The Contribution of Ski Poles to Aerodynamic Drag in Alpine Skiing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was designed to determine the contribution of the cross-sectional area of the ski poles (Sp) to the total aerodynamic drag during alpine skiing. At three different wind speeds in a wind tunnel, 10 skiers assumed typical alpine skiing postures (high, middle, and tuck), and their frontal aerodynamic drag was assessed with a force plate and their cross-sectional area, along with that of their ski poles, determined by interactive image segmentation. The data collected were utilized to examine intra-subject variation in Sp, the effects of Sp on the coefficient of aerodynamic drag (Cd), and the product of Cd and total cross-sectional area (Cd∙S. The major findings were as follows: (i) Sp ranged from 0.0067 (tuck position) to 0.0262 m2 (middle position), contributing 2.2–4.8% of the total cross-sectional area, respectively; (ii) Sp was dependent on wind speed in the high and middle positions; (iii) intra-subject variations ranged from 0.0018 m2 (27.6%) in the tuck position to 0.0072 m2 (30.5%) in the high position; (iv) Sp exerted a likely effect on Cd and Cd∙S. The extensive intra- and inter-skier variability in Sp can account for as much as ~5% of the total frontal cross-sectional area and future investigations on how elite skiers optimize their positioning of the poles in a manner that reduces aerodynamic drag are warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".