Is there a formula for calculating the surface area of a ski's base? I would like to be able to compare ski sizes given their dimensions. For example, how would these two skis compare in terms of length feel relative to each other (assuming identical construction). a) 1086292,188cm b) 1057397, 186cm. Which would feel longer?
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Calculating surface area
Featured Stories
Recent Reviews

Great performance , tecnica design is outstanding

The Cyclic is now in its 4th season with the only change being the top sheet graphics each year. No reason to change this ski, it is nearly flawless. Wider tip with rocker, camber, and tail rocker...

NordDobeSpitfire Pro EDT. GODHELL !! This is another ONE. Smooth. Damp. Grip. NO Chatter At All. WarpDrive. Nice transition from slip to grip. BIG SWEET SPOT. These were also the...

This is my home resort so I admit, I'm biased. But, I have been skiing seriously at Sunrise since 2009. It's located in the White Mountains of eastern Arizona. The main towns in the area are...

The mountain was almost lost a few years back, but the rally was made and it seems on solid ground. A very relaxed atmosphere and a nice lodge. Excellent crowded weekend escape from Sunday...
Calculating surface area
post #2 of 13
6/22/01 at 12:11pm
 PhysicsMan
 Trader Feedback: 0
 offline
 2,492 Posts. Joined 7/2002
 Location: DC 'burbs
 Select All Posts By This User
There are various formulae for the area depending on what degree of accuracy you require, and how many width measurements you want to make in addition to the usual tipmidtail data.
First, estimate the contact length, LC. If you have the skis available, you can just put the two skis bottom to bottom, and measure the distance between the contact points. If you don't have the skis available to measure, you can estimate the contact length as the published (chord length) minus about 15 cm.
Next, you need some width data. Lets assume you don't have access to the skis and just have the usual three published widths.
To a very good approximation, you can approximate the load bearing area of the ski as the sum of the areas of three rectangles:
1) a tip region which is about LC/4 long by W_tip wide;
2) a middle region which is about LC/2 long by W_mid wide; and
3) a tail region which is about LC/4 long by W_tail wide.
Thus, the entire formula is:
A_total = LC * (W_tip/4 + W_mid/2 + W_tail/4)
This formula is of course approximate, but it should give you absolute area numbers good to a few percent, and, perhaps even more importantly, allow you to get relative areas of one ski vs another to a very high degree of precision.
Hope this helps,
PM
PS  I just noticed your last sentence: "...Which would feel longer.."
The load bearing area of a ski really is important only in powder. The load bearing area determines the pressure the ski exerts on the snow, and hence how much you will compress (ie, sink into) soft snow.
Other quantities such as polar moment of inertia, sidecut, flex and flex distribution, initial camber, etc. are much more important in determining how "turny" a given ski feels in all conditions (incl powder).
There are, of course, ways to estimate all of these quantities, but they all require measurements that most private individuals would not be able to make, and/or detailed data which unfortunately is not published.
<FONT size="1">
[This message has been edited by PhysicsMan (edited June 22, 2001).]</FONT>
First, estimate the contact length, LC. If you have the skis available, you can just put the two skis bottom to bottom, and measure the distance between the contact points. If you don't have the skis available to measure, you can estimate the contact length as the published (chord length) minus about 15 cm.
Next, you need some width data. Lets assume you don't have access to the skis and just have the usual three published widths.
To a very good approximation, you can approximate the load bearing area of the ski as the sum of the areas of three rectangles:
1) a tip region which is about LC/4 long by W_tip wide;
2) a middle region which is about LC/2 long by W_mid wide; and
3) a tail region which is about LC/4 long by W_tail wide.
Thus, the entire formula is:
A_total = LC * (W_tip/4 + W_mid/2 + W_tail/4)
This formula is of course approximate, but it should give you absolute area numbers good to a few percent, and, perhaps even more importantly, allow you to get relative areas of one ski vs another to a very high degree of precision.
Hope this helps,
PM
PS  I just noticed your last sentence: "...Which would feel longer.."
The load bearing area of a ski really is important only in powder. The load bearing area determines the pressure the ski exerts on the snow, and hence how much you will compress (ie, sink into) soft snow.
Other quantities such as polar moment of inertia, sidecut, flex and flex distribution, initial camber, etc. are much more important in determining how "turny" a given ski feels in all conditions (incl powder).
There are, of course, ways to estimate all of these quantities, but they all require measurements that most private individuals would not be able to make, and/or detailed data which unfortunately is not published.
<FONT size="1">
[This message has been edited by PhysicsMan (edited June 22, 2001).]</FONT>
post #3 of 13
6/22/01 at 12:35pm
 GeoffD
 Trader Feedback: 0
 offline
 478 Posts. Joined 6/2001
 Location: Killington, VT
 Select All Posts By This User
PhysicsMan writes:
> A_total = LC * (W_tip/4 + W_mid/2 + W_tail/4)
Gee. What a letdown. I was expecting somebody called PhyicsMan to define it as a parabola or some more complex curve and take the integral. We don't need no stinkin' linear interpolation. Issac Newton would be rolling in his grave!
> A_total = LC * (W_tip/4 + W_mid/2 + W_tail/4)
Gee. What a letdown. I was expecting somebody called PhyicsMan to define it as a parabola or some more complex curve and take the integral. We don't need no stinkin' linear interpolation. Issac Newton would be rolling in his grave!
post #4 of 13
6/22/01 at 12:47pm
 KevinH
 Trader Feedback: 0
 offline
 290 Posts. Joined 4/2001
 Location: Atlanta, GA
 Select All Posts By This User
post #5 of 13
6/22/01 at 12:56pm
 ti
 Trader Feedback: 0
 offline
 153 Posts. Joined 9/2000
 Location: slc, ut. usa
 Select All Posts By This User
get the fatter ski
trust me
trust me
post #6 of 13
6/22/01 at 2:21pm
 PhysicsMan
 Trader Feedback: 0
 offline
 2,492 Posts. Joined 7/2002
 Location: DC 'burbs
 Select All Posts By This User
GeoffD & KevinH:
LOL guys!!!
Hey  I subscribe to the KISS principle, and I'm sure you all know what that is <G>!
FWIW, a long time ago, I once calculated what the differences between the simple rectangular area approximation (given above), and formulae like the trapezoidal rule, fitting a circle, fitting a parabola, etc, and they all came out to within a few percent of each other.
Perhaps more important, if you use any one of the formulas, the fractional error in the absolute area is almost identical for all skis (eg, the estimate for all skis are around 2% low), so the use of any one formula, even if very simple, doesn't change the rank ordering of the skis by area, or even the ratio of areas between any two skis.
If I get around to it, I'll look up my old notes and post the other formulae.
PM
LOL guys!!!
Hey  I subscribe to the KISS principle, and I'm sure you all know what that is <G>!
FWIW, a long time ago, I once calculated what the differences between the simple rectangular area approximation (given above), and formulae like the trapezoidal rule, fitting a circle, fitting a parabola, etc, and they all came out to within a few percent of each other.
Perhaps more important, if you use any one of the formulas, the fractional error in the absolute area is almost identical for all skis (eg, the estimate for all skis are around 2% low), so the use of any one formula, even if very simple, doesn't change the rank ordering of the skis by area, or even the ratio of areas between any two skis.
If I get around to it, I'll look up my old notes and post the other formulae.
PM
post #7 of 13
6/22/01 at 3:02pm
 GeoffD
 Trader Feedback: 0
 offline
 478 Posts. Joined 6/2001
 Location: Killington, VT
 Select All Posts By This User
PhysicsMan sez:
> Perhaps more important, if you use any one of the formulas, the fractional
> error in the absolute area is almost identical for all skis (eg, the
> estimate for all skis are around 2% low), so the use of any one formula,
> even if very simple, doesn't change the rank ordering of the skis by
> area, or even the ratio of areas between any two skis.
What??? My life is wasted! Three semesters of calculus, differential equations, 3 semesters of physics, probability theory, numerical analysis, 'bout 20 DoubleE courses... all down the drain. I'm gonna go scrape the summer coat of wax off and sharpen up my XScreams and slash my wrists with 'em.
> Perhaps more important, if you use any one of the formulas, the fractional
> error in the absolute area is almost identical for all skis (eg, the
> estimate for all skis are around 2% low), so the use of any one formula,
> even if very simple, doesn't change the rank ordering of the skis by
> area, or even the ratio of areas between any two skis.
What??? My life is wasted! Three semesters of calculus, differential equations, 3 semesters of physics, probability theory, numerical analysis, 'bout 20 DoubleE courses... all down the drain. I'm gonna go scrape the summer coat of wax off and sharpen up my XScreams and slash my wrists with 'em.
post #8 of 13
6/22/01 at 3:14pm
 PhysicsMan
 Trader Feedback: 0
 offline
 2,492 Posts. Joined 7/2002
 Location: DC 'burbs
 Select All Posts By This User
Addendium to previous post:
I just looked up my notes.
For the assumptions I made in my rectangular approximation, the formula given before turns out to be identical to the Trapezoidal Rule for definite integrals (ie, straight line segments between the points). The reason is just because of the assumed way the ski got divided up  1/4, 1/2, and 1/4.
Simpson's Rule assumes a parabola fit to the three points (as suggested). The formula for that approximation is:
A_total = LC * (W_tip/6 + 2*W_mid/3 + W_tail/6)
For a big 200 cm powder ski (185 cm assumed contact length), and with a 12093110 side cut, the two formulae give areas of 1924 and 1853 cm^2, respectively. This is a difference of 3.6%.
For a more shapely ski, the error will be larger. For example, lets take a 170 cm (155 cm assumed contact length) with a 1056395 sidecut. The two formulae give: 1263 and 1166 cm^2 for a 7.6% difference.
Geeks rule!
PM
I just looked up my notes.
For the assumptions I made in my rectangular approximation, the formula given before turns out to be identical to the Trapezoidal Rule for definite integrals (ie, straight line segments between the points). The reason is just because of the assumed way the ski got divided up  1/4, 1/2, and 1/4.
Simpson's Rule assumes a parabola fit to the three points (as suggested). The formula for that approximation is:
A_total = LC * (W_tip/6 + 2*W_mid/3 + W_tail/6)
For a big 200 cm powder ski (185 cm assumed contact length), and with a 12093110 side cut, the two formulae give areas of 1924 and 1853 cm^2, respectively. This is a difference of 3.6%.
For a more shapely ski, the error will be larger. For example, lets take a 170 cm (155 cm assumed contact length) with a 1056395 sidecut. The two formulae give: 1263 and 1166 cm^2 for a 7.6% difference.
Geeks rule!
PM
post #9 of 13
6/22/01 at 3:19pm
 PhysicsMan
 Trader Feedback: 0
 offline
 2,492 Posts. Joined 7/2002
 Location: DC 'burbs
 Select All Posts By This User
Hey Geoff  Don't do that with your XScreams  the edges will start to rust!
Maybe you can derive some consolation out of the fact that not one person in a hundred will have any idea what we are talking about  WE ARE THE ELITE  well, maybe not  we're just the crazed.
PM
Maybe you can derive some consolation out of the fact that not one person in a hundred will have any idea what we are talking about  WE ARE THE ELITE  well, maybe not  we're just the crazed.
PM
post #10 of 13
6/22/01 at 3:25pm
 GeoffD
 Trader Feedback: 0
 offline
 478 Posts. Joined 6/2001
 Location: Killington, VT
 Select All Posts By This User
Quoth PhysicsMan:
> Simpson's Rule assumes a parabola fit to the three points
> (as suggested).
Wrongo Buckaroo. Simpson's rule says it's time to go get a beer. (Homer Simpson, that is). It's Friday. I'm outta here!
> Simpson's Rule assumes a parabola fit to the three points
> (as suggested).
Wrongo Buckaroo. Simpson's rule says it's time to go get a beer. (Homer Simpson, that is). It's Friday. I'm outta here!
post #11 of 13
6/22/01 at 3:49pm
 PhysicsMan
 Trader Feedback: 0
 offline
 2,492 Posts. Joined 7/2002
 Location: DC 'burbs
 Select All Posts By This User
DITTO!!!
post #12 of 13
6/23/01 at 7:01am
 wink
 Trader Feedback: 0
 offline
 894 Posts. Joined 11/1999
 Location: Franklin, MI USA
 Select All Posts By This User
TJazz there are a lot of variables other than caculating the base surface area of a ski.All those formulas on the other posts, while intriguing, frankly will only complicate your life, and who needs any more of that.
Both skis are the same length, with the biggest difference being the waist width. That wider ski is not going to perform as fast edge to edge on the groomed, but will you give you better flotation in the crud, gunk, and POW.
So where do you ski the most, what type of conditions do you like to ski in/or on, and what do you aspire to in your future skiing accomplishements ? Answering that, and this will help you decide which is best to demo.
Surface area calculations or OK for the ski makers, and very sophisticated racers, racing teams, and totally obsessive and compulisive personalities. I think one of the other posts mentioned something about "keeping it simple."
So here it is: "Try'em before you buy'em!"
You are your own best judge.<FONT size="1">
[This message has been edited by wink (edited June 23, 2001).]</FONT>
Both skis are the same length, with the biggest difference being the waist width. That wider ski is not going to perform as fast edge to edge on the groomed, but will you give you better flotation in the crud, gunk, and POW.
So where do you ski the most, what type of conditions do you like to ski in/or on, and what do you aspire to in your future skiing accomplishements ? Answering that, and this will help you decide which is best to demo.
Surface area calculations or OK for the ski makers, and very sophisticated racers, racing teams, and totally obsessive and compulisive personalities. I think one of the other posts mentioned something about "keeping it simple."
So here it is: "Try'em before you buy'em!"
You are your own best judge.<FONT size="1">
[This message has been edited by wink (edited June 23, 2001).]</FONT>
post #13 of 13
6/23/01 at 3:04pm
 PhysicsMan
 Trader Feedback: 0
 offline
 2,492 Posts. Joined 7/2002
 Location: DC 'burbs
 Select All Posts By This User
Wink  I couldn't have said it better myself!
Because its my job, I either remember, or can look up in a minute, almost any physics / engineering formula that I need. Nevertheless, even I don't use formulas to help me decide between skis.
To people who aren't ski designers, but have some engineering / physical sciences background, I think the best use of such formulas is simply that they can be a general guide to the behavior of skis.
For example, consider the formula for the polar moment of inertia of a long thin rod (like a ski). To a skier who is interested, all they really should get out of this formula is that if you increase the length of a ski by 10%, then your ability to twist the ski in air goes down by a lot because the mass has increased by somewhere around 10% AND the radius of gyration has probably also increased by about the same amount, etc. etc.
If you know what you are doing, use the formulas for trends, not for details. If you aren't familiar with using formulas, don't worry about it, they are not that important from the point of view of an end user.
I know it may sound like I'm finking out on all the other geeks of the world, but I come up with the same bottom line as Wink: Listen to other people, read mags, lurk the forumns, etc to come up with a short list for demo day, then try them yourself.
PM
Because its my job, I either remember, or can look up in a minute, almost any physics / engineering formula that I need. Nevertheless, even I don't use formulas to help me decide between skis.
To people who aren't ski designers, but have some engineering / physical sciences background, I think the best use of such formulas is simply that they can be a general guide to the behavior of skis.
For example, consider the formula for the polar moment of inertia of a long thin rod (like a ski). To a skier who is interested, all they really should get out of this formula is that if you increase the length of a ski by 10%, then your ability to twist the ski in air goes down by a lot because the mass has increased by somewhere around 10% AND the radius of gyration has probably also increased by about the same amount, etc. etc.
If you know what you are doing, use the formulas for trends, not for details. If you aren't familiar with using formulas, don't worry about it, they are not that important from the point of view of an end user.
I know it may sound like I'm finking out on all the other geeks of the world, but I come up with the same bottom line as Wink: Listen to other people, read mags, lurk the forumns, etc to come up with a short list for demo day, then try them yourself.
PM
Return Home
Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
 Calculating surface area
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Calculating surface area
Currently, there are 1916 Active Users
(146 Members and 1770 Guests)
Recent Discussions
 › Colorado  looking for a ski buddy. 6 minutes ago
 › 20162017 Four Corners (S.CO/AZ/NM) Weather Discussion 8 minutes ago
 › FS  Nordica El Capo Skis  185cm 17 minutes ago
 › Seeing the whole picture 20 minutes ago
 › What Should our FEET FEEL? 26 minutes ago
 › Ski Pole length question? along with decision on what ones to buy 26 minutes ago
 › Terrain Based Instruction for Beginners  Is it new? Why is it... 39 minutes ago
 › Volkl VWerks CODE UVO  how stiff? 1 hour, 1 minute ago
 › Anybody wearing hip protection 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
 › Ski Powder Highway 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
View: New Posts  All Discussions
Recent Reviews
 › Tecnica Diablo Race Pro 110 Ski Boot  Men's by CowTown
 › 2015 Head Cyclic 115 Ski by snokat
 › 2014 Nordica Dobermann SLR EVO Ski by gforce
 › Sunrise Park Resort by mitchsb
 › Black Mountain of Maine by Maineac
 › Camden Snow Bowl by Maineac
 › Mt. Abram Family Resort by Maineac
 › Shawnee Peak Ski Area by Maineac
 › Chepelare by Tom Tough
 › 2014 K2 AMP Charger Ski by Jhernon
View: More Reviews
New Articles
 › Park City 2.0
 › Forsake Sneakerboots  The Convergence of...
 › Feeder Hill Highlights  Snow Ridge Ski Area...
 › EpicSki Interview with James Niehues
 › 2017 Nordica Women's Santa Ana Skis
 › 2017 Nordica Men's Alpine Ski Collection
 › Head Joy Collection  Women's Skis Done...
 › 2016/17 MultiPass Options
 › Learn to Ski in Summer
 › 68 Days: A Story of Skiing's Life...
View: New Articles  All Articles
Home  Gear, Resorts & More  Forums  Articles  My Profile
About EpicSki  Join the Community  Follow us on Twitter!  Advertise
© 2016 EpicSki is powered by Fandom Lifestyle  FAQ  Support  Privacy/TOS  Site Map
About EpicSki  Join the Community  Follow us on Twitter!  Advertise
© 2016 EpicSki is powered by Fandom Lifestyle  FAQ  Support  Privacy/TOS  Site Map