SUV Handling: Tires & Friction - Equations Included

  • Thread starter Thread starter ronicencen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Friction Tires
AI Thread Summary
SUVs are often criticized for poor handling due to their higher center of gravity, but tire performance also plays a crucial role in braking and turning capabilities. Studies from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) indicate that large and mid-sized SUVs are statistically safer than many cars, with lower driver death rates in crashes. The IIHS data shows that while small and very large SUVs have higher death rates, mid-sized and large SUVs perform better in safety comparisons. Proper tire maintenance is essential for preventing rollovers, as under-inflated tires can significantly affect handling. Overall, the discussion highlights the importance of both vehicle design and tire condition in SUV safety and handling.
ronicencen
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
SUVs are supposed to be unsafe because of inferior handling... the main issue is center of gravity, but do the wheels have anything to do with it as well?

Do their wheels make it harder or easier to brake and turn?

Equations VERY appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
SUVs ..poor handling...compared to what ??
I for one would much rather be cross arming a mid size SUV than the cheap, lite weight mini compact that folds up like a cheap suitcase when it T-bones the tree..guard rail..etc..
in fact , a car salesman buddies of mine ( also semi good round track driver) successfully sold my wife a larger new Automobile by simply having a budd help him LIFT the back of the entry level economy car off the ground..no rear weight at all..them pregneat rollerskates are totally dangerous in my opinion..plus they push like a freight train when rounding any corner at half decent speeds...
but here are the facts..




http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/iihs-and-nhtsa-agree-suvs-safer-than-cars/

cut and pasted from the above
You remember that debate, don’t you? Back before carbon dioxide was a planet killer, before hurricane Katrina sent the price of gas soaring, before the Iraq war got old, the anti-SUV crowd focused their attention on safety. They highlighted the “us vs. them” SUV vs. car death match, where the guy with the morally indefensible vehicle won the right to play again. Which was unfair but true. And still is.

Last Thursday, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) released the results of a study examining death rates for drivers of 2001 to 2004 model year vehicles involved in crashes from 2002 through 2005. The results were rated by deaths per million vehicle years (DMVY).

The IIHS’ separated the vehicles into eight categories: cars, sports, luxury, specialty, station wagons, minivans, SUV’s and pickup trucks. The “deaths by body style” stats were conclusive. According to the report, large and mid-sized 4WD vehicles (47 and 59 DMVY) are safer than cars classified as mini (148), small (103), midsize (71), large (81) and very large (61).

The IIHS report also listed the vehicles with the highest and lowest driver death rates. Of the 16 “worst” vehicles rated, cars occupied 12 slots, while SUV’s garnered four places on the list (a 75 / 25 percent split). Of the 15 “best” vehicles, five cars (33 percent), seven SUV’s (47 percent) and three minivans (20 percent) made the grade.

That said, the IIHS study rated both small and very large SUV’s appreciably more deadly than mid-sized and large SUV’s. And there are as many ways to spin interpret the IIHS data as there are media outlets happy to avoid the logical, distinctly non-PC headline “SUV’s Safer than Cars.”

One more thing...the prob with all the roll overs in the SUVs a few years back was poor operator maintenance...the tires were not kept up to proper inflation specs...all tires bleed thru the side wall over time..and you should check the mmonthly in the winter..( one reason we use nitrogen to inflate on race car tires)
 
Last edited:
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top