• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

For Science!

I'm really not sure, I apologies for the lack of information, but I was literally told I had to go like an hour ago. I don't think anyone knows until we go tomorrow.


edit: What I've basically got so far is to make the wheel span (torque figure) as big as possible so the car doesn't have to do as much work to overcome friction / AR. This would also give better traction and so the car won't swerve as much going down the ramp..

Someone also told me to minimise angular Inertia but I'm not quite sure how I'm meant to do that..
 
Last edited:
Probably bit late now but the only material we can use is wood. ( apart from the wheels which have rubber tyres and have different sizes. )
One of the guys wants to make the front really heavy and smaller wheels, don't know if that would work though.
 
Need some help from some people if possible!

tomorrow we've got a silly house competition for Technology and I haven't done it as a qualification - and I was entered and I'm a bit lost! I thought I'd go anyway since I do Physics at A level and it might help.

Basically we're all given the same materials - and we have to create a car, it's then let go on a slope and the car that goes the furthest wins.
I was just going to ask what would be the best way to maximize the distance? I was probably going to do some working out, with simple projectiles, resolving components and kinetic energy. But I just don't know where to start.
Like for example, should I make it really light or heavy? Or any design features to let it pick up more speed? Useful equations? I'm going to assume the angle of the slope is 30 degrees.

I'd day that you have one real factor you can control here, and that is drag.

You're going to want to make it as streamlined as humanly possible, because air resistance is going to be the crucial factor. I would normally also say road drag, but as you say that the materials are being given to you, you probably won't be able to chose the type of wheels used. If the wheels have tires, pump them up as hard as possible. If there are four wheels, dump one and make a three wheeler, that will reduce road drag by 1/4.

Physics would tell us that mass will help here. The equation escapes me at the min (been 10 years since I did A-level mechanical maths and Physics), but it involves mass and gravity (you're only source of energy). So the heavier the better. So any spare materials, chuck 'em in.

Is it going to be piloted by anyone? If it is, pick the heaviest person, and get them lying down on their front, not sitting upright. If it isn't, think about making sure it stays in a straight line, if it just veers off to one side once it's let go, it'll be useless.

Probably bit late now but the only material we can use is wood. ( apart from the wheels which have rubber tyres and have different sizes. )
One of the guys wants to make the front really heavy and smaller wheels, don't know if that would work though.

Right. Feic might be able to help more with the physics side of the wheels. Using what I know from mountain biking, weight in the wheels = rotational weight which increases as they rotate. As you are looking to maximize weight, to get the most out of the gravitational forces acting upon the car, you might want to look at using the biggest (but thinnest) wheels. Any chance of filling the tires with concrete, or sand? Might be cheating though! Again, might need confirmation here that this is actually right.

Also bigger wheels will stay truer, and be less prone to uneven road surface (think about a shopping trolley going all over the place over chippings). Edit. this might contradict my 'fill the tires with concrete' bit, as that will make the car bounce all over the place. Also probably cheating, which is unfair. Still, get a good 60-70psi in those tires.

Further edit. If possible, you could also remove a little friction by sanding the tires smooth. The tires on my singlespeed bike are completely smooth in the centre and it rolls so well.
 
Last edited:
Probably bit late now but the only material we can use is wood. ( apart from the wheels which have rubber tyres and have different sizes. )
One of the guys wants to make the front really heavy and smaller wheels, don't know if that would work though.

Wittle a piece of wood down to a 1:25 scale Porsche 911 and that way you'll get points where it matters- with the ladies- and will be able to put that bad boy on display afterwards. That's how you get distance out of your project.
 
A 1:25 scale 911 will make him look like a 1:25 scale middle aged man with a bald head & mid life crisis.
 
I reject that premise as lies and stereotypes spewed by jealous non-Porsche owners. True, they've been making some terrible cars of late but that should not take away from some brilliant ones they've made to date.
 
larger wheels will give you greater distance per rotation, fewer rotations needed for the same distance will mean less friction on the axle which will mean less energy needed for those rotations resulting in more energy free for more rotations...get big light (but strong) wheels
 
i think any difference will become insignificant if it's for rolling down a slope compared with starting them turning on the flat</SPAN>
 
Not strictly true - I just conducted an experiment rolling 2 model Ferrari Testarossas down a 3ft slope simultaneously, 1 being a 1/18 scale and the other 1/24.
et tu:
WP_000553.jpg


Naturally the 1:18 scale car is heavier and also has larger, heavier wheels (in this case, 37mm dia on the 1:18 scale car and 24mm dia on the 1/24 car). The wheels however are of the same design so will balance and behave in a totally identical way (when allowing compensating for equivalent forces and ratios therein).

WP_000554.jpg


As both cars have the exact same aerodynamic properties and an equal force acting upon them (i.e. 1 x magnitude of gravity vs angle of decent), it is a fair test to decide "which is faster by virtue of a drag race".

Long story short, the 1:18 scale (red) Ferrari won the race in a time 25% quicker then the 1:24 car due to increased mass acting on gravitational forces. This is also despite the increased ram-air effect which in real terms should cause it to slow down - although at that scale and speed, it is negligible.

<iframe width="160" height="90" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7Uyrv2IOG74?list=PLF0CE9191D5DDFFDA&amp;hl=en_GB" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:
i was more meaning disproportionally big wheels to the size of the body rather than increasing everything</SPAN>
 
Well, TL:DR is "make it chuffing heavy if it's going down hill".
 
Thanks for the help everyone! We came second out of 10 which I was happy with, since 2 out of 7 in our group done nothing lol.
 
Got this in a text thought some of you might appreciate it lol:

Santa has about 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 967.7 visits per second.This is to say that for each Christian household with a good child, Santa has around 1/1000 of a second to park the sleigh, hop out, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left for him, get back up the chimney, jump into the sleigh and get on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 108 million stops is evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false, but will accept for the purposes of our calculations), we are now talking about 0.78 miles per household; a total trip of 75.5 million miles, not counting bathroom stops or breaks. This means Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second--3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man-made vehicle, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second, and a conventional reindeer can run (at best) 15 miles per hour. The payload of the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium sized Lego set (two pounds), the sleigh is carrying over 500 thousand tons, not counting Santa himself. On land, a conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that the "flying" reindeer could pull ten times the normal amount, the job can't be done with eight or even nine of them-Santa would need 360,000 of them. This increases the payload, not counting the weight of the sleigh, another 54,000 tons, or roughly seven times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth (the ship, not the monarch).600,000 tons travelling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance-this would heat up the reindeer in the same fashion as a spacecraft re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer would absorb 14.3 quintillion joules of energy per second each. In short, they would burst into flames almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them and creating deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team would be vaporised within 4.26 thousandths of a second, or right about the time Santa reached the fifth house on his trip.Not that it matters, however, since Santa, as a result of accelerating from a dead stop to 650 m.p.s. in .001 seconds, would be subjected to acceleration forces of 17,500 g's. A 250 pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of the sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force, instantly crushing his bones and organs and reducing him to a quivering blob of pink goo.So when you look at the facts we can only come to one conclusion about Santa... don't let children read this next sentence...Santa is one ****ing incredible *******!


[sorry for double post]
 
Top