Car on road with "infinite" friction

AI Thread Summary
A discussion on the implications of "infinite" friction for cars reveals that while higher friction can improve traction, an infinite friction scenario would actually prevent movement due to the strong bonds formed between the tires and the road. It is noted that static friction allows tires to maintain grip, but excessive friction could lead to rapid tire wear. Participants differentiate between static friction and rolling resistance, emphasizing that high static friction doesn't stop wheels from rolling but prevents slipping. Practical experiments, such as comparing rubber-coated and steel balls, illustrate that increased friction can enhance traction while making movement more difficult. Ultimately, the consensus is that infinite friction would provide infinite traction but render a car immobile.
Oaxaca
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I have been wondering this for a while. I know that tires using static friction due to reasons that I forget and therefor maintain good traction with asphalt. A few years ago family member said that if there was too much friction on a road then a car wouldn't move, but I argued that the car would move better. What would happen to a car driving on a road of infinite mu? Would you move like normal but be able to stay on through any type of turn?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First, infinite mu ( according to the microscopic analysis of friction) would mean that the car can't move at all ( in the sense that the road forms such strong bonds with the tyre that they never come apart).. Having said that, I think you're right that better friction would, in theory, enable the car to move better.. But there will be a certain limit to that. Too much friction causes the tyres to wear down quickly.
 
Aniruddha@94 said:
First, infinite mu ( according to the microscopic analysis of friction) would mean that the car can't move at all ( in the sense that the road forms such strong bonds with the tyre that they never come apart).. Having said that, I think you're right that better friction would, in theory, enable the car to move better.. But there will be a certain limit to that. Too much friction causes the tyres to wear down quickly.
Yeah that is why I put the infinite in quotes in the title, and that was what my train of thinking was that too much would slow it and but too little it can't hold.
 
Oaxaca said:
I have been wondering this for a while. I know that tires using static friction due to reasons that I forget and therefor maintain good traction with asphalt. A few years ago family member said that if there was too much friction on a road then a car wouldn't move, but I argued that the car would move better. What would happen to a car driving on a road of infinite mu? Would you move like normal but be able to stay on through any type of turn?
You must differentiate between static friction coefficient, and rolling resistance coefficient. Extremely high static friction coefficient will not prevent the wheel from rolling, just from slipping. Think of indestructible gears on a toothed rack.
 
  • Like
Likes Oaxaca, CWatters and Hornbein
A.T. said:
You must differentiate between static friction coefficient, and rolling resistance coefficient. Extremely high static friction coefficient will not prevent the wheel from rolling, just from slipping. Think of indestructible gears on a toothed rack.
Infinite rolling resistance, I never thought of that. I guess you could be using bags packed loosely with sand as tires.
 
Years ago I remember doing a little experiment similar to your question. I happened across a steel ball coated in rubber. So I acquired a steel ball of almost identical size and rolled them both with equivalent force across a sheet of glass. The steel ball clearly rolled far easier and further. The additional friction created by the rubber not only gave better traction, but made the ball harder to move. So I suggest in practical terms infinite friction would enable infinite traction but render the car impossible to move.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
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