Physics debate

[GrimSurfer]

I don’t think it does.

Ok, not exactly yes or no but I will gladly take it . Thanks

Maybe I misunderstand, but from the above, I think @GrimSurfer thinks the cable does not allow the skier to apply more weight / pressure to the front of the ski than the skier would be able to apply without the cable?

@GrimSurfer, does an Alpine type binding allow a skier to apply additional pressure / force to the front of the ski by leaning against the resistance of the locked down heel?
I think you will say “Yes” to this.
In the same way, a skier using a cable binding, which also creates resistance to raising the heel, does the same thing, but to a lesser degree.
Yes or no?

All of my comments were provided in reference to a NN 3 pin 75 mm binding. I thought this was understood.

Yes or no?

[TallGrass]

Some truths:

* Understanding physics is not a prerequisite to using them, ala a baby doesn't have understand "inverted pendulums" nor "shifting pivot points" in order to walk on two feet.

* In terms of communication quality, text is poor while face-to-face is rich, opening up possibilities for misunderstanding due to lack of tone, volume, facial expression, rate, and more.

* Human observations can be VERY subjective, ala what one person "feels" another may not, and "interpretation/perception" is yet another point of possible divergence.

* Many take criticism of something they said as criticism of themself, though it is possible to critic an action separate from the person: "Michael Jordan flubbed that pass (but is still a great basketball player)."

* Science emphasizes empiricism (measure-ability) both to neutralize the squishiness of humans data-reporting while also providing a consistent point of reference.

* Telemarking/skiing is a very complex thing with many factors and variables with fluctuations therein.

* People can have different motivations/goals when communicating: to make a point, for humor, to feel they're understood, etc., and they can mix and shift which is another "communication ball to juggle."

* People apply "TACT" differently. From https://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html

"Tact Filters
I came up with this idea several years ago in a conversation with a friend at MIT, who was regularly finding herself upset by other people who worked in her lab. The analogy worked so well in helping her to understand her co-workers that I decided to write it up and put it on the web. I've gotten quite a few email messages since then from other people who have also found it helpful.

All people have a "tact filter", which applies tact in one direction to everything that passes through it. Most "normal people" have the tact filter positioned to apply tact in the outgoing direction. Thus whatever normal people say gets the appropriate amount of tact applied to it before they say it. This is because when they were growing up, their parents continually drilled into their heads statements like, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all!"

"Nerds," on the other hand, have their tact filter positioned to apply tact in the incoming direction. Thus, whatever anyone says to them gets the appropriate amount of tact added when they hear it. This is because when nerds were growing up, they continually got picked on, and their parents continually drilled into their heads statements like, "They're just saying those mean things because they're jealous. They don't really mean it."

When normal people talk to each other, both people usually apply the appropriate amount of tact to everything they say, and no one's feelings get hurt. When nerds talk to each other, both people usually apply the appropriate amount of tact to everything they hear, and no one's feelings get hurt. However, when normal people talk to nerds, the nerds often get frustrated because the normal people seem to be dodging the real issues and not saying what they really mean. Worse yet, when nerds talk to normal people, the normal people's feelings often get hurt because the nerds don't apply tact, assuming the normal person will take their blunt statements and apply whatever tact is necessary.

So, nerds need to understand that normal people have to apply tact to everything they say; they become really uncomfortable if they can't do this. Normal people need to understand that despite the fact that nerds are usually tactless, things they say are almost never meant personally and shouldn't be taken that way. Both types of people need to be extra patient when dealing with someone whose tact filter is backwards relative to their own."

* This thread reminds me of people talking about "How to Make a Motorcycle/Bicycle Turn" to the Left when going in a straight line. Some will continue to argue the turn is initiated "by turning the handlebars to the Left" or "shifting your weight" when the actual answer is "by turning the handlebars to the Right", even in the face of physics, logic, and evidence (note: briefly, a bike is an Inverted Pendulum which must be upset for it to lean, and must lean to turn).

If my effort was noble your answer is sarcastic
On your very first reply to my suggestion you are actually derailing the thread…
And to all others, please keep this thread on the line or please continue your discussion through other means

In the absence of face-to-face, sometimes it helps to "assume good faith" per above point.

the same character has behaved the same way here as on the other thread, of course. The poster has been registered just over a month, posts over a dozen times a day: all of it unhelpful at best, mostly hostile. ... It's ruining the forum. For now, I suggest that nobody feed the troll, and put them under 'foe' so you don't even see their nonsense.

"All of it unhelpful"? I can point to the stripped screw in a binding thread (@snowmark) to disprove that.

Which raises the question of the above posts purpose. It appears to stifle communication more than to facilitate it. One of the reason "nerds" filter on the inbound is they understand you may have to wade through mud to find the acorn, through the deep powder to find the ski.

I don't mind a good debate or a fair amount of back and forth when people try to get their point across, but unfortunately GS doesn't mind throwing out insults when he is challenged.

For my benefit, could you provide me (thread or PM) links to said "insults" as well as what the possible motives were relatively (jest, banter, deriding a point, deriding a person, ...).

Here’s the thing though… people do things all the time without actually thinking about how or why things work the way they do. A lot is taken for granted.

Do you really think most competent telemark skiers take telemark skiing mechanics for granted? Do you ... According to your logic, telemark technique is superfluous and we should all be skiing alpine technique on our freeheel setups.

Connyro, "taking for granted" is an adaptive human trait to avoid cognitive overload. Humans are Cognitive Misers and will use short cuts to economize (though sometimes they foul up... heuristics). Moreover, like the baby who has learned to walk, understanding of physics with numbers and free body diagrams is not only not needed, but for early Olympians may not have been available, that is Armchair "Feel" Physics vs. Empirical Data-Driven Physics.

SOME HOW we are able to walk and chew gum (mastication sans biting tongue), drive motor vehicles and (*uhem*), and a host of other combinations "without thinking" about it.

Unconscious Incompetent: Doesn't know what they don't know (gaper).
Conscious Incompetent: Knows what they don't know (noob).
Conscious Competent: Can do it while thinking about it (successful student).
Unconscious Competent: Can do it while not thinking about it (seasoned soul).
Teacher: ^ and the ability to effectively communicate.

My education has included quite a lot of physics (Master of science in technology). How about you?

The argument from authority is a logical fallacy. Not to say you don't know what you're talking about, but whether or not one holds X Y and Z degrees is irrelevant to a proposition's truth or falsehood.

That is true, my degree does not mean I am always right. That was just a response to Grimsurfer when he suggested that I need to consult somebody who has actually studied physics.

Just wanted to say I liked that give-and-take. Mca80's point is illustrated by "What if two Masters of SiT disagree, then what?" A constructive way forward is to articulate the differing ideas, operationalize them (describe them in measurable terms), construct and run experiments, assess results, more discussion, ideas, ....

thanks for answering my questions. Lol. Since you won't answer, I'll make assumptions and the big assumption is that you dont understand telemark skiing and your grasp of critical thinking is suspect. You seem most interested in feeling superior on a public forum and least interested in actual telemark skiing which is what most of us do here, regardless of being "world class skiers" or not.

I don't see this as arguing in good faith, nor as constructive.

I am having a distinct sense of “deja vu” reading this train wreck of a thread. The old Telemarktips was a wonderful resource ... and just all around good banter. Then every so often someone would come along with a post, which provoked a s**t show and the original poster would stand firm and it would cycle on and eventually die out. All I know is, when I raise my heel, sink and edge the rear ski I feel a bite on the snow which helps carve the turn.

Nick BC, is it possible that one man's "all around good banter" is another's "train wreck ... s**t show"? Is it possible that all parties are acting in Good Faith and rather it's just a Tact Filter Imbalance of Nerds + Normies, which would face-to-face would clarify? Also, I don't discount your "feel a bite", yet for argument's sake, what if someone else "feels" something different, how can a discussion progress constructively from there?

Thanks. In my 30 years of professional work I have discovered there are actually a few things to which physics, as we mere mortals understand it, do not apply: ... 3) professional trials motorcycle riders,

Solidarity, my brother, but oh how beautiful it is to watch. Nice thing is physics inescapably applies to both motorcycles and skiing, while understanding it is not requisite to using either. Just imagine, "Timmy, before you learn to ride this bicycle, do you have Ph.D. from an accredited university?"

You can make an experimental test about the tip pressure: take one ski (with a binding), one boot, two scales, and some Voile straps.

I like this approach, and experiments are usually needed to breech a conflicting-concept-impass. I would note, however, I only see one ski and most people have two in contact with both the ground and skier.

In NNN-BC the flexor does exactly the same job as the cable and springs; it allows the skier to apply torque to the ski, in other words push against the ground with the front part of the ski.

Flexor, as in the rubber bumper/stop? I think another experiment sans-flexor where the NNN binding was a "free pivot" would also help, a "control" group if you will.


Last Truth: Reading this thread is not a required to get out there on skis!

[bauerb]

when people want to explain the value they provided to the company at the end of the year, I tell them that the more words required to explain the value they provided, they less value it actually was. harsh, but true.

so what is the high-concept pitch for the value of this physics debate? high concept = "Cadillac of skis"..."The Netflix of cars". etc.

[TallGrass]

when people want to explain the value they provided to the company at the end of the year, I tell them that the more words required to explain the value they provided, they less value it actually was. harsh, but true.

so what is the high-concept pitch for the value of this physics debate? high concept = "Cadillac of skis"..."The Netflix of cars". etc.

Progress is often "1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" as Edison is quoted. Explaining, a report, or an overview is never an interchangeable surrogate, yet does play into Cognitive Misership.

Exercise has value (even text-wading), yet is there any that can be done in less time than it takes to summarize? Many "advances" were byproducts rather than goals.

[JohnSKepler]

The interesting thing is that Hooke’s Law seems to be applied to springs carrying a free mass. Sure, the spring is in tension. But both points of the spring are not fixed.

Though I do get your point about what’s going on up to the point until forces reach an equilibrium.

Hooke's law applies to springs. Period. Fixed, unfixed, flexed, tensioned, free, doesn't matter. But it doesn't apply meaningfully to this discussion unless you are doing design work on a system and need to size the spring. I seriously doubt this actually happens anywhere spring-cable systems are being developed. I mean, why would you? For Voile to model a telemark system would be ridiculous, which you would have to do if you were going to play with Hooke's law in the manner suggested. Unless you have a $10M government grant to develop a dynamic telemark ski simulation. If you were building skis for the Army you might convince the government you needed to to this just to cash in, but any results that actually got used would be from testing.

Do people developing spring/cable telemark systems have teams of Ph.D. dynamicists working flexible body and deformable surface codes they're going to run for weeks on a supercomputer? Does Voile hire that kind of person? They don't have any computer modeling jobs open at the moment. Because, that's what it would take if the answer it spits out are the spring parameters? But, why would you do this when you could just go out and test it in the snow? (Unless of course you were just trying to defraud the government. Which happens a lot.)

This is how it probably works: Test the spring, in the binding, on the hill. Did you like it? No. Stronger spring. Test again. Did you like it? No. Stronger spring. Test again. Did you like it? Yes. How many are we going to build. Oh, 400. Okay, now you go test the spring you liked and one of the parameters you send the spring manufacturer is the spring constant, along with the unloaded and saturated length. Send us 440 of those.

This "physics" discussion is a little ridiculous. If it was possible to deduce this kind of stuff with physics I'd have done that because I'm a physicist. But this is far too complex a system to model. (Hint: it isn't the spring, it's the flexible ski and the deformable substrate (snow).) Instead, I came and asked questions of people like @lilcliffy, @ fisheater, @ stephen , @lowangle al , and others, who might be physicists but probably aren't because they don't seem like anal retentive assholes like me. And I didn't argue with them because that would have been pointless. It is their experience that I respect and inquire about because experience trumps physics every time.

And if it was all about physics, I wouldn't suck at this so bad! But I did some linked telemark turns yesterday and it felt great. Until it didn't.

@TallGrass , I have it on very good authority that both Tony Bou and Danny Macaskill are time-traveling aliens using anti-gravity technology. But you didn't hear it from me.

[GrimSurfer]

when people want to explain the value they provided to the company at the end of the year, I tell them that the more words required to explain the value they provided, they less value it actually was. harsh, but true.

so what is the high-concept pitch for the value of this physics debate? high concept = "Cadillac of skis"..."The Netflix of cars". etc.

Agree. Results speak for themselves.

The high level pitch?

If you understand the physics behind skiing, you can understand which binding may work best for you (and why) without trying every combo under the sun. Just don’t lose sight of the fact that 75% or more of ski performance depends on the skier.*

This is just part of a series of discussions one could have on bindings. I’d love to sit back and watch how a really good discussion on the physics of Xplore would play out. @lilcliffy and @Tom M would be the guys best qualified to start that discussion though.

*One could argue % all day long but even a fantastic skier would have a hard time delivering a good performance on an utterly wrong binding (SNS), the wrong wax selection (no kick or glide), etc.

[GrimSurfer]

The interesting thing is that Hooke’s Law seems to be applied to springs carrying a free mass. Sure, the spring is in tension. But both points of the spring are not fixed.

Though I do get your point about what’s going on up to the point until forces reach an equilibrium.

Hooke's law applies to springs. Period. Fixed, unfixed, flexed, tensioned, free, doesn't matter. But it doesn't apply meaningfully to this discussion unless you are doing design work on a system and need to size the spring. I seriously doubt this actually happens anywhere spring-cable systems are being developed. I mean, why would you? For Voile to model a telemark system would be ridiculous, which you would have to do if you were going to play with Hooke's law in the manner suggested. Unless you have a $10M government grant to develop a dynamic telemark ski simulation. If you were building skis for the Army you might convince the government you needed to to this just to cash in, but any results that actually got used would be from testing.

Do people developing spring/cable telemark systems have teams of Ph.D. dynamicists working flexible body and deformable surface codes they're going to run for weeks on a supercomputer? Does Voile hire that kind of person? They don't have any computer modeling jobs open at the moment. Because, that's what it would take if the answer it spits out are the spring parameters? But, why would you do this when you could just go out and test it in the snow? (Unless of course you were just trying to defraud the government. Which happens a lot.)

This is how it probably works: Test the spring, in the binding, on the hill. Did you like it? No. Stronger spring. Test again. Did you like it? No. Stronger spring. Test again. Did you like it? Yes. How many are we going to build. Oh, 400. Okay, now you go test the spring you liked and one of the parameters you send the spring manufacturer is the spring constant, along with the unloaded and saturated length. Send us 440 of those.

For the purposes of clarity, I didn’t raise Hooke’s Law. I was responding to a post that directed me to consider it.

I suspect companies have an engineer or two in the mix to make some basic calculations and decisions on design (if for no other reasons than time and product liability). But when it comes to a “mod” for a pre-existing binding config, there are more constraints than enablers at work. So yeah, I agree with your view that supercomputing and teams of engineers probably doesn’t factor into any of it.

There is likely a lot of empirical testing under controlled and uncontrolled conditions by “test skiers” (IDK if this is the right industry term, so let me explain what I mean). These guys and gals probably have exceptionally good skiing and analytical skills. World class feet, hands, and spatial skills. They may not be full time employees… maybe on retainer by ski companies to do all sorts of things from testing bindings to commenting on skis.

(Think F1 where some of the best test drivers have narrow skill sets that even exceed those of the marquee drivers. Schumacher was one of the only drivers in that sport who could truly do both jobs. The rest of the drivers take a developed chassis and ask for set ups that feel good to them. But they’re sometimes overruled by telemetry.)

Where the malarkey comes into play is on the claims… “our cable is the best”, “this will transform your skiing experience”, etc. without any clear explanation or hard data.

So if we, as a community of slightly more serious XC skiers, can better understand how things work, then we can make better choices for ourselves.

[TallGrass]

Do people developing spring/cable telemark systems have teams of Ph.D. dynamicists working flexible body and deformable surface codes they're going to run for weeks on a supercomputer? ... This is how it probably works: Test the spring, in the binding, on the hill. Did you like it? No. Stronger spring.

I suspect they have an engineer or two in the mix to make some basic calculations and decisions on design (if for no other reasons than time and product liability).

I think the perfect ski and binding could be made if they just got rid of one element: the human. Things get so much easier once the Meat Factor is left out.

Then again when it came to rockets...
“The best computer is a man, and it's the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.”
-- Wernher Von Braun

@TallGrass , I have it on very good authority that both Tony Bou and Danny Macaskill are time-traveling aliens using anti-gravity technology. But you didn't hear it from me.

Oo! Oo! Is their vessel "bigger on the inside"??? And can you put one vessel inside the other???

The fun thing about mega-skill + knowing-physics is you can pull off some cool stuff. Bill Koch does that in the video someone posted here. It's also possible to lean a motorcycle to the OUTSIDE of a turn, you just have to hang the "meat" off the inside enough for the net CG to lean in.

[TheMusher]

Hooke's law applies to springs. Period. Fixed, unfixed, flexed, tensioned, free, doesn't matter. But it doesn't apply meaningfully to this discussion unless you are doing design work on a system and need to size the spring. I seriously doubt this actually happens anywhere spring-cable systems are being developed. I mean, why would you? For Voile to model a telemark system would be ridiculous, which you would have to do if you were going to play with Hooke's law in the manner suggested. Unless you have a $10M government grant to develop a dynamic telemark ski simulation. If you were building skis for the Army you might convince the government you needed to to this just to cash in, but any results that actually got used would be from testing.

Not that it matters, but I'd be surprised if Voile hasn't calculated the tension of its cables (ie Hooke's law). I even think I read somewhere that Voile Switchback 2 is ca. 20% more stiff than Voile Switchback. For one, this would be necessary to conduct meaningful quality control and assurance.

That being said, I would second a closure of this physics debate.

[Stephen]

That being said, I would second a closure of this physics debate.

It will die a natural death, you may stop paying attention any time you like.
Said using a Nerd TACT Filter, please adjust reception as needed…