggests that a run of any speed by Bloodhound would be a record as there are no existing jet+rocket car records. The "etc." leaves room for a wide variety of propulsion systems as well. I seem to remember a rubber band powered car that showed up at Bonneville a few years back.

[MAYOMAN]

It really isn't all that difficult to understand.
I GOT THE T-SHIRT!

[Gazza]

After reading replies I'm now happy that my interpretation of the rules is correct. With the knowledge that the 1% rule was in play this leads to the conclusion that Thrust failed to break the Official record and in fact BF held the record until SSC arrived. .

Sorry Gazza, but your second sentence tells me that your interpretation of the rules is incorrect (unless your point is restricted only to the km class record).

Thrust 2 very much did break the official absolute land speed record (according to the FIA's interpretation of its own rules).

Tricky, can you point me to the FIA rules on this please? I've been looking but can't find them online.

So what would the outcome be if bf had clearly been faster over the km? Who's record takes precedence and why? Does thrust take the mile record and bf retain the km record?

[Gazza]

I think I get this now after studying the wiki list of records. I've noticed that when both mile and km speeds are present for a record run the mile appears to take precedence over the km. The only time that the km comes into play it seems is when there are only km speeds listed for runs. So yes, the situation is more complex than I first thought. However I still maintain that a single standardized distance would be handy though and the mile is the obvious candidate.

[TrickyDicky]

It really isn't all that difficult to understand.
I GOT THE T-SHIRT!

It shouldn't be that difficult.

But, you might need a new T-shirt Dick. 

T-shirt (and many others) says 630.388mph but the current FIA list has 630.478mph. 

Don't shoot the messenger!  I'm just reporting 'facts'.

The difference can be explained and we have gone into the details of this before. 

[TrickyDicky]

...

Tricky, can you point me to the FIA rules on this please? I've been looking but can't find them online.

...

Google "FIA International Sporting Code" and download Appendix D.

The current regulations should be all there.

[MAYOMAN]

Here are the FIA world records.

[MAYOMAN]

FIA Record Calculations
In the end, I suppose these FIA record speed calculations, down to the third decimal, are only important
to those of us who have invested in the t-shirts and posters with those speeds. But, on a lighter level,
the FIA should not be revisionist when it comes to publishing these numbers.
When we built and ran The Blue Flame in 1970, I assume the text of the 1968 FIA International Sporting
Code was still in effect regarding Article 226 ? Distance Records. Even though that article only discusses
timing to 1/100 second and the average speeds to one place of decimals, regarding the topic of
?rounding? the average speeds, it states ?which decimal shall be increased by one unit if the following
decimal is equal or superior to 5.? Since the FIA has been publishing the world land speed record speeds
to three decimal places (off and on) since 1909, and timing to the millisecond, that precedent was also
taken with The Blue Flame (and the USAC/FIA Chief Steward, Joe Petrali).
Article 226 only discusses rounding up the speed, not the times.
?Times counting for the record: Average of the times taken on 2 consecutive runs in opposite
directions.?
So, using the FIA Code in effect at the time of The Blue Flame?s record runs:
For the mile ? 3600/5.784 = 622.406639. Rounding per Article 226 gives us 622.407 mph. Voila!
For the kilometer ? 3600/3.5485 = 1,014.513175. Rounding per Article 226 gives us 1,014.513 km/h.
Also, in Article 32, the 1968 FIA Code states ?For all conversions of English to French measurements, and
vice versa, the mile shall be taken as 1.60934 kilometre, and the kilometre shall be taken as 0.62137
mile.?
Now, for the speed conversions using the values in the 1968 FIA Code Article 32.
For the mile ? 622.407 mph X 1.60934 = 1,001.664481, er, 1,001.664 km/h.
For the kilometer ? 1,014.513 km/h X 0.62137 = 630.3879428, er, 630.388 mph. Voila, again!
These were the times recorded and calculated by the USAC/FIA Chief Steward in 1970 using the then
current FIA International Sporting Code. It seems ridiculous that someone at FIA had to fiddle with those
historical numbers and create meaningless discrepancies. Following the record, I had written to FIA in
Paris several times for a copy of the record certification. My request was never answered.
Anybody need a t-shirt?

[MAYOMAN]

These ARE the numbers. MILE

[MAYOMAN]

These ARE the numbers. KILOMETER

[MAYOMAN]

Here is the 1970 USAC-FIA report with the actual timer tape. This also documents the 2 runs were completed within the hour.

[tallguy]

This is a little off the subject (timing, speeds, etc.) -- so I apologize. 

I'm seeking a little information regarding the runs of the Blue Flame rocket car . . . more specifically, regarding
track length, distance used for acceleration, and distance used for deceleration. 

The reason I'm interested in these things is because Bonneville gets shorter and shorter.  I'm thinking about the future of
land speed racing, and trying to brainstorm some possible ideas about how to lengthen the available track.  Yes, it would be
expensive.  But with enough will, perhaps there could be a way.

For most of us, Bonneville is a lot closer to home, compared to Bolivia. 

Recently, I saw something that mentioned 16G deceleration for Rosco's car, if he shut off the power suddenly at 1000 mph.
Of course, he never seriously considered doing this.  But he will, in any case, need a lot of space for acceleration and
deceleration.  And none of us are getting any younger.  Not long ago, I was in a Tesla, accelerating at about 1.3 G for just
a few seconds -- about 5 or so.  This almost caused me to lose consciousness (I'm glad I wasn't the driver).  Well, when I try to imagine somebody accelerating to 1000 mph in about 21 seconds, I can imagine the driver losing consciousness.  Surely
one would rather accelerate more slowly for a longer distance.  And, of course, have a very long distance available for
decelerating. 

None of us in a car has yet achieved any speeds relatively close to 1000 mph.  But there are plans in place to make it
happen.  Rosco seems to be the "frontrunner" at this point, it appears.  And I wish him well. 

I think that many (if not most) of us can agree that Bonneville has become too short for this, and is likely to never be long enough.  Fortunately for Rosco, he lives on the same continent as Lake Gairdner.  So he probably won't lack a suitable track to run on.

But I sometimes think about other cars.  The Project 550 vehicle, for example, which is wheel-driven, will want to have a
long distance for its runs.  And we all know that chutes have sometimes failed to deploy properly.  Turbinator and Ack Attack
probably haven't yet gone as fast as they will some day.   

Any information related to any of this would be much appreciated.  Thank you to everyone who can provide any.

Tallguy

[Stainless1]

Anybody need a t-shirt?

Absolutely