B Maximum Radius for Wall of Death

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the physics of the "wall of death," focusing on the relationship between the radius of the wall and the maximum speed a rider can achieve. It highlights that smaller radii result in higher G-forces, which limit speed, while larger radii allow for higher speeds with lower G-forces. Participants debate whether there is a practical limit to the wall's size, suggesting that financial constraints and the rider's tolerance to G-forces are significant factors. The conversation also touches on the importance of lean angles and the torque involved in maintaining balance while riding. Ultimately, the consensus is that while theoretically, there may not be a maximum radius, practical limitations, including safety and cost, play crucial roles in determining the wall's dimensions.
  • #31
minilandrover said:
see you can work it out, although you got the wrong G force, Just don't go asking for a job at nasa
You might want to crack back the attitude. You're embarrassing yourself.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Quote: 187.5 mph squared over 3 equals 5468.75

I think your math is wrong, please feel free to correct me if my numbers don't add up.

upload_2016-4-5_11-32-58.png


upload_2016-4-5_11-32-58.png
Quote: 187.5 mph squared equals 35156.25 divided by your 231 meters ! will be 35156.25 over 25 x 231 this equals 6.087 G not 3 g !
who taught you maths ?
mfb stated the radius was 231m

Radius is half the diameter, is it not?

upload_2016-4-5_10-23-39.png


If 300 kph = 186.411 mph then the G forces would be;

upload_2016-4-5_10-23-39.png


Which brings us back to what mfb started with, 3 G's or be it a couple of decimal places out. Hehe,

Hi mfb, can you expand on your formula please, I'm trying to learn this for fun and I'm not particularly good at math.

I can see part of your workings out with regards to velocity which is measured in m/s:


upload_2016-4-5_11-13-25.png
upload_2016-4-5_11-13-25.png


Using your formula I found:

upload_2016-4-5_11-14-19.png


But when I bash these numbers into the abacus, I get:

upload_2016-4-5_11-22-8.png


upload_2016-4-5_11-22-8.png
What have I done wrong?
 
  • #33
Jimbo54321 said:
Using your formula I found:

upload_2016-4-5_11-14-19-png.98583.png
The acceleration is 3g, not 3. (g = 9.8 m/s^2)
 
  • #34
Hi Doc, I thought that was the case but when I used (rightly or wrongly) 83•33332 / (3 x 9•81) I got 235•964m
Which isn't what mfb got (231m), so I assumed I had done it wrong.
 
  • #35
Jimbo54321 said:
Hi Doc, I thought that was the case but when I used (rightly or wrongly) 83•33332 / (3 x 9•81) I got 235•964m
Which isn't what mfb got (231m), so I assumed I had done it wrong.
Close enough. The method is correct.
 
  • #36
I used ##g \approx 10 ms^{-2}##. The difference is just 2 %.
 
  • #37
Just as a side note, ##a = v^2/r## is just the centripetal acceleration. If you want to find the total acceleration experienced by the rider, use Pythagoras' theorem to find that
$$
a_{\rm tot}^2 = g^2 + \frac{v^4}{r^2}.
$$
For a total acceleration of ##Ng## this would give a velocity
$$
v = \sqrt[4]{N^2 - 1}\, \sqrt{gr},
$$
indicating that for a fixed target acceleration, ##v## needs to grow as ##\sqrt{r}## (this was true already for the centripetal acceleration and follows directly from basic dimensional analysis). The angle is always the same for a given acceleration, ##\cos(\theta) = 1/N##, where ##\theta## is the angle of the rider from the vertical position.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Doc Al
  • #38
I am the first to admit that I am not good at mathematics and have struggled all my life, but I do try, and I will persevere in improving my understanding.
I can see from other threads that this forum is used by Ladies and Gentleman that are so far above me in the league tables, that when it comes to understanding mathematics, physics and science, you guys leave me feeling like a Bum at a banquet. LOL.

Anyway, the only reason I questioned my math was to answer a nagging thought of how many G's Patch would be pulling at 48mph (as stated in the program), but when I worked out that there is no way he could do 48mph, I had to question (1) my math, or (2) the programs statement.

I'd like to thank you guys for helping me, mfb, Doc Al and Orodruin you three have given me a lot of self homework, (trying to decipher the formulas you used) PMSL.
But I will strive to understand this math. Oh the late nights.
Thanks again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
What is to be said on the topic has been said and several posts have already been deleted. It is time to close this thread.
 

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Replies
86
Views
14K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
6K