because there is less friction between the tyre and the road because of the water in between
The answer depends on compared to what? Compared to driving at 50 km per hour, the braking (not breaking!) distance would be longer, compared to 200 km per hour it would be longer.
The total stopping distance includes the perception distance, reaction time and braking distance. The distance that your vehicle is traveling and then pressing on the brake after seeing a hazard, is the total stopping distance.
On dry pavement in the average car it will take 60 ft of thinking about it, & 180 ft of braking for a total of 240 ft. Double the braking distance on wet pavement for a total of 420 ft. On snow it is anyone's guess.
At 20 mph, the average thinking distance is around 20 feet, while the braking distance is approximately 20 feet as well. Therefore, the overall stopping distance for a vehicle traveling at 20 mph would be around 40 feet.
The stopping distance of a bus traveling at 20 mph typically consists of two components: reaction distance and braking distance. The reaction distance at this speed is about 20 feet, while the braking distance is approximately 25-30 feet. Therefore, the total stopping distance would be around 45-50 feet, depending on conditions such as road surface and bus weight.
The braking distance for an Audi A6 decelerating from 100 mph to 0 mph can vary based on factors such as road conditions, tire grip, and braking system efficiency. Generally, a rough estimate for a passenger vehicle is about 400 feet (or 120 meters) under optimal conditions. However, this distance can increase significantly in adverse conditions or with less effective braking systems. For precise calculations, specific vehicle data and conditions would be needed.
Tyre surface: If the tyre is new, it will have surface with depressions which will offer more friction compared to old tyre whose surface-depressions are worn out and it is more flat, so it offers less friction. Therefore, new tyre will have less stopping distance, as force of friction is more. Thinking distance is affected neither by friction between tyre and road, nor by friction between brake and tyre. If road has a wet surface, it has less friction so the vehicle will skid farther, and vice versa. The braking force, i.e, friction between tyre and brake is unaffected by road condition or tyre surface. Hence the distance the vehicle travels WHILE retarding due to "braking force", is not same as stopping distance, because even when the wheels are stopped rotating due to braking force, the car will skid a little distance- this total distance is the stopping distance.
A wet track would increase the braking distance of a go-kart due to reduced tire grip on the slippery surface. The water creates a layer between the tires and the track, leading to less friction and longer stopping distances. Additionally, the likelihood of skidding or hydroplaning increases, further complicating braking efficiency. Drivers may need to apply brakes earlier and more gently to maintain control.
Hi there! Assuming that the deceleration (or negative acceleration, if you will) is constant and the same in both cases, you can use a special kinematic formula to solve the problem. The formula follows: (final velocity)^2 = (initial velocity)^2 + [ 2 * (deceleration) * (braking distance) ] Rearranged to our needs the formula reads: braking distance = [1/2] * -(initial velocity)^2 / (deceleration) * this equation assumes that the final velocity is zero If the initial speed were doubled then the general formula would read: braking distance = 2 * -(initial velocity)^2 / (deceleration) NOTICE that the two equations are the exact same except for the leading coefficients. 1/2 is assocaited with the braking distance of the normal velocity while 2 is assocated with the breaking distance of the doubled velocity. Since 2 is four times larger than 1/2, this leads us to the conclusion that the breaking distance for an object traveling at double a certain velocity would be 4x greater than the breaking distance of the object moving at the "regular" velocity.
If you lived in a rainy climate you would have to only eat meat
If they were backing up, they would be going backwards... If they were braking, they wouldn't be going anywhere......
because you are determining whether distance is affected by the wheels, wheels would thus be the manipulated variable. I recommend using different wheel sizes or eeven hardness, but your best bet would be to test size.