Car Crash Science! | MythBusters | Season 7 Episode 11 | Full Episode

MythBusters' crashing two cars episode where they correctly doubled the speed of a pendulum-type object. What's the outcome?
Using science as a tool, Hollywood special effects experts attempt to debunk rumours, urban legends and popular myths that have captivated the minds of many individuals.
#MythBusters #FactOrFiction

[@MrValis169]

This time it feels as though the narrator is behind my left ear. Never change Mythbusters channel, it's now just a part of your identity.

[@carlitofisher]

❤😂

[@Valfaun]

i do wonder how they keep doing this, though. surely the audio was fine when these episodes originally aired on TV

[@kuhluhOG]

at this point I am sure that messing with the audio was part of the agreement of being allowed to release it on KZbin

[@C.Fecteau-AU-MJ13]

​@@kuhluhOGThat could have something to do with it... I've noticed that Binajay Science has bought some licences for a lot of the episodes, but I'd be surprised if that was a condition. I'd dare say they were able to get the rights cheap due to their educational media status and the fact that the production company is Australian (which means the government gives out incentives to make them as accessible as possible). There could be some technical reasons, like if you go and check out a lot of the old Top Gear uploads the sound mixing is way out and for whatever reason the BBC hasn't bothered to go back remaster them to work properly with KZbin's software. Perhaps it's just not economical to bother when they're getting the views anyway. I'm gonna admit I am way out of my wheelhouse here, but I have someone who works for me that will definitely know the answer. I will make a note to remember to ask him next time we're in the same place at the same time.

[@Greippi10]

@@kuhluhOG That or they put the "intern", as in the 15yo son of Lisa from accounting, to put together episodes from original masters for YT.

[@daanobakker]

Seeing Buster finally getting his socks blown off made my week! Him standing there with his leather legs, woolen socks, laser controlled release system getting hit by 10000x the force of a human punch and then the happiness of the crew "Did his socks come off before his feet did?" xD

[@kim98677]

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen such a solid wall as the one in the crash test

[@14rs2]

Love getting to see Grant build stuff again. Mythbusters letting him live on is the best. RIP Grant

[@rstsdlnzms]

grant in car crash named episode hehe love the yt channel mod

[@joefries365]

i agree RIP Grant

[@TurboLingaLanguages]

I didn't know he'd passed away until recently. Very sad... he was a great part of the team.

[@TheBenNZ]

❤

[@DanielMtez]

This left-ear-narrator-trend seems such a deliberate act. It's almost lovely to have the narrator so close to one half of my my head.

[@sintorlion]

I had my shoes knocked twice; once in a free climbing accident and once in a high speed motorbike accident, those 2 incidents proved it for me

[@Redmenace96]

Knocked off. yep

[@jesustyronechrist2330]

The little narrator gnome that lives in my headphones is now in the left earcup? Thanks MythBreakers!

[@lewismaclean8849]

Another awesome video. You can't go wrong with watching Mythbusters right before going to work. Can you please upload the episode that has my two favourite myths they've ever tested that being Waterslide Wipeout and Right Turns Only.

[@Universal.G]

Thank you so much for uploading the show!!! THANK YOU!! I miss the cast and this show so much.

[@atkelar]

What I think happens is that the "crunch zone" of a car is X units, whereas the crunch zone of a wall is usually 0 units. So from the point of the car, each dissipates their own energy against the other car. Kind of a newton's cradle. But from the original myth, the center car was the one in the middle between the trucks. And that gets hit with the same energy from both sides, so that should add up...

[@fabriziomessina6734]

Crashing 2 Cars moving relative to the ground, one at 50m/s and the other one at -50m/s Is equivalent of diving a car moving at 100m/s relative to the ground and hitting another car moving at 0m/s relative to the ground. The compression in the small scale was not the same because both car compress so the kinetic energy Is dissipated in 2 Cars, when 1 car hits the Wall instead the deformation of the Wall Is transcurable and almost all the Energy Is dissipated in the compression of the clay.

[@jamesgordon364]

I have worked as a bouncer and I have definitely seen socks come off I think it is more to do with pivoting and friction in a shoe or more accurately a boot. When I have seen this occur the person is wearing an minimally laced boot with a fairly open top. I don't think it's the actual force of the punch but the ensuing struggle to stay upright that steals the sock

[@Orphioux]

Yeah so it's not the sock being knocked off it's a loose shoe yanking the sock off when it comes flying off, I have seen this as well.

[@user-gw5zs1qh2z]

Isn’t in the clay test in the first test it had to deform one and in the second it had to deform two clay cylinder? So the energy is split into two deformation.

[@Redmenace96]

Yes! so half.

[@alsternerd]

Exactly this. Also you get two times X in between the trucks they where testing with. Which is the time Jamie did his statement while a car was smashed in between two trucks, in which case the car is hit with 2 times X, while each truck get's 1 time X.

[@mrkv4k]

Yes. And it is the same thing with those cars. The energy of two cars going against each other is double the energy of one car, but it's divided between them. Each car has it's own deformation zone and IF they have a similar weight and build, it's evenly distributed.

[@scrivener68]

The original question Jamie was commenting on involved a stationary object (a small car) being hit at both ends at the same time by two vehicles travelling at 50 mph. Which you would have to test by placing a small car up against the steel crash wall and slamming into it at 100 mph and comparing those results to the original experiment. And is "One way or another, it's all just shrapnel" available on a t-shirt? I'm picturing the quote in maybe four lines, with a graphic moustache draped over the top line.

[@d4slaimless]

Was going to say the same. They crashed a car from two sides with two tracks. It wasn't just two tracks crashing into each other. So they tested different situation. Even though I like that they did it like this. I mean it is often said that two cars crashing into each other is equal to one crashing into a wall at combined speed. Was nice to see them testing this and getting the result which seems counterintuitive until you really think it through.

[@jarrodbright5231]

In that case Jamie would have been closer to being right... but still not quite because we're not dealing with perfect objects. If you took a measurement of the impact on a theoretical zero-mass object being hit by the two cars of the same mass at 50mph and compared that to the force of an object between a "perfectly solid" wall and a car going at 100mph then you would get the same measurement (as the kinetic energy all transfers perfectly from this zero mass object into the objects that absorb said kinetic energy). If the object in the middle is absorbing that kinetic energy then all objects absorbing the kinetic energy need to be taken into account. Incomplete diagrams are the source of most misunderstandings when it comes to physics.

[@detorrV2]

Still wrong. if you have two trucks hitting a car in the middle you have 3 objects crumbling and absorbing energy. If you hit a car against a wall you only have two.

[@scrivener68]

@@detorrV2 You have three: the truck, the car, and the wall. Each of these objects "absorbs" and reacts ("pushes back" in an equal-and-opposite Newtonian sense) in different proportions, with the wall mostly reacting and the car doing a lot of absorbing, but they're all involved in both directions.

[@christianellegaard7120]

It is a shame that they didn't take the opportunity to use the track to retest "Compact compact".

[@d4slaimless]

One of the best episodes!

[@Art.URO-LM]

And now the episodes of Archimedes 😊

[@adam346]

interestingly, they say if you are on a two lane road and you cannot get out of the way of a car on the wrong side of the road (one is trying to pass) they say stop your vehicle... because you are not bringing any momentum to the equation, your car will likely experience far less damage (though it will still likely be a write-off) but since you experience less acceleration, injuries will also be minimal compared to the moving car.

[@d4slaimless]

When one car stands and other crashes into it deformation is going to spread on both cars, making damage on each car less. If both cars move then there's more deformation as there's more energy in the impact. Now, one other reason might be that if you stop your car it will get bumped backwards. Some part of the impact energy will get transferred to backward movement (no inertia that would push car forward effectively squashing it).

[@adam346]

@@d4slaimless yes but the amount faced by the occupents, going from 0 to 10mph very quickly will be a sharp decline compared to the oncoming car of say 40mph to 0.

[@thecrazyfarmboy]

​@@adam346 nope, if both cars weigh the same then they will both experience the same G forces. The moving car will go from 40mph to 20, and the stopped car will go from 0 to 20 backwards. That being said, on most roads the best thing you can do is slow down as much as you can before driving right off the road into the ditch and avoid big trees

[@adam346]

@@thecrazyfarmboy stand on the brakes then... if you get pushed backwards you are liable to hit something else.

[@rstsdlnzms]

@@thecrazyfarmboyyes!! there is a shit ton of a difference between 5-10-20-40 kmh. speed is exponential, hitting ped at 5 and 10 is square the force

[@TNH91]

Looks like the ankle kept the sock on, if they had had Buster "looking" the other way to begin with it might've just slipped off on the earlier test. It wouldn't have fit exactly with the myth at that point, but how they did it doesn't really either.

[@Caricanalisis]

I think the relative motion idea is correct, it's 2x the speed, but there is 2x more stuff to compact. Maybe if you changes one of the cars for a solid uncompressible block then you would get the same destruction as the 2x velocity one?

[@chrissynen]

I think one of life little (and I mean really little) is when your sock comes straight of without going inside out... I want that sock remover machine mounted in my house haha

[@dreamboards1056]

When I was 8 I got hit by a car, I picked up my shoe AND sock and limped home with the driver following me (stranger danger I was told not to get into strange cars). Only one shoe and sock came off but off they came.

[@AkiSan0]

i think the biggest issue with "knocking the socks off" is that they are missing the human element. if you get punched, you might just flail your leg and thus "throw" the sock off. and yes, that works, as you can just do that with very lose wool socks.

[@MadHax-wt5tl]

I saw Day of the Dead. Teaching zombies tricks didn't knock Rhodes socks off!🧟🧦

[@LyingTube]

Basic relativity: At rest, the relative velocity of car A to car B is zero. If car A travels towards car B at 50mph, its relative velocity is 50mph. If car B then travels towards car A at 50mph, the relative velocity of car A is 100mph, the sum of velocities of both cars. Conversely, if car B moves at 50mph away from car A, the relative velocity is again zero. However, this is just a measure of energy, which is then distributed through the system (ie both cars) in the form of big crunch.

[@user-gg2xq9qi3x]

I miss Grant @7:38

[@rollingmetal949]

Tory went full wookie while waxing😂

[@DeadAndAliveCat]

Strange how they never pointed out the flaw in Jamies original statement, or tested that version of it: two identical cars hitting each other at 50 mph should be identical to one hitting a stationary one at 100 mph

[@Redmenace96]

"knock your socks off" is impossible. Now, anyone familiar with war and car accidents? Knocking your shoes off is a distinct possibility. Finding a dead body and a shoe 5 meters away is common.

[@Cristian-em5wc]

Nope and nope. 1. The clay bar experiment was irrelevant because they used 2 clay bars for the 2x test instead of one in the middle. The compression of the clay bar is not linear, but you also have the shock absorption dissipated between 2 bars of clay. It doesn’t add up. 2. The 2 cars crashing at 50 is not the same as one hitting the wall at 100 for the same reasons. Furthermore the frontal crash absorbs so much more of the impact because the cars both move on all the axis while in the 100 mph impact with an immovable object all the impact energy is absorbed in the body of the car. Not surprised by the outcome at all But still it was so cool to watch ❤

[@robmckennie4203]

They're not testing a situation with a thing in the middle, they're testing 2 cars crashing into eachother, and the clay represents the damage to each car. Nothing in the middle

[@detorrV2]

that is the whole point of the experiment, to show they are not the same.

[@HebuTheLoneWolf]

17:14 im pretty sure that is used for side collisions like t-boning

[@tmoosy]

when you smack 2 cars together at 50mph each, they both have crumple zones. that's not accounted for when comparing it to a solid wall

[@christianellegaard7120]

It is a shame that they didn't take the opportunity to use the track to retest "Compact compact".

[@JumpingSpiderDesign]

R.I.P. Nubiras.

[@emptyforrest]

i actually think it would be easier to knock the socks off if they wore shoes. more mass tying the socks down so less energy needed to pull the feet out of the socks.

[@helljester8097]

Whoever suggested that sweat would lubricate your socks obviously never pulled a real sweat in their life 😑

[@HalNordmann]

Probably the only case where you really could knock someone's socks off is if they snagged on something

[@colonthree]

It's the busters of the myths. :3

[@d4slaimless]

And I truly miss those busters!

[@MrMarinus18]

42:05 Though in the original they said it had to be survivable. It's pretty sure getting hit full force by a full size truck at 65 mph especially over such a small surface area is not survivable. I think they should also have tested the weight of the socks. Cause what makes it work is that the weight and enertia of the sock is greater than the friction of the foot.

[@harlyquin]

16:28 Poor Jamie smashing down the humble pie, he took it like a champ though

[@inkognito-dc8ot]

you had two deformation-zones. use one car and one truck hitting each other, jamie's assumption is right. ps: under the condition that both would have unchanged mass, but one car had no deformation-zone (the truck), all would go into the other one, being 2x (for impuls or 4x for energy=0.5 mv^2) of that, what a collision with an unmovable object would have resulted in --> jamie was right

[@mcalla113]

I actually watched a girl in her twenties get hit at 65 km/h by a pick up truck and it knocked her shoes and her ankle socks off.

[@Redmenace96]

Jaime is remembering a basic physics problem where there is an ELASTIC collision and a 'tennis ball' bounces back. If a car hits a wall and stops? It is virtually perfectly INELASTIC. It is just 50, not 100. KE is lost.

[@danmyself5341]

You forgot one very important piece of information The two cars in frontal collision add double the crunch zone

[@Goalsplus]

A couple of the things I learned from this show are: some things I have known to be true are not; therefore, it is highly likely there are many other falsities in many other subjects in my knowledge banks, and because of this I need to be able to accept being wrong no matter how strong I feel about it if I want to do better in life. Another is some things I have heard are insignificant and unimportant as information. Crashing cars has importance, socks coming off is of no importance.

[@Mikael404]

Just so you know Jamie had a brain fart when he said that so he is not right or wrong he just made a tiny mistake when he tried explain the physics. He forgot that those two trucks share the force is the middle car that took 100 mph which might be the reason why he got confused. Simple way to explain on how force works here is using jug of water as analogy. You have one jug you try give it to wall it doesn't take it you still have that jug, same with two jugs. You and another guy has jug you and him switched jugs both of you still have one jug. Now there is third guy in middle on you and another guy, both of you give middle guy jug at the same time, now he has two and he gives those jugs back. So this is basically how physicks worked here in a nutshell. As for the sock knocking off part yeah it can happen, usually when shoes comes first they sometimes has enought friction to take socks off.

[@niklausjanett3053]

I think as they tried the "clay" - experiment they expectet the Force of 2x is actually 2 times the Force of 1x wich i think is wrong becouse of the splittetforces in two directions (radial Movement not Linear) so the experiment doesent ad up

[@Houtka86]

It looks like a car crash - James Hyneman

[@AllieAngel]

Love these; Mythbusters episodes!!!!!

[@ChildOfDarkness85]

There would be quite an easier way to knock the socks of, or at least pull them off to be correct. Just jump into water having socks still on doing a headlong jump might does the trick.

[@Tyresong]

So Before I'm watch the rest of the Vid... two Identical car hitting each other at 50 MPH each, is the same as one of them doing 100mph and the other one stationary, but the stationary car is not a solid wall. It will absorb some of the impact... exactly 1/2 of it to be precise! The socks... unfortunately there are vids on youtube of motorcycle crashes... and there is always one of Helmets that are not done up coming off, as well as one where shoes come off (proper motorcycle boots however are more secure than the average shoe, and a sock is no more secure than a shoe... well maybe a little, it depends how tight each one fits! I've personally lost socks while running in them without shoes, so it can happen!

[@thomas-lo8pl]

So, what would be the results if Buster's ankle joints were articulated? You know, like a human's ankles.

[@yamatohime2035]

Car Crash is all about energy... With 2x speed you will have 4x energy in the system. Even if you have two cars... 2x speed car has 2 times more energy that 2 cars with x speed.

[@Redmenace96]

Energy is not momentum.

[@yamatohime2035]

Momentum is not that important in this case because it is not elastic collision.

[@abe-danger]

technically, 2 cars going at 50 would indeed have the same power as 1 car at 100, but as they say, twice the mass cancels it out

[@user-ei2ng3xu2p]

Ke=0.5 mv^2 so both at speed x is mv^2. One at twice speed is 2mv^2

[@uriituw]

They’re using the wrong socks. They ought to use Teflon socks.

[@LootableCorpse]

no they should have used lead socks

[@TiborRoussou]

23:12 The "two left feet" on Buster look more like two right feet!

[@Redmenace96]

They are dealing with coefficient of friction and conservation of momentum. Wish they would flash equations on the screen just for a couple seconds. Kids with math knowledge might get excited.

[@antonlvdm]

So what would be the case if one car goes 50mph and the other 100mph?

[@BaumisMagicalWorld]

What always bothered me about their initial "knock your socks off" test was how they never fixed the angle of the feet. It was always too steep because of the stiffness of the dummy, like, almost 90° instead of slightly angled aka. curled, as an actual human's foot would be when knocked back.

[@squaidinkarts]

All those small variables kinda disappear when you hit the dummy 100 times as hard

[@BaumisMagicalWorld]

@@squaidinkarts Well, that's the whole point. "Superhuman strength" might not even be necessary when the variables are changed to account for something like this. I believe that, in fact, a curled foot would make it SIGNIFICANTLY easier to make a sock slide off. I have this happen regularly when wearing wool socks, no punching required, just regular walking.

[@kafariras9705]

I think a pair of shoes wld have drastically changed these sock results

[@lordmmx1303]

oh poor Daewoos

[@neilhoganwa]

Would have loved to see a 100 MPH crash on the cars.

[@happy_mimimix]

I wanna know whether driving electronic cars would really protect the environment. Because majority of the electricity generation nowadays still rely on fossil fules and burning them can release carbon dioxide. So is the amount of carbon dioxide generated by electric cars really less than petrol cars?

[@oniminus]

On thing I would've loved to see is that if one of the cars traveled 50mph and the other 100mph how would that affected the outcome. If it would've dealt damage to each car on their speed or would it been a 100mph collision on both.

[@oniminus]

@@Cptjonmiller Why would the effects be changed in this case when in the tests they only experienced the effects of their own speed?

[@Cptjonmiller]

​@@oniminus Hiya, it's me again. I would like to correct a previous mistake I made. If one car was travelling at 100mph, and the other was travelling at 50mph, the effect would be both would feel like they collided with the wall at 75mph. This is due to the assumption of inelastic collision. After collision, both cars would combine, and each car would travel in the direction of the "100mph car" at 25mph. The difference in speed between the 2 cars is 50mph. And when the faster car hits the slower car, it would force the slower car back, towards the same direction of the faster car, but the speed difference of 50mph would be shared between the 2 cars, so both cars would travel the same direction at 25mph. So the changes in speed would be 100mph to 25mph. And 50mph to -25mph. For both vehicles the change in speed would be 75mph. So it would equate to hitting the wall at 75mph for both vehicles.

[@lanzaodequalidade8944]

I love MYTHBUSTERS

[@crownbird6599]

Maaaannnn I miss grant 😢

[@ZyberWaX]

the car crash, would only be the same as 50 mph in to a wall if both cars are equal, if the mass is different the result would change, so in real world its unlikely the car you hit will be identical so this would most likely not be the outcome :P

[@forrestbarton6180]

😢 Actually it'll be the equivalent of more than a hundred miles an hour

[@MrAntipaganda]

The feet aren't flexible like normal feet!

[@uriituw]

You can’t really knock a person’s socks off.

[@squaidinkarts]

they just did

[@uriituw]

@@squaidinkarts Not with a normal punch.

[@mato219]

On a irrelevant and late note: They should've made the foot of the dummy do that it has a joint and can twist on impact.

[@mylorik]

Too bad that now cars are getting heavier and heavier and a regular sedan vs pickup truck at 50 miles will probably look like that car at 100 miles per hour into the wall...

[@tristindurocher-batley4780]

Technically buster had two right feet not two left feet but I know it’s just an expression that means someone’s clumsy

[@user-tq3mo1pc4t]

If busters legs would-be more stiff, the things would be different. Standing on his own feet and with a stiff body i expect Some shifting Motion backwards resulting in soks coming off

[@uriituw]

How many “busters” are there?

[@okstudios8688]

I keep going deaf in my right ear when the narrator speaks. HELP

[@ChikanChampion]

They locked the narrator back up ;~;

[@TheMono25]

Does having your legs shaved make u feel the cold more or less and will shaved legs stop u getting hot and Sweaty in the heat 😮

[@saleembarmania5295]

How about 100mph into a stationary car?

[@fatrobin72]

Different car weights, as well as looking at different speeds, would both have been cool things to have seen.

[@d4slaimless]

If car is not fixed to the ground it would move backwards, so some energy of the impact would dissipate. But how much - it is the question. This is not the same as hitting immovable wall. If the car is fixed against the wall, then it will get squashed (and the hitting car also is going to be deformed) and deformation at 100 mph into 0 mph should be twice as when two cars hit each other at 50 mph. Due to energy being proportional to square of the speed. (Although collision time and materials resistance should matter) EDIT: Well yeah, now I watched car getting crashed into a wall at 50 mph and 100 mph. G-load is 58 to 230 if we consider the maximum, and it is almost exactly 4 times. The deformation is only twice, but it is certainly not linear. And that's what Jamie says later.

[@simonestain7241]

Growing up is realising that they could have used plain old hair remover instead of wax

[@narutim097]

Normal razors and hair remover doesn't give those nice highspeed shots though

[@Why-D]

That is a proper rectification!

[@laurencepetervonstudzinski7507]

I think this is the one myth that bothers me the most , Jamie said two cars at 50 are the same as one car with 100 against a wall not against another car , they should have accelerated one car and one steel plate to 50 mph , bcause the car takes the energy into the crunch zone and the steel plate or wall as jamie said dont

[@Randolph_M]

Jamie got the force of impact mixed up with the time of travel prior to impact. If two cars head for a head-on crash at 10 m/s each, arriving at impact takes as much time as a single car traveling the same distance towards a wall at 20 m/s. That calculation matters when you are driving on a two-lane road and want to overtake slower vehicles. Jamie's hypothesis would have been proven correct in the pendulum rest if only one of the swings had been fitted with clay. That would be analogous to a head-on crash in which one car is demolished and the other one isn't affected at all. The masses of the vehicles have to be taken into account. What Jamie said would be close to the truth if a small hatchback collided head-on with the biggest truck on the road, from the vuewpoint of the hatchback's driver.

[@rameshramesh4477]

Poor audio completely one sided audio My ears are painful 😢

[@Redmenace96]

This is so silly.... but I wish my physics students paid as much attention to detail. Ha, ha! Imahara gives the very scientific, "Pretty significant" value? Why not express it as a percentage and let us judge how significant? Don't make me get out my TI.

[@amateurgolf6343]

Why do Americans insist on using inches? Just use millimetres it'd be so much easier and precise 🙃🙃

[@Joker-ik1sp]

The crash makes sense cuz it's turning 2 cars into mush if u would add up the dmg of both then would end up roughly with the same dmg as 100mph with 1 car against a wall

[@d4slaimless]

Not sure about it. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed. So the energy of 100 mph car is 4 times more than 50 mph car. If you have car hitting the wall at 50 mph and receiving some damage D, than at 100 mph it is going to be 4D. So the damage for the 100 mph car against the wall should be 2 times more than when two 50 mph cars collide against each other. That is of course if compression of the car scales linearly. And also it won't be exactly 4 times since the force will depend on the collision time ( time to transfer the momentum) and properties of materials involved might influence it. EDIT: Well, I typed it before watching to the end. Jamie just explained it all.

[@Joker-ik1sp]

@@d4slaimless welcome to the club lmao

[@mishkamcivor409]

I think the reason for the car thing is that E=1/2MV^2, since the only variable is speed we can ignore the rest, for one car going 2V (twice as fast) you basically have (2V)^2 and for two cars going at V you have 2(V^2) which is only half as much energy Thats most of it but I think its also worth mentioning that with two cars you have two crumple zones, with a car VS an indestructable wall you have only one crumple zone which is only capable of absorbing half as much energy

[@iamalive82]

Jamie is still correct in the context of the point he was making, but I believe he let it go for one, why fight people who are more concerned with semantics than the point, and two, it’s great show material. He was referring to the force applied to the car in the previous episode. You could illustrate this with the clay experiment by placing the clay on the wall with 1x and 2x results. Then the equal weights colliding with the clay in the middle. The weight collision at 1x each would equal the 2x wall collision. The reason it appears the same in the shown clay experiment with colliding weights is because the force is absorbed into two clay pieces instead of one with the wall.

[@marcel_kogs]

Depends what u mean by the same 😅

[@ryanhunt6261]

but it makes sense, 50 mph into 50 mph cancel each other out, so its 0mph just like a wall would be. if a object is stationary the object thats hits it cancels out to 0

[@you2uber530]

not really because if a car hits a stationary car or a stationary wall the outcome is completely different as a stationary car would have some "give"...

[@JimboDaBimbo-my9mx]

Dud really said two cars hitting each other at 50 cancels out to be 0 mph, thats not how physics works my guy. And i was thrown out of my physics class and told to take a spare cuz i was too dumb... holy dud says alot about you, im done with youtube comments for the year, fking actually retar ded

[@andykjohnsonjohnson7622]

So 🤔. What would happen, If you are riding a motorcycle. And so dumb Ar$e driver , crossies the lane 🙄

[@michaelmayhem350]

Car crash video with Grant it's like foreshadowing 😂🤣

[@Shyn-Emberblossom]

One of many episodes where the narrator is heard only through the left speaker... pretty damn anoying. stopped watching.

[@JimboDaBimbo-my9mx]

Your stupid and anyone that liked this comment is even stupider, mono audio on old tvs is too hard to understand huh