MythBusters: Running in the Rain

In the March 2012 issue of Chicago magazine, we look at a new exhibit at the Museum of Science and Industry about the popular series MythBusters. The display is one of 14 interactive exhibits developed in Chicago. For more information, see chicagomag.com/....

[@wessimmo4]

I like the dead guy prop in the background just casually chilling naked and chained up 00:48

[@Mr.CalisReaper]

you think thats a prop.... lol

[@btswhoalliseeisgot7528]

@@Mr.CalisReaper IS IT NOTTTTTTTTTT 0.0

[@miaperry2042]

They actually went back and found out that because they used artificial rain in their original test, their results were actually a false positive. Their final conclusion was that it is in fact better to run in the rain than walk in the rain when you want to stay as dry as possible.

[@xxgamer_gavinxx7910]

Tell my teacher that

[@Its3am]

Good because it made no sense to me and was surprised when they concluded this. It concerned me do much so that I’m looking it up again years later.

[@BenDover-gf8yw]

What the hell is atrifisial rain lol

[@ianashmore9910]

@@BenDover-gf8yw Giant overhead sprinklers

[@thearizonaranger7376]

@@BenDover-gf8yw yea what Ian said, they use them for filming rainy scenes in movies and stuff.

[@OddTimeMan]

When you run you're more likely to splash water up onto your pants.

[@stevenbryant4718]

no, try it.

[@KILLRXNOEVIRUS]

No its because more is hitting his clothes then his head.

[@KILLRXNOEVIRUS]

The test is flawed.

[@KILLRXNOEVIRUS]

They need to count all the water on their heads too.

[@IVBAGS]

True.

[@RaterisimoCBA]

This all depends on how far away from cover you are .. you can Get there twice as fast running than walking so running would greatly compensate the small increase in the amount of drops you're interacting with

[@orbits2754]

No it is just flat out wrong

[@sabapc81]

To expand on that... It really depends on how long you are exposed to the rain. This means that distance is a factor but so is speed. These kinds of problems are usually explored on the extremes. How about walking extremely slow versus running extremely fast? What about the distance only being 50 ft? If you walk extremely slow you end up exposed to so much rain that, no matter what, you're going to end up soaking wet. If you run that distance extremely fast, even if you take on all of water in the air at that particular time, it is not going to be more than the amount of water taken in from the top, for a prolonged time. Are there any conditions in which walking would get you less wet? My intuition tells me... when the rain is light, very vertical, and the distance is short.

[@PaulOtt]

Seems that walking would cause more rain to land on top of your shoulders and head. Running could cause more to end up on the front of your body. They need coveralls with hoods and masks to get a fair comparison. Also, the coveralls should probably be thicker to absorb all the water that is concentrated on top, and not soak through to the skin/material below. Dunno, it's interesting, but I'm not convinced.

[@chrisfox681]

Paul Ott too many factors to give a shit. just take an umbrella

[@imtryingmybest673]

I don’t see why I need as much information on this experiment as possible in order to function as an adult

[@ravensong9030]

Nice observations. Nobody ever mentions that this is not independent of the angle of the rain: if it's falling on your back, it could actually be better to move faster

[@leosynomi]

if you search minute physics rain you will find that running is more effective than walking. Plus mythbusters retested this and found that running, is in fact more eficient.

[@T1mm0s]

There are so many parameters to into account... Contact surface when you swing your legs forward and backward, water on the head, the angle by which the rain is falling, how fast you are going, how big your head is, how tall you are... all these things parameterize how much contact surface there is between your body and the water. So either MinutePhysics or Mythbusters are completely right. It more of a minimization problem with a lot of parameters. MinutePhysics gave one simplified formula.

[@AmmarVII]

MinutePhysics got me here!

[@hawkpaw1]

what if your running sideways???

[@SmailSmail-ph3sp]

محف

[@kazuroth9223]

you’re

[@Galaxy-tg7zy]

Ayris Jeanmard who runs sideways?!?! 😂

[@BobjoeIII]

Or have an umbrella and run

[@rasskhovp528]

Galaxy crabs

[@hubertwang1627]

They weren't wearing hats, and the main difference between walking and running in the rain is the rain coming down on your head.

[@fpsproductions6073]

Not necessarily, no matter how fast you go, water will always be falling on your head. If you move forward faster, you will be moving out from under one drop of rain, and into the cover of another drop of rain.

[@javaz.5721]

I think that you receive more water from ground water being kicked up when you run than when you walk. Also, that water weighs more than the water you receive falling from the sky in the few seconds you save yourself.

[@dustinbrody]

they should have done way more tests. i want to see a graph of mass over time or speed

[@MateusSFigueiredo]

That's science, not tv

[@TheDeath7ofsb]

When you run your footfalls are heavier and the splash back potential is way higher than just walking

[@liumiimuil8834]

Let’s also imagine, that the rain is freezing, regardless I’d think exposure time and low body temperature would lose against warming up through running over a distance, perhaps

[@ኬንቶ]

Relative_area_you_go_through_in_the_rain = (width_of_your_body * vertical_rain_velocity * (distance/body_velocity)) + (height_of_your_body * absolute(horizontal_rain_velocity - body_velocity) * (distance/body_velocity)) Therefore, regarding body_velocity as x, the volume of rain you touch as y, and other variables as a and b, y = a/x ± b So theoretically you get less wet as you move faster regardless of the velocity or direction of rain.

[@4wdsome444]

You’ll have less exposure but more surface area it depends on distance, it’s notable though that the aero dynamics of a typical roadster or convertible that whilst moving at speed they don’t get wet at all albeit 1 or 2 droplets whereas whilst they are moving slowly or not moving they get soaked

[@pertinaxvolo]

The crew admited they made a mistake. Of course you should run in the rain, or just bring your unmbrella.

[@thekickingmule]

Maybe it's just where I am in the UK, but we've always said there's no point running in the rain as you get wetter. The proof I use is your car windscreen wipers. If they are activated by rain on the screen, they turn off at traffic lights and then back on when it's moving, showing there's more water hitting it the faster you go

[@flipflopflapjack]

While you hit the same amount of rain no matter what speed you go, when you’re going faster, you’ll collect the rain all at once while going slower you collect the rain over a longer period of time so yes you are collecting more rain when you go faster but rain runs off the car instead of soaking into clothes so when it’s walking/ running it’s a different question. I do agree that running is a bad idea though because of the splash from the floor and getting your entire front soaked instead of just your head and shoulders

[@ravensong9030]

Beware because the windscreen worries about how much rain it's receiving at any given time, while this whole problem is about the rain you absorb over a period. And of course the point of going faster is to reduce that period of time. I think flipflop said more or less the same thing in other words

[@ravensong9030]

You British people should be experts in rain😏

[@MrKohlenstoff]

MinutePhysics explained that running actually increases the wetness when compared to walking depending on time, but reduces it for a given fixed *distance*. Which makes sense in general - the faster an object moves from A to B, the less wet it gets - but the fact remains that by running, a human increases his/her contact surface with the rain due to the typical shape of a human, given that the rain falls down vertically.

[@7thwardlord181]

But running u get out of the rain faster cuz either way ur gonna get wet but I'm sure most ppl would wanna get out of the rain quicker then to casually walk through ir

[@thestalkinghead]

i know they revisited this but i think this is more accurate, i know for sure that when you scale this up the results are way more obvious, using a moped in the rain i consistently got way wetter (mostly on the front of my body) than people walking, and that is with the walkers walking for 45 minutes and my moped would take 20 minutes. i think their revisit was way too short of a distance traveled (about 20m) the rain was inconsistent and the runner just barely jogged not a real run

[@NBAclipsHere]

Most people duck over though when they're running so they pick up rain less.

[@tpespos]

This is wrong and they disprove it in a later episode

[@rodristrongest]

yes I have seen that episode not this one

[@detectivel2231]

tpespos Everyone with an IQ higher than 50 should see how rediculous this was 🤦

[@forgetmybelief]

Hey let's not cover our heads where all the water will soak into our hair right? Great way to run the experiment lol

[@DanielLCarrier]

@@kcloudz8182 Here's a link to the episode summary: mythresults.com/episode38

[@Redmanticore]

REVISITED: You end up drier running in the rain than walking. (From Episode 1) confirmed When retrying the test in actual rain it was conclusively proven that the running test subject got less wet than the walking test subject. The use of artificial rain in the original test led to a false negative.

[@dmitriyvakulchik]

where can we see the version where they disproved it? Anybody know?

[@nithinchinni]

the amount of rain you collect can be same or a little more but the main reason why you run is not to get wet for a longer time and get cold. Compare taking a shower for 5-10 min with a person under bath tub full of water for 5 seconds.

[@TrinitronX]

Jamie was correct in stating that there were a lot of factors. They don’t even consider the cross-sectional area of the person moving through the rain! snowball.millersville.edu/~adecaria/DERIVATIONS/Rain.pdf

[@arjunyadav26]

Wouldn't you reach the destination faster by running, enough to offset the increase in water exposure?

[@DkNy2kX]

Think about surface area. When you run you are hitting more raindrops to the front of your clothes than walking where it hits the top of your clothes.

[@arjunyadav26]

@@DkNy2kX that is correct. And that is what their argument in the video is. But they have assumed time to be constant which won't be the case if you've got a destination to reach and running will get you there faster.

[@justinwhite2725]

@@DkNy2kX yes, but rain hitting your front is a function of distance (no matter your speed) rain hitting you on top is a Fu ction of time. The rain hitting your front is a wash and only the rain hitting you on top is a value affected in the scenario (which they didn't even test for here)

[@JAJE3U8]

Minute Physics denies this

[@drednaught608]

So does future Mythbusters.

[@codediporpal]

Minute Physics uses a simplistic model that makes lots of assumptions.

[@ideallyjekyl5200]

Minute physics is using a matter of relation whereas mythbusters tested for the matter of fact. Sometimes theories don't stack up to reality.

[@drednaught608]

+Ideally Jekyl Except when they do, which I've just pointed out a year ago saying that future Mythbusters tested it again and got it correct this time.

[@ideallyjekyl5200]

Drednaught fascinating

[@kikocuyugan6769]

That dude in the background c reeps me out

[@Around_blax_dont_relax]

Its a prop for a movie, most likely

[@ema3ma951]

You didn't consider the rain from the top

[@xidane]

seriously.... MP says that no matter you move at what speed from point A to B. u will get the same amount of rain infront of you.. but if u move faster u will get less rain on top of you.

[@ldcrluis]

I have got a theory, The surface of the floor is watery, if you run you hit the floor with more force, sprinkling more droplets in a radious, your legs collect the drops that jump at your front. Maybe when they ran their suits had its legs, particulary down from the knee, quite soaked.

[@leovomend8789]

ok but how about if its walking 3 or 10 times the distance, does the ratio stay the same if you walk in the rain for 1 hour vs run for 20 minutes?

[@CPLains]

yes, but minutephysics noted that the speed forward wouldn't matter, as you'd catch the same amount of water on the torso whether running or walking. however, this will be false if you slant your upper body and head forwards to block some of the rain hitting your torso; in that case, only when you are running will the water be absorbed by the area underneath the slanted upperbody/head. e.g. there's a certain speed/wind direction at which your neck underneath the jaw too will get soaked. maybe!

[@goldengoat9524]

Bruh just stay in the middle of the rain till it stops to not get wet

[@sentjojo]

the Mythbusters revisited this myth and got the opposite result

[@Bmf2786]

Who’s head from mr mullis

[@shaun__3]

2:15 785-757=18 apparently

[@bladestreams]

it's 28, and yeah it took me 2 years to solve it

[@AbrasiveCarl]

Not to be fun at parties but, can pressing the suits onto the scale like that damage the sensor or something?

[@tannerman46]

They greatly over complicated this. Just hook up a dry sponge to a pully system and pull it about half a meter through falling water. Do it multiple times at multiple speeds. Weigh the sponge after each to see how much water it caught in each run.

[@arneltan6738]

they should not only weigh their coats but instead weigh themselves before and after walking/running in the rain to get a more precise result. .because obviously, you'll get more water in your head when walking than running (which will not be counted on the weigh in). .

[@HDConcussionz]

The whole point of the test is to see if you should walk or run in the rain. In real life if your running/walking too your car your not going to care about the rain on your head. Also even with the clothes it wasn't a huge difference in weight from dry-wet. How much rain do you think would fall on your head?

[@mikechoe97]

Either way you're gonna get wet so at least if you run, you can get out of the rain faster

[@gloomygloomstalker3878]

But id rather walk so that my whole body isnt as soaked compared to running (also running is so much effort)

[@CPLains]

Also when one leg is moving backwards, it is also slanted. Blah, there are probably more things in play too lol. Simple things are sometimes so difficult x)

[@ravensong9030]

You can make yourself absorb an arbitrarily large amount of water by making your walking speed tend to zero and hence the time under the rain go to infinity. So how wet you get MUST be a decreasing function of velocity in some undetermined vicinity of being still! I can't find anything wrong with that argument and it's a bit surprising it's not brought up anywhere. So your wetness would seem to be either a decreasing function of speed for all possible speeds, or the relation is more complicated.

[@kyoshintama]

pretty sure MP didn't consider the factor of the rain's trajectory, and if taken that factor out of the equation, artificial rain would be the same as a natural rain.

[@liumiimuil8834]

How about if it’s coming in at an angle 📐 and being driven, but you are also running or walking in the same direction it’s being driven and then again in the opposite direction

[@apathyguy8338]

You cannot ignore the rain that is falling on your head. You get more water on your head when you walk then when you run. Ignoring this kind of ruins the whole experiment. It's not busted.

[@xproudfoot1]

They also have failed to account for variation in the length of the course and how heavily it is raining. The conclusions are stated far too generally for the limited conditions observed 'it is better to walk than run in the rain' as if this we always so. The "fact" is that if you have some distance to go before reaching shelter, and it's raining hard enough that you're going to get soaked either way, you want to and would be correct in running and reaching shelter earlier to avoid hypothermia.

[@dabajabaza111]

WTF is that cut up thing in the back?

[@core36]

so if i run, i get wetter than by walking. does this mean i stay dry if i don't move at all?

[@iceking_0895]

Ugh gotta watch this for school

[@kilroy987]

They didn't list the initial weight of the outfits and get a difference in weight before and after. That would have provided a more definitive result. I saw this episode long ago, and that didn't occur to me then. Then again, I was playing WoW a lot at the time and maybe it was shrinking my brain.

[@Macchiauto_]

Mythbusters could have done better with this one. They didn't apply enough variables and they jogged instead of sprinting. Minutephysics explains it simply and efficiently.

[@Frankieboy2008]

Hmm.. actually, due to the added water you pick up from the splashing of the shoes while running (basically water from the ground), compared to walking I think these results are entirely plausible. If they'd used (weighed) just a jacket instead of an overall it would probably be hard to get that kind of result though, as minute physics explains.

[@natongpgaming2862]

This is something my dad taught me and I always wanted to know this

[@Galaxy-tg7zy]

It would be right here, but some people wear a suit with a hood or gloves something like that and most of the rain that got in their head wouldn’t have been measured because it’s not on the jacket.

[@MofoWoW]

Let's assume that the amount of rain drops in a 6 inch by 6 inch square is equivalent in all the squares. Let's also call these squares, positions. If I walk 6 positions every second, then I am covered in the amount of rain in 1 position, times 6. If I run 12 positions every second, I am then covered in the amount of rain in 1 position, times 12. If it takes me 10 seconds to walk to the car, and 6 seconds to run to the car, then I would be drenched in less rain, walking. I would like to note,

[@Max-vc7jb]

if it was atr an angle tho, no matter what you do you get more rain overall. most storms have wind

[@avioro4822]

1:13 DOES HIS MOUTH EVER CLOSE?!

[@hashishishin]

2:18 785 - 757 = ... 18 ?!

[@mchawk315]

God damn I miss this show so much.

[@nv602unclebuck]

The Mythbusters are in San Fransisco.

[@dr.spectre9697]

It makes sense. If you run in the rain, you are interacting with more droplets of rain per second than you are if you are walking or standing still.

[@daniellaw2528]

What about the water splashing up from the force of running?

[@ispyegypt]

Pov:your here for school

[@reactionthink6164]

Damn same

[@kcd_inferno8575]

Same

[@imtryingmybest673]

Yep....working on my homework packet....

[@saintcasper91]

But surely there must be an optimum speed. It can't be that if you walk at 0.01 miles per hour you'll get less wet than running at 6 miles per hour because walking at 0.01 miles per hour would mean that you would take hours to get home and would get drenched!!

[@laa0fa502]

...but like than you're in the rain longer if you walk

[@bigkaris912]

Wish they did speed walking too because we dont know if that would work

[@SimonJ57]

I'd like to point out, that the british science show "Brainiac: Science abuse" once visited this, with two men in sponge suits. Awefully colourful, sponge suits.

[@thegprince93]

what if it fell sideways. could you run then, in the same direction of the wind and be dryer than if you had walked?

[@hugohernanseguracasallas4549]

Someone know the reference of sport shoe that they have used in this episode?

[@danippolito]

Episódio antigo do mythbusters, eles calcularam pesando as roupas molhadas da chuva.

[@ericmendall2547]

That dummy behind Jaime was terrifying

[@DarkColossus13]

Mythbusters revisited this and got it confirmed. Minute Physics ended up being right. The reason the results differed here was the use of an artificial rain simulator.

[@Exxot]

thanks for proving my brother wrong

[@bryanfitzmaurice8176]

what happens if the rain is coming at an angle?

[@link2299]

they said the same thing though, they both said its better to walk than run. and personally i would trust mythbusters over anything that minute physics says. minute physics is a single person who makes videos... mythbusters is a huge team of engineers, they have far more experience and expertise than minute physics who is just a kid making internet videos. Just because someone makes videos doesnt mean he can count out everything other people say :P. (dont get me wrong i love MP videos thought!)

[@carlspheno]

Actually I think this myth is not completely busted. its really depend the distance of u are traveling.

[@Darkenedbyshadows]

How so? If they got wetter running 100meters, do you really think you will be not as wet running longer distances?

[@puhtuhtuh4858]

it will be the same

[@detectivel2231]

Harvey Sia Running is better

[@DjScudMissile]

Yes, the "rain" in here is nowhere close to its terminal velocity and they don't keep track of water fallen on their head.

[@KentSeymour]

Am I the only one who sees a marked difference in the size and density of the water droplets as they do the run test?????

[@DimitrisDr3am]

Shouldn't the myth be that it's better to walk than run? Since that flies in the face of logic. So they confirmed the myth.

[@mattstyles2498]

Holy 90s giant earring Adam!

[@link2299]

no he doesnt... he says the faster you move the more you get wet, but if ur traveling from point A to B its the same. But what he says is theoretical and excludes wind, without wind thats true. but it depends highly on wind. which is what this proves.

[@sanekx107]

Surprised there's no initial d comments

[@lgmnowkondo938]

there's no way....this experiment is too confined. And I thought I heard they revisited this and proved the reverse...no?

[@lukas15t]

They were really young

[@TheElvenKeys]

now test it with a Walmart parking lot

[@stevenbryant4718]

It is not rain. Going from point A--------- Z to Z you can duck into shelter and avoid heavier rain better if you run. When you run through puddles you foot impacts the puddles displacing the water when the puddles are just a little deeper than the height of the shoe sole. This keeps your feet drier than when you walk through the puddle. This works in real rain, not a simulated car wash or a real car wash. I know this because I grew up in Florida and walked or rode my bike everywhere, even when it rained . Mythbusters busted. Was their test science then?

[@xidane]

who should i trust.. minute physics or myth buster?

[@angusdavidson15]

This is wrong. This is because if you're walking, you're spending more time in the rain. This means you get wetter. If you run in the rain, there is less time for water to fall on you, meaning you stay drier.

[@Keego0201]

I beleive they did a revist and dissproved this

[@FreeWifi1984]

Pretty sure it’s more effective to run full speed before it starts pouring. If you’re caught in the rain, just take your luck walk it out

[@Arsalani]

It's about how wet you get while being in the rain, your head counts as a part of "you" therefore it is relevant.

[@kyoshintama]

yep, had to do it. the constant battle between physical theory vs actual facts

[@mariahsedits6533]

the prop scared me in the back lol

[@nikhilparker5906]

they didnt weigh the amount of water absorbed on the head

[@hmmmason]

it’s more like run in the rain to get to your destination quicker

[@Viktxr]

then the best would be to walk as slow as possible, or maybe just stand still?

[@irenekay7934]

if you run you reach your destination faster and that equals less time in the rain so its more effective in my opinion