The accelerometer measures the acceleration at the foot. It is not the acceleration we care about (it is like if you measure the acceleration of your wrist... who cares?). F=ma only works when applied at the center of mass... real basic physics!
The acceleration of the outside foot/ski through key parts of the turn is a pretty good proxy for acceleration of the CoM. Through the part of the turn where it matters Ted's outside leg flex is not changing that much.
Can't say I see much outside leg flex through the part of this turn where the CoM is redirected.
You know that joke about the physicist, the engineer and a converging series - which one drank the beer?
The edge angle is the angle between the ski base and the slope. It is only possible to estimate the slope angle when the slope is long and constant over multiple turns. There is no chance of getting a good measurement of the edge angle in moguls.
Probably the hint is in the product name - CARV. If it was for measuring what happens in the moguls maybe they would have called it BUMP?
IMUs provide an accurate (within 0.6°) and precise (within 0.1°) measurement of static sensor orientation and an accurate (within 4.4° per second) and precise (within 0.2° per second) representation of angular velocity. Sure, it's to an external reference frame and not the slope. So what? It' not like we need to measure the instantaneous normal force at all points in a turn to +- a newton. If skier A gets a G metric of 1.4G and skier B 2.4G who is the more performant skier? If skier A then does some more work and then gets a metric of 1.8G have they not improved?
I think the raw data they generate is really interesting, but just one piece of the puzzle. I would be much more inclined to invest say $1K in carve if the purchase came with say a 3 day clinic where they analyzed your Carv data, worked with you on the now to improve form .. etc. and identify drills you could then do yourself to continue to improve your skiing. It would also be nice if the filmed you at the start and end of the clinic, with the Carv data showing how improvements in your form and technique changed the data. This could be a really interesting model where Carv partners with resorts to deliver this higher value immersive clinic ... just saying this would be a much higher value offering IMHO as it addresses the missing elements that technology cannot deliver on its own
You can get that from, say, Big Picture Skiing. Both in person and by online coaching.
BTW there may another reason WC may not want to use CARV. Max heel height rule - they are limited to how far they can have their heels off the snow. Or something like that. The WC tech folk can provide the exact rule. IIRC Ted was once disqualified for too much heel height and stated there's not a racer out there who doesn't sit on the limit due to the leveraging advantage it provides. 3mm is a lot (in their world) and would likely mean training and racing on different boot setups.
So no need to dismantle the whole capitalist system? This is getting circular.
Upshot: So and so is paid by the company. Take that endorsement however one wants.
Endorsements likely to affect us are based on trust.
Don't know Ligety - have only seen the personae he cares to reveal to the public. Seems like a straightforward guy. Can't see a reason he'd let them claim no boot mods when we'd all understand if his boots (of all boots) needed mods.
But I don't know Ted so his endorsement is mostly neutral for me.
Gellie I know a little bit. He helped with some back issues and have found his BPS content very useful. That's a good track record so his endorsement is a plus for me.
