Physics debate

[GrimSurfer]

See 1:29

I stopped at the copyright notice. LOL

[Musk Ox]

If only we could ski every waking moment of our lives for a period of 3-4 years (which is about how long it takes from first steps to starting to master bipedal locomotion), then this analogy might work better.

You're describing Norway.

[GrimSurfer]

If only we could ski every waking moment of our lives for a period of 3-4 years (which is about how long it takes from first steps to starting to master bipedal locomotion), then this analogy might work better.

You're describing Norway.

Yeah, I’ve suspected that Nordic countries do start things off pretty young. I doubt if they spend every waking moment of their lives (like walking) doing it though.

Walking is a natural skill for bipeds. Our bodies are actually designed to do it, from the shape of our feet to our neck muscles.

Skiing is a learned skill. Our bodies are not optimized for it. If they were, we’d likely be a metre shorter, have much different weight distribution, and possess the VO2 Max of an Alaskan Malamute.

So the question is whether one needs to know something of the physics to do it well. I contend that they do. Perhaps not at an advanced level, but the things that have been discussed in this thread fall somewhere between senior elementary school and the first year of high school.

Every literate person WAS required to learn basic physics. Maybe they didn’t understand it at the time (some teachers don’t always do a good job explaining practical applications of the laws of physics). Maybe they forgot all about it (we all purge things we believe is UFI). Doesn’t matter… but I can guarantee that nothing I’ve said here is novel.

You can bet that successful competitive skiers go well beyond this level of discussion. So the question becomes how seriously one takes the sport?

If it’s casual skiing, probably not seriously enough to think about the physics at play. Such skiers are just getting out and enjoying nature. They’ll probably fall in and out of the sport at several times. Maybe the gap between skiing will be decades. Doesn’t matter… it’s just a casual pastime.

If it is a little more serious, such as one might expect from years of continual development, then some elementary physics shouldn’t be out of the question.

I see some positive signs emerging from the discussion so far… People are stepping back from talking a single point along the ski and are now talking more broadly about weighting. Points on loading the centre of the ski are emerging, which opens the door to things like polar moments of inertia. There is even a move to take questions to relatives with a background in physics.

Thisnis something that might really help skiers in the long run. Heck, simply having to break things down and explain them in the context of skiing has cleared away rust in my own brain. I’ve used this to better appreciate posts to other threads (like the ongoing thread on Xplore, where I can better appreciate @Johnny’s views (which have changed my thinking on future binding decisions)).

[connyro]

If only we could ski every waking moment of our lives for a period of 3-4 years (which is about how long it takes from first steps to starting to master bipedal locomotion), then this analogy might work better.

You're describing Norway.

Yeah, I’ve suspected that Nordic countries do start things off pretty young. I doubt if they spend every waking moment of their lives (like walking) doing it though.

Walking is a natural skill for bipeds. Our bodies are actually designed to do it, from the shape of our feet to our neck muscles.

Skiing is a learned skill. Our bodies are not optimized for it. If they were, we’d likely be a metre shorter, have much different weight distribution, and possess the VO2 Max of an Alaskan Malamute.

So the question is whether one needs to know something of the physics to do it well. I contend that they do. Perhaps not at an advanced level, but the things that have been discussed in this thread fall somewhere between senior elementary school and the first year of high school.

Every literate person WAS required to learn basic physics. Maybe they didn’t understand it at the time (some teachers don’t always do a good job explaining practical applications of the laws of physics). Maybe they forgot all about it (we all purge things we believe is UFI). Doesn’t matter… but I can guarantee that nothing I’ve said here is novel.

You can bet that successful competitive skiers go well beyond this level of discussion. So the question becomes how seriously one takes the sport?

If it’s casual skiing, probably not seriously enough to think about the physics at play. Such skiers are just getting out and enjoying nature. They’ll probably fall in and out of the sport at several times. Maybe the gap between skiing will be decades. Doesn’t matter… it’s just a casual pastime.

If it is a little more serious, such as one might expect from years of continual development, then some elementary physics shouldn’t be out of the question.

I see some positive signs emerging from the discussion so far… People are stepping back from talking a single point along the ski and are now talking more broadly about weighting. Points on loading the centre of the ski are emerging, which opens the door to things like polar moments of inertia. There is even a move to take questions to relatives with a background in physics.

Thisnis something that might really help skiers in the long run. Heck, simply having to break things down and explain them in the context of skiing has cleared away rust in my own brain. I’ve used this to better appreciate posts to other threads (like the ongoing thread on Xplore, where I can better appreciate @Johnny’s views (which have changed my thinking on future binding decisions)).

The absolute best skiers that I've had the pleasure of chasing around couldn't give a shit about physics. No analyzing forces, no mention of vectors or levers. In my experience, the best skiers can adapt to whatever equipment and feel what they need to adjust to make it work. Skiing is so fun because of how it feels. It's an activity that's defined by feel. You can feel when you are or aren't doing it right and you adjust until it feels right. Most folks don't need to analyze the physics involved in skiing in order to ski well. The key to good skiing isn't being aware of the physics but is about gaining experience and adjusting based on feel.

[GrimSurfer]

See next post…

[GrimSurfer]

Yeah, I’ve suspected that Nordic countries do start things off pretty young. I doubt if they spend every waking moment of their lives (like walking) doing it though.

Walking is a natural skill for bipeds. Our bodies are actually designed to do it, from the shape of our feet to our neck muscles.

Skiing is a learned skill. Our bodies are not optimized for it. If they were, we’d likely be a metre shorter, have much different weight distribution, and possess the VO2 Max of an Alaskan Malamute.

So the question is whether one needs to know something of the physics to do it well. I contend that they do. Perhaps not at an advanced level, but the things that have been discussed in this thread fall somewhere between senior elementary school and the first year of high school.

Every literate person WAS required to learn basic physics. Maybe they didn’t understand it at the time (some teachers don’t always do a good job explaining practical applications of the laws of physics). Maybe they forgot all about it (we all purge things we believe is UFI). Doesn’t matter… but I can guarantee that nothing I’ve said here is novel.

You can bet that successful competitive skiers go well beyond this level of discussion. So the question becomes how seriously one takes the sport?

If it’s casual skiing, probably not seriously enough to think about the physics at play. Such skiers are just getting out and enjoying nature. They’ll probably fall in and out of the sport at several times. Maybe the gap between skiing will be decades. Doesn’t matter… it’s just a casual pastime.

If it is a little more serious, such as one might expect from years of continual development, then some elementary physics shouldn’t be out of the question.

I see some positive signs emerging from the discussion so far… People are stepping back from talking a single point along the ski and are now talking more broadly about weighting. Points on loading the centre of the ski are emerging, which opens the door to things like polar moments of inertia. There is even a move to take questions to relatives with a background in physics.

Thisnis something that might really help skiers in the long run. Heck, simply having to break things down and explain them in the context of skiing has cleared away rust in my own brain. I’ve used this to better appreciate posts to other threads (like the ongoing thread on Xplore, where I can better appreciate Johnny’s views (which have changed my thinking on future binding decisions)).

The absolute best skiers that I've had the pleasure of chasing around couldn't give a shit about physics. No analyzing forces, no mention of vectors or levers. In my experience, the best skiers can adapt to whatever equipment and feel what they need to adjust to make it work. Skiing is so fun because of how it feels. It's an activity that's defined by feel. You can feel when you are or aren't doing it right and you adjust until it feels right. Most folks don't need to analyze the physics involved in skiing in order to ski well. The key to good skiing isn't being aware of the physics but is about gaining experience and adjusting based on feel.

The issue is skiing better. Even people who can ski really, really well can still improve. Understanding physics is merely one element of that. Physiology is another. Even psychology (visualization) has it’s uses. These are just tools in the toolbox.

All tools have their uses. Throwing them out, or ignoring their utility, doesn’t make anyone a better skier. It just gives the one less frame of reference to apply towards improvement.

In another thread, @bauerb and I were discussing pre-season training. I used some of his perspectives to better tune my programme.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5397&start=60#p54268

This has started paying off on the trail. If I ignored him on the basis that sub Zone 4 training didn’t apply to XC skiing (much of which is done high in Zone 4 and even Zone 5), I wouldn’t have seen any improvement.

Knowledge is knowledge. It’s how you apply it that can make a difference… even in phenomenal skiers. Because until world records are being broken or the activity has truly become effortless, there is always scope for improvement.

None of this stuff is effortless to me. Is it to anyone here?

[TallGrass]

The absolute best skiers that I've had the pleasure of chasing around couldn't give a shit about physics. No analyzing forces, no mention of vectors or levers. In my experience, the best skiers can adapt to whatever equipment and feel what they need to adjust to make it work. Skiing is so fun because of how it feels. It's an activity that's defined by feel. You can feel when you are or aren't doing it right and you adjust until it feels right. Most folks don't need to analyze the physics involved in skiing in order to ski well. The key to good skiing isn't being aware of the physics but is about gaining experience and adjusting based on feel.

Sample size
Non-random sample
Was the "pleasure" reciprocal?
Qualifier; sample restriction
As in, "wing it"?
If it's "feel" (subjective), then why does the Olympics used (objective) stopwatches?
Why do Olympians use coaches (who are not part of the athlete's Central Nervous System/Brain that "feels")?

Sure, the best skier down at the pub may go solely by "feel,"
but even the most gifted skier that doesn't avail themself of physics and empirical data forfeits that advantage to their competitors.

I guess we run in different circles, because the best athletes I know when given "whatever equipment" analyze it first, gaps, clearances, materials used, weight, balance, design, etc. They don't just "hop in and 'we'll figure out the rest mid-flight...' ", rather they kick the proverbial tires, pop the hood, note what controls are present, where, and how activated, before ever "firing it up."

[GrimSurfer]

Sure, the best skier down at the pub may go solely by "feel,"
but even the most gifted skier that doesn't avail themself of physics and empirical data forfeits that advantage to their competitors..

For sure!

Even if we don’t ski competitively, we are in competition with ourselves.

[TallGrass]

Even if we don’t ski competitively, we are in competition with ourselves.

And while one can make progress via hours and hours of "feel",
there's only 24 hours in a day, and 365 days in a year.
So why sluice box the entire mountain for your gold, when in a fraction of the time you can apply some science to locate and mine the vein?

Improvement is not linear. When one hits a plateau, does one just keep repeating hoping for a different result?

I do not discount "feel" no more than I'd rely on it in isolation.

The human body takes in, processes, stores, and recalls sensory input in a myriad of ways and I wouldn't want to limit my options if seeking to improve. That is why "I" (personally), read, watch videos, try different skis, different conditions, think-predict-test-reassess (repeat), and so on with this new-to-me flavor of skiing.

[GrimSurfer]

For sure.

A good analogue is “perceived rate of exertion”. It’s almost meaningless in sport.

When I ski on some days, my PRE is high. But this may not reflect my heart rate (which says exactly how hard I’m working). On great days, I feel low PRE but am operating at Zone 5+. Everything is clicking… or it seems to be until I look at my speed and splits, which might be dismal.

When feeling, performance, and measurement aligns, you know the past few weeks of training or practice are having an effect. But you’d never “get there” without applying exercise science.