Talk:ThrustSSC

message: Why have the pictures been removed? G-Man 19:04, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the pics on there originally and somehow I'm also responsible for losing them! It seems to have happened when I bolded the Record statement at the bottom of the article, I can't imagine how!!
So I've reverted them back again.
Thanks for noticing.
Adrian Pingstone 21:45, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures?

message: It's mentioned she used 2 Speys, but I see no mention of total thrust. So what was it?  Garfield 11:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you [[Rolls-Royce Spey|Spey]]ed? 

message: Here is an exerpt from the end of the "Sound Barrier" article.
Breaking the sound barrier on land
The sound barrier was first broken in a vehicle in a sustained way on land in 1948 by a rocket-powered test vehicle at Muroc Air Force Base (now Edwards AFB) in California, United States. It was powered by 6,000 lbs (27 kN) of thrust, reaching 1,019 mph (1,640 km/h).[12]
Not to say that ThrustSSC isnt the fastest vehicle to date nor am i saying that this isnt the first private vehicle to break the sound barrier.  But this isnt the first overall.
:The World Motor Sport Council does not recognise rocket sleds as "land vehicles". cmɢʟee☎✉  18:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This was not the first vehicle on land to break the sound barrier. 

message: This  information  is  very  great  for   my  report.I  have  lots  of  intrest  to it  and  I   thankyou  for  giving  info.  to  the  puplic!!!!
PS.  
Good  luck  on  the  donations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.198.127 (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thurst   SSC 

message: Though many secondary sources spell the name of the car "Thrust SSC" (2 words), the official site spells it "ThrustSSC" (1 word). I'll fix the inconsistent spelling in the article using the latter spelling. cmɢʟee'τaʟκ'maιʟ  20:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Thrust SSC'' or ''ThrustSSC'' 

message: Is it worth adding Richard Noble's claim that Orange and Intel used the image of ThrustSSC without permission in their TV advertisement in June 2012, as in this BBC news article? cmɢʟee☎✉  18:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go for it. The BBC source is solid. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please add it. Widefox (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've written up this section based on the cited article. Please feel free to edit or add any info you think useful. Thanks! cmɢʟee☎✉  17:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noble-Orange/Intel dispute 

message: 18 l/s and 1200 km/h that makes 18 l/s * 3600 s/h = 58200 l/h and therefore not 5.5 l but something like 55 l/km  an IP 20:59, 1 Feb 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Consumption ?

message: I think that this car goes faster than the sound of light post opinion down below on what you think and discovered. Alredgefecececceef (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light sound speed 

message: This article has two guesses at the power output of Thrust SSC, different from each other by a huge margin, and both are wrong. It is a simple calculation to work out the power of a moving object: Power = Force x Velocity. If the value for the combined thrust of the two engines is correctly stated as 223 kN, then multiplying this by the speed which is 340 metres per second we get 76 MW which is 102,000 bhp. If no one objects to this figure I shall change the article accordingly in a few days time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrrash (talk • contribs) 12:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual power output at Mach 1 is 76 MW 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The article now has two images of ThrustSSC at its current location in the museum (first two images below). While the light and noise level are better, due to foreshortening, they don't show the shape as well as the previous image (third image below). Does anyone have any objection to keeping the second to show its placement and the third to show its shape?
File:Thrust SSC at Coventry Transport Museum.jpg
File:Thrust SSC Wide shot.jpg
File:ThrustSSC_front.jpg
Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 18:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph at Coventry Transport Museum