Landracing Forum
Thrust-powered Land Speed information => Discussions on absolute land speed records => Topic started by: PorkPie on November 16, 2013, 10:09:28 AM
-
All the years the Blue Flame stand in the museum in Sinsheim, a picture was on the display, with the Blue Flame at the Bonneville Salt Flats...and some fellows in the foreground...who was not involved in the Blue Flame project. So Dick Keller sent me a while ago some picture from the time at the salt, to get a proper replacement for the museum.
Today the old picture was replaced by the one I prepared....here now the Blue Flame with the right picture
-
here one more,
Heidi is pointing on her grandfather, Dick Keller, after I had the picture out of the protection box.
Dick's granddaughter took the time to be there with us when we replaced the picture.
nope, I didn't camouflaged Heidi....she just moved the head to fast for the long exposure time......
-
Hey, Pork Pie. I notice that the speed shown on the picture is 1014.656 km/hr -- and the speed on the side of the podium shows 1044.656 km/hr. Which is it -- and do the proprietors know that there's a discrepancy?
-
Hey, Pork Pie. I notice that the speed shown on the picture is 1014.656 km/hr -- and the speed on the side of the podium shows 1044.656 km/hr. Which is it -- and do the proprietors know that there's a discrepancy?
Jon, you saw right....
they had for a long time the wrong speed on the podium....the mile record which stand from 1970 to 1983.....this is also the speed which is painted on the car...
but the fastest record was the kilo speed...and it needs Andy Green and the Thrust SSC in September 1997 to beat this one.....
I told this the museum and they got also this picture to get the right speed on...but by an error from the graphic guy it ends up with the 1044 mph.....they will correct this the next week, also the paperwork which is shown....and the right year when the kilo record was broken...means 1997.....at first I thought I use photoshop to correct this error....but at last I let them so...just for the history of this picture.....with this speed Richard Noble would had never set a record in 1983.... :-D...and without a Thrust II record they maybe wouldn't be a Thrust SSC to break the sound barrier....let the Blue Flame dream a little bit....and by the way...this speed could be the peak speed which Gary run in 1970....
Also, the speed on the picture I brought today to the museum is the one which is written on the FIA list......the official time sheet from 1970 shows a little bit slower speed....no idea where the different is coming from....
-
Porkpie the LSR Historian strikes again. :-)
Sid.
-
Ain't that great! We need someone to keep the truth from all the alleged PR and suppositions out there. I had a couple projects dumped on me where I would have gladly used his expertise. But I was told not to screw with the "expert".
-
Always screw with them Stan. :-D
Glad Porkpie shares the knowledge!
Geo
-
…
Also, the speed on the picture I brought today to the museum is the one which is written on the FIA list......the official time sheet from 1970 shows a little bit slower speed....no idea where the different is coming from....
I might be able to help with that.
The USAC/FIA timesheet for the flying km shows runs at 3.554 seconds and 3.543 seconds - average 3.5485 seconds or 630.388 mph (1014.513 km/h).
For the official record, it looks as though the FIA has truncated the time to 3.548 seconds or 630.478 mph / 1014.656 km/h.
-
…
Also, the speed on the picture I brought today to the museum is the one which is written on the FIA list......the official time sheet from 1970 shows a little bit slower speed....no idea where the different is coming from....
I might be able to help with that.
The USAC/FIA timesheet for the flying km shows runs at 3.554 seconds and 3.543 seconds - average 3.5485 seconds or 630.388 mph (1014.513 km/h).
For the official record, it looks as though the FIA has truncated the time to 3.548 seconds or 630.478 mph / 1014.656 km/h.
This was also my solution I figured out a while ago......but it makes no sense.....as well known....Richard beat the mile but not the kilo record....for the kilo it was very close....
I ask me, what the FIA likes to explain, if Richard had to be so close that the different from ...,388 mph....correct measured speed and the "modified" Speed from the FIA with the...,478 mph had to be important that Richard had also beaten the kilo record.....just shy over the 1 percent rule.....did the FIA had than used the 4 digital behind the dot from the time :roll: :roll: :roll:
-
…
Also, the speed on the picture I brought today to the museum is the one which is written on the FIA list......the official time sheet from 1970 shows a little bit slower speed....no idea where the different is coming from....
I might be able to help with that.
The USAC/FIA timesheet for the flying km shows runs at 3.554 seconds and 3.543 seconds - average 3.5485 seconds or 630.388 mph (1014.513 km/h).
For the official record, it looks as though the FIA has truncated the time to 3.548 seconds or 630.478 mph / 1014.656 km/h.
This was also my solution I figured out a while ago......but it makes no sense.....as well known....Richard beat the mile but not the kilo record....for the kilo it was very close....
Richard Noble did set a kilo speed (634.051 mph) that was faster than The Blue Flame's record - but less than 1% faster. I understand that historically there was concern this meant it was not an official record.
Today's (FIA) view appears to be that Richard did set a record in the jet class (beating Craig Breedlove's 600.841 mph), whereas The Blue Flame was in the rocket class. So the bit that doesn't make sense to me is why the absolute record was not regarded as Thrust II's kilo speed, given that the 1% rule only applied when deciding whether a class record had been set.
This revisionist view of history also means The Blue Flame is still the record holder in the rocket class. And where it leaves Bloodhound SSC (with jet and rocket power) remains to be seen.
-
This is the today way as the FIA list "works"....in 1983 was no split into rocket and jet power.....question, will be there a third category, when the Bloodhound is setting a record - hybrid...rocket and jet.....
in 1965 the FIA start to show in the list the different between wheel driven and thrust power....the thrust was, what we called the outright or absolute World Land Speed Record....the wheel driven was from now on international records....this is not anymore..in the last years they changed some rules...so the wheel driven are now World Records, too...and also the 1 percent rule is history...
When Richard run the Thrust II at Black Rock....the one percent rule still counts and there was only one category for thrust power....no split into rocket and jet.....
later they split the list...Blue Flame became his record back and Thrust II got the kilo record....
Due to this that there was for a longer period a big mess in the FIA record list for the flying mile and kilo it is not sure when this split was activated...so I have no idea, when exactly it happens...maybe Dave Petrali or David Tremayne can answer this.
…
Also, the speed on the picture I brought today to the museum is the one which is written on the FIA list......the official time sheet from 1970 shows a little bit slower speed....no idea where the different is coming from....
I might be able to help with that.
The USAC/FIA timesheet for the flying km shows runs at 3.554 seconds and 3.543 seconds - average 3.5485 seconds or 630.388 mph (1014.513 km/h).
For the official record, it looks as though the FIA has truncated the time to 3.548 seconds or 630.478 mph / 1014.656 km/h.
This was also my solution I figured out a while ago......but it makes no sense.....as well known....Richard beat the mile but not the kilo record....for the kilo it was very close....
Richard Noble did set a kilo speed (634.051 mph) that was faster than The Blue Flame's record - but less than 1% faster. I understand that historically there was concern this meant it was not an official record.
Today's (FIA) view appears to be that Richard did set a record in the jet class (beating Craig Breedlove's 600.841 mph), whereas The Blue Flame was in the rocket class. So the bit that doesn't make sense to me is why the absolute record was not regarded as Thrust II's kilo speed, given that the 1% rule only applied when deciding whether a class record had been set.
This revisionist view of history also means The Blue Flame is still the record holder in the rocket class. And where it leaves Bloodhound SSC (with jet and rocket power) remains to be seen.
-
The attached PDF (I hope it works) contains the only official timing documents I have seen, received from Chief Timer Joe Petrali at the Bonneville Salt Flats. The actual timer tape is attached. Those recorded times are the only times certified for the mile and kilometer distances on October 23, 1970.
There is no way to calculate any other value for the direct speeds shown below. The distances are a constant (mile and kilometer); the time constant (3600 seconds/hour) is a constant.
Direct speed calculations using the USAC recorded elapsed time averages for the two way runs on October 23, 1970:
3600 (time constant) = 3600 seconds/hour
Mile distance: (5.739 + 5.829)/2 = 5.784 seconds average
3600/5.784 seconds = 622.407 mph
Kilometer distance: (3.554 + 3.543)/2 = 3.5485 seconds average
3600/3.5485 seconds = 1014.513 km/h
Converted speed calculations from the direct speed calculations, using 6 significant figures:
Mile distance: 622.407 mph X 1.60934 = 1001.667 km/h
Kilometer distance: 1014.513 km/h X 0.621371 = 630.389 mph
-
The way i see it from a fan standpoint be it rocket,jet or hybrid it is still a thrust powered racecar end of story.
-
...
Direct speed calculations using the USAC recorded elapsed time averages for the two way runs on October 23, 1970:
3600 (time constant) = 3600 seconds/hour
Mile distance: (5.739 + 5.829)/2 = 5.784 seconds average
3600/5.784 seconds = 622.407 mph
Kilometer distance: (3.554 + 3.543)/2 = 3.5485 seconds average
3600/3.5485 seconds = 1014.513 km/h
Converted speed calculations from the direct speed calculations, using 6 significant figures:
Mile distance: 622.407 mph X 1.60934 = 1001.667 km/h
Kilometer distance: 1014.513 km/h X 0.621371 = 630.389 mph
Mayoman,
You may be forgetting that the FIA don't calculate like most of us. :-D
Here is my educated guess at how they arrive at the official records.
Mile distance: (5.739 + 5.829)/2 = 5.784 seconds average
3600/5.784 seconds = 622.407 mph (622.4066 rounded up to 622.407 to 3 decimal places - so far, so good)
Kilometer distance: (3.554 + 3.543)/2 = 3.5485 seconds average (rounded down to 3.548 to 3dp)
3600/3.548 seconds = 1014.6561 km/h (rounded down to 1014.656 to 3dp)
Converted speed calculations from the direct speed calculations, using 6 significant figures:
Mile distance: 622.407 mph X 1.609344 = 1001.6669 km/h (rounded up to 1001.667 to 3dp)
Kilometer distance: 1014.656 km/h X 0.621371192 = 630.478 mph
From my experience, understanding how the published speeds have been derived can be very difficult. Not helped by the algorithm apparently changing over the years.
-
Odd isn't how something so seemingly simple to explain (going as fast as you can) gets complicated when you try to measure the results, compare them and share them. Whenever I do presentations about record breaking to those with only general knowledge of the subject somebody usually asks about time keeping. To put the explanation in context I've found it's best to start by covering a few other areas. If not, they get really confused. It will go something like this.
You build a vehicle to a set of technical regulations and vehicle class definitions (2 wheel, 4 wheel, wheel driven, thrust driven, engine size etc etc) and run against your class record. For FIM and FIA records it's two runs over the same kilo or mile (or both since both distances are accepted for setting a record) in opposite directions within a defined time period. If you exceed the record in your class then you are the land speed record holder for that class. The time taken to cover the distance is recorded and used to calculate your average speed. The average of both runs in both directions is used to calculate the overall speed. You have to use approved time keeping devices operated by an approved organisation on behalf of the FIM or FIA. The results are only official once they have been submitted to them, checked by them and finally ratified by them. The holder of the outright land speed record is the person who holds the fastest record for any class. So if you could figure out how build a 250cc bike that breaks that class record and is also faster that 763.035mph then you will have lifted Andy Green's crown from him. Which is why Craig Breedlove as the FIM record holder in the early 60s was also the holder of the outright land speed record and not Donald Campbell who was the holder of the slower FIA record. And yup I expect to get my head shot off for that one :-(
You guys know all this anyway so I'm not trying to be smart, just showing how many bases you have to cover when somebody asks a simple "what is the land speed record" question. And that's without going into the reasons for Bonneville 2 runs in the same direction on successive days records. Add in peak speed and/or exit speed claims and you can see their eyes glaze over. So to get back to the point of this thread. Dick Keller (aka Mayoman) once told me that even though they were well aware that the record could be set over the mile or kilo, they were so focussed on Craig's mile record and so close to the wire before the weather broke, that all the publicity went out with the mile speed. It was only later they realised that the kilo record converted to mph was faster still but it was too late by then. Interestingly, at least a couple of contemporary reports headlined the 630.388 number. Dick has had some rather natty T shirts made up with the faster speed so I made sure to send him a pic in front of Blue Flame when it was at Goodwood earlier this year. So well done to PP for setting the record straight at Sinsheim. We wouldn't expect anything less from him :wink:
-
Robin,
Have you tried explaining averaging the times for the two runs and then converting to a speed, versus averaging the speed numbers themselves? And how it can lead to different records with different speeds from the same pair of runs?
-
Really fun discussing this!
And, at the end of the day, mathematically speaking, there were only four significant figures (the recorded times) in the equations, so we can only go four digits anyhow. That is, mathematically.
-
The FIA rules are now quite clear on how to calculate the record speed(s) from the times, recorded over the mile and/or kilometre, to an accuracy of 1/1000th of a second. They do make a positive statement that "it is not authorised to correct, round up, or modify the times actually recorded".
(Appendix D to be found on the FIA website holds the details).
The conversion of distance uses only the '1 mile equals 1.609344 kilometre', with the number used as a multiplier or divider as it is written.
Malcolm, Derby, England
-
The FIA rules are now quite clear on how to calculate the record speed(s) from the times ...
The relevant text is quite brief, so I will quote it in full.
- Flying start :
Record time with an accuracy of 1/1000th of a second and calculate the mean time with an accuracy of 1/1000th of a second.
Calculate and record speed with an accuracy of 1/1000th of mph or kph.
Convert speed thus calculated to kph or mph.
- Recording and calculation:
All times must be recorded up to 1/1000th of a second.
If the timekeeping equipment has an accuracy greater than 1/1000th of a second, its precision shall be set to record times to the 1/1000th of a second, with no rounding off, to allow direct use of all readings.
The speed must be calculated and recorded from the time thus recorded, and only the result up to 1/1000th of mph or kph shall be retained with no rounding off.
To convert from mph to kph, multiply by 1.609344,
To convert from kph to mph, divide by 1.609344.
The converted speed must be calculated and recorded up to 1/1000th of mph or kph with no rounding off.
Whilst it is mostly clear, I have two problems with this.
1. There seems to be an assumption that expressing times to 1/1000th of a second means that the resultant speed will be accurate to 1/1000th of mph or kph. This is arithmetically incorrect, as demonstrated by the speed calculations for The Blue Flame discussed above. Depending on how the time values are manipulated, the kilo record can be 630.388 mph or 630.478 mph (i.e. a variation of 0.090 mph) from the same base data.
2. What does “no rounding off” mean? I understand truncating, rounding down, rounding up, and even plain rounding, but not rounding off. After pondering this for some time, I think “no rounding off” has the same meaning as “truncating”, but happy to be corrected on this. Sometimes it helps to look at the French text (in this case “sans arrondi”), but that does not help me. Mind you it’s more than 40 years since I last studied French and I wasn’t very good at it then! Perhaps there is a French-speaking mathematician reading this who can comment??
The overall effect of the FIA’s speed calculation is to slightly increase a quoted record speed above the “true” speed. In a sense this does not matter, but I find it unsatisfactory when a few tweaks to the algorithm would put it on a firmer footing.
Of course, the FIM, SCTA, AMA (and others?) do it differently, but that’s a different discussion. :roll:
As Mayoman says, this is fun. However, I am aware that not many people agree, so please say if you think we should terminate this discussion.
-
The whole point of a forum is for people to discuss their interest's. If somebody else has no interest in a certain subject, then all they need to do is not read it. Slim will take care of censorship if the need arises.
Sid.
-
Maybe the FIA should flip a coin to determine whether this discussion is rounded off or truncated? :? :? :?
-
The whole point of a forum is for people to discuss their interest's. If somebody else has no interest in a certain subject, then all they need to do is not read it. Slim will take care of censorship if the need arises.
Sid.
Ah, the wisdom of a 162-year old. Thank you.
I don't post very often, but have been reading here for long enough to know that it's easy to stir some people's negative emotions. All I need say is "Propster" ......... :evil:
-
In an earlier posting TrickyDicky you mentioned the use of 1% improvement for the necessary approval of a class record set over a particular measured distance and starting method.
When there was this 1% requirement, it was applied to the various world records for each of the distances, even though groups, classes, capacities or weights are not taken into account.
Look at the FIA standing start 1 mile 'world' record (BMW, Hydrogen car) and then at the slightly faster 1 mile standing start record in the FIA nornally aspirated 250cc class.
Nothing has been changed, even though the "1% improvement rule" has now been removed from Appendix D.
[A British driver is not being acknowledged for his performance being the 'best in the world'].
Malcolm, Derby, England.
PS I have always taken 'rounding off' as being the same as 'rounding', but I cannot read the french either. You just write down the three figures after the decimal point.
-
I got truncated once and it didn't fill good. :?
No matter how you figure it, if the answer is you've set a record it's good. if not run again. Change things up if required.
If someone ran within a hundredth, or a thousandth slower than you did, but 10 years sooner, maybe the math don't matter, you should just make a faster run and settle the difference.
Rouse
-
In an earlier posting TrickyDicky you mentioned the use of 1% improvement for the necessary approval of a class record set over a particular measured distance and starting method.
8-) Ooooh. Light bulb moment - I see what you have done there. When comparing classes prior to 2012, you had to stick with the same measured distance when applying the 1% rule.
I was confused by Richard Noble / Thrust II.
In the Thrust Class, Richard set the FS mile record at 633.468 mph which beat The Blue Flame's 622.407 mph by more than 1%. He also set an officially-recorded FS kilometre speed of 634.051 mph which beat The Blue Flame's 630.478 mph but by less than 1%. Therefore Thrust II set the overall / world / ignoring class distinctions / whatever is the correct term FS mile record but not the FS kilometre record.
Then to work out the absolute record you compare the mile and kilometre records but without applying the 1% factor because you are not comparing the same measured distance. Thus 633.468 mph beats 630.478 mph and Richard Noble was the Fastest Man In The World in 1983.
Simple, really. :|
Also explains why Mayoman keeps reminding us that The Blue Flame's kilometre record was not beaten until 1997.
-
...
PS I have always taken 'rounding off' as being the same as 'rounding', but I cannot read the french either. You just write down the three figures after the decimal point.
By writing down the three figures after the decimal point, you are 'rounding down' (in my view). So when the FIA says "with no rounding off", what they must mean is you always 'round down' and never 'round up'. So 'rounding off' must be the same as 'rounding up'.
My objection to this approach is that it is not consistent when applied to times and speeds; neither is it logical. Rounding down a time increases the speed calculated from that time, whereas rounding down a speed (obviously) reduces the speed. There is no reason why the two adjustments should cancel each other out.
If the above explanation is unclear, I can construct a simple example that might show better what I mean.
-
Tricky,
this I tried to say in my reply #10.....
Today stand - due to the split into rocket and jet (why this....?) - the Blue Flame got both records back (and is still a record holder) and the Thrust II lost his record to the Thrust SSC....and the Thrust SSC is the one who holds now the outright (absolute) record....the fastest vehicle on four or more wheels....the former record holder Thunderbolt had 8 wheels.....
In an earlier posting TrickyDicky you mentioned the use of 1% improvement for the necessary approval of a class record set over a particular measured distance and starting method.
8-) Ooooh. Light bulb moment - I see what you have done there. When comparing classes prior to 2012, you had to stick with the same measured distance when applying the 1% rule.
I was confused by Richard Noble / Thrust II.
In the Thrust Class, Richard set the FS mile record at 633.468 mph which beat The Blue Flame's 622.407 mph by more than 1%. He also set an officially-recorded FS kilometre speed of 634.051 mph which beat The Blue Flame's 630.478 mph but by less than 1%. Therefore Thrust II set the overall / world / ignoring class distinctions / whatever is the correct term FS mile record but not the FS kilometre record.
Then to work out the absolute record you compare the mile and kilometre records but without applying the 1% factor because you are not comparing the same measured distance. Thus 633.468 mph beats 630.478 mph and Richard Noble was the Fastest Man In The World in 1983.
Simple, really. :|
Also explains why Mayoman keeps reminding us that The Blue Flame's kilometre record was not beaten until 1997.
-
Tricky,
this I tried to say in my reply #10.....
Sorry Pork. :lol:
Sometimes I don't fully understand something unless I write it down in my own words.
-
...
Look at the FIA standing start 1 mile 'world' record (BMW, Hydrogen car) and then at the slightly faster 1 mile standing start record in the FIA nornally aspirated 250cc class.
Nothing has been changed, even though the "1% improvement rule" has now been removed from Appendix D.
[A British driver is not being acknowledged for his performance being the 'best in the world'].
...
Malcolm, I take your point but ...
There is something strange about the FIA 1 mile Standing Start records. Very few of the classes have a current record holder. How can this be? Presuming it's not just incompetent record keeping, there must be a story to be told.
If I could do 1 mile from a standing start at 99 mph I don't think I'd be concerned about it not being recognised as the 'best in the world', since it would only be in contention due to a quirk of the historical record. For example, whatever happened to the records set by this bunch of obscure drivers nobody has ever heard of (Stuck 116+mph; Rosemeyer, 134+mph; Caracciola 127+mph) over 75 years ago. Perhaps we need a campaign to get these reinstated?
-
Standing start (SS) mile - World Records.
I am not sure when the SS mile was 'brought back' as an approved distance by the FIA, but you are right that it appears as a 'modern' record, which few have challenged. On airfields in the UK it is possible to set such records, hence the attempt by Tony Moir with his 250 cc Superkart included it. If the racers had a fully timed standing mile event, with two runs in each direction, completed within 60 minutes, many World records could probably be established (or could be broken).
I have been told by Louise Ann Noeth that the FIA paperwork is not easy to sort through (she spent time filling out some of the American blanks in the record lists in the late nineties), so to get the details of the records you mentioned may be a task for someone in Paris with a fair amount of time on their hands and then getting then reinstated may take an effort from the records commission.
Malcolm, Derby, England
-
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 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 kilometer 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?
-
Yes... I need one with or without revisionist numbers... Still was a cool car XL do you take paypal?
-
I will absolutely take a Blue Flame t-shirt, please take my money. -Dean
-
I would like a BLUE FLAME t-shirt also. XXL please.
-
Can you sign my T-shirt (L), please?
Phil
-
Standing start (SS) mile - World Records.
I am not sure when the SS mile was 'brought back' as an approved distance by the FIA ....
Mayoman's extract from the 1968 version of the International Sporting Code shows that the SS mile was an approved distance at that time.
...
If the racers had a fully timed standing mile event, with two runs in each direction, completed within 60 minutes, many World records could probably be established (or could be broken).
...
Can you remind me when it became two runs in each direction? :-o :-o :-D
-
Mayoman, that is gold dust. Thank you very much.
The detail of how the FIA used to calculate record speeds helps me understand a number of apparent anomalies in the published records over the years.
All I need now is copies of the relevant paragraphs from about 97 other versions of the International Sporting Code!
...
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.”
...
The way I read it, they were saying clocks reading to 1/100 second were acceptable, but if greater accuracy was available the more precise times should be used. And the rounding instruction is clear and mathematically sound.
Publishing record speeds to one place of decimals seems to have been ignored almost forever, with the possible exception of Donald Campbell in 1964. Helps explains why his mile record is variously quoted as 403.1 / 403.100 / 403.135 mph.
...
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,
...
Is that a reference to Victor Hémery at Brooklands in 1909? As far as I can tell, that was the first time clocks reading to 1/1000 second were used. Although it is not clear whether all three decimal places in the time were used when calculating the official speed record.
...
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 kilometer 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!
...
I love the quaint references to "English" and "French" measurements. As if the rest of the world didn’t matter!
And:
622.407 mph × 1.609344 = 1,001.666971
1,014.513 km/h × 0.621371192 = 630.3891524
which explains the apparent errors in the third decimal place that have been puzzling me.
-
How can I resist this opportunity - to ask a question about clock accuracy? I can't, so - - -
When was some form of electronic sensing to start and stop timing clocks initiated? I've seen the photos from Bonneville and El Mirage showing humans clicking a stopwatch to start and to stop, and eventually that was replaced by either what we use today -- "electric eyes" or perhaps a predecessor such as a trip wire. But whatever - if a human was starting and stopping the clocks, how can accuracy of a thousandth of a second be claimed, since reaction time is not only appreciably longer than that tiny interval, but there's also a large amount of possible variation in the reaction time from one timer person to that of another?
Maybe electronic timing is as old as land speed records, but if it isn't - what method was used to verify accuracy when it was done by humans?
-
Electrical timing apparatus was in use at Brooklands (UK) in 1909. This might have been the first in the world, but I don't know for sure.
See attached contemporary report. My understanding is that this record was decided to be 1 kilometre in 17.761 seconds, so presumably considered accurate to 1/1000 second.
-
Thanks. That leaves the question open about when electrical/electronic timing moved to the US, but now we have the UK taken care of.
-
Electrical timing apparatus was in use at Brooklands (UK) in 1909. This might have been the first in the world, but I don't know for sure.
See attached contemporary report. My understanding is that this record was decided to be 1 kilometre in 17.761 seconds, so presumably considered accurate to 1/1000 second.
There is a big difference between accuracy and resolution. ...like a high school student using a calculator to solve a physics problem-- wrong answer but wrong with eight decimal places.
Regards, Neil Tucson, AZ
-
.............................Ratliff...... :cheers:
-
Standing start (SS) mile - World Records.
I am not sure when the SS mile was 'brought back' as an approved distance by the FIA ....
Mayoman's extract from the 1968 version of the International Sporting Code shows that the SS mile was an approved distance at that time.
...
If the racers had a fully timed standing mile event, with two runs in each direction, completed within 60 minutes, many World records could probably be established (or could be broken).
...
Can you remind me when it became two runs in each direction? :-o :-o :-D
January 1911 was when the Europeans started the requirement for two passes in opposite directions. The USA did not bother for many years after that date. The 60 minutes for the shorter distances trurn around came later (I believe instigated by the RAC MSA at the request of Malcolm Campbell).
Malcolm, Derby, England
-
Thanks. That leaves the question open about when electrical/electronic timing moved to the US, but now we have the UK taken care of.
Probably when the European drivers, competing under "FIA" regulations. started to compete at Daytona Beach and then Bonneville and the timing had to be actuated by the passage of the vehicle (as it does to this day). So go to Segrave, Eyston, etc.......
Malcolm, Derby, England.
-
two way records
The two way record was since 1911 in the rule book, but it was not before the 24th June 1914.... when Hornsted, using the Blitzen-Benz #3 at Brooklands, set the first record under this new rule....very interesting...the average of this record was slower than the last certified one way record....205 km/h one way....199 km/h two way.....
one of the reason was, that some racer used for the record attempt a extreme downhill road to set a new record...so a British gentleman who was involved in a company with the name Rolls & Royce...
timing in the beginning was done with a string crossing the road....
the one hour timing was 1925 or 26 the first time used....and it looks that the request was by Malcolm Campbell
-
In an earlier posting TrickyDicky you mentioned the use of 1% improvement for the necessary approval of a class record set over a particular measured distance and starting method.
When there was this 1% requirement, it was applied to the various world records for each of the distances, even though groups, classes, capacities or weights are not taken into account.
Look at the FIA standing start 1 mile 'world' record (BMW, Hydrogen car) and then at the slightly faster 1 mile standing start record in the FIA nornally aspirated 250cc class.
Nothing has been changed, even though the "1% improvement rule" has now been removed from Appendix D.
[A British driver is not being acknowledged for his performance being the 'best in the world'].
Do you mean that as a result of the rule modification "a British driver is not being acknowledged..." ?
If so, a bit of whinge, don't you think? After all, said British driver was in fact credited with the mile record set during the same pair of runs.
Or do you think the records should be re-evaluated under the current rules, rather than the rules in effect at the time?
-
I guess I'm opening the spigot earlier any more -- I'm having a h-ell of a time following all this.
-
I finally looked it up after seeing the words for a bunch of posts - and years. Whinge and whine are basically the same in the present usage. To whinge and to whine means to complain excessively and continuingly (new word, but it's better than continuously).
Whinge is British, whine is American. Whine does also mean a high pitched sound, often but not always annoying, and includes the concept of a kid whining in a complaining manner, or perhaps the meshing of gears in a cam gear drive.
Back to the Sinsheim topic.
-
In an earlier posting TrickyDicky you mentioned the use of 1% improvement for the necessary approval of a class record set over a particular measured distance and starting method.
When there was this 1% requirement, it was applied to the various world records for each of the distances, even though groups, classes, capacities or weights are not taken into account.
Look at the FIA standing start 1 mile 'world' record (BMW, Hydrogen car) and then at the slightly faster 1 mile standing start record in the FIA nornally aspirated 250cc class.
Nothing has been changed, even though the "1% improvement rule" has now been removed from Appendix D.
[A British driver is not being acknowledged for his performance being the 'best in the world'].
Do you mean that as a result of the rule modification "a British driver is not being acknowledged..." ?
If so, a bit of whinge, don't you think? After all, said British driver was in fact credited with the mile record set during the same pair of runs.
Or do you think the records should be re-evaluated under the current rules, rather than the rules in effect at the time?
TD,
I could not understand how an unwritten rule for the acknowledgement of the fastest over the prescribed distance which was meant to be "without regard to class, category or group" was being applied to the (at the time - 2006) "World Records" for four or more wheeled vehicles. My 'whinge' (just the once in writing actually - SSS) at the time was made to the FIA who confirmed they applied the 1% improvement for a second time, not just for the driver/vehicle to get into the records list in their class/category/group in the first place.
The fastest standing start mile average record speed is in the 250cc normally aspirated class at 98.093 mph (an International record), but BMW hold the standing start 1 mile World Record speed at 97.993 mph with their Hydrogen car. (This used to be a 'World Record' but is now called an 'Absolute World Record').
My observation was that no retrospective changes would be made, even though the 1% rule has now disappeared.
But consider this: if a vehicle sets a standing start mile world record in its own class at say 98 mph, [having improved on any existing record by .001 mph], then Tony Moir would still be denied an Absolute World Record, even though his ratified speed from 2006 does exist in the same record book.
Malcolm, Derby, England
PS - Stan, be happy that the SCTA and some other governing organisations accept that a faster speed does not have to rely upon any set percentage improvement over an existing speed.
-
1933 John Cobb – 102.52 mph
1934 Rudolf Caracciola – 117.226 mph
1937 Hans Stuck – 124.957 mph
1937 Bernd Rosemeyer – 138.675 mph
1960 Mickey Thompson – 149.23 mph and 149.93 mph
2004 G. Weber – 97.693 mph
2006 Tony Moir – 98.093 mph
Who is unjustly being denied recognition as holder of the Absolute World Record?
-
1960 Mickey Thompson – 149.23 mph and 149.93 mph
Who is unjustly being denied recognition as holder of the Absolute World Record?
[/quote
When you find out from Paris why the records have not been retained on their listing for records up to the 60's, please let us know.
Malcolm, Derby, England.
-
1933 John Cobb – 102.52 mph
1934 Rudolf Caracciola – 117.226 mph
1937 Hans Stuck – 124.957 mph
1937 Bernd Rosemeyer – 138.675 mph
1960 Mickey Thompson – 149.23 mph and 149.93 mph
2004 G. Weber – 97.693 mph
2006 Tony Moir – 98.093 mph
Who is unjustly being denied recognition as holder of the Absolute World Record?
Tricky,
don't confuse.....All this speeds are different classes/displacements....Rosemeyer's 138 record was with a 5-8 liter engine....Mickey Thompson's 149,93 was also with a 5-8 liter (305 - 488 ci) engine, the 149,23 with a 8 liter (488 ci) and more engine......
the 149,93 was an unlimited WSR and international Class B, the 149,23 was international Class A record
the other record from 1937 was also a Rosemeyer record, but in the 3-5 liter Class, which beats Caracciola's record from 1934 in the same Class....
-
When you find out from Paris why the records have not been retained on their listing for records up to the 60's, please let us know.
Malcolm, Derby, England.
Malcolm,
I am a rank amateur at this game. If you really want to find out, I suggest trying David Tremayne or other historians who will have more knowledge and credibility in the eyes of Paris.
Failing that, the Speed Record Club may be able to fill in the background. :evil:
-
Tricky,
don't confuse.....All this speeds are different classes/displacements....Rosemeyer's 138 record was with a 5-8 liter engine....Mickey Thompson's 149,93 was also with a 5-8 liter (305 - 488 ci) engine, the 149,23 with a 8 liter (488 ci) and more engine......
the 149,93 was an unlimited WSR ...
Does anyone know whether Mickey Thompson's unlimited WSR was ever broken?
-
Not really wanting to continue beating a dead horse to death, I am compelled to share my notice of a change in the 2014 FIA International Sporting Code, effective January 1, 2014.
Article 20 – Definitions
Page 74
Outright World Land Speed Record: A record recognized by the FIA as the best flying start Mile result with an Automobile, not taking the class category or group of the car into account.
Not the kilometer?
This is curious, considering the mile is only used in the United Kingdom and the United States; except for the auto racing powerhouses of Am. Samoa, Bahamas, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Falkland Islands, Grenada, Guam, Myanmar, The N. Mariana Islands, Samoa, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & The Grenadines, St. Helena, St. Kitts & Nevis, the Turks & Caicos Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
In the 2013 FIA International Sporting Code, effective January 1, 2013 it currently states:
Chapter II – Nomenclature and Definitions
Page 20
37bis. Outright world land speed record
A record recognised by the FIA as the best flying start result obtained with a vehicle, not taking the class category or group of the car into account.
It had always been the fastest World Record (typically flying start kilometer OR mile) would be the Outright World Land Speed Record.
The MILE?
Really?
-
The horse died a couple of pages ago.
-
Yes, Stan, but flogging it is so satisfying. :roll:
-
...
Article 20 – Definitions
Page 74
Outright World Land Speed Record: A record recognized by the FIA as the best flying start Mile result with an Automobile, not taking the class category or group of the car into account.
...
Perhaps the French text says "kilometre"?. :-) :-)
-
Outright World Land Speed Record: A record recognized by the FIA as the best flying start Mile result with an Automobile, not taking the class category or group of the car into account.
The US racers (including Stan and SSS) should be pleased, as this ruling - because of the definition of Automobile - recognises the record speed set by Don Vesco, which is being challenged by other US racers and by an Australian, as being an Outright World Record.
Malcolm, Derby, England.
-
Outright World Land Speed Record: A record recognized by the FIA as the best flying start Mile result with an Automobile, not taking the class category or group of the car into account.
The US racers (including Stan and SSS) should be pleased, as this ruling - because of the definition of Automobile - recognises the record speed set by Don Vesco, which is being challenged by other US racers and by an Australian, as being an Outright World Record.
Malcolm, Derby, England.
So the FIA will in effect be recognising an Absolute Wheel-Driven Land Speed Record, from 1 January 2014?
[Being picky, I think you meant Absolute World Record, rather than Outright World Record.]
-
Outright World Land Speed Record: A record recognized by the FIA as the best flying start Mile result with an Automobile, not taking the class category or group of the car into account.
The US racers (including Stan and SSS) should be pleased, as this ruling - because of the definition of Automobile - recognises the record speed set by Don Vesco, which is being challenged by other US racers and by an Australian, as being an Outright World Record.
Malcolm, Derby, England.
Sorry to reply again to the same point, but I have just been reading the 2014 International Sporting Code (no comments please).
It appears that from 1 January 2014 the FIA is demoting all records set by thrust-driven vehicles by only recognising them as class World Records.
In order to be classified as an Outright World Land Speed Record or an Absolute World Record the vehicle must be wheel-driven. Is that the intention or have I misunderstood something?
So we will have Don Vesco as holder of the Outright World Land Speed Record and Andy Green only holder of the Jet class World Record. Bizarre . . . . . :-o
-
The rule writers have until 31st december to add back the word 'special' in front of automobiles to correct the error for the absolute speed record at least.
Seems that someone has forgotten about the jet and rocket classification and that the fastest 'cars' in the world do exist and they are not called 'automobiles'.
Malcolm, Derby, England
-
FIA Land Speed Records Commission president Dennis Dean confirms that it is an issue with the wording only and there was never any intent to downgrade thrust driven records. Nor should it be read as saying that in future only wheel driven automobiles qualify for the Outright Land Speed Record title. Expect the wording to be clarified.
My head hurts. Can we close this off now :-(
Robin
-
My head hurts. Can we close this off now :-(
Robin
I thought you would be 'hurting' over managing a streamliner bike project which needs to be ready early next year to be tested to take on the US racers in the summer. :-D
Malcolm, Derby, England
-
hey!
Girls and boys!
three categories: production, special construction (wheel driven) and thrust
one big dog in each and out of those come the top dog.
hence, we got A. Green as top dog (aka dead dog), D. Vesco Special Construction and I don't give a broken bra strap about who has the production record since it is all about money anyway.