Talk:ThrustSSC

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ThrustSSC article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 15, 2008, October 15, 2013, and October 15, 2017.

Pictures?

Why have the pictures been removed? G-Man 19:04, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I put the pics on there originally and somehow I'm also responsible for losing them! It seems to have happened when I bolded the Record statement at the bottom of the article, I can't imagine how!!

So I've reverted them back again.
Thanks for noticing.
Adrian Pingstone 21:45, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thrust 2

Was this vehicle called the Thrust 2 in the press? I remember when the record got broken and set at over 700mph, but it was by the "Thrust 2", I have never heard of the ThrustSCC. Borb 19:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. Thrust2 was Richard Noble's car before ThrustSSC. I think it got the land speed record in 1983, but didn't go supersonic. -- Solipsist 19:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But I distinctly remember it being called the Thrust 2 when it broke the record and it was definately not the record that was broken in 1983. - Borb 20:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Thrust 2 is from 1983, so maybe the news you heard (newspaper or tv or whatever) got mixed up. It was and is the SSC.

Borb is correct. At the time a number of journalists got confused and referred to ThrustSSC as Thrust2. Jeremy Davey

Average for flying mile faster than for flying kilometre

Any idea why this is? Lisiate 03:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The parts of the run which count are fixed beforehand rather than being the fastest parts. The fastest kilometre of the run cannot be slower than the fastest mile, but this was not 'the' kilometre. It is an odd way of measuring the record but historically consistant. PeterGrecian 09:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the fastest kilometre can be slower than the fastest mile under at least one fairly pathological situation! For example if the speed dips in the middle of the fastest mile, it can be that the two peaks in speed are too far apart to be in the fastest kilometre. Then the fastest kilometre will only have one peak of speed, and if the peaks are short enough, then the average kilometre will be slower than the fastest mile (because a kilometre is more than half a mile, but only has one peak of speed)!WolfKeeper 21:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right! Impeccable logic. I think though, the reason for the discrepancy was the one I gave. There is a graph of speed against distance for the record run on p330 of "Thrust" (paperback ed.) which shows the "high speed cruise" which was unique to the teams approach. I'll put this in the article at some stage. PeterGrecian 09:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a twist to this one, as WLSR afficionados may already be aware. When Richard Noble broke the record in 1983 with Thrust2, he only broke the kilometer record by the required 1%. He exceeded the mile record of Blue Flame, but not quite by the required margin. As Blue Flame was a 3-wheeler and therefore in a different category, Richard's mile record still took precedence. I'm not sure what the situation would have been if the two cars had been in the same category!

Another point of interest is that the measured mile and measured kilometer are not normally co-centred for these record attempts. Only three timing 'traps' are used: one to start (stop in the opposite direction) both times, one to stop (start) the km, then one to stop (start) the mile. Three times are therefore quoted: the mile, the km, and 'between the traps' (meaning 'between the stop (start) traps'.Jeremy Davey

Copyright Thrust pic

I have received the following somewhat unfriendly message in my e-mail, from <address removed - it is a private email address and should not have been published without permission> -

I see you've uploaded an image of mine to Wikipedia and marked it as free for use by all. This came to my attention when I found people using it for commercial purposes without my permission. I retain the copyright to all my images and would never make them available for free general use. ALL uses of my images require prior permission first, even if that permission is given for free.

Please advise by return why you thought you could breach my copyright in this manner, and what you intend to do to rectify that breach.

Jeremy Davey
ThrustSSC Webmaster and SatComms

I have removed the picture I assume he's talking about (it would have been useful if he had given me the filename) and am writing back to him to explain. How odd that a pic of a major British achievement has to be removed! I do not intend to ask him for some kind of permission because I understand nothing of copyright and do not intend to get involved in such matters. In any case, for some years now I have only put onto WP pics off my own camera, so that problems of this sort cannot arise for me now. I leave it to others to fully delete the pic off WP. - Adrian Pingstone 08:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is fairly simple really. Whoever took the photo *automatically* owns it. They can sell or license the rights to it, if they want, but they don't have to it, because it's theirs. Copyright runs out something like 50 years after the person dies.WolfKeeper 08:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I really meant that I don't understand the choice of copyright messages available, rather than not understanding the principle of copyright. In any case, as I say above, the matter is academic because I put on only my own pics now. Nevertheless, thanks for writing - Adrian Pingstone 09:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes get made from time to time. It is possible that the copyright statements on the original source site was originally different, although the 'Not for free distribution' note on the image description page suggests that a licensing problem was already evident. However, Jeremy Davey's, email seems quite straightforward and we need to respect that. I've flagged the image as a Copyvio for deletion on Commons and removed the links from the pages where it was being used on other language Wikis. -- Solipsist 10:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be worth getting in touch with them via their website. Firstly it strikes me as surprising that the email comes from a hotmail account, and also the language is rather abrupt. I see on the official website it reads: "The text and images on this Web Site are the copyright property of SSC Programme Ltd, except where otherwise stated (a number of copyright holders incl. Jeremy Davey tho some of his pics are copyrighted SSC Programme Ltd). Text and images from this site may be used free-of-charge for reporting purposes only. For any other use, please contact us at thrust.news AT battlement.digital.co.uk". So I guess the question is - is a wikipedia article "reporting", or doing something else? - Hakluyt bean 13:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting you remark on the Hotmail account because I expressed surprise about the Hotmail address when I wrote my reply to him - Adrian Pingstone 20:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, look at it like this. You find that people are using your photo for profit and, when you ask why they are doing so without permission, they tell you that user Arpingstone on Wikipedia made it available free for ANY use. How would you feel? In the circumstances I think my email was quite reasonable, and I would add that no apology has been received for his actions.

You then find that he's quoting your PRIVATE email address (that you guard carefully for fear of the spammers ever getting hold of it) in a public forum. How do you then feel?

If you did make a note of my email address, I'd be most grateful if you could delete it. It is for personal and private use only. If anyone does want to contact me for permission to use any of my images, there are other ways of doing that.

Thanks, Jeremy

I intended the following phrase in my email to be an apology - "sometimes I will make a mistake in unintentionally adding a copyright picture". I regarded "mistake" and "unintentional" as being my apology. You say that you expected more but the unfriendly tone of your message left me not inclined to issue a stronger apology.

I did quote your e-mail address (what other ways would there be of contacting you if other Wikipedians wanted to talk Copyright with you?) but did you notice that I expressed the dots and the @ as words so that spam harvesters could not gather it. However, I should not have quoted it so I strongly apologise for that mistake.

I uploaded the picture to Wikipedia on the June 3rd 2003, over three years ago, at which time I had no understanding of what was and was not acceptable to upload. I would not make such a mistake now because I play very safe and only upload pictures off own camera. The upload was made with the best of intentions - Adrian Pingstone 13:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to Wikipedia with a particular interest in ThrustSCC I would like to apologise for any mistakes and errors concerning the images. It is particularly unfortunate since I think that we who edit here are pretty keen on ThrustSCC and its achievements, and have a high opinion of its team members. I am not expert in the copyright issues but feel that we should get the text of the article to a high standard before carefully seeking images. PeterGrecian 13:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, chaps, let's draw a line under this now. I think we all understand that Adrian made an honest mistake, and I think we all understand my need to protect my copyright.

Peter's point is the important one - getting a high-quality article on ThrustSSC into this globally-significant resource. If you would like my help with that, please just say so. And if you have a means of putting images into it with the necessary credits and copyright statements, I'd be happy to provide plenty.

Regards, Jeremy

Thanks, Jeremy, for your understanding that I made a mistake. Line duly drawn - Adrian Pingstone 18:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Speyed?

It's mentioned she used 2 Speys, but I see no mention of total thrust. So what was it? Garfield 11:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Speed of Sound

The Speed of sound is 770mph,
So they did not break the sound barrier!

But the speed of sound is variable, depending on prevailing conditions (check the maths in the article),

and the sound barrier is not quite the same thing -- check the articles and you'll see...

EdJogg (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The speed of sound is variable, being around 767 mph at sea level, but it decreases with altitude.

The fact that ThrustSSC made audible sonic booms proved the car exceeded Mach 1.0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.17 (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a huge conversation about that this car can go faster than the speed of light and I believe you and your opinion. Alredgefecececceef (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was not the first vehicle on land to break the sound barrier.

Here is an exerpt from the end of the "Sound Barrier" article.

Breaking the sound barrier on land The sound barrier was first broken in a vehicle in a sustained way on land in 1948 by a rocket-powered test vehicle at Muroc Air Force Base (now Edwards AFB) in California, United States. It was powered by 6,000 lbs (27 kN) of thrust, reaching 1,019 mph (1,640 km/h).[12]

Not to say that ThrustSSC isnt the fastest vehicle to date nor am i saying that this isnt the first private vehicle to break the sound barrier. But this isnt the first overall.

The World Motor Sport Council does not recognise rocket sleds as "land vehicles". cmɢʟee ☎✉ 18:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thurst SSC

This information is very great for my report.I have lots of intrest to it and I thankyou for giving info. to the puplic!!!!

PS. Good luck on the donations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.198.127 (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thrust SSC or ThrustSSC

Though many secondary sources spell the name of the car "Thrust SSC" (2 words), the official site spells it "ThrustSSC" (1 word). I'll fix the inconsistent spelling in the article using the latter spelling. cmɢʟee'τaʟκ'maιʟ 20:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noble-Orange/Intel dispute

Is it worth adding Richard Noble's claim that Orange and Intel used the image of ThrustSSC without permission in their TV advertisement in June 2012, as in this BBC news article? cmɢʟee ☎✉ 18:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for it. The BBC source is solid. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please add it. Widefox (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've written up this section based on the cited article. Please feel free to edit or add any info you think useful. Thanks! cmɢʟee ☎✉ 17:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Run history

I propose replacing this whole section with a sentence with reference linking to the copyrighted site. My two objections: 1. copyright (anyone?) 2. undue weight. Widefox (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to keep it, although the table could be collapsed by default.

It would be useful to expand the description of the runs in this article, at least at the "campaign" level. What was the goal of each group of runs, and what did each campaign achieve? Why were some runs deliberately quite slow (they were technical developments, not record attempts)? How had the car been developed between each campaign? We're lucky here in that, unlike the pre-war teams, we still have access to detailed records of how a project was developed, not merely the headline results of when a record was broken. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did not mention the copyright infringement. I have removed the section and updated the deadlink as I do not see any permission for use per their website copyright notice. Widefox (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous advantages compared to the salt deserts of the Western United States?

Just what are these advantages? Rsduhamel (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages that I can think of would be:

Jordan is closer to Britain,
sand deserts are less corrosive than salt deserts (although both sand and salt can be abrasive). Stepho talk 04:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consumption ?

18 l/s and 1200 km/h that makes 18 l/s * 3600 s/h = 58200 l/h and therefore not 5.5 l but something like 55 l/km an IP 20:59, 1 Feb 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.114.190.76 (talk)

I corrected the article as per the above --Mrrash (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Light sound speed

I think that this car goes faster than the sound of light post opinion down below on what you think and discovered. Alredgefecececceef (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actual power output at Mach 1 is 76 MW

This article has two guesses at the power output of Thrust SSC, different from each other by a huge margin, and both are wrong. It is a simple calculation to work out the power of a moving object: Power = Force x Velocity. If the value for the combined thrust of the two engines is correctly stated as 223 kN, then multiplying this by the speed which is 340 metres per second we get 76 MW which is 102,000 bhp. If no one objects to this figure I shall change the article accordingly in a few days time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrrash (talk • contribs) 12:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC) --Mrrash (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented this update along with the thermal efficiency of the vehicle --Mrrash (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Collett & Sons Relocating Thrust SSC in 2014.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph at Coventry Transport Museum

The article now has two images of ThrustSSC at its current location in the museum (first two images below). While the light and noise level are better, due to foreshortening, they don't show the shape as well as the previous image (third image below). Does anyone have any objection to keeping the second to show its placement and the third to show its shape?