reverse thruster for cars

It may be a good idea if you are planning to take your car into outer space.

On Earth and on a road, it would be ludicrously inneffective. (you could do some artithmtic on the mass and velocity of gas required)
The existing braking and steering systems work fine at reasonable speeds...
Oh and I wouldn't want to run out of gas pressure
Del

In addition, this would be dangerously noisy, leading to hearing damage,

as well as the blast would be physically hazardous,

leading to injuries and property damage.

To true, cut the corner inside and the poor sod in the outside goes off the road.

Enough force to stop a car will push anything lighter at velocity. Go to the drag races and stand close to the jet cars when they take off. Just not to close. anything loose goes flying. Close enough and people will fly until they are stopped by something else, usually on a vector with gravity. Oh yeah the gravel and sand will be imbedded in you also. Did some security work at SIR (Seattle International Raceway)

Don't feel bad, I thought up the same idea and worked out the basics. Then I joined the military and fired my first LAWS rocket. Back blast is unbelievable. I failed a test because I used my back blast as a weapon in a scenario. It would have worked but not the answer they were looking for. Then I was ordered in war games to attack a battalion with a platoon and won, I was not popular, go figure. Just not the right stuff.

Brad

If it's hooked to the body you will generate lots of stress on the tires and the suspension! Plus atmospheric thrusting on a roadway is not very effective compared to the stored momentum of a 4 ton vehicle! You'd do better to direct force though and within the drive train. Your thrusters would need to be at least the size of 747 engines to do any good - on the other hand, give me all the air bags I can handle or at least an ejection seat.

By the way, my compliments on your avatar!!!

thanks for the compliment, vermin.

on the contrary, the reverse thruster would actually negate the forward momentum of the car body mass, thus, less stress on everything linking the tires and the body, i.e. suspension system.

when you brake, the tires would stop, but everything else would continue moving forward if it wasn't because of the suspension system!

The amount of extra weight of gas, Cylinder and equipment would offset completely the gain from such a system, which is exactly why it is not used I suspect.

What may help a high performance cars (in countries like Germany not the USA!), is possibly an "Air Dam" that comes out, similar to the air brakes fitted to some aircraft.....

Whether that has been done or not already I could not say......possibly not as the gains are probably only there when travelling at 150MPH or better.......!!

Have a great day.

Seems as if i remember Benz doing the 'air brake' bit, back in the '50's. Maybe others, too.

This has fallen out of political favour, ever since FIA banned 'moveable aerodynamic devises' after that rash of suspension mounted wing failures.

A program on tv similar to myth busters tried the concept .it proved impractical and did not work as planned even though they tried a few different configurations. It proved more dangerous then safe.

oilcan13

I can well believe that, thanks for mentioning it......

Aircraft do not have to make the sudden turns etc that a road can......so they can use them....

Better off with a heavy duty clock spring device on the axel or driveshaft to brake the car, then use the stored inertia in the wound spring to assist getting the car back in motion.

No need or spewing road debris into the rear windows of the cars in front of you with a rocket engine device................... boy would that be nasty when passing over a pothole or braling on a gravel road.

Just toss an anchor out of the window when you are ready to come to a swift and violent stop...that or just throw the car into reverse!

I would suggest you spend some time in a Hovercraft, or an air-boat.