| Thread Closed |
Dumb Question - Uphill Driving Torque |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Jul1-09, 06:42 PM | #1 |
|
|
Dumb Question - Uphill Driving Torque
Alright, I've re run this numerous times in my head, and on paper. It seems I must be missing something stupid here. Bottom line is, I am trying to calculate the amount of axle torque (post differential) required to stop a 1500 KG car from rolling down a 20 degree hill. Road to axle radius is assumed to be 8 inches. No, it's not a homework question =D though it does sound like one.
Anyways, here is the issue. I have arbitrarily picked 20 degrees since most roads don't slope higher than that. Since this is the torque to hold the car still, the angular acceleration is zero along with drag and the like. Now, summing the torques will give the general equation (neglecting drag and friction): Taxle = m*g*r*sin(hillangle) + m*r^2*(alpha) In this case: Taxle = 1500*9.8*0.2*sin(20) + 0 Or: Taxle = 1021.63 Nm (753.55 lbft) Am I to believe that this is really correct?? Given that an average car has less than 200 Nm peak torque (at the wheels) this seems very off. Now what did I miss? This is driving me crazy! |
| Jul1-09, 07:35 PM | #2 |
|
Mentor
|
Welcome to PF.
Are you sure that 200 Nm is the torque at the wheels, not the torque at the crankshaft? The difference would be that you multiply the torque at the crankshaft by the gear ratio to get the torque at the wheels. I've never done a dyno test, but I would think they are calibrated to remove wheel size and gear ratio from the results so you don't have people screwing with the test by selecting a different gear. |
| Jul1-09, 07:46 PM | #3 |
|
|
Your calculation looks OK; I don't know where you got the 200 Nm peak torque value from, but there does seem to be a conflict. A 20 deg incline is very, very steep, more than I think I have ever seen.
|
| Jul1-09, 07:57 PM | #4 |
|
|
Dumb Question - Uphill Driving Torquehttp://image.importtuner.com/f/16847...dyno_chart.jpg Max Tq of 110 lbft (150 Nm). And as far as I know, dyno's measure wheel torque, and calculate wheel power from that, so the gearing/wheel radius has already been taken into account with that. I must have something wrong, or am missing something, but I simply can't see what it is. |
| Jul1-09, 07:59 PM | #5 |
|
|
|
| Jul1-09, 08:25 PM | #6 |
|
|
Here is actual wheel thrust for a generic vehicle. Friend of mine just found it. http://wahiduddin.net/race/images/thrust1.gif Here, 1600 lbf of thrust (at the wheel) is about 7120 N, which far exceeds the 1022 N required to hold the car from movement. So, dumb question has been resolved. If you ask me, wheel torque should be renamed to estimated torque. =) |
| Jul1-09, 10:04 PM | #7 |
|
|
I believe your eqn Taxle = m*g*r*sin(hillangle) is ok, as long as r is the wheel radius. Your differential is a torque multiplier (divider), as is your transmission. So using m = 1500 Kg, g = 9.81 m/sec2, R= 0.3 m, hillangle = 10 deg, differential = 4:1, and trannie = 1.3:1 gives a flywheel torque of 147 Newton-meters.
|
| Jul1-09, 10:23 PM | #8 |
|
|
Actually the reason I asked this question is I am working on a Simulink model of a motorized bicycle I plan to build, and when I put in a simulated hill to check the response, it threw everything off, but now I know why haha. Not quite a car, but I figured a more general question was the way to go. |
| Thread Closed |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: Dumb Question - Uphill Driving Torque
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| Parking uphill without a curb - question | General Physics | 11 | ||
| Dumb Question | General Physics | 41 | ||
| Dumb Question | Special & General Relativity | 14 | ||
| Dumb Cal question | Introductory Physics Homework | 7 | ||
| Dumb LQG question | General Physics | 5 | ||