Maximum attainable coefficient of static friction

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a physics problem related to the maximum attainable coefficient of static friction for automobile tires, particularly in the context of a racing scenario. The problem involves calculating the minimum static friction coefficient required for a car to achieve a specific time over a quarter-mile distance, considering the dynamics of the vehicle's weight distribution and wheel lift-off.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the front wheels lifting off the ground and its relation to torque and static friction. Questions are raised about calculating average acceleration, average forward force, and the conditions necessary to prevent wheel spin.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, questioning the setup and exploring the physics involved. Some guidance has been offered regarding the implications of the car's weight distribution and the conditions under which the rear tires do not slip. Multiple interpretations of the problem's elements are being discussed.

Contextual Notes

There is an assumption that the front tires "barely" leave the ground, which affects the calculations related to static friction and vehicle dynamics. The discussion also reflects on the historical context of tire performance and its evolution over time.

canza
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Hi, I'm having trouble with this question. I don't seem to get this at all. I hope you guys can help me on this.

Before 1960, it was believed that the maximum attainable coefficient of static friction for an automobile tire was less than 1. Then, about 1962, three companies independently developed racing tires with coefficients of 1.6. Since then, tires have improved, as illustrated in this problem. According to the 1990 Guinness Book of Records, the shortest time in which a piston-engine car initially at rest has covered a distance of one-quarter mile is 4.96 s. This record was set by Shirley Muldowney in September 1989.

Assume that, as in the figure, the rear wheels lifted the front wheels off the pavement. What minimum value of µs is necessary to achieve a time of 6.04 s?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why do they speak of the front wheels lifting off the ground?

We have a distance, a time, an initial velocity; can you work out the average acceleration?

What's the average forward force?

What's the normal reaction to the car's weight?

What's the kinetic frictional force?

If we don't want the wheels to spin what condition must hold?

I hope this helps you get some traction :smile:
 
Carid said:
Why do they speak of the front wheels lifting off the ground?
Rear wheel drive, where all of the car's weight is supported by the normal force from the rear tires. The rotation of the vehicle is due to the eccentricity of the driving friction force (at the rear wheels) relative to the c.g of the car, creating a torque which causes the car to rotate off its front wheels and pivot about its rear wheels.
 
The knowledge that the front tires are lifted indicates torque which is directly related to the static friction acting on the tires. If the figure tells you the angle of lift, what missing information can you compute to determine average acceleration?
 
PhantomJay and Mr. Amin

My question about the wheels was rhetorical. I think it's in the question just so all the weight of the car is on the rear wheels. Nothing fancy!
 
Fair enough.
Let's assume that the front tires "barely" leave the ground. This implies the rear tires DO NOT slip. Now since you know that the vehicle starts from rest, (1) what does the position equation look like? (2) From a term in this equation what term says anything about...force?
 
Carid said:
PhantomJay and Mr. Amin

My question about the wheels was rhetorical. I think it's in the question just so all the weight of the car is on the rear wheels. Nothing fancy!
I agree!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K