Crushing Cars with Just a Mallet/Sledge Hammer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Side
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cars
AI Thread Summary
Crushing a car with a mallet or sledgehammer is possible due to the high force generated by the impact, which can exceed the car's structural integrity. The principle of force (f=ma) indicates that while the hammer's mass is less than the car's, the acceleration during impact creates a significantly greater force. Additionally, the concept of pressure explains why a small surface area, like that of a hammer, can cause more damage than a larger area, such as a car's weight distributed over its frame. This discussion highlights the surprising effectiveness of simple tools in causing substantial damage to vehicles. The mechanics of impact and pressure play crucial roles in these car-crushing events.
Side
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Probably a dumb question:
I've been curious after seeing some of these car bashing type events at universities and such, how is it possible to crush the steel frame of a car using only a mallet/sledge hammer? I thought the steel pillars on the roof of a car was supposed to be able to at least withstand the weight of the car. Is a sledge hammer capable of producing more force than the weight of the car?
These cars are crushed with sledge hammers:
http://www.ccboe.org/cacc/misc/misc_06.htm
http://www-personal.engin.umd.umich.edu/~dce/pictures/carsmash.html
These kids look like they've crushed this car with sledge hammers and/or jumping on it:
http://uAlberta.ewb.ca/events/
I wouldn't even have thought it humanly possible to do this much damage:
http://www.washjeff.edu/phideltatheta/carsmash.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Side said:
I thought the steel pillars on the roof of a car was supposed to be able to at least withstand the weight of the car. Is a sledge hammer capable of producing more force than the weight of the car?
Certainly! Remember that force is equal to acceleration times mass (f=ma). While the weight (mass) of the hammer is much less than the weight of a car, when you have an impact, the acceleration (deceleration) is enormous, resulting in a force hundreds (or even thousands) of times the weight of the hammer.
 
russ_watters said:
Certainly! Remember that force is equal to acceleration times mass (f=ma). While the weight (mass) of the hammer is much less than the weight of a car, when you have an impact, the acceleration (deceleration) is enormous, resulting in a force hundreds (or even thousands) of times the weight of the hammer.

Wouldn't pressure (pressure= Force / area) have something to do w/ why a sledge hammer (force spread over a small surface area) would inflict more damage than a roll over ( force spread over a large surface area)?
 
Yup. That's why it's better to have your foot run over by an Abrams tank than be stomped on by a woman in high-heels.:biggrin:
 
Danger said:
Yup. That's why it's better to have your foot run over by an Abrams tank than be stomped on by a woman in high-heels.:biggrin:

Umm, I'll take the high heels any day over a friggin tank - and surface area be damned! :bugeye:
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top