Whether we're cognitively aware of it or not, physics explains everything we do on snow. For most of us, it's nice to understand where the forces we're managing are coming from, but no need to bust out the calculator.
-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
You turn the skis - vs - The skis turn you
Whether we're cognitively aware of it or not, physics explains everything we do on snow. For most of us, it's nice to understand where the forces we're managing are coming from, but no need to bust out the calculator.
I tend to believe the ski reacts to what you do to it (input), and you react to what the ski does to you (feedback), and either party can be an agent of input or a recipient of feedback reciprocally. The ski is a layer between you and the terrain, and there is a mutually reciprocal input-feedback loop going on all the time...but generally, I just want my skis to be proud of me....just a little...sometimes....
Ouch, I'm hurtDidn't figure you'd like them... or much of anything else. Seems to be your M.O.
That's just not fair - I have several pairs of production skis that are excellent; 2x Atomic SGs from the race room in 201 and 208, a pair of Atomic women's GS skis in 177 (cap construction), and some Stockli FIS Sls in 155 (bitchin' little skis). Oh yeah, we had a pair of Fisher GS hole skis that were Stephen Nyman's that were brilliant, even in old age, but alas, burnt out and got enrolled in the dissection library.That generation of Head SLs just seemed to suck - of course, that was about 10 years ago. I suppose they're better now. . .
[QUOTE="Monster, post: 263878, ]
That generation of Head SLs just seemed to suck - of course, that was about 10 years ago. I suppose they're better now. . .[/QUOTE]
Best to keep critique current, or at least mention that what wasn't good was 10 years back. The current SL's ski nicely and have tenacious edge grip. I like the new tail FWIW.
That generation of Head SLs just seemed to suck - of course, that was about 10 years ago. I suppose they're better now. . .[/QUOTE]
Best to keep critique current, or at least mention that what wasn't good was 10 years back. The current SL's ski nicely and have tenacious edge grip. I like the new tail FWIW.
This is a really interesting concept, well, at least for me. We all routinely execute daily activities that are actually infinitely complex, from a physics stand point, without ever actually considering the actual physics involved. So I think it's fair to say that for most activities we don't require any understanding of physics at all. I'm sure that many people here couldn't define the difference between "speed" and "velocity", but this lack of understanding doesn't prevent them from walking, driving or even skiing. By extension, the vast majority of skiers make great turns without ever understanding the difference between "centrifugal" and "centripetal" forces.
From a coaching standpoint there could be some benefit to understanding skiing in terms of physics, but only if that understanding can be converted into meaningful instruction. Unfortunately students, even top athletes, don't relate to what they do in terms of physics.
Many don't, some do. Let me set something straight . I don't usually mention anything about physics*, but I'll work my rear end off to get people to understand that their feet aren't just stuck in their boots going along for the ride. I'm not a physicist and don't pretend to be. I'm just trying to get people to have fun, ski in dynamic balance, and get from outside ski to outside ski starting from the feet and working up. The having fun bit is overt. The rest is pretty much covert .
The "having a simple awareness of where the forces come from" is for me. It helps prioritize what I think is important and how to get there as far as coaching goes, and when I say 'most of us', I mean coaches, and yes, people teaching skiing. The key word is 'simple'.
* when doing a private session with a guy who's designing 777x wings, mentioning force vectors was a break through for him. Working with kids (or almost anyone else for that matter) learning to safely ski some pretty serious terrain with awareness of risks, nope. Never ever at all. About the only thing I'll mention is "the future is down the hill... get there. Play with it, don't fight it." Show me a tail pusher, and I'll show you someone fighting gravity. We're past page 5. I'm out.
Last edited:
Best to keep critique current, or at least mention that what wasn't good was 10 years back. The current SL's ski nicely and have tenacious edge grip. I like the new tail FWIW.[/QUOTE]
? - "Yeah, well there were those race skis for a while about 10 years ago, Heads, I think, that had the electronic chips in the top sheets on the tails". . .
They. Still. Do.
IIRC the intelligence chip predated KERS. The idea behind the chip was to allow for a softer more forgiving flex until you pushed the ski harder and faster, which would somehow stiffen it up. IIRC, I got the impression the non-chipped skis were stiffer than the chipped ones until the chip got enough energy, but I didn't have enough opportunity to pursue any on-snow research. I did ski the original chipped Supershape, and did think the original i. Supershape (chipped) ski was a fine ski for most recreational skiers (speed daemons excepted) who could tip a ski.
Skiing is a gravity sport. Much of explaining technique is necessarily.... <whisper> …. physics. You just don't have to use twenty dollar words and Greek letters to explain it. If you truly understand it, usually the explanation can be fairly simple. It's all physics.
For instance -
If you were sliding down the hill with no skis on a slippery slope, you would go where? … - straight down the fall line. With no added force, your mass seeks the gravity vector.
The skis turn you. The fact that you want to claim the ego assertion that you are the pilot, you decide when, you are in charge... doesn't change the gravity vector until.... the skis turn you (your mass).
I remain skeptical on the whole piezo crystal vibration damping thing. Yes, it works, it's sound theory. But the amount of energy that needs to be dissipated is too large to pass the smell test that it is a very large factor in ski design. Where does all the resultant heat go, and what has the capacity to conduct it?
Yep...
Many don't, some do. Let me set something straight . I don't usually mention anything about physics*, but I'll work my rear end off to get people to understand that their feet aren't just stuck in their boots going along for the ride. I'm not a physicist and don't pretend to be. I'm just trying to get people to have fun, ski in dynamic balance, and get from outside ski to outside ski starting from the feet and working up. The having fun bit is overt. The rest is pretty much covert .
The "having a simple awareness of where the forces come from" is for me. It helps prioritize what I think is important and how to get there as far as coaching goes, and when I say 'most of us', I mean coaches, and yes, people teaching skiing. The key word is 'simple'.
* when doing a private session with a guy who's designing 777x wings, mentioning force vectors was a break through for him. Working with kids (or almost anyone else for that matter) learning to safely ski some pretty serious terrain with awareness of risks, nope. Never ever at all. About the only thing I'll mention is "the future is down the hill... get there. Play with it, don't fight it." Show me a tail pusher, and I'll show you someone fighting gravity. We're past page 5. I'm out.
I get a lot of physics st work, so I have a basic understanding of most of the terms and theories. I do try to following along with the threads here, but the intersection of technique and physics does get a little deep for me. From a skiing perspective, the concept of pressure building through circular motion and how that effects grip and turn shape, has definitely helped me to improve my skiing. I think for many students, when it comes to physics, there is definitely a point of diminishing returns.
Last edited:
.... and you adjust to address how your client/student processes information. We're not drawing diagrams complex diagrams and standing around the hill talking, that's for sure!
An amusing story, not sure it's true, but it is amusing: A certain ski instructor and member of PSIA's demo team was making a presentation to a group of avid skiers near his resort (Taos). He launched into a discussion of the physics of skiing. A few minutes in, he noticed lots of folded arms, skeptical looks, and furrowed brows. He then asked where the folk were from? Turns out, they were a group of physicists from Los Alamos...
Know your audience. 99.995% of our clients have no interest in physics and a discussion of the same will likely not help them achieve their objective.
Mike
Know your audience. 99.995% of our clients have no interest in physics and a discussion of the same will likely not help them achieve their objective.
Mike
The story may or may not be true, but all the detail pieces are all there. Quite a few of the Taos instructors I know works (worked) at Los Alamos and Sandia Labs.
Taos also has a tech talk schedule for every Tuesday (après) at the St. B led by a PSIA examiner. The tech talk is open to all. So all the piece are there.
Physicists are likely not doing Newtonian physics that applies to skiing; engineers would be. Even at that, I myself as an engineer with multiple university degrees do not use any physics calculation when deciding how fast I need to ski to clear the knuckle but not the landing when hitting a jump in the trauma park. Eagles fly quite well, having never heard of Newtonian physics.
An explanation of a force balance, critical angle, etc. (done on the chair, not on the slope!) might be helpful if your client is an engineer and the explanation is directly applicable, but the odds are you would be better off leaving the physics out of it with most clients.
An explanation of a force balance, critical angle, etc. (done on the chair, not on the slope!) might be helpful if your client is an engineer and the explanation is directly applicable, but the odds are you would be better off leaving the physics out of it with most clients.
Sponsor
Members online
- msr2009
- mdf
- Miker
- rip
- BLiP
- Norther1
- mo.ritz
- DebbieSue
- SKI-3PO
- Larry
- Dean
- Philpug
- GB_Ski
- chris_the_wrench
- Cantankerous
- tromano
- Even_Stevens
- my07mcx2
- Andy Mink
- Stev
- jetwolverine
- David
- rcc55125
- SCWVA
- HardDaysNight
- wgo
- Zirbl
- Gina D
- Rudi Riet
- davjr96
- bbinder
- Prosper
- jyl
- MnLakeBum
- Erik Timmerman
- KMP
- Chewski
- BullMcCabe
- KylieUnarf
- crgildart
- Varmintmist
- Mattadvproject
- François Pugh
- mbradlawrence
- Spoorosew
- smv
- MissySki
- Wade
- DanoT
- mhirsc