But I did not say that we become faster because of it.
You said it helps with the retraction move. The retraction move is something we want to do is it not? So if it helps in some way...does this not make us "faster"? I'm not talking strictly about speed when I say faster....I'm talking about being faster overall. Person A could travel at a higher speed than person B, but person B takes a shorter line and ends up "faster" through a race course.
Really! I remember you arguing a lot of other things as well.
I did argue a lot of things...it's all tangential off the original point. A lot of it is re-iterating in different terms. I'm not gonna turn this into a 'he said she said' debate.
Well is sure sounded like you said you have to push on it to bend it and others said it was enough to stand on it.
I never said you had to push on it to bend it while skiing. We talked about pushing on it at home to bend the ski and see how springy it is. As I have clarified multiple times...This is a semantics thing. I was referring to "push" was to describe the feeling of putting pressure on the skis to turn....it can also be described as "bracing against the forces".
Funny, if the bending energy in the ski is lost and it is as big as you claim, the ski would be melting
I never claimed the energy was that massive..you put words in my mouth. You made the assumption that I was arguing the energy it provided did all the work to turn and accelerate a 180lb skier across the hill. I never thought this, and if you read into it like that, it's another case of misunderstanding what I was trying to portray.
Seriously though, I think a number of arguments have been presented that you don´t become faster because of camber spring action,
If by a number, you mean the ONE argument that the energy is negligible and in the wrong direction. The direction part, I have pointed out number of times is actually in a direction that is useful. And the energy amount part, I have also pointed out, does not need to be huge for it to have an effect.
you have chosen to only attack a few and not address the ones you cannot argue against, whilst showing no holding arguments of why it would be faster.
Except I did for the most part and ignored certain aspects I felt not important or was dragging the conversation away from what's important. I do not wish to repeat myself again. A lot of things I talked about were not addressed by you either.
Jamt, I'm here to have an intelligent discussion about skiing mechanics and physics. It can lead to thinking about things more clearly or opening up new ideas. Over the course of this, I have evolved my vision of ski physics and mechanics. I have moved away from the idea that the ski rebound increases speed, rather it aids in our turns in other ways that can result in us going faster. Not sure if you caught that or if you're still holding onto the words I wrote in my first post and trying to argue against it.
Perhaps I'm reading into this wrong, but your previous post sounds like you're here to "win an internet argument" and trying to sound superior by basically claiming my arguments are ridiculous (throwing around over-the-top statements of using C4 or melting skis). Your post was more focused on belittling the things I said rather than talking about the topic at hand. If you want to have a debate..I'm all open. If you want to turn this into a 14 yr old "bash at those who disagree with you" thread...I don't have the time. It's hard to detect tone on the internet, so I'm sorry if I'm mistaken.