Is Friction Dependent on Surface Area in Braking Performance?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bkhan90
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Friction
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the independence of friction force from the surface area of brake pads in relation to braking performance. It is established that the friction force is determined solely by the normal force and the coefficient of friction, which is influenced by the materials of the brake pads and rotors. While increasing the contact patch can distribute force and reduce the risk of failure, it does not enhance braking performance. The conversation also suggests a practical experiment using objects of different dimensions to test the relationship between surface area and friction.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts such as force, friction, and normal force.
  • Familiarity with the coefficient of friction and its dependence on material properties.
  • Knowledge of braking systems, specifically brake pads and rotors.
  • Basic experimental design principles for hypothesis testing.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the coefficient of friction for various materials used in brake pads and rotors.
  • Learn about the physics of friction and its applications in automotive braking systems.
  • Explore experimental methods for measuring friction, including inclined plane experiments.
  • Investigate the effects of surface area on friction in different contexts beyond braking performance.
USEFUL FOR

Automotive engineers, physics students, and anyone interested in understanding the mechanics of braking systems and the principles of friction.

bkhan90
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I saw this post on a forum and thought it wasn't right, it's about why the force of frction on rotors is independent of the surface area of the calipers in contact with the rotors. I thought this was wrong because friction is a non conservative force, but am seeking further validation

the post:
Not really. Friction between the pad and the rotor is what stops you. And friction force is only dependent on the normal force and the coefficient of friction. The normal force is the force that is perpendicular to the direction of travel, which, in this case, is the force the pads apply on the rotor. So, since friction only depends on that force and the coefficient of friction (which depends on the material of the pad and rotor), the surface area of the contact patch has no effect on the braking performance. So, you may ask, why don't we use the smallest pads possible? Well, the more force we try and apply to a small area, the more likely that small area has of failing under the stress. So if we get more of a contact patch, that force is distributed more throughout the pad and rotor. But, braking performance and contact patch has no relation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Surface area is part of the coefficient of friction.
 
bkhan90 said:
So, you may ask, why don't we use the smallest pads possible? Well, the more force we try and apply to a small area, the more likely that small area has of failing under the stress. So if we get more of a contact patch, that force is distributed more throughout the pad and rotor. But, braking performance and contact patch has no relation.
Ok. Let's reduce the size of the pads by a factor of 10. They might be a little less expensive to replace. I would then have them replaced every time I have the oil changed, and maybe have the rotors turned also. No thank you.
 
This claim is simple enough to test.

Get two objects of different dimensions and the same weight... say, a box covered with sandpaper.

Let it slide down an inclined plane.

Measure the critical angle and the times required for various angles.

The hypothesis: more surface area means greater critical angle and longer times for sliding down.

The null hypothesis: there is no difference, or the inverse of the hypothesis.

Air resistance is going to be negligible if you use fairly rough surfaces.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K