Characterisation of the Contact between Cross-Country Skis and Snow: On the Multi-Scale Interaction between Ski Geometry and Ski-Base Texture
, Gustav Hindér 1, Joakim Sandberg 1, Roland Larsson 1, Hans-Christer Holmberg 2 and Andreas Almqvist 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The abstract is too long.
I am afraid that I do not understand how the results supports the following conclusions:
(1) For adhesive friction, the ski-base texture is the deciding factor for the real contact area.
(2) The ski and the grind are both deciding factor for viscous friction.
(3) Abrasive friction: The ski-base texture is the deciding factor for average real contact pressure.
(4) Higher apparent pressure cause abrasive friction on the macro scale, i.e. compaction of the snow, but it does not affect the micro-ploughing component as much as the ski-base texture.
(5) Friction regime: The ski-base texture is the deciding factor for the minimum average interfacial separation, but the ski-camber profile could decrease risk of transitioning between the regimes by minimising the apparent contact area.
Comments:
It is not clear how the adhesive friction change with the real contact area, and the ski and the grind are both deciding factor for viscous friction is not clear.
Statements (3), (4) and (5) are not clear.
Needs improvement. Have numerous grammatical error.
Author Response
See the attached file for comments to all referees.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
see the attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
See the attached file for the response to all referees.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the manuscript, the ski–snow contact of four combinations of two pairs of skis and two different ski-base textures was considered. The authors presented their problem description, theoretical background, approaches to prepare models in a clear manner. The authors, also deliberately devise additional scenarios for various approaches. The structure of this manuscript is appropriate.
In reviewer's opinion, this manuscript addresses an interesting problem in active research areas and is suitable for publication. For the further improvement of the quality of the paper, following issues may be addressed:
The abstract is not an objective representation of the article. Background is too long. The main methods or treatments applied are not properly described. Summarize the article's main findings. Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum, so the current version of the abstract requires a significant revision.
line 129. Unit for Ra value is required.
line 172: Each acronym should be explained when first used.
line 274: Please add citation in the "Most of the available adhesive friction models [] ..."
How was the elastic modulus of the virtual snow determined?
Apparent pressure is given in different units in this article (kPa or kPa/m). This should be unified.
I have not found an explanation of how the nominal load value was determined.
The ‘References’ section is formatted according to the ‘strange’ style. It is suggested to check the ‘Instruction for authors’.
The 'Conclusions' section: It is suggested to add major quantitative conclusions.
The 'Conclusions' section: What are the practical implications of your numerical research?
Author Response
See the attached file for the response to all referees.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have improved the manuscript based on mu comments. The paper can be accepted for publication in its current form.
Reviewer 2 Report
Eqs. (9-11) should be written as in-line equations.
