 Poster: A snowHead
|
So we hollow out what is left of my brain and fit a tri-axial accelerometer package you are now suggesting that the forces my head experiences will be the same on the slope as the are on the treadmill?
So we sit in a car on a rolling road and we feel the same as if we were on the real road 
Can someone please show me the curve that the body is making so that we can say that the body has angular momentum? Not the skis the body of the skiier
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
rob@rar, centripetal force and friction are not related (in the first instance anyway), but centripetal force and change of direction are. In that cyclist analogy are we talking about rollers or a carpet arrangement similar to this machine. If the latter, then I'd say they could lean in, and as they changed direction they'd be carried up the carpet in the same way we see Ronald. If on a simple roller arrangement then no the centripetal force would be quite different - as the bike is not really changing direction, but you'd still get the same kind of lateral foce lean that we see in gatecrasher's vid, provided that they can make the same kind of lateral movements - which I doubt the rollers would allow.
The width of the carpet does limit the width of the turn to be made. That does look as if it could accommodate a reasonable sized slalom turn, but certainly not a GS one. And I assure you you can get some pretty strong radial forces in slalom turns if you make then tight and fast enough (well strong enough that even someone as slow as me has to take care of my joints when I'm pushing it - and you should see what some of the faster JN2/SEN skiers pull on a tight course)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
gatecrasher, is that thing on rubber bands? What is stopping the trolley she's on from flying off sideways?
|
No idea but looks lots of fun, especially If she would tutor me! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
GrahamN, agree with that. The treadmill does allow for a small amount of change in direction potentially along a curved path, but not a huge amount. So could we conclude that if you're a beginner and learning basic movements this had some value and if you can carve very tight turns the treadmill has some challenge, but for most recreational skiers there are limits to its utility?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
especially If she would tutor me!
|
And not in skiing 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
rob@rar, Well said
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I played about on something very similar to this about 25 years ago. If anyone knows the "2 Seasons" shop in Northampton, they had a second shop in Bedford for a while and had something similar to the Realli-ski set up in the back room for a short period. If I remember correctly it was 2 fairly narrow carpets side-by-side and they could adjust the speed and incline. You had to use short skis or blades, and there was none of the safety parapernalia and bars to grab hold of!
A somewhat interesting experience but great fun all the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| GrahamN, agree with that. The treadmill does allow for a small amount of change in direction potentially along a curved path, but not a huge amount. So could we conclude that if you're a beginner and learning basic movements this had some value and if you can carve very tight turns the treadmill has some challenge, but for most recreational skiers there are limits to its utility? |
I'd agree with this. Having skied on one of these things (very badly, and a long time ago) I can confirm that turning slowly the skier down so you endup drifting up to the top of the slope, while shussing takes the skier rapidly towards the bottom of the slope. In paractise you yo yo up and down the slope as you turn. So the problems of the machine are:-
1. The artificial surface
2. The lack of space to do anything but gentle turns around the fall line.
3. The psychological problem of yoyo-ing up and down the the slope.
I said earlier that we had this type of machine installed in a shop where I worked many moons ago. The shop also hired out ski stuff, and for one season we offered 30 minute sessions on the slope to people hiring gear. Feed back was that absolute beginners found it useful, just to get the feel of sliding on skis, others found the session pretty pointless apart from the novelty. I didn't ski at the time so i was largely an observer; I had a few goes when the shop was closed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Blunty wrote: |
I played about on something very similar to this about 25 years ago. If anyone knows the "2 Seasons" shop in Northampton, they had a second shop in Bedford for a while and had something similar to the Realli-ski set up in the back room for a short period. If I remember correctly it was 2 fairly narrow carpets side-by-side and they could adjust the speed and incline. You had to use short skis or blades, and there was none of the safety parapernalia and bars to grab hold of!
A somewhat interesting experience but great fun all the same. |
Sounds exactly the same as the machine we had in the shop in Leeds, and 25 years ago would be about right. We had the machine sometime around 83 or 84.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
If I am skiing in a straight line and I initiate a turn the forces my body experiences are down to 2 things, How many pies I have eaten in my lifetime and how gung ho Im feeling that day. I.e My mass and my velocity if we increase either we have to increase the force required to turn my fat body round the curve. Because your velocity is zero o the treadmill (or as close to as makes no difference) Then the forces are negligible in comparrison
On the rolling carpet you are simply applying a sideways force as a vector of the total force from the skis. It is akin to sailing a boat into the wind, but I guess my argument is akin to doing something else into the wind
Edit And the radius of my turn (third thing)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And not in skiing
kevindonkleywood, I wouldn't mind her teaching me to ski also! Lol!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Spud9, and given we were all on straight skis with no sidecut back then slower speed turns were skidded anyway, so it probably didn't feel too different (although my memory struggles with the time gap!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| kevindonkleywood wrote: |
| If I am skiing in a straight line and I initiate a turn the forces my body experiences are down to 2 things...My mass and my velocity if we increase either we have to increase the force required to turn my fat body round the curve. Because your velocity is zero o the treadmill (or as close to as makes no difference)... |
That's where you are making your mistake...it's not the velocity relative to some fixed point that's important, it's your change in velocity. The change in this case it due to the angle your skis make with the surface, and the fact that the skis carve, or are dragged up the hill due to the friction between the ski and the snow/carpet, and the speed of that direction change is due to the velocity of the ski relative to the carpet. The ski is forced into the turn due to its shape and its interaction with the snow/carpet. And skiing is all about keeping your body in the right place that the skis push you where they (and hopefully you) want to go. Think what would happen if the carpet and you are stationary and you tilt your skis. Nothing! Think what happens if the carpet is moving and you tilt your skis - they turn. Similarly if you turn using a pivot - if the ski is stationary with repect to the carpet nothing happes after the pivot, if it's moving up the hill then you move across and back up the hill - at a speed proportional to the rate the carpet is moving. Similarly think about tilting your skis if you are schussing down a slope - they turn - but if you are in the middle of a jump (so there is no interaction between the skis and the snow) when you make that tilt nothing happens (until the skis hit the deck again).
If you want to think about the similarlities/differences more formally, and you're clearly thinking about mv*v/r, you need to be thinking like for like. e.g. about the frames of reference in which the surface on which you are skiing are stationary and you are moving with respect to that surface. Provided that the two frames are not accelerating with respect to each other (which would generate inertial forces), i.e. the carpet is moving at a constant speed, unlike the rolling road, the velocity difference between those two frames adds/removes no forces and you can apply the same equations in each frame of reference to show the identity.
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Mon 25-07-11 14:26; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| kevindonkleywood wrote: |
| If I am skiing in a straight line and I initiate a turn the forces my body experiences are down to 2 things, How many pies I have eaten in my lifetime and how gung ho Im feeling that day. I.e My mass and my velocity if we increase either we have to increase the force required to turn my fat body round the curve. Because your velocity is zero o the treadmill (or as close to as makes no difference) Then the forces are negligible in comparrison |
What makes you think your velocity is zero? For the purposes of Mr Newton's carefully thunk out laws your velocity is equal but opposite to the speed of the rotating carpet beneath your skis. If a brick wall suddenly materialised on the moving carpet in front of you there would be a graphic and messy demonstration of how much relatiive velocity, and therefore energy you had in the moving carpet/brickwall/pie consuming skier system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
GrahamN,Spud9, Im sorry the forces acting on your body,are due to the velocity and mass of your body and not the relative velocity of the carpet,The only forces your body is experiencing are forces from the friction of the carpet and the angle of the ski. The only thing of relevance is the friction between the ski and the mat. When you ski you do not just feel force acting on your legs you feel the effect on your whole body.
The brick wall on the carpet argument/relative velocity argument has makes no sense as we can run the carpet at several thousand miles an hour but it does not necesarilly give our skiier any greater momentum or impart any greater force on our skiier. In fact if we run the carpet very slowly and give it a high friction then the forces the skiier experiences on the skis could well be higher than a fast moving low friction carpet. But once we match gravity then that is it game over.
Once our fricton from the mat moving upwards is sufficent to counter gravity pulling us down the mat we have a balanced situation and that is a big as the forces on the treadmill can get otherwise we end up as a splat on the back wall. In a downhill skiier the forces increase with velocity down the hill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Excellent with a bit more work we can have a thread to rival Inner Tip Lead - so who is taking the veeight position?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
Excellent with a bit more work we can have a thread to rival Inner Tip Lead - so who is taking the veeight position?
|
fatbob, Bug**r when did I miss that one?!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| kevindonkleywood wrote: |
| GrahamN,Spud9, The only forces your body is experiencing are forces from the friction of the carpet and the angle of the ski. The only thing of relevance is the friction between the ski and the mat. When you ski you do not just feel force acting on your legs you feel the effect on your whole body. |
First two sentences correct, but your deductions from that and third sentence are not. 1) The friction (or effect of a carve) are directly proportional to the speed difference between your skis and the mat - it doesn't matter whether it's your skis moving over the mat or the mat moving under the skis, the friction is the same. 2) The distinction you make between your body and legs is a bit of a red herring. If you schuss down a perfectly flat slope at say 80 mph you will feel no forces until you try to make a turn. The forces you feel on your body are only transmitted there through your legs (if we ignore wind resistance for the purposes of this - yes that is different between the carpet and a skier moving over "stationary" snow/plastic) to change the motion of your CoM. If you just turn your skis to come out of that schuss without making an appropriate inclination change you will feel no force on your body - just your skis will head in a completely different direction to the rest of you, with your legs vainly trying to strike an acceptable compromise until the inevitable splat, and I speak from personal experience here (e.g. good old snowboarder's downhill edge catch when practicing high-speed sideslips) . When you make a turn when you are moving with respect to the earth, say coming out of a schuss, you are moving that CoM sideways and slowing it down. On the carpet you are moving it sideways and the carpet pushes it up the hill. The force is that required to respond to the inertia of your CoM, and is the same whether it was originally moving down the hill or was stationary waiting to be pushed up the carpeted ramp.
| Quote: |
| The brick wall on the carpet argument/relative velocity argument has makes no sense as we can run the carpet at several thousand miles an hour but it does not necesarilly give our skiier any greater momentum or impart any greater force on our skiier. |
I think you are misunderstanding what was described there - the brick wall was attached to the carpet and will move with it. It makes no difference to the splat whether it's stationary and you run into it at 1000mph or you're stationary and it runs into you at 1000mph. The impact forces are due to the momentum change - irrespective of whether that is 1000->0 or 0->-1000. Remember that one definition of a force is the rate of momentum change, and has nothing to do with the specific initial or final momentum states.
| Quote: |
| Once our fricton from the mat moving upwards is sufficent to counter gravity pulling us down the mat we have a balanced situation and that is a big as the forces on the treadmill can get otherwise we end up as a splat on the back wall. |
The frictional force from the matting is dependent on speed. If you want to run the mat faster, keeping the skier at a constant height, then you increase the ramp angle and you will then get a new steady state. Downhill, in the absence of wind resistance) is exactly the same - you will eventually get to a constant speed for a given slope angle and ski frictional coefficient.
C'mon guys, you must realise this feels more like the "virtual bump". Get with the programme!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WotGrahamN, said. The skier/carpet system can be examined from within; a skier progressing down an apparently endless slope. Or from outside with a more or less stationary skier on a moving carpet. Either way the inputs needed by the skier to influence their speed and turn shape wil be the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Spud9,
| Quote: |
WotGrahamN, said. The skier/carpet system can be examined from within; a skier progressing down an apparently endless slope. Or from outside with a more or less stationary skier on a moving carpet. Either way the inputs needed by the skier to influence their speed and turn shape wil be the same.
|
Huraah! I think we got there! -did we get there?
"so, what was this inner tip lead thingy all about then?" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrahamN, Im afraid you are turning to a lot on nonsense here. The brick wall is the biggest red herring has absolutely no relevance to the forces acting on the skier all that matters is the friction between the skis and the mat. we can run a high fricton mat slowly and get bigger forces than a fast running low friction mat. The relative velocities are meaningless but all limited by the acceleration due to our friend gravity.
I take it that you are suggesting that you can generate the same forces on the treadmill that are generated by centripetal acceleration of a mass with a curved path? and more than that you are suggesting that they act on the same parts of that mass?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
kevindonkleywood, yes the brick wall is a bit of a red herring when it comes to skiing, but I believe Spud9 introduced it to try and help you with the concept of two frames of reference moving at a constant speed with respect to each other - which is crucial to understanding this and with which you appear to be having significant difficulties. This is significantly simpler than stuff we've talked about before where there has been rotation or other accelerations between the two reference frames; as there is no differential acceleration there are no "ficticious" forces differentiating the two, and the forces felt/analysed in the two reference frames are identical.
Back to the matting though. Consider two different scenarios. The first is the device in the OP and the carpet moving at say 20 mph and angled such that you move down the hill when in the fall-line and are dragged back up when skiing across the fall-line. You are making nice regular turns, you move up and down the ramp as you do so and each turn finishes at the same point as viewed by the trainer standing beside the ramp - pretty much as in the OP vid. (If you want to take into account the effect of wind resistance, then you can add a fan blowing air up the ramp at the same speed as the matting is moving).
The second scenario is that you have another ramp, made of the same matting, angled to the same degree as the first, but infinitely long and stationary. Essentially it's a very long Snowflex slope. You start skiing from the top schussing straight down to build up speed, up to the point that you are travelling at the speed the matting is moving in the first scenario, plus the rate at which you dropped down the ramp (as viewed by the trainer) when in the fall-line. You then start making the same shaped turns as you did in that first scenario.
The forces on your body will then be the same in every way in both scenarios. Gravity will be experienced in exactly the same way in both. The forces the matting exerts on the skis and through your legs onto your body will be the same. If you had an ink dispenser on the back of your skis you would leave identical trails on both mats. Mechanically the two situations are the same, with the only difference being that you are examining one from within the frame of reference of the average velocity of the skier.
Your examples of different frictional coefficients and different matting speeds are just adding unnecessary complication. The conclusion (that you get the same on a stationary slope or moving matting) remains the same, but the explanation of what is going on is just complicated by unnecessary detail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrahamN, Thanks, yep! did browse over it a while back (followed by a hasty retreat) cos its "Pet biggy" during training sessions, Have made no plans for Bromley "yet" & Aldershot just sends chills down my spine (I don't appear able to stay upright on it!) maybe I just don't properly understand the physics of it all! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
GrahamN, On the treadmill the only thing that matters is the friction with the mat, once the friction force is higher than your tiny downward momentum (from your moving down the slope) and the gravity vector acting on you you will move up the slope and fly off the back.
This makes the magnitude of the accelerations you can experience on the treadmill self limiting and magnitudes smaller than the real world of a real skiier moving in an arc .
We can wet the mat reduce the friction and make the carpet travel at the same speeds as the WC SL and GS skiiers would. The mat skiier would never feel a fraction of the force that these guys have to deal with, if they got near then they are a splat on the back wall because as the force on your ski increases so does it friction with the surface and then oops it is hospital time. If you could attach a magic bungee cord through the centre of the skiiers COM and increase the tension in that cord pulling the skier into the mat harder as the speed increased so that they dont fly off the back then the mat skier would feel similar magnitudes of force but because there is no magic bungee the forces on the treadmill will alway be self limiting
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
JustJill, "oh I feel a road trip with camcorder looming"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| kevindonkleywood wrote: |
| On the treadmill the only thing that matters is the friction with the mat |
Correct. And that comes from the relative speed of the skier and the mat, but is completely independent of whether it is the skier moving over the mat or the mat moving under the skier - this is the main point you continue to miss.
| Quote: |
| once the friction force is higher than your tiny downward momentum (from your moving down the slope) and the gravity vector acting on you you will move up the slope and fly off the back. |
Now you're getting yourself confused by loose terminology. "friction force" cannot be higher than "downward momentum" as they are completely different quantities, like saying an apple is higher than an elephant. It's also not a switch condition like you imply - if the upward component of the frictional force is greater than the downward component of gravity then you will slow down or accelerate back up the slope, but at a rate proportional to the difference betweeen the two. The upward acceleration will build up in exactly the same way as if you were finishing a turn on a stationary slope. Then as you reduce the upward component of friction by moving back into the fall-line you will start accelerating back down the slope again. Yes you will be carried up to the top and off the back if you slow down too much and don't start a new turn to speed up again.
| Quote: |
| This makes the magnitude of the accelerations you can experience on the treadmill self limiting and magnitudes smaller than the real world of a real skiier moving in an arc . |
I have already, in discussion with ror@rar, agreed that there are limitations to the turn size that can be accommodated by the limited size of the machine. You move side to side and up and down the ramp as you ski. But the accelerations you feel while making turns of that size are the same as if you were making them on a stationary slope, if you have the same speed relative to the surface. I'm not arguing that there are no limitations, but that the forces are the same for the same shaped/sized turns on the carpet as on a stationary slope. Your argument (unless you have now changed position) is that those forces (specifically centrifugal/petal) are not present - and on that you are wrong.
| Quote: |
| We can wet the mat reduce the friction and make the carpet travel at the same speeds as the WC SL and GS skiiers would. The mat skiier would never feel a fraction of the force that these guys have to deal with, if they got near then they are a splat on the back wall because as the force on your ski increases so does it friction with the surface and then oops it is hospital time. If you could attach a magic bungee cord through the centre of the skiiers COM and increase the tension in that cord pulling the skier into the mat harder as the speed increased so that they dont fly off the back then the mat skier would feel similar magnitudes of force but because there is no magic bungee the forces on the treadmill will alway be self limiting |
Now you're slipping back into incoherence and self-contradiction. The turn forces are related to the track the skier makes on the mat and the speed they move along that track. Whether that mat is moving at a constant rate or not is irrelevant. There is no need for any "magic bungee", and if such a thing did happen it would slow the skier down and increase the likelihood of being flung off the back. If you are saying that trying to ski at WC levels is not possible then that may be the case - due to the limited size of the machine. But that is nothing to do with the presence or absence of any particular forces but due to the greater distance (side-to-side and fore-aft) the WC skier will move vs a recreational skier from a point travelling downhill at their (constant) average velocity. If you are saying that skiing experience is fatally comporomised because the surface doesn't give the same levels of grip that snow does, you may well be correct, but neither you nor I know that, and by the same argument it's pointless skiing on the dry slopes that we both do - and which we also both know is incorrect .
You really need to get your head around the concept of a constant speed moving frame of reference, and until you do that there isn't really any point in further discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
Correct. And that comes from the relative speed of the skier and the mat, but is completely independent of whether it is the skier moving over the mat or the mat moving under the skier - this is the main point you continue to miss.
|
So friction comes from the relative velocities? and there was me stupidly thinking it came from the coefficent of friction and the force between the surfaces. I always wondered why I could not rollerskate.
| Quote: |
incoherence and self-contradiction.
|
Nope you are just deliberately misreading and misunderstanding what I am saying, and its is a sad day when an discussion descends into personal abuse I had though you a little above such things.
| Quote: |
You really need to get your head around the concept of a constant speed moving frame of reference, and until you do that there isn't really any point in further discussion. |
I agree on the no ponit in further discussion point, I tried many post ago to leave
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
At the end of the day- force is just that! Force! We as humans and as skiers can only "feel it" no matter how it was created- whether through centrifugal action, acceleration, change of direction, whatever! The way we "feel" inertia is the same "a feeling" The only thing that confirms to us how it was created is with "our eyes"
Yes we all know we use centrifugal action to create the "feeling" of "force" in (normal skiing) because our eyes have confirmed it to us many times before- but how it was actually created is only of relevance to our eyes!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
This picture:-
http://www.dukesmeadows.com/images/skiing/isnowboarding.jpg
shows that fast dynamic turns can be achieved on a moving carpet machine (assuming that he's not simply falling over!).
I would imagine that he's boarding pretty fast, that is to say that the machine is running fast, and the slope is at a steep angle.
If the boarder had no 'velocity' and therefore no momentum or energy, or centrfugal/centrepetal forces acting on him he would simply fall flat on his face as he's clearly not in balance.
Actually there's lots of energy and forces acting here, in just the same way as they would if he was skiing down a fixed slope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| kevindonkleywood wrote: |
| Quote: |
Correct. And that comes from the relative speed of the skier and the mat, but is completely independent of whether it is the skier moving over the mat or the mat moving under the skier - this is the main point you continue to miss.
|
So friction comes from the relative velocities? and there was me stupidly thinking it came from the coefficent of friction and the force between the surfaces. |
Sorry...what I was trying to say (and not very clearly) was that we were dealing with dynamic friction, which is the same whether surface A is moving past B or B moving past A.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
incoherence and self-contradiction.
|
Nope you are just deliberately misreading and misunderstanding what I am saying, and its is a sad day when an discussion descends into personal abuse I had though you a little above such things.
|
Not deliberate misunderstanding at all...but I have no firm idea what you are trying to say in the passage I quoted, not helped by the fact that it's hardly in English. I've tried hard to work out what you were saying there and answered a few possible interpretations of that stream of consciousness. And I've tried hard not to be insulting, however easy that would have been. You've not indicated any error in a single one of my or Spud9's arguments (other than rightly picking me up on my loose expression of dynamic friction), but got less and less coherent in your counter assertions. I'm now not even sure whether you are still trying to defend your original point (that there are no centripetal/fugal forces) or are arguing something else.
I'm out.
(maybe)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrahamN,
| Quote: |
And I've tried hard not to be insulting, however easy that would have been
|
Oh how very, very big of you what an ace fellow.
and no you wont be able to leave it alone
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spud9 and GrahamN have worded very well what I couldn't so far.
kevindonkleywood, You are really quite observant on skiing technique for someone who claims to be only a Basi L1 instructor. However on this subject you do make a lot of assumptions that are not correct (which the above 2 have tried to convince you of). I do agree its hard to grasp that it is the relative speeds that matter, it's high on the scale of counter-intuative.
In the end it doesn't really matter, definetly not worth making this another ITL thread.
I posted this to show some people on here what this is, as many I have been talking to found it hard to understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Ronald, If there was never any difference of views this would be a very very dull forum 
As I said in some of my earlier posts its a tool to be used and one which i will be happy to try.
You were good enough to post your videos, explain the system, invite feedback and take the feedback in the constructive fashion in which it was intended.
The 'rowdy behaviour' from the 3 of us is (on my part) simply because I have nothing better to do (with my life).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
simply because I have nothing better to do (with my life)
kevindonkleywood, yep! It's been a blast! And thanks Ronald, for providing the post that has kept us entertained, I've not been near my fb status for days!
It just shows the integrity of the guys and girls on here where you can strongly express you're views without a single swear word flung in anger!
Oh well I spose I'd better go and make a start on the wife's job list! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
I a have not thrown tham all out yet 