REVscene Automotive Forum

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)
-   Vancouver Auto Chat (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-auto-chat_173/)
-   -   MythBusters - Crash Force - awesome test (https://www.revscene.net/forums/614149-mythbusters-crash-force-awesome-test.html)

trev0006 05-08-2010 09:24 AM

MythBusters - Crash Force - awesome test
 

Mythbusters crew decided to revisit an old myth that was drawing the ire of the show's fans for quite some time. And it's sure to be an interesting topic to automotive enthusiasts.

When two cars collide, each traveling 50 miles per hour, does the resulting force equal one car hitting an immovable object at 100 miles per hour?

It seems like such simple physics, no? But don't forget Newton's third law. To quote the great Wikipedia of knowledge, "Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction." Or, more simply, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

!Aznboi128 05-08-2010 09:33 AM

I watched this on tv, it's awesome. I Love physics.... *nerd*

FerrariEnzo 05-08-2010 11:19 AM

wow.. the myth busters are wrong!!!! imagine that!!

jtanner_ 05-08-2010 11:41 AM

Mythbusters... always cool to watch, one of my favorite shows on discovery

Gh0stRider 05-08-2010 12:18 PM

that was awesome...i love that show

Qmx323 05-08-2010 12:29 PM

the coolest nerds ever

tonyvu 05-08-2010 01:19 PM

fucking love this show

!Aznboi128 05-08-2010 01:55 PM

I guess jamie should of said that the car in the middle has the equal force of a 100mph car.

They should of measure how much force is inflicted in between the two cars.
Posted via RS Mobile

wobuffet 05-08-2010 02:22 PM

i <3 mythbusters.
now i wanna watch 2 cars go head on at 100mph :)

Kim Jong Un 05-08-2010 02:35 PM

I ♥ Mythbusters!

J____ 05-08-2010 09:24 PM

awesome show, but i stopped watching when keri got married and got pregnant

Kim Jong Un 05-08-2010 09:42 PM

What? Really? NOOOO!! Keri is hot though! :)

SkinnyPupp 05-08-2010 09:54 PM

Her tits are like 3X the size after she had the baby :thumbsup:

Kim Jong Un 05-08-2010 09:56 PM

:D

slammer111 05-08-2010 11:44 PM

You can find the answer to that solution with a couple of energy and momentum questions.

An object moving at 100mph/kph has 2x the energy of 2 objects moving at 50mph/kph (units are arbitrary if you are using the same ones for comparison).

SkinnyPupp 05-08-2010 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slammer111 (Post 6944404)
You can find the answer to that solution with a couple of energy and momentum questions.

An object moving at 100mph/kph has 2x the energy of 2 objects moving at 50mph/kph (units are arbitrary if you are using the same ones for comparison).

http://carlrules.com/images/croor.jpg

wobuffet 05-08-2010 11:56 PM


ericthehalfbee 05-09-2010 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slammer111 (Post 6944404)
You can find the answer to that solution with a couple of energy and momentum questions.

An object moving at 100mph/kph has 2x the energy of 2 objects moving at 50mph/kph (units are arbitrary if you are using the same ones for comparison).

If vehicles were static objects then this would be true.

Actual testing has shown that the average of head on collisions in the real world (both cars at highway speeds of 100 km/h) produces forces equivalent to a single object coming to a dead stop at <70 km/h, not 200 km/h.

You have to take into account the amount of energy absorbed by the crumple zones of the vehicle, and no simple equation is going to tell you that.

This is why, even with advanced computer simulations, manufacturers still go ahead and actually crash cars to measure real world results.

hk20000 05-09-2010 08:03 AM

the problem with the misconception is that they are forgetting that 2x amount of energy working on 2x amount of mass makes equivalent of 1x the energy working on 1x of mass.

The lime yellow Korean crap car has seen its fastest acceleration to 100mph ever in its life pulled by the two V8 engines.

Hehe 05-09-2010 02:13 PM

^

Yeah, it's physics 101. The force calculation isn't wrong. There's the same amount of force equating to 2x of the impact speed. They just forgot to add 2xmass in there.

Azriel_Strife 05-09-2010 06:32 PM

Mythbusters rules, Am I the only one that thinks Carrie is hot?

rsx 05-09-2010 06:50 PM

Ppl are talking about how the chick is a few posts above. So yes, you're the only one.

slammer111 05-09-2010 08:38 PM

If Object B is moving 2x as fast as Object A when slamming into a stationary wall, there is 4 times the energy. Physics also shows that the acceleration (and therefore the force) is 4x for Object B given the same displacement (ie crumple zone for the car).

The reason why manufacturers still crash-test vehicles is not that it's too hard to predict things that shatter, as well as predicting the behaviour of fluids (eg gas in the gas tank). In addition no real-world collision ever happens on a perfectly flat piece of land, there might be some manufacturing flaw or rust in the car frame etc. They've made huge strides over the years but it's still way too computationally complex. Anyone who's taken CFD will know what I'm talking about.

Just watched the video. Epic 100mph crash. :eek:

JSALES 05-09-2010 10:04 PM

awesome!!

jpark 05-10-2010 08:03 AM

this is so cool, mythbuster was always entertaining to watch


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net