I'd find a dry towel...A true man of science you are.
Unless you're female. (Just want to cover myself there.)
Upvote
0
I'd find a dry towel...A true man of science you are.
Unless you're female. (Just want to cover myself there.)
To determine whether tire rotation is responsible for slipperiness.
Chesterton said:Let me simplify. All other factors (velocity, weight, etc.) being equal, when the tires suddenly stop moving on a road, will the amount of friction be more, less or the same on a wet road compared to a dry one?
Your question seems to have developed wings because it bears very little resemblance to its original format.
What you are now asking is whether rolling resistance is responsible for reducing friction.
The answer is the friction is greater when compared to the kinetic friction of locked tyres.
Rolling resistance or rolling friction depends on static friction not kinetic friction.
Static friction is higher than kinetic friction since you need to overcome inertia to set the object in motion.
Actually, I assume that the locked tire is due to the driver applying the brakes forcefully.Agreed, far from original but I think the real problem is Chesterton seems to be assuming that the locked tire is due to the wetness of the road when in fact that is only part of the situation.
Friction between tire and road is decreased by the presence of water on the road due to water between the tire and the road and the shear in water layers. This is the case whether the tire is rolling or not and the main cause of "slipperiness" as we generally think of it.
I did not imply anything of the sort.You start your post by saying "Agreed", but then you contradict him on the point in question. He says the rolling is responsible for slipperiness...
Sorry, sjastro and I agree, we are trying to figure out how to explain it to you, especially considering that this thread started on a topic that had mostly different physics involved.Actually, I assume that the locked tire is due to the driver applying the brakes forcefully.
You start your post by saying "Agreed", but then you contradict him on the point in question. He says the rolling is responsible for slipperiness, you say:
No, you can't say "a" and agree with "not a" at the same time. I think you're confused. Just go back and read post #5 and then post #15 if you're interested in what was trying to be discussed. I think everything after is irrelevant.Sorry, sjastro and I agree, we are trying to figure out how to explain it to you, especially considering that this thread started on a topic that had mostly different physics involved.
The only person confused in this thread is yourself.No, you can't say "a" and agree with "not a" at the same time. I think you're confused. Just go back and read post #5 and then post #15 if you're interested in what was trying to be discussed. I think everything after is irrelevant.
This video makes the relationship between rolling resistance (friction) and hysteresis clearer.The other property is the viscoelastic nature of rubber.
Despite rubber being associated with elasticity there are many other materials that are more elastic such as metals.
Since rubber is not as elastic (=viscoelastic) a rotating tyre which undergoes compression and recovery results in hysteresis or energy loss.
This results in an uneven pressure distribution on the tyre which increases the rolling resistance and makes it safer to drive a car.
Curses! You're onto me! That's right, I was not merely raising a question about something that didn't seem correct. Oh, far from it! I am actually out to get you! I so badly wanted to undermine you with a red herring, you person I don't know from Adam. Your insecurity and paranoia are well-placed.The only person confused in this thread is yourself.
Your post #8 refers to post #5 as "a great answer" yet in post #15 you try to undermine post # 5 with a red herring fallacy.
Post # 5 is based on normal driving behavior where the driver has their foot on the accelerator pedal and the tyres are rotating, not driving the car as a sled as your red herring indicates.
Even so your red herring was addressed and put to rest and your subsequent responses have indeed been irrelevant.
Don't go there, Both of us have been trying to answer your OP honestly, The rest of the banter was a discussion of where you might be confused and where we might have been confused by your OP and follow-ups. I learned from sjastro, and hopefully he learned from me re recognizing you actual question. Ultimately we hope that you learned as well.Curses! You're onto me! That's right, I was not merely raising a question about something that didn't seem correct. Oh, far from it! I am actually out to get you! I so badly wanted to undermine you with a red herring, you person I don't know from Adam. Your insecurity and paranoia are well-placed.
To his credit I think he probably gave the right answer to the OP. I'm not 100% sure just because I don't know how that works on the level of microns. I didn't really have any follow-ups, it was just that one point he included in the answer, that I mentioned in response to someone else. Then he kept throwing equations and formulas and charts at me (along with little insulting digs implying I'm stupid) which were not relevant to the point.Don't go there, Both of us have been trying to answer your OP honestly, The rest of the banter was a discussion of where you might be confused and where we might have been confused by your OP and follow-ups. I learned from sjastro, and hopefully he learned from me re recognizing you actual question. Ultimately we hope that you learned as well.
Yes, he was correct and illustrative when we were discussing rags on the wall, but the change to tires on a wet road created confusion in that the limiting steps were different and even there, he demonstrated his knowledge well.To his credit I think he probably gave the right answer to the OP. I'm not 100% sure just because I don't know how that works on the level of microns. I didn't really have any follow-ups, it was just that one point he included in the answer, that I mentioned in response to someone else. Then he kept throwing equations and formulas and charts at me (along with little insulting digs implying I'm stupid) which were not relevant to the point.
This is unwarranted.Curses! You're onto me! That's right, I was not merely raising a question about something that didn't seem correct. Oh, far from it! I am actually out to get you! I so badly wanted to undermine you with a red herring, you person I don't know from Adam. Your insecurity and paranoia are well-placed.
Yes, he was correct and illustrative when we were discussing rags on the wall, but the change to tires on a wet road created confusion in that the limiting steps were different and even there, he demonstrated his knowledge well.
You are not stupid and asked a good question, but when you changed it to tires from a rag, while friction is still the answer, the generation of friction in the two cases at the level of discussion is different. The difference is not a reflection on you, but on our attempts to impart an understanding to you. Sorry if our attempts to impart understanding seem to you aggressive, but we both are trying to impart our understanding to your benefit.
No, it's warranted, and maybe overdue. I held my tongue during his condescending remarks. Then he tops it off with accusing me of trying to undermine him by raising a legitimate question. That's what people do in discussions.This is unwarranted.
I gave him a compliment, I told him he gave a great answer. And I gave him a Winner rating. You didn't give him a rating.@sjastro has done a fantastic job in describing the Physics involved. Compliments are deserved .. and certainly not goading.
At this point you are just JAQing. (just asking questions) You have been given a very significant explanation of friction re water in several disparate situations and your only answer is that we never answered your question yet at the same time, you have made no apparent effort to understand the answers you have been given.I didn't change it from a rag to tires. In the OP I merely gave an example of something that was slippery, although it was probably unnecessary to do so. I wish I hadn't. Then he volunteered info about tires.
You're still claiming that you and he explained it to me. Maybe I missed it. Will you please refer me to the post, or copy and paste, where it was explained that the high rotation rate of tires causes slipperiness on a wet road?
No, it's warranted, and maybe overdue. I held my tongue during his condescending remarks. Then he tops it off with accusing me of trying to undermine him by raising a legitimate question. That's what people do in discussions.
Who said anything about a high rotation rate causing slipperiness on a wet road?Will you please refer me to the post, or copy and paste, where it was explained that the high rotation rate of tires causes slipperiness on a wet road?