Deceleration time for studded snow tires

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on calculating the deceleration time for a car equipped with studded snow tires based on stopping distance data. Participants explore various methods to derive time intervals during the deceleration process, including specific segments of the skid. The context includes theoretical and practical considerations related to vehicle dynamics on snowy surfaces.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents data indicating that a car with studded snow tires takes an average of 23 meters to stop from 25 mph on packed powder at 0 degrees C and questions how to derive time from this distance.
  • Another participant proposes using a simplified distance of 20 meters for calculations and discusses methods for determining average velocity over specific intervals during deceleration.
  • A third participant challenges the rationale behind changing the stopping distance for ease of calculation and asks for clarification on the measured data used in the analysis.
  • One participant mentions the need to understand the relationship between stopping distance and time until impact, referencing a study on tire performance.
  • Another participant suggests that the simplest model assumes uniformly decelerated linear motion, linking deceleration to the friction coefficient and normal force.
  • Participants discuss various methods for calculating average velocity and elapsed time, including midpoint calculations and the use of specific formulas.
  • One participant shares their calculations for a scenario involving a car skidding and estimates the time spent skidding before impact, emphasizing the short duration despite the length of skid marks.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the methods for calculating time and average velocity, with no consensus reached on the most accurate approach. Some participants challenge the assumptions made in calculations, while others explore various models without agreeing on a definitive method.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their calculations, including the lack of specific vehicle weight data and the dependence on the friction coefficient, which varies with tire type and road conditions. The discussion remains open-ended regarding the best approach to modeling the deceleration process.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals studying vehicle dynamics, physics students exploring motion equations, or those interested in practical applications of stopping distance calculations in automotive safety contexts.

  • #31
2ad=v^2
ad=.5v^2

m=1/a? mass is inversely related to acceleration, I believe that...but m=1/a, not necessarily.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
BvU said:
Energy. The kinetic energy from the moving car is dissipated by the friction force the road exerts on the tyres.

Really? I just rediscovered the "kinematics equations" about a month ago. They are a godsend for idiots like myself.

if v_0^2 = 0
then the following kinematic equation
v^2 = v_0^2 + 2 a \Delta x
reduces to
v^2 = 2 a \Delta x
which rearranged becomes
\Delta x = v^2 / 2 a

hmmmm... kinetic energy:
ke = 1/2 m v^2
f = m a --> m = f / a
therefore
ke = 1/2 (f/a) v^2 = f v^2 / 2a
and
W = \Delta ke = fd
rearranged yields
f=ke/d
and since ke_f = 0
we get
ke = ( ke/d ) v^2 / (2a)
multiplying both sides by d/ke yields, once again
d = v^2 / 2a

Ha! That works too. Thanks! :smile:

[edit: Why do I always catch my errors after pushing the post button...:redface:]
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Heidi Henkel said:
Energy is not part of that equation.
That confused the heck out of me too! But I know from experience, that they don't give out Homework Helper badges to just anyone.
 
  • #34
It's not really rocket science... (which itself is rather overrated in my opinion :smile: ) and a badge (or a PhD, for that matter) is no guarantee against stupidities.

You can check wikipedia or hyperphysics for the formulas.

Interesting reading, this 2002 pdf. I notice Table 5 and table 6 show big differerences in deceleration/acceleration.
Table 5:
If we look at the snow ones, the deceleration is around $${ (11 {\rm\ m/s}) ^2\over 2 \times (20 {\rm \ m})} \approx 3 {\rm \ m/s^2} $$ using this $$ {1\over 2} mv_{\rm end}^2 - {1\over 2} mv_0^2 = F_{\rm friction} \times d_s = - ma\times d_s$$ energy dissipation equation :wink:. That is pretty good !
The bare pavement ones are plain excellent : ##\approx 12 {\rm \ m/s^2} ## ! Hurray for ABS (you did notice that in the text ?)

(question: the 20 feet skid marks in the snow - were they from a vehicle with ABS ? What tyres did it have ?)

Table 6:
Even easier to calculate acceleration: a mere ##\approx 1.2 {\rm \ m/s^2} ## ! No traction control, apparently ? (the opposite of ABS).

--

I am puzzled about table 12: much more deceleration, and no explanation in the text. Makes one suspect that friction is better at higer speeds...

--
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
11K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K