So that's why my car rolls Is it?

In summary: Coulomb equation explains this although I'm not too sure on how. Static friction is higher than dynamic friction. With a car, the dynamic friction isn't much lower than the static friction because the car's axles are very well lubricated.
So that's why my car rolls... Is it?

Hi, I just wanted to clarify my thoughts so that I can convince my friends of the wonders of classical mechanics...

The reason that I find it hard to push a car is because of friction, and in the example of pushing a car this is because the atoms of the tyre are bonding, ultimately in terms of electrical and magnetic attractions, with the atoms of the road.

The reason it's harder to get the car moving with my initial push is that the atoms have a stronger force and as there are more of them due to the compression of the wheel, i.e.the area is slightly larger than the area of the turning wheel so there are more bonds. When the wheel is turning there are less atoms bonding due to the small amount of time they would all be exposed on a level plane (due to the atoms jiggling).

Would I be able to give that description? Wouldn't this be a good approximation of the reasons for static and kinetic friction? Can you add more or perhaps better reasons for this force.

That sentence "ultimately in terms of electrical and magnetic attractions" is from my book, if possible, though not essential, can anyone explain that intuitively, maybe the Coulomb equation explains this although I'm not too sure on how.

Another sentence from my book is " smoothing the surface can actually increase friction, since more molecules are able to interact and bond, " Now I've been told friction is all "Inertial" on yahoo yet my book, "University Physics, with Modern Physics" by Young and Freedman says differently, as in the previous quotes...

Hi, I just wanted to clarify my thoughts so that I can convince my friends of the wonders of classical mechanics...

The reason that I find it hard to push a car is because of friction, and in the example of pushing a car this is because the atoms of the tyre are bonding, ultimately in terms of electrical and magnetic attractions, with the atoms of the road.

The reason it's harder to get the car moving with my initial push is that the atoms have a stronger force and as there are more of them due to the compression of the wheel, i.e.the area is slightly larger than the area of the turning wheel so there are more bonds. When the wheel is turning there are less atoms bonding due to the small amount of time they would all be exposed on a level plane (due to the atoms jiggling).

Would I be able to give that description? Wouldn't this be a good approximation of the reasons for static and kinetic friction? Can you add more or perhaps better reasons for this force.

That sentence "ultimately in terms of electrical and magnetic attractions" is from my book, if possible, though not essential, can anyone explain that intuitively, maybe the Coulomb equation explains this although I'm not too sure on how.

Another sentence from my book is " smoothing the surface can actually increase friction, since more molecules are able to interact and bond, " Now I've been told friction is all "Inertial" on yahoo yet my book, "University Physics, with Modern Physics" by Young and Freedman says differently, as in the previous quotes...

Nope. Has nothing to do with friction between the road and tire. Search on rolling resistance at wikipedia.org or similar.

The reason it is harder to get anything moving than to keep it moving is that static friction is higher than dynamic friction. However, with a car, the dynamic friction isn't much lower than the static friction because the car's axles are very well lubricated.

On a microscopic level, though, yes, there is bonding between atoms of the two surfaces in a friction situation (ehh, edit - but as berke said, it isn't the atoms of the tire and the road, but the atoms of the axle and bearing).

The reason it is so hard to accelerate a car by pushing on it is the car has a lot of mass and a=f/m.

The reason it's harder to get the car moving with my initial push is that the atoms have a stronger force and as there are more of them due to the compression of the wheel, i.e.the area is slightly larger than the area of the turning wheel so there are more bonds. When the wheel is turning there are less atoms bonding due to the small amount of time they would all be exposed on a level plane (due to the atoms jiggling).
I don't think the contact area changes very much between static and rolling.
There is also an effect with the rolling wheel that air, water, and stuff is dragged between the wheel and road as it rolls - this lubricates the contact.

That sentence "ultimately in terms of electrical and magnetic attractions" is from my book, if possible, though not essential, can anyone explain that intuitively, maybe the Coulomb equation explains this although I'm not too sure on how.
If you put a piece of metal down on another piece of metal - how do the atoms on the surface 'know' which bit of metal they belong to? They wil bond to any atoms in range - whether on their own bit or the other surface.

Another sentence from my book is " smoothing the surface can actually increase friction, since more molecules are able to interact and bond, "
That's true for very smooth surfaces. With ultra flat smooth and clean reference flats in vacuum it's possible to contact weld them by simply putting two pieces together. With no air, water, dirt etc between them there is nothing to stop the atoms in one piece bonding with the other piece.

A conceptual sketch is attached to give more insight. The car is at rest. It has mass m and some rotational moment of inertia J in the parts that rotate with the tires. This is shown as one cylinder J.

The first push must have more force to overcome the static friction of the rotating parts, which is greater than the kinetic friction. The mass m must increase its kinetic energy and so does the rotational inertia J, which requires extra work done by the starting force, to accelerate m and J up to a low speed. This takes some extra starting force.

The reaction force f appears during acceleration, is smaller than force F, and is necessary to add energy to the rotating parts. When velocity is constant little f becomes much smaller (no more energy is being added to inertia J) and is due mainly to the tire breaking contact with the ground as it rolls.

The bearing friction in rotating parts is smaller in motion than when starting to push the car. This is simplified, but covers the basics. In a model you don't worry so much about the atomic causes of friction, you measure friction values for a particular system and plug them into the model.

Attachments

• carpush.png
861 bytes · Views: 357

I'm well aware of μs & μk but I was just trying to understand why they would be different, visual pictures to describe why there is a difference.
The air, water etc... sucked under the tyre as it rolls seems very understandable to minimize contact between the atoms of the ground and the tyre. I understand there would be rolling resistance too I suppose I didn't think of all the forces acting.
I'm just considering the idea from an atomic point of view for a different angle, I know friction is not fully understood (http://memagazine.asme.org/Articles/2009/January/Theres_Rub.cfm) so I was thinking there may be some reason that an intro physics book wouldn't mention lol.

Thank you for the conceptual sketch too System, illustrates steel scraping off of steel to make the inital push even heavier :p.

As someone mentioned above, the parts are lubricated, which greatly reduces static friction. The tires don't create much resistive friction when you push a car, because they make traction and roll. The reaction force f due to acceleration of the rolling inertia, and the acceleration of mass m with remaining F, explain most of the extra effort required to get the car moving.

Physics textbooks focus on static and kinetic (dry) friction and these simple concept don't always apply to engineered systems in the same way. Even if there were no friction at all it would take some force to get the car accelerated up to pushing speed!

That said, if you wish to research atomic friction, it is a reasonable thing to do. The tires are a visco-elastic material and in car racing and performance testing, there is much to learn about these materials.

The car is hard to push cause of Newton's 1st law of motion...any mass will resist any change in it's state (by state I mean it's velocity)...the harder you attempt to change it's state, the more will it resist.

The wheel has to do virtually nothing with it...I mean you can even neglect those forces at such a low speed.

If the car has been sitting for a while, then you get a bit of a flat spot on the tread that takes more force to overcome, as it lifts the car a bit when you initially start moving it. Otherwise, it's static friction in the axles and drive train that have to be overcome.

Jeff Reid said:
If the car has been sitting for a while, then you get a bit of a flat spot on the tread that takes more force to overcome, as it lifts the car a bit when you initially start moving it. Otherwise, it's static friction in the axles and drive train that have to be overcome.

The tyre is constantly being distorted (flattened) as it rolls along the road - not just after it has been standing still. The engine has to provide a force, effectively, to drive the wheel slightly uphill over the bulge at the front. This involves energy loss as the tyre material is distorted and the tyre gets hot. As you increase the air pressure in the tyre this mechanism reduces. Ideally, the footprint would be vanshingly small (as with steel railway wheels and steel rails) but then traction would a problem.

I wonder, did anyone ever consider a variable tyre pressure system to reduce rolling resistance when not braking or cornering?

dE_logics said:
The wheel has to do virtually nothing with it...I mean you can even neglect those forces at such a low speed.

This may be true, I haven't run the numbers in a system model for low speed. However, the starting rate of acceleration, and the rate at which tire spin occurs, is a function of the inertia J in the driveline.

Also I've simulated the Mythbusters study of big car versus little car racing downhill. The little car (1/64 optimized model) wins for about 50-100 feet, probably due to less inertia J in the driveline relative to its mass m. Starting friction is too hard to estimate, so I left that out.

Testing of these ideas might be easily accomplished with some small scale models. Getting good measurements without a lab budget is the hard part.

Edit: here's an interesting discussion of friction that I haven't had time to read:

http://evolution.skf.com/zino.aspx?articleID=14959

It turns up on a google image search: lubricated friction

Edit: an industry education link (I never knew Tribologist's existed!):

http://www.stle.org/resources/lubelearn/default.aspx?

Last edited by a moderator:

What causes a car to roll when parked on a hill?

When a car is parked on a hill, the force of gravity acts on the car and causes it to roll downhill. This is because the car's weight is not evenly distributed, with most of the weight being concentrated in the front of the car. As a result, the front wheels have less traction and are more likely to roll down the hill.

Why does my car roll even when the parking brake is engaged?

There are a few possible reasons for this. One reason could be that the parking brake is not strong enough to hold the weight of the car on a steep hill. Another reason could be that the parking brake is not adjusted properly and is not making enough contact with the wheels. It is also possible that there is an issue with the brake system itself, such as a leak or a malfunctioning component.

Is it dangerous for a car to roll when parked?

Yes, it can be dangerous for a car to roll when parked, especially if it is parked on a steep hill. The car could roll into other vehicles or objects, causing damage or injury. In addition, if the car is not in park, the engine could continue to run and cause further damage or even an accident.

How can I prevent my car from rolling when parked on a hill?

There are a few steps you can take to prevent your car from rolling when parked on a hill. First, make sure to always engage the parking brake when parking on a hill. Also, turn your wheels towards the curb or towards the side of the road, depending on the direction of the hill. This will create more resistance and make it harder for the car to roll. You can also use wheel chocks or blocks to further secure the car in place.

Can rolling when parked cause damage to my car?

Yes, rolling when parked can cause damage to your car. Depending on the speed and direction of the roll, it could cause dents, scratches, or more serious damage to the body of the car. In addition, if the car is not in park, the engine could continue to run and cause damage to the transmission or other components. It is important to always take precautions to prevent your car from rolling when parked.

• Mechanics
Replies
11
Views
1K
• Mechanics
Replies
22
Views
2K
• Mechanics
Replies
8
Views
2K
• Mechanics
Replies
11
Views
4K
• Mechanics
Replies
1
Views
1K
• Mechanics
Replies
2
Views
2K
• Classical Physics
Replies
1
Views
849
• Mechanics
Replies
7
Views
2K
• Mechanics
Replies
14
Views
21K
• Mechanics
Replies
22
Views
2K