A powered toy car moving at a constant speed

AI Thread Summary
A toy car moving at a constant speed of 1 m/s raises questions about the forces acting on it, particularly regarding friction and traction. The discussion centers on whether friction exists between the wheels and the ground, which would balance out any forces preventing acceleration. It is noted that the car decelerates when power is removed, suggesting the presence of retarding forces, but this does not confirm forward traction during motion. The conversation also explores scenarios involving frictionless surfaces and the implications of traction on the car's movement. Ultimately, the debate highlights the complexities of drawing a free body diagram without conducting physical experiments.
superdave
Messages
149
Reaction score
3
Okay, so please help settle a dispute.

A toy car is moving at a constant speed of 1 m/s. The car is powered by a battery.

Now, when the car is going at a constant speed, there is obviously no net force on the car.

The dispute comes when trying to draw a FBD.

Is there friction (traction) between the ground and the wheels?

If so, what force is balancing out the traction to keep the car from accelerating? At that speed, air resistance is negligible, correct?

If not, then why will the car only move when powered on? As soon as power stops, the car decelerates which indicates where was a negative force on the car being countered by traction.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Whether air resistance is negligible or not depends on how accurate you want to be. What other retarding influences can you think of? For instance, does the car vibrate at all as it rolls across the ground? Where does the corresponding energy come from?

Edit: Additionally, the fact that the car decelerates when you remove power does not demonstrate that there was forward traction while the car was moving. It could, alternately, demonstrate that there is retarding traction while the car is slowing down.
 
So if I were to take this toy car and
jbriggs444 said:
Whether air resistance is negligible or not depends on how accurate you want to be. What other retarding influences can you think of? For instance, does the car vibrate at all as it rolls across the ground? Where does the corresponding energy come from?

Edit: Additionally, the fact that the car decelerates when you remove power does not demonstrate that there was forward traction while the car was moving. It could, alternately, demonstrate that there is retarding traction while the car is slowing down.
What would demonstrate the lack of or existence of traction?

If the car were to roll at a constant speed onto a near frictionless surface in a vacuum, moving normal to the interface, if there was no traction then it should keep rolling at the same speed on this new surface?

Or, if the car were to roll at a constant speed onto a road that is free to move, if there was traction, then the road would move backwards as the car moved forward? If there was no traction while moving at a constant speed, the car should just keep moving as normal.
 
I thought the dispute was about a free body diagram. You do not have to run an experiment to draw a free body diagram.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top