Wheelie of a car coming out of a ditch: what is the correct model?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the dynamics of a car's motion as it exits a ditch, particularly why the front wheels lift off the ground while the rear wheels remain in contact. Key points include the influence of the car's velocity vector and center of mass on its trajectory, as well as the role of angular momentum in the motion. Participants debate the correct equations of motion, emphasizing the need to account for the car's suspension and the physical characteristics of the vehicle. The conversation highlights the complexities of modeling real-world scenarios, suggesting a gradual approach to increasing model complexity based on validation. Overall, the aim is to accurately interpret the car's behavior during this specific maneuver.
  • #91
Based on the low resolution video I posted (1 fps) I made a timeline of the events, arranging the zero event so that we can have Δt between T1 and t4. I hope it can be useful.

-17​
Start
-16​
Front Wheels on the flat
-15​
Front Wheels down in the dip
-14​
Front Wheels down in the dip
-13​
Front Wheels down in the dip
-12​
Front Wheels down in the dip
-11​
Front Wheels down in the dip
-10​
Front Wheels down in the dip
-9​
Front Wheels down in the dip
-8​
Front Wheels down in the dip
-7​
Front Wheels down in the dip
-6​
Front Wheels up in the dip
-5​
Front Wheels up in the dip
-4​
Front Wheels up in the dip
-3​
Front Wheels up in the dip
-2​
Front Wheels up in the dip
-1​
Front Wheels up in the dip
0​
Front Wheels up in the dip
1​
Front Wheels rotate coming out from dip
2​
Front Wheels rotate coming out from dip
3​
Front Wheels in free fall
4​
Front Wheels in free fall
5​
Rear Wheels in the dip
6​
Rear Wheels in the dip
7​
Rear Wheels in the dip
8​
Rear Wheels in the dip
9​
Rear Wheels in the dip
10​
Rear Wheels in the dip
11​
Rear Wheels in the dip
12​
Rear Wheels in the dip
13​
Rear Wheels in the dip
14​
Rear Wheels in the dip
15​
Rear Wheels in the dip
16​
Rear Wheels in the dip
17​
Rear Wheels in the dip
18​
Rear Wheels in the dip
19​
Rear Wheels in the dip
20​
Rear Wheels in the dip
21​
Rear Wheels in the dip
22​
Rear Wheels in the dip
23​
Front Wheels and Rear Weels in free fall
24​
Front Wheels and Rear Weels in free fall
25​
Front Wheels and Rear Weels in free fall
26​
Front Wheels and Rear Weels in free fall
27​
Left Front Wheel landing
28​
29​
30​
31​
32​
33​
34​
35​
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
alex33 said:
Can I ask you to keep the name of the variables other than those already adopted? Otherwise I'm afraid to get myself confused... until now we've talked about L to indicate the length of the Rover (actually it would only be the length of the wheelbase, the Rover is 80 cm longer). As for h, I had defined the height of the chassis
As a matter of course, I generally define length variables as half lengths of symmetric objects, otherwise fractions keep appearing in the algebra.

I start with these constants:
r2.982245324L1.019987973I/m0.394925155
v2.6omega0.4638891017J/m0.68
alf0.3490658504del t0.1666666667s
h0.38
g1.65
Note that my L (half car length) is ##r\sin(\alpha)##. I know now it should be a bit longer, but I don't think it changes much.
I/m is the moment of inertia of the car per unit mass: ##\frac 13(h^2+L^2)##.
J/m is the impulse on the rear axle on landing, per unit mass. The impulse is normal to the ground.
del t (Δt) is the time between the front wheels exiting the dip and the rear wheels reaching it.
Omega is the angular velocity when the front wheels reach the dip. As discussed, the vertical velocity of the mass centre then is ##\frac 12v\tan(\alpha)##, giving a rotation rate of ##\frac 1{2L}v\tan(\alpha)##.

As origin, I use the point halfway across the dip but at the surrounding ground level.
Velocities and displacements are positive to the left and up; rotations are clockwise from horizontal.

The simulation during a free fall tracks the following:
t: time since start of phase
xc, yc: coordinates of mass centre
xf, yf: coordinates of front wheels
xr, yr: etc.
theta: chassis orientation
v0xv0yw0x0cy0ctheta0
These are the initial values of the velocity and position of the mass centre and the orientation at the start of the current free fall phase. During such a phase, we can compute the current values from those and the time since the start of the phase.

I also track total mechanical energy, E= kinetic+potential as a check on the equations and to ensure J is not excessive.

During del t, the rear wheels are still on the ground but the front wheels are airborne.
Taking moments about the rear wheels, gravity on the mass centre exerts a torque -mgL. The moment of inertia about that axis is ##\frac 13(h^2+4L^2)m##, so the angular acceleration during del t is ##-3\frac{gL}{(h^2+4L^2)}##. (Its magnitude will reduce slightly during del t, but not much.) Hence, when the rear wheels reach the dip the rotation rate is ##\frac 1{2L}v\tan(\alpha)-3\frac{gL}{(h^2+4L^2)}\Delta t##. This is ##w_0 ## for the first free fall phase.

From that we can deduce ##v_{0c}=w_0*L## and for ##y_{0c}## I use the average rotation rate during del t: ##y_{0c}=(w_0+\frac 1{2L}v\tan(\alpha))/2*L*\Delta t##. (Yes, these are approximations based on theta still being quite small.)

That sets up the conditions at the start of this free fall phase. At time t into the phase we can calculate xc, yc and theta easily: ##x_c=x_{0c}+v_{0x}*t##, ##\theta=\theta_0+w_0*t##, ##y_c=y_{0c}+v_{0y}*t-\frac 12gt^2##.
The position of the rear wheels is trickier.
##x_r=x_c-L\cos(\theta)+h\sin(\theta)##
##y_r=y_c-L\sin(\theta)-h\cos(\theta)##
Similarly the front wheels:
##x_f=x_c+L\cos(\theta)+h\sin(\theta)##
##y_f=y_c+L\sin(\theta)-h\cos(\theta)##

Finally, the "touch" column tracks whether the rear wheels have landed:
##r^2-x_r^2-(r\cos(\alpha)-y_r)^2##.
When that value goes negative, we've hit regolith.

For the second free fall phase, we have to set up a new set of initial conditions and start t at 0 again. For this we need a value for J/m. Something around 0.6 to 0.7 m/s seems to be reasonable. More on that later.
 
  • #93
Dear Haruspex,
you are doing a tremendous job. I am very grateful to you.
Thanks for sharing all the formulas. During the day (which here in Europe started 4-5 hours ago), I will import everything into my excel.

With respect to the images, I wanted to tell you not to let yourself be influenced by the type of free fall curve we observe up to the impact of the front wheels, much less by the times recorded. There are some elements in play that I haven't told you about and will tell you about once we've defined the model. Let's go to define the model up to the actual free fall of the whole Rover (including the last bouncing of the rear wheels).

We have to build a credible and the simplest possible theoretical model.

Then I'll do a tracing on the high resolution images. I will first have to extract the frames from the official sources, correct the format, aberrations and perspective. Maybe it will take me a few days (compatibly with my job it could take 10 days). Eventually we will have about 120-140 pairs of coordinates for front wheels (51), center of mass (51)and (as much as possible) rear wheels (20-40). We will then test the model against a statistical analysis and look within what confidence intervals it is valid.
 
  • #94
alex33 said:
Dear Haruspex,
you are doing a tremendous job. I am very grateful to you.
Thanks for sharing all the formulas. During the day (which here in Europe started 4-5 hours ago), I will import everything into my excel.

With respect to the images, I wanted to tell you not to let yourself be influenced by the type of free fall curve we observe up to the impact of the front wheels, much less by the times recorded. There are some elements in play that I haven't told you about and will tell you about once we've defined the model up to the actual free fall of the whole Rover (including the last bouncing of the rear wheels).

We have to build a credible and the simplest possible theoretical model.

Then I'll do a tracing on the high resolution images. I will first have to extract the frames from the official sources, correct the format, aberrations and perspective. Maybe it will take me a few days (compatibly with my job it could take 10 days). Eventually we will have about 120-140 pairs of coordinates for front wheels (51), center of mass (51)and (as much as possible) rear wheels (20-40). We will then test the model against a statistical analysis and look within what confidence intervals it is valid.
Are you able to create a video simulation from a spreadsheet? It would be great to see if it actually looks right.
 
  • #95
haruspex said:
Are you able to create a video simulation from a spreadsheet? It would be great to see if it actually looks right.
it should be possible
 
  • #96
alex33 said:
There are some elements in play that I haven't told you about
Please tell us that it is not about a moon landing conspiracy theory.
 
  • #97
jbriggs444 said:
Please tell us that it is not about a moon landing conspiracy theory.
Thank goodness I'm not a proponent of any conspiracy theory! :bow:
 
  • #98
alex33 said:
With respect to the images, I wanted to tell you not to let yourself be influenced by the type of free fall curve we observe up to the impact of the front wheels, much less by the times recorded. There are some elements in play that I haven't told you about and will tell you about once we've defined the model.
Why do you think it is best to keep withholding information in this discussion? Is there a logical reason for doing this? The Mentors have been getting complaints about this behavior of yours in this thread.
 
  • #99
berkeman said:
Why do you think it is best to keep withholding information in this discussion? Is there a logical reason for doing this? The Mentors have been getting complaints about this behavior of yours in this thread.
Thanks for the question. It's not my intention to hide anything. I also have no more information than anyone searching the public data on this sequence can have. The problem is that I don't have the possibility to recover ALL the data NOW. Last and most importan, what I have raised is a purely theoretical problem (as I explained at the beginning): in my opinion it is incorrect that modeling is affected by data and measurements of weak value. This is an issue that has been debated on several occasions in this thread. The data obtained from the images are not completely reliable. Following the definition of the model we will try to do a statistical analysis to verify the model.

Anyone having problems with this process can suggest other solutions...
 
Last edited:
  • #100
haruspex said:
As a matter of course, I generally define length variables as half lengths of symmetric objects, otherwise fractions keep appearing in the algebra.
OK, I'll adapt my mind. But let's remember that in our case the half lengths are different because the centre of gravity is not "in the centre" of the axis.

haruspex said:
J/m is the impulse on the rear axle on landing, per unit mass. The impulse is normal to the ground.
Sorry but how do you calculate the impulse? Shouldn't it be I/m * Δt ? What is the Δt you used?

haruspex said:
These are the initial values of the velocity and position of the mass centre and the orientation at the start of the current free fall phase.
I was wondering... since one of the strongest data we have is the Rover's average speed BEFORE the dip enters, wouldn't it make more sense to start modeling from when the front wheels enter the hole? Is there an impact there too? How do it change the vertical speed? I think that only with these elements can we estimate the speed to use for the subsequent phases.

haruspex said:
As origin, I use the point halfway across the dip but at the surrounding ground level.
Ok, I'll use the same origin... I suppose Z0 will be the ground line.
 
Last edited:
  • #101
alex33 said:
how do you calculate the impulse?
We cannot know the impulse. Its magnitude depends on the elasticity of tyres and suspension, while the direction depends on the angle of the floor at that point.
alex33 said:
Shouldn't it be I/m * Δt ?
No, I define the impulse to be J (a vector, really, but I am assuming it acts normally to the presumed arc) , so the impulse per unit mass is J/m. That produces a velocity change ##\Delta v=J/m## at the mass centre, and a change to the angular momentum. We do not have to worry about how long it takes… take it as instantaneous.
alex33 said:
wouldn't it make more sense to start modeling from when the front wheels enter the hole? Is there an impact there too? How do it change the vertical speed?
Do we know how the motor responds in the four wheel drive? Quite possibly the vehicle will accelerate as the front wheels descend, but would likely have returned to its original speed as the front wheels exit.
 
  • #102
haruspex said:
Do we know how the motor responds in the four wheel drive?
We have these graphs... but I don't know if that's what we need, I don't know how to interpret them
Traction1.jpg

Traction2.jpg

Traction3.jpg

Traction4.jpg

Is it essential to know how the 4 tractions respond? For the ascent from the dip we didn't ask ourselves...

haruspex said:
No, I define the impulse to be J (a vector, really, but I am assuming it acts normally to the presumed arc)
Sorry, but it's not clear to me... You released a value of 0.68 for J/m, where does it come from? (bear with my shortsightedness please).
 
  • #103
alex33 said:
Is it essential to know how the 4 tractions respond?
It's probably more a question of how the driver responds to descending into the dip. Eases off the accelerator? Brakes?
But assuming the power is constant, it would accelerate down into the dip then decelerate, more or less equivalently, on the way up. I see nothing better than to assume it is back to its speed on the flat.
alex33 said:
You released a value of 0.68 for J/m, where does it come from?
As I wrote, we cannot know* what the value is. We know it has to be enough to stop the wheels penetrating the ground (a 'deadcat bounce') but not so much that the car gains KE.
* Unless you have data on the suspension and tyres?
 
  • #104
haruspex said:
We know it has to be enough to stop the wheels penetrating the ground (a 'deadcat bounce') but not so much that the car gains KE.
OK, so 0.68 is an estimate...
haruspex said:
But assuming the power is constant, it would accelerate down into the dip then decelerate, more or less equivalently, on the way up.
If we take the frames as a reference to calculate the time: the entry speed, a few moments before reaching the hole, is 2.61 m/s. After we have 18 frames to run across the arc (2.52 m/s). If we take the ground as a reference to mark the position of the chassis, the dip is covered in 23 frames (we are at 2.38 m/s). If it is not necessary to define equations for this part of the sequence we use for the moment an averagee of the last 2 values.
 
  • #105
alex33 said:
If we take the ground as a reference to mark the position of the chassis, the dip is covered in 23 frames (we are at 2.38 m/s).
Is that the horizontal speed?
 
  • #106
haruspex said:
* Unless you have data on the suspension and tyres?

suspensions.jpg


Furthermore I finded:
Vertical Damping rate 17.3 LB-Sec^2/FT^2
Horizontal Suspension Rate 51,000 LB/FT
Horizontal Suspension Damping rate 2420 LB/(FT/SEC)
Wheel Radial Spring Rate 400 LB/FT (0-1.5 IN)
680 LB/FT (1-5.3 IN)
7300 LB/FT (3IN)

Wheel Damping Rate 2,5 LB/(FT/SEC)

haruspex said:
Is that the horizontal speed?
yes. I have a doubt (maybe stupid) ... to calculate the horizontal speed in the dip, should I take the measurement of the arc or the one of the chord? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #107
alex33 said:
View attachment 326801

Furthermore I finded:
Vertical Damping rate 17.3 LB-Sec^2/FT^2
Horizontal Suspension Rate 51,000 LB/FT
Horizontal Suspension Damping rate 2420 LB/(FT/SEC)
Wheel Radial Spring Rate 400 LB/FT (0-1.5 IN)
680 LB/FT (1-5.3 IN)
7300 LB/FT (3IN)

Wheel Damping Rate 2,5 LB/(FT/SEC)yes. I have a doubt (maybe stupid) ... to calculate the horizontal speed in the dip, should I take the measurement of the arc or the one of the chord? :rolleyes:
I'll see what I can deduce from the damping rate.
For horizontal speed, yes, use the chord.
 
  • #108
haruspex said:
I'll see what I can deduce from the damping rate.
For horizontal speed, yes, use the chord.
SORRY... I had lost a data... there is one more...
VERTICAL SUSPENSION RATE 14 LB/IN (0-9 Inches)
500 LB/IN (< 0 or >9 IN)
SUSPENDED VEICLE MASS 1424 LBs
WHEEL MASS 24 LBs
 
  • #109
alex33 said:
Wheel Radial Spring Rate 400 LB/FT (0-1.5 IN)
680 LB/FT (1-5.3 IN)
7300 LB/FT (3IN)
I need the spring 'constant' for the suspension. The above look ok, but imply it is not constant over the range, which is a nuisance. And I do not understand how the last number fits in. How can it average 680 over 1 to 5.3 inches but be 7800 at 3 inches? Seems like a typo or two.
 
  • #110
haruspex said:
Seems like a typo or two.
suspensions2.jpg


I try to check if I find the constant .... but I'll check better tomorrow, now I'm about to fall off my chair because I'm sleepy

...nothing at the moment... sorry
 
Last edited:
  • #111
alex33 said:
View attachment 326803

I try to check if I find the constant .... but I'll check better tomorrow, now I'm about to fall off my chair because I'm sleepy

...nothing at the moment... sorry
Yes, typo in post #106:
alex33 said:
1-5.3 IN
should read 1.5-3 IN.
Another puzzle is the vertical suspension rate. If it means what I think, I believe this should be more than the wheel spring rate, but it is only 170lb/ft. Anyway, it's the wheel spring rate that I need.
 
  • #112
So, It's my fault in the trascription of the spring rate, due to late night work... Solved!
For vertical suspension rate I read also 500 LB/IN out of the range 0-9 IN.
Please tell me if I have to find others informations...
 
  • #113
alex33 said:
So, It's my fault in the trascription of the spring rate, due to late night work... Solved!
For vertical suspension rate I read also 500 LB/IN out of the range 0-9 IN.
Please tell me if I have to find others informations...
No, that'll do for now. I just have to figure out how to use it without painful algebra.
 
  • #114
Before starting the simulation of phase 2 (free fall), I ask you to confirm the starting data:

##V_0x = V = 2,52 m/s ## (Chord length / 18 frames ...I think it is the most reliable data)

##V_0z = \frac {1}{2}V* \tan(α)##

##ω_0 = \frac {1}{2L}V* \tan(α) - (\frac {3g*L}{h^2+4L^2}*4/24)##

##X_0c= \frac {chord-length}{2}-L##

##Z_0c = \frac {(ω_0 + \frac {1}{2L}V* \tan(α))}{2} * L * 4/24##

##θ_0 = \frac {V * \tan(α)}{2L}*4/24##

Thanks
 
Last edited:
  • #115
Hi,
haruspex said:
The position of the rear wheels is trickier.
xr=xc−Lcos⁡(θ)+hsin⁡(θ)
yr=yc−Lsin⁡(θ)−hcos⁡(θ)
Similarly the front wheels:
xf=xc+Lcos⁡(θ)+hsin⁡(θ)
yf=yc+Lsin⁡(θ)−hcos⁡(θ)
Setting the spreadsheet I realize that these expressions are a problem, I don't think they are correct: for example Yf gives a negative value, while Yc is positive. I think we should add h to Y0c and for the positions Yr and Yf subtract or add to Yc LSin(θ) without adding the third term of the expression. Same thing should be done with X... It shouldn't be necessary to add or subtract the Cartesian components of h to the wheels coordinate if we have correctly defined X0c and Y0c.

PS: (I'm still using the letter Z instead of Y for the vertical axis).
 
  • #116
TL;DR just started to skim this thread.
I would follow the Italian method in#1 and ignore all the formulae.

It all depends on speed and shock compression with stored energy how much it springs back with upstrokes falling down much faster than the downstroke with wheels moving up.

I imagine a half moon pothole big enough to drop the wheels and the body depend greatly on the horizontal and vertical speed, spring time constant, momentum, and a little wheel acceleration during the extra circumference travelled in the hole while the vehicle is at constant speed. That speed could make the difference from a wheelie to a damaged front tire or front end strut from the increase downward momentum and sharp edge while storing spring energy to increase the height of the wheelie.

To me it would look not much different than driving over a curb in terms of tire and front end impact starting from the bottom of the pothole. It would look like a step function input rather than a pulse of a curb so the angular momentum of the body is different. But the damage to the front end could be similar at different speeds. The step will reveal the damping factor of the suspension and % of overshoot aggravated by the upward thrust of the quarter pipe exit. .

I'll let you guys go back to your ##V_ot +\frac 1 2 at^2## where a=0 which doesn't begin to describe the angular momentum stored and released and compression on impact before the wheelie.
 
Last edited:
  • #117
alex33 said:
Yf gives a negative value, while Yc is positive
Yc should start at h, so I don't see how yf would be negative immediately. Are you saying it goes negative later?
 
  • #118
haruspex said:
Yc should start at h, so I don't see how yf would be negative immediately. Are you saying it goes negative later?
In fact it shouldn't be negative. In the formula that returns Z0c we have not taken into account h, so the point is a few centimeters above the ground line. In yf=yc+Lsin⁡(θ)−hcos⁡(θ) (as example) the third element of the expression is greater than the sum of the first 2, so already at t0 I get a negative value. I think we should add h to Z0c and leave only the first 2 terms in the wheel coordinates.
 
  • #119
TonyStewart said:
TL;DR just started to skim this thread.
I would follow the Italian method in#1 and ignore all the formulae.

It all depends on speed and shock compression with stored energy how much it springs back with upstrokes falling down much faster than the downstroke with wheels moving up.

I imagine a half moon pothole big enough to drop the wheels and the body depend greatly on the horizontal and vertical speed, spring time constant, momentum, and a little wheel acceleration during the extra circumference travelled in the hole while the vehicle is at constant speed. That speed could make the difference from a wheelie to a damaged front tire or front end strut from the increase downward momentum and sharp edge while storing spring energy to increase the height of the wheelie.

To me it would look not much different than driving over a curb in terms of tire and front end impact starting from the bottom of the pothole. It would look like a step function input rather than a pulse of a curb so the angular momentum of the body is different. But the damage to the front end could be similar at different speeds. The step will reveal the damping factor of the suspension and % of overshoot aggravated by the upward thrust of the quarter pipe exit. .

I'll let you guys go back to your ##V_ot +\frac 1 2 at^2## where a=0 which doesn't begin to describe the angular momentum stored and released and compression on impact before the wheelie.
Thanks Tony !
we went from theory to numbers just to verify the first proposed solution to the problem, with respect to a real event, but identifying the correct physical model is always the main objective of the question I asked in this thread. So thank you for your comments on which I and the other friends who have made themselves available will reflect for sure.
 
  • #120
alex33 said:
In the formula that returns Z0c we have not taken into account h,
Ah, yes, I see my mistake. In post #92 I omitted an "h+" at the start of the formula. It's in my spreadsheet, but I missed it.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K