I just saw again that commercial for a car (Audi? Infiniti? Lexus?) that says, “We’re going to drop this car from a helicopter 4,000 feet up. This car on the ground is going to cover that same distance in the same amount of time.” Or words to that effect. If my rudimentary physics and math are ok, the car would take about 16 seconds to hit the ground, discounting wind resistance. (d=1/2 a t squared). d=4000 feet, a = 32 ft/sec/sec and solving for t that comes to about 16 seconds. Right so far? So, if it falls 4,000 feet in 16 seconds that averages out to about 170 miles per hour, yes? And if that’s about right, then they’re saying that their car will make that same distance in that same amount of time, averaging 170 miles per hour. Is that what they’re telling us about their sedan? It can average 170 mph over 4,000 feet? How many cars can actually go that fast?
I don’t have all the math but I don’t think it is needed. The McLaren F1 can go 0 - 100 in 7.7 seconds. The time from 100 - 170 should be around that or more. That burns up almost all of your 16 seconds and possibly not hitting 170 per hour at all let alone averaging it. With a top speed of 231 mph, I don’t see how 16 seconds would be enough to average out at 170. I don’t think any conventional cars could do it.
We hashed it out in January:
Quite a few actually.
Damn few actually.
Quick name five 4-5 passenger sedans that can achieve 170 mph in stock trim. 
CC you can’t disregard wind resistance. A car being dropped has the aerodynamics of a barn door. Huge amounts of wind resistance. In the other thread we came up with a terminal velocity of between about 125-132mph.
Also the car on the ground is not starting from a stop, it is a flying start.
Someone in the earlier thread pointed out the disclaimer in the ad. It points out that the demonstration was simulated. In other words, we never dropped a car from a helicopter, the car on the ground was in no danger, and the whole thing was patched together inside a computer.
So, how fast did the flying car drop? 0 mph. Could the car on the ground go that fast? Easily.
I posted those disclaimers, and the only one about simulation is “Aerial sequence simulated”, which is shown while the dropped car is being filmed falling from various angles. Which leads me to think that they didn’t simulate the whole experiment, just some of the shots in the commercial.
Given that a car dropped would not just drop straight down without pitching nose first, the whole thing is quite patched together. Quite possibly the only thing they did was drop a car, film it as they released it, and generated the whole remainder of the “drop” by computer.
As a side note, I grew up where that was filmed. The wind over the Sierra Nevada crest just 5 miles west of there would have made it impossible to do what they did; the car would have landed somewhat off the runway <lol>
Actually a number of cars have been dropped for TV ads and have been stabilized in a flat drop. As mentioned in the linked thread, MG did it in the 70’s and Ford did a Ranger ad in the early 80’s. All that is required is either a platform or cables to the four corners, and a drogue chute.
If you look close at the ad in question, you can see the cables suspending the car, and what appears to be a drogue attached at the point of drop.
Maserati Quattroporte - 171
BMW E93 M5 - 186, E60 - 195 (delimited)
Mitsubishi Evo VIII FQ400 - 175
Mercedes-Benz CLS55 AMG - 185 (delimited)
Ok, my question was answered in the linked thread. I’m pleased to report that my reasoning and my math brought me moderately close to a corroborated answer for the speed (in the absence of air, I know). I also could see very clearly that the image of the falling/crashing car was modified by computer. I knew that from the beginning. I guess I was just taking the language of the ad fairly literally and trying to make a rough guess as to the speed of a car on the ground in those contrived conditions. But, of course, on SDMB, one often runs into people trying to figure out such questions to the nth degree, taking into account everything from air resistance, a logical variable to consider, to the prevailing winds in that part of the country. Makes this bbs the best, bar none, though. Thanks, dopers.
xo, C.
But, interestingly enough, you didn’t include the car in the commercial.