Calculating Centre of Mass with Added Weight on a Station Wagon

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the distribution of weight on the front and rear wheels of a station wagon after adding a box of mass on the tailgate. The problem involves concepts from mechanics, specifically the center of mass and torque balance.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the concept of treating the system as point masses and balancing torques about different pivot points. There are attempts to derive equations for the center of mass and the forces at the axles.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered guidance on choosing pivot points for torque calculations, while others express confusion over the application of these methods. Multiple interpretations of the problem are being explored, and there is a lack of consensus on the best approach to take.

Contextual Notes

Participants question the assumptions regarding the pivot points and the resulting equations, indicating potential gaps in understanding the mechanics involved. There is also a mention of terminology related to torque direction (cw and ccw) that may affect clarity in the discussion.

John O' Meara
Messages
325
Reaction score
0
A station wagon of mass 2000kg has a wheelbase (distance between front and rear axles) of 3.0m. Ordinarily 1100kg rests on the front wheels and 900kg on the rear wheels. A box of mass 200kg is now placed on the tailgate, 1.0m behind the rear axle. How much total weight now rests on the front wheels? On the rear wheels?
X=(m1x1 + m2x2 + ...)/(m1 + m2 +...)
X=position of centre of mass. Vector sum of torques must be zero.
900kg/2000kgx3m = 1.35m; is the c.m., of the 2000kg car from the front wheels. I cannot think what to do next! Any one any ideas. Many Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is not necessary to find the position of the cm. Treat the system as three point objects of 1100 kg, 900 kg, and 200 kg.

Balance torques from there choosing one of the axels as the pivot (I don't see why you wouldn't).
 
Let x be the centre of mass of the car plus the 200kg weight. And let y = mass at the front wheels. And let z = mass at the rear wheels. Taking moments about x, we have :

yx = z(3-x) + 200 (4-x),
yx = 3z -zx + 800 -200x,
but z=(2200-y-200), therefore
yx = 3(2000 - y) -2000x + yx + 800 -200x,
therefore
x = (6800 -3y)/2200.
The question is, how do you get y?
 
John O' Meara said:
Let x be the centre of mass of the car plus the 200kg weight. And let y = mass at the front wheels. And let z = mass at the rear wheels. Taking moments about x, we have :

yx = z(3-x) + 200 (4-x),
yx = 3z -zx + 800 -200x,
but z=(2200-y-200), therefore
yx = 3(2000 - y) -2000x + yx + 800 -200x,
therefore
x = (6800 -3y)/2200.
The question is, how do you get y?
If you use x as your pivot point, you will be unable to get an answer. Do what Chi Meson said and choose one of the axles as the pivot point - that way, you can eliminate one of the variables from the start (torque at that point is zero). Then you can go back and make the other axle the pivot point.
 
When I try to do what Chi Meson says, I get the following; taking moments about the 900kg point first, I get an inconsistant equation namely: 1100*3 = 200*1, but if I do the following; taking moments again about the 900 kg mass: 1100(3-x)=200*1 => x=2.8182. I must not understand Chi Meson? although what he says looks simple enough.
 
pivot=front axel (on the left)
cw torque: 1100*0 + 900*3 + 200*4

ccw torque: rear axel force*3
 
Last edited:
AS a matter of interest what does "cw" and "ccw" stand for. Thanks very much for your help.
 
"clockwise" and "counterclockwise."
 
CW and CCW stand for Clock Wise and Counter Clock Wise.
I just got done doing this stuff a few weeks ago, so i know what you are going through. What they are trying to tell you is that the normal force of each wheel (and the associated torque) counters the load on the wheel from the car. You can use that to create the equation with the unknown being the normal force of the wheel (which equals the load on the wheel). Hope this helps.
 
  • #10
If I do the following: equate the cw torque with the ccw torque as given by Chi Meson in reply no., 6( although I didn't think that you could equate them because they were from two different pivot points), the force = 1666.67N. If you connot equate them, I don't see any ccw torques for the front axle or any cw torques for the back axle?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K