Who'd have the bottle - Jet / Rocket car?

Well I wont answer then! But try and stop me given the chance!

I would without a shadow of a doubt :-D Sounds like a laugh (except for if you crash...)

no chance!

Not me, you won't see me in the Uni Dragster and that's only got a 750bhp V12.

Probably. I've done most stupid or dangerous things in life.

David

Most of us would if the ride was for free. And those who would decline the offer, would regret it for ever.

Whatever happened to Hammond, nobody forced him into the car. He actually volonteerd for it.

Error is humain and when one sees the evolution at BBC Top Gear it strikes me from time to time that presentators take huge risks or do things -which a professional pilot or the owner of the car would not take- and that they have no reserve when things go wrong.

I remember some out-of-control-actions of Hammond in a Cayenne while the driving of Jeremy can not be qualified as smooth nor efficient. Sometimes they seem on a rubber/clutch burning or car destruction mission rather that testing the car.

Top Gear reporters as well as most of their writing contre-parts may thank heavens for traction control and all the drivers aids on modern cars.

The dragster didn't have those driving aids and Hammond went in on his own device, put his foot down, showed respect nor comprehension of what was about to be unleashed and was out of his limits in a matter of seconds.

Anyway: such is life, things can get nasty, things can bite.

Get well, Hammond and when you are well, drive the car again!

Tom De Moor

How do you know that?

It appears that the incident was caused by mechanical failure.

Having only been driving it for at least 2 days slowly building up the speed over that time.

More so than what is posted by fuckwad socks posting in the name of Ken or Fred about subjects (jet/rocket/dragster cars and neurological injuries) they have f*ck all knowledge about as if it were fact.

Nope

No way ever.

I've had my head in the lion's mouth in a manner of speaking and I won't be going back.

"Bob Sherunckle" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@bt.com:

Bad Breath? ;-)

You ever seen the car run, or ever looked at it close up? No?.................STFU then you cretin!

I never claimed to have. Infact I asked you to explain the difference because I'm not a thrust propulsion expert.

But you sidestepped that one.

I have very little knowledge of jet engines, but have seen that car run on numerous occasions..............its pretty boring really, and I feel its pretty unlikely that it would reach 300mph, without a 2 mile run up.

Wrong again, Ken.

As I said pretty boring, especially in comparsion to any one of the fuel cars likely to be running at a major drag race meeting................

The jet car reminds me very much of a large Hoover...............Have you seen it running for real I wonder?

But thats where you are wrong.

A piston engine gives its best acceleration in "low gear" as it multiplies the torque at the wheels. As it runs out of revs you need to keep increasing the ratio and reducing the available torque at the wheels. Or the thrust at the road if you prefer. A jet engine gives a more or less constant thrust level at any speed. So it may not leave the line as hard, but its rate of acceleration remains the same at all speeds until the thrust - the drag. So the 0 to 100 will be almost the same as the 200 to 300 mph with only aerodynamic losses to effect any change. Plus turbojets cars can only leave the line at part throttle and are only partly spooled up because the brakes and tyres cant hold it still at full power. After launch they can a) open throttle which is a slow increase in thrust unlike reving a car, b) hit afterburner which gets more effective as engine revs climbe. So a jet car is at its worst over the first 1/4 mile where you probably saw it run. Over the next quarter its at full power and has no gears to run out of still accelerating at a better rate than the first 9 second quarter...