Physics debate

[GrimSurfer]

Wow, late to the party, but I really don’t get this.

Of course, torque forward it applies pressure to the front of the ski.

I wonder too, how can you pressure the front of a ski with free heel bindings? Pushing front ski downwards, there seems to be only a free rotating axle in free heel bindings, how can you push with that.

You can pressure a rear ski by pressing your heel because then you have your front attachment to push against. There you have two attachment points. But in the front I feel I can only pressure the top of a ski, for example when I need to lift snow. There you have also contact at both toes and heel.

EDIT: I guess NNN-BC flexors and NN cables allow to pressure ski tip. Was it @Verskis who measured this. That lets you pressure rear ski tip to some extent, was it so.

I think you got it. Most or all nordic bindings resist forward pressure, based on those flexors, heel cables, etc. Produces Tip Pressure, but not actually on the very tip point that’s elevated above the snow of course. Mostly on the back ski of course in a telemark turn, since the front ski has the heel flat, but you can get some forward pressure on the front ski in a tele turn by pressing thru the cuff.

Correct.

[TallGrass]

@GrimSurfer, maybe you could help us out by posting a picture of a ski with each part labeled with the proper terms, with demarcation points showing where each term applies, so we can stop the poor use of language and terminology in our discussions? It seems like we are wasting a lot of time misunderstanding one another.

Or one could take the BlackDiamond/Ikea approach and just post a picture with "A, B, C, D, ..." at various points of reference, lines and arrows as needed. It gets around technical wording and different languages while conveying how-to.

To me, communication is like a bridge where each side reaching toward the other from a point in which they're solidly grounded often has the best result. One side cantilevering all the way across the gap to meet the other is an imbalance of sorts, though necessary in some cases (e.g. 2nd grade teacher to students).

there's a guy in that group that is constantly trying to invent "better" ways to XC ski. his argument is that generally accepted fundamentals are "too hard" for most people to learn, and should be left to the elites only

Like a manager who has risen to their Level of Incompetence so is hording for job security? Conversely, sometimes the more a person knows what your job entails, the less they want to do with it. Maybe a bit of "better to be in the stands wishing you were on the race track, then on the race track wishing..."

Skiing down a green at the resort on Karhu Kodiak 205s after hiking up(hill access), I came across* a Ski School instructor herding seven or so 'cats' (5 y.o.?). I had no interest in trading places.
* as in they passed me

Focusing on more effective ways to communicate and simplifying-for-action to enable others seems preferable to get more involved in a sport or activity. After all, a baby doesn't have to understand Inverted Pendulums or Center of Gravity in order to toddle along on two feet.

[Stephen]

@GrimSurfer, maybe you could help us out by posting a picture of a ski with each part labeled with the proper terms, with demarcation points showing where each term applies, so we can stop the poor use of language and terminology in our discussions? It seems like we are wasting a lot of time misunderstanding one another.

Or one could take the BlackDiamond/Ikea approach and just post a picture with "A, B, C, D, ..." at various points of reference, lines and arrows as needed. It gets around technical wording and different languages while conveying how-to.

To me, communication is like a bridge where each side reaching toward the other from a point in which they're solidly grounded often has the best result. One side cantilevering all the way across the gap to meet the other is an imbalance of sorts, though necessary in some cases (e.g. 2nd grade teacher to students).

there's a guy in that group that is constantly trying to invent "better" ways to XC ski. his argument is that generally accepted fundamentals are "too hard" for most people to learn, and should be left to the elites only

Like a manager who has risen to their Level of Incompetence so is hording for job security? Conversely, sometimes the more a person knows what your job entails, the less they want to do with it. Maybe a bit of "better to be in the stands wishing you were on the race track, then on the race track wishing..."

Skiing down a green at the resort on Karhu Kodiak 205s after hiking up(hill access), I came across* a Ski School instructor herding seven or so 'cats' (5 y.o.?). I had no interest in trading places.
* as in they passed me

Focusing on more effective ways to communicate and simplifying-for-action to enable others seems preferable to get more involved in a sport or activity. After all, a baby doesn't have to understand Inverted Pendulums or Center of Gravity in order to toddle along on two feet.

Yes, Sensei, I will do better.
(Said with some of both.)

[connyro]

This is how I look at tip pressure. Let's assume your skis are mounted with your boot on boot center. When you put weight on that lead foot with even pressure from toe to heel the ski is weighted evenly. As soon as you put more weight towards your toes you are generating tip pressure. Any extra weight applied to the ski ahead of the boot center mark is tip pressure in my book.

"Tip pressure" as a term has been around a long time, it is what it is, no need to change it.

The term is misleading. It is more of an idiom, in fact.

The “tip of a ski” doesn’t mean the same thing as the “front of the ski”, even though some might think that’s the way it will be interpreted. There is also the issue of consistency…

If you say “I cracked my *ski tip*” are people going to interpret that as cracking anywhere along the front half of the ski? Or if you say that “the *ski tip* rises as pressure is applied to Norwegian rocker”, are we left to assume that the front half of the ski levitates?

Of course not.

So let’s use descriptive terms whose meaning doesn’t change radically with context.

Yes! Let's change the entire vocabulary of a ski community (which you recently joined) so things are clearer for you. Makes sense.

Maybe the time and effort that your spend trying to describe skiing with physics could be better spent by actually skiing and gaining real experience?

[GrimSurfer]

This is how I look at tip pressure. Let's assume your skis are mounted with your boot on boot center. When you put weight on that lead foot with even pressure from toe to heel the ski is weighted evenly. As soon as you put more weight towards your toes you are generating tip pressure. Any extra weight applied to the ski ahead of the boot center mark is tip pressure in my book.

"Tip pressure" as a term has been around a long time, it is what it is, no need to change it.

The term is misleading. It is more of an idiom, in fact.

The “tip of a ski” doesn’t mean the same thing as the “front of the ski”, even though some might think that’s the way it will be interpreted. There is also the issue of consistency…

If you say “I cracked my *ski tip*” are people going to interpret that as cracking anywhere along the front half of the ski? Or if you say that “the *ski tip* rises as pressure is applied to Norwegian rocker”, are we left to assume that the front half of the ski levitates?

Of course not.

So let’s use descriptive terms whose meaning doesn’t change radically with context.

Yes! Let's change the entire vocabulary of a ski community (which you recently joined) so things are clearer for you. Makes sense.

Maybe the time and effort that your spend trying to describe skiing with physics could be better spent by actually skiing and gaining real experience?

The looser vocabulary of some of the more active folks on the forum probably doesn’t represent terms used by FIS. Just sayin, dude.

And terms that are ambiguous (as per the examples given) are ambiguous. Doesn’t matter who is using them. This isn’t a place of worship, though I can see how some might want it to be.

These were the ski conditions here several days ago (which I downloaded in anticipation of a comment like yours, which was boringly predictable). Haven’t had snow since. Those dates are last groomed dates…

Not that I ski groomed trails. But if there isn’t snow to groom at a club, there isn’t snow to ski in the nearby backcountry.

So thank you for your comments. Good to know you’re thinking of my leisure time and skills development.

[connyro]

The term is misleading. It is more of an idiom, in fact.

The “tip of a ski” doesn’t mean the same thing as the “front of the ski”, even though some might think that’s the way it will be interpreted. There is also the issue of consistency…

If you say “I cracked my *ski tip*” are people going to interpret that as cracking anywhere along the front half of the ski? Or if you say that “the *ski tip* rises as pressure is applied to Norwegian rocker”, are we left to assume that the front half of the ski levitates?

Of course not.

So let’s use descriptive terms whose meaning doesn’t change radically with context.

Yes! Let's change the entire vocabulary of a ski community (which you recently joined) so things are clearer for you. Makes sense.

Maybe the time and effort that your spend trying to describe skiing with physics could be better spent by actually skiing and gaining real experience?

The looser vocabulary of some of the more active folks on the forum probably doesn’t represent terms used by FIS. Just sayin, dude.

And terms that are ambiguous (as per the examples given) are ambiguous. Doesn’t matter who is using them. This isn’t a place of worship, though I can see how some might want it to be.

These were the ski conditions here several days ago (which I downloaded in anticipation of a comment like yours, which was boringly predictable). Haven’t had snow since. Those dates are last groomed dates…

Not that I ski groomed trails. But if there isn’t snow to groom at a club, there isn’t snow to ski in the nearby backcountry.

So thank you for your comments. Good to know you’re thinking of my leisure time and skills development.

Well then thank christ for you to come along and clear it all up! With your vast skiing knowledge and insight, it's no wonder you don't ski much. You don't need to- you've got physics to describe the experience for you! Usually, when snow is scarce near where I live, I travel to the snow and go skiing. I assume you don't have transportation?

[GrimSurfer]

Yes! Let's change the entire vocabulary of a ski community (which you recently joined) so things are clearer for you. Makes sense.

Maybe the time and effort that your spend trying to describe skiing with physics could be better spent by actually skiing and gaining real experience?

The looser vocabulary of some of the more active folks on the forum probably doesn’t represent terms used by FIS. Just sayin, dude.

And terms that are ambiguous (as per the examples given) are ambiguous. Doesn’t matter who is using them. This isn’t a place of worship, though I can see how some might want it to be.

These were the ski conditions here several days ago (which I downloaded in anticipation of a comment like yours, which was boringly predictable). Haven’t had snow since. Those dates are last groomed dates…

Not that I ski groomed trails. But if there isn’t snow to groom at a club, there isn’t snow to ski in the nearby backcountry.

So thank you for your comments. Good to know you’re thinking of my leisure time and skills development.

Well then thank christ for you to come along and clear it all up! With your vast skiing knowledge and insight, it's no wonder you don't ski much. You don't need to- you've got physics to describe the experience for you!

Anything to avoid a discussion about the physics of skiing, eh?

In a thread called “Physics debate”.

LOL

[connyro]

The looser vocabulary of some of the more active folks on the forum probably doesn’t represent terms used by FIS. Just sayin, dude.

And terms that are ambiguous (as per the examples given) are ambiguous. Doesn’t matter who is using them. This isn’t a place of worship, though I can see how some might want it to be.

These were the ski conditions here several days ago (which I downloaded in anticipation of a comment like yours, which was boringly predictable). Haven’t had snow since. Those dates are last groomed dates…

Not that I ski groomed trails. But if there isn’t snow to groom at a club, there isn’t snow to ski in the nearby backcountry.

So thank you for your comments. Good to know you’re thinking of my leisure time and skills development.

Well then thank christ for you to come along and clear it all up! With your vast skiing knowledge and insight, it's no wonder you don't ski much. You don't need to- you've got physics to describe the experience for you!

Anything to avoid a discussion about the physics of skiing, eh?

In a thread called “Physics debate”.

LOL

LOL indeed! Just pointing out how ridiculous you and your "discussions" really are. Way to wring out any fun from an activity that's meant to be purly fun.

[GrimSurfer]

Well then thank christ for you to come along and clear it all up! With your vast skiing knowledge and insight, it's no wonder you don't ski much. You don't need to- you've got physics to describe the experience for you!

Anything to avoid a discussion about the physics of skiing, eh?

In a thread called “Physics debate”.

LOL

LOL indeed! Just pointing out how ridiculous you and your "discussions" really are. Way to ring out any fun from an activity that's meant to be purly fun.

if you don’t find the physics of skiing worth discussing, there are other other threads on the forum that might make you happy.

https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3914

[lowangle al]

The bottom line here is that anyone who has ever used a three pin binding without the optional cable for K&G will immediately feel tip pressure as soon as you put the cable on and take a kick. Once you feel it, the science behind it is obvious.