How is static friction the centripetal force during a car turning?

  • #1
349
37
Summary:
I understand for a car to turn, there must be a centripetal force. As the car turns it is friction of the front wheels creates an inward force. How, looking for a conceptual answer
Hello, as you can see i am trying to understand conceptually how the tires during turning create a centripetal force. It was explained to me that as we turn the car tires, the tires similar to a ski or a wedge, now want to push the ground to the side and forward. If the ground was loose, this makes sense as the tires would slide forward and scrap the ground to the side. Is it this force of friction that causes the ground to push back, have a perpendicular component, pushing the car inward and turn?

As you negotiate a turn, if you are turning left, your wheels are pushing to the right against the floor. Static friction allows the floor to "push back" against your wheels, allowing you to turn left.

NrWaA.gif
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Dale
Mentor
Insights Author
2020 Award
31,823
8,671
Summary:: I understand for a car to turn, there must be a centripetal force. As the car turns it is friction of the front wheels creates an inward force. How, looking for a conceptual answer

As you negotiate a turn, if you are turning left, your wheels are pushing to the right against the floor. Static friction allows the floor to "push back" against your wheels, allowing you to turn left.
Yes, this is correct.
 
  • Like
Likes alkaspeltzar
  • #3
Lnewqban
Gold Member
1,336
749
Please, see:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camber_thrust

When cornering forces are strong and wheels are made of a deformable material, there is certain amount of radial movement or “crabbing”, since each landing contact patch will deform a little respect to the already deformed patch in contact with the rolling surface.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker and alkaspeltzar
  • #5
349
37
Please, see:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camber_thrust

When cornering forces are strong and wheels are made of a deformable material, there is certain amount of radial movement or “crabbing”, since each landing contact patch will deform a little respect to the already deformed patch in contact with the rolling surface.
Interesting to read about the camber thrust and how it really makes sense/supports the outer push on the ground due to friction i was referring to. From there yes the tire deforms and you get the true cornering force as it come back to the vehicle, thru the hub and such.

This is helpful. Thank you
 
  • #6
russ_watters
Mentor
20,959
7,575
The force pushing the ground to the right may or may not exist and isn't relevant here.

Centripetal force doesn't need to be created by engine power, it happens on its own as an effect of the turn. I think it would be best to ignore/discard the propusive force on the front wheels and focus solely on the centripetal force you are asking about.
 
  • Like
Likes nasu and weirdoguy
  • #7
349
37
Centripetal force doesn't need to be created by engine power, it happens on its own as an effect of the turn.
That is exactly what we were saying and I agree with you. The example above ignores the engine.

I am not concerned with propulsive force. I am assuming the car is coasting and you turn the front wheels. Due to the inertia the car wants to continue traveling forward, but the tires don't. There is a static friction force that pushes on the road to avoid that change, which is where the lateral/perpendicular force comes into play, which is the centripetal force turning the car.

If it was a front wheel drive, then you have this effect plus the engine helping drive.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
russ_watters
Mentor
20,959
7,575
That is exactly what we were saying and I agree with you. The example above ignores the engine.

I am not concerned with propulsive force. I am assuming the car is coasting and you turn the front wheels. Due to the inertia the car wants to continue traveling forward, but the tires don't. There is a static friction force that pushes on the road to avoid that change, which is where the lateral/perpendicular force comes into play, which is the centripetal force turning the car.

If it was a front wheel drive, then you have this effect plus the engine helping drive.
Sorry, you're right. I got tripped up by the switch from "inward" to "right", vs the diagram.
 
  • Like
Likes alkaspeltzar
  • #9
349
37
Sorry, you're right. I got tripped up by the switch from "inward" to "right", vs the diagram.
No issues, it was a good point as we don't need an engine to make things turn. Any kid with his bike on a big hill can tell you that.

As for the verbage confusion, yeah that is my bad. Sorry the friction from the wheel when turning a car to the left(like the picture), creates a rightward force against the ground. The ground pushes back with an equal and opposite friction force inward, which is the centripetal force. Hope that is clearer.

I got it. THank you
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2 and russ_watters
  • #10
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2020 Award
26,438
5,514
Centripetal force doesn't need to be created by engine power,
True, but the wheels are always at an angle that's steeper than the tangent so there will be a force which slows the vehicle down because of the hysteresis of the tyre deformation. That does mean that you would need to compensate by increasing the engine power. You do this unconsciously . Even with rails, there will be more losses around a curve than on the straight.

I was interested to learn (on my one and only hands-on joy ride) that turning an aeroplane (by banking) will cause loss of height as you 'slip down sideways' and the rudder deals with this by adjusting your heading to compensate so you are pointing uphill slightly..
 
  • #11
rcgldr
Homework Helper
8,770
569
I was interested to learn (on my one and only hands-on joy ride) that turning an aeroplane (by banking) will cause loss of height as you 'slip down sideways' and the rudder deals with this by adjusting your heading to compensate so you are pointing uphill slightly..
or use a bit more elevator. The rudder will result in a more coordinated turn, but at higher speeds, you don't need much rudder.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes russ_watters and sophiecentaur
  • #12
russ_watters
Mentor
20,959
7,575
or use a bit more elevator. The rudder will result in a more coordinated turn, but at higher speeds, you don't need much rudder.
Yeah, to clarify a bit more: in a turn the plane tends to yaw away from the turn not toward it. The rudder input is to avoid sliding(slipping) through the turn. The plane descends because the lift vector is no longer vertical, so more elevator means higher angle of attack and more lift to counteract that.

I don't like a plane as an example here, very different dynamics. Cars are complicated enough. It's not clear to me that turning a car or other wheeled vehicle necessarily requires energy loss.
 
  • #13
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2020 Award
26,438
5,514
To avoid any energy loss when steering with wheels, I’d say there has to be friction. Even with rails there will be rubbing and pneumatic tyres get hot, even when going straight. Only with a rigid bar or wire can the centripetal force be the only force involved.
 
  • #14
bob012345
Gold Member
884
286
Yeah, to clarify a bit more: in a turn the plane tends to yaw away from the turn not toward it. The rudder input is to avoid sliding(slipping) through the turn. The plane descends because the lift vector is no longer vertical, so more elevator means higher angle of attack and more lift to counteract that.

I don't like a plane as an example here, very different dynamics. Cars are complicated enough. It's not clear to me that turning a car or other wheeled vehicle necessarily requires energy loss.
Not to mention that the centripetal force is provided by a horizontal component of the Lift vector and not due to any kind of friction with the air or drag.

Also, for cars, static friction is for flat turns. Banked turns do not need static friction if the car is traveling at the proper designed speed limit. In this case a component of the Normal force acts as the centripetal force.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banked_turn
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #15
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2020 Award
26,438
5,514
Not to mention that the centripetal force is provided by a horizontal component of the Lift vector and not due to any kind of friction with the air or drag.

Also, for cars, static friction is for flat turns. Banked turns do not need static friction if the car is traveling at the proper designed speed limit. In this case a component of the Normal force acts as the centripetal force.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banked_turn
My suggestion of the flight analogy has rather taken over here but, afaics, there's still an energy cost involved in a banked turn. If you are trimmed for optimum fuel consumption straight and level then are you implying that doing a banked turn would not cause you to drop in height, slow down or use more fuel? Clearly you can't change altitude in a car but isn't the energy consideration still there in both situations?
I know that analogies can disrupt the flow of an argument and it might have been better if I hadn't introduced it, despite the fact that it's valid, imo.
 
  • #16
bob012345
Gold Member
884
286
My suggestion of the flight analogy has rather taken over here but, afaics, there's still an energy cost involved in a banked turn. If you are trimmed for optimum fuel consumption straight and level then are you implying that doing a banked turn would not cause you to drop in height, slow down or use more fuel? Clearly you can't change altitude in a car but isn't the energy consideration still there in both situations?
I know that analogies can disrupt the flow of an argument and it might have been better if I hadn't introduced it, despite the fact that it's valid, imo.
I believe you would add some power, increasing speed to increase lift to maintain altitude during a turn. Of course in many situations you are either in a climbing turn or decending turn when maintaining altitude is not an issue. In the old war movies doesn't the engine always rev up just as the plane is banking?
 
  • #17
russ_watters
Mentor
20,959
7,575
My suggestion of the flight analogy has rather taken over here but, afaics, there's still an energy cost involved in a banked turn. If you are trimmed for optimum fuel consumption straight and level then are you implying that doing a banked turn would not cause you to drop in height, slow down or use more fuel? Clearly you can't change altitude in a car but isn't the energy consideration still there in both situations?
I know that analogies can disrupt the flow of an argument and it might have been better if I hadn't introduced it, despite the fact that it's valid, imo.
Lift and drag are inexorably coupled so yes, engine power in a plane has to increase in a turn to avoid slowing down or descending. I consider that different from how a wheeled vehicle works (loss is not required to create the force).
 
  • #18
bob012345
Gold Member
884
286
Lift and drag are inexorably coupled so yes, engine power in a plane has to increase in a turn to avoid slowing down or descending. I consider that different from how a wheeled vehicle works (loss is not required to create the force).
I used to be a private pilot and sometimes I would circle a tree rather low in some field to practice banked turns without losing altitude.
 
  • #19
russ_watters
Mentor
20,959
7,575
I used to be a private pilot and sometimes I would circle a tree rather low in some field to practice banked turns without losing altitude.
I'm taking lessons right now. That's one of the exercises. My usual reference is a grain silo.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur and bob012345
  • #20
bob012345
Gold Member
884
286
I'm taking lessons right now. That's one of the exercises. My usual reference is a grain silo.
I take it you have passed the right of passage.. the solo flight?
 
  • #21
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2020 Award
26,438
5,514
Lift and drag are inexorably coupled so yes, engine power in a plane has to increase in a turn to avoid slowing down or descending. I consider that different from how a wheeled vehicle works (loss is not required to create the force).
Different yes but the common effect of losing energy is there. The drag in flight is equivalent to friction.
Perhaps using the concept of static friction is not appropriate in this case. Hanging on a rope as you’re being swung round would be a justified use of the static friction term in circular motion but PF is always having to deal with the ‘proper’ terms to use in many situations. Tyres always have a slip angle so no static friction, IMO,
 
  • #22
russ_watters
Mentor
20,959
7,575
I take it you have passed the right of passage.. the solo flight?
Yes, I'm basically finished and waiting for my checkride.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur and bob012345
  • #23
bob012345
Gold Member
884
286
Yes, I'm basically finished and waiting for my checkride.
My only advice is make sure you let your Examiner know that you see all the planes flying around you.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #24
rcgldr
Homework Helper
8,770
569
Getting back on the side topic of energy losses due to tire deformation, an extreme example is Formula 1 race cars, where despite being at full throttle, in high speed, high g turns, 20+mph is lost due to tire deformation. Even in medium to high speed turns, that energy goes into heating up the tires as shown in this infrared video:

 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes Lnewqban and sophiecentaur
  • #25
bob012345
Gold Member
884
286
We also could compare the energy to heat the tires with the loss in kinetic energy of the car and see how close they come. How much does the tempature rise during a turn? I wish the scale were shown. What to use for the specific heat of the rubber and mass of tread that heats up? Based on the reference below I will estimate it at 1000 J/Kg °C and the tread mass about 10 Kg per tire and the temperature rise about 50 °C. That gives ##2 X 10^6## Joules which seem way too high as the whole kinetic energy of the car assuming 1000Km total mass at 200 Km/hr is about ##1.5 X 10^6## Joules! Obviously I'm overestimating the heating of the tires by a lot. There wouldn't be enough energy or power available to do that. What are more reasonable numbers?



It was found that the specific heats ranged from generally 0.8 to 1.2 J g−1 °C−1, which was considerably lower values than those of rubbers, 1.9 to 2.2 J g−1 °C−1.*

*John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 72: 1513–1522, 1999
 
Top