What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

What if there was a forum for discussing these?

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

taemyr
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:14 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby taemyr » Wed Oct 22, 2014 11:27 am UTC

ilduri wrote:ligature = using a single glyph to represent two letters (eg., the æ in encyclopædia)

æ is a single letter. It comes after z and before ø in the alphabet.

mooncow
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:12 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby mooncow » Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:37 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:Does NASCAR prohibit the use of RC cars? If not, the driver can survive the race regardless.


The "what if" said to strip away all the rules. The rule that the driver must be in the car is one that should be stripped away then. The constraint that the driver should survive therefore becomes trivial, or at least reduces to building a thick enough heat/radiation shield around the course that the driver not be incidentally incinerated.

mooncow

Mikeski
Posts: 1104
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby Mikeski » Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:35 am UTC

If you're stripping away all the rules, then the one about actually completing a race to be declared the winner is also gone, and I just won every NASCAR race that ever was and ever will be in exactly 0 seconds. As did everyone else on the planet. Booyah.

The questioner also didn't specify a human driver. Or that the race be held on Earth. I'm sure a computer could operate a car on a track with no other cars. Now you can run the race with no humans nearby (like, Mars) and the shielding gets much easier.

(Funny how quick we go from "No fair! Randall didn't answer the question exactly as worded!" to "Oh yeah?! 'Driver' doesn't require that he's in the car!")

pete_b
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 12:04 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby pete_b » Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:52 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
bachaddict wrote:Magnetic levitation would give the reverse of the effect seen in the neutron star what-if: the body parts further from the magnet get much less repulsion and thus suffer more from the G forces.


Depends on the magnetic field - if it's acting as though it's from a point source, sure, the effect drops off with distance, but you can get a field where the force is constant throughout...


Ok, so what if there was a body-temperature superconducting material available. You could inject nano particles of this into every cell & structure in the body. Then put them in a strong magnetic field and rely on quantum locking to hold everything in place. Whilst it would stop the heart and massively reduce kidney function etc, if you could get them round the track quick enough then it might be possible to revive them afterwards. Assuming that the nanoparticles don't shred every cell membrane in the body.

pete_b
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 12:04 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby pete_b » Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:58 am UTC

taemyr wrote:
ilduri wrote:ligature = using a single glyph to represent two letters (eg., the æ in encyclopædia)

æ is a single letter. It comes after z and before ø in the alphabet.


What codepage are you on?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:41 pm UTC

The one for Norwegian, probably.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

peregrine_crow
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:20 am UTC

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby peregrine_crow » Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:38 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:(Funny how quick we go from "No fair! Randall didn't answer the question exactly as worded!" to "Oh yeah?! 'Driver' doesn't require that he's in the car!")

Those two statements don't appear to be inconsistent. An overly literal pedant would both demand that the question is answered exactly as phrased and interpret the 'no rules' clause as removing the need for the driver to be in the car.

Though apparently (and I only noticed this because I went back to get the exact wording on the no rules thing) said overly literal pedant also didn't read the question thoroughly. The question asked was:
If you stripped away all the rules of car racing and had a contest which was simply to get a human being around a track 200 times as fast as possible, what strategy would win? Let's say the racer has to survive.

So yes, the driver doesn't have to be in the car, unfortunately we want the driver to go around the track, not the car. You could try to argue that human being and racer refer to two different entities (and thus we can remote control a soon to be dead human around a track), but I think that goes beyond sticking to the rules as stated and into willful misinterpretation.
Ignorance killed the cat, curiosity was framed.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby Klear » Wed Oct 29, 2014 11:54 am UTC

peregrine_crow wrote:
Mikeski wrote:(Funny how quick we go from "No fair! Randall didn't answer the question exactly as worded!" to "Oh yeah?! 'Driver' doesn't require that he's in the car!")

Those two statements don't appear to be inconsistent. An overly literal pedant would both demand that the question is answered exactly as phrased and interpret the 'no rules' clause as removing the need for the driver to be in the car.

Though apparently (and I only noticed this because I went back to get the exact wording on the no rules thing) said overly literal pedant also didn't read the question thoroughly. The question asked was:
If you stripped away all the rules of car racing and had a contest which was simply to get a human being around a track 200 times as fast as possible, what strategy would win? Let's say the racer has to survive.

So yes, the driver doesn't have to be in the car, unfortunately we want the driver to go around the track, not the car. You could try to argue that human being and racer refer to two different entities (and thus we can remote control a soon to be dead human around a track), but I think that goes beyond sticking to the rules as stated and into willful misinterpretation.


I'd say that killing all the other competitors is still the winning strategy though.

Harodotus
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 5:24 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby Harodotus » Fri Oct 31, 2014 5:51 pm UTC

I had been thinking that with the rules removed, it might be acceptable to create a car with a long seat support pole that bent inward to exact center of the widest parts of the track. The length or seat position of the pole could be varied as the track touching parts of the car moved along the track, so that the seat and driver remained unmoving in a single location. If the seat counter-rotated at the rate the car traveled along the track, then the driver would be motionless and not subject to any centrifugal or acceleration forces.

In this way, the driver would still be "in" the car and the car would still be "traveling along" the track. I do assume that "no rules" means some portion of the car (which has to be made of matter) still has to traverse somewhere near actual track itself otherwise its not actually "going around".

I wonder if relativistic speeds for the car are still possible then? or do we run into material durability issues even if the track was in a perfect vacuum?

-Harodotus

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 31, 2014 8:15 pm UTC

We still run into the spinning disc equation, which means that if there are wheels involved or any other spinning cylinder that needs to hold together under its own strength, the strongest materials we have can only allow up to a couple of kilometers per second, which is pretty damn non-relativistic.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

peregrine_crow
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:20 am UTC

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby peregrine_crow » Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:08 pm UTC

Klear wrote:I'd say that killing all the other competitors is still the winning strategy though.


Not if we take the question literally, in which case you would win if you moved around the track 200 times as fast as possible. This is of course impossible for tracks that take a nonzero time to move around, so if we accept that as hyperbole and assume that the winner is the person whose car moves around the track the fastest then yes, killing all other competitors is a winning strategy.

Does raise the question of how to determine who is and isn't a competitor when there are no rules. Exterminating all sentient life in order to win a race seems overkill.
Ignorance killed the cat, curiosity was framed.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby Klear » Mon Nov 03, 2014 3:50 pm UTC

peregrine_crow wrote:Does raise the question of how to determine who is and isn't a competitor when there are no rules. Exterminating all sentient life in order to win a race seems overkill.


It's the only way to be sure. When you become a NASCAR driver, you have to be ready to make the hard decisions.

Harodotus
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 5:24 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby Harodotus » Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:39 am UTC

Hey, here is a second design idea.

What if the engine of a standard sized / shaped car caused the whole track (and world?) to rotate / move underneath a now stationary car.
Then the driver would be subject to no acceleration or angular momentum.

Lots of possibilities there as long the track was of a durable enough material to stand up to the speed and/or rotation effects. Neutronium maybe?

-Harod

Mikeski
Posts: 1104
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby Mikeski » Thu Nov 06, 2014 3:52 am UTC

Harodotus wrote:Hey, here is a second design idea.

What if the engine of a standard sized / shaped car caused the whole track (and world?) to rotate / move underneath a now stationary car.
Then the driver would be subject to no acceleration or angular momentum.

Lots of possibilities there as long the track was of a durable enough material to stand up to the speed and/or rotation effects. Neutronium maybe?

-Harod

gmal covered this three posts back. Stuff can only spin so fast before it tears itself apart. You just made the problem worse by trying to do it with the whole track rather than just the car.

stoppedcaring
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 7:21 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby stoppedcaring » Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:50 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:
Harodotus wrote:Hey, here is a second design idea.

What if the engine of a standard sized / shaped car caused the whole track (and world?) to rotate / move underneath a now stationary car.
Then the driver would be subject to no acceleration or angular momentum.

Lots of possibilities there as long the track was of a durable enough material to stand up to the speed and/or rotation effects. Neutronium maybe?

-Harod

gmal covered this three posts back. Stuff can only spin so fast before it tears itself apart. You just made the problem worse by trying to do it with the whole track rather than just the car.

The solution, obviously, is to move the track underneath the car clockwise at the greatest speed allowable by the material it was made of, while moving the driver counter-clockwise at the greatest speed he can survive.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:10 pm UTC

Remember also that the limit on spinning is for an object that holds together under its own tensile strength. If you attached lots of rockets to the track, so that no part had to support stress from other parts, then that particular limit doesn't apply.

Of course, there's still the issue of how fast the car's wheels can turn, which imposes the same limit whether the car is moving or the track is.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

stoppedcaring
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 7:21 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby stoppedcaring » Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:21 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Remember also that the limit on spinning is for an object that holds together under its own tensile strength. If you attached lots of rockets to the track, so that no part had to support stress from other parts, then that particular limit doesn't apply.

Of course, there's still the issue of how fast the car's wheels can turn, which imposes the same limit whether the car is moving or the track is.

Clearly, we should maglev the entire track and spin it using magnets mounted on the outside, so they apply force inward (thus negating tensile strength issues). Pump all the air out of the racing chamber and the track will spin as fast as you can pump energy into it. Then maglev the "car" separately, above the track, and electromagnetically propel it around the track the opposite way at the gee-force limit of your passenger's durability.

I guess the failure mode then would be the compressive strength of whatever outside anchors are being used to support the magnets that are keeping the track spinning.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

stoppedcaring wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Remember also that the limit on spinning is for an object that holds together under its own tensile strength. If you attached lots of rockets to the track, so that no part had to support stress from other parts, then that particular limit doesn't apply.

Of course, there's still the issue of how fast the car's wheels can turn, which imposes the same limit whether the car is moving or the track is.

Clearly, we should maglev the entire track and spin it using magnets mounted on the outside, so they apply force inward (thus negating tensile strength issues). Pump all the air out of the racing chamber and the track will spin as fast as you can pump energy into it. Then maglev the "car" separately, above the track, and electromagnetically propel it around the track the opposite way at the gee-force limit of your passenger's durability.

I guess the failure mode then would be the compressive strength of whatever outside anchors are being used to support the magnets that are keeping the track spinning.

And of the magnets themselves.

OP Tipping
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:23 am UTC

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby OP Tipping » Thu Jan 01, 2015 3:21 pm UTC

roket sled
wat r u doin
roket sled
Stapp
a) Please explain the specific MEDICAL reason for ordering this MEDICATION !
b) Please state the nature of your ailment or injury.
c) One a scale of one to ten, how would you rate your pain?
d) Please state the nature of the medical emergency.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby Flumble » Thu Jan 01, 2015 3:37 pm UTC

OP Tipping wrote:roket sled
wat r u doin
roket sled
Stapp

dolan pls
y u do dis

Spoiler:
Image

Mental Mouse
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:31 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0116: "No-Rules NASCAR"

Postby Mental Mouse » Fri Jan 02, 2015 1:47 pm UTC

Hey, that diagram of maximum G-forces only shows four cardinal directions! Inquiring minds want to know, what are the maximum G-force tolerances for sidewise acceleration?


Return to “What If?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests