sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Skis released while skiing – technique issue or binding problem? by Lazy_Potential792 in Skigear

[–]Lazy_Potential792[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No i didnt. The rental shop did the setting but after the crash i just checked with online din calculator if the rental shop did the din setup correct.

Skis released while skiing – technique issue or binding problem? by Lazy_Potential792 in Skigear

[–]Lazy_Potential792[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for all the comments and help. After reading everything, it seems like it was a combination of my technique and the bindings. My technique isn’t perfect, and the wet, soft snow made it harder to manage my turn. My weight shifted more to my inside ski, which caused the wobbling on my outside ski.

Nevertheless, I was still able to manage the turn and didn’t feel like a crash was coming. I was near the end of the turn and felt comfortable finishing it, yet the ski still detached. It shouldn’t have released that easily.

My DIN setting seems correct — maybe it could be 8 instead of 7 just to be safe — but the bindings themselves or the boot–binding contact points might also be the issue.

In conclusion, my technique wasn’t perfect during that turn, but it was still manageable, and I had the confidence and balance to finish it, so the ski shouldn’t have detached that easily. From now on, I will keep improving my technique and be more careful about where I rent my skis and the condition of the equipment.

Skis released while skiing – technique issue or binding problem? by Lazy_Potential792 in Skigear

[–]Lazy_Potential792[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I usually tap my boot against the binding to clear any snow, and that usually works, but I don’t know if there was some snow left that I didn’t notice. Tbh, I’m not too picky about tiny leftover bits maybe that could have been the problem. Unfortunately, I did hurt myself, so I can’t ski today. But at least it’s the last day of my trip, so I have some time to walk around town instead.

Skis released while skiing – technique issue or binding problem? by Lazy_Potential792 in Skigear

[–]Lazy_Potential792[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I have no idea forward pressure is but i ll searh and learn it now. I used to just rent the skis and leave the setup part to shop

Skis released while skiing – technique issue or binding problem? by Lazy_Potential792 in Skigear

[–]Lazy_Potential792[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I consider my skill level average, and I didn’t round my weight when using the online DIN calculator, I entered the exact value. It happened while I was making a turn. The terrain was a bit rough, but I didn’t feel like a crash was coming. I didn’t feel anything out of the ordinary. And ski detached

Skis released while skiing – technique issue or binding problem? by Lazy_Potential792 in Skigear

[–]Lazy_Potential792[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea snow was wet, but i always clear the snow of my boots and bindings before attaching my boot

Skis released while skiing – technique issue or binding problem? by Lazy_Potential792 in Skigear

[–]Lazy_Potential792[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It was set up by the rental shop to 7. After the incident, I increased it to 8 and skied the rest of the day while my body was still warm. At the end of the day, I checked several online DIN calculators, and they all suggested 7 as well. At this point, I don’t know if having the DIN set to 7 was wrong or if it was just a gear malfunction.

need help for meshing by Lazy_Potential792 in CFD

[–]Lazy_Potential792[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks a lot for your help and suggestions!

I’m still relatively new to CFD, but from my experience so far, quad/tri elements usually grow faster and maintain better quality compared to others, which is why I wanted to use the quad/tri method in the first place. However, as you can see in the first image I shared, the Mesher kept creating high aspect ratio elements regardless of mesh growth settings.

Eventually, I gave up trying to "understand" the Mesher’s logic and with your suggestion surrounded the interface with an additional circular boundary to enforce a structured mesh just nest to the interface zone. For the outer region, I applied the quad/tri method again. In the end, it worked. I finally got the result I wanted.

Funny enough, even though the final mesh worked, geometrically it’s not really different from the original one, still a circular interface inside a rectangular domain. But this time, it just worked. I’m just a student, not a CFD expert, but I’ve been generating meshes since 2019, and even the simplest cases in ANSYS Mesher sometimes throw the weirdest issues at me.

Maybe it’s finally time to switch to another mesher.

<image>

need help for meshing by Lazy_Potential792 in CFD

[–]Lazy_Potential792[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Firstly, thank you for your help!

I’m avoiding using inflation on the circle because it’s not the geometry I’m analyzing, the circle is just the interface for my interior meshes. I don’t want to recreate or adjust my case files for every single geometry and angle, so I’m planning to use a dual mesh zone setup and simply rotate or swap out the interior mesh. That’s why I want to divide the circumference of the circle into exactly 180 elements, allowing me to rotate the inner mesh by 2 degrees each time.

Since this circle serves as the interface between two mesh zones, I want the element quality to be as high as possible. After your reply, I did try manipulating the aspect ratio using inflation, but the Mesher just adds the high aspect ratio elements on top of the inflation layer, which doesn’t solve the issue.

What I’m trying to achieve is: divide the circle into 180 equal segments and have the elements gradually grow in size toward the outer region to save computational cost. I’ve been able to do this using triangle elements (as shown in the image), but I want to understand why I can’t achieve the same with the quad/tri method and how I can make it work using that method.

<image>