Car turning on an unbanked (level) surface

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the confusion regarding the relationship between frictional force and centripetal force during a car's turn on an unbanked surface. It is clarified that the frictional force acts between the tire's contact patch and the road, resisting the car's tendency to move in a straight line. This frictional force is not opposite to the tangential velocity because the tire patch is momentarily stationary relative to the road. As a result, the frictional force provides the necessary centripetal force for the turn. Understanding this interaction is crucial for grasping the dynamics of unbanked turns in vehicles.
Bipolarity
Messages
773
Reaction score
2
I've been trying to understand this:
http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/mechanics/circular motion/an_unbanked_turn.htm

What I can't understand is why the frictional force equals the centripetal force. As the car turns, the frictional force should be opposite (antiparallel) to its velocity, and thus normal to the centripetal force, since the centripetal force is normal to the velocity.

What am I missing here? All help is appreciated thanks!

BiP
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bipolarity said:
I've been trying to understand this:
http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/mechanics/circular motion/an_unbanked_turn.htm

What I can't understand is why the frictional force equals the centripetal force. As the car turns, the frictional force should be opposite (antiparallel) to its velocity, and thus normal to the centripetal force, since the centripetal force is normal to the velocity.

What am I missing here? All help is appreciated thanks!

BiP

The frictional force is acting between the road surface and the tire patch that is in contact with the road. That tire contact patch is (as long as the car is not sliding) at rest relative to the road, and no matter which direction you try to push it, the frictional force will resist. The car wants to go in a straight line, pulling the tire patch towards the outside of curve, and the frictional force between tire patch and road is resisting.

You might also want to read #21 in this thread. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3984064&highlight=Tire#post3984064
 
Last edited:
Nugatory said:
The frictional force is acting between the road surface and the tire patch that is in contact with the road. That tire contact patch is (as long as the car is not sliding) at rest relative to the road, and no matter which direction you try to push it, the frictional force will resist. The car wants to go in a straight line, pulling the tire patch towards the outside of curve, and the frictional force between tire patch and road is resisting.

If the frictional force is opposite the (tangential velocity), it should be normal to the centripetal acceleration. I don't understand why this is not so.

BiP
 
Bipolarity said:
If the frictional force is opposite the (tangential velocity), it should be normal to the centripetal acceleration. I don't understand why this is not so.

BiP

It's not opposite to the tangential velocity, because there is no tangential (or radial) velocity to be opposite to - the bit of tire that is touching the road is momentarily stationary.

I edited my first response above to add a pointer to an older thread on this topic:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3984064&highlight=Tire#post3984064
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top