or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dan Dipiro's Mogul Book - Page 35  

post #1021 of 1034

FIFY

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamt View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post


How is it irrelevent if say you flexed at the top of the mogul-we'll say perfect absorption so no speed reduction, then maintained that and dropped to the flat zone? Would you not speed up falling before you hit bottom? Or are you saying it's the same amount since if you extend you accelerate down slope, and if you drop you fall to the center of the earth?
Edit: I see Ghost is explaining it.

Yes, you speed up by falling, but if you hit e.g. a horizontal patch the perpendicular-to-the slope  (vertical in this case) component of the velocity will disappear in the non-elastic impact. The same happens (perpendicular-to-the-slope component  (now not vertical) disappears)  if the patch is not horizontal, but it is not as obvious perhaps. 

post #1022 of 1034

Wow--this is is more like watching an amateur ping pong match than an inquiry into the truth. I regret ever getting involved in it. So I'm going to make one more fairly lengthy post, and then probably disappear for a while. I don't blame anyone if you don't want to bother reading on!

 

The fact is that this discussion, even if it were interesting and intellectually stimulating, is of little relevance to real-world skiing and good ski technique. This fact becomes evident with the video you posted, TE, of the hoppy, almost straight-line skier in bumps, Why would we argue about how that guy is controlling speed (or anything else he does) unless we aspired to ski like he does, or were trying to discuss ways for him to ski better? Do you like what he's doing? Yes, discussing it may be an intriguing diversion to explore for a little while, but for many here, skiing like that would be a big step down in performance.

 

The Mechanic, with all due respect, are you aware of how much your own position has repeatedly flip-flopped, whether it's from one definition of "absorption" to another, or from one analysis of the mechanics involved to another (both of which cannot be simultaneously true)? Are you aware of how often you've written one thing only to contradict yourself later? (For example, you've argued--meticulously--the case for applying pressure on the level or uphill sections of bumps to slow down, while trying simultaneously to discredit the argument that you can slow down by going uphill....) 

 

The simple summarized conclusion remains--if you completely absorb the ups and downs of moguls with the "smoothing the ride" definition of absorption, you have--by that definition--eliminated all effects of the bumps on your center of mass and, therefore, all effects of the bumps on your speed. On the other hand, if you employ skillful flexion and extension movements, well-timed and of appropriate range and intensity, to choose where on the bumps to apply more pressure and where to minimize it (in other words, to not absorb the differences inherent in riding over bumpy terrain--or at least, to absorb them less than completely), you can, in fact, use the upward tilting and level sections (along with the small amount of friction inherent in the skis sliding on the snow, of course, and any additional braking/skidding necessary) to slow down--using your legs and/or the snow to "absorb" (bleed off energy definition) some of the energy of speed.

 

Good bump skiers use both of these principles, continuously and purposefully, to manage their descent. Great bump skiers add sophisticated management of line to, essentially, shape the angle of approach to each bump such that there actually is a level or uphill section at the end of each turn where direction (level or uphill) combines with gliding friction to minimize the need for adding braking with intentional skidding. It's the same principle as completing a turn on smooth runs, exploiting offensive "speed control from direction"--a principle The Engineer has attempted to discredit, although I suspect he'd agree when we add the inevitable friction element to the equation.

 

That's it. Those are your options. If you understand these principles, there is little more to discuss, beyond how to develop the skills needed to exploit them.

 

---

 

There are lots of people here who do understand these principles, including both practical experience and the underlying principles. But you, TE, have done little more than continue to restate the obvious, over and over, fighting for some unknowable reason to convince people of ... of what? You've argued both sides of the fence, detailing the argument for using slope angle and pressure differential to "absorb" energy, and then stating--I don't know how you can do this without realizing it--that people who understand and believe the same thing are wrong. You have also repeatedly offended the forum members collectively by referring to them--all of us, by extension--as "these people" and implying a general level of ignorance that with few exceptions is not true (for example: "These people have a curious habit of throwing the baby out with the bath water if you can convince them of one tiny irrelevant inconsistency," and "these people on this forum trust what you say. Now you have people believing that absorbing will speed you up, because you've confused them again...."--both from post #1007).

 

Writing like that is offensive and no way to gain friends or respect. And yet you whine when people point out the flaws in your own understanding, the inconsistencies and fallacies, both formal and informal, in your arguments. Your pleas for respect based on your self-proclaimed credentials fall on deaf ears, and only undermine your arguments. They constitute a logical fallacy (informal--appeal to authority) in themselves, as a false statement is no less false when uttered by someone who ought to know better. And vice-versa.

 

The Engineer, you may be a nice guy, and you may be someone I'd enjoy skiing with. But your fallacious and offensive argument style, along with your mistaken apparent belief that your education makes you infallible, and whining when people don't just blindly extend the respect you think you deserve but have not earned here (combined with your failure to equally respect the education and experience of others), make any attempt to have a productive discussion with you tiresome and pointless. When people have accurately targeted your arguments, your tendency has been not to reply to their responses, but to move the target (or change the working definition of things like "absorption"). That gets real old, real fast. Inexplicably, that's even happened when people have agreed with you! You may think you have something to add (and in truth, I suspect that you do), but whatever understanding you may have is couched in such disingenuous sophistry that I, for one, have lost my initial interest in trying learn from you.

 

Let's take a look at a few more of the fallacies in your arguments. In post #1007 you wrote, "So, I would put the pressure on any doubters to prove why A&E doesn't slow you down." Exactly what "doubters" are you referring to? Once it was understood what you meant by "absorption" (as "bleeding energy" or converting kinetic energy to other forms of energy or transferring energy "out of the system"), no one--not a soul--has argued against it. There have been no doubters, making the rest of your "argument" nothing more than a strawman tilt into the wind. And yet you have continued to push your argument, ad nauseum, against ... only the strawman you have created. If you know that and you're doing it intentionally, you're a troll. If you don't know it, you're forgiven, but recognize that it explains why so few people are just saluting your flag. 

 

Similarly, in post #993, you wrote "there's lot's of inaccurate statements about the effects of going uphill." I challenge you to actually find one of those "inaccurate statements" that you refer to--you should, if you want to avoid the charge of posing another strawman argument. Then you went on to imply, in a sweeping generality, that 'lots of people' have been ignoring the inevitable effects of friction (again who, and where?)--this despite the fact that many others (myself included) have both explicitly discussed the effects of friction, and carefully pointed out instances in which they were choosing to ignore the effects of friction to simplify an analysis (a common thing to do when friction is small enough to be only a trivial complication, as I'm sure you know, but a mistake when friction is critical to the analysis, as you have accurately pointed out). The fact is, again, no one but your illusionary strawman has argued against you, or against the significance of friction (both ski-snow friction and air drag) as a slowing force, and I've seen no evidence of anyone being unaware of friction's inexorable role.

 

When you "explain" that "without friction, if you use the hill to slow your descent you will end up right back where you started, and you will never be able to move down the hill," I'll bet everyone already knew that. I suggest that it goes without saying (which means that an omission of "friction" in a sentence does not necessarily imply that someone doesn't understand it or consider it). Suggesting otherwise is both another strawman sophistry and an aggravating waste of time to anyone hoping to actually further the discussion or learn something. When you claimed (twice) that you'd "proven that friction is enough to maintain speed on gentle slopes," did you really think that that fact needed proving to anyone who has ever stood on a pair of skis on snow?

 

Based on the following paragraph from your post #993, I would even argue that others here may have a better understanding of friction than you do, TE:

Quote:
 I have lots of experience with friction from skis on snow.  I love moguls.  When I end up on a green run or a blue run between mogul fields I just want to get to the next mogul field as fast as possible, so I just ski straight with no turning or braking, and I still can't go fast enough.  I often ski slushy moguls.  I call it poor man's powder.  And, I'm often lazy getting my skis waxed.  So, on many slushy days on green or blue runs with poorly waxed skis going straight, I can hardly go fast enough, and I have to skate to get through it.  So, this example proves that just skis on snow on a slight slope gives plenty of friction to keep from accelerating out of control.  Everyone must understand that in this situation friction provides more than enough speed control.  Remember that friction increases with speed, so don't compare with the slippery feelings you get when you first start moving. 

You might want to check your engineering references again and then revisit that last sentence, TE. As I recall, and based on both formal study (admittedly a while back) and practical experience, the friction between two solid surfaces (eg. skis and snow) does not generally increase with speed.

 

Just for fun, I've done a little research to refresh and confirm my own understanding of friction. As we know from experience, friction can be capricious and certain material interactions can behave in unpredictable ways. There may be few hard and fast "laws" and universal formulas for predicting friction, but in the vast majority of scenarios, friction obeys principles specified in the 1600's by French physicist Guillaume Amontons, and identified empirically 200 years earlier by Leonardo da Vinci. Amontons' Laws of Friction state that the force of friction (which, at least from most typical frames of reference, always opposes the direction of motion) is proportional to the "load"--the force pressing the surfaces together (the "normal force") and independent of the surface area of contact. Note that, by Amontons' Laws, speed does not enter the equation--a principle later codified as "Coulomb's Law" (Charles-Augustin Coulomb) that "kinetic friction is independent of the sliding velocity." It's a simple equation, typically expressed as: F = µL, where "F" is the frictional force, L is the normal force (the "load"), and µ is the "coefficient of friction"--a constant specific to the particular materials and surfaces in contact with each other. (References: University of Virginia, University of Washington, Springer, Encyclopedia of Tribology)

 

So again, Engineer, the science appears not to support you, at least in this particular case. Sliding friction does not increase with speed. If you think that your brakes work better and your tires grip better the faster you go...well, please at least be careful where you conduct your experiments!

 

On the other hand, and not to be overlooked, air friction (air drag) absolutely does increase with speed. As any cyclist (and really, any skier) intuitively knows, wind resistance is a big deal, and the faster you go, the bigger a slowing force it becomes. With speed, air friction increases a lot--not just linearly, but as the square of velocity. So as speed (through the air) quadruples, say, from 5 mph to 20 mph, the slowing force of the air friction becomes 16 times greater.

 

In the big picture, therefore, you actually aren't wrong about friction increasing with speed. I suspect that you do know all about air resistance, TE, and that you work with it often. It is very significant in skiing, and much moreso for advanced skiers carrying more speed. It is the primary explanation for "terminal velocity" and certainly one of the reasons why expert skiers can make it look so effortless and like they aren't doing much at all to manage speed as they cruise along "effortlessly" at a steady, but significant, speed. The faster you go, the less work you have to do to maintain that speed. I won't insult you by suggesting that you don't understand air friction.

 

However, as significant as it is, air friction is not the subject of this discussion, is it? In the paragraph I quoted above, you were clearly referring to ski-snow sliding friction. And that, while it always exists, is rarely sufficient by itself to fully oppose the pull of gravity on a steep ski slope--even if your skis are not well waxed and tuned. Sliding friction almost always--except at terminal velocity (due largely to air friction)--requires assistance if we want to slow down or even maintain constant speed.

 

And in real skiing, we give it that assistance--either by enhancing resistance (braking by intentionally skidding, using the edges to scrub off speed), or by going uphill (or less downhill--effectively making the slope less steep to a point where sliding friction becomes sufficient to oppose the reduced--or reversed--pull of gravity in the direction of travel). As you have pointed out, there is little practical difference between "going less downhill" in one long section or in many short sections.

 

I agree with you, and have never suggested otherwise, that resistance (sliding friction, air friction, and other forms of resistance) is ultimately the only thing that truly slows us down as we descend the mountain. They are the only things that result in an overall decrease in the total energy of the skier "system." As you have pointed out, without friction, we could pendulum forever back and forth across a halfpipe. Without friction, the well-established principle of "completing turns" for speed control would not work, because all it would amount to is converting and reconverting kinetic energy to potential energy and back. And yet, it does work, doesn't it? It does make sense, simply because there is always some friction in the system. It should go without saying. For all practical purposes, we certainly can control speed by going uphill.

 

That said, it is still true that an aim of good skiing--or at least, of good offensive turning technique--is to reduce as much as possible the added friction in turns. That's how you win races. Although we ultimately rely on friction, the engineering of equipment and the evolution of good ski technique both strive to minimize its effects. The best skiers, from alpine racers (obviously) to skiers like Patrick Deneen in bumps, minimize friction and glide as much as they can, managing speed through tactics and direction, rather than directly through the technique of braking. They "ski the slow (enough) line fast." They do brake as needed, of course.

 

You can reduce speed through "friction" (braking, increasing resistance) or "direction" (going uphill--yes, with a minimum of residual friction, if you really want that added clause). In any situation other than terminal velocity, we need to add one or the other of those, because the sliding friction of gliding skis running straight down the fall line won't be enough. If it is, it's really time to wax!

 

TE--I do not mean to be harsh on you, and I'd like you to stay around. But since you are so vigorously and adamantly defending a point that I maintain has little to do with real skiing (that is, trying to control speed solely with flexion-extension movements, with neither turning nor braking but gliding straight down the hill), you open yourself to equally vigorous analysis and rebuttal of your argument. That includes both pointing out logical holes in the argument, and challenging any premises that are either false or that may not be self-evident and need further explanation or proof. Virtually no real person has been arguing against your basic premise of the potential effects of flexion and extension on speed, either directly or indirectly. But I cannot believe that even you would oppose the idea that its importance must be measured in the larger context of ski technique, tactics, and the multiple roles of flexion and extension beyond just "pure speed control." 

 

With that, I'll probably lay low for a while. I'll check in to see if this thread ever gets anywhere, but for now, I've got a lot of things to spend time on that are more important to me than contributing more to unproductive wheel spinning here. We need some traction. Or should I say, friction? And it would be nice to go ski some bumps!

 

Best regards,

Bob

post #1023 of 1034
I will say in TE's defense, mogul logic does have a section of the Dvd where he highlights a particular skier from back then who was particularly good at A&E and has video of him going straight down, practicing his A&E. But interestingly the point is made that this particular skier was regarded for being able to go faster then everyone else. primarily because he could "punch" the backsides and troughs so well and his A&E timing and touch wa so awesome. So the video does include some video along those lines and that kind of training is definitely relevant. It's just that false conclusions have been deduced about that.

Someone said it earlier but I will say it too, when good A&E is happening it may very well FEEL like you're slowing down when in reality you're going even faster. Suddenly the bumps feel wider apart and easier and less frantic, which makes it feel slower, but it doesn't mean you're actually going slower.

i watched Mogul Logic again recently because of this thread. Here are some of the strongest points I got out of it:

1 - stack over the inside edge of the outside ski and basically avoid hip angulation. His view is in order to absorb bumps you need your legs lined up in the right direction so that the face of the bump is in line with your leg and your leg can absorb. So don't get your feet too far side to side. If your feet are out to the side then your shock absorbers aren't lined up with the face of the next bump.

2 - edge engagement as early as possible in the tops of turns

3 - he demonstrates accomplishing the above mainly by moving the knees from side to side. So this movement of the knees towards the inside of the turn is critical while maintaining an alignment of the hips over the feet, ie...not hip angulation

4 - he talks about "punching" with extension on the backside that punches into the trough with extension just after the knee move. He notes how the bigger the bump face you're about to hit the more you need to punch down to full extension in the trough just in front of it.

5 - releasing happens on the face of the bump while absorbing the face with flexion. He doesn't get into this but my personal note would be that during the release particularly near the end is when you want to start making those tipping movements which he talks about the knee and does and outside knee in discussion but I think ankle activation and inside knee movements should be thought about there to accomplish same thing. He always has his knees locked together and literally talked about using lead change and cranking the outside knee in under the inside knee. I prefer inside knee and also ankle activation which he did not mention, very focused on the knees. On the other hand in bumps we have so much going on with the knees in terms of A&E it may be easier to think about the knees, but still I am struck by his lack of ankle discussion and inside leg activation, instead focusing on outside which works fine for this pivoty legs glued together style but would not work so well for many of us in other recreational bump situations IMHO. But I love the über important point that releasing is timed with the flexion. Flex to release!

6 - pole use he emphasized planting on the backside of the bump and a few other things that were interesting. He did NOT endorse a blocking pole plant FWIW.

7 - he did not discuss pivoting or rotary at all which is interesting because he looks very visibly pivoty in his videos. But apparently this is not part of his mental process. Instead he focused a lot on early edge engagement and avoiding getting sidewise. Perhaps he realizes that focus on rotary may end up sideways. When you watch him he seems to swivel those skis back and forth faster then the side cuts can do on their own, so frankly I think he is using some rotary even though he's not talking about it. I don't particularly like that aspect of his style either FWIW. Too much work. But the big knee moves he talks about do cause rotary to happen implicitly. And sometimes I wish I could swivel at least three turns in a row as fast as he can. I think it may have happened by accident a few times. ;-)

8 - he covers ariels too

9 - foot pull back is discussed to keep the feet from squirting forward after the crest. This is discussed as part of the absorption process and critical to remaining stacked fore aft
post #1024 of 1034
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Engineer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt View Post
 

 

Don't claim I said something if you cannot back it up with a quote. The remaining energy is still given by the approach angle as above, I have not claimed anything else.

Here's your quote:

 

Quote:

 Yes, you speed up by falling, but if you hit e.g. a horizontal patch the vertical component of the velocity will disappear in the non-elastic impact. The same happens if the patch is not horizontal, but it is not as obvious perhaps.

But it's not just the quote.  You're making strange objections that seem to show the same misunderstanding represented by this quote above.  I'm not sure the source of your malfunction.  Is it bad English, malicious attacks, or misunderstandings?  All I know for sure is that it's not helping the conversation that I was trying to have with Bob for either side.  Right when we are getting to the heart of the conversation you come in with these irrelevant attacks saying not much and contradicting basic physics just like the quote above that derail the conversation.  It makes it impossible to make any progress, and it deflates the value of this forum.  How can anyone look at that quote above and not think you are out of your mind?  Anyone reasonable that is that speaks English.  I gave up on you long ago, but wanted to give Bob the respect of replying.  I don't know how I got roped into arguing with you more, but I'm done.  I stopped reading Borntoski's posts long ago.  Bob, if you reply and I don't get back to you, please don't be offended.  I'm just tired of reading all this other nonsense.

It should be obvious that with "the same happens" I meant that part of the kinetic energy disappears and I think you understand that. I have very clearly explained that in at least 5 posts now, but you chose this response to Tog because it was possible to misinterpret. Among others the quote that Ghost provided should make that pretty clear.

 

These are two things you have repeated for some time now in one form or the other, but when pointed out it is not true you come back with trolling attacks instead of addressing the actual facts.

It seems your main argument is that this is close enough to the truth so I'm an <insert bad word here> for pointing it out.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Engineer View Post
 

 

If you drop through the air and the landing isn't perfectly flat your speed will still carry through. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Engineer View Post
 

 

 I keep harping on this, but gravity is a conservative field.  What you put in you must get back out.  The only reason moments of skiing up hill ever help you control your speed down the hill is because of friction.  Without friction, if you use the hill to slow your descent you will end up right back where you started, and you will never be able to move down the hill.  

post #1025 of 1034
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamt View Post

....

These are two things you have repeated for some time now in one form or the other, but when pointed out it is not true you come back with trolling attacks instead of addressing the actual facts.

It seems your main argument is that this is close enough to the truth so I'm an <insert bad word here> for pointing it out.

 

Originally Posted by The Engineer View Post

If you drop through the air and the landing isn't perfectly flat your speed will still carry through. 

 

Originally Posted by The Engineer View Post
I keep harping on this, but gravity is a conservative field.  What you put in you must get back out.  The only reason moments of skiing up hill ever help you control your speed down the hill is because of friction.  Without friction, if you use the hill to slow your descent you will end up right back where you started, and you will never be able to move down the hill.  

 

Whoah.  I am not an engineer, but even I can see the blatant incorrectness of these statements.  

post #1026 of 1034
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post
 

 

Whoah.  I am not an engineer, but even I can see the blatant incorrectness of these statements.  

 

You should consider then that you might want to ask an engineer about them.

 

You also should ask why you are so affected in your judgments by perceived social pressures of the forum to speak a "rightminded" view.  I strongly suspect that, before you read the last few posts on here, if someone grabbed you and said, I've got a skateboard here with real good bearings and ultrahard wheels -- if I drop it on this side of a halfpipe and it goes straight down, straight up the other wall, and straight back down, and it goes X fast down the first wall, what speed will it reach down the second wall?  ...That you would've said something like "well, it'll go basically X minus a little bit, because the wheels and bearings are good but not perfect."  So, case closed.  If you really think that the skateboard example I just gave is bunk, go try a version of it.

 

Technique.

post #1027 of 1034

Bob, I was wrong to extend so much respect to you.  You are neither a good physicist nor a great skier, but yet you will argue with me as if you understand physics and argue with Dan as if you are a champion mogul skier.

 

My points are important, because once you realize that you can control speed just through absorption and extension without scraping or long turns then you can prioritize it to ski better, a lesson you haven't learned.

 

If you have a force you will keep accelerating.  At any point once your velocity is constant it's because the forces opposing gravity have increased with velocity.  This effect is most talked about with fluids and air giving a terminal velocity while falling (skiing through snow probably has allot of fluid like characteristics).  Regardless of the contribution from the snow or from the air, the point remains that you reach a slow terminal velocity on gentle slopes and this is the reason why A&E provides speed control without any other turning or scraping.  I am sure that snow will contribute quite a bit, because if it was just wind resistance resulting in terminal velocity than the surface wouldn't matter, but whether it's air or snow doesn't really matter for any of my points.

 

I never contradicted myself.  It baffles me that so many people seem not to understand such simple concepts or the simple points that I make.

 

When I say these people, I mean most of the people replying to this thread.  You've got Liguid feet who can't understand that without friction you will just keep going up and down like a pendulum and your speed DOWN the hill at the same spot will always be the same every time unless you have friction.  You've got Borntoski that has no interest in reason, but just takes sides.  You've got Tog that mostly jumps on any bandwagon that opposes me, because of our earlier disagreements whether he understands it or not.  You've got Zentune that wants me to bow before Jamt's Ph.D. because I'm just an engineer without understanding that engineers are applied physicist with the most experience in this area.  You've got MDF that was just a yes man for Jamt no matter how crazy the ideas.  You've got Jamt that wants to show he's hot stuff, but is wrong half the time and gets away with it, because most other people can't understand it.  You've got Bob that was wrong years ago talking with Dan and is still wrong today and can't understand that A&E provides speed control without turning or braking and can't use that knowledge to his advantage.  You've got Ghost who has an engineering background that seems to understand what I'm saying and properly points out when I'm a jerk, but shouldn't side with me, because I really don't want to be friends with any of these people, though he probably does.  You've got a little group going on here that is self supporting each other to ignorance.  I could summon up lots of people to agree with me, but few of them are here with this conversation, because you've driven them all away with your disrespect, ignorance, and inability to admit you are wrong.

post #1028 of 1034
Ok, no one else respond so that The Engineer's baby-fit can stand for all time biggrin.gif

zenny
post #1029 of 1034

TE, you are being a jerk (or a troll). :D The reason you cannot get folk to agree with you is you have not communicated well enough.

 

For the skiing a shallow slope analogy, there is a difference, in that the skier must descend an additional height and get rid of the energy mgh.  In order for it to mimic skiing on a shallow slope, the skier must reach down to the next trough with his legs and then lower himself while resiting (force directed up as body descends).  This works fine for slow skiing, but the skier cannot do that much work (he does not have the horsepower) when skiing steep slopes at higher speeds.

post #1030 of 1034

Huh.  I started to read this thread several times because I’ve got Dan’s book and thought this thread might help facilitate my understanding of better bump skiing.  Do you all have fun at Disney World, or do you suck the fun out of that too?  :rolleyes

post #1031 of 1034
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarvelousMartha View Post

Huh.  I started to read this thread several times because I’ve got Dan’s book and thought this thread might help facilitate my understanding of better bump skiing.  Do you all have fun at Disney World, or do you suck the fun out of that too?  rolleyes.gif
I'm wondering what bothers you, the physics or the squabbling? I got into the physics because I find that fun, even though it has little practical effect on actually skiing.
A good argument can be fun too, but this thread has degenerated into simple unpleasantness.

I've never been to Disney World.
post #1032 of 1034
Omg. TE, great professorial manners. People don't agree and you spend your time whining about them. Same number of words could explain what you're trying to say. Mdf posted 2 pages of equations and you're only interest is whining about Jamt. Oh well, so much for the physics.

At the least I think we've settled that at least it takes some work to absorb and extend.

In other news Stephen Fearing was apparently at Killington with the Russian Team training on Highline back in Jan.
http://www.killingtonmountainschool.org/news/blog/2015/01/
post #1033 of 1034

I made a good prediction of the future. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamt View Post
 

 

These are two things you have repeated for some time now in one form or the other, but when pointed out it is not true you come back with trolling attacks instead of addressing the actual facts.

It seems your main argument is that this is close enough to the truth so I'm an <insert bad word here> for pointing it out.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Engineer View Post
 

 

If you drop through the air and the landing isn't perfectly flat your speed will still carry through. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Engineer View Post
 

 

 I keep harping on this, but gravity is a conservative field.  What you put in you must get back out.  The only reason moments of skiing up hill ever help you control your speed down the hill is because of friction.  Without friction, if you use the hill to slow your descent you will end up right back where you started, and you will never be able to move down the hill.  

post #1034 of 1034

okay - time for a thread time out ....

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
This thread is locked