>...Welcome to the party PhysicsMan, I welcome your input.
Thanks. Glad to give my $0.02.
>...One request though: please remain objective.
I have always tried to do this in the past, and hopefully will continue to do so here.
>...I'm assuming Bob is a friend of yours, and as such you may be feeling the desire to rally to his support.
Actually, I've never met Bob, never talked to him on the phone (at least, not that I remember), never skied with him, etc. All I know about him is from his many posts and a few private messages on Epic. From those, I do respect his opinions on skiing greatly.
>...You may be surprised with validity of the content once you take the time to evaluate what I say in the context of its entirity, you may even learn something...
From a quick scan of the messages you posted in this thread, I would say that I would agree with many of your comments, and I have no doubt that you have considerable analytical abilities, skiing expertise, etc., and that there are undoubtedly many things I could learn from you.
>...Tom, I'm not disputing the physics that occure while a car rolls around a curve in a road. And I don't dispute that the CM of a car can't be laterally relocated at will...
That's good. I didn't want to have to go through that.
However, if that's the case, I am left to ponder why you disagreed with Bob so vehemently (ie, NO, BEYOND WEAK, IT'S WRONG! ... ) when he claimed,
"...First, given a wide enough stance--like a car, for example, or an open skiing stance at lower speed--there is no real need to "move the CM across the body" at all..."
After all, even excluding the example of the car that he used (and you now agree with), for skis, he did say, open stance at low speed. I can see nothing wrong with this statement. For example, I can easily envision myself making RR track turns down the bunny slope by edging my skis with (say) knee angulation, but not moving my CM laterally one iota. At even moderate G's, I can intentionally force my pelvis and torso (ie, my CM) to remain rigidly between my skis. This is what Bob said, and you disagreed vehemently.
Of course, if you try to remain rigid like this at higher G's, just like the car, your inside wheel (ski) will eventually lift off the snow, and if it lifts up too far, over you go (unless you execute some sort of recovery move).
When you made such a strong claim that he was wrong, it set off all my alarms that emotions had heated up to the point where you were making technical errors. Specifically, I always am worried when it appears that some individual attempts to sway casual bystanders by devices such as the use of caps, strong language, etc. either without technical backup, or with incorrect technical conclusions (as seems to be true in this particular case). This is why I cautioned onlookers.
>...That's why I said the analogy was flawed...
Actually, I don't see where you said that in the post under discussion, I only see this milder and more accurate form of criticism / discussion stated now that I've entered the discussion. In that post, all I see is your NO, BEYOND WEAK, IT'S WRONG! statement.
>...so I will return the question to you. Would you care to show everyone exactly how you ski with your feet as far apart as a cars tires?
Of course no one skis that way. That is a strawman argument, more typical of sophist debates than technical discussions, so, of course I won't respond to it. Bob laid down the precise conditions for his statement to be true (ie, wide enough, slow enough) and either intentionally or in the heat of the moment, you ignored it. He wasn't talking about some Schnell Man flying down the slope and he said so. Subtle mid-course corrections of debating position like you now seem to be making really worry me. They are exactly the technique another individual used in a long thread this summer. These are subtle technical points being discussed here, and the requisite ifs, ands and buts can not be ignored at will.
Now, to get the discussion back on track, to reset everybody's emotional state, as well as for the selfish reason of saving myself lots of time, could I ask both you and Bob to re-state and succinctly summarize the main one or two points of disagreement between you. That would truly be a big help.
Tom / PM