Fail, Owned and Pwn moments in pictures and videos. Share fails, pwns, and owns with the world on FAIL Blog.
 

« Previous | Next »

Car Bowling Fail


Submitted by Shizmoo

This video also viewable at Youtube | MySpaceTV | DailyMotion

Incorrect source or offensive?

» 710 Failures in Communication

  1. fuzz on the next fail concept says:

    air strike

  2. Little Girl Blue says:

    Woohoo! Jimbo!!!!

  3. SuzieQ says:

    It never ceases to amaze me…

  4. Cool Guy says:

    FIRST

  5. Anonymous says:

    Newton’s FIRST law of motion…

  6. Weenieboy says:

    How is this a fail? Weren’t they SUPPOSED to hit the car???

  7. Leila ♀ says:

    Where is my comment? :shock:

  8. Little Girl Blue says:

    Having a family is like having a bowling alley installed in your head.
    ~Martin Mull

  9. Leila ♀ says:

    It’s definitely more interesting than conventional bowling. On the plus side, it’s outdoors.

  10. Walter says:

    Over the line!

  11. ndarkduck says:

    WTF?… how is this supposed to happen?

  12. Edogg says:

    I’m impressed (not hard to do BTW). Wonder how many tries it took to actually hit the car? And did someone actually THROW the bowling ball hard enough to make it jump off the ramp like that?! Again, impressive…

    • jam says:

      Let me guess, it’s a WIN?

    • ZombieApocalypse says:

      When you pass physics class, you’ll discover it’s not so impressive at all. Unless you’re impressed that someone this stupid can still figure out how to drive a car down a straight road.

    • sauerkraut says:

      they threw it from the moving car… an object in motion stays in motion until… add in the constance speed/acceleration bit and it should make sense.

      perhaps they were trying to see if they could make the ball explode upon landing. in that case, they failed.

  13. Brewski says:

    OK, here I go, talking about the fail again. What were they trying to do, here? Hit the car? If so, that wasn’t a fail, that was… I can’t say it.

    • Little Girl Blue says:

      *boops Brewski ever-so-gently on the nose*
      You know you’re not supposed to talk about the fail, young man!

    • MRN ♂ says:

      The outcome is not important, it is the intention.
      Well, in this case, not so much the intention as the concept.
      Actually, the concept’s not important here, it’s the belief that…
      I don’t know either.

      • fuzz on the concept says:

        That they say, “Um, that was a bad idea!” and look rather forlorn at the end, gives me to think they just wanted to launch an accelerated bowling ball from the car window onto a ramp (and film it) — never expecting it to land on them.

        Like Admiral says ^^ — physics is the Law.
        And Like MRN says ^ — this is some fuzzy thinkin’.

        • Brewski says:

          If they had just hit the gas instead of braking…
          ah, but then we wouldn’t have the fail!

          • TMI Service says:

            Akshully, we’d not have the fail if they had hit the gas OR the brakes. The ball hit them because it was traveling at the same speed they were when they let go of it from the car window onto the ramp. The fact they maintained their speed put them “right there” where the ball was when it landed.

            Now if they’d had a laden swallow …

            • I’m pretty sure they hit their brakes. The ball had further to travel since it didn’t go in a straight line.

              • Admiral Apparent says:

                I don’t think that’s quite right, Scott. The ball’s left-right velocity did not come at the expense of its forward velocity.

                Here is what I observe and deduce:

                1. The car’s braking effort was minimal.
                2. The thrower’s added forward (y-vector) component was negated by the friction of the ball hitting the ramp and wind resistance once the ball went ballistic.
                3. The thrower imparted a slight but critical left (x-vector) component.
                4. The slight braking of the car matched nearly perfectly with wind resistance on the ball.

                • Well, I agree the x-vector was critical. (even if your 3 should have been safety) ;) However, I stand by my statement, the ball had to travel further than the car.
                  The car’s break lights are on when they come into view, and only turn off when the ball hits the car.

                  • Admiral Apparent says:

                    I agree, the ball traveled farther than the car and farther than it would have if thrown straight ahead, but it’s not relevant. The distance traveled downrange is what matters and is the same for car and ball.

                    • I’ve thought about this all afternoon. While I think I’m right, I’m not positive about it either. Finally I’ve had an idea. There are only 2 people I can think of who could actually put this to the test. I have therefore (re)submitted the video to Mythbusters.

                      There was already some discussion of it on their boards.
                      
                      
                      		
                      				
                      • Shadow says:

                        *snorkroffle*

                        Genius! If that makes it into an episode, we need to have a fail-party in your honor. Did you mention FB at all? :D

                        • *smacks forehead, rushes back to Mythbusters discussion board*

                        • fuzz on the concept says:

                          (could’ve had a V-8!)

                        • Admiral Apparent says:

                          The ball’s forward velocity was the same as the car when it was released. The fact that the thrower added an additional vector component 90° from the forward motion takes nothing away from the forward vector. If the ball’s forward vector is 30 MPH and the thrower adds a 2 MPH leftward vector, the ball still travels 30 MPH down the road while it arcs over the roof of the car.

                        • (Please let me know if this is bugging you AA, but I enjoy discussing these sorts of things, and don’t get much opportunity.)

                          Yes, I agree with that. Whayt I’m saying is the extra distance means it will take longer to get there. That’s why I think the car had to slow down some to be there when the ball landed, and why, had they sped up, it would have missed them.

                        • Admiral Apparent says:

                          Okay, now we’re getting somewhere…there is no “extra” distance that’s relevant to the forward vector. The distance traveled down the road is the same for the ball and the car. The forward vector is responsible for covering the distance traveled down the road. It doesn’t matter that there is another velocity component. The perpendicular velocity is responsible for covering the right-to-left distance.

                        • Yes, they went the same distance when measured to the point of impact. However, the car went straight, and the ball went in an arc. The shortest distance between two points(where the ball was released, and where it impacted) is a straight line. The car went straight. The ball did not, and therefore took a longer route to the point of impact.

                        • Emperor, Tetragrammatron Cleric, Captain Teague. says:

                          Wait, wait it seems a bit counter intuitive that adding speed when launching a ball doesn’t change its launched speed. Are you saying it is so small/minimal that it is negligible?

                        • Emperor, Tetragrammatron Cleric, Captain Teague. says:

                          Oh, Scotty. I may have a solution. Ever do a projectile motion question? I am going to *shudder* assume you have. The x velocity has no effect on the y velocity and in this case the z velocity as well. I am doing this in school now as well. So if a ball has a set x speed negating frictional forces in a vacuum is what I am referencing, gravity doesn’t change the x movement. Even though it looks like it is not making as much progress in the x, it is still making the same change in x while the y difference is increasing greatly dwarfing the x’s change in distance.

                        • AA will have to answer that one. I know much less about it than him. I’m just talking geometry.

                        • Emperor, Tetragrammatron Cleric, Captain Teague. says:

                          Yea it has to do with the sine or cosine between the velocities. Since they are 90degrees from each other means they do not affect each other. Has to do with forces as well, but that is another headache.

                        • Yes, Emp., been a long time, but I have, and I’m not saying anything about the velocities involved. All I’m saying is that if you were to measure the arc of the ball, it is a greater distance than the straight line of the car.

                        • Emperor, Tetragrammatron Cleric, Captain Teague. says:

                          Yea, but coordinately the distances traveled are the same.

                        • Yeah, and like I said, it’s been a long time since I’ve done any vector math.

                        • Admiral Apparent says:

                          Let me give this another try, because I can see we’re close to an understanding:

                          Case 1: A tennis ball launcher is aimed at a practice wall. When fired, the tennis ball flies straight at the wall and hits it after 5 secs of flight time.
                          Case 2: Same exact setup but this time the tennis ball launcher is towed perpendicular to the wall at a constant speed when the tennis ball is fired.

                          How long does it take the tennis ball to strike the wall? Answer: 5 secs,
                          Did the ball travel farther in case 2 than in case 1?
                          Answer: Yes.

                        • OK, so then why is the time the same? Is the extra distance just insignificant at this range?

                        • I’m really trying to figure what I’m missing here, not trying to be obtuse or annoying. My google powers aren’t helping with this either.

                        • Emperor, Tetragrammatron Cleric, Captain Teague. says:

                          The speed in one direction doesn’t affect the speed in another direction.
                          If I launch a ball up as hard as I can and it returns in 3 seconds. The same time will be viewed if I arced the ball with the same upward force.

                          A simple home test is to jump your highest. You can only stay in the air a max of 2 seconds. Now jump forwards. You will notice your airtime is still the same meaning you still jumped as high but you moved forward none the less.

                          AA for the bowling ball launched by the person. Did you consider his/her launching added speed negligible?

                        • Admiral Apparent says:

                          Oh, no, it’s not insignificant…it’s irrelevant. The towing velocity could be faster than the muzzle velocity of the tennis ball launcher and it wouldn’t change the scenario one bit. The distance travelled downrange does not change. The velocity of the ball moving downrange does not change. The total distance traveled is longer in the moving launcher case because there is another vector to the flight of the ball which can be considered separately.

                        • Nobody Important says:

                          (Sorry, random person entering the conversation, but I <3 physics.) The ramp is the x-factor here. While I would agree that any left-right motion is irrelevant to the discussion, what is *not* irrelevant is that some of the forward motion is changed to vertical motion by the ramp. If the ball maintained its lateral speed as you're implying while also gaining a vertical component, that means its overall velocity must actually be *higher* than when it was released. That means greater kinetic energy, and since it's also gained potential energy by being lifted off the ground, you're violating the law of conservation of energy (unless this is a rocket-powered bowling ball?).

                        • Admiral Apparent says:

                          Agreed. There was a thrower in the car.

                        • Emperor, Tetragrammatron Cleric, Captain Teague. says:

                          Thank you. SO we did not ignore that the thrower added speed/velocity to the bowling ball.

                          I assume whatever speed the thrower was negated/converted to heat, sound and transitioned into vertical velocity. So at first the bowling ball was traveling faster than the car was.

                        • OK, I was missing the extra energy in the Y axis. A higher total velocity is required to hit the same point at a higher angle. Thanks for everyone’s patience.

                        • Nobody Important says:

                          Your average bowler (based on my league, anyway) throws the ball about 15mph. That’s with a full run-up… doubtful anyone danging their arm out the window of a moving car fighting wind resistance is going to get anywhere near that. I’d estimate they’d impart an additional 5mph at most. When you start factoring in that friction is turning some of the forward kinetic energy to rotational kinetic energy, I still think without braking they would have been fine.

                        • Avis says:

                          You know, I took Physics in high school (ok, conceptual physics) and even got fairly good grades in it. But you guys lost me a looooooong time ago. Regardless of what the physics of this particular experiment were, why would someone try it in the first place? I mean, unless of course you star in the cable show “Mythbusters”. Then I can TOTALLY see why you would attempt this.

                        • Nobody Important says:

                          Maybe it was an audition video. ;)

                        • Avis says:

                          And the myth they were attempting to bust was….?

                        • Nobody Important says:

                          …that there are no new stupid pointless things left to do in the world?

                        • Emperor, Tetragrammatron Cleric, Captain Teague. says:

                          Hey nobody, do yourself and us a favo(u)r… stick around. Go to the failpeeps blog to know of other rules and ways of the blog. But I definitely believe a mind like yours has lots to offer us.

                          Now onto my physical. :p
                          I would assume air resistance would not affect the throw that much. I was say a greater impact comes from the small torque radius. The air resistance wouldn’t affect it since he would be close to the car, inside the car’s already produced wind resistance cone. If he is outside, hanging his hand out with a weight would allow him to divert the wind anyways since his arm would be treated as a (I can’t find the exact word) but it would cut the wind, the ball is round so it too will allow the wind to go around it. I say the greater reducer on the possible generated speed is the amount he can hand his arm or body out the window.

                        • Nobody Important says:

                          I’m not convinced that the wind resistance on the arm is negligible, but yes, the properties of the air around the car do affect it, and I do agree that the effect of wind on the ball itself is probably not significant. Yes, it mostly has to do with how much swing the throw could get in with his arm, which is complicated by the fact that he’s going to be also expending some energy/control to keep from smacking the side of the car with it.

                          I stand by the no-brake, no-problem stance. It looks like we agree on the physics, now we’re just arguing over the assumptions.

                        • Emperor, Tetragrammatron Cleric, Captain Teague. says:

                          The physics is not in question you are correct. Now we are just discussing parameters.

                          I assume his arm to be like a knife, with the swing trajectory taken into mind, his elbow would have to be facing the direction of the swing. Allowing him to cut through the wing.

                        • Nobody Important says:

                          You mean elbow into the wind? He would have to be using his left arm then… that seems terribly awkward.

                        • Emperor, Tetragrammatron Cleric, Captain Teague. says:

                          Nope, I am talking about some serious supination. That and a downward rather than standard swing. Ie bringing your arm facing the sky and across your body.

                        • Nobody Important says:

                          I’m having a terrible time trying to visualize “bringing your arm facing the sky and across your body”. Can you expand on that a little?

                        • Avis says:

                          Dear God! Adam and Jamie would have a field day with this whole thread!!
                          Oh and Nobody Important? I’d like to second Emp’s suggestion that you stick around. You seem like you could be fun!

                        • Emperor, Tetragrammatron Cleric, Captain Teague. says:

                          Arms out.
                          Turn the palm upwards.
                          Now bring your right arm to your left side all the while having the arm still facing up.
                          Now !magine your body was laying horizontally. The same motion can drive the bowling ball.

                        • Avis says:

                          Ummm… Emp? What land-yacht (I swear that word looks wrong) do plan on using and what method of holding the individual in the optimum position? Also which olympian do you propose to do the throwing, as it looks like this is going to take quite a bit of skill.

                        • Nobody Important says:

                          Ok, I get it, but I’m not sure you could still get your elbow into the wind like that.

                          Now we’re crossing into anatomy, which I’m not nearly as well versed in, but I’d say it unlikely the muscles involved in that sort of swing can impart as much energy as in a standard forward roll (especially with such extreme supination, if I’m understanding you correctly).

                          Plus, that implies that the thrower is sticking his entire torso out the window. Do you really think that’s likely in this case?

                        • Nobody Important says:

                          I want to throw some numbers at this. What would you estimate to be:
                          1. The speed of the car at release.
                          2. The maximum height of the ball.
                          3. The distance from the ramp to the point of impact.

                        • Emperor, Tetragrammatron Cleric, Captain Teague. says:

                          I don’t know, I am simply postulating. I can almost assure that they did not have their seat-belts on.

                          I do not mean the outside of the elbow but the bottom portion, the part that never gets tanned.

                          I assume that a regular person hanging half out the window could have done this.

                          Any person can do this so no superior athlete and any car will do.

                          I actually have an awkward swing when it comes to bowling. I throw the ball with the same hand orientation as shaking hands.

                        • Emperor, Tetragrammatron Cleric, Captain Teague. says:

                          Distance of ramp to impact is a bit hard to judge because of the angle of the shot.

                          Max height I estimate to 15 meters maximum.

                          Speed I hazard around 92km/h. Don’t know the conversion.

                        • Nobody Important says:

                          Ok I had to go look up the equation, it’s been so long. Turns out the only things that matter are the time of flight and the speed of the car. For a vertical trajectory:

                          y = (v0)*t – (1/2)*g*(t^2)

                          I estimate the total time of flight to be about 2 seconds (slightly less, I think). We can then find the initial *vertical* velocity of the ball by plugging in y=1.5m (estimate of height of impact). I get 10.6m/s. If we take your estimate of the car’s speed (which seems high to me), that’s about 25.6m/s. Combine the two and you have an actual launch velocity of 27.7m/s, meaning they must have imparted at least 2.1 m/s or around 5 mph to the ball *in addition to* what they needed to overcome any losses to friction, rotational speed, wind, etc.

                          Theoretically possible? *Maybe* under ideal conditions. Doubtful in the real world.

                        • Emperor, Tetragrammatron Cleric, Captain Teague. says:

                          Yup, it seems plausible, if we had the real numbers we would likely come up with the actual scenario’s outcome. We know its possible because of the fact that we witnessed this video. It is the replication that we need to figure out. Cheers Nobody, we agree and now I must bid you goodnight. It is 2 am and I have school at 9.

                        • Nobody Important says:

                          Heh. Wish I could go to bed, I got stuck working a second shift to support our folks doing physical inventory. At least I have the place to myself…

                          I still maintain that the only way this was possible in this example is because the folks rode their brakes after releasing the ball, but I think we’ve gotten about as far as we can with what data we have to work with.

                          Have a good one.

                • Brewski says:

                  Exactly, that’s what I meant. They braked, you can see the brake lights on the car. Not hard, though.
                  This fail would probably be pretty hard to repeat!

                • Nobody Important says:

                  I agree with Scott. When the ball hit the ramp, the normal force had a horizontal component in the reverse direction to the ball’s motion. Therefore, even ignoring friction and wind resistance, the airborne ball would have had a lower lateral velocity than the car had at the point when the ball was released. They would likely have been fine if they had maintained their speed.

                  • The Bunge says:

                    You don’t need a physics degree to figure this out. If it’s true that the ball would have the same ground speed as the car with *that* ramp, then it would be true for all ramps (that ramp doesn’t have a “magic angle” to it). Let’s jack the angle of the ramp up to 70 or 80 degrees instead of its current angle. You can’t tell me that ball would still have the same ground speed as the car if it hit an 80 degree ramp. What about 85 degrees?

  14. nightshayde says:

    Sometimes (like yesterday), I’m glad I can’t see the videos here at work. Other days, I’m a little bummed about it. Sounds like this one might be worth seeing rather than !magining.

  15. Pburts says:

    natural selection irl

  16. Cloral says:

    What did they expect to happen?

  17. Sluggo says:

    “Dudes! Listen! I got a *great* idea! This will be awesome…!”

    Hilarity ensues.

  18. The cameraman has a knack for understatement.

  19. Little Girl Blue says:

    Skittles is an old European lawn game, a variety of bowling, from which ten-pin bowling, duckpin bowling, and candlepin bowling in the United States, and five-pin bowling in Canada are descended. In the United Kingdom, the game remains a popular pub sport in England and Wales, though it tends to be found in particular regions, not nationwide. A continental version is popular in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. In Australia, other varieties of bowling are more popular, but the similar game of kegel, based on German nine-pin bowling, is popular in some areas.

  20. Piggy says:

    Someone explain. What was original goal of their performance?

    • cliff says:

      their goal was to be a bunch of stupid teenagers. They weren’t trying to hit the car, they were just trying to launch the bowling ball. These guys deserve a Darwin award.

    • Sir Robin says:

      I think they were bowling from the car, aiming to make the ball go out into the field on the right. However, it appears the ball went up the left edge of the ramp, somehow directing it left, back over the road.

  21. Andu says:

    What an idiots!

  22. Shadow says:

    It struck perfectly; didn’t spare even a little bit of force.

    *admires*

  23. Vincent says:

    harhar
    bad luck

  24. Shadow says:

    ♪ I…wanna launch and bowl all night
    and smash cars every day… ♪

  25. I don’t think they were paying attention in physics class. Firing artillery straight up from a moving train is the first example taught.

  26. chez says:

    They seriously had to point out at the end that it was a bad idea? This is worse than the fools I saw out shooting arrows straight up in a field once. (they all lived dammit, shut up trolls)

  27. Meh says:

    The best part is that they probably would have been fine if they hadn’t hit the brakes.
    The bowling ball can’t accelerate once they let go of it.

  28. I’d like to show my appreciation for getting a good, old fashioned, “idiots getting what they deserve” type fail this afternoon. Thanks PTB!

  29. Avis says:

    Ok, I must be going now. Errands to run, more soup to cook. I’ll be back later.
    Toodles!

  30. pootpoot says:

    Oldie but goldie.

  31. DecalDude says:

    The bowling bowl probably wouldn’t even have hit the car if someone didn’t slam on the brakes. HAHAA
    Who’s bright idea was this anyway? People in a small town with nothing better to do…I guess.

  32. 5 eagles/high5/1finches/1fox/1cats/1vole/owl/caterpiller/1femur C.C.C. says:

    FOUR!!!!

  33. adf says:

    Iz in ur physics, conserving ur motion

  34. john says:

    It’s too bad they didn’t try it on a motorcycle. ‘THWAP’

  35. Onion says:

    Would have been good to mention they were throwing the ball from the moving car. I mean car bowling is not a very internationally known pass-time.
    Which just leaves the question why they would do this. I for one have no idea. I mean the comment “this was not a good idea” should have come up at the moment this idea was uttered, not after the ball hit the car and knocked out the rear window.

  36. It took me 2 hours to review the new posts on the vote page…..I was only inactive for 4 days…geeeez

    • 5 eagles/5Finches/1fox/6cats/high5/owl C.C.C. says:

      *5 eagles activates the switch, electricity courses through abstract body*
      You are now active!

      • ZombieApocalypse says:

        Be careful making her ride the lightning like that. I like her occasionally being a temporary zombie, not full time though. Get it? Don’t make me send the hoard after you.

        • Avis says:

          Send the hoard! Send the hoard!!!!
          .
          .
          .
          Please?

          • 5 eagles/5Finches/1fox/6cats/high5/owl C.C.C. says:

            *5 eagles handcuffs himself to Avis* Soooo still want the hoard?

          • coyote says:

            No hoarding allowed. We all share equally.

          • Emperor, Tetragrammatron Cleric, Captain Teague. Clint Eastwood (The Good The Bad and The Ugly) says:

            *Snork*
            Now, now Avis.
            *squeeze*

            • Avis says:

              Heehee!
              *squeeze*
              :p

              • Emperor, Tetragrammatron Cleric, Captain Teague. Clint Eastwood (The Good The Bad and The Ugly) says:

                So, I promised I wouldn’t do this but,
                UPDATES UPDATES UPDATES!
                *awaitspatiently*

                • 5 eagles/5Finches/1fox/6cats/high5/owl C.C.C. says:

                  What updates?

                • Avis says:

                  Updates? Um… well… we don’t see much (if any) of each other during the weekdays. He lives several miles north of me and neither of us has a car. Plus he has to be at work at some ungodly time in the morning. But he’s coming over for dinner Friday night! And no, I don’t yet know what I’m going to cook. He is going to St. Louis with me for Halloween!

                  • Emperor, Tetragrammatron Cleric, Captain Teague. Clint Eastwood (The Good The Bad and The Ugly) says:

                    Um you do know you are scaring me. “ungodly” “St Louis” and Halloween. My oh my, I might just pray for you tonight.
                    1) Is he being introduced to the parents anytime in the near future?
                    *crosses fingers*
                    2) Do you not know what you are going to cook because of nerves? or 3) just haven’t figured it out yet?
                    (Answering in order might help, actually I will go back and number them for you.)
                    A smile for good luck no matter what the your answers are. :D

                    • Avis says:

                      1)He used to work in my building so he’s already met my folks. Some time ago in fact. His folks are due to visit him in a couple of weeks and I may or may not be introduced to them. (And that’s more of a “the less they know about his life the happier he is kinda thing” that I am completely cool with)
                      2) Not nervous at all, we’ve had several meals together that one, the other, or both of us have made. :)
                      3) That would be it. There are some choices, and I’m just not sure which one to go with.

                      • Emperor, Tetragrammatron Cleric, Captain Teague. Clint Eastwood (The Good The Bad and The Ugly) says:

                        Pesto pasta is my suggestion. I have been begging my mother to make it for months now, but now in the hotel it’s too hard to make. Is he as good a chef as you are?

                        • nightshayde says:

                          Oh good grief. I read that at first as “Pepto Pasta” and thought I was going to be ill.

                          :ick:

                        • Emperor, Tetragrammatron Cleric, Captain Teague. says:

                          Aww sowwy NS. How are you doing this fine evening?
                          {NS}

                        • Avis says:

                          Sorry to disappear like that for a couple (few) hours, my television addiction (crime dramas) was screaming.
                          All the basil I have is turning yucky. I could make a rustic tomato tart, stuffed pasta shells, or a tex-mex fiesta with the poblano corn chowder. The last is likely a no go as he seems to think that potatoes and cheese only go together when scalloped.
                          He cooks. As to whether we’re at the same skill level remains to be seen. The only things he’s cooked for me (all by his lonesome) were pancakes (box mix) and bacon. We cooked a pot roast together, and that was good. I’m willing to believe that he’s got some fantastic recipes up his sleeve, and I can’t wait to try them! I’m also willing to believe he learned to cook at a younger age than I did.

                        • Emperor, Tetragrammatron Cleric, Captain Teague. says:

                          At the risk of the cliche build.
                          *With a soft quivering bottom lip*
                          AWW Avis you awre sooooo cuuutttteeee.
                          *squeeze*

        • 5 eagles/5Finches/1fox/6cats/high5/owl C.C.C. says:

          I had it hooked up to a 9 volt battery why? do you think that’s to much?ZA.

  37. TerminatorT says:

    when i saw that i thought a car was gonna go off ramp into some pins… XD

  38. Durrr says:

    Hurray for Physics!

  39. jennifer says:

    That was a nice lady she should have cussed out those morons.

  40. mike says:

    Nubs need to learn some basic physics. It’s gonna contenue going as fast as the car is if the speed stays constant.

  41. james says:

    yes it shall, contenue. Anyone in Sience class would learn that!

  42. james says:

    I’m just trying to do my part in carrying the torch.

  43. Kjell Hansson says:

    Now THIS IS A FAIL

  44. Kjell Hansson says:

  45. 3410 says:

    That “.org” voice is seriously annoying.

  46. Softy says:

    Conservation of momentum WIN.

  47. A sad result of what happens when those who chronically throw the Wiimote into the TV try something on a larger scale.

    Oh, and congratulations, Jimbo, for the “Powered by!”

  48. Jessica Deal says:

    Heavy balls should never be thrown at moving objects.

  49. Beetle179 says:

    No. Car bowling WIN.

  50. pootpoot says:

    They braked in order to decelerate the car by exactly the same amount the bowling ball was decelerated by the quarterpipe. Precision work WIN.

  51. ShadowTheSniperZombie C.C.C./Head of the Janitors' Union/Co-owner of ZombieTrollNetwork says:

    *comes out of another dimension I was trapped in*
    *falls from sky*
    *lands on same car*
    I’m back any body miss me.
    *brushes self off*

    *squeeze*

  52. Am I the only who doesn’t understand what they were doing?

    • ShadowTheSniperZombie C.C.C./Head of the Janitors' Union/Co-owner of ZombieTrollNetwork says:

      1.launch bowling
      2.car moves fast to pass it
      3.it fails
      4.The bowling knocks the windshield off of the car

  53. Kendra says:

    Booooo fail blog for putting ads after the movie clips! It’s annoying!

  54. Abbyyy says:

    Well, if the car was the pin then it was a win. :D

  55. KuBi4K says:

    But … But but but but but ….

    What the F*** were they trying to do ?

    (Ô_o)

  56. Sage says:

    what was supposed to happen?

    they launched a bowling ball at a car and it got damaged, no suprises here for me.

  57. Preston Cyrus says:

    The ad at the end was annoying

  58. Bob-H says:

    I think the comment at the end of the video is, “Now you gotta go buy her a new ‘For Sale’ sticker, dude.”

  59. TerminatorT says:

    yeah, lol

  60. Bob says:

    They launched the bowling ball FROM the car. The moment they let it go, the driver should have put on the brakes, but they kept driving at the exact same speed as the ball. Heh.

  61. L says:

    Looks like a future Olympic sport to me!

  62. Mr. Fist says:

    Nice catch.

  63. Andrew Ong says:

    The car scored the strike from the bowling ball! Total carnage!
    (‘Returning Cannonball’ on land, I’d say.)

  64. Epic says:

    Epic WIN!
    Destroy your car. EPIC!


Your Comment

 

 

Search

Daily Shipments of Fail via Email


EmailSubscribe
Enter your email address:
 

TwitterFollow us
on Twitter »
FacebookBecome a
Facebook fan »
RSSRSS Feed »
  • Tags

  • Pictures by Month

  • Recent Comments

    WewtSauce on Fury Fail
    MarkSr on Tell Me What You See
    Born Toby Wilde on Tell Me What You See
    the guide on Tell Me What You See
    Moto on Tell Me What You See
    czuhc on Tell Me What You See
    Loln9gga on Car Repair Fail
    Loln9gga on Seduction Fail
    joe on Tell Me What You See
    plue_plue on Worker Productivity Fail
  • RSS Cheezburger Network Blog

  • Even More Lulz