Is the Braking Force of a Truck Really 0.8?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter chrishgv
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Braking Force Truck
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the braking force of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), specifically addressing whether a truck can exert a braking force of 0.8 g (gees) during a stop. Participants confirm that this figure is plausible, indicating that the apparent forward force on a load can equal 0.8 times its weight. Additionally, the conversation explores the dynamics of load movement during collisions, particularly questioning the validity of the claim that a pallet can move backward after a frontal crash. The consensus is that while some movement may occur due to elastic forces, the assertion lacks solid grounding in physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts, including force and acceleration
  • Familiarity with vehicle dynamics and braking systems
  • Knowledge of load securing methods in transportation
  • Awareness of collision mechanics and their effects on cargo
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "HGV braking force calculations" to understand the physics behind braking performance
  • Study "collision dynamics" to grasp how loads behave during accidents
  • Explore "load securing techniques" to learn best practices for transporting goods safely
  • Investigate "whiplash injury mechanisms" to clarify misconceptions about injury causes in vehicle collisions
USEFUL FOR

Truck drivers, logistics professionals, safety engineers, and anyone involved in the transportation of goods who seeks to understand the physics of vehicle dynamics and load safety during transport.

  • #31
256bits said:
Put the pallets on wheels, which they are not ( usually ) and the floor- pallet reduced friction would have interesting effects.
Shifting loads are a real embarrassment. Even a pot pf paint in the back of your car can give serious grief if it's not secured. Some of what's described in this thread is very frame dependent and a lot of statements should be tidied up before they can be taken seriously. People 'feel themselves thrown forward' and that colours a lot of descriptions - from teachers as well as the general public.

hmmm27 said:
I'd be curious as to what the greatest movement he's seen,
So would I. Elastic distortions would surely be a lot less than plastic, if there is any significant movement. The exception could be vertical 'bouncing' as suggested.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 256bits
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
sophiecentaur said:
Shifting loads are a real embarrassment. Even a pot pf paint in the back of your car can give serious grief if it's not secured. Some of what's described in this thread is very frame dependent and a lot of statements should be tidied up before they can be taken seriously.
Ah, well... my assumptions are of an impact with a bridge abutment at suburban speeds ; also a straight-bed (2-5 ton) truck (amended to include a tractor-trailer, after I reread the thread) ; carrying, a pallet of bricks about 4'cubed (which turns out to be wrong : a pallet of bricks is only 5 bricks high, massing about 1.25t).

Elastic distortions would surely be a lot less than plastic, if there is any significant movement. The exception could be vertical 'bouncing' as suggested.
True, but - even though the effect is much less with a squat pallet (ie: low CoM) - I think it would still be significant enough to count.
 
  • #33
hmmm27 said:
- I think it would still be significant enough to count.
What component of the chassis / body would distort elastically? Vehicles are designed to suppress flexing because that affects behaviour with instantaneous loads (as with the collision and bumps in the road) `In collisions, the requirement is to absorb the energy and not to store it and deliver it back into the situation. Freak conditions can induce vertical motion (one vehicle ending up on top of another) but even that is dealt with by the barriers hung down from the tail of trucks.

I think we could be chasing the real meaning of a chance remark of a teacher who may have loads of experience but not necessarily a depth of physics. We'd really need to go back to the beginning and examine the source of the information in greater depth. Every explanation that's be suggested has relied on a significant amount of 'interpretation' of the presented description. That's not usually a reliable way to getting a meaningful answer.

That's not to say that the chat in this thread has not been fun. (Double negative - sorry.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: nasu

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
8K
  • · Replies 114 ·
4
Replies
114
Views
6K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
9K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K