Hard Science

[JAS]

How much actual “hard science” concerning waterski design/function actually exists? Does actual hydrodynamic testing actually take place? Seems that the history of waterski design is one of reverse engineering, modification, and testing, testing, testing.

[Than_Bogan]

My limited involvement suggests it's just like any other form of engineering: You apply as much science, insight, experience, and theory as you can, and then what really drives you forward is: 1) A systematic testing method to evaluate what you've done. 2) Rapid iteration.

 

With the results of each cycle, try to improve your theory and use it come up with the next thing you want to try.

 

To specifically address "hydrodynamic testing," if you mean in either a physical or software simulation, then I think that's not a productive direction -- at least not in the foreseeable future. The dynamics of slalom skiing are so effing complicated that you'd spend zillions of dollars trying to develop a useful test ... and fail. But actually make a ski, stick some people on it, and listen to their feedback, and THEN you'll learn something.

[Razorskier1]

Science is all hard

[DefectiveDave]

Regarding software simulation with computational physics, there's no economically viable method to accurately model the functionality of a water ski in anything but the most trivial scenarios (example: acceleration of a ski with a fixed angle and load). The required feature resolutions, time-scales, and domain sizes are just mind-boggling for explicit codes, even for the trivial scenarios.

 

Agreeing with @Than_Bogan, since most actions on a ski are highly dynamic and tightly coupled to what the skier does, I don't know that the results would be very meaningful.

[Horton]

I have dreamed of telemetry or data acquisition for years. None of the hardware I have seen has been even close to working for skiing.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

I'm certain the "hard science" and modeling could be done to a high degree of accuracy. I am even more certain the cost of developing such a model would exceed the gross annual sales of all slalom skis worldwide.

[DW]

We looked at doing some CFD for skis (and boats), and as noted, it is an extremely complex set of parameters to model what is happening. Just one example of the complexity is the fact of operation in compressible and non compressible fluid mediums at all times.

[AdamCord]

@DefectiveDave and @DW are spot on. I've also looked into this and as far as computer modeling or flow testing, it really is close to impossible. When I become a billionaire I'll look into it again...

 

That's not to mean that some of us aren't doing a fair bit of real science, though. The Scientific Method more accurately describes what we try to do: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

 

I think every ski company has their own version of this, some being more "science-y" than others.

[Ed_Johnson]

I have to commend and personally THANK both @AdamCord and @adamhcaldwell for all their innovative and creative advancements they have made and "SHARED" with all of us. They have done more to advance my skiing this year with such things as Locking Cuffs on my Hardshell, washers in the Fin Block, and all the on going technical discussions, including GUT. There Web-Site, https://www.denaliskis.com is a wealth of information.

 

Christmas is a time of Giving and Sharing, and the Adam's have certainly done that all year.

 

Once again, Thank You to the Adam's for all you have shared with us and I wish you both a very Merry Christmas and Happy Holiday Season !!!!!

 

 

 

[Adam Caldwell]

Wow, very kind words! Thank you @Ed_Johnson.

[ToddF]

Why don't we steal from yacht racing, they have more money and have undoubtedly done more hydrodynamic testing.

 

 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

That’s one of the things I have always liked about skiing that I believe really sets it apart from other sports - the degree that everyone eagerly shares their knowledge with others. Adam and Adam are another great example.

 

Yes ski design has always been, and largely still is, a black art, but new theories arise, get tested and confirmed (GUT), revised (almost every ski or idea out there) or trashed (coordinates and Leeskis). That’s how the sport evolves.

[eleeski]

@Bruce_Butterfield Any publicity is good!

 

And actually, wakeboarding can be more challenging than a right and left turn...

 

Eric

[DaveD]

Development of injection molding simulation software started over 30 years ago. There were a lot of really bad molds designed during that development. The injection molding process has a lot less variables than waterskiing. I can only imagine the pain and agony of developing that skiing model.

 

I'm just happy the ski manufacturers have evolved to the point they are cutting tools from CAD models.

 

[klindy]

@DaveD but as skiers we're still trying to measure fins with the jaws of a caliper and share the settings. :s

[Drago]

@klindy "measure"

[klindy]

exactly @Drago (pun seriously unintended!)