Physics HL

Internal Assesment

The Relation Between Temperature,

Grip, and Performance on Natural

Rubber Tires

Melih Kanatlar

9 pages
Introduction

I've been closely following motorsport for some time. While watching motorsport, I realized that teams

always kept a close eye on tire temperatures. Tire temperature plays a big part in motorsport as it can

affect the lap times of a driver. Although racing tires have many different materials and layers, the main

material is natural rubber which mostly contacts the surface. This made me curious as to the performance

of accelerating pure natural rubber tires when heated.

Temperature-Grip Relationship

My hypothesis was that heated natural rubber grips the asphalt-like surface better. This is said to be,

because heated rubber becomes sticky and in turn grips the asphalt better. Because the lack of a clean

asphalt surface to conduct my experimentation, I used a textured piece of wood. My parameter for the

grip between the surfaces were the friction coefficient between them.

Grip-Performance Relationship

The other hypothesis is that better grip between surfaces allowed for better performance. This meant

that as the tires heated up, their grip and in turn, their performance would increase. I measured the

performance with the time it took for the tire to travel along an inclined plane. My parameter for the

performance of the tire is how minimal time it takes for the tire to compelete the travel and how big the

average acceleration is.

Method

I used model tires that I coated with natural rubber, which closely resembles the structure of a real tire.

I used an inclined textured plate of wood to resemble asphalt and present the same force at every

measurement. I used a flat rubber sticked to a spare tire I had with the same mass in order to measure

the friction coefficient using an inclined textured plane and a protractor to measure the force. I used

Vernier’s PhotoGate sensors to measure the time it took for the tire to travel. I also used Vernier’s
temperature sensor to measure the temperature of the rubber. I used a bunsen burner to heat the tire and

took measurements with the sensor all around the tire to ensure even temperature all around the tire.

Figure 1: “Original tire I made and the friction coefficient tester being weighed”

Steps
First, I measured the friction coefficient at room temperature using the

inclined plane. I placed the flat piece of rubber(same weight as the original

tire) on the inclined plane until it started to slide. It took multiple tries to

correctly find the angle in which it was right on the edge of sliding. I then

measured the angle “β” to find the friction force(𝐹𝑓 ) which would be equal

to “𝑚 × 𝑔 × sin 𝛽”. We can then use this to get the friction coefficient(µ):
𝐹𝑓
“µ = ”. The friction coefficient will indicate how much the tire
𝑚×𝑔×cos 𝛽

can grip the textured wooden plane. I did this every time I heated the tire

to a different temperature.
Figure 2: Friction coefficient
contraption.
I placed one of the PhotoGate sensors on the top of the inclined plane and

the other on the bottom. I drew a line on the plane to keep track of where I’m releasing the tire. I used a

simple plastic plane to correctly and consistently release the tire. I took measurements with the tire at 3

different temperatures to observe a line of best fit.

Here’s what the contraption looked like:

 Figure 3: Performance test contraption.

Limitations

Because of the lack of equipment to precisely heat every part of the materials used, the measurements

in temperatures will be slightly inconsistent. The force acting on the tire is gravity, this is a difference

from the tires used in cars which the main force is centrifugal force from the drive shaft. This affects

how much grip plays a part in performance.

Prerequisite Measurements and Equations

The equation to obtain the friction force with the flat rubber on an inclined plane is:

𝐹𝑓 = 𝑚 × 𝑔 × sin 𝛽

Where m = mass, g = acceleration of free fall, and β = the maximum angle before the rubber slips. The

equation for the friction coefficient is:

𝐹𝑓
µ=
𝑅

Where R = the normal force. We know the normal force on an inclined plane is:

𝑅 = 𝑚 × 𝑔 × cos 𝛽

We can replace 𝐹𝑓 and 𝑅 with their equations to get:

𝑚 × 𝑔 × sin 𝛽
µ=
𝑚 × 𝑔 × cos 𝛽
which simplifies to:

sin 𝛽
µ=
cos 𝛽

I measured the mass of the tire and the test rubber object to be 32 grams, which is 0.032 kilograms.

The tire travels along a distance of 98.6cm on an incline of 5.5° for every trial. The force applied on an

inclined plane is 𝐹 = 𝑚 × 𝑔 × sin 𝛽. This means the tire had 𝐹 = 0.032 × 9.81 × sin 5.5 = 0.030𝑁 of

force applied to it(rounded to 3 significant figures).

It is possible to measure the average acceleration of the tire with

𝑎𝑡 2
𝑆 = 𝑢𝑡 ×
2

Considering that u = 0 and arranging the equation for acceleration, we can obtain:

2𝑆
𝑎=
𝑡2

I took 5 measurements for the travel time of the tire.

Room Temperature(22℃ Rubber Temperature)

With the natural rubber at 22℃, I recorded an angle of 27° between the plane and the ground for the flat

rubber. This means that it had a friction coefficient of:

sin 27
µ= = 0.510
cos 27

I recorded five measurements on the tire’s performance rounded to 3 significant figures:

0.903s

0.898s

0.897s

0.900s

0.895s
 Figure 4: 22℃ trial time results.

I didn’t consider more measurements as my current calculations were quite precise and it could be more

inconsistent as rubber cools off very quickly. The average of these times is 0.899 seconds(in 3 significant

figures).

The tire had an average acceleration of:

2 × 0.986
𝑎= = 2.44𝑚𝑠 −2
0.8992

These are the baseline characteristics of the tire.

43℃ Rubber Temperature

At 43℃ I measured an incline of 36° for the flat rubber. So the friction coefficient is:

sin 36
µ= = 0.727
cos 36

The times I recorded are:

0.899s

0.916s

0.912s

0.906s

0.916s

Figure 5: 43℃ trial time results.

Which averages to a time of 0.910 seconds. Therefore, the acceleration is:

2 × 0.986
𝑎= = 2.38𝑚𝑠 −2
0.9102

It is important to note that the grip between the surfaces has significantly improved. The friction

coefficient at 22℃ was 0.510 while it was 0.727 at 43℃.

0.727 − 0.510
× 100 = 29.8%
0.727
There was a 29.8% increase in grip between the surfaces.

However, performance seemed to decrease. The average acceleration is 2.38𝑚𝑠 −2 compared to the

2.44𝑚𝑠 −2 of 22℃ measurements. Furthermore, The time it took for the tire to travel was 0.899 seconds

which increased to 0.910 seconds at 43℃.

2.44 − 2.38 0.910 − 0.899

× 100 = 2.46% × 100 = 1.21%
2.44 0.910

This means a 2.45% decrease in acceleration and 1.21% increase in time.

80℃ Rubber Temperature

At 80℃ I expected a line to form between temperature and grip, However, I was surprised to see the

outcome. I measured the minimum friction angle to be 35 °. This is almost the same as the 40℃

measurement, even 1° less. The friction coefficient in this case is:

sin 35
µ= = 0.700
cos 35

The times I recorded are:

0.909s

0.914s

0.916s

0.927s

0.906s

Figure 6: 80℃ trial time results.

They average to a time of 0.914 seconds. With this data, the acceleration is:

2 × 0.986
𝑎= = 2.36𝑚𝑠 −2
0.9142
There wasn’t much difference in the grip between the surfaces. I recorded a friction coefficient of 0.700

compared to the 43℃ measurement of 0.727.

0.727 − 0.700
× 100 = 3.71%
0.727

There is only a 3.71% decrease in grip at 80℃.

The relation between acceleration and time experienced an even lesser effect.

2.38 − 2.36 0.914 − 0.910

× 100 = 0.840% × 100 = 0.438%
2.38 0.914

The difference in acceleration is as small as 0.840% and the difference in time is even lesser with

0.438%.

While the grip levels showed a slight decline, it can be the result of measurement uncertainty in the

experiment. The measurements at 80℃ can be regarded as almost identical to the measurements at 43℃.

Conclusion and Evaluation

In my investigation, I found 2 distinct relationships: one between temperature and grip, and one between

grip and performance. My initial hypotheses were that heated rubber grips textured surfaces better and

more grip between surfaces improved the performance of a tire. My averaged final measurements

including every temperature band look like this:

Temperatures 22°C 43°C 80°C

Friction

Coefficient 0.51 0.727 0.7

Acceleration 2.44 2.38 2.36

Time 0.899 0.91 0.914

Figure 7: Graph of all results compiled.

Here is a graph visualising the temperatures, friction coefficients in the investigation:

0.8

FRICTION COEFFICIENT (Μ)

0.75
0.7
0.727
0.65 0.7
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45 0.51
0.4
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
TEMPERATURE (°C)

Figure 8: Graph of friction coefficient and temperature through the trials.

While the measurement of 0.7 might be an outlier, it is evident that the grip levels trend higher as the

temperature increases. On the other hand, the graph visualizing the temperature and acceleration is

surprising:

2.6
2.55
2.5
ACCELERATION

2.45
2.4 2.44
2.35 2.38
2.36
2.3
2.25
2.2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
TEMPERATURE

Figure 9: Graph visualizing acceleration and temperature through the trials.

I was surprised to reach the conclusion that while heated rubber has better grip when heated, it had

minimal effect on the performance of the tire. Furthermore, a better grip affected the performance

negatively. There were two inconsistencies unanswered after my investigation.

The first problem is the inconsistent curve of the friction coefficient in relation to the temperature of the

rubber. While the friction coefficient increased considerably between 22℃ and 43℃, it had little effect

on the increase from 43℃ to 80℃. My hypothesis is that rubber was immidieatly activated when it was
heated from 22℃ to 43℃. On the other hand, it could be so that a much higher temperature is needed to

measure a further difference in its structure. That’s why it could’ve had little effect when heated from

43℃ to 80℃. However, I do not have the correct equipment or environment to test this hypothesis.

The other problem is the inverse relation I found between friction coefficient and performance. As the

tire got warmer, I observed that the performance dropped. My hypothesis for this problem is the

difference in force applied to the tire in the investigation which is different than the force applied to the

tire in cars. In the investigation, the force applied to the tire is gravity, an external force which is

“pushing” the tire along the inclined plane. On the other hand, the force applied by a car to the tire is a

centrifugal force coming from the drive shaft. This centrifugal force “spins” the tires to move them

forward rather than pushing them forward. This makes it crucial that tires grip the road as it moves so

that the whole centrifugal force of the drive shaft can be transferred into kinetic energy to move the tire.

In my investigation, the tire is not going forward because it is spinning, but it is rather spinning because

it is moving forward. This means the friction force we increased might work against the tire as it might

absorb the kinetic energy of the tire. Unfortunately, I couldn’t test this hypothesis either because of the

lack of equipment that could consistently introduce a specific amount of centrifugal force to the tire and

measure the results.

This investigation helped me understand the relationship between the temperature of natural rubber and

its friction coefficient and how it affects performance. As the temperature almost doubled, the friction

coefficient between the rubber and wood increased by 29.8%. On the other hand, the average

acceleration of the tire dropped by 2.46%. There was little ton o difference when the rubber was heated

to 80℃. There was only a 0.84% difference in acceleration and 0.438% difference in time.

I would like to try this investigation with real tires, a consistent method of heating, and a clean asphalt

surface. Not to forget a consistent method to introduce centrifugal force to the tire rather than an external

“pushing” force. With these equpiments, not only can I measure a consistent curve between temperature

and friction coefficient, I can also test my hypothesis on centrifugal force and external force.