People should be aware that all Incogni does is automate sending data removal requests, and that there's no way to unsubscribe from them other than to change your creditcard details. They are themselves much worse at letting you control your own data than many of the very limited number of services they target.
i hit a brick wall going 90mph in my car i bounced off and went 30 feet in reverse i got out of the car and was mad that i broke my phone ....its all just luck and how you impact ....
@@la24dogg21 ⚠️ God has said in the Quran: 🔴 { Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful." ( 39:53 )} 📖Quran
Honestly, You are a MythBuster, Adam has said in the past (I think it was a Tested QA) that to him, all of these UA-camrs: science, maker, slow-mo camera, and practical effect channels out there, inhabit the spirit of MythBusters. MythBusters was never about the myths it was always about learning and teaching. How to test a hypothesis, building a rig to test and show what happen, then show as many people as possible what you've learned, built and the process of how you got there. MythBusters just had a TV budget to do it in big and flashy way.
I think I'll have to disagree with the conclusion. The question from the title wasn't if falling from 75 feet on a car is survivable, it was if falling on a car is safer than on pavement. For me this translates to the question: Is the hight from which you have to fall in order to die higher when falling on a car than when falling on pavement? The shock stickers showed that the car cushioned the impact, so I'd answer this question with yes. The conclusion should be that it's at least plausible, although not to the degree that's shown in movies.
you probably have to land on your feet not your back, which makes sense because that just adds even more time it takes for you to come to a full stop rip legs though edit: yes i know he tested it in the video but it was on the hood not the body
I beleive multiple heights should have been tested against, as well as possibly multiple cars. I beleive this is definitely plausible, as anything to break one's fall is advantageous over hard pavement. Roof bracing also varies. An eighties Ford has less rigid bracing than a modern vehicle with rollover standards. A station wagon often has more rigid lateral bracing or a double wall. G forces were notably reduced in testing. Landing on a vehicle also reduces fall height somewhat. The aforementioned eighties Ford example also has greater suspension travel and softer springs than a modern automobile, as would a Chevy Caprice. I have personally jumped onto the roof of an eighties Ford, as well as the hood, from a relatively low distance (around twelve feet from the ground, eight feet from the car,) and I know that the dampening of the sheetmetal collapsing and the suspension do provide actually a fairly soft landing platform, provided you don't fall off afterwards.
When MythBusters ended, Tyler appeared. The hero we need! On that note, Tyler, have you ever thought about trying to replicate a MythBusters episode yourself? A full 24 minute scripted and edited episode. I feel like with your editing and filming skills, you could pull off something pretty close. Especially if you could find some soundalikes for the narrator and stuff. You should give it a try!
the reason the 50 tripped on the roof fall and not the rear window is because of the moonroof. it has additional supports in the area and less crumple.
Theres a major problem with the experiment! You used a car with a sunroof. The rails act as reinforcement and there's an additional crossmember behind the sunroof. This prevents the roof from "folding".
I just simply can't understand how Tyler is not already at 1 mill subs! Grade A content. Likeable guy. Uber talented. Top notch filming/editing. Fun ideas. What else do the algorithm gods want!!!???
I dont see how this really answered the spirit of the question. From a certain height, any fall will kill you. But if im jumping from a 2nd story window, I'd rather fall on a car than pavement. Which is the idea movies are getting at.
Fall safety matters. We put up railings, and require fall arrest harnesses, for good reason. I have zero fear of heights, but even I still fear falling.
Putting in the good work here. That was a lot of fun. Even just seeing how the dummy hit. If there was some chance the fall didn't kill you, you can count on lots of broken bones. (But that fall will totally kill you.) Thanks for sharing!
Great video!!! your test dummy needs to work on his tuck-and-roll skills...🤣 Really appreciate the time, cost and effort it takes to make your videos, and I REALLY enjoy them! A new Tyler Bell video is definitely a highpoint of the day!!
Would be interesting to see this repeated with an older car. Newer cars like the VW you have here tend to have very strong passenger compartments for protection of the occupants during side impacts or roll-overs, and to stay in shape while the front or rear crumples to soak up energy during head-on hits or when rear-ended. Plus that's a unibody car where the pillars and roof are key elements of the overall structure. Older cars - especially body-on-frame designs - were not built this way, and that roof impact especially would probably be a lot softer than in this setup. Enough to avoid serious injury from that height though? Probably not.
Cool stuff! Honestly, at that height, if you landed with locked legs feet first on the roof (which the dummy sadly lacked the bones to do) it looks pretty survivable, albeit with two very broken legs and probably some spine issue
From what I’ve seen they make calculated cuts in the A pillars, B pillars, and C pillars to make the elastic deformation of the vehicle seem as realistic as they can. Granted it’s not perfect but it’s pretty cool to see how much actually goes into it. I’d hope no one has ever made a decision based on what they saw in a movie though.
If it makes you feel any better, a lot of times the cars are truly scrap and they just repaint them or make it look decent enough for filming, and/or they look fine on the outside but are mechanically totalled. They also cut into the frame to weaken the structure so the car crushes enough to look good for the camera.
I'd be curious to see what the difference would be if the car didn't have the extra reinforcing for the sunroof. It'd probably make some difference. Great video.
I believe the sunroof and the fact this is a somewhat modern Jetta made it less survivable. Try finding a wagon with a long metal roof, it’ll likely work better
I remember hearing about the guy who tried inventing the para shoot and he jumped off the efifel tower and as soon as he touched the ground his invention failed to save him however people have been theorizing that if he had hit a car at the time he could have survived as they were all soft tops at the time so I think you should try this experiment again and see if a hard top car or a soft top car is better to land on
So, with this I think it may be a case where falling on an older car might actually be "safer" than newer ones. Newer cars have roll bars in the roof so that they don't collapse (as easily) in a rollover accident, but many, maybe most, older cars (thinking maybe mid-early 80's, but 70's for sure) cars often didn't have any real structure overhead. They were essentially just supports to keep the roof panel attached to the car and didn't add much structure. This is why those gigantic cars in the 70's often have great visibility, because thw corners can just be a little stick of metal for the edges of the glass to hang onto. Yes, there are exceptions, but I know that at least American cars from this era were _death traps_ in a rollover accident because the roofs had a tendency to collapse under the weight of the vehicle and crush whoever was inside. Bad if you are inside and enjoy not being squished like a bug, but (potentially) quite good if you are falling onto the roof from the outside, because it would almost certainly crumple a lot more under your weight and "cushion" your fall better than more modern cars that are designed to be rigid enough to handle holding up the weight of the entire vehicle in a high speed crash.
There where actually several documented occasions on which people fell from skyscrapers and landed on cars and then survived they all fell feet first and due to human joints being much more rigid that the dummy joints the Legs where able to absorb much of the fall.
One thing I’ve heard from “How to survive” videos is to use your legs along with the car to break your fall, reducing the G’s to your head. Not sure how you’d test that with the dummy though.
Really good video, but from what I know, how many Gs it takes to die isn't as straight forward as above 50 to the head means death. Obviously prolonged exposure to that kind of acceleration will kill you, but some hits in contact sports have been recorded at much higher that 50g at the head with minimal acute effect. From what I have read, anything above 85g will cause permanent brain injury but may not cause death. It always depends on how long the Gs occur for. The highest instantaneous g force ever survived is above 200, with severe injuries.
So you want to set up the special effects. You don't want to be a stunt person? Here's to you getting your wish to visit a movie set/effects studio, Tyler!
I remember when I was a kid I wanted to be a stunt person, until I found out that stunt people are jocks 😅 Staying safe as a stunt person takes a lot of conditioning, training and physical ability, including good air awareness. Plus a fair amount of luck, because it doesn't take much to cause a career-ending injury, which could be something as simple as a knee injury.
There’s a video of a guy in east Europe ending his days by jumping from a 15 story skyscraper… So yeah the camera guy catches up with him after landing and he only has a broken back after landing on a car roof and still able to talk and move his arms.
Would a *classic* car be a better fall cushion (like, not a good one, just one good enough to prevent death). I would imagine that with them thin pillars, and with a roof not built for roll-over strength, it could be more pliant than a modern-ish car like the one tested here? (Well, as much as "pliant" can be applied to metal, anyway)
For landing like the Rock in Fast N Furious, yeah this dummy test seems very realistic lol. However what about landing on your feets on the roof? Your legs would definitely be absorbing a lot of energy. I don't think you would be dead by falling at the same height as the dummy on your feet but of course depending on the car this could definitely injure you.
i mean from low heights with proper form it would be survivable. but any higher than 30 feet i think it's only possible with awnings or similar soft structures.
How well do those shock watches work if they’re not stuck to the hard mass you’re measuring? If it was on a t-shirt for example, wouldn’t getting hit in by an air cannon be enough to set them off? How much does that come in to play? It seems like it wouldn’t be very useful if it’s on a different layer, not that it would make much difference in this test.
I hope you can get in touch with Adam Savage I would love for you to do a video with him, even if it’s just him reacting to your past videos and giving input
You need a larger roof that does not gave a reinforcing structure around the sunroof. The roof should cave in to soften the fall of the dummy. Research actual cases of people falling onto vehicles and surviving from more than 5 stories up. The vehicles take a lot of damage, while the people landed flat on the backs. Falling "wrong" by a little and the head and neck are damaged beyond repair. Mimicking mythbusters' countdowns reminds me of a equation I have for them: Do they countdown all events; including starting a stream in the smallest room in the house? What about number two? When should the countdown begin?
I do wonder if the weight of the dummy contributed to this at all. I wonder if a heavier dummy would’ve made the roof crumple more and therefore slow down the impact just a bit more.
You want to spread out of the impact of the fall (and make the impact take as long as possible). So landing on your feet (so your legs act as shock absorbers) and onto a car (where the impact can be more easily taken) is much better than the concrete
@@Stampyboyzyeah this test neglects the delay that muscular rigidity would have played, but ultimately that has to be a mute point. I’m not sure how to design a test that would allow for realistic data to be taken other than well…the real thing.
@@Sue_Me_Too Ehhhhh maybe if you wanted to survive but if you survived falling from a huge ass height you would be crippled and your life would be a living hell so whichever one you want 💀💀
I think the presence of the sunroof slightly worsened the outcome of hitting the roof. A regular thin metal roof would probably be much safer to land on
How the knowledge of math and science alleviates such doubts…. Physics and biology can answer that without having to hurt, or study injured people or animals.
How do you say I think technically falling on the car would be safer because you do have things like the roof that could serve to kind of break your fall a little bit but to be honest with you if you're falling from a high height doesn't really matter what you land on you're gone
We know for sure that landing on a car from that height is lethal. Would be nice if you could do it again and tell us what height us survivable though. And if it's better than landing on the ground.
A friend of mind jumped from the 4th floor ~12m or 40ft, onto pavement because a drug addict threatened him with a knife. He broke his legs and hip, but he survived, he had several surgeries and kept in hospital for little over a year. So that test doesn't consider the natural crumble zone by breaking bones and muscle resistance when falling feet first. I wonder what would be the results when using a ballistic dummy for that experiment.
My thought on this is that due to how much less damage you do the torso according to the measurement devices you're using. . . Would the dummies survive if it succeeded in landing in a position where its head never smashed full force into the car. Like how parkour people are taught to role on the shoulder and spread the impact of the entirety of their body while also avoiding any impact to their head. If you were to land with an intent to try and spread that impact throughout your body but also avoid your head you'd be injured as hell and in a ton of pain but would you live?
I‘m shure, that the problem wasn’t that he was not the main character, but more the German car. A dodge cushions your fall like a mattress as we have seen in countless American movies.
Just one thing though, that car had a sunroof which is more rigid. A normal roof i basically just a big sheet of aluminium with some wires and padding inside. Probably still fatal but still
I'd say, that if I had to choose between falling on a car and falling on pavement... I'd much rather take my chances with the car. Won't save every fall, but definitely softens it a bit
So according to some research I found, healthy adult males have a lethal impact of 75-80g's, for healthy women it's 65 g's, for a healthy child it would be 50 g's. This is based upon people in the 50th percentile as far as health goes. Someone like Dwayne The Rock Johnson is probably more like in the 5th or 10th percentile, so he could possibly have a lethal impact force of 90g's. I say we ask The Rock to perform this test for science.
How did you pick the fall height? You could have started from the minimum deathly concrete fall height. If you only picked the one ridiculously tall fall height, then it's not much of an experiment.
Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code TYLERBELL at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: incogni.com/tylerbell
People should be aware that all Incogni does is automate sending data removal requests, and that there's no way to unsubscribe from them other than to change your creditcard details. They are themselves much worse at letting you control your own data than many of the very limited number of services they target.
Always a bad day when an excellent video is interrupted by ads.
So.... what if he was wearing a helmet and took that fall?
*Sensors on head not helmet
i hit a brick wall going 90mph in my car i bounced off and went 30 feet in reverse i got out of the car and was mad that i broke my phone ....its all just luck and how you impact ....
lol the first drop onto the car looks like dead pool 2 when he breaks his back in jail fall
If only the dummy could do a 'shock-absorbing' superhero landing!
Haha a custom ballistics gel dummy in the shape of a super hero landing would he epic
For some reason, this comment reminds me of the Video Copilot's superhero landing video 😅
nice job on the lightsaber hacksmith
Not sure why this guy's videos haven't been hitting the algorithm like they used to, but here's hoping this one does. This is high quality content.
Marvel magic
I hate to be that guy, but it is probably the lack of click bait in the titles and thumbnail. I just hope he isn't going broke.
The deeply irregular uploads might be part of it.
Everybody’s friendly reminder to like and comment on the video😁
@@la24dogg21 ⚠️ God has said in the Quran:
🔴 { Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful." ( 39:53 )}
📖Quran
Honestly, You are a MythBuster, Adam has said in the past (I think it was a Tested QA) that to him, all of these UA-camrs: science, maker, slow-mo camera, and practical effect channels out there, inhabit the spirit of MythBusters. MythBusters was never about the myths it was always about learning and teaching. How to test a hypothesis, building a rig to test and show what happen, then show as many people as possible what you've learned, built and the process of how you got there. MythBusters just had a TV budget to do it in big and flashy way.
I thought too, that this is the type of stuff Mythbusters would do
I subscribed because i love old mythbusters
I think I'll have to disagree with the conclusion. The question from the title wasn't if falling from 75 feet on a car is survivable, it was if falling on a car is safer than on pavement. For me this translates to the question: Is the hight from which you have to fall in order to die higher when falling on a car than when falling on pavement? The shock stickers showed that the car cushioned the impact, so I'd answer this question with yes. The conclusion should be that it's at least plausible, although not to the degree that's shown in movies.
Yes, where was the content related to the comparison question? About as factual as the old MythBusters show.
you probably have to land on your feet not your back, which makes sense because that just adds even more time it takes for you to come to a full stop
rip legs though
edit: yes i know he tested it in the video but it was on the hood not the body
9:10 i can only imagine what that guy driving by on the highway thought as he saw a man in a red jump suit hanging by his neck from a boom lift 😂
I beleive multiple heights should have been tested against, as well as possibly multiple cars. I beleive this is definitely plausible, as anything to break one's fall is advantageous over hard pavement. Roof bracing also varies. An eighties Ford has less rigid bracing than a modern vehicle with rollover standards. A station wagon often has more rigid lateral bracing or a double wall. G forces were notably reduced in testing. Landing on a vehicle also reduces fall height somewhat. The aforementioned eighties Ford example also has greater suspension travel and softer springs than a modern automobile, as would a Chevy Caprice. I have personally jumped onto the roof of an eighties Ford, as well as the hood, from a relatively low distance (around twelve feet from the ground, eight feet from the car,) and I know that the dampening of the sheetmetal collapsing and the suspension do provide actually a fairly soft landing platform, provided you don't fall off afterwards.
Sickkkkk!
When MythBusters ended, Tyler appeared. The hero we need!
On that note, Tyler, have you ever thought about trying to replicate a MythBusters episode yourself? A full 24 minute scripted and edited episode. I feel like with your editing and filming skills, you could pull off something pretty close. Especially if you could find some soundalikes for the narrator and stuff. You should give it a try!
They were 42 minutes actually. Got the whole series on my plex server 😁
the reason the 50 tripped on the roof fall and not the rear window is because of the moonroof. it has additional supports in the area and less crumple.
Theres a major problem with the experiment! You used a car with a sunroof. The rails act as reinforcement and there's an additional crossmember behind the sunroof. This prevents the roof from "folding".
Gotta agree
I just simply can't understand how Tyler is not already at 1 mill subs! Grade A content. Likeable guy. Uber talented. Top notch filming/editing. Fun ideas. What else do the algorithm gods want!!!???
I dont see how this really answered the spirit of the question. From a certain height, any fall will kill you. But if im jumping from a 2nd story window, I'd rather fall on a car than pavement. Which is the idea movies are getting at.
Fall safety matters.
We put up railings, and require fall arrest harnesses, for good reason.
I have zero fear of heights, but even I still fear falling.
Its official, We need the new mythbusters, Tyler and totally real mythbuster Allen Pan
Putting in the good work here. That was a lot of fun. Even just seeing how the dummy hit. If there was some chance the fall didn't kill you, you can count on lots of broken bones. (But that fall will totally kill you.) Thanks for sharing!
Great video!!! your test dummy needs to work on his tuck-and-roll skills...🤣 Really appreciate the time, cost and effort it takes to make your videos, and I REALLY enjoy them! A new Tyler Bell video is definitely a highpoint of the day!!
Would be interesting to see this repeated with an older car. Newer cars like the VW you have here tend to have very strong passenger compartments for protection of the occupants during side impacts or roll-overs, and to stay in shape while the front or rear crumples to soak up energy during head-on hits or when rear-ended. Plus that's a unibody car where the pillars and roof are key elements of the overall structure. Older cars - especially body-on-frame designs - were not built this way, and that roof impact especially would probably be a lot softer than in this setup. Enough to avoid serious injury from that height though? Probably not.
Dudley The dead Dummy was having a real downer of a day with the diabolical Bell brothers duo!
Cool stuff! Honestly, at that height, if you landed with locked legs feet first on the roof (which the dummy sadly lacked the bones to do) it looks pretty survivable, albeit with two very broken legs and probably some spine issue
Tyler bell= mythbuster Rolls right off the tongue😊
You’re keeping the ethos of mythbusters alive!
From what I’ve seen they make calculated cuts in the A pillars, B pillars, and C pillars to make the elastic deformation of the vehicle seem as realistic as they can. Granted it’s not perfect but it’s pretty cool to see how much actually goes into it. I’d hope no one has ever made a decision based on what they saw in a movie though.
4:40 - I like the royalty-free version of Mumbasa
What a wonderful video to be released about the same time as mythbusters is being released on youtube!
You, sir, are a present day myth buster. Achievement unlocked. Congratulations!
it makes me mad when they destroy classic cars in movies, awesome video
If it makes you feel any better, a lot of times the cars are truly scrap and they just repaint them or make it look decent enough for filming, and/or they look fine on the outside but are mechanically totalled. They also cut into the frame to weaken the structure so the car crushes enough to look good for the camera.
Haha, love the Mythbusters mentions
Love the effort you put into this video. Keep up the good work! 😊
These guy need to be back in the algorithm
I'd be curious to see what the difference would be if the car didn't have the extra reinforcing for the sunroof. It'd probably make some difference. Great video.
Maybe contact Corridor Crew, they have a lot of knowledge on stunts and special effects, they also know many actual stuntmen
This is a superb video, mythbusters lives on!
BRO, this was fantastic
Please collab with Safety Third, it'd be epic
Your vibe made me subscribe
Awesome video, making sure to leave a comment as a prayer to the algo gods on your behalf! Keep up the awesome work!
This is brutal af but awesome at the same time, keep up the good work tyler!
I believe the sunroof and the fact this is a somewhat modern Jetta made it less survivable. Try finding a wagon with a long metal roof, it’ll likely work better
I remember hearing about the guy who tried inventing the para shoot and he jumped off the efifel tower and as soon as he touched the ground his invention failed to save him however people have been theorizing that if he had hit a car at the time he could have survived as they were all soft tops at the time so I think you should try this experiment again and see if a hard top car or a soft top car is better to land on
Indeed, in true Mythbusters style, movie myth busted! 👍😎
Incredible content as always man. @Tested surely a collab
So, with this I think it may be a case where falling on an older car might actually be "safer" than newer ones. Newer cars have roll bars in the roof so that they don't collapse (as easily) in a rollover accident, but many, maybe most, older cars (thinking maybe mid-early 80's, but 70's for sure) cars often didn't have any real structure overhead. They were essentially just supports to keep the roof panel attached to the car and didn't add much structure. This is why those gigantic cars in the 70's often have great visibility, because thw corners can just be a little stick of metal for the edges of the glass to hang onto. Yes, there are exceptions, but I know that at least American cars from this era were _death traps_ in a rollover accident because the roofs had a tendency to collapse under the weight of the vehicle and crush whoever was inside. Bad if you are inside and enjoy not being squished like a bug, but (potentially) quite good if you are falling onto the roof from the outside, because it would almost certainly crumple a lot more under your weight and "cushion" your fall better than more modern cars that are designed to be rigid enough to handle holding up the weight of the entire vehicle in a high speed crash.
There where actually several documented occasions on which people fell from skyscrapers and landed on cars and then survived they all fell feet first and due to human joints being much more rigid that the dummy joints the Legs where able to absorb much of the fall.
Great video!
One thing I’ve heard from “How to survive” videos is to use your legs along with the car to break your fall, reducing the G’s to your head. Not sure how you’d test that with the dummy though.
Really good video, but from what I know, how many Gs it takes to die isn't as straight forward as above 50 to the head means death. Obviously prolonged exposure to that kind of acceleration will kill you, but some hits in contact sports have been recorded at much higher that 50g at the head with minimal acute effect. From what I have read, anything above 85g will cause permanent brain injury but may not cause death. It always depends on how long the Gs occur for. The highest instantaneous g force ever survived is above 200, with severe injuries.
Comment for rhe algo. Amazing video man
Awesome stuff!!
So you want to set up the special effects. You don't want to be a stunt person?
Here's to you getting your wish to visit a movie set/effects studio, Tyler!
I remember when I was a kid I wanted to be a stunt person, until I found out that stunt people are jocks 😅
Staying safe as a stunt person takes a lot of conditioning, training and physical ability, including good air awareness. Plus a fair amount of luck, because it doesn't take much to cause a career-ending injury, which could be something as simple as a knee injury.
Loved the ending
Top notch video again:)
There’s a video of a guy in east Europe ending his days by jumping from a 15 story skyscraper…
So yeah the camera guy catches up with him after landing and he only has a broken back after landing on a car roof and still able to talk and move his arms.
Front and back windows are made very differently. I'd be interested to see a drop on the roof with the head on the windshield
3:04 🎼not just merely dead, but really quite sincerely dead 🎶
Would a *classic* car be a better fall cushion (like, not a good one, just one good enough to prevent death). I would imagine that with them thin pillars, and with a roof not built for roll-over strength, it could be more pliant than a modern-ish car like the one tested here? (Well, as much as "pliant" can be applied to metal, anyway)
For landing like the Rock in Fast N Furious, yeah this dummy test seems very realistic lol.
However what about landing on your feets on the roof? Your legs would definitely be absorbing a lot of energy. I don't think you would be dead by falling at the same height as the dummy on your feet but of course depending on the car this could definitely injure you.
I like to think Jon Bernthal is happy that his iconic punisher role has become a meme template.
i mean from low heights with proper form it would be survivable. but any higher than 30 feet i think it's only possible with awnings or similar soft structures.
Hi Tyler, Lamar here from Rescue Technology. Did you ever name your Ruth Lee Manikin? Good video by the way.
How well do those shock watches work if they’re not stuck to the hard mass you’re measuring? If it was on a t-shirt for example, wouldn’t getting hit in by an air cannon be enough to set them off? How much does that come in to play?
It seems like it wouldn’t be very useful if it’s on a different layer, not that it would make much difference in this test.
I hope you can get in touch with Adam Savage I would love for you to do a video with him, even if it’s just him reacting to your past videos and giving input
7:57 Its funny how for this guy "not dead" is the same ase "totally fine"
Myth busters is now at rest and gone, love to see everyone remembers it
It was my childhood
Noice! This is excellent!
Super cool
Anyone else who miss when Tyler used to build things that shoot and just shoots things for fun?
Tyler, I’m glad you’re the main character in the video. lol
You need a larger roof that does not gave a reinforcing structure around the sunroof. The roof should cave in to soften the fall of the dummy. Research actual cases of people falling onto vehicles and surviving from more than 5 stories up. The vehicles take a lot of damage, while the people landed flat on the backs. Falling "wrong" by a little and the head and neck are damaged beyond repair.
Mimicking mythbusters' countdowns reminds me of a equation I have for them: Do they countdown all events; including starting a stream in the smallest room in the house? What about number two? When should the countdown begin?
The best falling on a car stunt I've ever seen is the end of Killzone. It's a Donnie Yen movie.
I do wonder if the weight of the dummy contributed to this at all. I wonder if a heavier dummy would’ve made the roof crumple more and therefore slow down the impact just a bit more.
Note to self, don't fall on top of a car.
I mean, it is better than concrete
You want to spread out of the impact of the fall (and make the impact take as long as possible). So landing on your feet (so your legs act as shock absorbers) and onto a car (where the impact can be more easily taken) is much better than the concrete
Usually I try to incorporate this philosophy into my daily routine. So far so good.
@@Stampyboyzyeah this test neglects the delay that muscular rigidity would have played, but ultimately that has to be a mute point. I’m not sure how to design a test that would allow for realistic data to be taken other than well…the real thing.
Yea I hope I wont
Car roof crush break fall little bit but not lot bit 🗿🗿
Better than concrete.
@@Sue_Me_Too Ehhhhh maybe if you wanted to survive but if you survived falling from a huge ass height you would be crippled and your life would be a living hell so whichever one you want 💀💀
I think the presence of the sunroof slightly worsened the outcome of hitting the roof. A regular thin metal roof would probably be much safer to land on
Tyler you're a cool guy!
Cars are designed to deform and absorb a lot of energy during an impact.
Landing on the car is almost certainly better than landing on the blacktop.
Love your vids xoxo~
But it did reduce the impact force. Not enough at that height, but it might be enough from a lower height...
Makes you wonder how they decided on the 50, 75 and 100 G's stickers 🤔🤔
I think they consulted with doctors on many occasions
How the knowledge of math and science alleviates such doubts…. Physics and biology can answer that without having to hurt, or study injured people or animals.
How do you say I think technically falling on the car would be safer because you do have things like the roof that could serve to kind of break your fall a little bit but to be honest with you if you're falling from a high height doesn't really matter what you land on you're gone
Since the dummy landed so close to the edge of the roof there was way more structural support and less shock absorption. I call a re-do
We know for sure that landing on a car from that height is lethal. Would be nice if you could do it again and tell us what height us survivable though. And if it's better than landing on the ground.
A friend of mind jumped from the 4th floor ~12m or 40ft, onto pavement because a drug addict threatened him with a knife.
He broke his legs and hip, but he survived, he had several surgeries and kept in hospital for little over a year.
So that test doesn't consider the natural crumble zone by breaking bones and muscle resistance when falling feet first.
I wonder what would be the results when using a ballistic dummy for that experiment.
My thought on this is that due to how much less damage you do the torso according to the measurement devices you're using. . . Would the dummies survive if it succeeded in landing in a position where its head never smashed full force into the car. Like how parkour people are taught to role on the shoulder and spread the impact of the entirety of their body while also avoiding any impact to their head. If you were to land with an intent to try and spread that impact throughout your body but also avoid your head you'd be injured as hell and in a ton of pain but would you live?
I got a safelite repair safelite replace ad at the end of this video
Underrated af.
I‘m shure, that the problem wasn’t that he was not the main character, but more the German car. A dodge cushions your fall like a mattress as we have seen in countless American movies.
"Where's the head"
I don't know why but I laughed so hard on that
good work, I thought you dropped yourself on the grass till I seen how.
Just one thing though, that car had a sunroof which is more rigid. A normal roof i basically just a big sheet of aluminium with some wires and padding inside. Probably still fatal but still
*i fell from that height when i was in the army. Its survivable but i broke my back and both arms*
I'd say, that if I had to choose between falling on a car and falling on pavement... I'd much rather take my chances with the car. Won't save every fall, but definitely softens it a bit
i almost wonder if more weight on the dummy would encourage more crumple distance on the car, leading to a possibly safer landing :0
"DAAAAAAAAMNNNN..... He wont be in rush hour 3.." - James Carter, 2001
So, If the dummy can soften its own impact by landing feet first, kneel bended, it could have survived?
So according to some research I found, healthy adult males have a lethal impact of 75-80g's, for healthy women it's 65 g's, for a healthy child it would be 50 g's. This is based upon people in the 50th percentile as far as health goes. Someone like Dwayne The Rock Johnson is probably more like in the 5th or 10th percentile, so he could possibly have a lethal impact force of 90g's. I say we ask The Rock to perform this test for science.
I really think that Adam Savage needs to be tagged in here (I tried, can't figure it out)
Your Brother looks like a good looking, sane Eddy Burback
where cen i get a test dummy like that man? i need a friend :)
How did you pick the fall height? You could have started from the minimum deathly concrete fall height. If you only picked the one ridiculously tall fall height, then it's not much of an experiment.