|Originally posted by Arcmeister:
This example shows that the definition of inclination as the line of dynamic balance from CM to base of support as per its vector geometry/physics definition, and the suggested interpretation that inclination represents/creates our edge angle to be mutually exclusive concepts. This mis-interpritation of sameness results from a perspective unique, and limited to, high energy carving analysis, where they just happen to appear to represent the similar angles. [/QB]
Arc, the similarity I was referring to was not a corresponding of R angle (resultant angle of force as dictated by existing levels of gravity and momentum) and edge angle. I definitely agree that there is typically a variance between R angle and edge angle. Even in carved turns alignment of the two is a rare occurrence restricted to very high speed turns. In most carved turns the R angle is less inclined than the edge angle, and some measure of joint articulation must be employed to move CM such that the R force vector is directed at the desired base of support so efficient balance can be achieved.
I never meant to suggest a similarity in R angle (PSIA's angle of inclination when skier is in balance) and edge angle, as seems to have been your interpretation of the material I presented. As you point out, such alignment seldom exists.
I believe your erroneous interpretation came from the following prior conversation:
Angulation could occur without repositioning the CM to an inside position of balance, so balance does not necessarally occur from angulation (allthough it may), but from inclination.
This is why I prefer the concept of defining inclination as the edge angle. When it is defined as the CM to center of pressure angle these tomato/tomoto debates can be legitimately introduced from both side because both sides of the argument are describing the same thing.
Let me expand on my statement to provide clarity. The "SAME THING" I was referring to was the movement necessary to relocate CM to a position of balance (direct R to an efficient base of support). Whether called angulation by one camp, or inclination by the other, it's the same bio mechanical movement.
I think the important challenge is to move beyond nomenclature for the time being and get a firm grasp on the purpose for, and efficiencies of, the movements we are assigning names to. If the instructor clearly understands the relationship between turn shape, sidecut, speed, edge angle, gravity, momentum, R angle, body bio mechanics, and balance then developing efficient movement patterns in students becomes a much easier task, regardless the nomenclature PSIA or the individual determines appropriate to assign to the movements.[ July 07, 2003, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: FastMan ]