If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
reactive force in Classic striding
I got thinking about how to deal with the reactive forces from moving body
parts not connected to the snow in Classic diagonal striding. Key things I found: - - reactive down-force from raising the torso + head with good timing will improve kick-grip. It's what the elite racers do (instead of the "leg-stomp" taught by some American instructors). see http://roberts-1.com/xcski/classic/secrets/back_lift - - delaying the crunch-down of the chest + shoulders onto pole until after start of the pole-push transmits positive reactive force to forward-motion work. - - timing the forward-recovery moves of the leg and arm can help forward propulsion. The key is to delay the start of these moves until after the tip of the other pole is planted in the snow and starting to push. - - negative impact on forward-propulsion work is another source of inefficiency in Classic striding compared with Skating. Yet another reason why even at slow speeds up steep hills, V1 Skate is usually faster than Classic. - - sideways and vertical reactive forces have no significant direct impact on forward-propulsion work in Classic (though they may have an important impact on the kick-grip which is a prerequisite for much forward-propulsion work). So I'm going to focus the rest of this post on forward and backward moves and forces. More detail below. Warning: Way too much detail. Stop reading here. Ken _______________________________________ Details on forward and backward reactive forces: The physics of "reactive" or inertial forces is described by Newton's Third Law (as in like "every action has an equal and opposite reaction"). Key things to know about them: (a) They can help or hurt a skier's speed or kick-grip, depending on their direction and timing. (b) A reactive force is generated by stopping the move of any body part, just as much as by starting the move. Reactive forces in skiing always come as a pair: one from starting, one from stopping -- in opposite and cancelling directions, but with different timing. So the critical thing to manage is the timing. (c) A reactive force only impacts a skier's overall speed if it gets transmitted to the snow. In Classic skiing this happens whenever either the pole tip or the kick-zone of the ski is stopped on the snow, but not while simultaneously the ski is gliding and the pole tips are in the air. (d) So the only way a pair of reactive forces can impact the skier's overall speed is by special timing: if one comes while the pole-tip or ski is stopped in the snow, and the other one comes during a pure "passive glide" phase. (e) The biggest factor in determining the amount of positive (or negative) Work done by a reactive force is the peak velocity attained by the body part being moved. (Work = 0.5 * Mass_of_body_part * peak_Velocity * peak_Velocity * inefficiency_factor). Implications for Classic striding technique: (1) Time the forward or backward moves of major body parts so that its positive reactive force comes while the pole-tip is stopped in the snow, and its negative reactive force comes during the "passive glide" phase (while simultaneously the ski is gliding and the pole-tips are in the air). (2) For a move with a net positive impact of its reactive-force pair, hold back the start of the move, and then make it very quickly, for maximum peak Velocity and therefore maximum physical Work added to the stroke-cycle. For a move with a net negative impact, make it softer and slower. ________________________ Summary analysis of forward-backward moves of six major body parts: - - recovering Arm: lots of freedom for different timing possibilities here -- see discussion below. - - recovering Leg: the Stopping is negative for forward-propulsion, but it's hard to prevent it from being transmitted into the snow. Good timing on the Starting can cancel this negative -- see discussion below. - - pushing Arm: Starting a direct push backward into the snow is inevitably negative in terms of reactive force, but it's the direct push is so much larger that it's worth accepting it. If the slowing and stopping of the "follow-through" of the arm is done passively by gravity, or all comes after the end of the active leg-push, then the positive reactive force from the stopping is not transmitted into the snow, so it's a net negative. Though there _might_ be an opportunity in using bicep and forearm and front-shoulder muscles to earlier _slow_ the follow-through of the arm from the pole-push -- make some of this slowing come before the leg-push finishes. The reactive force from this slowing would then add positive reactive force to the leg-push, but trying this also has negative consequences which I'd suspect are larger. - - pushing Leg: same impact of Starting as with the arm-push. The reactive force from the Stopping of its follow-through is positive, but I'm not seeing any reasonable way to avoid having it come in the passive glide phase. So this move is inevitably a net negative impact on propulsive Work. At lower speeds, the positive work from the direct push backward is so much greater that it's worth enduring the negative. But the higher the velocity, the higher the negative -- another reason that Classic striding is so much less effective than skating for high speeds. - - torso + head crunch-down: crunching down onto the pole with front-abdominal and chest muscles also has a forward aspect to it, so reactive force from the Starting of this move is aimed backward and potentially positive. But it would not get transmitted into the snow to help forward-propulsion work if it started during the "passive glide" phase. So the best elite racers delay its start until after the pole is planted in their classic striding and kick-double-pole (but not in their pure double-poling -- why?). When the crunch-down stops, the forward-component of the reactive force exactly cancels the earlier positive for forward-propulsion (assuming the skier was first careful with timing to _get_ that positive -- otherwise the net impact is negative). And by timing the Stopping of the crunch-down to come partly after the start of the leg-push, the downward-component of the reactive force has a positive impact on kick-grip. - - torso + head straighten-up: The move from using the back muscles to straighten the upper body also has a backward aspect. The forward-component of the reactive force from starting this move has a negative impact on forward-propulsive work, but its downward-component has a positive impact on kick-grip, so elite racers are glad to start this move in the middle of their leg-push. The reactive force from the slowing and Stopping of this move is positive for forward-propulsion but negative for grip -- but the proportions are different from at the Starting, because the angle of motion is different (so uncertain implications for timing). ________________________________ more on Recovery of Arm + Leg Implication 1 above explains why it helps to delay the recovery moves of the arm and leg. The starting acceleration of those moves generates a backward force, which will help push the skier forward _if_ transmitted into the snow -- but that transmission won't happen if the moves are started during the passive glide phase -- so it's key to delay them until after the pole-tip is planted and pushing. I was coming to think based on Implication 2 that it would also help to hold the arm and leg way out back _behind_ while waiting to start the forward-move. Because then there's more distance available to accelerate to maximum peak velocity and therefore higher positive work added to the stroke-cycle. Or perhaps delay the start of one or both recoveries even later, but then make the move extra-quick. The problem with this is that elite racers seem to _stop_ these forward-recovery moves of the arm and leg while the other leg is still pushing backward into the snow. And the reactive-force from this stopping deceleration is aimed forward -- so it cancels some of that good leg-push force aimed backward. The higher the previous peak velocity, the greater the negative force-cancellation. So right now it's looking to me like there's no benefit in trying to increase the peak velocity, because the starting and stopping forces are largely self-cancelling. So why don't the elite racers make one or both recovery moves a little slower? (so the stopping would not come until the passive glide phase, after the end of the pushing by the other arm and leg). My answer is that the leg-push stops by coming off the ground, so the other recovering leg has to already be there in position to support the weight of the skier's body, and "be there in position" implies "not still moving forward relative to the rest of the skier's body". The stopping of the recovering easily be delayed to come during the passive glide phase, to avoid transmission of its negative impact. So this is simple a simple way to increase the total forward-propulsive work of the stroke-cycle. But it's not what elite racers do, because the key driver of overall skier speed is the Power _rate_ of work per minute (not work per stroke-cycle). Delaying the stopping of the arm-recovery means delaying the starting of the next arm-push, which means delaying the whole next stroke-cycle. So this delay end up increasing the total _time_ duration of the stroke cycle, so fewer stroke-cycles per minute, so less work per minute. Since the mass of the arm is not that large, the gain in work is not large, so for elite racers it's not worth increasing "dead spot" time gap of the passive glide phase. (For a skier with goals other than speed, might be worth considering). _______________________________________ |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
reactive force in Classic striding
Hey Ken - I think you're really on to something with this focus on reactive
force. However, I think you've once again identified a good issue and then overanalyzed it to a ridiculous level, and along the way gotten yourself irretrievably screwed up. I'd be interested to see some video of you putting all of this into action. I think I have a fairly clear idea of what it'll look like, and it's not pretty. It's also not effective. I have a fairly significant batch of skis to grind today, so I can't spend a great deal of time on this. However, I'll make a couple of notes. I don't know that I really want to invite further conversation, but I guess that's what I'm doing. Anybody with a rowing background will understand the importance of reactive forces. I'm not much of a rower but I spent a couple of summers getting out once or twice a week. When you're rowing your body weight is by far the greatest concentration of mass in the boat. And it's on a slide. As you can imagine, it's possible to use the slide effectively to help the boat move along. It's also possible to just about bring it to a halt. In skiing we're generally not talking about moving such large masses (in proportion to the whole) that reactive forces are enough of a consideration to screw with too much. As Ken has noted, timing is the key. Here's the trick. Natural timing and smooth motion are not a product of continual on-the-fly analysis and adjustment. They exist as motor engrams - motions that are so ingrained as to be automatic. If you want to make a meaningful change to technique you've got to identify the fundamental motion and "drum it in" through mind-numbing repetition. Most skiers with relatively good athleticism and a basic skill set use something very close to the optimal timing for their technique. Very infrequently I run into somebody with screwed up timing, and it's usually because they've been told to change it. You don't make effective changes to timing (or to reactive forces) by thinking about each individual component and trying to adjust them cognitively. If you really want to try to test the use of reactive forces there are a couple of drills that can be very helpful, and that don't require extensive analysis. My favorite - one that my Uncle John has used to embarass a lot of pretty good skiers - is to diagonal stride with no kick wax. If you really want the sum of your reactive forces to propel you forward, take away the platform for your more conventional active forces. This drill is frustrating at first, but after an hour or so you'll find that you can ski up hills with almost no slipping, if your timing and position is good, and if you've got decently strong arms. The other interesting drill for working with reactive forces is to try double poling with no poles. If you can use your body weight and compression to actually move yourself forward, you've learned something. This is pretty easy on roller skis where you've got a ratchet to lean against. Much harder on snow. Finally, I'll not that the emphasis on ensuring good kick through a "back lift", or any other "secret" move points to fundamental problems. If your skis fit right and you're even in the ballpark on wax choice you just shouldn't have to do anything too special to get good grip. If you do it is a clear indication of a problem with your weight shift and/or your body position and position over your skis. It's not terribly uncommon to find skis that are poorly fit and won't work right. It's much more common to find skiers trying lots of tricks to get kick because they don't have sound fundamentals. Well, as tempting as a point-by-point rebuttal may be, I don't have the time. I also expect that it would serve no purpose. So I'll leave it at that! Zach "Ken Roberts" wrote in message news I got thinking about how to deal with the reactive forces from moving body parts not connected to the snow in Classic diagonal striding. Key things I found: - - reactive down-force from raising the torso + head with good timing will improve kick-grip. It's what the elite racers do (instead of the "leg-stomp" taught by some American instructors). see http://roberts-1.com/xcski/classic/secrets/back_lift - - delaying the crunch-down of the chest + shoulders onto pole until after start of the pole-push transmits positive reactive force to forward-motion work. - - timing the forward-recovery moves of the leg and arm can help forward propulsion. The key is to delay the start of these moves until after the tip of the other pole is planted in the snow and starting to push. - - negative impact on forward-propulsion work is another source of inefficiency in Classic striding compared with Skating. Yet another reason why even at slow speeds up steep hills, V1 Skate is usually faster than Classic. - - sideways and vertical reactive forces have no significant direct impact on forward-propulsion work in Classic (though they may have an important impact on the kick-grip which is a prerequisite for much forward-propulsion work). So I'm going to focus the rest of this post on forward and backward moves and forces. More detail below. Warning: Way too much detail. Stop reading here. Ken _______________________________________ Details on forward and backward reactive forces: The physics of "reactive" or inertial forces is described by Newton's Third Law (as in like "every action has an equal and opposite reaction"). Key things to know about them: (a) They can help or hurt a skier's speed or kick-grip, depending on their direction and timing. (b) A reactive force is generated by stopping the move of any body part, just as much as by starting the move. Reactive forces in skiing always come as a pair: one from starting, one from stopping -- in opposite and cancelling directions, but with different timing. So the critical thing to manage is the timing. (c) A reactive force only impacts a skier's overall speed if it gets transmitted to the snow. In Classic skiing this happens whenever either the pole tip or the kick-zone of the ski is stopped on the snow, but not while simultaneously the ski is gliding and the pole tips are in the air. (d) So the only way a pair of reactive forces can impact the skier's overall speed is by special timing: if one comes while the pole-tip or ski is stopped in the snow, and the other one comes during a pure "passive glide" phase. (e) The biggest factor in determining the amount of positive (or negative) Work done by a reactive force is the peak velocity attained by the body part being moved. (Work = 0.5 * Mass_of_body_part * peak_Velocity * peak_Velocity * inefficiency_factor). Implications for Classic striding technique: (1) Time the forward or backward moves of major body parts so that its positive reactive force comes while the pole-tip is stopped in the snow, and its negative reactive force comes during the "passive glide" phase (while simultaneously the ski is gliding and the pole-tips are in the air). (2) For a move with a net positive impact of its reactive-force pair, hold back the start of the move, and then make it very quickly, for maximum peak Velocity and therefore maximum physical Work added to the stroke-cycle. For a move with a net negative impact, make it softer and slower. ________________________ Summary analysis of forward-backward moves of six major body parts: - - recovering Arm: lots of freedom for different timing possibilities here -- see discussion below. - - recovering Leg: the Stopping is negative for forward-propulsion, but it's hard to prevent it from being transmitted into the snow. Good timing on the Starting can cancel this negative -- see discussion below. - - pushing Arm: Starting a direct push backward into the snow is inevitably negative in terms of reactive force, but it's the direct push is so much larger that it's worth accepting it. If the slowing and stopping of the "follow-through" of the arm is done passively by gravity, or all comes after the end of the active leg-push, then the positive reactive force from the stopping is not transmitted into the snow, so it's a net negative. Though there _might_ be an opportunity in using bicep and forearm and front-shoulder muscles to earlier _slow_ the follow-through of the arm from the pole-push -- make some of this slowing come before the leg-push finishes. The reactive force from this slowing would then add positive reactive force to the leg-push, but trying this also has negative consequences which I'd suspect are larger. - - pushing Leg: same impact of Starting as with the arm-push. The reactive force from the Stopping of its follow-through is positive, but I'm not seeing any reasonable way to avoid having it come in the passive glide phase. So this move is inevitably a net negative impact on propulsive Work. At lower speeds, the positive work from the direct push backward is so much greater that it's worth enduring the negative. But the higher the velocity, the higher the negative -- another reason that Classic striding is so much less effective than skating for high speeds. - - torso + head crunch-down: crunching down onto the pole with front-abdominal and chest muscles also has a forward aspect to it, so reactive force from the Starting of this move is aimed backward and potentially positive. But it would not get transmitted into the snow to help forward-propulsion work if it started during the "passive glide" phase. So the best elite racers delay its start until after the pole is planted in their classic striding and kick-double-pole (but not in their pure double-poling -- why?). When the crunch-down stops, the forward-component of the reactive force exactly cancels the earlier positive for forward-propulsion (assuming the skier was first careful with timing to _get_ that positive -- otherwise the net impact is negative). And by timing the Stopping of the crunch-down to come partly after the start of the leg-push, the downward-component of the reactive force has a positive impact on kick-grip. - - torso + head straighten-up: The move from using the back muscles to straighten the upper body also has a backward aspect. The forward-component of the reactive force from starting this move has a negative impact on forward-propulsive work, but its downward-component has a positive impact on kick-grip, so elite racers are glad to start this move in the middle of their leg-push. The reactive force from the slowing and Stopping of this move is positive for forward-propulsion but negative for grip -- but the proportions are different from at the Starting, because the angle of motion is different (so uncertain implications for timing). ________________________________ more on Recovery of Arm + Leg Implication 1 above explains why it helps to delay the recovery moves of the arm and leg. The starting acceleration of those moves generates a backward force, which will help push the skier forward _if_ transmitted into the snow -- but that transmission won't happen if the moves are started during the passive glide phase -- so it's key to delay them until after the pole-tip is planted and pushing. I was coming to think based on Implication 2 that it would also help to hold the arm and leg way out back _behind_ while waiting to start the forward-move. Because then there's more distance available to accelerate to maximum peak velocity and therefore higher positive work added to the stroke-cycle. Or perhaps delay the start of one or both recoveries even later, but then make the move extra-quick. The problem with this is that elite racers seem to _stop_ these forward-recovery moves of the arm and leg while the other leg is still pushing backward into the snow. And the reactive-force from this stopping deceleration is aimed forward -- so it cancels some of that good leg-push force aimed backward. The higher the previous peak velocity, the greater the negative force-cancellation. So right now it's looking to me like there's no benefit in trying to increase the peak velocity, because the starting and stopping forces are largely self-cancelling. So why don't the elite racers make one or both recovery moves a little slower? (so the stopping would not come until the passive glide phase, after the end of the pushing by the other arm and leg). My answer is that the leg-push stops by coming off the ground, so the other recovering leg has to already be there in position to support the weight of the skier's body, and "be there in position" implies "not still moving forward relative to the rest of the skier's body". The stopping of the recovering easily be delayed to come during the passive glide phase, to avoid transmission of its negative impact. So this is simple a simple way to increase the total forward-propulsive work of the stroke-cycle. But it's not what elite racers do, because the key driver of overall skier speed is the Power _rate_ of work per minute (not work per stroke-cycle). Delaying the stopping of the arm-recovery means delaying the starting of the next arm-push, which means delaying the whole next stroke-cycle. So this delay end up increasing the total _time_ duration of the stroke cycle, so fewer stroke-cycles per minute, so less work per minute. Since the mass of the arm is not that large, the gain in work is not large, so for elite racers it's not worth increasing "dead spot" time gap of the passive glide phase. (For a skier with goals other than speed, might be worth considering). _______________________________________ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
reactive force in Classic striding
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Zachary Caldwell wrote: If you really want to try to test the use of reactive forces there are a couple of drills that can be very helpful, and that don't require extensive analysis. My favorite - one that my Uncle John has used to embarass a lot of pretty good skiers - is to diagonal stride with no kick wax. If you really want the sum of your reactive forces to propel you forward, take away the platform for your more conventional active forces. This drill is frustrating at first, but after an hour or so you'll find that you can ski up hills with almost no slipping, if your timing and position is good, and if you've got decently strong arms. The other interesting drill for working with reactive forces is to try double poling with no poles. If you can use your body weight and compression to actually move yourself forward, you've learned something. This is pretty easy on roller skis where you've got a ratchet to lean against. Much harder on snow. Hey, now this is interesting! I'm going to try it tonight. I'll take the chain off my bike and see if I can ride up the hill to my house! Ok. Seriously, there was a Cornell coach 15 or 20 years ago who used to demonstrate diagonal stride without kick wax. Gary somebody. He could do it amazingly well. To watch him you'd never know he had no wax. Frustrating as can be to try to copy him. He was from Vermont, too. Probably a connection there to Uncle John I bet. -Mitch |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
reactive force in Classic striding
Looks like Zachary and I have some common ground:
- - reactive force can be significant for propulsive moves - - timing the moves is important, and - - most people have a basic feel for an appropriate timing of reactive-force moves Zachary Caldwell wrote I'd be interested to see some video of you putting all of this into action. Well I'm not saying that "all this" is a good way for anybody to ski, because managing reactive force is only one ingredient of skiing performance -- and likely down around number 5 on the priority list in the physics + biomechanics of Classic striding. So all those ways I gave to manipulate reactive force are only "other things being equal", not "the right way to ski". Also, some of those moves are difficult to learn (as Zachary pointed out) -- and learn in a _way_ that does not distract or obstruct other more important moves. So instead let me suggest these videos of two far better skiers: - - Kris Freeman: http://engineeredtuning.net/KrisClassic.mpg (less than a Megabyte to download, thanks to Zachary for compressing to the essence). - - Mika Myllyla: http://avari181.mt.luth.se/Technic/Mika3.mpg (3.9 MB) I'm seeing all three of the first three reactive force moves in my original being performed in those two videos, when I use Pause and Slow-motion to view them -- I find the Apple Quicktime Viewer better than the Microsoft Windows Media Player for that. One thing to try is Pausing the video at the instant the pole is planted, and see that the recovering leg and arm are still out behind, and the torso and head are still in a high position. Then watch how the torso comes forward _after_ the pole plant, then rises back up during the next leg-push -- all in harmony with the physics of exploiting reactive force in my original post. You don't make effective changes to timing (or to reactive forces) by thinking about each individual component and trying to adjust them cognitively. I'm not claiming to know how to _learn_ these moves (? different approaches work better for different skiers ?). For now I'm playing with the physics to try to lay out a range of possibilities for _what_ things to consider even _trying_ to learn. Like that forward-leg-thrust in pure double-poling. Until Douglas Diehl told us on the newsgroup about what he got from Kris Freeman from that Swedish video, I never even _thought_ that reactive-force move. Then once I actually _tried_ it I started getting some measurable benefit in just fifteen minutes (though of course not optimized like Kris and Daehlie and the World Cup winner). Most skiers with relatively good athleticism and a basic skill set use something very close to the optimal timing for their technique. Yes, once I had a clue what to even try. But one aspect of reactive-force that did _not_ come naturally for me in a different move was the gain from holding back the start of the move, then performing the move quicker to attain a higher peak velocity. Which so far as I can tell is not very relevant for Classic striding, since I haven't yet found in the physics any non-cancelling reactive-force pairs which are positive for forward propulsion work. Ken ____________________________________ Zachary Caldwell wrote Hey Ken - I think you're really on to something with this focus on reactive force. However, I think you've once again identified a good issue and then overanalyzed it to a ridiculous level, and along the way gotten yourself irretrievably screwed up. I'd be interested to see some video of you putting all of this into action. I think I have a fairly clear idea of what it'll look like, and it's not pretty. It's also not effective. I have a fairly significant batch of skis to grind today, so I can't spend a great deal of time on this. However, I'll make a couple of notes. I don't know that I really want to invite further conversation, but I guess that's what I'm doing. Anybody with a rowing background will understand the importance of reactive forces. I'm not much of a rower but I spent a couple of summers getting out once or twice a week. When you're rowing your body weight is by far the greatest concentration of mass in the boat. And it's on a slide. As you can imagine, it's possible to use the slide effectively to help the boat move along. It's also possible to just about bring it to a halt. In skiing we're generally not talking about moving such large masses (in proportion to the whole) that reactive forces are enough of a consideration to screw with too much. As Ken has noted, timing is the key. Here's the trick. Natural timing and smooth motion are not a product of continual on-the-fly analysis and adjustment. They exist as motor engrams - motions that are so ingrained as to be automatic. If you want to make a meaningful change to technique you've got to identify the fundamental motion and "drum it in" through mind-numbing repetition. Most skiers with relatively good athleticism and a basic skill set use something very close to the optimal timing for their technique. Very infrequently I run into somebody with screwed up timing, and it's usually because they've been told to change it. You don't make effective changes to timing (or to reactive forces) by thinking about each individual component and trying to adjust them cognitively. If you really want to try to test the use of reactive forces there are a couple of drills that can be very helpful, and that don't require extensive analysis. My favorite - one that my Uncle John has used to embarass a lot of pretty good skiers - is to diagonal stride with no kick wax. If you really want the sum of your reactive forces to propel you forward, take away the platform for your more conventional active forces. This drill is frustrating at first, but after an hour or so you'll find that you can ski up hills with almost no slipping, if your timing and position is good, and if you've got decently strong arms. The other interesting drill for working with reactive forces is to try double poling with no poles. If you can use your body weight and compression to actually move yourself forward, you've learned something. This is pretty easy on roller skis where you've got a ratchet to lean against. Much harder on snow. Finally, I'll not that the emphasis on ensuring good kick through a "back lift", or any other "secret" move points to fundamental problems. If your skis fit right and you're even in the ballpark on wax choice you just shouldn't have to do anything too special to get good grip. If you do it is a clear indication of a problem with your weight shift and/or your body position and position over your skis. It's not terribly uncommon to find skis that are poorly fit and won't work right. It's much more common to find skiers trying lots of tricks to get kick because they don't have sound fundamentals. Well, as tempting as a point-by-point rebuttal may be, I don't have the time. I also expect that it would serve no purpose. So I'll leave it at that! Zach Ken Roberts wrote I got thinking about how to deal with the reactive forces from moving body parts not connected to the snow in Classic diagonal striding. Key things I found: - - reactive down-force from raising the torso + head with good timing will improve kick-grip. - - delaying the crunch-down of the chest + shoulders onto pole until after start of the pole-push transmits positive reactive force to forward-motion work. - - timing the forward-recovery moves of the leg and arm can help forward propulsion. The key is to delay the start of these moves until after the tip of the other pole is planted in the snow and starting to push. . . . |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
reactive force in Classic striding
Zachary Caldwell wrote
Hey Ken - I think you're really on to something with this focus on reactive force. However, I think you've once again identified a good issue and then overanalyzed it to a ridiculous level . . . If the real experts would publish or post something which analyzed this at an _appropriate_ level, then I would not be tossing out my attempt. So please just point me at some other publicly-available information in the last fifteen years related to reactive force and classic striding, at _any_ level of sophistication or detail, and I'll be grateful and go off and see what I can learn from that instead. I bet the Soviet team fifteen years ago had a similar (but more accurate) memo in their technique collection, written by some assistant coach, as part of their systematic search for a winning edge -- and probably a couple of other countries' national ski teams. Who knows -- even the U.S. national team? It is rumored there are skiers on the current U.S. team who know quantum physics and abstract algebra. Perhaps they have lowered themselves to the old "classic" physics and mere vector linear algebra -- and figured out all this reactive force stuff, surely three times better than my attempt -- then focused in on the only two "nuggets" in it that really help. But I have not yet found where they disclose those findings to _me_. Seems like I have to learn them from video clips offered by our newsgroup hero in Sweden. Cross country skiing seems like an _abnormal_ sport to me. Contrast with bicycling, where the basic physics and biomechanics have been understood for decades, and I have a book on my shelf that explains it all. Different coaches recommend different mental imagery or training strategies or slightly different optimazations of force distribution over the pedal-stroke-cycle, but it's not like major gaps in publicly-available knowledge of how it works. Same with downhill Skiing: the physics is complicated and non-intuitive, but there are several books on my shelf that explain how it works -- and I don't see big debates and confusion about technique on the discussion forums I'm involved with for non-XC skiing (except when some die-hard telemarker tries to claim that not only does the telemark turn look cool and feel cool, but it's also more effective than christie or parallel turns). Same with Running, even Swimming (though the physics of swimming to me seems _very_ tricky). So I'm just trying to do something to help cross country skiing become like the other human-propulsive sports I enjoy. Please send me more and better public stuff that fills in the knowledge gaps, and I'll learn it and use it and publicize links to it that other folks can benefit from. Ken |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
reactive force in Classic striding
There's an aspect of reactive force physics where my understanding seems
completely different from what Zachary Caldwell wrote: My favorite drill is to diagonal stride with no kick wax . . . . . . The other drill for is to try double poling with no poles. My problem is that my understanding of the physics is that the only forces that help forward propulsion are those that are transmitted to something outside the skier's own body. So unless there's a favorable wind, or you're going downhill, or you've got some kind of air-paddles -- or nearby tree-branches to pull on -- that means the force must be transmitted into the snow or ground. And the only ways I know are thru a pole-tip stuck into the snow or by a ski base that's currently getting some significant friction with the snow-surface. If you really want the sum of your reactive forces to propel you forward, take away the platform for your more conventional active forces. But reactive forces must use the same "platforms" as active forces (pole-tip or ski-base-grip-zone) if they're going to make a substantial ongoing difference in the forward speed of the skier's whole body. Since the reactive forces that arise from moving a body part that stays connected to the skier's body come in opposite pairs, the only way to get a substantial net gain in forward propulsion is to substantially _transmit_ at least one force out of the pair into the snow or ground. So I'm not seeing how drills that substantially reduce the ability to transmit _any_ force to the ground or snow are going to help learn about how to exploit reactive force (or at least the "Newton's Third Law" variety of reactive force). To me the essence of exploiting reactive force is just the opposite: cleverly selective _strong_ transmission of force. They're both good drills, but they don't seem to focus mainly on reactive forces -- unless it's like "absence makes the heart grow fonder". What am I missing here? Ken |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Striding mo' betta? | Bill Kraus | Nordic Skiing | 5 | January 17th 04 07:59 PM |
exploiting the head loop in V1 skate | Ken Roberts | Nordic Skiing | 1 | December 29th 03 12:59 PM |
down-kick in striding + an alternative | Ken Roberts | Nordic Skiing | 0 | December 24th 03 01:46 PM |
Kick method? was Lower Leg injuries | GR | Nordic Skiing | 24 | December 18th 03 09:04 PM |
Lower leg injuries in classic skiing | Everett | Nordic Skiing | 6 | December 13th 03 02:43 AM |