I learned that rolling involves the coefficient of static friction unlike sliding that involves the coefficient of kinetic friction. It's known that the coefficient of static friction is always higher than the coefficient of kinetic friction. This should result in rolling to be more difficult than sliding as it involves higher frictional force, which is not the case in real life.
Could someone please help elaborate?
(Please simplify your answer and use algebra if necessary not calculus)
Edit Thanks for your answers, but I am lost indeed in those details you mentioned. Let me rephrase the question. Assume a single car tire on a horizontal surface in two situations not attached to anything: 1- It's rolling (µs is involved) 2- It's sliding (µk is involved) since Fsmax=µsN (where Fsmax is the maximum static friction and µs is the coefficient of static friction), Fk=µkN (where Fk is the kinetic friction and µk is the coefficient of kinetic friction), and µs > µk, I can assume that the tire will experience higher frictional force while rolling than while sliding. This conclusion is totally counterintuitive to me.
Additional Info: Please put my question in context with the following quote of my physics teacher. "If you lock your wheels driving down the road on dry concrete if they are sliding, or skidding, you will have less friction than if they are rolling. (µs > µk) This is in theory the idea of antilock breaking systems (ABS) in cars; they cause intermittent lockage of breaks to keep the wheeling rolling intermittently to prevent sliding and thus provide higher friction force (stoppage force) using μs instead of μk."