What's the point of Red Bull challenge?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nerdbuster
  • 145 comments
  • 14,374 views
While I haven't unlocked the X2010 yet and I haven't driven it I believe (from the videos that I saw) that is very unrealistic and not feasible.

While it's a fact that by utilizing "ground effect" a car with a fan (like the X2010) could achieve insane amounts of grip imagine what would happen in real life if the balance was distorted.

For example, If the driver would hit a curb at high speed (quite easy if you are going that fast), the car would get some air, the "ground effect" would disappear and the vertical force that was acting on the car would disappear. The result would be a horrific crash! I am sure that GT5 doesn't simulate the air-flow around X2010 so the simulation for X2010 is completely bogus/unrealistic/arcade/lame.

Also do I need to remind you the horrific accident that F. Massa had in 2009 when debris from a leading car hit him in the helmet? Imagine how much more risky would be to follow a fan-car (like the X2010) when the fan is constantly sending debris to following cars...

There is a very good reason fan-cars are banned from motorsports. They are very fast, they require absolute concentration from the driver, they are extremely dangerous for the following drivers and when something goes wrong the crash that would follow will be extremely dangerous for the driver and the spectators.

Also in my opinion fan-cars sniffle innovation. By banning ground effect F1 has some of the most advanced aerodynamic design and CFD (computational fluid dynamic) techniques have evolved and are still evolving. On the contrary look at Chaparral 2J fan-car. That's hardly an advance aerodynamic design. Also the research that goes in F1, WRC (and other motorsport) can help both aviation and road-car design.

Andrian Newey is one of the best designers in F1 and probably the most important factor in Red Bull F1's success. He has designed some of the best single seaters in F1. In the future everyone will remember Andrian Newey for his F1 designs and championship winning vehicles and no one will care about X2010.

In my opinion X2010 is just an arcade vehicle designed by PD for the marketing department of Red Bull so they can both brag they have the fastest virtual car.👎
 
Verbal
No, they don't do it to make it easier on the body. It's because that's the direction in which the wings generate force. For the body it's actually a worst case scenario because it drains the blood from the brain and renders you unconscious.
Click to expand...
I didn't find any source for that, would you mind providing one?
 
chippy1000
I don't think it would actually take Newey very long to come up with the design at all, this is his speciality remember and I'm sure that aerodynamicists like him would always know how to build the ultimate race car if there were no boundaries withholding him.

And as for the design, isn't it the X1.
Click to expand...
I know, but it's still just a concept, not a proper design. Many of the concepts in GT have actually been produced as a one-off, so they're one step ahead of this.

How do they know how much downforce the fan will produce, for example? Also note the car only has a floor at the rear, so front downforce must mostly come from the front wing which is very shallow. I don't believe it's realistic or that they could make anything with similar performance.
 
Verbal
<Youtube videos>
Click to expand...
Sorry, my request was imprecise. I meant sources on the statements that...

  • fighter planes are not flown to yaw and pitch downwards because the wings do not generate force in those directions
  • positive G is the worst case scenario for a person flying a plane
 
Kerch
How do they know how much downforce the fan will produce, for example? Also note the car only has a floor at the rear, so front downforce must mostly come from the front wing which is very shallow. I don't believe it's realistic or that they could make anything with similar performance.
Click to expand...
The "suction cup" is half way between the front and rear wheels, so giving grip to front and rear:

http://iforce.co.nz/i/b2mggt3l.jpg

The blue stuff seals the car to the ground, car is vacuumed to the track.

EDIT: Look at the car in a replay. The "suction cup" lowers itself and is in contact with the track
 
the Interceptor
Sorry, my request was imprecise. I meant sources on the statements that...

  • fighter planes are not flown to yaw and pitch downwards because the wings do not generate force in those directions
  • positive G is the worst case scenario for a person flying a plane
Click to expand...


Main article: G-Force
When a fighter pilot is performing rapid turning movements in a dogfight or when avoiding missiles, pilots are exposed to high g forces. G forces are expressed as a multiple of the normal gravitational force, e.g. a force of 2G is equivalent to twice normal Earth gravity, meaning everything would feel twice as heavy. Modern fighter aircraft can make much sharper turns and sustain a lot more stresses or g-forces. With the advent of the jet engined aircraft these capabilities exceed that of the human body.

When executing a "positive G" maneuver like turning upwards the force pushes the pilot down. The most serious consequence of this is that the blood in the pilot's body is also pulled down and into their extremities. If the forces are great enough and over a sufficient period of time this can lead to blackouts (called g-induced Loss Of Consciousness or G-LOC) , because not enough blood is reaching the pilot's brain. To counteract this effect pilots are trained to tense their legs, arms and abdominal muscles to restrict the "downward" flow of blood. This is known as the "grunt" or the "Hick maneuver", both names due to the sounds the pilot makes, and is the primary method of resisting G-LOCs. Modern flight suits, called g-suits, are worn by pilots to contract around the extremities exerting pressure, providing about 1G of extra tolerance.

Maybe this?

It's is from wikiphedia
 
the Interceptor
He did, and people survive such forces in car crashes every day. But these are momentary stresses in a very short timespan, remember a driver of an X2010 would have to cope with very high g of changing conditions for a whole lap.

I don't think so to be honest. Fighter pilots always pull upwards and thus also change the direction of the plane by rolling it to one side and then pulling "upwards" because this is the best way to cope with the forces on their body. Also, their special suits which prevent blackouts work best when the blood is pressed into their legs, which happens when they are subjected to a downwards force.

In an X2010, you'd have lateral g of great magnitude. That is much harder for the body to cope with. So as far as I understand it, the problem is not building this car, the problem is that no driver would be able to stay conscious through a whole lap of a track.
Click to expand...

Perfect!
 
interludes
The point of the challenge is that it is the Sebastian Vettel Challenge, not the Sebastian Vettel Walk In The Park.
Click to expand...
I am all for a challenge, but surely the OP is referring to the X2010 actually being in the game in the first place not how difficult it is ?

If you cannot gold it with a DS3 - then that implies GT5 is for wheel users only which is probaby not a good long term strategy for sales. GT5 likes to be positioned as a serious SIM but to take the X2010 seriously ? If you remove Adrian Newey's name, you would all be acussing Kaz of playing too much Wipeout.

I can see the attraction that some people may have for the X2010, but I do not see its place in the GT world.
 
the Interceptor
Sorry, my request was imprecise. I meant sources on the statements that...

  • fighter planes are not flown to yaw and pitch downwards because the wings do not generate force in those directions
  • positive G is the worst case scenario for a person flying a plane
Click to expand...

The discussion was about lateral forces (as in a car) versus vertical forces (in a plane). A plane can of course generate negative g's, pushing blood into your head - already about 2-3 g will cause a redout for the pilot.
Do you need a source about how a wing works?
 
the Interceptor
Sorry, my request was imprecise. I meant sources on the statements that...

  • fighter planes are not flown to yaw and pitch downwards because the wings do not generate force in those directions
  • positive G is the worst case scenario for a person flying a plane
Click to expand...

And maybe this,


An automobile and its driver undergoing lateral accelerationUnopposed acceleration due to mechanical forces, and consequentially g-force, is experienced whenever anyone rides in a vehicle because it always causes a proper acceleration, and (in the absence of gravity) also always a coordinate acceleration (where velocity changes). Whenever the vehicle changes either direction or speed, the occupants feel lateral (side to side) or longitudinal (forward and backwards) forces produced by the mechanical push of their seats.

The expression "1 g = 9.80665 m/s2" means that for every second that elapses, velocity changes 9.80665 meters per second (&#8801;35.30394 km/h). This rate of change in velocity can also be denoted as 9.80665 (meter per second) per second, or 9.80665 m/s2. For example: An acceleration of 1 g equates to a rate of change in velocity of approximately 35 kilometres per hour (22 mph) for each second that elapses. Therefore, if an automobile is capable of braking at 1 g and is traveling at 35 kilometres per hour (22 mph) it can brake to a standstill in one second and the driver will experience a deceleration of 1 g. The automobile traveling at three times this speed, 105 km/h (65 mph), can brake to a standstill in three seconds.

In the case of an increase in speed from 0 to v with constant acceleration within a distance of s this acceleration is v2/(2s).

Preparing an object for g-tolerance (not getting damaged when subjected to a high g-force) is called g-hardening. This may e.g. apply to instruments in a projectile shot by a gun.

[edit] Human tolerance of g-force

John Stapp was subjected to 15 g for 0.6 second and a peak of 22 g during a 19 March 1954 rocket sled test. He would eventually survive a peak of more than 46 g, with more than 25 g for 1.1 sec.[6]Human tolerances depend on the magnitude of the g-force, the length of time it is applied, the direction it acts, the location of application, and the posture of the body.[7][8]:350

The human body is flexible and deformable, particularly the softer tissues. A hard slap on the face may briefly impose hundreds of g locally but not produce any real damage; a constant 16 g for a minute, however, may be deadly. When vibration is experienced, relatively low peak g levels can be severely damaging if they are at the resonance frequency of organs and connective tissues.

To some degree, g-tolerance can be trainable, and there is also considerable variation in innate ability between individuals. In addition, some illnesses, particularly cardiovascular problems, reduce g-tolerance.

[edit] Vertical axis g-force
Aircraft, in particular, exert g-force along the axis aligned with the spine. This causes significant variation in blood pressure along the length of the subject's body, which limits the maximum g-forces that can be tolerated.

Positive, or "upward" g, drives blood downward to the feet of a seated or standing person (more naturally, the feet and body may be seen as being driven by the upward force of the floor and seat, upward around the blood). Resistance to positive g varies. A typical person can handle about 5 g (49 m/s²) before losing consciousness ("G-LOC"), but through the combination of special g-suits and efforts to strain muscles&#8212;both of which act to force blood back into the brain&#8212;modern pilots can typically handle a sustained 9 g (88 m/s²) (see High-G training).

Resistance to "negative" or "downward" g, which drives blood to the head, is much lower. This limit is typically in the &#8722;2 to &#8722;3 g (&#8722;20 m/s² to &#8722;30 m/s²) range. This condition is sometimes referred to as red out though vision is not literally reddened. Negative g is generally unpleasant and can cause damage. Capillaries in the eyes may swell or burst under the increased blood pressure.

In aircraft particularly, vertical g-forces are often positive (force blood towards the feet and away from the head); this causes problems with the eyes and brain in particular. As positive vertical g-force is progressively increased (such as in a centrifuge) the following symptoms may be experienced:

Grey-out, where the vision loses hue, easily reversible on levelling out.
Tunnel vision, where peripheral vision is progressively lost.
Blackout, a loss of vision while consciousness is maintained, caused by a lack of blood to the head.
G-LOC a loss of consciousness ("LOC" stands for "Loss Of Consciousness").[9]
Death, if g-forces are not quickly reduced, death can occur.[10]
[edit] Horizontal axis g-force
The human body is better at surviving g-forces that are perpendicular to the spine. In general when the acceleration is forwards (subject essentially lying on their back, colloquially known as "eyeballs in"[11]) a much higher tolerance is shown than when the acceleration is backwards (lying on their front, "eyeballs out") since blood vessels in the retina appear more sensitive in the latter direction.

Early experiments showed that untrained humans were able to tolerate 17 g eyeballs-in (compared to 12 g eyeballs-out) for several minutes without loss of consciousness or apparent long-term harm.[12] The record for peak experimental horizontal g-force tolerance is held by acceleration pioneer John Stapp, in a series of rocket sled deceleration experiments culminating in a late 1954 test in which he was stopped in a little over a second from a land speed of Mach 0.9. He survived a peak "eyeballs-out" force of 46.2 times the force of gravity, and more than 25 g for 1.1 sec, proving that the human body is capable of this. Stapp lived another 45 years to age 89, but suffered lifelong damage to his vision from this last test.[13]

[edit] Short g-force durations and jerk
Main article: Jerk (physics)
Toleration of g-force also depends on its duration and the rate of change in acceleration, known as jerk. In SI units, jerk or horizontal g force g is expressed as m/s3. In non-SI units, jerk can be expressed simply as gees per second (g/s).[citation needed] Very short durations g-forces of 100 g have been survivable in racing car crashes.[14]

[edit] Typical examples of g-force
Example g-force
(including contribution from resistance to gravity)
The gyro rotors in Gravity Probe B and the free-floating
proof masses in the TRIAD I navigation satellite[15] 0 g
A ride in the Vomit Comet &#8776; 0 g
Standing on the Moon at its equator 0.1654 g
Standing on the Earth at sea level&#8211;standard 1 g
Saturn V moon rocket just after launch 1.14 g
Bugatti Veyron from 0 to 100 km/h in 2.4 s 1.55 g (directed 40 degrees from horizontal)
Space Shuttle, maximum during launch and reentry 3 g
High-g roller coasters[8]:340 3.5&#8211;6.3 g
Top Fuel drag racing world record of 4.4 s over 1/4 mile 4.2 g
Formula One car, maximum under heavy braking 5+ g
Luge, maximum expected at the Whistler Sliding Center 5.2 g
Formula One car, peak lateral in turns [16] 5-6 g
Standard, full aerobatics certified glider +7/-5 g
Apollo 16 on reentry[17] 7.19 g
Typical max. turn in an aerobatic plane or fighter jet 9&#8211;12 g
Maximum for human on a rocket sled 46.2 g
Death or serious injury likely > 50 g
Sprint missile 100 g
Brief human exposure survived in crash[14] > 100 g
Space gun with a barrel length of 1 km and a muzzle velocity of 6 km/s,
as proposed by Quicklaunch (assuming constant acceleration) 1,800 g
Shock capability of mechanical wrist watches[18] > 5,000 g
Current formula one engines, maximum piston acceleration [19] 8,600 g
Rating of electronics built into military artillery shells[20] 15,500 g
9&#8201;×&#8201;19 Parabellum handgun bullet (average along the length of the barrel)[21] 31,000 g
9&#8201;×&#8201;19 Parabellum handgun bullet, peak[22] 190,000 g
Acceleration of a proton in the Large Hadron Collider[23] 190,000,000 g
Acceleration from a Wakefield plasma accelerator[24] 890,000,000,000,000,000,000 g

Interesting is the Veyron
 
Verbal
The discussion was about lateral forces (as in a car) versus vertical forces (in a plane). A plane can of course generate negative g's, pushing blood into your head - already about 2-3 g will cause a redout for the pilot.
Do you need a source about how a wing works?
Click to expand...
No, I know how a wing works, thank you. It was just that I was always under the impression that fighter pilots pull into turns because that is the best way for them to bear the extreme G forces. You said that this is not correct, and that they do this because it supports the plane's aerodynamic behaviour best, and that positive G is actually a worst case for the human body. So I thought that you know something about this which I don't know, hence my question. I'm always eager to learn, that is all.

@kitchenboy3: thank you very much for your enthusiasm, but I'm afraid that doesn't answer any of my questions in an exhaustive way.
 
the Interceptor
No, I know how a wing works, thank you. It was just that I was always under the impression that fighter pilots pull into turns because that is the best way for them to bear the extreme G forces. You said that this is not correct, and that they do this because it supports the plane's aerodynamic behaviour best, and that positive G is actually a worst case for the human body.
Click to expand...

First, what I was saying is that vertical forces are worse than lateral forces.

If you want an object to follow a circular path you need to accelerate it towards the center of the circle. This acceleration needs force. On a plane there is nothing to provide such a lateral force. If you use only the rudder to yaw the plane, it will skid sideways and only slowly start turning due to the thrust of the engines. Besides this being a very unstable situation it's also not very effective. The only element generating substantial amounts of aerodynamic force is your wings. To make them provide not only lift but also lateral force, you need to roll.
As their main job is to keep the plane in the air, they're optimized to generate upwards lift. They can provide negative lift (planes can fly upside down), but need much more angle of attack for that and are not very efficient when used this way. So the best way is to pull, not push.

@kitchenboy3: thank you very much for your enthusiasm, but I'm afraid that doesn't answer any of my questions in an exhaustive way.
Click to expand...

You've seen the part where it says:
he human body is better at surviving g-forces that are perpendicular to the spine. In general when the acceleration is forwards (subject essentially lying on their back, colloquially known as "eyeballs in"[11]) a much higher tolerance is shown than when the acceleration is backwards (lying on their front, "eyeballs out") since blood vessels in the retina appear more sensitive in the latter direction.

Early experiments showed that untrained humans were able to tolerate 17 g eyeballs-in (compared to 12 g eyeballs-out) for several minutes without loss of consciousness or apparent long-term harm.[12]
Click to expand...
 
I thought this forum had to have game related discussions...

Are we on science dot com now? 👍
 
Ok, so we've basically established that humans can withstand the g's that the X1 can pull.

However, to control the car whilst undergoing that sustained g is probably a different matter.
 
qczhao
Ok, so we've basically established that humans can withstand the g's that the X1 can pull.

However, to control the car whilst undergoing that sustained g is probably a different matter.
Click to expand...

I'm sure with enough practice it could be done.
 
Verbal
If you want an object to follow a circular path you need to accelerate it towards the center of the circle. This acceleration needs force. On a plane there is nothing to provide such a lateral force. If you use only the rudder to yaw the plane, it will skid sideways and only slowly start turning due to the thrust of the engines. Besides this being a very unstable situation it's also not very effective. The only element generating substantial amounts of aerodynamic force is your wings. To make them provide not only lift but also lateral force, you need to roll.
As their main job is to keep the plane in the air, they're optimized to generate upwards lift. They can provide negative lift (planes can fly upside down), but need much more angle of attack for that and are not very efficient when used this way. So the best way is to pull, not push.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the information I was after, thank you! 👍

Verbal
You've seen the part where it says:
The human body is better at surviving g-forces that are perpendicular to the spine. In general when the acceleration is forwards (subject essentially lying on their back, colloquially known as "eyeballs in"[11]) a much higher tolerance is shown than when the acceleration is backwards (lying on their front, "eyeballs out") since blood vessels in the retina appear more sensitive in the latter direction.

Early experiments showed that untrained humans were able to tolerate 17 g eyeballs-in (compared to 12 g eyeballs-out) for several minutes without loss of consciousness or apparent long-term harm.[12]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes I've seen it, but it only says that positive lateral G is the direction the human body has the least problems with, while not stating that positive vertical G is the worst case that can happen. However, there are external measures to improve the resistance of a human to positive vertical G such as training and G-suits, so it makes more than just sense to "channel" excessive forces in that direction. Also, the seats in ther later fighter planes have been tilted backwards compared to earlier models to transform a part of the former vertical into a lateral force. So can we agree that there are worse forces than positive vertical ones, but that they open up ways to deal with them to an extent, and that they also support the preferable method of fighter plane maneuvers?

Coming back to the topic at hand, the X2010, the car would subject the driver to very high horizontal G-forces, which are not desirable if I've learned something today.

EDIT: I stand corrected on this. According to this PDF posted by timcp in post #50, the human body is least tolerable to acceleration along the z-axis, or upwards and downwards:
The human is better able to withstand accelerations applied along certain axes of the body (Figures 4 and 6). The direction that is most tolerable is the +Gx or acceleration in the forward direction (eyeballs in). The least tolerable direction is apparently the Gz or vertical axis (eyeballs up or down). The lateral axis (Gy) used to be considered the least tolerable, but recent data derived from crashes of Indianapolis Race Cars indicates that this is probably not the case.
Click to expand...
This was the other information I was looking for. So the forces a fighter pilot sustains are among the worst forces you can put on a human body.
 
Last edited:
They said the car could never be driven at full potential without rendering the driver unconscious. Plus, noone would ever push the x1 to the extent you do in the video game, why? Well, do you remember how many times you crashed? Yea, one crash in real life at those speeds probably means death. Also, I am not an aerodynamic engineer, but if the car is cornering at speeds above 150mph and you are hopping a curb would that not cause the car to lose its suction and grip making it unable to handle the current speed it is taking the corner? Something to think about..
 
Whats the point? Red bull payed a good money to PD thats the point. That rocket car ruined the game. And why is it so hard? I thought this is a driving game in wich you drive real cars wich handle realistically. Challenge like this at least could've been easier and have no gold trophies, it could've been like for fun or something. Like fantasy batmobile on some fantasy track in other planet.
 
@kitchenboy3: very interesting read, indeed. But sadly this article does not cover lateral g-force resistance (apart from the mentioning lasteral g-force of formula one cars in the examples section). I found this on the web, where it states "Humans can tolerate high levels of lateral G if properly restrained, otherwise injury to the body can occur." while for
other directions of force there are actual numbers corresponding with those in the article you posted. This might mean that lateral tolerance is extremely high. But it could also imply that the authors of that site don't know actual numbers.

After some more googling I found the following table in a pdf dealing with g-tolerance in a crash (i.e. not sustained g-force) which might give us a hint at how lateral g-force-tolerance relates to transversal and vertical g-force-tolerance:

Human Tolerance Limits

Headward (+ Gz) Eyeballs Down 20-25 G
Tailward (- Gz) Eyeballs Up 15 G
Lateral Right (+ Gy) Eyeballs Left 20 G
Lateral Left (- Gy) Eyeballs Right 20 G
Back to Chest (+Gx) Eyeballs Out 45 G
Chest to Back (- Gx) Eyeballs In 45 G
Note: Reference: Crash Survival Design Guide, TR 79-22.
(0.10 Second time duration of crash pulse; full restraint)

This seems to imply that lateral tolerance is in the same region as vertical.
So the G-Force generated by the X2010 should be possible.
But consider how fast the direction of force changes in that thing. On that 3:29 Nürburgring lap there's hardly any time between corners. So I highly doubt that anyone would be able to do more than a lap (if that) in this car. At 400+kph even the straights provide little time to regain any strength and concentration.

Putting all that science (which I find highly interesting) aside for a moment , my view on the topic of this thread is that the Vettel Challenge is there - as has been stated by Polyphony - to demonstrate what modern automotive science would be able to achieve if not for the limits imposed by authorities such as the FIA. It also provides a really hard challenge even for those who are able to beat the times of real racing drivers in this game easily. I really like putting my reflexes and driving skill (lacking as they might be) to an extreme test - even if it can be frustrating at times. And I like the fact that this car is at least a theoretical possibility with current science.
 
I remember F1 car drivers complain a few years ago about the G-forces they had to endure at Charlotte speedway. With banked corners they can experience up to 5G constantly around the corners while make it hard to stay focus during the whole race. (Some stated they felt like they were about to pass out) With that in mind I seriously doubt anyone could handle the G's for any amount of time if X2010 was real which I have seriously my doubts it could turn corners that fast and sharp IRL. Remember in a F1 car you not only have to handle the G's but you got to be able to drive the car while handling those G's.
As far as jets they don't turn on a dime like these car does either. Just because something can be done in a sim doesn't mean it can be done IRL even if a lot of the math comes from real data.
 
Again just because fighter pilots handle more G's they don't have to turn the plane in a corner on a track so they don't have to be as precise. F1 drivers have to be very alert while handling those G's.
 
You guys also cannot compare a fighter jet to an X1, the fighter pilot is pulling on a joystick and the x1 driver would be turning a wheel rapidly back and forth while fighting with the G's of each corner while mentally processing the next turn while applying the perfect throttle and brake for each. It just seems very far fetched and I think a lot of you are trying to say it can be done because you don't want your fantasy car to lose its place in your heart as something that can't be driven. All of your scientific posts about G's mean close to nothing until you get a driver with every attribute to be able to not only handle the car physically but mentally as well.

The driver would have to mentally be able to handle the quick reactions needed to drive the car, then he would have to be very strong to be able to turn the wheel back and forth quick enough while fighting off the G's of each turn, then healthy enough to handle the G's which is very unlikely. It takes blood flow to move your arms and legs, which build pressure, add to that your energy to fight the wheel, your whole theory on handling G's has to change to account for this added pressure to the body on top of the G's the car is already making. This is the first thread I have seen so many people think this is possible and actually believe it.

I can't find the article or video where Newey said this but didn't he say that in building the X1 he was building a car that was too fast for any human to drive? If someone can find that it will close this discussion fast.
 
In a fighter jet the G forces are withdrawing the blood from the brain. As a result they black out and loose conciousness. In the X1 the side to side movement would not withdraw blood from any vital organs (i assume) so they could stay concious. Reaction time is a diffirent matter. Heading up to a corner at 450kph and having to hit the apex on the dot would require Chuck Norris like X1 driving godness.
 
Will27
And the fan was driven by the car's engine, not a separate motor!
The drivers had to accelerate for the whole corner or the car had no grip :lol::eek:
Click to expand...

Yup, and then there's the Chaparral 2J Race Car that had a jet ski engine powering the onboard fans.
 
R390GT1'97
That and there would probably be no able to cope with those G's
Click to expand...

You're effectively saying that astronauts and fighter pilots talk **** when they talk about 16+ G's, think the amount of G's the SR71 pilots must have experienced dodging missiles above the USSR... and don't even bother arguing against this, its a documented fact, although they outran missiles at first, later on they had to dodge the missiles, so don't go saying that 10-16G is impossible because its not.
 
midjetv8
In a fighter jet the G forces are withdrawing the blood from the brain. As a result they black out and loose conciousness. In the X1 the side to side movement would not withdraw blood from any vital organs (i assume) so they could stay concious.
Click to expand...

Untill their neck snaps. Think about it. According to the creepy kid in Jerry McGuire, the human head weighs 8 Lbs. Now add say 2 pounds or so for a Helmet and we'll say 10 Lbs. (nice round number)

So you're strapped into your X2010, Full harness so you shoulders are mostly immobile. Now just sitting there, no problem right? 2 lbs of helmet straight down on your spine, you could do that all day and work on your Stig impression.

Start driving and hey this is fine, there's a headrest.

Now hit the brakes, HANS takes care of ya ok. So far so good.

Now lets talk about that +8G turn, Go lie down on your bed on your side with your shoulders on the edge and your head sticking out into free space.

Now put 80Lbs around your head and hold your head straight for 3 seconds. Oh and don't just place the 80lbs on there gingerly. The X2010 looks like it goes from 0-8G in less than a second. Now do that for 10 min straight on and off.

For furthur examples watch Jememy Clarksons TopGear review of the GT-R http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXFSVoVqhYw

Granted he's a fat out of shape old man, but the demonstration is valid.
 
chippy1000
I'm sure with enough practice it could be done.
Click to expand...

And with several hundreds of millions poured into it, if people on here are mostly sending this thing into walls the first time they drive it whilst sitting down, what is someone in a real version of it going to do? I imagine it would cost a fair amount to build an X2010, and if someone has to practice in to be good then I foresee a lot of crashes, and I struggle to see many people who'd want to fund such a project.

As for the original question.... to stop people from getting the Platinum trophy, obviously ;)
 

Latest Posts

Back