PDA

View Full Version : Vintage Mobil commercial featuring a Lark (sad)



Indyted
10-04-2013, 08:15 AM
Note the Avanti hubcaps.this was likely shot in the mid-60's after Studebaker shut down.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hk2hoozt-rI

Sad to see it go like that. But perhaps it helped educate motorists the dangers of high speed driving.

8E45E
10-04-2013, 08:33 AM
It was shot in Australia. http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?3590-Austrailian-Mobil-TV-ad-on-U-Tube&highlight=mobil+youtube

Craig

Commander Eddie
10-04-2013, 08:41 AM
Ouch! That hurt to watch.

'66Commander
10-04-2013, 10:37 AM
That is tragic.
:(

showbizkid
10-04-2013, 10:44 AM
Geez... way to sell gasoline :p

jackb
10-04-2013, 10:53 AM
...look at those crumpled zones....!

BobPalma
10-04-2013, 12:07 PM
I can assure you that Palma's Central Service, newly-authorized Mobil retailer, would never stoop to such obscene tactics to sell Mobil gasoline and oil products:

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss155/BobPalma/palmacentralservcie1_zps04db5b07.jpg (http://s571.photobucket.com/user/BobPalma/media/palmacentralservcie1_zps04db5b07.jpg.html)

The above photo and caption appeared in the July 28, 1956 edition of The Paris [IL] Beacon-News. :) BP

StudeRich
10-04-2013, 12:23 PM
Ouch! They wasted a perfectly good '62 Cruiser!
Quick, somebody grab those Avanti Wheel Covers!

Looks like that is about all that survived. :ohmy:

rusty65
10-04-2013, 06:04 PM
.......and the wheel covers stayed on! I'm borderline impressed.

Mark L
10-05-2013, 12:08 PM
What's even more sad is that they may have done this two times, maybe more, so it's possible several were destroyed.

Just after the car slides off the ramp, it starts to flip. For a brief moment the front end was free to fall while the back wheels were still supported by the ramp. Gravity pulling on the front caused the mass to start flipping in a slow, end-over-end rotation. In the later shots, it is heading straight down, like an arrow.

Either they had some kind of drag cable attached to it to get it to straighten up and fall straight down, or they made the movie with several cars.

I had a copy of an old physics book where a bright red Lark was rolled off the top of a multi-story building. In fact, the building appears to be very similar to the one in the movie. The series of still photographs shows the car in a slow flip, and it ended up crushing down on its roof. I wonder if the photographs in the physics book were stills taken during the movie shoot.

Keep in mind, how many Dodge cars were destroyed during the making of "The Dukes of Hazzard"? Some people are intent on returning iron to the earth from which it came. Sometimes asphalt intervenes.

Mark L

raprice
10-05-2013, 02:49 PM
Wow, what a waste of a nice car.
Rog

GThawkwind
10-05-2013, 10:34 PM
Keep in mind, how many Dodge cars were destroyed during the making of "The Dukes of Hazzard"? Some people are intent on returning iron to the earth from which it came. Sometimes asphalt intervenes.

Mark L
Exactly 321 were destoyed. The priginal one they ever got, and the one in the opening credits however has since been restored to pre-jump condition.

stude dude
10-05-2013, 11:51 PM
It was shot in Australia. http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?3590-Austrailian-Mobil-TV-ad-on-U-Tube&highlight=mobil+youtube

Craig

It was NOT filmed in Australia. This car is clearly LHD. Also looks more like a US city.

Chris.

Chris_Dresbach
10-06-2013, 01:37 AM
I know very little about physics, but I have to wonder how fast that Lark was actually falling at the point of impact. My estimate is 80 or above. I've seen in person and seen photos of total automotive carnage, and 60mph can do some damage, but this is extreme.
Lets take a look at Studebaker's crash test in 1954:
http://i768.photobucket.com/albums/xx323/chris_dresbach/30398_1471205498976_1198795761_3132_zps0cb46d91.jpg (http://s768.photobucket.com/user/chris_dresbach/media/30398_1471205498976_1198795761_3132_zps0cb46d91.jpg.html)
Again, I'm not sure exactly how fast this car was going at the point of impact, but probably somewhere around 55. Also not the wheel covers stayed on.

SN-60
10-06-2013, 11:52 AM
I clearly rememember watching this Mobil commercial on TV in the sixties...it made me mad that they picked a Studebaker to destroy. An even WORSE one involving a Studebaker Lark was the 'Dangerous Clunker' TV commercial sponsored by a big auto insurance company in the late sixties...it featured a beat up, smoking, Stude Lark...and the insurance company's message was that we'd all be safer if 'clunkers' were legislated off the roads.

JimC
10-06-2013, 06:15 PM
The video seems to indicate that this was a 10 story building, since it claims that a crash at 60 is the same as a ten story crash. At 32 feet per second per second (acceleration rate from earth's gravity) over the course of a 100ft, 10 story building, the car would have dropped in about two seconds, hitting a velocity of around 45 miles per hour. They were a couple stories short to hit their goal. Of course, if the car were falling flat, it's terminal velocity would only have been about 52 miles per hour, so under those conditions they could have driven the thing off the Empire state building with similar results. (Pointing nose or tail down could have a terminal velocity of much more, maybe in the 80 mph zone, but someone smarter than I would have to do the math on a Cruiser's drag coefficient to come up with more reliable figures!)

back in the day, filmmakers were good at their trade, because they couldn't just shoot, look at the digital recording, and tweak. They would do math for days figuring out ideal exposure combinations. I believe this could easily have been done in one take.

At least it was a new car at the time of shooting. I feel less bad watching a new car take a hit than a car that's survived decades, like that poor Chevy in the IIHS video.

8E45E
10-06-2013, 10:45 PM
The video seems to indicate that this was a 10 story building, since it claims that a crash at 60 is the same as a ten story crash. At 32 feet per second per second (acceleration rate from earth's gravity) over the course of a 100ft, 10 story building, the car would have dropped in about two seconds, hitting a velocity of around 45 miles per hour. They were a couple stories short to hit their goal. Of course, if the car were falling flat, it's terminal velocity would only have been about 52 miles per hour, so under those conditions they could have driven the thing off the Empire state building with similar results. (Pointing nose or tail down could have a terminal velocity of much more, maybe in the 80 mph zone, but someone smarter than I would have to do the math on a Cruiser's drag coefficient to come up with more reliable figures!)

There are other variables not mentioned in the video, too, to keep in mind. A head-on collision with another vehicle also doing 60 mph would double the impact, vs. hitting a stationary object at 60 mph.

Craig

STUDEMAC
10-06-2013, 11:01 PM
that hurt to watch...

JimC
10-06-2013, 11:03 PM
There are other variables not mentioned in the video, too, to keep in mind. A head-on collision with another vehicle also doing 60 mph would double the impact, vs. hitting a stationary object at 60 mph.

Craig
Actually, this is a common physics misnomer. Newton's third law basically states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, a two ton vehicle hitting the ground at 60 miles per hour is effectively the same as a two ton vehicle hitting another two ton vehicle that are both moving on a collision course at 60 miles per hour. It's such a tough concept to wrap your head around that even TV's favorite science duo, the Mythbusters, got it wrong. They went back and specifically tested this very thing (actually it was one car hitting a wall at 50 versus two cars colliding at 50) and sure enough, both crashes were nearly identical in terms of impact force. Here's a link I found (http://mythbustersresults.com/mythssion-control) explaining that episode.

At the same time, you are right, as variables like wind, weight of the car (passengers? Full tank of gas?) all add into the total force applied at the end of the 100 foot drop. No matter what though, it wouldn't be fun to experience in person!

8E45E
10-07-2013, 07:27 AM
Actually, this is a common physics misnomer. Newton's third law basically states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, a two ton vehicle hitting the ground at 60 miles per hour is effectively the same as a two ton vehicle hitting another two ton vehicle that are both moving on a collision course at 60 miles per hour.

Actually, I will agree on that one, where the oncoming vehicle will have a crumple zone, thus softening the impact, where solid ground, which could be compared to concrete barrier such as an overpass does not.

Craig

Chris_Dresbach
10-07-2013, 11:00 AM
At the same time, you are right, as variables like wind, weight of the car (passengers? Full tank of gas?) all add into the total force applied at the end of the 100 foot drop. No matter what though, it wouldn't be fun to experience in person!

It wouldn't be fun to experience in person; heck, I don't think the crash test dummy could have survived that free fall...
From what I can see from the video, if that actually happened with somebody driving they would have been pinned in between the steering wheel and the back of the front seat, if the hinges/brackets for the seat back didn't snap. Without a doubt the driver would most likely have to be extricated. How I would do it is first cut the "A" pillars and remove the front doors with either a K-12 or jaws of life and then a hydraulic spreader tool can be used to "roll" the dash forward thus freeing the victim.
That's how you go from analyzing a crash to rescue in under a minute, proving once again I hang out with firemen WAY too much :rolleyes:

2R5
10-07-2013, 11:10 AM
Chris , its firefighters not firemen....firemen start fired !

jclary
10-07-2013, 11:43 AM
I don't think much thought was given to attempting to be truly scientific or worried about who's automotive feelings and sensitivity could be offended. I believe that when this was filmed, it was during the period when the "muscle-car" fever was raging. Seat belt use was in it's infancy, zero air bags, and the carnage on our highways was at historical highs.

Just like the early "scared straight" films aimed at attempting to keep our youth out of prison...there were similar films campaigned to high schools showing actual wrecks, and stunts like this, in an attempt to slow down the onslaught. There was a time, that even junk yards would not take that car for free, if they had to drive a few miles to pick it up.

Keats
03-19-2014, 04:58 PM
It was NOT filmed in Australia. This car is clearly LHD. Also looks more like a US city.

Chris.

The Australian Mobil ad is in my YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVhaCLtS568

Not sure what Mobil had against Larks...

There's another in the same series featuring a quick clip of a Cruiser spinning on bald tyres - I'll upload that one sometime tonight.

Bish
03-19-2014, 06:30 PM
I can assure you that Palma's Central Service, newly-authorized Mobil retailer, would never stoop to such obscene tactics to sell Mobil gasoline and oil products:

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss155/BobPalma/palmacentralservcie1_zps04db5b07.jpg (http://s571.photobucket.com/user/BobPalma/media/palmacentralservcie1_zps04db5b07.jpg.html)

The above photo and caption appeared in the July 28, 1956 edition of The Paris [IL] Beacon-News. :) BP

Bob,
Looks like quite a hike for the attendant from the building to the pumps. Reminds me of when I'd have to go out in the pouring rain to pump two bucks worth in the early 80s.

BobPalma
03-19-2014, 06:44 PM
Bob,
Looks like quite a hike for the attendant from the building to the pumps. Reminds me of when I'd have to go out in the pouring rain to pump two bucks worth in the early 80s.

Actually, Bish, that was the closer of the two islands at the new station. The other island is far off to the left in the photo, out of sight. They likely used the closer island because the new building could be better framed behind the pumps and my Uncles Milt and Jerry. :)

(Hey, $2 worth of gas back then was the best part of 7 or 8 gallons!) :cool: BP

Keats
03-20-2014, 02:58 AM
As promised, here's the other Mobil ad:
http://youtu.be/exwSAJlUMvs