Physicist Calculates Trajectory of Tiger At SF Zoo

KentuckyFC writes "Is it really possible for a 350-pound tiger to leap a 12.5-foot barrier from 33 feet away? (Said another way: a 159-kg tiger, a 3.8 m barrier, and 10 m away.) A physicist at Northeastern University has done the math, a straightforward problem in ballistics, and the answer turns out to be yes (abstract on the physics arXiv). But I guess we already knew that following the death of Carlos Souza at the paws of Tatiana, a Siberian Tiger he had allegedly been taunting at San Francisco zoo at the end of last year."

Never mind the physics

[ScentCone (795499)]

It's just nice to see that the zoo's kharma system was working. Unfortunately, someone meta-modded the tiger with a shotgun.

Re:Never mind the physics

[ScentCone (795499)]

A shotgun? Very unlikely to kill it, almost guaranteed to enrage it.

Actually, I believe they DID kill it with a shotgun - just not loaded with birdshot. Slugs. You don't use a high powered rifle in a setting like that, or bet your life on a handgun. A 12-gauge with slugs will definitely kill something that sized, no problem.

Re:Never mind the physics

[techpawn (969834)]

Exactly, the only math I would do if I saw a tiger attacking is:

1. The distance from me to the tiger
2. The distance from me to my car
3. The distance from me and some guy I can beat in my race between me and my car

Prior Research

[ackthpt (218170)]

Is it really possible for a 350-pound tiger to leap a 12.5-foot barrier from 33 feet away?

All prior researchers have not returned from the jungle. Information is incomplete.

Call in the lawyers

[arkham6 (24514)]

Well, I guess this is enough for the lawsuits to start flying at the zoo. Surely there are enough lawyers out there that will take the case. "Your honor, the zoo was clearly negligent in designing a tiger cage that a tiger could jump out of. The fact that the victim was allegedly taunting the tiger does not factor into the fact that the tiger was able to escape due to the mistake of the zoo building the environment."

Which begs the question...

[imstanny (722685)]

Which begs the question; What kind of methods are used to determine the 'standards' for an inclosure?

Another interesting calculation...

[SharpFang (651121)]

I did a similar calculation a while ago.

An object of 750kg can accelerate to 60km/h in 5 impulses (rapid pushes).
How far will an object of 75kg travel when one such impulse is applied at angle of 45 degrees upward?

The 750kg object is a horse. About 5 pushes of hind hooves are enough to reach the full speed.
The 75kg object is a human kicked by the horse (remaining motionless with a counter-push of front hooves).

The result was something like 30 meters. The damage was equivalent to fall from 6th floor.

And they tell us horses can't say "no" when they don't want sex.

Possibilities vs explanations

[Schraegstrichpunkt (931443)]

"Is it really possible for a 350-pound tiger to leap a 12.5-foot barrier from 33 feet away? ... But I guess we already knew that following the death of Carlos Souza at the paws of Tatiana, a Siberian Tiger he had allegedly been taunting at San Francisco zoo at the end of last year."

If we already know the answer, then the question really is, can we explain how a 350-pound tiger to leap a 12.5-foot barrier from 33 feet away, or do we need to do some more research?

Inaccuracies

[sifi (170630)]

Looking at this diagram: http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/01/03/mn_grotto.jpg [sfgate.com] You can see that it is 33ft along and 2.5ft up for starters. (12ft is from the bottom of the moat, not from where the tiger jumped).

Then the tiger's centre of mass is probably about 2.5ft up anyway so it more about being able to jump 33ft flat.

Also speed doesn't translate into distance in this simplistic way either: if it did humans would be almost able to jump the distance (max speed = 26.25mph) which is close as damm it to the 26.7mph required.

I'll wait for the Mythbusters segment on this

[sizzzzlerz (714878)]

before I finally decide.

Lateral velocity != jumping velocity

[daffmeister (602502)]

From TFA:

From our calculations it was shown that a tiger only needs a little over 26 mi/hr to cross the 33 ft moat and clear the 12.5 ft high wall. From the current data that is available, a tiger can attain a maximum speed of 35 mi/hr.

35 mi/hr across the ground != 26 mi/hr at a 55 deg angle. I'd like to see how they propose converted that lateral velocity to the highly inclined one.

This is high school physics done badly. Very poor analysis.

Wait a dog gone minute!

[GodfatherofSoul (174979)]

I took engineering physics in college, and from what I recall all formulas only worked on massless, frictionless systems and didn't account for air resistance. Now, how the hell did a physicist crunch these numbers?

A word on tiger behavior

[bluesangria (140909)]

I was watching a Discovery channel show on some guy who was raising two tigers in a park preserve to be eventually released in the wild. To avoid incurring any dependencies on humans in the tigers, he kept away from them as much as possible, only associating enough to feed them and care for any injuries. To train them to hunt, he would make the tigers chase a deer or goat carcass dragged behind a car. The tigers were rewarded with their "kill" once they managed to get a good bite on the carcass to hold it. Afterwards, to up their training, he simply released several live prey animals into the park (goats, gazelles, etc.) and let the tiger's instincts take over. One thing that impressed me, and that they did not know before studying these tigers, is that tigers tend to go on "killing frenzies". Without being hungry or being threatened, tigers will simply run from one prey animal to the next, slaughtering it, taking a bite or two, then rushing to find another. They are, quite simply, relishing their power as a predator. After the end of a frenzy, the two tigers had slaughtered almost 40 prey animals in a short while.
I don't know whether or not those boys taunted the tiger, and honestly, I'm not sure it would have made a difference. But I'm fairly certain the tiger would not have "settled down" after only killing a couple of people, not when the place was filled with fearful, slow two-legged animals acting like "prey". Welcome to the world of wild animals.

blue

Re:A word on tiger behavior

[Debello (1030486)]

No, no, no, no and NO. You know nothing of tigers.

1. Tigers have practically no natural instincts when it comes to being predators. Tigers in the wild have to be trained by their mothers how to do things like hunt, climb trees, eat properly, etc. These are things that a human cannot teach. Therefore, any tiger born in captivity cannot be released into the wild and survive. It simply does not have the skills necessary.

2. Look at the way these tigers were trained. Just two bites, and then they get their kill. They can eat it whenever they want. Now observe the way that they killed the 40 animals released into the zoo. Killing frenzy? Yes. By all definitions, that's a killing frenzy. But was that killing frenzy a product of their instincts? No! If you've done any research or paid attention to anything about tigers, you would quickly learn that my first point is quite correct and proven. Tigers have no natural instincts when it comes to killing their prey. Again, observe how it was trained to hunt and how it slaughtered the wild animals: in the same fashion. This is because it knows no other way to kill animals. You say, 'welcome to the world of wild animals.' I say, 'welcome to the world of tigers not being properly trained by their human caretakers.' All tigers are in captivity are oversized house cats, and about just as aggressive. This means yes you need to be careful, but it means no they're not just going to kill you because they're hungry.

3. Which leads me to my third point. where you say:

But I'm fairly certain the tiger would not have "settled down" after only killing a couple of people, not when the place was filled with fearful, slow two-legged animals acting like "prey".

Well, you put your certainty in the wrong place. Unless the tiger in TFA was trained to attack and kill humans for food, the chances of it deciding to just jump out of its cage and go on an eating frenzy is virtually zero. A tiger must be TRAINED to be a predator, and it must be TRAINED to attack humans for food or for pleasure. In the wild, this training is not done by instincts like you so ignorantly proposed, but by the tigers mother. And this leads me to my fourth point:

4. You know nothing of tigers. (See opening sentence)

Absolutely not surprising

[Tanuki64 (989726)]

I once had a guided-tour through a German zoo. When we came to the tigers the guide told us that the tigers in theory were able to leap over the barriers. According to the guide many animals in that zoo were able to escape when they really wanted. However, animals are similar to most people in some aspects. Life is good in the zoo and within the known areas. What is outside is unknown, perhaps scary, so why bother? Looks like the taunting was enough reason to bother for that tiger.

Who cares!?

[jav1231 (539129)]

I contend that the enclosure was just fine. The tiger was content until he was taunted. This story had less to do with "how to contain a tiger" than "don't taunt the potentially man-eating tiger!" Note, he only went after those who taunted him! I'm not saying it was justified, but given that the tiger could hardly go to the authorities and his predisposition to violence he did what a tiger does back home.

He should have just watched this video...

[penguin_dance (536599)]

The asian elephant in this is about 12' tall. Back story: A tiger escaped from a preserve in India (Kaziranga National Park) and had killed a couple of farm animals. She was training her cubs to hunt. Rangers had found the cubs and took them (which I find incredibly stupid because now she's stressed and looking for them). Riding elephants, they found the female in the brush and tried to tranquilize her, but the dart missed. What happened next [youtube.com] should give you and idea what the jerks in the SF zoo saw.

The elephant trainer survived, but was badly wounded.

Re:Hmm

[Smidge204 (605297)]

Seriously, you'd think the people who designed the enclosure would know how to do that kind of math... or at least be smart enough to get a consult. I wonder how many aquarium designs they went through before they finally made one that held its contents properly...

=Smidge=

Re:Hmm

[somersault (912633)]

Well TFA points out that the enclosure didn't meet the recommended height, but still passed a safety check by the same body that actually made the recommendations.. strange, and tragic.

Re:Hmm

[longacre (1090157)]

"The tiger didn't go crazy, that tiger went tiger!" --Chris Rock

How many tigers in the world

[billstewart (78916)]

The number of tigers in the wild has been declining rapidly, and if you want real numbers check reputable sources. Last I heard it was under 3000, and it might be a lot fewer by now, and general estimates are that by 20 year from now they'll be extinct in the wild.

The number of tigers in zoos is about 4000.

As many as 3000 tigers may be in farms in China, being raised to sell as traditional medicine for people whose penises aren't big enough or who think their bones will make them stronger.

The number of tigers that are kept as pets by Americans is about 6000. There are animal activists like Tippi Hedren trying to make laws against keeping tigers as pets, because almost nobody who has pet tigers has enough space and resources to let them live like tigers need to, especially the occasional drug dealer in some apartment building in New York who wanted to out-macho his competitors' pit bulls. She's well-intentioned, but the species needs all the genetic diversity it can get, even though tigers aren't meant to live like house-cats.

Re:Hmm

[Nullav (1053766)]

1) There are 6.5 billion people in the world. How many tigers are there?

And it's humanity's fault that tigers haven't evolved some sort of bulletproofing by now?

Re:Hmm

[Gospodin (547743)]

Actually, the guy 400 yards away with the high-powered rifle has the advantage. As was verified in this case.

Re:Hmm

[somersault (912633)]

I guess we all know what to pack next time we go to the zoo then.

"What's in that case sir?"

"Oh it's just my photography equipment. I have a very high long zoom lens for, uh .. shooting *cough* pictures of distant animals"

Re:Hmm

[Wog (58146)]

Actually, in this case it was SF police officers with .40 sidearms. I imagine that they were able to win only because there were so many rounds expended, as handgun rounds are hardly adequate for this sort of animal.

In any case, most folks believe that human life is more important than animal life, so when a police officer arrives to find a "rare" tiger mauling a "common" human, you can't be surprised when he opts to kill kill the freaking cat. The suggestion that the lives of a few humans should be willfully sacrificed to preserve the life of an animal flies against our built-in desire to preserve our race, so don't expect to be popular when you make it.

Re:Hmm

[osu-neko (2604)]

This is unfortunately true. An animal that has actually overcome its instincts of avoidance (often due to unfortunate necessity) and killed a human becomes much more likely to do it again. There are no animals that, in the wild, are naturally mankillers, but there have been many documented instances of certain individuals becoming mankillers. Whatever the circumstances were and how unfair they were that provoked the first attack, once an individual animal has killed a man successfully, it becomes much more likely to do it again and again. Sadly, it's usually some stupid man who's turned the animal into a mankiller, but the fact remains that the animal now is a mankiller, and needs to be dealt with accordingly. I don't mourn for the idiot who provokes and gets killed in the first place, but one must deal realistically with the animal to prevent future innocent victims.

Re:Hmm

[EdwinBoyd (810701)]

Not to be a pedant but Polar Bears in their natural habitat will actively hunt humans.

Very Interesting

[daniel422 (905483)]

Am I the only one who finds it fascinating that the ONLY ones the tiger directly attacked were the 3 guys who were taunting it? That it specifically hunted down the 3 individuals who pissed it off? And they had moved away from the area...
Who says animals are stupid?

Re:Very Interesting

[Chris Burke (6130)]

Am I the only one who finds it fascinating that the ONLY ones the tiger directly attacked were the 3 guys who were taunting it? That it specifically hunted down the 3 individuals who pissed it off? And they had moved away from the area...

Nope, I find that very interesting too. It pretty much proves to me that this was their own stupid fault. This was not some random man-killing tiger who escaped on a whim and hunted a human. This thing was pissed, it was out for revenge, and there's no way it was going to those lengths just because it was mildly annoyed. Out of all the visitors to ever walk past the cage, these were the only ones to taunt it in any way? Not bloody likely. They must have gone above and beyond the call of stupid duty to provoke this attack.

Re:Hmm

[Megane (129182)]

The people who "designed the enclosure"? It was (IIRC) a WPA project from the 1930's. It wasn't designed, it was built.

The crazy part was that the people who ran the zoo had no idea of its height, or lack thereof. And when inspectors came through the zoo a couple of years ago, nobody mentioned to the zoo that the height was below standard. In other words, it's not a design problem (the height was fine when it was built, back when nobody was stupid enough to taunt tigers like that), it's a maintenance problem, as in keeping up to standards, or even knowing that you aren't.

Re:So he taunted... why difference does it make?

[ScentCone (795499)]

The repeated mentioning of this guy taunting the animal irritates me, because it seems to imply it was his fault.

Yeah, climbing over the fence to deliberately provoke a large predator and whatnot... totally the zoo's fault.

the tiger had superior knowledge of the situation

[John_Sauter (595980)]

The repeated mentioning of this guy taunting the animal irritates me, because it seems to imply it was his fault.

Sure, if I saw a guy taunting animals at the zoo I'd think he was a complete jerk. If it was really out of hand, I'd call security to arrest the guy.

But it's not something he deserved to die for.

The tiger, obviously, disagreed with you. I submit that the tiger had better knowledge of the extent and degree of taunting that you do.

Re:the tiger had superior knowledge of the situati

[192939495969798999 (58312)]

Also, taunting a tiger is a lot different than taunting a shrew, a turtle, or any other animal at the zoo. Those other ones don't have a reputation as man-eaters. Who's to say that a tiger couldn't get out of pretty much any enclosure, given that it felt pissed off enough? the 12-footx30-foot distance is supposed to remind you that this cat means business.

Taunting a tiger is a bit like running down the street screaming the N word in Harlem: there are much, much safer ways to be a jackass.

Re:the tiger had superior knowledge of the situati

[Beer_Smurf (700116)]

More tigers = fewer jackasses.
I don't see the problem.

Re:the tiger had superior knowledge of the situati

[Speare (84249)]

Hah, I like your "more tigers = fewer jackasses" concept. Except...

First, they leapt for the jackasses; I feared not for I was not a jackasss.
Next, they leapt for the lame and wounded; I feared not for I was not hurt.
Next, they leapt for the young and tender; I feared not...

Re:So he taunted... why difference does it make?

[by Anonymous Coward]

The repeated mentioning of this guy taunting the animal irritates me, because it seems to imply it was his fault.

Sure, if I saw a guy taunting animals at the zoo I'd think he was a complete jerk. If it was really out of hand, I'd call security to arrest the guy.

    But it's not something he deserved to die for.

It isn't as if this is a judicial sentence of death. What he deserved is irrelevant. You use that term when you are talking about justice not when you are talking about accidents with wildlife.

It is a good habit not to blame the victim of a crime. But no real crime occurred here. He was just the victim of an accident that he caused. This should be repeated in every story discussing this event as a warning to any other stupid individual who thinks taunting tigers is harmless.

Re:So he taunted... why difference does it make?

[MBCook (132727)]

But it's a mitigating factor. The tiger didn't attack some random person, this guy was doing something to provoke the attack. That puts the attack in a different category. Both categories are bad in this case, but they are still different.

A well designed enclosure would have prevented this. The zoo is at fault. There is no question there.

However, the guy wasn't innocent. The tiger may not have attacked if he was behaving differently. There is a risk when you tease a 350lb killing machine. I see the fact he was doing that as important.

Your point is a bit like "sure he was kicking the dog, but that doesn't make it OK that the dog mauled him". Just because the result (mauling) was worse than the crime (kicking the dog) doesn't mean the crime is irrelevant.

Now teasing a tiger is not as bad as kicking a dog... the tiger isn't actually injured. The point is that the guy is not without blame.

If I had kids, I'd rather they heard this story with that fact, and would get the chance to learn the lesson "don't taunt things that can easily kill you, even if you think you're safe" than either never learn that lesson or learn it the hard way.

A lot

[ArchieBunker (132337)]

Wanna bet the tiger would still be in its cage if these drunken idiots had decided NOT to shoot it with a slingshot? The only tragedy here was the tiger having to be killed.

Re:A lot

[192939495969798999 (58312)]

I've been to tens of zoos hundreds of times, as I'm sure many of us have, and I always look at the tigers. They are almost always sleeping, or maybe moving to where the food is, eating it, and then sleeping. Once I saw one playing with a ball or a tree trunk and looking excited... and then it got its food that it was waiting for, ate it, and layed down to sleep again. In all of these situations the tigers seemed to care less that there people present, including typical zoo noise like kids "roaring" at the tigers. I shudder to think the amount of contact/irritation/etc. that would be necessary to have the following happen:
1) distract the cat from sleeping,
2) make it get up,
3) make it target you,
4) make it risk its own safety to jump out of its "den" to attack you,
5) make it actually attack, and
6) make it track you hundreds of feet past many other potential targets, now that it's free.

Re:So he taunted... why difference does it make?

[smooth wombat (796938)]

he repeated mentioning of this guy taunting the animal irritates me, because it seems to imply it was his fault.

Let's see. On an average day at the zoo, there are several thousand people who visit this enclosure. During all the years this enclosure has been around and has had a tiger of some sort in it, not one person has ever been attacked, let alone killed.

Then one day, after drinking and some drug use, [cnn.com] these asshats decide to stand on a fence around the enclosure, yell and taunt at a wild animal which is known to be able kill humans, possibly shoot it with a slingshot, and yet somehow, despite the actions of supposedly the smartest animal on the planet, it's not the guy's fault he got himself killed?

But it's not something he deserved to die for.

It's called being responsible for your actions. Put another way, survival of the fittest in all its glory.

Re:So he taunted... why difference does it make?

[Hatta (162192)]

I dunno, if you stick your tongue in an electrical outlet, you deserve to get shocked. If you walk across a highway blindfolded, you deserve to get hit. If you taunt a tiger, you deserve to get mauled. If he didn't want to get mauled to death, he could have easily left the tiger alone.

Ob. Simpsons:

[Farmer Tim (530755)]

"Och, someone save me from the wee turtles! They were too fast for me!"

Re:So he taunted... why difference does it make?

[eln (21727)]

I wouldn't mess with the turtles if I were you. While the tiger's retribution may be swift and deadly, the turtle is content to bide his time, and has a much colder, darker heart. Once you get on a turtle's bad side, your life will never be the same. The turtle will make the rest of your long life a living hell. A turtle is cold and evil, and he never forgets.

Re:Darwin award contender?

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

Being a jerk for a few minutes to a tiger doesn't mean you should die.

But it does mean that if you do die, it's your own stupid fault.

QFT.

Nobody is saying he deserved to die. If you take risks with your life and the risk doesn't pay off.. well tough.

Re:Darwin award contender?

[jafiwam (310805)]

Nobody is saying he deserved to die. If you take risks with your life and the risk doesn't pay off.. well tough.

Actually, A LOT of people are saying that. (Go visit Fark threads on the subject.)

And, they're right.

Here's a list of other stuff (in case you weren't following all the articles) they did just that day;

- waited for the Zoo to empty out (premeditated)
- collected tools to do the task (slingshot, and something else (i forgot)
- drove drunk (open container of vodka in the car) to the zoo
- stayed around after zoo was closed (trespassing)
- climbed over a barrier designed to protect animals from humans
- lied to police about what happened
- clamed up, lawyered up right away

Those asshats deserved to die just from the drunk driving alone. Acting in such a way that causes an endangered animal to be killed brutally by police, while two of them (India-Indians) should know damn well what tigers can do, yeah, that pretty much adds up to NO sympathy.

These asshats deserved to die. Just like those asshats that drove off the end of the Travolta's runway deserved to die. The human race is better off without them.

This is not just kids fooling around tying cans to the neighbor's dogs tail. It's real, bona fide criminal activity and animal abuse.

Re:Wow, talk about an unsafe zoo!

[eln (21727)]

Unfortunately, the zoo made their initial estimates for the enclosure based on the ballistic characteristics of a Southern Asian tiger carrying a coconut, not an unladen Siberian tiger, so their calculations were off slightly.

Staying on that theme...

[N Monkey (313423)]

Unfortunately, the zoo made their initial estimates for the enclosure based on the ballistic characteristics of a Southern Asian tiger carrying a coconut, not an unladen Siberian tiger, so their calculations were off slightly

Now jump that fence or I shall taunt you a second time.

Re:Wow, talk about an unsafe zoo!

[Jamu (852752)]

They did, unfortunately the calculations were only accurate for spherical tigers leaping in a vacuum.

Re:The SF Zoo? Hah!

[gb506 (738638)]

This is an example of the tragedy of privatization.

How so? The fence is the same height today it was when it was a public zoo. The zoo was public when the fence was built. Seems a better case can be made that public zoos don't know how to design safe tiger enclosures.

Re:The sickest part about the tiger attack...

[Punko (784684)]

No. the sickest part was putting the tiger down because a human was stupid beyond belief and a zoo didn't build an enclosure to protect the public AND the tiger from stupid humans. The tiger deserved the tribute because it died because it behaved to its expected nature. The human was mauled because he was STUPID and the zoo was irresponsible.

You can blame the zoo and blame the human, but the the tiger was innocent - the tiger was the victim here. Do not loose sight of this fact.