triumph5 wrote: Adam was in a "Don't squeeze the Charmin" commercial about the time the mag was starting; Jamie was running a dive boat down around GRM and points south. Jamie collects bikes and cars.... I'm gonna guess it was Jamie in the 4th issue. Keith: Are you referring to sailing faster downwind than windspeed.?
Yes. Beating windspeed while sailing directly downwind. It's awesomely contentious and a lot harder to wrap your head around than the airplane on a treadmill.
I have to agree that they're definitely running out of good "myths" to test, and now are just doing lots of science experiments. It's still entertaining for entertainment sake.
Besides, I have a thing for red heads. I enjoy watching Kari parade around. 
^Agreed, have you seen the diet coke and montos episode?
Keith wrote: Yes. Beating windspeed while sailing directly downwind. It's awesomely contentious and a lot harder to wrap your head around than the airplane on a treadmill.
In a straight run I don't see how it's really possible to beat wind speed. On a broad reach, yes, but not a straight before the wind, wing-on-wing run.
Thus the contentiousness! It's been done in several scales, but there's still a lot of skepticism and exploding heads.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/08/ddwfttw/
I must have been thoroughly GRM'd, because my first thought last night was "No, not a Miata!"
The me I knew five years ago would have thought two things: 1. As least it wasn't a Chevelle (the constant target of Hollywood's wrath) and 2. Some old guy with a golf hat is gonna be p*ssed about his car.
In reply to Keith:
I followed that story for a while and was pretty astonished when the results of the full-scale test came out. Those videos are certainly impressive.
Keith wrote: Thus the contentiousness! It's been done in several scales, but there's still a lot of skepticism and exploding heads. http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/08/ddwfttw/
No joke, and just like the airplane treadmill thing, people ignore the outcome and continue arguing vehemently their initial stance. Fun fun fun!
I love it because it just makes no sense at all. Mine is one of the exploded heads.
turboHLS30 wrote: Adam Savage, in the Drop top '60's roadsters article in the Sept. 2003 issue. He was a co-driver. Is that correct?
Ding ding ding- Winnar!
Now honestly, did you know that, find it from your personal collection, or apply google? (not that there's anything wrong with that...)
I read it before in a CM magazine my friend had, I just had to clarify on Google 
Nothing to add but todays kids.woot.com item is a mythbusters game - description is awesome:
Don’t try this at home. Well, in this case I guess it’s okay if you guys try this at home.
Tonight, on Mythbusters! The bearded guy in the stupid hat and the bearded guy with the laugh that’s like nails on a chalkboard take a ridiculous “scientific” premise that everyone pretty much already knows the answer to and use it as a flimsy excuse to waste an hour of your time making you watch them build crap and crack jokes that even Buddy Hackett would shoot down.
Meanwhile these three people who couldn’t land an acting gig as extras in a Head-On commercial will soak up a bunch of screen time cracking even worse jokes while pretending that the woman isn’t there entirely to lure in lonely nerd viewers. Then they’ll perform even worse jokes, the kind that when people say them to you in person you can only stare at the floor and kick your foot awkwardly.
Then they’ll blow something up, or mangle some ballistics gel shaped to resemble a human or a part of a human, because honestly the only even halfway-redeeming quality this show has is blowing things up.
And now you can enjoy all that in the comfort of your own home! Well, you were already enjoying the show from the comfort of your own home, but now you can play Mythbusters with this Mythbusters Hit the Target Trivia Game! What’s it have to do with science? Well, uh, you answer trivia questions and then fling a dummy at a target.
So, way more than the show.
:)
So I win the prize?
What about the later classics like the C4 corvette for the interior odor myth, or the LT1 Trans Am for the burnout fire myth? lol
Keith wrote: As for the Green Hornet thing - was it Mythbusters or the moviemakers who destroyed the Imperials?
The movie creators destroyed 26 Imperials. 5 were transformed into the Black Beauty and used in beauty/driving shots.
Mythbusters destroyed 2- one for the stunt where the movie car unburied itself from under tons of dirt and a large excavator (result: Imperial go boom), and one where it was chopped in half by a freight elevator, but the front still drove. The Imperial was crushed by elevator rig, not chopped in half. Seth Rogan handwaved the front half driving away by the car being modified to include FWD and a front-mounted fuel tank during its conversion to the Black Beauty. An FWD Volvo was used as a stand-in. I remember all this because I recently saw that episode.
In reply to pinchvalve:
Regarding People for the Ethical Treatment of Automobiles - I agree. Couldn't they just build knock off shells and, if they had to actually move, slap the shell on - what, a Taurus of an Impala? Wouldn't it cost less to do the damage with CGI?
You'll need to log in to post.
