Motocross: Physics of the Scrub

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bdub_24
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the physics of the "scrub" technique in motocross, specifically how it allows riders to achieve faster speeds over jumps compared to the upright approach. The key takeaway is that a flatter trajectory, as demonstrated through mathematical proof, results in reduced flight time and increased speed. Notably, James Stewart's technique emphasizes staying low and flat, which is crucial for maximizing speed. The relationship between jump height, angle, and forward velocity is mathematically represented by the equation Vforward = V0cos(α).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics principles, particularly projectile motion
  • Familiarity with motocross techniques, specifically the Bubba Scrub
  • Knowledge of mathematical proofs related to motion and trajectories
  • Awareness of the impact of jump height and angle on speed
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical principles behind projectile motion in sports
  • Explore advanced techniques in motocross, focusing on the Bubba Scrub
  • Study the physics of MotoGP racing and its relation to motocross techniques
  • Analyze the effects of trajectory angles on speed in various sports
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for motocross riders, coaches, sports physicists, and anyone interested in optimizing performance through advanced riding techniques.

bdub_24
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
Motocross: Physics of the "Scrub"

I was wondering why scrubbing over a jump proves to be faster than hitting the jump upright. James Stewart and many others have given poor, a likely false, explanations and some have provided logical explanations, but I wanted to see mathematical proof as to why it works.

I've attached a proof that I believe is pretty strong, but please check it out for yourself and let me know if there is anything wrong with it.

I was surprised to see in my example scenario the substantial difference in speed and time that comes from the technique.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    22.1 KB · Views: 934
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    16.2 KB · Views: 849
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    22.7 KB · Views: 815
Physics news on Phys.org
I am not sure what scrubbing means, it looks like it is flying over a flatter trajectory. Flatness determines how fast the flight ends: the flatter it is, the less time it takes. If two trajectories start and end at the same points, but one is flatter than another, then the flatter trajectory is faster. Unless I grossly misinterpret the meaning of "scrub", that's all there is to it.
 
bdub_24 said:
I was wondering why scrubbing over a jump proves to be faster than hitting the jump upright. James Stewart and many others have given poor, a likely false, explanations and some have provided logical explanations, but I wanted to see mathematical proof as to why it works.

I've attached a proof that I believe is pretty strong, but please check it out for yourself and let me know if there is anything wrong with it.

I was surprised to see in my example scenario the substantial difference in speed and time that comes from the technique.

I found that for scrubbing

Staying low and flat are the staples of Stewart’s technique, and when done correctly the Bubba Scrub is the fastest way to fly, bar none.

http://motocross.transworld.net/1000014563/photos/tuesday-tip-the-bubba-scrub/

As voko said, when you go higher, you need more time. Because if the speed of the motorcycle is the same in both cases, to jump higher you need to jump at greater angle and the forward speed will be less.

\mathtt{V_{forward}\ =\ \ V_{0}\cos{\alpha} }

Physik_Flugbahn_vs_Abwurfwinkel_en.gif







So you will be faster with scrubbing.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: RaulTheUCSCSlug

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
16K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
16K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K