SSC Tuatara hits 331mph top speed!

[Rodak]

... it fulfills no purpose...

I guess I'll stop climbing mountains then.

[Just_a_fan]

Hate it: This is pointless, dangerous, and a waste of money and resources, and proves comunists to be right, the world is extremelly ill if some people will pay 2M for a car they will barely use when that money could save literally thousands lives or even millions if invested correctly... with the cost of one single car! .

Just last week I was speaking to an in law who said similar about SpaceX being huge amounts of money whic (as she said) could have been used to help endangered animals.

These are interesting arguments, but when one looks at the cost of these things compared to, say, defence budgets, one can see where the real waste is. According to Wiki, defence spending across the whole world came to $1917 billion in 2019. That's more than the GDP of almost every country in the world except for the top 10-15 economies (depending on how you assess GDP).

Now that's waste.

[Just_a_fan]

... it fulfills no purpose...

I guess I'll stop climbing mountains then.

But the climbing of mountains is its own purpose - it's sui generis.

And the view from the top is another reason to climb.

[Big Tea]

Hate it: This is pointless, dangerous, and a waste of money and resources, and proves comunists to be right, the world is extremelly ill if some people will pay 2M for a car they will barely use when that money could save literally thousands lives or even millions if invested correctly... with the cost of one single car! .

Just last week I was speaking to an in law who said similar about SpaceX being huge amounts of money whic (as she said) could have been used to help endangered animals.

These are interesting arguments, but when one looks at the cost of these things compared to, say, defence budgets, one can see where the real waste is. According to Wiki, defence spending across the whole world came to $1917 billion in 2019. That's more than the GDP of almost every country in the world except for the top 10-15 economies (depending on how you assess GDP).

Now that's waste.

While I completely agree with you, how many people does 'defence' keep in jobs? And I do not mean military personnel. Don't know if you are interested enough to look, I just scanned it, there is a study for UK here
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... report.pdf

It says 140,000 but I think they under estimate because they do not include support for those workers. Someone building a ship has to live and get to work, have a GP etc. As in the other case, they pay maybe 20% of that straight back into the coffers, plus a about the same on everything they buy.

It is a minefield, and dammed if we do dammed if we do not.

[DChemTech]

Just last week I was speaking to an in law who said similar about SpaceX being huge amounts of money whic (as she said) could have been used to help endangered animals.

These are interesting arguments, but when one looks at the cost of these things compared to, say, defence budgets, one can see where the real waste is. According to Wiki, defence spending across the whole world came to $1917 billion in 2019. That's more than the GDP of almost every country in the world except for the top 10-15 economies (depending on how you assess GDP).

Now that's waste.

While I completely agree with you, how many people does 'defence' keep in jobs? And I do not mean military personnel. Don't know if you are interested enough to look, I just scanned it, there is a study for UK here
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... report.pdf

It says 140,000 but I think they under estimate because they do not include support for those workers. Someone building a ship has to live and get to work, have a GP etc. As in the other case, they pay maybe 20% of that straight back into the coffers, plus a about the same on everything they buy.

It is a minefield, and dammed if we do dammed if we do not.

All of that is true of course, but it does not mean those people would be unemployed without the military - if we shift funds elsewhere, there will be jobs elsewhere.

[Big Tea]

These are interesting arguments, but when one looks at the cost of these things compared to, say, defence budgets, one can see where the real waste is. According to Wiki, defence spending across the whole world came to $1917 billion in 2019. That's more than the GDP of almost every country in the world except for the top 10-15 economies (depending on how you assess GDP).

Now that's waste.

While I completely agree with you, how many people does 'defence' keep in jobs? And I do not mean military personnel. Don't know if you are interested enough to look, I just scanned it, there is a study for UK here
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... report.pdf

It says 140,000 but I think they under estimate because they do not include support for those workers. Someone building a ship has to live and get to work, have a GP etc. As in the other case, they pay maybe 20% of that straight back into the coffers, plus a about the same on everything they buy.

It is a minefield, and dammed if we do dammed if we do not.

All of that is true of course, but it does not mean those people would be unemployed without the military - if we shift funds elsewhere, there will be jobs elsewhere.

as i said- dammed if we do dammed if we do not

[DChemTech]

All of that is true of course, but it does not mean those people would be unemployed without the military - if we shift funds elsewhere, there will be jobs elsewhere.

as i said- dammed if we do dammed if we do not

ah ok, not quite sure what you meant there, thanks for clarifying

[Just_a_fan]

These are interesting arguments, but when one looks at the cost of these things compared to, say, defence budgets, one can see where the real waste is. According to Wiki, defence spending across the whole world came to $1917 billion in 2019. That's more than the GDP of almost every country in the world except for the top 10-15 economies (depending on how you assess GDP).

Now that's waste.

While I completely agree with you, how many people does 'defence' keep in jobs? And I do not mean military personnel. Don't know if you are interested enough to look, I just scanned it, there is a study for UK here
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... report.pdf

It says 140,000 but I think they under estimate because they do not include support for those workers. Someone building a ship has to live and get to work, have a GP etc. As in the other case, they pay maybe 20% of that straight back into the coffers, plus a about the same on everything they buy.

It is a minefield, and dammed if we do dammed if we do not.

All of that is true of course, but it does not mean those people would be unemployed without the military - if we shift funds elsewhere, there will be jobs elsewhere.

Exactly. The old "if we scrap all of the military spending, we'll put people out of work" assumes that the companies making planes and bombs won't just go and make something else instead. You don't even need to scrap eberything, just send a bit of the money elsewhere.

As an example, US defence spending is about $700bn. NASA's budget is about $22bn. You could double NASA's budget and still have lots of planes and bombs, whilst also doing some decent stuff moving forward to Moon / Mars missions as well as other real science projects. Would the US be any less safe if they spent $50bn on NASA and "only" $670bn on defence? Really? Nope.

(This isn't a dig at our US friends, just an example of budgetary disparities. The UK spends nearly $50bn on defence, for example, and almost bugger all on NASA-type stuff. Much to my annoyance.)

[Phil]

because there is absolutely no need for faster, more powerful road cars - it fulfils no purpose.

There is a purpose: brand recognition, PR, image, exposure.

Being the “best” at something enhances your reputation and as such the desire for people to spend millions buying your product.

That’s all it is. It’s why manufacturers are in F1 too.

These brands like Koenigsegg dont have the legacy or heritage of perhaps Ferrari, so they find different ways to excell. For a small car manufacturer, i presume, investing R&D into building a car that simply drives faster than all others to be relatively “simple” and “cheap” way to compete for accolades. The hardest aspect is probably in the tire tech anyway, which isnt done by them.

Not trying to downplay the achievement btw - 500kmh is incredible anyway you look at it. But apart from lots of brute power and low cw2 and the tire tech... what is there to it?

Ps: arguably drag coefficient is very important for future car tech, especially electric powered vehicles. It’s also the key element in braking these records, so arguably, there is a point to how this R&D could be used to make better cars for the average consumer.

[nzjrs]

Longer analysis of the disputed SSC run

[Phil]

I have to say, i too thought it looked rather fake because i didnt believe a car reaching those speeds would accelerate that hard at the top end.

[Cold Fussion]

What kind of clown car operation is this where they are unable to sync a calibrated GPS sensor with a video camera?

[nzjrs]

What kind of clown car operation is this where they are unable to sync a calibrated GPS sensor with a video camera?

For me the highlight was the only raw data they have, and the data they plan to submit for the world record, was the screen recording of the laptop!

[graham.reeds]

What kind of clown car operation is this where they are unable to sync a calibrated GPS sensor with a video camera?

For me the highlight was the only raw data they have, and the data they plan to submit for the world record, was the screen recording of the laptop!

Because that isn't easy to fake at all!

[P.S.]

Only 107 mph to go!

Can you tell where you got that number from? I just saw a video which clames exaxtly the 107. And with quite some decent explanation: