Can Car B Make it Past the X in Time to Avoid Disaster?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter danielatha4
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Car Drop
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a kinematics problem involving two cars, one dropped from a height of 4000 ft and another driving towards a point marked 'x' on the road. Participants explore the effects of wind resistance and terminal velocity on the time it takes for both cars to reach the 'x', considering both theoretical calculations and practical implications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Car A is dropped from 4000 ft, and Car B is 4000 ft away from 'x', traveling at 142 mph. The question is whether Car B can reach 'x' before Car A lands.
  • Some participants suggest that 142 mph may be close to or above the terminal velocity of a car, implying that Car B would likely reach 'x' first.
  • Terminal velocity calculations are presented, with one participant calculating it to be approximately 126 mph for a BMW 3 series under certain assumptions.
  • There is a request for assistance in setting up a differential equation to model the fall of Car A, taking into account the force due to drag.
  • Participants discuss the time it takes for Car A to fall and the implications of air resistance on this time, with some suggesting that the falling car would hit the ground before Car B reaches 'x'.
  • Spreadsheet calculations are mentioned, with one participant estimating that Car A takes about 25.5 seconds to fall, while Car B would cover a distance of approximately 1450 m in that time at 140 mph.
  • Another participant provides a detailed derivation of the differential equation governing the fall, leading to a calculated fall time of around 25.6 seconds, similar to spreadsheet results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the impact of wind resistance and terminal velocity on the outcome, with no consensus reached on the exact times for each car's arrival at 'x'. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the precise dynamics of the scenario.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that various factors, such as mass, air density, and drag coefficient, could significantly affect the fall time of Car A, indicating that the calculations may not be exact and are dependent on these assumptions.

danielatha4
Messages
113
Reaction score
0
Car A is dropped at 4000 ft where directly below is an x on the road. At the instant Car A is dropped Car B is exactly 4000 ft from the x driving down the road at a constant velocity of 142 mph. Does Car B make it past the x in time to avoid disaster?

It's such a simple kinematics problem that it's beautiful but unfortunately you have to take into consideration wind resistance :frown: Can anyone show an accurate application of wind resistance in this problem? From my understanding the mass of the car is 1600 kg and it dropped staying flat landing virtually on all 4 tires at the same time.

For the heck of it I'll do the kinematics neglecting wind resistance:

time Car B takes to get to the x

x=vt
1219.2m = 63.5 m/s * t
t = 19.2 seconds

Does Car A hit the road is less time or more time than 19.2 seconds?

x=vot+1/2at2
x = 0 + 4.9 * 19.22
x = 1806.336m

therefore, less time

time it takes Car A to hit the road

x = 1/2at2
1219.2m = 4.9 * t2
t = 15.77 seconds

Seems like air resistance and terminal velocity make all the difference here
 
Physics news on Phys.org
142 mph would probably be pretty close to the terminal velocity of a car (maybe even above), so I expect the driving car would get there first.
 
Terminal velocity is sqrt( 2mg / density A Cd )

BMW 3 series = 4.4m * 1.7m 1465kg
Assuming that on four wheels Cd = 1
And air is density = 1.2kg/m^3

terminal V = sqrt ( (2 * 1465 * 9.8) / (1.2 * 4.4 * 1.7 * 1)) = 56.5 m/s = 126mph
 
Does anyone know how to setup the differential equation needed to map out the total time the Car takes to fall 4000 ft (1219.2m)?

Force due to drag is
Fd=1/2\rhov2ACd

Where v seems to be the changing variable here. Therefore, force due to drag is a function of velocity in this case?
 
russ_watters said:
142 mph would probably be pretty close to the terminal velocity of a car (maybe even above), so I expect the driving car would get there first.
In the episode in question, if I remember correctly, they could only get their car up to 120-ish mph, so they adjusted the horizontal distance to the target accordingly... it wasn't much of a physics experiment. But still cool :wink: I think the falling car hit first by a second or two.
 
danielatha4 said:
Does anyone know how to setup the differential equation needed to map out the total time the Car takes to fall 4000 ft (1219.2m)?

Force due to drag is
Fd=1/2\rhov2ACd

Where v seems to be the changing variable here. Therefore, force due to drag is a function of velocity in this case?
Sure, just use F = ma, remembering that a = \ddot{y} and v = \dot{y} (dot stands for the time derivative, of course).

\frac{1}{2}\rho A C_d \dot{y}^2 - mg = m\ddot{y}

oooh, wait - is this a homework assignment?
 
mgb_phys said:
Terminal velocity is sqrt( 2mg / density A Cd )

BMW 3 series = 4.4m * 1.7m 1465kg
Assuming that on four wheels Cd = 1
And air is density = 1.2kg/m^3

terminal V = sqrt ( (2 * 1465 * 9.8) / (1.2 * 4.4 * 1.7 * 1)) = 56.5 m/s = 126mph
...and that's if it stays stable and nose-down...

When they meausred the terminal velocity of a falling (not spin stabilized) bullet, it fell sideways and was roughly stable in that configuration.
 
diazona said:
In the episode in question, if I remember correctly, they could only get their car up to 120-ish mph, so they adjusted the horizontal distance to the target accordingly... it wasn't much of a physics experiment. But still cool :wink: I think the falling car hit first by a second or two.
[googles] 105mph, and with the falling car hitting a full 2 seconds before (308 feet at 105 mph), I wonder what they scaled their distances to?

...and btw, the falling car fell sideways, though oscillating somewhat. Here's the video: http://rippol.com/watch/mythbusters/car-drop-minimyth/?t=3025&v=2169551
 
They scaled the distance to 2950 feet I believe.

I'm still trying to straighten up that differential equation to figure out an accurate time.
 
  • #10
You can do it easily with a spreadsheet, I get 90% of terminal roughly after 12.5 secs and a distance of 1220m in 25.5 secs
In that time a car doing 140mph would cover about 1450m
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • #11
I'll take your word for it. I was going to try to use the math, not a spreadsheet, but oh well.

if it takes 25.5 seconds to fall then the driving car will pass the x 9.7 seconds before impact. Hmm

And no diazona, this wasn't a homework assignment. Just physics for fun, ha
 
  • #12
So the car falling hit the x 2 seconds before the car driving reached it. That means it took 17.2 seconds.

How can you calculate 17.2 seconds from the differential equation?
 
  • #13
As long as you're not trying to leech answers off us :wink:...
diazona said:
\frac{1}{2}\rho A C_d \dot{y}^2 - mg = m\ddot{y}
That's actually an integrable equation,
\frac{1}{2}\rho A C_d \dot{y}^2 - mg = m\frac{\mathrm{d}\dot{y}}{\mathrm{d}t}

\int_0^t\mathrm{d}t = \frac{1}{g}\int_0^t\frac{\mathrm{d}\dot{y}}{\frac{\rho AC_d}{2mg} \dot{y}^2 - 1}
You can do the integral on the right using the substitution u = \dot{y}\sqrt{(\rho A C_d/2mg)}[/tex], getting<br /> t = \sqrt{\frac{m}{2\rho gAC_d}}[\ln(1 - u) - \ln(1 + u)]_0^t<br /> and if you solve that for \dot{y}, taking into account that \dot{y}(0)=0, you get<br /> \dot{y} = -\sqrt{\frac{2mg}{\rho A C_d}}\tanh\biggl(\sqrt{\frac{\rho gAC_d}{2m}}t\biggr)<br /> Then you integrate it again to get<br /> y = -\frac{2m}{\rho A C_d}\ln\cosh\biggl(\sqrt{\frac{\rho gAC_d}{2m}}t\biggr)<br /> Using mgb_phys&#039;s values with y=-4000ft, I get 25.6 seconds, same as the spreadsheet analysis. (No surprise there) Though these calculations are never really exact - there are a lot of things that could have been different in the actual experiment, like a higher mass, lower air density, or a lower drag coefficient. Any of those would reduce the fall time.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
12K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K