Force, linear and angular acceleration, car & wheels help

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on developing an Excel model for a dragstrip that incorporates both linear and angular acceleration of a car's wheels. The model already accounts for forces like drag and rolling resistance but seeks to include the angular inertia of the front tires. The user has derived several equations related to net force and torque, ultimately leading to a formula that calculates acceleration while considering the mass and effective inertial radius of the wheels. The results indicate that the radius of the front tire does not significantly impact the model, as only the ratio between the tire radius and the effective inertial radius matters. Feedback is requested on the validity of this approach and its application in modeling vehicle dynamics.
Chris42163
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I'm building an excel dragstrip model. I already have a working model that incorporates force exerted at the rear tires, force of drag, and force of rolling resistance. Now, I want to take into account the linear force that acts on the front tires that is required to accelerate them. There is both a linear component and an angular component. The linear component is already accounted for, because the mass of the wheel, tire, brakes, and spindle are included in the overall mass of the car. The angular inertia of these components is not accounted for.

I am not a regular here, and am not good at typing stuff out. I did some beer math and a free body diagram, and am surprised at the result. I have never seen it calculated this way, and have searched google all day to no avail. Please confirm or shoot down my work. Thanks!

1.jpg
2.jpg

All of the other forces are independent of angular acceleration, but the force at the front wheels, "ff," must be calculated as part of the acceleration equation.

equation 1:
fnet=mc*a, where mc is the mass of the entire car, and a is the total acceleration of the car

equation 2:
fnet=fr-fd-frr-ff, where the forces are defined above, and I prefer to use the absolute value of the forces, but I couldn't find the abs val symbol. So I will treat all forces with positive values that should be subtracted if they act against thrust, or fr.

equation 3:
torque = Iα

equation 4:
Also, torque = ff*rf, where rf is the radius of the front tire and ff is the linear force applied at the front tire.

equation 5:
I=moment of inertia of the wheel, which =mf*ri2, where mf is the mass of the front wheel, tire, brake rotor, spindle, and ri is the effective inertial radius

ri is going to be some radius between the axis of rotation and rf where, for the purposes of calculating the moment of inertia, all the mass of the rotating assembly could be concentrated to a single radius. Therefore, equation 6: ri=rf*Ci, where Ci is some coefficient between 0 and 1 that represents the percentage of the distance. substituting that back into the equation for I, above:

equation 7:
I=mf*rf2*Ci2

equation 8:
α=angular acceleration, which = a/rf, where a is the linear acceleration of the car. α is given in rad/s

I've worked out things to substitute for torque, I, and α. So,

equation 9
(ff*rf)=(mf*ri2)*(a/rf)

substituting equation 6 for ri into equation 9, we get
equation 10
(ff*rf)=(mf*rf2*Ci2)*(a/rf)
Simplifying:
ff=(mf*rf2*Ci2*a)/rf2
cancel like terms:
ff=mf*Ci2*a

Now for ff, plug equation 10 into equation 2
equation 11
fnet=fr-fd-frr-(mf*Ci2*a)

For fnet, substitute equation 1 to get:
equation 12
mc*a=fr-fd-frr-(mf*Ci2*a)
now solve for a:
(mc*a)+(mf*Ci2*a)=fr-fd-frr
a*(mc+mf*Ci2)=fr-fd-frr
and finally:
a=(fr-fd-frr)/(mc+mf*Ci2)

If I've done this correctly, I have all of the values on the right hand side of the equation in my model and can solve for a. It didn't make as big a difference in the model as I expected, and I was surprised by the cancellation of rf in equation 10, because it means that the radius of the front tire doesn't actually matter, only the ratio between the radius and the effective inertial radius, ri.

Thanks for any insight or corrections.
 

Attachments

  • 20150704_231226.jpg
    20150704_231226.jpg
    30 KB · Views: 618
Physics news on Phys.org
BTW, here are couple of shots from the model inputs and outputs. I've scaled my car, and put it on the dyno. Then I took it to the track two days ago and ran a:
60': 2.2422
1/4 ET: 13.35s
1/4 Trap: 105.49mph

gears.JPG
Results.JPG
 
All I could find on google or elsewhere on the internet regarding angular velocity, acceleration, and the like were kinetic energy formulas like 1/2*mv^2, and others that substituted I for the mass, and angular velocity for v. I also found several integration formulas, that I didn't try to use, because my model treats acceleration in each gear as constant. This helps when you don't have a formula to model dyno results. There might be some way to convert those other formulas to work, and I wasn't sure if there was anything wrong with the way I did things.

I was hoping someone on this forum might have some feedback or input as to whether or not the direction I went looks right. There seems to be no basis for my method outside of my own project. If I'm right, this formula should work to describe the effects of adding a uniform linear force to a wheel that does have mass. It should allow the simultaneous calculation of both the acceleration of the object and of the angular acceleration of the wheel. Hasn't anyone else done that calculation in a physics class before, or something?
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top