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 6. A rough timeline . 7. Challenges you are facing with the project *6 and 7* courtesy of other comments.
-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
Blackrock has always had a more stable surface for over 200 mph. The salt develops shockwaves in front of the tires at high speeds which cause all sorts stability issues. Thats why bikes aren't allowed to go over a certain speed at Bonneville anymore.
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.....
Yes. You have to wash em as soon as you leave the saltflats. If the salt is dry it's much better and not much salt gets underneath. I always drive in a rainstorm afterwards.
A while ago now, but it was,fresh from the salt flats. All the fixings were fucked, or full of sand. Like a phosphorus colour, with a dull odour. A very interesting project to be attached to.
21:05 This is one of the first things you should learn when riding a motorcycle. Let it wander, it's stable on its own and it works better when you let it wander. Obviously at high speeds, significant wobble can be dangerous, which is why high end bikes have a damper on them. For most of us though? Just relax.
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?
The actual challenge was doing it on salt, with a car fitting into F1 rules. Going 400kph in itself sounds more like tweaking with aero and gearing, while this took quite a bit more than that.
On a separate note to the video and project inversion. Can someone explain to be with all of the drain covers that have become loose in recent years in F1 why are most tracks using D400 lids which have no requirements to be bolted to the channel drain itself. Some E600 lids and channel drains can be bolted while the vast majority of F900 lids are bolted down for port and airport usage. In my mind while the F900 would be an increase on costs involved would not require a need for the covers to be welded shut, now the risk still exists that a bolt or four can become loose during a race weekend and the entire channel drain cover becoming airborne with a car passing over. But could it be explained why we have the D400 spec as a standard for circuit design.
That reminds me of Burt Munro's unofficial top speed of 341.xx kph back in 1966- that would have been so badass. Comparing his machine to a modern day F1 car with four wheels and the safety shell all around makes it even greater.
We are in the record book at 247 and change in a car built in our garage. That doesn’t make us special. Lots of names in the SCTA record book. The Salt is the last place a man with a wrench can prove his worth and he doesn’t need to sell cigarettes to do it.
At Bonneville we talk in MPH. 400 KPH is a mere 248 MPH & backyard hot rodders make old roadsters & production body door slammers go a lot faster than that but we don't have any corners!
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?
At Bonneville, weight is your friend. We would have made the wheels out of steel. With the budget you guys have. Or like we do. Add loads of lead. Great attempt. Sorry you didn't get that 400. Maybe we can help next time.
All things considered, it was a triumph for Honda and their F1 engineering team. One wonders what could have been if they had not exited F1 in the late 2000's. They seem to have a habit of withdrawing from the sport, as a manufacturer, just as their technology is coming good.
7:18 The effect of drag is more intense in air than it is in water? Water, which is 800 times more dense, 55 times more viscous, and incompressible? What?
What was the cigarette going to be aerodynamic for 400 Mi an hour I mean like what's the link to the cigarette to the I mean other than just being smoked what's the that sounds for that sounds bad to have a cigarette brand for the sake of having a cigarette brand is a real poor on the advertisement point
Introductions to the five videos.... "I'm actually Going to Drive an F1 Car UPSIDE DOWN on the ceiling of a tunnel..." "I'm Going to Drive an F1 Car UPSIDE DOWN in a tunnel..." "I'm Going to Drive a formula Car UPSIDE DOWN in a tunnel..." "Formula1 engines won't work upside down..." "14000000 pounds..." I announce a lot - even upside up, outside of tunnels
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.
Project inversion was never going to happen. I’m embarrassed for you that you’ve even taken it this far. I seriously hope you haven’t invested too much time and money in to it.
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.
The rear fin (rudder) was a moveable aero device that was 'fitted'. Whether it was used or not, makes the car (and therefore the run) null and void. IMHO the whole thing was a cynical mktg. exercise.
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
A top fuel dragster would crush an F1 car in acceleration. This doesn't prove anything. Anyone claiming an Indy car couldn't do 400 kph doesn't understand much.
Remember when Callaway made a 410km/h car out of a Corvette and put it on sale? That was 1988. Makes this seem not so impressive... lol (yes, I know, salt, blah blah blah)
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
6. A rough timeline .
7. Challenges you are facing with the project
*6 and 7* courtesy of other comments.
@@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
Blackrock has always had a more stable surface for over 200 mph. The salt develops shockwaves in front of the tires at high speeds which cause all sorts stability issues. Thats why bikes aren't allowed to go over a certain speed at Bonneville anymore.
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.....
Hey can we get more details on what the process was like!
Yes. You have to wash em as soon as you leave the saltflats. If the salt is dry it's much better and not much salt gets underneath. I always drive in a rainstorm afterwards.
A while ago now, but it was,fresh from the salt flats. All the fixings were fucked, or full of sand. Like a phosphorus colour, with a dull odour. A very interesting project to be attached to.
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.
*Was a promotion for a discontinued line of cigarettes
@@TheOfficialOriginalChad Glad to hear you took care of eliminating this product. Well done.
Nothing indirect about
F1 has killed more people than any sport in history
when i saw the title i thought this might be about project inversion.
anything new on that?
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.
What they did as Mercedes does not count towards BAR!
But can it drive upside down?
I’m not sure we’re gonna find out.. 🤔
Yes! In Australia it can.
Yes, but with downforce
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.....
Yeah somewhat... water is 800 times more dense, 55 times more viscous, and INCOMPRESSIBLE. No clue why he said that...
21:05 This is one of the first things you should learn when riding a motorcycle. Let it wander, it's stable on its own and it works better when you let it wander. Obviously at high speeds, significant wobble can be dangerous, which is why high end bikes have a damper on them. For most of us though? Just relax.
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?
The actual challenge was doing it on salt, with a car fitting into F1 rules. Going 400kph in itself sounds more like tweaking with aero and gearing, while this took quite a bit more than that.
that 'only 10%' is the hardest
@@1greenMitsi IndyCar goes on an oval close to 400km/h. Fastest lap time is 382 average speed (set in 1996)
@@roderick9772 are you trying to prove something?
Finally, a video was done on this Honda! It's so under the radar in F1 prototype history...
On a separate note to the video and project inversion. Can someone explain to be with all of the drain covers that have become loose in recent years in F1 why are most tracks using D400 lids which have no requirements to be bolted to the channel drain itself. Some E600 lids and channel drains can be bolted while the vast majority of F900 lids are bolted down for port and airport usage. In my mind while the F900 would be an increase on costs involved would not require a need for the covers to be welded shut, now the risk still exists that a bolt or four can become loose during a race weekend and the entire channel drain cover becoming airborne with a car passing over. But could it be explained why we have the D400 spec as a standard for circuit design.
Lucky Strike livery always looked so good.
I think you meant yaw sideways, pitch is up/down at 4:40.
Im Curious about your opinion on aero effect in a tunnel going upside down
awesome video mate, now im off to watch the doco.
That reminds me of Burt Munro's unofficial top speed of 341.xx kph back in 1966- that would have been so badass. Comparing his machine to a modern day F1 car with four wheels and the safety shell all around makes it even greater.
Love the Redbull clip when they ran one of their F1 cars at Mt. Panorama. That's an insane track and race and would be awesome if F1 had a race there.
We are in the record book at 247 and change in a car built in our garage. That doesn’t make us special. Lots of names in the SCTA record book. The Salt is the last place a man with a wrench can prove his worth and he doesn’t need to sell cigarettes to do it.
Very interesting and cool subject... I was unaware of this. Fascinating from an engineering POV.
imagine not being happy about being limited to only *18200 rpm* 🤣
Well now hold on, so the 05' F1 regs didn't require a wing but did require the silhouette to race if one so chose?
Tobacco sponsors and motorsport....what a time to be alive!
At Bonneville we talk in MPH. 400 KPH is a mere 248 MPH & backyard hot rodders make old roadsters & production body door slammers go a lot faster than that but we don't have any corners!
The 300 mph club...
I’d seen this car but never knew all these details. Great!
Great Story Mate. Thanks
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?
At Bonneville, weight is your friend. We would have made the wheels out of steel. With the budget you guys have. Or like we do. Add loads of lead. Great attempt. Sorry you didn't get that 400. Maybe we can help next time.
Seriously, we need more adventuring on F1 regulations like this, this is what drives innovation forward.
Honda Engine what a great company
I see I'm not the only one interested in the upside down project...
MMMmmmount Panorama clip.. well chosen irony whilst talking about taking an F1 car where it's not designed to go..
Was that Liam Lawson in the F1 at Bathurst?
"the team was very worried about yaw stability" and so they should, it's been a tough year....
2:22 Oh brilliant. That's done wonders for my crippling desires for F1 at the mountain. Makes me a bit 📯 y.
Still within F1 rules? Is movable aerodynamic legal? Even if its passive not active.
All things considered, it was a triumph for Honda and their F1 engineering team.
One wonders what could have been if they had not exited F1 in the late 2000's. They seem to have a habit of withdrawing from the sport, as a manufacturer, just as their technology is coming good.
oh good, distraction. thank you for putting this out today of all days
HAHAHA
Yes! Cool subject on a day the country is saved!
When upside down car?
You deserve so many more subs!
How is it going with project up side down?
7:18 The effect of drag is more intense in air than it is in water? Water, which is 800 times more dense, 55 times more viscous, and incompressible? What?
How did this car make it with a stabilizer instead of a wing...rules???
Didn't you already put this video out years ago ?
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
I wonder if using a rolleron for the rear fin would make it legal....
Those tires are like barn doors in those speeds 😂
Tires are wrong for Bonneville. Way too much contact patch.
"can i have a pack of 397.36 smokes please ''
Can this ride on the roof?
If you put the roof on the floor it can
Awesome!
UA-cam is on thin ice with these ads
2:24 whats the name of this track
What was the cigarette going to be aerodynamic for 400 Mi an hour I mean like what's the link to the cigarette to the I mean other than just being smoked what's the that sounds for that sounds bad to have a cigarette brand for the sake of having a cigarette brand is a real poor on the advertisement point
Why are the speeds given in French?
Project inversion update please
Introductions to the five videos....
"I'm actually Going to Drive an F1 Car UPSIDE DOWN on the ceiling of a tunnel..."
"I'm Going to Drive an F1 Car UPSIDE DOWN in a tunnel..."
"I'm Going to Drive a formula Car UPSIDE DOWN in a tunnel..."
"Formula1 engines won't work upside down..."
"14000000 pounds..."
I announce a lot - even upside up, outside of tunnels
Can this run upside down?
you might need a de-esser
So, it was not 400, but 414! Amazing! That Guiness run stuff is irrelevant.
Wow all that for 20 mph
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.
Why would they do all that effort and give up after only one run?
400kph is 248.5mph
Sounds like something Red Bull would attempt in their sleep 🤣
I wonder what a 2021 car would do......hmmm !
Your channel is not just a place to watch videos, it's a platform for learning and personal development. Keep up your important work!♂️🤝🧢
youtube tittle nowadays be like: The Fastest Shit (I had diarrhea)
Redbull should do this again
Still waiting one someone to do it without any regulations
You mean Thrust SSC?
@@mpf1947 nah I mean like an F1 car with no regs
@@mpf1947 more like porsche's unlimited LeMans car
mercedes c9 sauber 400kmh in 1989 ...
400kmh for a F1 is ... slow ...
Wait until they need the Bonneville 500 cigarette ……..
I'm sure steerable rudders were never F1 legal....
the tobacco company support, really, so casually mentioned?
Yea, it was 2005, half of the race cars were sponsored by tobacco
upside down car where
meanwhile bottas is hitting 370kph in a regular F1 car during a race weekend.
Only 250. My c7z with a few mods does 200 easy.
cool story bro... but it actually is no sarcasm haha
Project inversion was never going to happen. I’m embarrassed for you that you’ve even taken it this far. I seriously hope you haven’t invested too much time and money in to it.
Strange music
You will never set top speed records with open wheel cars
I haven't heard of that project before
Thank you for your great post and for taking my mind off the disaster that just happened in America (nearly).
I happen to own this car 😃
Hello
I had a really good time watching this. What an achivement 👏❤️
hello
to do this on bonevill is dumm , ther lot of highspeedtesttracks , bugatti dit his run in germany
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.
Can we just all agree that Project Inversion is scrapped?
The rear fin (rudder) was a moveable aero device that was 'fitted'. Whether it was used or not, makes the car (and therefore the run) null and void. IMHO the whole thing was a cynical mktg. exercise.
But its only like 50-60 kmh more than regular racing?
The fastest Indycar was 256.948mph or 413km/h
In an actual race. In actual race trim
Unsubscribe
All that effor to promote cancer sticks, kinda sad
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
A top fuel dragster would crush an F1 car in acceleration. This doesn't prove anything. Anyone claiming an Indy car couldn't do 400 kph doesn't understand much.
Remember when Callaway made a 410km/h car out of a Corvette and put it on sale? That was 1988. Makes this seem not so impressive... lol (yes, I know, salt, blah blah blah)
Taking the wings off an ordinaryF1 car would have to come close