|
|
Post by srmarti on Jun 8, 2013 17:04:00 GMT
I'm half watching Terminator 2 on TV. Let's forget about the Time travel and terminator machines for the minute and just examine the chase scene early in the movie. A heavy duty tow truck crashes through the side of an overpass down into a concrete drainage canal and just keeps going. Seems like in reality the chase would stop right there with the disabled truck. MB I think have already busted Arnold shooting out the padlocks to get through the gates. Not sure there's enough there for a whole episode and they've already done a number generic Hollywood FX myths. Maybe gather enough stuff going through the whole Terminator series?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 8, 2013 17:52:28 GMT
Maybe they could test to see how much damage the average car could really take and keep on running? After all in films cars are routinely being driven down stairs, hitting other cars and so on without stopping.
The T2 scene, which I recall being posted on Discovery a few times, would make an superb 'supersized' ending to such a segment - and be cheaper as they would only need one truck.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonym on Jun 8, 2013 18:42:39 GMT
They have tested some movie car endurance myths like driving through a fruit stand, so a second look at others might happen. They could look at other vehicles too, besides cars.
I can't remember, did Arnold do anything crazy on the motorcycle that could be tested?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 8, 2013 19:45:19 GMT
They have tested some movie car endurance myths like driving through a fruit stand, so a second look at others might happen. They could look at other vehicles too, besides cars. I can't remember, did Arnold do anything crazy on the motorcycle that could be tested? Yes, he drove off a bridge into the canal on the bike. (Well, OK it is clearly a stunt double on the bike...and you can see the guide wires they had to use as well. Sometimes easy to forget that this was the biggest and most technically-advanced film of its time when you notice details like that.) |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 8, 2013 23:19:49 GMT
I'm half watching Terminator 2 on TV. Let's forget about the Time travel and terminator machines for the minute and just examine the chase scene early in the movie. A heavy duty tow truck crashes through the side of an overpass down into a concrete drainage canal and just keeps going. Seems like in reality the chase would stop right there with the disabled truck. MB I think have already busted Arnold shooting out the padlocks to get through the gates. Not sure there's enough there for a whole episode and they've already done a number generic Hollywood FX myths. Maybe gather enough stuff going through the whole Terminator series? y'know - I have a definitive bust for that - I responded to a truck accident in which a driver, for reasons unconfirmed, drifted off the road, rode about 8 feet up a retaining wall, then dropped back off onto the road surface. |
|
|
|
Post by srmarti on Jun 11, 2013 20:18:26 GMT
See that's about how I figure it would work in real physics. The truck would stop disabled at the bottom and the terminator would have to get out and run after John Conner.  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 11, 2013 23:47:57 GMT
pretty much.
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Jun 12, 2013 1:11:00 GMT
Well, it was a cab over design and went over at relatively low speed, there really is no reason it couldn't be "drivable" under the circumstances in the movie, maybe not every time, but a fair percentage of times. Drivable doesn't have to mean perfectly, mechanically sound, and the movie pretty much portrays it as having serious issues with steering stability. That said, I have been unable to find out if the truck that was jumped was the truck used in the follow up chase scene. What I was able to find out, was that Robert Patrick was actually filmed driving on the right side of the vehicle interior, wearing a mirror image uniform, while the actual driver was on the left, lowered into the body work with a modified steering column and peering out through the damaged front end of the truck. The footage was then reversed, so that it appeared correct. This was done so that Robert could concentrate on acting, instead of driving. So I'm thinking it wasn't the same truck, unless the mods were done after the jump. Here is a link to the jump being filmed. Unfortunately, the end result can't be seen. T2 truck jump |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 12, 2013 1:27:41 GMT
It wasn't the same truck.
It's been a while since I watched the film, but I seem to recall that if you look closely when the truck lands you can see that the drive shaft snaps.
The film doesn't portray any difficulty in steering the truck. The weaving it is doing during the chase was a result of either compensating for the movements of the bike it was chasing or being chased by, or a result of hitting objects as it went along - like a burnt out car.
|
|
|
|
Post by srmarti on Jun 12, 2013 2:27:12 GMT
Well, it was a cab over design and went over at relatively low speed, there really is no reason it couldn't be "drivable" under the circumstances in the movie, maybe not every time, but a fair percentage of times. Drivable doesn't have to mean perfectly, mechanically sound, and the movie pretty much portrays it as having serious issues with steering stability. T2 truck jumpRelatively low speed still had to be fast enough to smash through the side of the overpass. How slow could that be? I still think in the real world it's unlikely to keep driving. Almost certainly not well enough for the subsequent chase. That's my SWAG on what would really happen. Just doesn't work for the movie plot, so they ignored real physics. |
|
|
|
Post by srmarti on Jun 12, 2013 2:38:10 GMT
Yea, a broken drive shaft might slow down the chase just a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Jun 12, 2013 2:53:05 GMT
It wasn't the same truck. It's been a while since I watched the film, but I seem to recall that if you look closely when the truck lands you can see that the drive shaft snaps. The film doesn't portray any difficulty in steering the truck. The weaving it is doing during the chase was a result of either compensating for the movements of the bike it was chasing or being chased by, or a result of hitting objects as it went along - like a burnt out car. Watch again. T2 chase sceneThere is a fair amount of swerving and wall scraping and bouncing from side to side, that is not associated with maneuvering to catch or avoid the bikes and actually the truck is remarkably (and out of character) stable when ramming burned out cars and other obstacles. Since it is a T-1000 driving, which has remarkable abilities and knowledge at its disposal, if the truck were functioning normally, there is no logical explanation for such driving, other than damage to the vehicle as even the lowly T-101/800/850 series of Terminators could drive exceptionally well.  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 12, 2013 3:14:45 GMT
details I saw: I couldn't see a broken driveline, but they did bent the tie rod enough to make it obvious the right front wheel was splayed out. that cab SHOULD have broken off the chassis - they are only held down by two latches and two hinges.
the white stuff on the ground in my picture was absorbent to collect the power steering fluid that leaked out when the steering lines broke off. keep in mind the truck in my picture only fell half as far as the truck in terminator2.
as for the wall bouncing, it looks an awful lot like it is not that the truck is not handling properly - it looks like the T1000 doesn't care. the vehicle is expendable, and he can go faster if he doesn't bother keeping it under control.
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Jun 12, 2013 4:05:24 GMT
That doesn't make sense. Erratic swerving and dragging on the walls doesn't equate to "go faster".
The logical thing to do, would be keep it under control and use the shortest distance between the truck and bike to catch it. Meaning, the straightest possible line. The T-1000 would know this as well.
I do agree, after thinking about it, the cab over design, probably COULD have at least sheared the rear latches and flipped the cab forward, if not also breaking the hinges off and the whole cab separating, but neither of those are a given scenario.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 12, 2013 5:41:04 GMT
That doesn't make sense. Erratic swerving and dragging on the walls doesn't equate to "go faster". The logical thing to do, would be keep it under control and use the shortest distance between the truck and bike to catch it. Meaning, the straightest possible line. The T-1000 would know this as well. I do agree, after thinking about it, the cab over design, probably COULD have at least sheared the rear latches and flipped the cab forward, if not also breaking the hinges off and the whole cab separating, but neither of those are a given scenario. yes, but nailing the throttle and not fixating on keeping the truck under firm directional control does. |
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Jun 12, 2013 19:50:49 GMT
That doesn't make sense. Erratic swerving and dragging on the walls doesn't equate to "go faster". The logical thing to do, would be keep it under control and use the shortest distance between the truck and bike to catch it. Meaning, the straightest possible line. The T-1000 would know this as well. I do agree, after thinking about it, the cab over design, probably COULD have at least sheared the rear latches and flipped the cab forward, if not also breaking the hinges off and the whole cab separating, but neither of those are a given scenario. yes, but nailing the throttle and not fixating on keeping the truck under firm directional control does. Still, no. Doesn't make sense. Swerving bleeds off speed as does dragging the side of the vehicle down the side of the walls. Swerving definitely doesn't increase your closure rate with the target directly in front of you. This can be seen in the movie clip, the motorcycle always gained distance when the truck was wildly swerving. Then later as the truck was under "better control", it caught him. For sake of the film making, the swerving "makes sense" to ratchet up the drama, lengthen the chase, etc., but IF it were a real scenario, the swerving serves no legit purpose, |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 12, 2013 20:14:46 GMT
yes, but nailing the throttle and not fixating on keeping the truck under firm directional control does. Still, no. Doesn't make sense. Swerving bleeds off speed as does dragging the side of the vehicle down the side of the walls. so does going slowly enough that you maintain 100% traction and steering on a questionable surface with random obstacles; while driving a vehicle that doesn't fit the place you are driving it, looking at the chase again, it is pretty plain to me that the action of the truck is completely consistent with driving it about twice as fast as was safe to drive it. trucks of that age and configuration are neither quick, nor agile, and you lose a lot less speed scraping a wall than you lose braking to a slow enough speed to avoid hitting it. - or did you not notice how often the truck was skidding? put the stig behind the wheel of a reliant robin and it will still be a reliant robin. and yes, I speak from experience with trucks of that age and configuration. |
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Jun 12, 2013 21:50:15 GMT
We'll have to agree to disagree.
It is obvious that the truck could drive faster in a straight line on the "questionable" surface without the skidding which was intentional. The proof is in the video clip.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 12, 2013 22:07:45 GMT
I guess so - my belief is that he was driving so fast that the truck was not under proper control. In rewatching the clip I did not see any points where he deliberately struck the wall - the ping-ponging when he made the turn into the narrower channel was a direct result of turning too late and too hard, and being unable to correct in time - which I can also promise you is the characteristic of the truck, rather than the driver.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 12, 2013 22:16:40 GMT
keeping in mind that while the average automobile can sustain more lateral force than the average motorcycle, the motorcycle is narrower than the truck and the kid knew the route and the obstacles. - a proactive driver will do better than a reactive driver.
|
|
