Friction & Stopping: 18-Wheeler vs. Small Car On Thruway

  • Thread starter Thread starter kreil
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Friction
AI Thread Summary
An 18-wheeler and a small car traveling at the same speed and with equal tire friction will theoretically stop over the same distance when brakes are locked, as friction is proportional to mass. However, real-world factors complicate this scenario. Heavier vehicles require more brake pressure to lock their wheels, leading to longer stopping distances. Additionally, heavy truck tires heat up quickly during skids, causing a decrease in the coefficient of friction. Thus, while the physics suggests equal stopping distances under ideal conditions, practical considerations indicate that larger vehicles typically have longer stopping distances.
kreil
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
665
Reaction score
68
My physics teacher told us today that if an 18-wheeler and a small car, both traveling at 30 m/s, and with equal brand tires (thus the same coefficients of friction) were to lock their brakes while on the thruway, they would both take the same distance to stop. He said that the although it takes more energy to stop the truck, the truck compensates for it by producing more friction from its massive weight.

His explanation makes sense to me, but it goes against my intuition. Is his statement really true?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Assuming the coefficient of friction is the same, then both truck and car would have the same acceleration. The only horizontal force acting on each is friction, which is proportional to the mass (F = \mu m g), thus the acceleration of each is the same: a = F/m = \mu g, independent of the mass.
 
That is too generalized. Assuming that the weight per square inch of tire contact patch was equal then yes it works out. But if the car has (arbitrary numbers) 1 square foot of contact patch and weighs 3000lbs (thats 3K/Sqfoot) and the semi has 6 square feet but weighs 20,000 lbs (thats 3300 lbs/squarfoot) then it would stop slower and longer. and if the semi was unloaded and weighed only 8,ooo lbs it still has the same contact patch... but assuming the weight per sQ foot of tire contact was equal then it sounds about right to me, in a VERY dumbed down way.
 
Assuming an admittedly simplified model of friction, the acceleration does not depend on the weight per square inch.
 
Yes, I realize it is over-simplified, I did this on purpose because I just wanted a quick simple answer.

Thanks!
 
Doc Al said:
Assuming the coefficient of friction is the same, then both truck and car would have the same acceleration. The only horizontal force acting on each is friction, which is proportional to the mass (F = \mu m g), thus the acceleration of each is the same: a = F/m = \mu g, independent of the mass.
This is absolutely correct. There are however, other real world consideration. Locking up the wheels on a fully loaded 18 wheeler is going to take much greater brake pressure than say a bicycle, which means a big rig is going to roll farther than a bicycle before it locks up. Another problem is heat. The tires of a heavy truck heat up much faster than a light vehicle. When a tire gets too hot [which happens pretty quick in a high speed skid], the coefficient of friction starts dropping - especially when the tires start melting. So yeah, in the real world, the intuition that big truck = greater stopping distance is a good rule to live by.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top