A powered toy car moving at a constant speed

Click For 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.
 
For simple comparison, I think the same thought process can be followed as a block slides down a hill, - for block down hill, simple starting PE of mgh to final max KE 0.5mv^2 - comparing PE1 to max KE2 would result in finding the work friction did through the process. efficiency is just 100*KE2/PE1. If a mousetrap car travels along a flat surface, a starting PE of 0.5 k th^2 can be measured and maximum velocity of the car can also be measured. If energy efficiency is defined by...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
957
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
7K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
Replies
66
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K