Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Forces of Skiing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Forces of Skiing

    Why not a thread on the basic forces of skiing, complete with some concise formulae? It has always seemed to me that terms in this regard (ski forces)seem to get used a lot but perhaps without a useful level of precision.
    I found this short little bit, which seems to offer, perhaps, a decent place to start.
    I'll start and hopefully others will follow. There's nothing here difficult to comprehend that requires any math mastery beyond a little Algebra , Trig and a few concepts relevant to Calculus.
    Ready, set:
    1) F=MA ..The overall force acting on a skier equals the product of the skiers mass and the rate of acceleration (ideally gravitational acceleration-- in freefall) ..It's key to understand that acceleration is a matter of the change in velocity and not simple "speed"..It's also key to understand that mass is not "weight"..



    Formulae to consider initially:
    • Now we can look at the individual terms:
      • m*A = inertial (body) forces
      • Ffriction = mu*m*g*cos(theta)
      • Fdrag = (Cd*Ap*rho*V^2)/2 - drag force, opposes gravity
      • Fgravity = m*g*sin(theta) - gravitational force

    And
    • The force Fgravity is the gravitational force. The inertial forces are zero if the skier is stopped or is moving at constant velocity. Ffriction and Fdrag are the frictional and drag forces. Both of these oppose gravity. The remaining terms are defined as
      • A - acceleration
      • Cd*Ap*rho - drag coefficient times frontal area times air density
      • g - gravitational acceleration
      • mu - dynamic friction coefficient
      • V - velocity



    • Balancing these forces gives the equation of motion:
      m*A = m*g*sin(theta) - mu*m*g*cos(theta) - (Cd*Ap*rho*V^2)/2and if we divide by mass, we get
      A = g*sin(theta) - mu*g*cos(theta) - (Cd*Ap*rho*V^2)/(2*m)The only term depending on mass is the last term, and mass appears in the denominator. That term opposes gravity because (Cd*Ap*rho*V^2/m) is not negative.
    • It should be pretty clear that the benefits (or lack thereof) of changing mass depend upon what happens to (Cd*Ap/m) as mass is scaled upwards. It is expected that the frontal area will increase for a more massive skier, but it seems likely that Cd*Ap increases more slowly than m. Therefore, a bigger skier is likely to go faster.
      A few important things in this analysis have been ignored:
      • A heavier skier will probably have more trouble turning, especially if the added weight doesn't take the form of muscle in the right places.
      • The friction at the ski/snow interface was treated as coulombic. The friction is generated in a film of meltwater in almost pure shear. So maybe the friction model is wrong, but this does not impact on the importance of mass.


    Last edited by Upenskier; 22 October 2014, 06:35 PM.

  • #2
    What I am curious about Ron is what forces you to keep re registering here.

    Comment


    • #3
      ??? Who is this "Ron" and why does he inspire such fear and loathing ? I am uninterested in responding to posts laden with ill-will, so this will be the single response you shall elicit from me barring an obvious improvement in your attitude. But perhaps you can take a positive turn and contribute some information regarding the equations of friction? If so, more power to you brother! If not, I am, in all likelihood, done with our, albeit brief, correspondence. This is the Welcome Wagon of a ski forum ? And you wonder why ski folks like me lurk for years ?
      Last edited by Upenskier; 22 October 2014, 06:59 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        So, Upenskier, what part of the "Upen" are you from? You know, that's what us "Upeners" call it, right?

        Comment


        • #5
          Well, for the single response I elect to dedicate to the likes of your mien brother, I would just say that WE (not "us") who attended Marquette (or even ventured over to Notre Dame) might think it no matter who skied Mt Bohemia from what distance!

          Ok, so no one is really interested in detail , just paranoia. I quit.Adios!
          Last edited by Upenskier; 22 October 2014, 07:34 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Upenskier View Post
            Well, for the single response I elect to dedicate to the likes of your mien brother, I would just say that WE (not "us") who attended Marquette (or even ventured over to Notre Dame) might think it no matter who skied Mt Bohemia from what distance!

            Ok, so no one is really interested in detail , just paranoia. I quit.Adios!
            Well Ron, Marquette (University) is in Milwaukee, WI. Nice try.

            Comment


            • #7
              And you were played..but that makes me no one .Google Maps ? "or even ventured to Notre Dame". How far to Marquette U, brother ?
              Last edited by Upenskier; 22 October 2014, 08:42 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Upenskier View Post
                And you were played..but that makes me no one .Google Maps ? "or even ventured to Notre Dame".. How far to Marquette , brother ?
                Sigh. Marquette is a town in the "Upen" and Notre Dame is in Indiana. What's you point Ron?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Why should I have to repeat this ? There's no claim of attending University other than at Marquette(University) and Notre Dame ! Reread! Enough already! BYE BYE! I even added a "ventured over to " to make this obvious and yet it went unobserved!

                  " Well, for the single response I elect to dedicate to the likes of your mien brother, I would just say that WE (not "us") who attended Marquette (or even ventured over to Notre Dame) might think it no matter who skied Mt Bohemia from what distance!"

                  We in the Catholic tradition very often refer to our universities simply by their names sans "university" , hence Notre Dame, Marquette, or Gonzaga
                  Last edited by Upenskier; 22 October 2014, 08:26 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Upenskier View Post
                    Why should I have to repeat this ? There's no claim of attending University other than at Marquette(University) and Notre Dame ! Reread! Enough already! BYE BYE! I even added a "ventured over to " to make this obvious and yet it went unobserved!

                    " Well, for the single response I elect to dedicate to the likes of your mien brother, I would just say that WE (not "us") who attended Marquette (or even ventured over to Notre Dame) might think it no matter who skied Mt Bohemia from what distance!"

                    We in the Catholic tradition very often refer to our universities simply by their name sans "university" , hence Notre Dame, Marquette, or Gonzaga
                    OK, I get it. You really ARE from the "Upen" (or whatever you guys call it)! My bad. Your logic is flawless.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I thought you went to Penn, as in Upen.

                      The primary forces of skiing are beer and bacon. And that other thing.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Look, You and I both know the downhill ski situation in the Upen ( I abbreviate as I choose, not as others dictate) so what ? Maybe you would be a much happier ski soul out west ? I suspect. I know I surely am. but let's not quibble but rather make an attempt to be ski friends!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Baaahb View Post
                          I thought you went to Penn, as in Upen.

                          The primary forces of skiing are beer and bacon. And that other thing.
                          Girls ?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Weed

                            567890

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Baaahb View Post
                              I thought you went to Penn, as in Upen.
                              Nope. It's Ron looking for attention:

                              Originally posted by Upenskier View Post
                              Greetings all ; this thread pushed me over and into the new (to me) world of ski forums !
                              Some very funny stuff here, but first a tad of info by way of presenting myself to this esteemed club: as you might guess from my username, I grew up and learned to ski ( don't laugh now!) in the Upper Penninsula , where there's fine XC and meadow skipping, but really (in contrast to so much of the luckier ski world) not so much by way of great downhill thrills.. Fast forward about 35 years, and there I am in E. Central Oregon living' the dream! I am so happy to have all the skiing opportunity I/ we do living in the Bend area -- mostly we ski around The Sisters and Bachelor but now and then we wander up to Mt Hood, especially in summer!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X