Is Friction Dependent on Surface Area in Braking Performance?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bkhan90
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Friction
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the relationship between friction and surface area in the context of braking performance, particularly focusing on whether the surface area of brake pads affects the friction force experienced during braking. The scope includes theoretical considerations and practical implications related to braking systems.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that friction force is dependent only on the normal force and the coefficient of friction, suggesting that surface area does not influence braking performance.
  • Another participant claims that surface area is part of the coefficient of friction, implying a potential relationship between surface area and friction.
  • A third participant questions the practicality of using smaller brake pads, suggesting that while they may be cheaper to replace, they could lead to increased wear and maintenance issues.
  • A proposed experimental approach involves testing objects of different dimensions on an inclined plane to measure the effects of surface area on friction, with hypotheses regarding critical angles and sliding times.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the impact of surface area on friction, with no consensus reached regarding its influence on braking performance. Some participants support the idea that surface area does not matter, while others challenge this notion.

Contextual Notes

Assumptions regarding the coefficient of friction and the conditions of the braking system are not fully explored. The discussion also does not resolve the implications of varying surface area in practical applications.

bkhan90
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I saw this post on a forum and thought it wasn't right, it's about why the force of frction on rotors is independent of the surface area of the calipers in contact with the rotors. I thought this was wrong because friction is a non conservative force, but am seeking further validation

the post:
Not really. Friction between the pad and the rotor is what stops you. And friction force is only dependent on the normal force and the coefficient of friction. The normal force is the force that is perpendicular to the direction of travel, which, in this case, is the force the pads apply on the rotor. So, since friction only depends on that force and the coefficient of friction (which depends on the material of the pad and rotor), the surface area of the contact patch has no effect on the braking performance. So, you may ask, why don't we use the smallest pads possible? Well, the more force we try and apply to a small area, the more likely that small area has of failing under the stress. So if we get more of a contact patch, that force is distributed more throughout the pad and rotor. But, braking performance and contact patch has no relation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Surface area is part of the coefficient of friction.
 
bkhan90 said:
So, you may ask, why don't we use the smallest pads possible? Well, the more force we try and apply to a small area, the more likely that small area has of failing under the stress. So if we get more of a contact patch, that force is distributed more throughout the pad and rotor. But, braking performance and contact patch has no relation.
Ok. Let's reduce the size of the pads by a factor of 10. They might be a little less expensive to replace. I would then have them replaced every time I have the oil changed, and maybe have the rotors turned also. No thank you.
 
This claim is simple enough to test.

Get two objects of different dimensions and the same weight... say, a box covered with sandpaper.

Let it slide down an inclined plane.

Measure the critical angle and the times required for various angles.

The hypothesis: more surface area means greater critical angle and longer times for sliding down.

The null hypothesis: there is no difference, or the inverse of the hypothesis.

Air resistance is going to be negligible if you use fairly rough surfaces.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K