This is a list of problems I have with Smash Lab, compiled from the Discovery Channel forums and my own viewing. If or when anything listed here is mentioned by a reliable source, it should be added to the main article.

• Seems like an insult to viewer's intelligence.
• Inappropriately high "hip" to "science" ratio.
• Appears to be MythBusters minus science.
• The cost-effectiveness of implementing ideas are not stated.
• All test are performed only once.
• Failure to perform calculations to predict results.
• Failure to define solid experimental hypotheses.
  • Allowing experimental hypotheses to change for better results.
• Lack of prior research or theory.
• Blatant disregard for scientific principles.
• Too many uncontrolled variables.
• Lack of measurements to compare tests.
• Moving ahead with further experimentation without clearly explaining their goal.

• Hosts do not seem sincerely interested in what they're doing or to have much experience in their stated fields.
• Hosts do not appear to have distinct personalities.
• Hosts appear to have just met for the show; no chemistry.
• No background information on hosts is stated on show.
• Ideas seem like common sense.
• Lines seem scripted.
• Hosts dumb down the science to high school level.
• Hosts do not admit when they do things wrong or don't know something.
• Narrator is monotone.

• Bad camera angles.
• No comparison with current bomb proofing methods.
• Using one product felt like an hour-long commercial. (First credit was "Product Placement Consultant")
• Environment was not protected from environmentally toxic product.
• Show seems to blantantly trying to "be" MythBusters. For example; "Who picked this myth?"
• Show was meant to be about "Using a bullet proof vest to bomb proof a building". However, truck bed linings are not bullet proof vests. During the episode, they specifically point out that the material is not rated as bullet proof.
• A shotgun was used to test tensile strength of the material instead of a stress/strain/shear gauge.
• A host feigned setting off the cannon just to get a rise from another host, ignoring any sense of safety.

"Token hot chick" scientist:

• Repeats exactly what the other hosts just said.
• Sounds like she's reading off of a note card.
• Says non-scientic things. Example: "...let's fill both trucks with the same amount of explosions!"
• Random pans of her body when she's standing around not saying or doing anything.
• Long hair was not tied up around machinery.

• Kicking a wall doesn’t prove if it can hold up a couple of office floors above it.
• Blocks were not tested for stress, strain, shearing, deflection, etc
• A watermelon was placed in a different place for each test; first on a plastic caution cone, then on top of the wall.
• Intact watermelons after first and second tests were not commented on.
• Plastic liner on second wall did not appear to be 1/2 inch thick.
• Liner on third wall didn't cover all of the wall and those remaining parts survived the test.
• Lack of comparison with other types of walls.
• None of the walls represented real building walls. For example, none had required wire or rebar reinforcements.
• Cinder blocks in small un-lined wall were not grouted together and would not meet any known building code.
• Damage to walls was assessed rather than damage to building occupants.
• Window shutters would block the view from inside buildings.

• Explosives were weak and misplaced; should have been near driver's seat.
• Blasts occured in different places between trucks; under back axle, then in bed of truck.
• Trucks were not identical.
• Trucks were already damaged by rust before testing.

• The location of the tests was not given.
• None of the "oncoming traffic" in the initial test or bed test was moving.
• No reason or evidence was given for choosing 60mph and 35'. Most people drive faster than 60mph on highways.
• Tests were not performed at different speeds or angles.
• Tests were not performed using different depths, widths or densities of concrete.
• Tests were not performed using different combinations of concrete densities together.
• Tests were not performed using a realistic variety of vehicles.
• The initial test was not specifically stated to have any scientific value besides measuring the g-force of the crash.
  • The fatality of a g-force over 5 was incorrect. See g-force#Strongest g-forces survived by humans
• Damage to vehicles was assessed rather than damage to passengers.
• The vehicle used in the initial test was not the same make and model of the vehicle used in the barrier tests.
• No tests were performed on any of the concrete such as severe weather, vandalism, weeds and people who accidently drive on it.
• No experts in crash investigation or automoble safety were consulted.
• Failure to first research the compressive strength of aerated concrete.

• The length of the test bed did not realistically represent the width of a median strip at a 35' angle.
• Car and bus were driven differently but were both treated as equally valid. Car was driven without using brakes and with acceleration while bus was driven using steering and brakes.
• No explanation was given regarding why they thought it would be more dangerous driving the bus as opposed to the car.
• Cars were parks at an angle at end of concrete for bus test but not for car test.
• Concrete was not set uniformly.
• Concrete was allowed half a day to set rather than twenty.
• The same concrete was used for the bus test as for the car test, invalidating the bus test.
• It was not explained if the bed was intended to be flush with a road surface, or to be a raised surface on a median strip with an exposed vertical face, or if the ramp was part of the design.
  • The ramp before the bed should have either provided a flush approach onto the bed, or removed entirely. As installed, the ramp allowed the vehicles to become airborne, skipping the first few feet of bed.
• The bed was not constructed in the same way as the bed seen in the airplane video.
• The team was suprised that the car acted the way it did, even though a car as a vastly different weight to wheel surface ratio.
• Tests were not performed using currently known alternatives. For example, truck stopping lanes use pits of sand and loose gravel several feet deep. Race tracks have sand run-off areas.
• It was stated incorrectly that when a barrier between bed cells broke, that now the pressure will be twice as much on the next barrier. Pressure on the barrier is a function of depth and and area exposed, not of the volume of fluid in the cell.
• Team watched tests from a seemingly ridiculous distance for the type of tests they were.

• No initial control test was performed with just the Jersey barriers to set a baseline to compare with following tests.
• Dividers were not properly connected to the pavement, allowing them to move.
• No cars were placed on the other side of the dividers to represent oncoming traffic.
• It was not shown that the car approached the barrier at the same angle as the initial test.
• A host jumped on top of the concrete and kicked at it, damaging it before tests were conducted.
• Tests were not performed with the concrete on both sides of the barrier, like it would have to be in the real world.
• The amount of debris flying over the barrier into oncoming traffic would cause an accident even if the car didn't make it over.
• It was not mentioned that Jersey barriers are not designed to absorb impact in the first place; they are designed to deflect vechicles back into their own lane to protect oncoming traffic.
• It was not mentioned that adding concrete pads in front of all Jersey barriers would encroach on federally mandated roadway sizes.
• It was not mentioned that it is an impossibility to have a decreased g-force in a shorter stopping distance.
• Tests were not performed using currently known alternatives. For example, sand bags or water barrels.

• Team stood on boards rather than use a force gauge.
• When team stood on the wrapped board, they evenly distributed their weight over the whole of the plank instead of focusing their weight on the center as they did on the unwrapped test.

• Sheds did not represent real houses.
  • Sheds were not built to code of any hurricane prone area including hurrican rafter clips, plywood decking clips, use of ring shank nails and screws to attach decking, double pane tempered glass windows.
  • Houses do not use 1/8" plywood.
  • No corners matched up, created an open wind-facing gap.
• No test was performed on an unprotected shed bolted to the ground.
• No test was performed on a protected shed not bolted to the ground.
• Fans created a tornado test rather than a hurricane test.

• No test was performed on a target protected with twill weave carbon fiber.

• Mobile home was not anchored nearly as much as required by local codes in hurricane areas.
• Exhaust speed of jet turbine engine was measured with a hand held anemometer.
• $31 per square foot (cost of carbon fiber) times 2,880 (surface area of a 12' x 60' x 10' singlewide) = $89,280
• Insufficient camera views.