| Mar 08 |
Top Gear – killing a Toyota Pt 2 – BBC Top Gear’s James takes over from Jeremy in trying to trash a Toyota. Will sending down the truck with a toppling building do it in? Find out in this free automobile video from BBC Worldwide. No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
 No related posts. Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. 24 Responses to “Top Gear – killing a Toyota Pt 2 – BBC”Leave a Reply |
-
Toyota USA Blog
Fan Site dedicated to Toyota. We have no affiliation with Toyota Motor Corporation
Subscribe to Toyota USA BlogSubscribe to our Newsletter
Search Toyota USA Blog
Sponsors
-
wtf ! die car die ! its a super car !!!
IT DOESNT DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
nothing new here toyota doing what is does best lol
What was the tune Called?
look up pt 3 the blow it up and it still starts
haha great music of ennio morricone
by the way theres a pt 3 if you havent noticed… and this ending gets this video and the other more views
fuck this stupid clip i wanna see it
haha You caunt stop it there!!!
damn it wheres the ending
a bit annoying ending
Bullshit ending :p
I just meant overall damage, because the tyres etc would be smashed up worst by free-fall, but the insides might not suffer too much damage. On the other hand – as you said – if it lands on the rubble then there’s going to be less damage to the suspension, but more done to the engine and bodywork…which would explain the curious chassis problem in part 3.
I suppose there’s also luck – some of the rubble may have punctured the fuel tank/engine/etc, but it didn’t.
Good discussion, thanks ^_^
Well, it depends on which part of the truck you’re talking about. Tires? Suspension? Definitely a freefall.
If you’re talking about engine damage, though, the rubble could easily be bouncing back up underneath the truck and doing direct damage to the engine. Also, once it hits the ground, the wheels will probably bury themselves and let the engine and body of the truck take the full force of the landing.
Actually that’s a good point.
You’re right – it wouldn’t experience the same force at all, not even close. The surface isn’t flat OR packed, and those would both make a difference to the damage done the the truck, not to mention the fact that the rubble from the building will hit the truck once the whole thing has collapsed….
It’s a pretty complex scenario – it’s hard to say whether that or free-falling would do more damage. I’d go with this scenario myself, but that’s purely guesswork.
True, demolishing a building underneath a truck is the same as just dropping a truck – until it gets to the ground. The loose rubble from the building would have a fair amount of give to it, reducing the negative acceleration (and, therefor, force) that the truck experiences when it hits the ground.
Essentially, because the truck isn’t landing on a packed surface, it doesn’t stop moving quite as fast. It could make a fair bit of difference in the force experienced by the truck.
actually most of that is quite untrue.
just thought i’d point it out.
stop wasting time you stupid FUCKING SPAMMING IDIOT!!!!! IF I SAW YOU IN PERSON I WOULD BITCH SLAP YOU 2 FEET INTO THE GROUND!!!!
Launch it into the sun!!
Screw it, I’d have one imported from Australia. I want that pickup. lol
Is there not a “Part 3″..Aww
good but my astrovan 90 its vry most strong ¡and wild
The building and the truck accelerated at the same rate yes (9.81m/s^2), but that’s like saying you’d suffer less damage falling down an elevator shaft inside the elevator rather than outside it. The truck was still accelerating at g, and it would still be going just as fast when it hit the ground. The difference is it wouldn’t be landing on a flat surface.
If they’d pushed it off the building for example, all that would have happened is it would have landed a different way.
Good try though
too bad they don’t sell those in the u.s.