IA Golf Ball Drag Lab.

docx

“How does the drag coefficient affect the distance travelled by a golf ball?”

The research question asks, “How does drag coefficient affect the distance travelled by a golf
ball?” As an object travels from one place to the other (in earth’s atmosphere), it displaces air as
it moves. When the object does this, it experiences force acting against it, and that is called
“drag.” The object experiences more drag as its velocity is increased. Therefore, as an object
accelerates, its drag and velocity increases. My experiment deals with a golf ball, but the drag
coefficient is always taken into account in real world applications when designing cars, for
example. Car designers try to reduce drag coefficient in order to travel faster and improve
efficiency. My research question is worthy of investigation because of drag coefficient being
factored in, as this topic requires further, more in-depth investigation into projectile motions.
Also, as an avid golfer myself, I hope to better understand the physics of teeing off and maybe
improve my golf game.

In this experiment I am using the simulation found at http://phet.colorado.edu/sims/projectile-

motion/projectile-motion_en.html to model the effects of firing a golf ball out of a cannon. This
simulation is a simple projectile motion simulation but it allows us to factor in the drag coefficient
of the desired object being fired. I will be modifying the level of air resistance and examining
how this affects the distance the ball travels. The simulation allows for the launch angle, launch
velocity, mass and diameter of the object to be changed as well. My data collection should be
fairly accurate, probably with a few constant uncertainties and inaccuracies, as this is just a
simulation and a few trials would yield the same values. The simulation is based on theories of
projectile motion and drag coefficient, so a limitation would be that there are no real world
factors being taken into account. However, a big advantage with using a simulation is the level
of detail that I can get in my results. Also, it is just a simulation so I wouldn’t need to be aware of
safety precautions or environmental concerns for this experiment.

My hypothesis is that the greater the drag coefficient is made, the shorter the distance the golf
ball will travel. This is because of Newton’s second law of motion states that the acceleration of
a body is in the same direction and proportional to the force acting on it. This is shown in the
formula a = F / m. The drag coefficient affects the resistive force F acting on the ball. Since the
mass of the ball is always the same, the greater the F value, the greater the acceleration a. In
this case, since F is a resistive force, a is a negative acceleration and will slow the ball down. If
the magnitude of this negative acceleration is greater, the ball will slow down quicker and
therefore travel a shorter distance.

1
IA Golf Ball Drag Lab.docx

So here is my method. I will be using the simulation to fire the golf ball at an angle of 30o to the
horizontal and with an initial velocity of 20 m s-1. The mass of the golf ball is 0.046 kg and its
diameter is 0.043 m. I will start with a drag coefficient of 0.1 and increase it by increments of 0.1
until it reaches 1. I will then repeat this for launch angles of 45o, 60o and 75o. I will record my
results and then visually display the relationship between the drag coefficient and distance
travelled in graphs.

For this experiment my independent variable is the drag coefficient at each launch angle, and
my dependent variable is the distance travelled. The controlled variables are mass and diameter
of the golf ball, launch speed and launch angle. Since this is a simulation, I am not too worried
about other controlled variables like I would have been if this were a hands-on experiment, as
the simulation will not factor those in anyway.

Launch Angle (degrees) Drag Coefficient Distance Travelled ±0.05m

Raw Data Raw Data Raw Data

30 0.1 35.9
0.2 33.9
0.3 32.2
0.4 30.7
0.5 29.3
0.6 28.1
0.7 26.9
0.8 25.8
0.9 25.0
1.0 24.1
45 0.1 39.4
0.2 36.7
0.3 34.4
0.4 32.5
0.5 30.7
0.6 29.2
0.7 27.9
0.8 26.6
0.9 25.5
1.0 24.5

2
IA Golf Ball Drag Lab.docx

60 0.1 33.5
0.2 31.1
0.3 29.0
0.4 27.3
0.5 25.8
0.6 24.4
0.7 23.2
0.8 22.1
0.9 21.2
1.0 20.3
75 0.1 19.3
0.2 17.9
0.3 16.8
0.4 15.8
0.5 14.9
0.6 14.2
0.7 13.5
0.8 12.9
0.9 12.3
1.0 11.8

And now I process my raw data. To analyse the trends in the data, I had to represent it visually
through graphs. I made a graph for each launch angle, showing the effect of the drag coefficient
on the distance. The error bars on the graphs are too small to see.

3
IA Golf Ball Drag Lab.docx

4
IA Golf Ball Drag Lab.docx

Now, for my scientific analysis of the results. The graphs that I made confirmed that the drag
coefficient has a negative effect on the distance that the ball travelled. The launch angle
changed the overall range of distances, but the negative effect from the drag coefficient is
present in all four-launch angles. The “Drag coefficient vs. Distance travelled” graph is all 4
graphs put together, in order to see the relationship between the different angles of launch. This
graph clearly shows that the ball travels the furthest when it is launched at 45 degrees, followed
by the other launch angles. Also, there is a curve in the trend lines, which show that the

5
IA Golf Ball Drag Lab.docx

distances travelled decreases when drag coefficient is increased. This is because as the drag
coefficient is increased, the force acting on the ball against the direction of travel is increased
causing the ball to travel a smaller distance.

The first thing that I noticed about these graphs is that the relationship between the drag
coefficient and the distance travelled by the golf ball seems to be logarithmic and not linear as I
expected it to be. I was able to manipulate the graphs by taking the reciprocal value of the
distance travelled by the ball and plotting that against the drag coefficient to turn it into a linear
proportionality.

Here are the updated graphs that I made:

6
IA Golf Ball Drag Lab.docx

The updated graphs that I made show that the relationship between the drag coefficient and the
reciprocal of the distance travelled is linear. I decided to test the accuracy of the proportionality.

I did this by taking two points from the graph. If the relationship is proportional, y1/x1 will equal
y2/x2. To make my conclusion more accurate, I did this twice with different points for all four
graphs.

7
IA Golf Ball Drag Lab.docx

o o o o
Launch angle of 30 Launch angle of 45 Launch angle of 60 Launch angle of 75

0.0279/0.1 = 0.279 0.0254/0.1 = 0.254 0.0299/0.1 = 0.299 0.0518/0.1 = 0.518

0.0295/0.2 = 0.148 0.0272/0.2 = 0.136 0.0322/0.2 = 0.161 0.0559/0.2 = 0.280
0.0311/0.3 = 0.104 0.0291/0.3 = 0.0970 0.0345/0.3 = 0.115 0.0595/0.3 = 0.198
0.0326/0.4 = 0.0815 0.0307/0.4 = 0.0768 0.0366/0.4 = 0.0915 0.0633/0.4 = 0.158

For all four-launch angles, the ratio of y1/x1 to y2/x2 is not constant. It decreases as the drag
coefficient is increased. This shows that no proportionality constant exists in this relationship so
the two values are not directly proportional. However, a linear relationship does exist between
the drag coefficient and the reciprocal value of the distance that the ball travelled.

The following is my conclusion. At the beginning of this experiment, I hypothesized that with an
increase in the drag coefficient the distance that the golf ball travelled would decrease. Just as
predicted, the higher I made the drag coefficient in the simulation, the shorter the distance the
golf ball travelled. This is because the drag coefficient increases the force of air resistance
acting on the ball, meaning there are more molecules of air, which collide against the surface of
the golf ball as it travels through the air. These collisions make the ball lose kinetic energy,
which means that it decelerates a lot quicker than the higher the drag coefficient. This resistive
external force and its effect on the acceleration of the ball is described and modelled by
Newton’s second law of motion. Due to its quicker deceleration in both the vertical and
horizontal directions the ball can no longer fly as high or as long as it would otherwise be able
to. This lowers the distance travelled by the ball. I expected the relationship between the drag
coefficient and the distance travelled to be an inverse one which was linear. This was not the
case. The relationship was an inverse one but seemed to be logarithmic. I took the reciprocal
value of the distance and then plotted the drag coefficient against it. This new relationship did
turn out linear. I tested its proportionality and demonstrated that the two values were not
proportional. Despite this, I was able to confirm my main hypothesis that the drag coefficient
does negatively affect the distance that the golf ball travelled.

To evaluate my data I collected is quite accurate with limited uncertainties, therefore the data is
reliable. However, the limitations of the data lie within the simulation. Since the simulation is
based on theories, real world factors are not taken into account and therefore some of my data
could have been different if I were to do hands on experiment with the same topic of
investigation. If I were to expand on this investigation, I would look at how the velocity of the golf
ball affects the distance travelled, while having drag coefficient factored into the equation Even

8
IA Golf Ball Drag Lab.docx

though my current data gives me some knowledge that when velocity is increased, the drag
coefficient would increase as well, it is worthy of investigation as it would give me details as to
how much the velocity actually impacts the distance travelled.

Simulation link: http://phet.colorado.edu/sims/projectile-motion/projectile-motion_en.html

   

9
 IA Golf Ball Drag Lab.docx

“How does the drag coefficient affect the distance travelled by a golf ball?”

Personal
Exploration Analysis Evaluation Communication Total
Engagement
x/6 x/6 x/6 x/4 x/24
x/2

Highlight  the  descriptor  indicators  (the  bulleted  items)  that  best  describe  the  investigation  you  are  assessing.  Then,  
using  the  best-­‐fit  method  of  assessment,  determine  the  overall  mark  level  (whole  numbers  only)  for  each  criterion.  

Personal Engagement
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student engages with the exploration and makes it their
own. Personal engagement may be recognized in different attributes and skills. These could include
addressing personal interests or showing evidence of independent thinking, creativity or initiative in the
designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.

Mark Descriptor

0 The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1 The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is limited with little
independent thinking, initiative or creativity.
• The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under
investigation does not demonstrate personal significance, interest or curiosity.
• There is little evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing,
implementation or presentation of the investigation.
2 The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is clear with significant
independent thinking, initiative or creativity.
• The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under
investigation demonstrates personal significance, interest or curiosity.
• There is evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing,
implementation or presentation of the investigation.
Moderator’s Moderator’s Comment
Award Choosing Research Question:
Design, Implementation, Presentation:

2/2:
- The student efficiently develops his problem question and establishes very early in the beginning of
his work.
- It is well organized as it explains what you are going to do in the first paragraph, in addition to
mentioning the fact that you practice golf in your daily life and use the results as practice to
personally improve in the sport, it also shows with interest how The theme and experiment is used
day by day on a daily basis.

10
 IA Golf Ball Drag Lab.docx

Exploration
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student establishes the scientific context for the work,
states a clear and focused research question and uses concepts and techniques appropriate to Diploma
level. Where appropriate, this criterion also assesses awareness of safety, environmental, and ethical
considerations.

Mark Descriptor

0 The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

1-2 • The topic of the investigation is identified and a research question of some relevance is
stated but it is not focussed.
• The background information provided for the investigation is superficial or of limited
relevance and does not aid the understanding of the context of the investigation.
• The methodology of the investigation is only appropriate to address the research
question to a very limited extent since it takes into consideration few of the significant
factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data.  
• The report shows evidence of limited awareness of the significant safety, ethical or
environmental issues that are relevant to the methodology of the investigation *  
3-4 • The topic of the investigation is identified and a relevant but not fully focused research
question is described.
• The background information provided for the investigation is mainly appropriate and
relevant and aids the understanding of the context of the investigation.
• The methodology of the investigation is mainly appropriate to address the research
question but has limitations since it takes into consideration only some of the significant
factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data.
• The report shows evidence of some awareness of the significant safety, ethical or
environmental issues that are relevant to the methodology of the investigation*.
5-6 • The topic of the investigation is identified and a relevant and fully focused research
question is clearly described.
• The background information provided for the investigation is entirely appropriate and
relevant and enhances the understanding of the context of the investigation.
• The methodology of the investigation is highly appropriate to address the research
question because it takes into consideration all, or nearly all, of the significant factors
that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data.
• The report shows evidence of full awareness of the significant safety, ethical or
environmental issues that are relevant to the methodology of the investigation.
Moderator’s Moderator’s Comment
Award Focus of Topic and Research Question:
Background Information:
Methodology:
Safety, Ethical, Environmental:

4/6:
- The student identifies well but not entirely the subject of his experiment and is very explicit in his problem
question.
-The introduction he establishes is very appropriate and says what is necessary to fully understand his
experiment.
-The methodology explains it very well and despite being a simulation it makes very clear the limitations of
your experiment, as well as its benefits.
-At your experiment being a simulation those elements are not necessary to take them into account, but it
would be good to put it so theoretically. 11
 IA Golf Ball Drag Lab.docx

Analysis

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence that the student has
selected, recorded, processed and interpreted the data in ways that are relevant to the research
question and can support a conclusion.

Mark Descriptor
0 The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1-2 • The report includes insufficient relevant raw data to support a valid conclusion to
the research question.
• Some basic data processing is carried out but is either too inaccurate or too
insufficient to lead to a valid conclusion.
• The report shows evidence of little consideration of the impact of measurement
uncertainty on the analysis.
• The processed data is incorrectly or insufficiently interpreted so that the conclusion is
invalid or very incomplete.
3-4 • The report includes relevant but incomplete quantitative and qualitative raw data that
could support a simple or partially valid conclusion to the research question.
• Appropriate and sufficient data processing is carried out that could lead to a broadly
valid conclusion but there are significant inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the
processing.
• The report shows evidence of some consideration of the impact of measurement
uncertainty on the analysis
• The processed data is interpreted so that a broadly valid but incomplete or limited
conclusion to the research question can be deduced.
5-6 • The report includes sufficient relevant quantitative and qualitative raw data that could
support a detailed and valid conclusion to the research question.
• Appropriate and sufficient data processing is carried out with the accuracy required
to enable a conclusion to the research question to be drawn that is fully consistent
with the experimental data.
• The report shows evidence of full and appropriate consideration of the impact of
measurement uncertainty on the analysis
• The processed data is correctly interpreted so that a completely valid and detailed
conclusion to the research question can be deduced.
Moderator’s Moderator’s Comment
Award Raw Data:
Data Processing:
Consideration of Measurement Uncertainties:
Interpretation of Processed Data:

5/6:
- The experiment shows enough raw data to make the graphs in the results part, they are also well
organized with the variables established in the introduction and easy to understand.
- The process of the results is well organized, although there was a disorder in the last graph with the
angle of 75, which I think should go before showing the graph of the relationship with all the data. It shows
extra data that give a better understanding of the experiment and elements for the conclusion.
12
- After giving the results, some of the errors are mentioned, but it is not clear until the end of the
conclusion, where he states that his experiment being a simulation does not have many errors.
- Interprets the results very well, in addition to mentioning the different things he did as he shows them.
 IA Golf Ball Drag Lab.docx

Evaluation
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence of evaluation of the
investigation and the results with regard to the research question and the accepted scientific context.

Mark Descriptor

0 The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

1-2 • A conclusion is outlined which is not relevant to the research question or is not supported
by the data presented.
• The conclusion makes superficial comparison to the accepted scientific context.
• Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and
sources of error, are outlined but are restricted to an account of the practical or
procedural issues faced.
• The student has outlined very few realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement
and extension of the investigation.
3-4 • A conclusion is described which is relevant to the research question and supported by
the data presented.
• A conclusion is described which makes some relevant comparison to the accepted
scientific context.
• Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and
sources of error, are described and provide evidence of some awareness of the
methodological issues* involved in establishing the conclusion.
• The student has described some realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement
and extension of the investigation.
5-6 • A detailed conclusion is described and justified which is entirely relevant to the research
question and fully supported by the data presented.
• A conclusion is correctly described and justified through relevant comparison to the
accepted scientific context.
• Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and
sources of error, are discussed and provide evidence of a clear understanding of the
methodological issues involved in establishing the conclusion.
• The student has discussed realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and
extension of the investigation.
Moderator’s Moderator’s Comment
Award Relevance to Research Question and Data:
Comparison to Scientific Context:
Strengths and Weaknesses:
Improvements and Extensions:

EV language updated 24 September 2014

5/6:
- The conclusion is good, describe the topic well and answer your problem question
effectively.
-It makes a comparison not so deep on the scientific context but the intention of the
experiment is understood, and it gives an explanation as to why of its results.
- Talk about the fact that it is a simulation and how this factor has different pros and cons
but in general it shows the weaknesses of its experiment.
-It is very realistic and proper to the topic you are talking about, as well as suggesting the
things you should improve, as well as a previous investigation of the subject.
13
IA Golf Ball Drag Lab.docx

Communication
This criterion assesses whether the investigation is presented and reported in a way that supports
effective communication of the focus, process and outcomes.

Mark Descriptor
0 The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1-2 The presentation of the investigation is unclear, making it difficult to understand the
focus, process and outcomes.
• The report is not well structured and is unclear: The necessary information on focus,
process and outcomes is missing or is presented in an incoherent or disorganized way.
• The understanding of the focus, process and outcomes of the investigation is obscured
by the presence of inappropriate or irrelevant information.
• There are many errors in the use of subject specific terminology and conventions*.

3-4 The presentation of the investigation is clear. Any errors do not hamper
understanding of the focus, process and outcomes.
• The report is well structured and clear: the necessary information on focus, process and
outcomes is present and presented in a coherent way.
• The report is relevant and concise thereby facilitating a ready understanding of the
focus, process and outcomes of the investigation.
• The use of subject specific terminology and conventions is appropriate and correct. Any
errors do not hamper understanding.

Moderator’s Moderator’s Comment

Award Structure and Clarity:
Relevance and Conciseness:
Physics Terminology and Conventions:

3/4:
- The investigation of the subject is clear from the beginning, the order in which he
 
did it was good, although he had some errors like the one in the table. It focuses on a
theme and does not leave it.
- The objective of the experiment is well understood, I also think that it uses a simple
and considerate language, without being informal
- I do not find errors in his research regarding the subject, and I still do not know
much about that subject, he is a student explaining everything he does and why he
does it.

14