xpensive wrote:Thoughts on static frcition vs dynamic such, JT?
Gawd, I love this thread.
xpensive wrote:Torque, engine or wheel-wise, is insignificant here, Scot. Power is force times speed, nothing else.
xpensive wrote:Torque, engine or wheel-wise, is insignificant here, Scot.Power is force times speed, nothing else.
Scotracer wrote:xpensive wrote:Thanx Scot, most eduacative graphs. One of my points is that applying 480 kW at zero speed would lead to infinite thrust.
So, what happens to all that power at zero-speed wheel-spin? Rather simple actually, power is still force times speed, but the speed is under such circumstances is the peripheral speed of the wheel itself.
"Friction" for dicsussion, dynamic such vs static, anyone?
Btw, thank you for giving space to old-fart thinking, Ciro.
I'm doing a little piece for this thread at the moment. With a CVT you really shouldn't get any wheelspin as a correctly designed one will be preset for the peak torque the back wheels can take under acceleration. I am instead doing a scenario where it's a conventional gearbox. I'm having to take a few liberties on the assumptions so bear with me. I should have it up later.
I think it's safe to assume that to keep the idea of 480kW @ 0m/s possible we have a clutch involved. I don't think even tyres of mu = 2.5 are quite ready for infinite thrust
xpensive wrote:Even if you have all the 700 kg on the rear wheels, that would still call for a mu of 1.89.
timbo wrote:xpensive wrote:Even if you have all the 700 kg on the rear wheels, that would still call for a mu of 1.89.
And what's the problem? Rubber sticks to asphalt and it does not follow Amontons' 2nd law. In wiki it is quoted that rubber on concrete has mu of 1.7 and F1 tyre heated to 100degC can easily produce higher value.
Users browsing this forum: astracrazy, Blanchimont, Gaara, Huntresa, lebesset, Phil, turbof1, zonk and 17 guests