Blue Flame/Thrust 2 issue?

[PorkPie]

Yep...that's another point nobody can understand....

a vehicle under FIA rule....means, CAR.....are more difficult to make the turnaround as a "simple" FIM motorcycle.....

and motorcycles mostly running a much shorter course, which make it more easy....

and under FIM a motorcycle is getting double the time for the turnaround....

the FIA explain the stay with the one hour rule, that a change  didn't allowed anymore to compare the records....

in 2014 they changed everything in the rules....more displacement classes, more weight classes....teams which had the record for years could loose now the record....

HOW FAIR IS THAT

Why they done it not the same way as the FIM....when the FIM lost the controll about the record lists....due to too much confusion in the classes in 1979....they simple freeze all records and starts from new....

Pork Pie says " I  stopped to try and understand this Organisation "    year 2024 and they still let Motorcycles have a longer turn around time between runs .

[PorkPie]

...and I thought, everything was properly explained....... ....thanks for taking care once more

...

With 1% rule Thrust does not achieve the speed required to break the record. BF retains absolute record whether it be from the timed mile or km.

Without 1% rule Thrust takes record whether it be from the timed mile or km.

Is it really more difficult than that?

...

Yes! It really is more difficult than that. 

The 1% rule applies when deciding the flying start mile and flying start km records for the thrust powered class of vehicles.
 
Hence Thrust 2 set the mile record but not the km record.  Crucially, Thrust 2's recorded time/speed for the km is not recognised as a record so is no longer in the game.  It might as well not have happened.

When deciding the absolute record the fastest flying start mile and km records are compared, without the 1% rule being applied.  Therefore Thrust 2's mile speed beats BF km and is the absolute record.

Perfectly clear.   

[MAYOMAN]

Tricky Dicky - yes, you are correct.
In 1983, after Thrust 2 set the FIA flying start mile record at 633mph, it was the fastest FIA world record.
So, at that time the fastest FIA world records were:
The Blue Flame flying start kilometer record at 630.388mph  in 1970.
The Thrust 2 flying start mile record at 633mph in 1983.
The FIA absolute world land speed is the FASTEST FIA RECORD in 1983. That was the mile record then.
The 1% rule only applies to set the mile OR kilometer records independently.

The sad part for me was the American Gas Association sponsor's public relations released the wrong record speed (mile, not kilometer) and then lost interest in correcting the error.
Goodyear, likewise, published ads with the same misinformation. Because Gary refused to sign a contract with Goodyear they never corrected the record speed, and just supported Breedlove's  new cars. They even removed Gabelich's name from the photo of The Blue Flame in their ads.

[MAYOMAN]

Here is the Goodyear ad.

[Gazza]

...

With 1% rule Thrust does not achieve the speed required to break the record. BF retains absolute record whether it be from the timed mile or km.

Without 1% rule Thrust takes record whether it be from the timed mile or km.

Is it really more difficult than that?

...

When deciding the absolute record the fastest flying start mile and km records are compared, without the 1% rule being applied.  Therefore Thrust 2's mile speed beats BF km and is the absolute record.

Perfectly clear.   

Tricky. This is exactly the same as the second option in my inner quote above?

And another thing. The FIA should have dispensed with the mile timing when they took over leaving just the km timing. We now have the crazy situation where Thrust is considered the mile record holder and BF (with 1% rule) is considered the km record holder. Although this is technically correct it causes confusion and division. If they are both joint record holders why aren't they shown as such?

What a mess!

[PorkPie]

WHY A MESS

the explanation in the rule book is straight on...and the FIA is using this rule 100 percent correct

1. up to 2010 the 1 percent rule count
2. Thrust II - Noble was over the mile 1 percent faster than the Blue Flame - Gabelich - and got the record
3. Thrust II - Noble was over the kilo slower than necessary for the 1 Percent - Blue Flame - Gabelich - keps the record
4. the faster of the two classes - mile or kilo - is the absolute - outright - record
5. Thrust II - Noble mile record is faster than the Blue Flame - Gabelich record - Thrust II - Noble is the holder of the absolute record

6. still in 1997, when the Thrust SSC - Green - set his first record at Black Rock and became the holder of the mile and kilo record - it was just thrust power and no split in jet and rocket

7. so, Thrust II - Noble and Blue Flame - Gabelich records became historic...

8. when the FIA split the unlimited class, which is actually thrust power class, into jet and rocket classes, the Thrust SSC - Green - stayed as the absolute record holder and the holder of the jet   class and the Blue Flame - Gabelich - became the holder of the rocket class, as no other rocket vehicle was faster since 1970


WHERE IS HERE A MESS

...

With 1% rule Thrust does not achieve the speed required to break the record. BF retains absolute record whether it be from the timed mile or km.

Without 1% rule Thrust takes record whether it be from the timed mile or km.

Is it really more difficult than that?

...

When deciding the absolute record the fastest flying start mile and km records are compared, without the 1% rule being applied.  Therefore Thrust 2's mile speed beats BF km and is the absolute record.

Perfectly clear.   

Tricky. This is exactly the same as the second option in my inner quote above?

And another thing. The FIA should have dispensed with the mile timing when they took over leaving just the km timing. We now have the crazy situation where Thrust is considered the mile record holder (without 1% rule) and BF is considered the km record holder. Although this is technically correct it causes confusion and division. If they are both joint record holders why aren't they shown as such?

What a mess!

[Gazza]

WHY A MESS

the explanation in the rule book is straight on...and the FIA is using this rule 100 percent correct

1. up to 2010 the 1 percent rule count
2. Thrust II - Noble was over the mile 1 percent faster than the Blue Flame - Gabelich - and got the record
3. Thrust II - Noble was over the kilo slower than necessary for the 1 Percent - Blue Flame - Gabelich - keps the record
4. the faster of the two classes - mile or kilo - is the absolute - outright - record
5. Thrust II - Noble mile record is faster than the Blue Flame - Gabelich record - Thrust II - Noble is the holder of the absolute record

6. still in 1997, when the Thrust SSC - Green - set his first record at Black Rock and became the holder of the mile and kilo record - it was just thrust power and no split in jet and rocket

7. so, Thrust II - Noble and Blue Flame - Gabelich records became historic...

8. when the FIA split the unlimited class, which is actually thrust power class, into jet and rocket classes, the Thrust SSC - Green - stayed as the absolute record holder and the holder of the jet   class and the Blue Flame - Gabelich - became the holder of the rocket class, as no other rocket vehicle was faster since 1970


WHERE IS HERE A MESS

...

With 1% rule Thrust does not achieve the speed required to break the record. BF retains absolute record whether it be from the timed mile or km.

Without 1% rule Thrust takes record whether it be from the timed mile or km.

Is it really more difficult than that?

...

When deciding the absolute record the fastest flying start mile and km records are compared, without the 1% rule being applied.  Therefore Thrust 2's mile speed beats BF km and is the absolute record.

Perfectly clear.   

Tricky. This is exactly the same as the second option in my inner quote above?

And another thing. The FIA should have dispensed with the mile timing when they took over leaving just the km timing. We now have the crazy situation where Thrust is considered the mile record holder (without 1% rule) and BF is considered the km record holder. Although this is technically correct it causes confusion and division. If they are both joint record holders why aren't they shown as such?

What a mess!

PP you have identified the mess in your post (point 2 and 3) ie Thrust and BF both holding the record at the same time via different distances (mile and km). One standardised distance would cut out much confusion and division and ensure we have a single absolute record holder.

This rivals the Campbells Shambols.

[PorkPie]

which distance you like to kick out....?

the mile and the kilo base is historic....since the first record was set in 1898....


had something to do, that the "FIA" had his headquarter in Paris, France...which is KILOMETER

and we got England and USA....which is MILE

what happens with the records which set over the distance which the FIA kicked out.....

you be aware, that in the record list over the flying kilo and mile are records which stand for 80 years and they are not broken to today.....



what will be the ANSWER.................................


the rules are well explained and so, there is no reason to change something....there is no between the chairs situation....

[Stainless1]

I guess I don't see the issue... the fastest is the fastest... now that they split catigories the fastest is still the fastest... 

[Gazza]

which distance you like to kick out....?

the mile and the kilo base is historic....since the first record was set in 1898....


had something to do, that the "FIA" had his headquarter in Paris, France...which is KILOMETER

and we got England and USA....which is MILE

what happens with the records which set over the distance which the FIA kicked out.....

you be aware, that in the record list over the flying kilo and mile are records which stand for 80 years and they are not broken to today.....



what will be the ANSWER.................................


the rules are well explained and so, there is no reason to change something....there is no between the chairs situation....

All the answers to your questions are above except for historical records which we can't do anything about.

Tell me are you in favor of of using the km, all be it informally, to support an alternative record?

[TrickyDicky]

I guess I don't see the issue... the fastest is the fastest... now that they split categories the fastest is still the fastest...

The issue is that when the 1% rule was in force the fastest may not be the record holder.  Even though they are still the fastest. 

[TrickyDicky]

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.

[PorkPie]

this was the main reason why we was fighting for years to get this 1 percent rule OFF,

unfortunately, David Tremayne blocked this for years, before, finally for 2011, this rule was history.....

I guess I don't see the issue... the fastest is the fastest... now that they split categories the fastest is still the fastest...

The issue is that when the 1% rule was in force the fastest may not be the record holder.  Even though they are still the fastest. 

[PorkPie]

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.

[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. . We should remember that BF did not reach its full potential and was theoretically capable of exceeding SSC's records. All we have to do now is convince the Brits    Oh and the French