Cool Lexus Gravity Ad

[coolieman1220]

So as I watched my football this weekend, I saw an interesting car commercial for the Lexus IS350. I looked for it on youtube but i could not find it. Probably because it's too new. Now I thought you guys would find this funny.

A Lexus IS350 is hung from a helicopter 4,000 feet in the air. Another Lexus IS350 is on land 4,000 feet away in a straight line from where the droppsed IS350 will hit the ground. At the same time the one on land will accelerate and keep going while the one in the air will be dropped and fall until it reaches terminal velocity and then hit the ground. In the add the one on land does beat the falling one by a hair. Now I first thought that the add was total bullshit. Are they trying to say the car is faster then gravity? accelerates faster then gravity? I do not know. Do you guys think that this is possible? Have you seen the commercial? So that leads me to my closure. What will they think of next with advertising?

[Bob]

No, the grounded IS350 is moving before the second one drops. Essentially the grounded one's 'flying mile'(actually 4000 feet) takes less time than the fall (of the same distance) due to gravity.

[Rockefella]

I haven't seen it but from what I can gather it sounds like simple physics. If the helicopter was moving with any velocity on the x-plane (going forwards in this case), the Lexus in the air will travel at that velocity going forwards until it hits the ground, along with a -y velocity (down) at the rate of acceleration of gravity, 9.8 meters/second/second. Depending on the speeds of both 'vehicles' in this case, this is quite credible as far as I can tell.

[digitalcraft]

I believe if a car were to accelerate from 0 - 60 as fast from a stop as falling, it would have a 2.78 0-60 time(not including air resistance though, so it's actually a slower time than that, drag of course depending on the car).

And you can separate movement into an x and y component, so any forward momentum of the helicoptor is negated

[Rockefella]

Originally Posted by digitalcraft

I believe if a car were to accelerate from 0 - 60 as fast from a stop as falling, it would have a 2.78 0-60 time.

Hmm, I thought it'd be quicker than that.

[digitalcraft]

9.8 m/s^2

9.8(m/s^2)/1609.34(mi/m) = 0.006 mi/s^2

0.006(mi/s^2) * S(s) = 0.167 (mi/s) <---- [60(mi/h) * 1/3600(h/s)]

S(s) = 0.0167(mi/s) / 0.006 (mi/s^2)

S(s) = 2.78(s)


one..., and two..., and....

[Sweeney921]

I don't think the car on the ground would have a chance. The falling car would have a pretty high terminal velocity because it has a lot of mass. The car on the ground in no way can accelerate quicker than the falling car, and I'm also thinking that the falling car's terminal velocity is faster than the top speed of an IS350.

[digitalcraft]

Was the car dropped flat or nose down? If it was flat, that's a ton of friction due to air resistance, so the 0-60 time would be quite a lot slower. If it was nose-down, the terminal velocity of a car is supposedly pretty close to its max speed I guess, since the resistance due to air speed squares as speed increases, it takes a ton of power for a small increase in top speed.

It'd be great if someone could figure the equation with some air resistance figured in, because without is pretty meaningless. (well I guess it gives a floor max acceleration)

[Coventrysucks]

The world goes into shock as rumours spread across the internet that advertisements may not accurately reflect real-life...

[NSXType-R]

Seriously, stop cross analyzing the advertisement. What's there is there. Don't put in variables and try to figure something out. You can't and accept that fact.

[coolieman1220]

the car is dropped top up and lands top up. i'm not sure if it was already moving @ top speed or if it starts accelerating. i do believe it started accelerating though

[ruim20]

This isn't interesting becouse of the advert now i really wanted to know what could be it's terminal velocity, if we could get the IS CX could the math be done?

[Matt]

Wouldn't it naturally nose down as it fell due to more weight being in the front with the engine?

[Mr.Tiv]

Originally Posted by Matt

Wouldn't it naturally nose down as it fell due to more weight being in the front with the engine?

And there would be less surface area to create drag that way, which makes that observation seem even more valid.

[cmcpokey]

Originally Posted by Matt

Wouldn't it naturally nose down as it fell due to more weight being in the front with the engine?

not necessarily. its actually more a function of its aerodynamics. it would all depend on the airflow around the car influencing its direction of fall. weight would have little to do with it because when in a freefall, the body is weightless.