I love this show but I have a problem with the way that the toy cars' acceleration and speed was compared to the real car's speed. The two cars were not compared on equally scaled distances.
For example: If the toy car was at 1/32 scale then 1/4 mile for the toy car would only be 41.25 feet for the real car. Since Jamie's car won at 100 feet, the toy car won at it's scaled 1/4 mile mark of 41.25 ft.
Put another way, a 1/4 mile traveled by the real car would be equivelent to 8 miles for the toy car.
So I would conclude that a toy car would beat a real car when compared at proper scale and so I disagree with the Mythbusters' conclusion.
The comparison, as designed on the show, would be like comparing the lifting ability of a human to an ant. Everybody has heard that, at scale, an ant can lift many times its own weight. However on an unscaled comparison it is obvious that a human being can lift more than an ant.
Otherwise keep up the good work since you are encouraging people to think, though your methods may be flawed at times.
True, but that wasn't the myth they were testing. The essence of the myth was that a toy car could beat a real car over a set distance, not a scale distance.
Hmmm..perhaps I mistook the myth. However...I wonder about the purpose of the myth. The myth is comparing a toy car to a real car and acceleration down an incline. The only reason to compare the two is to draw some kind of similarity and perhaps to illustrate some irony in that the real car is so much larger than the toy yet the toy is able to beat it in a race that has nothing to due with the power of the engine (which the toy does not pocess).
So the only real point of the experiment is to compaere two similar objects (those that look like what we refer to as "cars") and their diferent rates of acceleration and eventually speed. However, the falicy is that we refer to the toy as a car. Indeed it is not. It is a toy that resembles a car if we define a "car" as a motorized vehicle for transportation purposes. (Indeed, my definition of a "car" is inadequate and can probably be redefined to more closely describe a "car" as opposed to a truck or motorcyle but for the sake of arguement I'll stick with it).
So, the human/ant analogy that I made previously stands. The two are not comparable unless compared according to scale. Just as a toy and a motor vehicle are not comparable except as to scale.
So I again conclude that since the toy beat the car at 100 feet and considering that, at scale, the equivelent distance would be 41.25 feet, the toy won.
Thanks for your input though. I was wondering if anyony actually read or participated in these chats.
Hi. I just finished watching the Toy car vs. real car epi. I wanted to share my theiry. you see, When being moved voluntarily, say by human force, less mass would move faster, where ther real car, with more mass, would be harder to move. But when you are haveing something move involuntarily, say by gravity, Then something with more mass is going to move faster. It would be just like droping a twig and a rock to see witch hits the ground first. -Emi of Cheyenne.
I was wondering if the demonstration they had was accurate as well. If the car was idle, and the drive did not have his brake on the wheel, wouldn't the car go at a default of 5mph? Unless the driver put the car in neutral, then I could understand.
[quote]But when you are haveing something move involuntarily, say by gravity, Then something with more mass is going to move faster. It would be just like droping a twig and a rock to see witch hits the ground first.[/quote] Actually...removing the friction from the air ie a vacuume then they will hit at the same time. Gravity is constant no matter the mass.
Okay, I don't ever post on this, but I always watch myth busters, anyways, the toy car I think there is a huge flaw in the testing. The toy car is in a channel and when you watch it, it is constantly hitting both sides the whole way down the 400ft track, that would cause friction, thus slowing down the car. The viper on the other hand does not have this problem and since Jaime's car was only behind by about 3-4 seconds, I am sure all that bumping down that track would easiy make up for it. Anyways, I would be interested in other opinions and do not know the answer for testing this properly, other then getting that track manufactuer to make 400 ft of real life size track so that the viper can also run into this friction all the way down. Anyways looking forward to seeing what the experts think about this.
The channel walls probably did add resistance but what could you do? The cracks on a regular road are too big for the tiny wheels on a toy car. And you don't want the larger car bumping into something resulting in some good damage. Maybe the bumping should be considered and the toy car be given additional time to compensate. However the scale distance is not in consideration. The myth is that a small car is faster in conditions for both vehicles because it can reach its maximum momentum faster than a large car. The theory would hold if the distance was much smaller. Also, I was sure the car was in neutral.
wouldnt the vipers ball bearings be better than a normal cars
what!? maybe you meant lower friction. after all that should have been the ideal car, an economy car. less friction everywhere. smaller brakes, they drag all the time on most cars, smaller tires with more PSI, less rolling resistance and less air drag. less drivetrain mass, less rotational mass to move. and the viper is not super heavy that mass helps accel.
I was wondering if the demonstration they had was accurate as well. If the car was idle, and the drive did not have his brake on the wheel, wouldn't the car go at a default of 5mph? Unless the driver put the car in neutral, then I could understand.
this is only true for cars with an automatic transmission (not an option on a viper) a manual car will not move unless you "unbrake" and put the car in gear then let the clutch out and hit the gas.
I for one, completetly agree. that they should redo this myth, with a few alterations though, 1: scale and set test 2: Metal track to prevent buckling (instead of toy track for toy car, use metal) 3: Viper, Psh..., get a real car 4: set the 1:1 scale car to neutral, and use a car that is similar in body to the scale 'hot wheel' car. 5: test multiple designs of cars, like a scale caddy to a real caddy. AND, assure the weights are properly scaled as well, a toy car weighs what, 2 oz.? that is not likely to be scaled to a real car, and i dont need to do the math to know that.
please redo this myth, the conclusions the mythbuster had recorded are not accurate...
Rational is correct, scale has nothing to do with it. Also I am not sure there is a way to test this very effectively, if you had a track infinately long for both cars, and there was nothing for the toy car to bump up against, then the only thing that would really matter is the friction and resistance from their wheels, and the wheels components (bearings and so on). Since gravity is constant they will both be pulled down at the same rate, it is all up to the one thing touching the ground... -Z
After watching this episode, I, too am left with questions. Hot Wheels (Mattel Toys) makes a Radar Gun that offers both scaled and unscaled speeds. It allows a child (or Mythbuster) to see what speed the toy car achieves in the real world. Since scale matters to the toy maker, I would love to see this myth revisited. Compare the toy car and real car and scale the distances. Alternatively, you could calculate the speeds the two cars were moving as they crossed the finish line, using this to determine the winner, rather than simply relying on first across the line... That toy car would have won.
Originally posted by margarita: That toy car would have won.
of course it would have, it would have blown the big car away. the myth was just "will a toy car beat a regular car down x amount of hill?" scale wasn't a factor at all. it wasn't a test a factory would conduct to gauge its products. it was a friggin' urban legend type of deal.
however, the point about the toy car hitting the sides of the rail seemed pretty on track. (sweet crap, i used a pun...) i would think that if they just made a completely flat track wide enough, it might take care of the bumping. it could also just cause the toy to veer left out of the gate and flip off the road. or the right, depending on the weather.
Maybe the best thing would be to let the toy car roll down in a pipe? This way I think the friction should be reduced. But on the other hand the toy might be travelling a bit extra distance since it will most likely not travel in a completely straight line.
...and I completely agree that scale has nothing to do with this. It's just a matter of if a small toy car gets down the hill faster than a regular car in neutral.
That early mythbuster, Gallileo, busted the myth that objects of different scale fall at different speeds. We know from his work that the toy car and the real car would fall at the same speed dropped from the Tower of Pisa.
We also know from basic physics that if the toy car and the real car went down a frictionless ramp, they would slide at the same rate.
The real car gets a disadvantage from the tires in a couple of ways. Real car tires acquire a huge amount of angular momentum when they spin up, and that momentum is proportional to the SQUARE of the radius of the wheel. That is, the energy needed to spin up the wheel (which can't be used to accelerate the car forward) is a proportionally much larger issue for a large wheel than a tiny one. Also car tires deform, and that sucks some energy too (while toy tires are rigid).
As said by others, the toy car loses its advantage because of the build up of friction as it hits the sides of the track. I would expect that at some point (short of 100 ft) the toy car stopped accelerating as the force of wall friction grew to equal the force of gravity (reaching a so called "terminal velocity").
One way to make a fairer test would be to put some electronics in the toy car to steer it, or to let the real car careen down a track with no driver, hitting the walls.
to see what speed the toy car achieves in the real world. 
