1. Status of project financially 2. Potential locations 3. Status of a potential car 4. Your ongoing role in the project 5. What we can do to make it happen
-Some kind of timeline, even a rough one. -What are the biggest challenges, mostly in terms of engineering, but also I'm guessing there's probably bureaucratic/legal challengew Has the car been built? Or track? A look at either/both weoukd be great. Thanx
I think that the last video titled why it costs £14,000,000 to drive a car upside down" said it all really, it's either gonna take a looong time really not at all
I think that the last video titled why it costs £14,000,000 to drive a car upside down" said it all really, it's either gonna take a looong time really not at all
@LeTangKichiro Trying to get sponsor attention? You need a proper plan and BOM before sponsors even look at the thing, and he just created videos around the planning process
So they only went 10% faster than during the monza gp of 2005 (Räikkönen 370km/h). Why didnt they ran on normal tarmac since one of the first test runs was well over 400km/h?
This car did 413 kph 256-257 mph and this car can accelerate from 0-186 mph or 0-300 km/h in 8 seconds Which no Indy car in existence will do that F1 cars were easily hitting 0-100 kph in 2.2 seconds 0-200 kph in 4.2 seconds or 4.5 seconds Indy cars cannot do that kind of acceleration
@@Smzxe Indy cars aren't built for acceleration but for top speed. No current or former race spec F1 cars could do 400 kph. The reason this F1 car was able to was due to heavy aero modifications. Even though this F1 car conformed to current F1 rules, this configuration would never be used in any actual race. Indy cars with similar aero mods could do 400 kph if not higher. There's are UA-cam videos showing race simulations of an F1 car vs an Indy car on an oval track. The F1 car would quickly jump ahead from a standing start to lead by a wide margin by the end of the 1st lap. But by the 3rd lap the Indy car would have passed the F1 car and by the 6th or 7th lap the Indy car would have lapped the F1 car.
@paddle_shift there's a race between Indycar and a 2007 F1 car the F1 cars destroyed indycar on 5-6 laps so indy car isn't coming close to a F1 car those were slowest straight line F1 cars as well 2005 McLaren Mercedes MP4-20 F1 did 372 km/h on Monza basically 1100 meters it could do 380-390 km/h VMAX if it had longer straight Indycar will take 5 miles to reach the same speed
From this I can see they needed more external input from LSR runners like Breedlove and Noble which would have given them answers quicker. I'd have also stuck Andy Green into the cockpit to drive it.
I stripped and helped rebuild this car for it's new owner after it had done the speed attempt. You would be amazed just how much damage the salt had done.....
In the end, didn’t they actually establish a record, for there not previously having been one, as I believe the runs are scored on a two way average, and the 400 kph, being a target?
power is force times velocity. force is drag. drag is proportional to velocity. power goes as velocity squared. but even with "zero" drag (no friction, no turbulence) , you still have to move the air out of the way of the car, which requires giving the air a kinetic energy of 1/2 m v^2 (we do remember that one, right). where m is the density of the air (1.2 kg/m^3, irrc) times the volume V, where V is crossectional area A of the car times the length it travels per unit time (aka: velocity v), so now you got an energy going as velocity cubed. or something like that.
You're term "zero" drag doesn't make sense. "moving air out of the way" is incorporated in the drag formula already. There is a mistake in your calculations where V is crossectional area A of the car times the length it travels per unit time (aka: velocity v) the drag formula is F = ½ density of air (ρ) × velocity of the air (or object)²× drag constant × crossectional area. You see your E = ½mv² formula hiding in there, but you can also notice that the area is a separate variable. But as you noticed, that leaves distance. The mistake you made is that you took the distance from the speed. But that's incorrect. The amount of distance you travel is independent of your speed. You can decide a short or long distance traveled if you want. That distance actually comes from the formula for work. Aka the formula that relates Force to Energy. W = F × d where Work is correlated with energy here. So you can turn it into E = F × d Thus if you put the drag formula as F in that equation you get E = ½ ρ × v² × A × d. Since ρ is mass times volume aka distance cubed. you can theoretically stripe away that volume against A × d which is also a distance cubed to end back up with your E = ½mv² formula. lastly you can't set "zero" drag, since that would make the drag constant zero, ending with zero energy. This is because the drag constant already includes shape drag on top of surface drag (due to boundary layer) and turbulence.
OK! You have spoken! I will do a Project Inversion update in the next few weeks!
What would you like to know?
1. Status of project financially
2. Potential locations
3. Status of a potential car
4. Your ongoing role in the project
5. What we can do to make it happen
@@Diskord1982exactly, and also when it will be done
-Some kind of timeline, even a rough one.
-What are the biggest challenges, mostly in terms of engineering, but also I'm guessing there's probably bureaucratic/legal challengew
Has the car been built? Or track? A look at either/both weoukd be great.
Thanx
I'd like to know when the April fools joke ends
i'd really like to know what kind of engine you are planning to put in the car. hopefully something that wil really roar in a tunnel
The car on the roof of a tunnel project has been scrapped, hasn't it.
That project needs a Marlboro sponsorship
I think that the last video titled why it costs £14,000,000 to drive a car upside down" said it all really, it's either gonna take a looong time really not at all
I was wondering the same thing, it might be a bit I think
Yeah that was maybe a little bit too ambitious.
It was a project for content, never meant to be real.
Where are the updates on the upside down project?
I think that the last video titled why it costs £14,000,000 to drive a car upside down" said it all really, it's either gonna take a looong time really not at all
You mean the project Inversion?
You actually think a little amateur UA-camr is gonna do something like that 😂
@@thechamp8162 No, but why would he make a grandiose announcement then? Just talking about motorsports would be enough.
@LeTangKichiro Trying to get sponsor attention? You need a proper plan and BOM before sponsors even look at the thing, and he just created videos around the planning process
when i saw the title i thought this might be about project inversion.
anything new on that?
My favorite part is that this is an indirect promotion of a new line of cigarettes. Great.
BAR Honda made sure to advertise it almost every race. Their engines smoked a lot.
Quite cool that the history of the BAR is that they also achieved the fastest F1 lap and Fastest F1 speed in circuit as Mercedes AMG Petronas.
So they only went 10% faster than during the monza gp of 2005 (Räikkönen 370km/h). Why didnt they ran on normal tarmac since one of the first test runs was well over 400km/h?
But can it drive upside down?
I’m not sure we’re gonna find out.. 🤔
Very interesting and cool subject... I was unaware of this. Fascinating from an engineering POV.
400 kph is about 248 mph. Indy cars could do this,
This car did 413 kph 256-257 mph and this car can accelerate from 0-186 mph or 0-300 km/h in 8 seconds
Which no Indy car in existence will do that
F1 cars were easily hitting 0-100 kph in 2.2 seconds 0-200 kph in 4.2 seconds or 4.5 seconds
Indy cars cannot do that kind of acceleration
@@Smzxe Indy cars aren't built for acceleration but for top speed. No current or former race spec F1 cars could do 400 kph. The reason this F1 car was able to was due to heavy aero modifications. Even though this F1 car conformed to current F1 rules, this configuration would never be used in any actual race. Indy cars with similar aero mods could do 400 kph if not higher. There's are UA-cam videos showing race simulations of an F1 car vs an Indy car on an oval track. The F1 car would quickly jump ahead from a standing start to lead by a wide margin by the end of the 1st lap. But by the 3rd lap the Indy car would have passed the F1 car and by the 6th or 7th lap the Indy car would have lapped the F1 car.
@paddle_shift there's a race between Indycar and a 2007 F1 car the F1 cars destroyed indycar on 5-6 laps so indy car isn't coming close to a F1 car those were slowest straight line F1 cars as well
2005 McLaren Mercedes MP4-20 F1 did 372 km/h on Monza basically 1100 meters it could do 380-390 km/h VMAX if it had longer straight
Indycar will take 5 miles to reach the same speed
Indy is asphalt
Bonneville is a salt flat, basically dirt
I had a really good time watching this. What an achivement 👏❤️
Thank you for your great post and for taking my mind off the disaster that just happened in America (nearly).
Lucky Strike livery always looked so good.
Im Curious about your opinion on aero effect in a tunnel going upside down
From this I can see they needed more external input from LSR runners like Breedlove and Noble which would have given them answers quicker. I'd have also stuck Andy Green into the cockpit to drive it.
7:24 Saying that drag in air is more intense than in water is... somewhat missing the truth.
Yeah, I know..
From hydrodynamics I always understood water is 999x denser than air.....
You deserve so many more subs!
I stripped and helped rebuild this car for it's new owner after it had done the speed attempt. You would be amazed just how much damage the salt had done.....
I see I'm not the only one interested in the upside down project...
Awesome!
oh good, distraction. thank you for putting this out today of all days
HAHAHA
Yes! Cool subject on a day the country is saved!
If you are in the US we do not speak in kilometers per hour but miles per hour. I hate to have to go to my calculator to convert.
In the end, didn’t they actually establish a record, for there not previously having been one, as I believe the runs are scored on a two way average, and the 400 kph, being a target?
With the advancements of technology over the past 20 years, I think they would easily be able to achieve well over 400kph today.
I yearn for a team to create project like that 919 evo to create F1 car without rules. But it’d be hyper expensive though
youtube tittle nowadays be like: The Fastest Shit (I had diarrhea)
How was that car within the F1 regulations if they completely re-designed it? It didn't even have a rear wing...
Redbull should do this again
Project inversion update please
400kph is 248.5mph
I'm sure steerable rudders were never F1 legal....
Can we just all agree that Project Inversion is scrapped?
Your channel is not just a place to watch videos, it's a platform for learning and personal development. Keep up your important work!♂️🤝🧢
power is force times velocity. force is drag. drag is proportional to velocity. power goes as velocity squared.
but even with "zero" drag (no friction, no turbulence) , you still have to move the air out of the way of the car, which requires giving the air a kinetic energy of 1/2 m v^2 (we do remember that one, right). where m is the density of the air (1.2 kg/m^3, irrc) times the volume V, where V is crossectional area A of the car times the length it travels per unit time (aka: velocity v), so now you got an energy going as velocity cubed.
or something like that.
Power = Speed times force.
Drag is proportional to speed squared.
Thus power is proportional to speed cubed.
You're term "zero" drag doesn't make sense. "moving air out of the way" is incorporated in the drag formula already.
There is a mistake in your calculations where V is crossectional area A of the car times the length it travels per unit time (aka: velocity v)
the drag formula is F = ½ density of air (ρ) × velocity of the air (or object)²× drag constant × crossectional area.
You see your E = ½mv² formula hiding in there, but you can also notice that the area is a separate variable. But as you noticed, that leaves distance.
The mistake you made is that you took the distance from the speed. But that's incorrect. The amount of distance you travel is independent of your speed. You can decide a short or long distance traveled if you want.
That distance actually comes from the formula for work. Aka the formula that relates Force to Energy. W = F × d where Work is correlated with energy here. So you can turn it into E = F × d
Thus if you put the drag formula as F in that equation you get E = ½ ρ × v² × A × d.
Since ρ is mass times volume aka distance cubed. you can theoretically stripe away that volume against A × d which is also a distance cubed to end back up with your E = ½mv² formula.
lastly you can't set "zero" drag, since that would make the drag constant zero, ending with zero energy. This is because the drag constant already includes shape drag on top of surface drag (due to boundary layer) and turbulence.
When upside down car?
You will never set top speed records with open wheel cars
upside down car where
All that effor to promote cancer sticks, kinda sad
Only 250. My c7z with a few mods does 200 easy.
Strange music
I haven't heard of that project before
Hello
hello
to do this on bonevill is dumm , ther lot of highspeedtesttracks , bugatti dit his run in germany
But its only like 50-60 kmh more than regular racing?
What a waste of time money and effort
first!
so what?
first
no u are not
With absolutely nothing of interest to contribute.
Your channel is a kaleidoscope of entertainment and fun. Continue to delight us with your clever humor and original ideas!📟🎈🌷
Your videos are always a delight. Thank you for your skill and creativity.☀️🏚🐴