Deceleration time for studded snow tires

Click For Summary
A car with studded snow tires takes an average of 23 meters to stop from 25 mph on packed powder at 0 degrees Celsius. The discussion explores how to calculate the time it takes for the car to stop and the time for specific segments of the skid, such as the first 6 meters. Various methods for determining average velocity and elapsed time during the skid are debated, including using midpoint velocities and the relationship between speed and distance. The conversation emphasizes the importance of accurately modeling deceleration and understanding the dynamics of the situation, particularly in relation to the stopping distances provided by existing studies. Overall, the goal is to create a realistic model of the time spent skidding before impact.
  • #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 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K