Torque produced by friction when braking in a car

AI Thread Summary
When a car brakes, friction generates torque, causing the rear to lift, but the net torque remains zero due to no rotational motion. The discussion highlights that calculations involve forces at specified distances, but questions arise about whether to consider the angle of force application. It is clarified that torque can be calculated using either the perpendicular force component or the moment arm method, both yielding the same result. Understanding these calculations is crucial for analyzing rotational motion in vehicles. The explanation resolves the confusion regarding the role of angles in torque calculations.
jimkers
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi

So I am busy studying rotational motion and there's an example in the book where they explain that when a car brakes the force of friction acts as a torque force which explains why a car lifts up at the back when braking.
20180120_171738[1].jpg

Because the car does no rotational motion they say the net torque is zero and that force N1 counteracts the counterclockwise rotation and the rest count towards the counterclockwise rotation.

Here's my problem, when the calculations are being made, they put in the values for all the forces, multiplied by the distance shown on the figure: 1,5 m and 0,75 m. Shouldn't they account for the angle the force makes with the line between the axis of rotation and the tires (point where the force acts)? I thought only the force acting perpendicular to this line serves in this net force equation.

Thanks in advance.
 

Attachments

  • 20180120_171738[1].jpg
    20180120_171738[1].jpg
    15.7 KB · Views: 832
Physics news on Phys.org
jimkers said:
Shouldn't they account for the angle the force makes with the line between the axis of rotation and the tires (point where the force acts)?
That's true, but there are several equivalent ways of calculating the torque.

jimkers said:
I thought only the force acting perpendicular to this line serves in this net force equation.
You can either multiply the distance by the force component perpendicular to that line (L*Fsinθ) or multiply the force by the perpendicular distance to the line of action of the force, called the 'moment arm' (Lsinθ*F). Same result either way.
 
Hmm, I think I understand now, thank you very much
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Back
Top