Seventy Versus One Hundred Revisited 


My latest posts can be found here: Previous blog posts:
Additionally, some earlier writings: 
Revisiting Seventy vs One HundredIn the post Seventy Versus One Hundred, we looked at the situation of two identical cars, one doing 70, the other doing 100, slamming on their brakes at exactly the same location to avoid an obstruction in the road. The slower car stops in time, the faster doesn't, and the question was to compute the speed at impact. The model we used there was that the two cars shed the same amount of energy in the distance they have, so we're assuming that energy is shed at a rate proportional to the distance travelled. But maybe the rate energy is shed is proportional to time, and not distance. What happens then? In the previous case the calculation was quite straight forward, so the answer came quickly, but this time it's less so, and we need to use the full power of the socalled "suvat" equations. Messy, yes, but it does serve to demonstrate the power of the general algebraic approach. To make the analysis easier, let's look at starting from stationary and adding energy at a constant rate. So the energy of the car will be $E(t)=ct$ for some constant $c$. That manifests itself as kinetic energy, so we have $\frac{1}{2}mv^2=ct$, so we get a formula for velocity as a function of time:
So for that distance of travel, how fast would it be going? That's easily obtained from Equation 3 and we get:
So with initial speeds of 70 and 100 (mph or kph, doesn't really matter) the speed at collision is about 87. Alternatively, with initial speeds of 30 and 40, the speed at collision is over 33. So if you're doing 40 in a 30 zone and something crops up at a distance where you could stop if travelling at the speed limit, by the time you hit it, you'll still be travelling faster than the limit. That's rather sobering. Comparing modelsSo which model is correct? The short answer is that we don't know. However, Chris Robbins (@Grallator on Twitter) suggests[4] that the force applied by the brake pads on the brake disc is going to be roughly constant, and so the work done, which in this case is the energy shed, is the force times the distance over which the force is applied. That means that the energy shed will be a function of the distance travelled, so the calculation done in Seventy Versus One Hundred would be correct. But sometimes the efficiency of the brakes varies under temperature, so in that case perhaps we need to look at how fast the brakes can radiate the energy, and so we're back to energy shed per time, as we've calculated here. Most likely it's a mixture of the two, but regardless, what's clear is that the stopping distance, and the speed at collision for these scenarios, is soberingly large. References and creditsAs always, I'm indebted to the input from and interactions with a few people. The problem was first mentioned to me by Ben Sparks[0], who has done a video[1] on this with Numberphile[2]. Here are some links:
Send us a comment ...

Quotation from Tim BernersLee 