 Poster: A snowHead
|
veeeight,
| Quote: |
| I'm off to carve some non diverging nor converging lines. Which apparently is impossible without making my inner ski carve a tighter radius. |
At last you admit you're wrong. And you didn't answer my question about those arcs being parallel. You couldn't answer without proving yourself wrong or looking really thick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
PJSki, please feel free to bang your head against a brick wall until you are dead.
As if I care. I will not trouble this thread again. (Because I'm laughing so much I can't do anything else  .)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Quote: |
| 2. Never underestimate an athlete's ability to feel and move minute amounts in their lower joints - microscopic amounts of movement and feelings are possible (for those that dispute whether it's possible to self detect pivoting/steering/clean edges) |
| Quote: |
The necessary adjustments are small enough to be almost imperceptible. But they exist.
|
V8 do you agree or disagree with Martin's statement above? does it not sound exactly the same as your quote 2.?
you are ducking answering questions which if you can agree to puts a line under this whole argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
BTW I am I really seeing a middle grade ski instructor argue the toss with an ex world cup racer about technique on this thread? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Kramer, well the middle grade ski instructor has spunk and has done most of the tossing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
skimottaret, I answered it on page 18:
| Quote: |
| When I mentioned ability to feel and move in microscopic amounts earlier it was in the context that the athletes we gave tasks to were adamant when they were fudging, and when they were not |
In other words, they can tell exactly when a rotary element is being introduced, and when a lateral element is being introduced. As you may well know, a razor sharp pair of stiff GS skis does NOT want to be pivoted once on edge on hardpack. In this instance all the athletes that the tasks were given were adamant that no rotary/pivot element was being utilised. One of the tasks was, of course, to ask them to minutely fudge the tracks, and when this was achieved (after much difficulty with aforementioned skis) - the pencil thin tracks blurred - so quite demonstrable when there was fudging, and when there was no fudging.
After all, I'm sure you can feel when the texture of the snow changes under your feet? (can't you?)
This whole argument will never be resolved, but on the other hand, like maggi says, it is quite fun to watch.
PJSki, I have not admitted anything, especially not that I am wrong about my initial assertions. But do try to keep it less personal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
veeeight, okay i will cease trying to make peace  If you still believe you can turn on or off these miniscule adjustments when skiing, robotically ensure perfect shin angles, tip lead etc and still carve perfect parallel curves there is no point me arguing any further, ill give up as well like most others have already done. you can troll along if you wish... all you had to say was yes there are little adjustments going on all the time to ensure we obey the laws of geometry.
Your athletes may be "adament" that they know exactly when they are inducing fudges of 1 or 2 degrees in shin angle, inducing miniscule amounts of rotational torque, when their shovels bend just a little differently between skis, or, even that their carves are 100 % pure, but they are kidding themselves, just as you are kidding yourself believing it in order to support your views...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| veeeight wrote: |
!
They probably believe that when you carve a 360 degree turn in the snow, it forms a circle!!!!
|
The circle, and most turns for that matter, are not perfectly consistent shaped arcs. The result is, yes, the radius and center point often change repeatedly along the course of a turn. This is an important thing to focus on, because we do in fact have control over those changes. It is possible for us to shape a turn how ever we desire, via edge angle and the amount and timing of the steering force we apply to our skis. This is such an valuable skill to learn. Refining the ability to do this allows a skier to take total control of their skiing and the mountain. It allows you to flow down any piste with powerful grace and elegance.
But back to the quote. Regardless of the off shape of the circle, once completed the inside ski will have traveled a shorter distance than the outside ski. To do that, the average radius traveled by the inside ski will have been smaller than that of the average radius of the outside ski's travel route. I think there is value buried in the 20 pages of this thread, in that many ways of executing that differentiation have been discussed. The readers who were willing to weed through and find them could potentially take these ideas to the snow or plastic and prosper from them. Well done, V8, for getting people focusing and thinking about this stuff so intently.
And, yeah, the entertainment value was OK too. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Quote: |
| The circle, and most turns for that matter, are not perfectly consistent shaped arcs. The result is, yes, the radius and center point often change repeatedly along the course of a turn. This is an important thing to focus on |
Hurrah!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
veeeight, Ever been wrong in your life or is this the first time? You can pretend you are 100% correct in your little bubble but nobody is agreeing with you on this one. Come on give us one more ridiculous analogy to ponder, just for old time's sake 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
While you guys have your thinking caps on, ponder and discuss this:
Big edge angle turns require wide separation of the feet. If that wide stance is maintained through the transition a skier will display a very wide and awkward stance. Like a cowboy riding an over feed horse. To avoid that, skiers will often narrow their stance in the transition from it's wide state at the turn's apex. So here are the questions to ponder:
1) If the skis are kept parallel at all times,,, and edge angles are kept relatively equal at all times,,, HOW IS THE SKIER PRODUCING THAT CHANGE IN STANCE WIDTH THROUGH THE COURSE OF THE TURN?
2) Lifting the parallel skis and equal edge angle restrictions, WHAT ARE OTHER WAYS TO EXECUTE THOSE STANCE WIDTH CHANGES?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
Or perhaps that should be a separate thread?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, back to my editing. Enjoyed the much needed diversion. I'll check in later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
FastMan, separate thread, please. Wouldn't want to 'spoil' this one.
veeeight, why won't you answer the question of whether or not these arcs are parallel?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Those 2D arcs are not parallel, they are of the same radius. I already said that back on page 10:
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
The only thing left now is for V8 to understand that parallel curved lines cannot be identical |
Problem is, whilst I accept it mathematically, I can't do that when I'm skiing, else I'll be always thinking that scissoring is an absolute prerequisite to carve clean RR tracks - which it isn't (the original point of this whole argument). |
The arcs that I ski - completely different matter
I've already covered this one several times before - if you park and rride the sidecut - you will almost certainly get a wider tack at the apex - and produce a track very similar to the one above.
We all reached agreement back on page 7/8 that you can lay down identical tracks whilst skiing ie: inside ski track is identical to outside ski track.
But if you actually work the ski, and bend the outside ski more (as 99% of good skilled skiers do) whilst having a dominant outside ski (as demonstrated by the measurement data where the outside ski prescribes a smaller radius), you can negate that wider track at the apex to produce..... voila..... parallel tracks.
| Fastman wrote: |
| The pervasive tendency is for the outside ski to be carrying the heavier load and higher edge angle. These higher loads and angles in the outside ski cause it to naturally arc a sharper turn, It will do that even with no supplemental rotary force being applied to it. |
We know in real life skiing (which is backed up by the measurement data experiment) that the outside ski tracks a tighter radius than the inside ski (at the apex), and this is how you can achieve identical, and parallel tracks in skiing. But not with 2D geometric drawings on paper.
Chasseur/Mark Hunter picked up on the above scenario way back on page 5, as to how parallel tracks could be achieved. All this without breaking any 2D geometry rules.
The other scenario which is more commonly seen is the good ol' A frame - the outside ski is tipped at a greater edge angle than the inside ski - therby actually cutting a tighter radius which negates that pesky widening at the apex.
Is it falling into place yet?
But let's not lose sight of the original dispute - it had nothing to do with tracks, and everything to do with the need to deliberately diverge skis (scissoring) in order to successfully carve clean lines - even at low edge angles (Page 2).
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Thu 5-06-08 21:49; edited 11 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
veeeight, There seems to be a fair bit of inner tip lead there. I thought that was BAD?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Frosty the Snowman, I take it you're referring to the vid, rather than the 2D drawing?
Tip lead can never be eliminated, it is as a result, amongst other things, of rotation/pivoting of the lower joints, high edge angles, inclination etc. The inside knee must have somewhere to go (unless your knee joint is like a grasshopper, backwards) - so with high edge angles for example, the inner knee rises, and has to go forward for the skier to stay in balance.
With recreational skiers however, it's rare that they reach the amount of edge angles etc. that the racers do, but exhibit a lot of tip lead, mainly though poor lateral balance (eg: on their inside ski etc.) - so we want to manage that tip lead.
Does that clear it a little for you? Here's a (much shorter) good thread on tip lead - http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=30292
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
FastMan, to sort of half answer your question, I think this is what is throwing many people. If you actually break down two turns and the transition into 3 seperate parts of the turns, and deal with each part separately, things would be a lot clearer. For example, if you take out the transition where the skis are flat, and the skier can narrow or widen their feet at will (which they frequently do as you know), and just deal with the arc, it's much easier to see what's happening in reality.
The other interesting point that this is throwing up is that 1 or 2 degrees at the shin is being poo pooed at, as being detectable (which actually translates to quite a large movement at the knee) - and yet most people swear by the difference of 0.5, 0.75, 1 degree base bevel gives them in skiing....
Unfortunately though this thread has degraded to the point where no further useful viewpoints can be exchanged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| veeeight wrote: |
if you park and rride the sidecut - you will almost certainly get a wider tack at the apex -
|
Not sure I get you here, V8. If you go into a rail turn with parallel ski, and carve clean on both skis through the arc, it would take a bowlegged stance to gain stance width from initiation to apex. Are you saying if you park and ride you will "certainly" do so bowlegged? I've found, for most, it's a chore just getting the inside knee/foot tipped enough to achieve relatively equal tip angles, and thus get a relatively clean track from the inside ski.
| Quote: |
| But if you actually work the ski, and bend the outside ski more (as 99% of good skilled skiers do) whilst having a dominant outside ski, --- you can negate that wider track at the apex to produce..... voila..... parallel tracks. |
Yikes, V8/. That just accentuates the problem. Going into a turn with parallel skis, equally bent, they will converge on top of each other by the apex, if they are tracking cleanly. If you bend the outside one more, they will ski into each other even sooner.
Yes, your observation is right that the outside ski is often bent more by good skiers, and carving a tighter radius, because its carrying more load, and tipped to a higher edge. That in fact creates MORE of a problem, as that smaller outside ski radius will cause the skis to converge even more aggressively if something other than carving of the inside ski is not done to compensate.
The realities of geometry do apply here. Staying open minded and coming to understand them can help one look deeper to the real answers to what is truly happening. From there we can strive to simplify it all so our students can learn what they need to learn and adopt the high level skiing they desire to be able to do.
V8, the coin examples was a good one. They represent two skis riding the same radius. Take a coin, place it on a piece of paper that has a straight line drawn on it. Place the coin such that the line perfectly dissects the coin into two equal halves. Now trace the coin from where the line enters the coin, to where it exits it. You've just traced a semi circle,,, a 180 degree turn. Now slide the coin straight down the line a bit, such that the line still dissects it, and trace again. You now have a graphic representation of the tracks your skis will carve if at equal radius. They cross at the apex, and the inside ski becomes the outside ski for the second half of the turn, finishing the turn below the original outside ski. Doesn't make for pleasant skiing.
If you lessen the radius of the outside ski by bending it more, as you suggested above, "viola" the situation just gets worse. It's clear evidence that the WC racers you watch with unequal edge angles ARE doing something other than carving the inside ski to compensate.
I'm not trying to insult you here. Just trying to encourage you to take a closer look with an open mind. Even if in the privacy of your personal thoughts, and not under the microscope of a public forum.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Thu 5-06-08 21:51; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
FastMan, Lazy skiers, who just park and ride, will, by default, leave tracks that are narrower at the transition, and wider at the apex. This is a result of skiing two identical tracks. And/or on paper, by taking two identical curves, and separating them. The apex is always wider than the transition. This is demonstrated by Physicsmans spreadsheet as well.
And if you have a peek at the real life measurement graph on the previous page, this shows a smaller/tighter radius on the outside ski for both turns (L & R) - and yet those skis don't converge As to why they don't cross like your coins do - it's simply because in the real life ski turn, the turn is very much over and the skis are beginning to flatten way before those coins do (remember - don't get stuck on the single fixed radius of the coins vs. the increasing/decreasing radius of a ski turn).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| veeeight wrote: |
| FastMan, Lazy skiers, who just park and ride, will, by default, leave tracks that are narrower at the transition, and wider at the apex. This is a result of skiing two identical tracks. |
So then,,, by your thinking,,, the fix to keeping track width stable while carving at low edge angles would be to keep the outside ski carving sharper than the inside ski. That could be done by keeping iniside ski on a lower edge than the outside ski. Otherwise known as A-framing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| veeeight wrote: |
| FastMan wrote: |
| The circle, and most turns for that matter, are not perfectly consistent shaped arcs. The result is, yes, the radius and center point often change repeatedly along the course of a turn. This is an important thing to focus on |
Hurrah!!!! |
Dude, no-one's been disputing this. However you seem not to be able to grasp radius of curvature, so a circle is just a simple example. Now, this other bit, that I and everyone else has been telling you but you never agreed with, is important:
| FastMan wrote: |
| Regardless of the off shape of the circle, once completed the inside ski will have traveled a shorter distance than the outside ski. To do that, the average radius traveled by the inside ski will have been smaller than that of the average radius of the outside ski's travel route |
Veeeight, do you agree with Fastman here (and pretty much everyone else) that the inside ski has actually tracked a tighter radius than the outside? That's all I ask, acceptance of that as fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
veeeight,
| Quote: |
| Those 2D arcs are not parallel, they are of the same radius. I already said that back on page 10: |
So you accept that two identical arcs (like the ones above) cannot exist in parallel?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| veeeight wrote: |
| The other interesting point that this is throwing up is that 1 or 2 degrees at the shin is being poo pooed at, as being detectable (which actually translates to quite a large movement at the knee) - and yet most people swear by the difference of 0.5, 0.75, 1 degree base bevel gives them in skiing.... |
Different angles in different contexts -> different effects and different sensitivities. Think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| veeeight wrote: |
| We know in real life skiing (which is backed up by the measurement data experiment) that the outside ski tracks a tighter radius than the inside ski (at the apex), and this is how you can achieve identical, and parallel tracks in skiing. |
Select any one of those three. No two can be achieved simultaneously. Neither on paper nor in practice, as they all define different things (and you even agreed that the last two are different, as you so helpfully directed us, back on page 10).
Or are you redefining the English language again? Sorry forgot. Fine, whatever (anyone got any Tylenol?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Gotta be another few pages in this ..at least...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
keep at it Veight - real life beats surreal maths
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| FastMan wrote: |
I'm not trying to insult you here. Just trying to encourage you to take a closer look with an open mind. Even if in the privacy of your personal thoughts, and not under the microscope of a public forum. |
But that's his problem. His mind is closed and has been throughout this entire thread. Your posts are very useful to everyone else though thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| keep at it Veight - real life beats surreal maths |
If you read the thread you'll see that V8s real life is far more surreal than the trivial maths involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| veeeight wrote: |
But if you actually work the ski, and bend the outside ski more (as 99% of good skilled skiers do) whilst having a dominant outside ski (as demonstrated by the measurement data where the outside ski prescribes a smaller radius), you can negate that wider track at the apex to produce..... voila..... parallel tracks.
We know in real life skiing (which is backed up by the measurement data experiment) that the outside ski tracks a tighter radius than the inside ski (at the apex), and this is how you can achieve identical, and parallel tracks in skiing. But not with 2D geometric drawings on paper.
|
Those mysterious identical parallel tracks are cropping up again. You know the ones where the outside ski tracks a tighter radius than the inside. Makes loads of sense this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
uktrailmonster, i think Veight is right and i want him for my leader
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
rayscoops, of course there are a few different sub-points. But, basically, this is about V8's non acceptance of a couple of basic, underlying principles. Did your reading stretch to some of the examples he gave to 'prove' his contention that two identical arcs can exist in parallel?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JT, even David Koresh had followers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes there have been a few different subtle points debated, but V8 has been talking rubbish for much of this thread IMV. Bullshitting and name dropping to the point of making himself look like a complete tit. Sorry, but that's how it looks from here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
(if going for the same edge angle on both skis/parallel shins guideline) - the method by which the aforementioned athletes chose to do it on snow.
