Will a car on ice have its maximum speed reduced?

AI Thread Summary
A car on ice, particularly in first gear, can struggle to reach its maximum speed due to the low static friction between the tires and the icy surface. The limited force that the car can apply results in rolling resistance quickly balancing out any acceleration, effectively capping the car's speed. This concept extends to even more slippery surfaces, where a very low coefficient of friction can further restrict the car's ability to gain speed. While air drag is a significant factor in real-world scenarios, the discussion emphasizes that static friction plays a crucial role in determining maximum velocity. Ultimately, the relationship between static friction and rolling resistance is key to understanding speed limitations in such conditions.
Omnirizon
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
suppose we have a car on ice stuck in first gear.

intuitively, I thought it should still be able attain maximum speed (in first gear) in a straight line, but it would take longer because it couldn't apply as much force before the force it applies is greater than the static friction between the car's tire and the icy surface.

however, after trying some calcs (I may be doing them wrong): it seems that the icy surface would limit the car's speed because rolling resistance will soon bring the small amount of force the car can apply to accelerate to a net total of zero.

that is, when the car attempts to apply force to accelerate, the current rolling resistance at a given velocity will reduce that force to zero. because force is limited by low static friction (the ice) it is unable to obtain the same velocity it could on something with greater static friction (like pavement).

is this correct? if not what am I doing wrong?



this is all assuming the car is stuck in first gear (I can't quite wrap my head around how higher gears would work, but it seems that they essentially 'store' inertia in another form different from the inertia in the car's tires).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The major force that limits a car's velocity is the air-drag force, and maintaining a specific velocity requires a balancing torque (force) at the drive wheels. The maximum torque at the drive wheels is limited by the coefficient of static friction (as you pointed out) of the wheels on the ice. (If the car had all-wheel drive, would the tire rolling resistance limit the maximum velocity?)
Bob S
 
This might be useful.
http://www.casc.on.ca/iceRacing.php"
You can Google 'ice racing' for a lot more hits.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Considering that with reasonable tires, the C of F on ice is about .3 and the acceleration rate of the average family car in top gear is rarely above that, the top speed of a car is going to be quite close to what it can attain on pavement. Not recommended as the stopping distance will be considerable. As a former ice-racer I can attest to that.

The salt flats can sometimes offer less traction than ice yet the cars running there certainly manage some pretty stout speeds.
 
Ok. Thanks for all your responses, they have been helpful, but are not quite getting at what I was asking.

I'm not interested in ice racing, nor the real coefficient of friction on ice. I also know that rolling resistance is very small for a car compared to air drag. I'm attempting to get at a conceptual point; namely that low C of F can actually limit the top speed of a car (which doesn't seem very intuitive to me, at first).

so let's suppose the car is stuck in first gear on something really slippery, even more slippery than ice. Also, the car is in a vacuum. This surface has a C of F of 0.0001.

is it the case that because the C of F limits the amount of force the car's wheels can apply to the surface, the rolling resistance (which will much sooner become equal to the force the car's wheels can apply) will act to limit the car's speed to a much lower speed than if the car was on dry pavement?

Please try to keep your responses in a simple conceptual space. Ice racing and salt flats have little to do with this question because those situations involve an array of other factors that render the conceptual point here much less important (namely, that they have gears to carry inertia and lessen the amount of torque actually applied at the wheels, and foils to press the car into the ground).
 
And what are you using for Crr (coefficient of rolling resistance) since you are using such a small number for Csf (coefficient of static friction)?

The essence is that if the static friction is higher for the drive wheels than the rolling resistance of the non-driven wheels, in the absence of any other forces (drag from air for instance) the vehicle will be able to continually accelerate until something limits that process, such as the max rpm of the engine or a cliff.

Different gears change the amount of torque available to accelerate the vehicle by trading torque for speed. You've probably noticed that your car goes faster but accelerates at a lower rate in higher gears. You can't have both at the same time!
 
Last edited:
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...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top