Is friction the main factor in determining braking distance?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eddywalrus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Braking Friction
AI Thread Summary
Friction significantly impacts braking distance, with less friction on icy or wet roads leading to longer stopping distances compared to surfaces with more friction, like rocky or sandy roads. The discussion highlights a common misconception that greater friction should always decrease braking distance. It clarifies that sliding friction and rolling resistance play different roles in vehicle dynamics. Additionally, driving techniques must adapt to varying road conditions, emphasizing the importance of understanding friction's role in braking. Overall, the relationship between friction and braking distance is crucial for safe driving practices.
eddywalrus
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
I was taught that in conditions where there is less friction, such as on icy or wet roads, the braking distance of a car, is less than if the car was traveling in conditions with more friction, such as when the road is rocky or sandy.

Although it makes sense intuitively, I recalled that friction opposes motion and not acceleration. So, for example, when a car travels to the right, and the driver applies the brakes, the car will still travel to the right, but just decelerate until it stops completely. Since friction opposes movement, and the car is still moving to the right when braking, then the direction of the friction force is to the left -- so shouldn't a larger friction force decrease the braking distance?

Thanks for your help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
eddywalrus said:
I was taught that in conditions where there is less friction, such as on icy or wet roads, the braking distance of a car, is less than if the car was traveling in conditions with more friction, such as when the road is rocky or sandy.
There could be some confusion about sliding friction vs. rolling resistance here.
 
A.T. said:
There could be some confusion about sliding friction vs. rolling resistance here.

I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to physics -- could you explain the distinction between the two for me? Thanks.
 
eddywalrus said:
I was taught that in conditions where there is less friction, such as on icy or wet roads, the braking distance of a car, is less than if the car was traveling in conditions with more friction, such as when the road is rocky or sandy.

Although it makes sense intuitively, I recalled that friction opposes motion and not acceleration. So, for example, when a car travels to the right, and the driver applies the brakes, the car will still travel to the right, but just decelerate until it stops completely. Since friction opposes movement, and the car is still moving to the right when braking, then the direction of the friction force is to the left -- so shouldn't a larger friction force decrease the braking distance?

Thanks for your help!

I don't know if you really meant this but the braking distance in ice is Greater than with more friction.
 
eddywalrus said:
I was taught that in conditions where there is less friction, such as on icy or wet roads, the braking distance of a car, is less than if the car was traveling in conditions with more friction, such as when the road is rocky or sandy.

This is most certainly wrong, or wrongly stated.

And the rules for driving vary with the type of road surface; you drive quite differently on gravel than you would on pavement.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top