Acceleration does not matter when driving

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter raddian
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Acceleration Matter
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the relationship between acceleration and energy consumption in driving a car, particularly in the context of a physics lecture. Participants explore the implications of acceleration on energy use, considering scenarios with and without air resistance, and the effects of different types of vehicles.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a proof from their professor suggesting that acceleration does not affect the energy used in driving a car, focusing on kinetic energy changes based on mass and final velocity.
  • Another participant questions whether the inclusion of air resistance alters the conclusion, suggesting that energy use may depend on acceleration when air resistance is considered.
  • A participant clarifies that the second part of the discussion regarding air resistance is part of the professor's proof and offers to share more details if needed.
  • Concerns are raised about the terminology used, with one participant suggesting that the expression for work done by air resistance may be mischaracterized.
  • One participant argues that acceleration is significant, especially for internal combustion engines, highlighting the relationship between engine performance and fuel consumption during acceleration.
  • Another participant agrees that while the professor's proof may hold in a theoretical context, real-world inefficiencies in engines mean that acceleration does matter in practice.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of acceleration in energy consumption. Some support the professor's assertion that acceleration does not matter in a theoretical framework, while others argue that it is crucial in practical scenarios, particularly with internal combustion engines.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about ideal conditions (e.g., neglecting air resistance initially) and the efficiency of different types of engines, which may not fully capture real-world complexities.

raddian
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
In my physics lecture, my professor "proved" that acceleration does not affect the amount of energy used in driving a car. Assume car is driven along flat road. In the short,

(assume air resistance is neglected, and the W done by the car's engine, [tex]W_{engine}[/tex] is non conservative, [tex]\Delta PE \Delta KE[/tex] are change in potential and change in kinetic energy, respectively )

[tex] \Delta PE = 0 \\<br /> \begin{align}<br /> \Delta KE &= W_{engine}\\<br /> &= 1/2 m {v_f}^2 - 1/2 m {v_o}^2<br /> \end{align}<br /> [/tex]
m is constant mass, vf and vi are final and initial velocity, respectively.
Proof done: change in kinetic energy does NOT depend on acceleration; only the mass and final velocity of the car.

Okay now let's add air resistance:
[tex] W_{res} = \frac{ \rho D A v^2}{2}\\<br /> \begin{align}<br /> \Delta KE &= W_{engine} - W_{Res}\\<br /> &= 1/2 m {v_f}^2 + \frac{\rho D A v^4}{8a}<br /> \end{align}[/tex]

where ## \rho ## is the air density (constant), D is coefficient of drag, and A is cross section.

Doesn't this mean that the energy used (in this case the gas in the car) depends on the acceleration of car, if there is air resistance?

Is friction done by the ground on the car affected by acceleration?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Is the second part (with air resistance) part of the professor's proof or it is your contribution?
 
nasu said:
Is the second part (with air resistance) part of the professor's proof or it is your contribution?
My professor's proof.

Let me fix the equation that my professor gave. The ##W_{engine}=## is the correct formula my prof gave.

[tex] W_{res} = \frac{ \rho D A v^2}{2}\\<br /> <br /> \Delta KE = W_{engine} - W_{Res}\\[/tex]
From this we get

[tex] W_{engine} = 1/2 m {v_f}^2 + \frac{\rho D A v^4}{8a}[/tex]

I didnt want to show the proof for it but I can if need be. Also, I have the "ability" to post the slides here but I am concerned about posting my teacher's lectures because its his property; he has rights to his work which he has not "released".
 
What you call Wres looks like the drag force and not the work.
How do you get that last formula? What kind of motion is assumed for the car?
I mean, if the engine force is fixed, the drag force will increase until the two will be equal, for example. But it's not the only possibility.
 
It's hard to tell if your professor was pulling your legs or truly believes this nonsense.

Of course how you accelerate matters, particularly if you have a vehicle with an internal combustion engine. Things are a bit different with an electronic vehicle, but nobody who has the $70,000 to buy a Tesla drives a Tesla at 10 miles per hour (the optimal speed for a Tesla with regard to mileage).

Internal combustion engines are rather lousy at producing torque when the engine is running slowly and also when the engine is operating close to its maximum. A plot of torque versus engine speed reveals a curve that reaches a maximum at some point. This is the vehicle's torque curve. There's a related curve, the horsepower curve, that shows how much power the car can produce at a given engine rotation rate. These curves don't quite capture the dynamics of fuel consumption versus acceleration. What you need to look at is the quantity of fuel needed to produce a given acceleration. This too varies with engine speed. Acceleration wouldn't matter if this curve was flat. This curve is anything but flat. Acceleration matters.

Suppose you are entering a freeway. If you accelerate too cautiously / too slowly, you are doing two bad things: wasting gas and risking lives. On the other hand, if you accelerate too quickly, you are also wasting gas and risking lives. There's a happy medium that optimizes gas consumption, and a slightly different happy medium that brings you up to speed in a reasonable amount of time and thereby minimizes the chance of an accident due to incompatible velocities. Personally, I go for the second happy medium.
 
As D H pointed out, acceleration DOES matter in real life for the same reason you use energy when holding a book: both you and a car engine are inefficient machines. However, as professor pointed out, it doesn't matter when dealing purely with work done on the car. The car's initial and final kinetic energies are only functions of its speed and mass. How fast you got to that point is irrelevant.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
3K