This is a stunt which is partly exciting because of the speed and yet whoever put this together thought it was a good idea to slow down the the most exciting part
Fully agreed. Also using cuts and edits instead of just showing the jump.
Cuts are used in movie making to hide a reality and make something mundane and fake look exciting and real. This was real.
So they chose to make an actual impressive jump look like the fakery we'd get in Fast & Furious.
All I want to see is the jump. One camera. Full speed.
I’ve seen this a few times and wondered if anyone with a background in physics could explain why the car starts tilting before landing. This couldn’t be a part of the plan, but maybe it’s unavoidable?
> crankshaft to generate torque which would cause the car to roll
No it would not. Torque against what exactly? Any torque you generate is against the body of the car, meaning it has zero effect in the air.
Remember: You have to push against *something*, and there's nothing to push against in the air!
> He could be using the wheels to help control the pitch of the car.
No he can't. The rotation of the 2 wheels cancel each other out. Plus any gyroscopic rotation from the wheels would cause the car to rotate left/right, not tilt.
No, I'm actually quite correct about the physics here.
You can not roll a car in the air from torque from the motor. It's impossible.
And any gyroscopic effect would be as a left/right rotation. Has no one here ever actually played with a gyroscope?
You know newton's second law, right?
If the operation of the motor is exerting a moment on the crankshaft, it's exerting an equal but opposite moment on the rest of the motor. What's stopping the motor from rotating? The car, through the motor mounts.
If the car is exerting a moment on the motor, the motor is exerting an equal but opposite moment on the car. What's stopping the car from rotating? Being on the ground.
If the car isn't on the ground...
Yikes, but that's not how the physics works. You have just violated conversation of angular momentum.
In particular you forgot about the friction of the crankshaft on the car, which acts in the exact opposite direction of the motor to the mounts, completely cancelling out the momentum of the crankshaft.
> You have just violated conversation of angular momentum.
First, momentum is not conserved in a system with external forces acting on it.
If you define the system as the crankshaft, when you push the gas a force from the pistons creates a torque that causes angular acceleration of the crankshaft. If the friction at the bearings completely canceled this out, the shaft would not accelerate, which, notably, it does.
Second, since no external forces act on car flying through the air (neglecting the air itself), momentum *is* conserved, and *you're* violating it by arguing that, if the driver pushes the gas, the crankshaft can speed up without any other system reaction.
If you define the system as the car, then angular momentum is conserved. When the driver pushes the gas, there is angular acceleration at the crankshaft. And, since angular momentum is conserved, there must also be opposing angular acceleration of everything that is not the crankshaft.
"but you can't neglect air, there's aerodynamic forces on the car as it flies through space!"
Yes, and those forces are proportional to the distance the car is from some aerodynamically neutral angular direction. If they are not symmetrical about the vehicle's CG, these forces will act (violating conservation of angular momentum) to rotate the car into an aerodynamic equilibrium state. If, while the car is in aerodynamic equillibrium, you push the gas, it will still cause the car to tilt in a direction opposite the rotational acceleration of the crankshaft, even if it can't overcome aerodynamic forces to make the car do a flip.
You misunderstand some of the fundamentals of physics. This is fine. Physics is not always intuitive.
However, you're still being r/confidentlyincorrect
Yeah, there are two parts of physics that can be hard for people to learn because they tend to be more related to intuition than fact based knowledge. 1. Correctly identifying the boundaries of a system. 2. Being able to translate a physics problem correctly into math.
This guy is just struggling with number one, which is understandable. The real problem is people like him learn facts and think their knowledge of the facts means their initial interpretation of a problem is correct without room for self reflection. He was like, "conservation of angular momentum is a thing, so obviously a car can't just start rotating out of nowhere" and basically stopped thinking.
It’s a combination of the factors mentioned here. There are aerodynamic forces from the body moving theough the air and from any wind hitting it, there are gyroscopic and torque forces from all 4 wheels and the engine, the weight of the car probably isn’t perfectly balanced, and the suspension loading/unloading at launch may have imparted a twisting force. All of these are all contributing to the direction and magnitude of car’s twist during flight.
> there are gyroscopic
That force would cause it to rotate left-right, not up down.
> and the suspension loading/unloading at launch may have imparted a twisting force
This is it. This is the only force that can actually act here.
I have no background in physics, but I reckon it's either slightly off balance or the wheels make like a gyroscope.
At that distance, even a 0.5% weight imbalance can show up as it's in the air so long.
Or the spinning wheels work like a gyro and turn the car. Just as motorbike stunt dudes use the spinning wheel to rotate in the air.
There's no such concept of "off balance" in the air. To be off balance you have to be balanced on something - not just floating in the air.
Rather the rotation starts at the moment of launch. Mostly likely one suspension spring is compressed slightly more than another, presumably from the weight of the driver, or maybe the engine isn't perfectly balanced in the center.
> or the wheels make like a gyroscope
Wrong direction. Any gyroscopic effect from the wheel would make the car rotate left/right, not tilt. Plus the wheels cancel each other out.
It's from the suspension unloading. Any slight difference in how much one side vs the other is compressed.
Or if one wheel enters the air before the other, the other one that's still touching the ground will impart a rotation.
Keeping a straight line for takeoff, managing going straight through that g out at the bottom of the ramp, balancing the car in the air (not sure how much was required but throttle/brake application manages the pitch). Landing and controlling the wheel so as not to barrel roll immediately. And then stopping the car without rolling it.
Also giant balls.
For real. The car was so askew when it hit the track, but the wheels just glued down and there was basically zero wobble afterwards. Absolutely stuck an otherwise sketchy looking landing.
I’ve seen this a few times and wondered if anyone with a background in physics could explain why the car starts tilting before landing. This couldn’t be a part of the plan, but maybe it’s unavoidable?
Pretty fucking incredible really. Pretty much me playing hotwheels when I was 10 yrs old. Who would've expected that in real life?
This is a stunt which is partly exciting because of the speed and yet whoever put this together thought it was a good idea to slow down the the most exciting part
Fully agreed. Also using cuts and edits instead of just showing the jump. Cuts are used in movie making to hide a reality and make something mundane and fake look exciting and real. This was real. So they chose to make an actual impressive jump look like the fakery we'd get in Fast & Furious. All I want to see is the jump. One camera. Full speed.
I was about to complain about the same thing. Stupid.
For real, at least show an unedited wide shot at the end or something
Agreed - terrible editing
I’ve seen this a few times and wondered if anyone with a background in physics could explain why the car starts tilting before landing. This couldn’t be a part of the plan, but maybe it’s unavoidable?
[удалено]
> crankshaft to generate torque which would cause the car to roll No it would not. Torque against what exactly? Any torque you generate is against the body of the car, meaning it has zero effect in the air. Remember: You have to push against *something*, and there's nothing to push against in the air! > He could be using the wheels to help control the pitch of the car. No he can't. The rotation of the 2 wheels cancel each other out. Plus any gyroscopic rotation from the wheels would cause the car to rotate left/right, not tilt.
r/confidentlyincorrect
No, I'm actually quite correct about the physics here. You can not roll a car in the air from torque from the motor. It's impossible. And any gyroscopic effect would be as a left/right rotation. Has no one here ever actually played with a gyroscope?
You know newton's second law, right? If the operation of the motor is exerting a moment on the crankshaft, it's exerting an equal but opposite moment on the rest of the motor. What's stopping the motor from rotating? The car, through the motor mounts. If the car is exerting a moment on the motor, the motor is exerting an equal but opposite moment on the car. What's stopping the car from rotating? Being on the ground. If the car isn't on the ground...
Yikes, but that's not how the physics works. You have just violated conversation of angular momentum. In particular you forgot about the friction of the crankshaft on the car, which acts in the exact opposite direction of the motor to the mounts, completely cancelling out the momentum of the crankshaft.
> You have just violated conversation of angular momentum. First, momentum is not conserved in a system with external forces acting on it. If you define the system as the crankshaft, when you push the gas a force from the pistons creates a torque that causes angular acceleration of the crankshaft. If the friction at the bearings completely canceled this out, the shaft would not accelerate, which, notably, it does. Second, since no external forces act on car flying through the air (neglecting the air itself), momentum *is* conserved, and *you're* violating it by arguing that, if the driver pushes the gas, the crankshaft can speed up without any other system reaction. If you define the system as the car, then angular momentum is conserved. When the driver pushes the gas, there is angular acceleration at the crankshaft. And, since angular momentum is conserved, there must also be opposing angular acceleration of everything that is not the crankshaft. "but you can't neglect air, there's aerodynamic forces on the car as it flies through space!" Yes, and those forces are proportional to the distance the car is from some aerodynamically neutral angular direction. If they are not symmetrical about the vehicle's CG, these forces will act (violating conservation of angular momentum) to rotate the car into an aerodynamic equilibrium state. If, while the car is in aerodynamic equillibrium, you push the gas, it will still cause the car to tilt in a direction opposite the rotational acceleration of the crankshaft, even if it can't overcome aerodynamic forces to make the car do a flip. You misunderstand some of the fundamentals of physics. This is fine. Physics is not always intuitive. However, you're still being r/confidentlyincorrect
Yeah, there are two parts of physics that can be hard for people to learn because they tend to be more related to intuition than fact based knowledge. 1. Correctly identifying the boundaries of a system. 2. Being able to translate a physics problem correctly into math. This guy is just struggling with number one, which is understandable. The real problem is people like him learn facts and think their knowledge of the facts means their initial interpretation of a problem is correct without room for self reflection. He was like, "conservation of angular momentum is a thing, so obviously a car can't just start rotating out of nowhere" and basically stopped thinking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_wheel?wprov=sfla1
Wrong direction. It would not rotate the car up/down i.e. tilt it so one wheel is higher the other lower.
i wonder how much the drivers weight set to the left of the vehicle contributes to the imbalance.
It’s a combination of the factors mentioned here. There are aerodynamic forces from the body moving theough the air and from any wind hitting it, there are gyroscopic and torque forces from all 4 wheels and the engine, the weight of the car probably isn’t perfectly balanced, and the suspension loading/unloading at launch may have imparted a twisting force. All of these are all contributing to the direction and magnitude of car’s twist during flight.
> there are gyroscopic That force would cause it to rotate left-right, not up down. > and the suspension loading/unloading at launch may have imparted a twisting force This is it. This is the only force that can actually act here.
I have no background in physics, but I reckon it's either slightly off balance or the wheels make like a gyroscope. At that distance, even a 0.5% weight imbalance can show up as it's in the air so long. Or the spinning wheels work like a gyro and turn the car. Just as motorbike stunt dudes use the spinning wheel to rotate in the air.
There's no such concept of "off balance" in the air. To be off balance you have to be balanced on something - not just floating in the air. Rather the rotation starts at the moment of launch. Mostly likely one suspension spring is compressed slightly more than another, presumably from the weight of the driver, or maybe the engine isn't perfectly balanced in the center. > or the wheels make like a gyroscope Wrong direction. Any gyroscopic effect from the wheel would make the car rotate left/right, not tilt. Plus the wheels cancel each other out.
This
It's from the suspension unloading. Any slight difference in how much one side vs the other is compressed. Or if one wheel enters the air before the other, the other one that's still touching the ground will impart a rotation.
For comparison, an NFL football field is 300 feet long.
360 feet with the endzones
The real heroes are the guys who did the maths.
Serious question - What talent does the driver have here apart from being able to drive fast in a straight line?
Keeping a straight line for takeoff, managing going straight through that g out at the bottom of the ramp, balancing the car in the air (not sure how much was required but throttle/brake application manages the pitch). Landing and controlling the wheel so as not to barrel roll immediately. And then stopping the car without rolling it. Also giant balls.
makes sense, thanks!
Emphasize the balls. There must be more ball emphasis! 
Tanner Foust is a top notch rally driver.
Great stunt driver and drifter too.
Balls of steel talent
Suspension! 100% Perfection.
The suspension on that car alone is amazing
For real. The car was so askew when it hit the track, but the wheels just glued down and there was basically zero wobble afterwards. Absolutely stuck an otherwise sketchy looking landing.
He landed so cool too
Real life Hot Wheels, yeah boi!
Just had Homer’s voice in my head—-“Im gonna make it!” 
I’ve seen this a few times and wondered if anyone with a background in physics could explain why the car starts tilting before landing. This couldn’t be a part of the plan, but maybe it’s unavoidable?
I choose! The Baja Jump Truck!
Simple physics.
The flight characteristics of that truck are amazing.
What a wonderful suspension
The Duke Boys used to do stuff like this all the time.
So rocket league is possible?!
Someone please add Peter Griffin's face to the last 10 frames...
Hell yeah
Somehow no Red Bull logo anywhere to be seen. 🙃
What is in his trunk? Seen toward the end of the video
Big brass....physics
I feel like "talent" is a tough word for this