 |
|

04-27-2012, 07:06 PM
|
|
NEAA Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Mesa
Posts: 236
|
|
Force, mass, & acceleration (sanity check)
vehicle mass: 1,500 kg
motor torque: 140 nm
low gear: 1.86:1
ring gear: 3.66:1
wheel radius: 0.33 meter
Neglecting all losses I calculate a rear axle torque (in low) of 953 nm.
With a 0.33 meter wheel radius I calculate a reaction force of 2,888 newtons.
Newtons law indicates that this contraption (neglecting losses & assuming 100% tire adhesion) would be capable of accelerating at 1.92 meters per second per second.
Assuming that 1 g is about 9.81 m/s/s that would indicate a maximum acceleration of about 0.196 gees. I rarely do this type of calculation and usually not in the metric system. How would this hypothetical vehicle drive? lead sled? rocket? Am I even close?
__________________
What this country needs is a good 10 dollar battery pack.
|

04-27-2012, 08:05 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southland New Zealand
Posts: 1,701
|
|
Re: Force, mass, & acceleration (sanity check)
Hi Kid
60Mph is about 30m/sec so 2m/s/s will give 0 - 60 in 15 seconds
Your "low gear" is 1.86 : 1 ? - sounds like quite a high low gear
|

04-27-2012, 08:11 PM
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 271
|
|
Re: Force, mass, & acceleration (sanity check)
1.92 meters/s^2 = 6.93 km/hr/sec
Under constant acceleration you could reach 95 km/hr (0-60 MPH) in 14 seconds. However without changing gears you would be at 5280 RPM. I know my motor will not have constant torque out past 2500 RPM.
|

04-27-2012, 09:01 PM
|
|
NEAA Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Mesa
Posts: 236
|
|
Re: Force, mass, & acceleration (sanity check)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey
1.92 meters/s^2 = 6.93 km/hr/sec
Under constant acceleration you could reach 95 km/hr (0-60 MPH) in 14 seconds. However without changing gears you would be at 5280 RPM. I know my motor will not have constant torque out past 2500 RPM.
|
If I used a Powerglide the torque converter, if used, would help. The maximum rpm recommended for the Kostov 13 is 4450 RPM. That would indicate that the governor should be adjusted to shift at about 50 MPH. Neglecting converter slip that would put the car at 94 MPH in high when the motor is at it's maximum recommended speed. The 140 nm figure came from their print. I've never seen a Kostov 13 used by any of our members so it's all bench racing at this point. I've got all the drag race parts for the TH700R4. Sounds like it would be a much better tranny choice once I weed out the mechanical fuse parts we're familiar with for the more modern automatic.
__________________
What this country needs is a good 10 dollar battery pack.
Last edited by coulombKid; 04-27-2012 at 09:24 PM.
|

04-27-2012, 10:42 PM
|
 |
Junior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 15
|
|
Re: Force, mass, & acceleration (sanity check)
I will do it in English units for reference.
Weight = 3307 lbs
Mass = 102.7 slugs
Torque = 103.3 ft-lbs
Tire Radius = 1.083 ft
Final Ratio = 6.8076:1
Force = Torque / Radius * Final Ratio
Force = 103.3 ft-lbs / 1.083 ft * 6.8076
Force = 649 lbs
Force = Mass * Acceleration
Acceleration = Force / Mass
Acceleration = 649 lbs / 102.7 Slugs
Acceleration = 6.32 ft/sec^2
Acceleration = 0.196 g
Velocity = Acceleration * time
Time = Velocity / Acceleration
Time = 88 ft-sec / 6.32
Time = 13.9 Seconds
This is all assuming constant torque of course.
|

04-28-2012, 02:51 AM
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Posts: 521
|
|
Re: Force, mass, & acceleration (sanity check)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nulluser
I will do it in English units for reference.
|
Not wanting to be pedantic, but we switched to the metric system decades ago. I thought slugs were those slimy creatures that eat my lettuce
Maybe you meant the Imperial system?
On topic: 0.2 g sounds a little undergeared to me. I've been aiming for 0.3 g minimum to cover odd situations such as steep hill starts and climbing ramps.
|

04-28-2012, 04:36 AM
|
 |
Spam Busting Admin
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 4,370
|
|
Re: Force, mass, & acceleration (sanity check)
I think we call it imperial, the Americans call it English, because we started it.
Metric is much easier to work with given SI units, which I think maybe French. 
Imperial is much more real world, at least for us older Brits.
|

04-28-2012, 07:31 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 30
|
|
Re: Force, mass, & acceleration (sanity check)
It is called the imperial system because it is a royal pain in the butt to use.
|

04-28-2012, 10:41 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: 42.596N 122.688W
Posts: 741
|
|
Re: Force, mass, & acceleration (sanity check)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bliksem
It is called the imperial system because it is a royal pain in the butt to use. 
|
Too true and the reason I switched from an engineering major.
|

04-28-2012, 10:45 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 76
|
|
Re: Force, mass, & acceleration (sanity check)
My car puts somewhere around 810 Nm to the wheels and weighs about 1125kg (with one person). My tires have about a .31m raduis, so this comes out to a theoretical low speed acceleration of 2.3 m/s2.
My car is very slow, and i'm going to put a larger motor in soon. However, it does start and drive up all of the hills in the area, of which there are many. It definitely does not go 0-60 in 15s because torque starts falling off around 25mph.
If you can get more torque or lower gearing, definitely do it. If not and you live in a flat area you are probably fine as long as you can accept very minimal performance. If you have hills, you will probably get tired of the slow starts pretty quickly, I know I did.
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|