Skid, slip, and carved turn

"AstroPax" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:57:59 -0800, "Scott Abraham"
wrote:

Uh, duh, the Spatula has a sidecut. Reverse sidecut.
I'm still ****ed that they stole the idea off me.

Note to the observer:

Scott Abraham is claiming that a ski manufacturer stole a design idea
from him.

Weren't we just discussing barrel staves?

Prior art.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:57:59 -0800, "Scott Abraham"
wrote this crap:


royalties....though I do have a very friendly relationship with one of the
above, including some.....oooops, can't talk about that. The freaks would
start accusing the company of molesting children.


Shut your pie hole, and shove a gun barrel into it.





My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:51:48 -0800, "Scott Abraham"
wrote this crap:


Another sick, dishonest manipulation from Assholepax, snipping things out of
context then making a ludicrous claim.
What a coward!
Let Alta know this freak claims to represent them!


Shut your pie hole, and shove a gun barrel into it.





My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:45:55 -0800, "Richard Henry"
wrote this crap:

Weren't we just discussing barrel staves?

Prior art.


The only barrel Scottie knows is a gun barrel.





My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

Baka Dasai wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:56:34 +1100, ant said (and I quote):

"VtSkier" wrote in message
...

Does "turning" the ski work for pure carving?

There is no pure carving in skiing. There is always some skidding, in
millimetres maybe but to say "pure" is a misnomer, there is no such thing.


Well, sure. Perhaps we should say "ideal" carved turn.


Turning the ski
by twisting or rotary motion is a great way to begin a skidded
turn, but I'm not sure if this is possible with carving. I
tend to think of carving as highly aggressive toe-steering.


No, no steering at all.

Uhm, whether it's right nomenclature or not, I think
about "steering" and "toe steering" as quite different
things. "toe steering" to me is identical to rolling
your ankles in the direction you want to turn, only
a lot less aggressive. There is no "steering" or rotary
movement of any kind when you press down on the snow
(ski edges) with your outside ski big toe and your
inside ski little toe, but this is what I understand
as "toe steering". It comes off as a gently carving
turn, probably close to the same radius as the side-cut
because your not exerting much bending pressure. I
use this a lot to simply change direction as the trail
turns. More use on trails and catwalks than on big
slopes and steeps.

(snip the rest since we are in agreement)

VtSkier wrote:
yunlong wrote:
VtSkier wrote:

(snippage of a lot of "no you can't"/"yes I can" types of
arguments which won't get us any further at all.)

Yup, that's your argument, or just your denial?


My question to you is...
Why do you post these word pictures of skiing that may
or may not be accurate.

It is accurate enough, only you don't have enough discipline to see it,
or just your denial?


(and snip some more)

You said:
My errors are in language, and your errors are on the
principle of skiing; my errors won't affect my skiing much,
not sure about your predicament though.

And I agree fully with this statement of yours. Your errors
have been in language and in your ability to accurately
and consistently convey your thoughts and ideas about skiing
in WORDS.

That is not it; those are only your confusion. My mistake is in my
Chinese English, as Chinese speech/structure pattern is different from
English, and through the translation the language may be sounded
differently from a native English speaker. Nevertheless, I do believe
I've presented an accurate and consistent idea on what I was saying.

Both skidding and slipping are defined in the top post. As a technical
discussion, you would try to duplicate the moves according the
description and produce a result to see if the description is correct
or not, and that is called "independent scientific investigation."
Instead, you ranted with your misinterpreted terms, cannot explain
them, and cannot demonstrate them, but think you have known all? Yup,
that's called a "hypocritical little knowledge."

As I have said repeatedly, I have no real quarrel
with your ability to ski or even to teach skiing since I have
absolutely no way of knowing what you can do other than your
WORDS.

Cannot cross-reference for your "absolutely no way of knowing," eh?

But nevertheless you rip my skiing as for beginners and no good for you
advanced skiers because "somebody has done it before" yet cannot do it
yourself? Yup, that's called a "hypocritical small mind."

(snip a little more)

The following reply to my statement has absolutely no
meaning in the context of what I said:

For context you have to know the reason behind the text.


I wrote, "Otherwise you are 'preaching to the choir' which
is know to be a waste of time."

And you replied, "You may gold-plate your face, it is not
something I care."

You were speculating that you were so important that I needed to spend
my energy to "preach" you to get your acceptance?

I have described a theory in skiing technique and how I do with it in a
public discussion forum, you don't like it because you cannot get a
grip on it, and my explanations become a "preach" to you? You think
that you own this newsgroup?


This is somewhat typical of many of your rebuttals. It has
no contextual meaning. Why did you write this?

To say only an incompetent person needs to gold-plate its face to
glorify itself, to be self-importance, a Chinese proverb.


(snip some more)

I also think that your writing here is to elevate yourself
in the eyes of someone who might be wanting to take lessons
from someone who can teach them with some new "magic bullet"
technique that will make them expert skiers overnight.

Not overnight, nevertheless, it will definitely make them a
better skier.

Okay, if this is your aim, AND you want to use WORDS to
convey your thoughts, It is important that you do so in
a coherent and consistent way.

Here you go again to say/imply my WORDS are inferior but you don't
really how or what words I use when I teach.

You are a bull****.


In that light, I am trying to fathom whether all of the
holes I find in your writing to be in your technique,
teaching, or language.

So far, the biggest holes I found are in language.

Hehehe...

I suspect,
though I don't know for sure, that you may be a competent
skier. You may also be a good teacher, at least to a point.
That I don't know either.

That's the biggest hole of them all.

I agree and you haven't given me any way to know how to
plug the hole.

The hole is in your mutated ego, can't help you on that.


(snip one more time)

Never thought of empty your cup, eh?

I'll empty my cup by overturning it.

Now it is totally enclosed, how do you receive new information
again?

I am always ready to receive new information, you just
haven't convinced me that you are the one to provide it.

That is to say, "cannot learn with a full cup."


IS

lal_truckee wrote:
yunlong wrote:

Tele carves on the skis without sidecut.

Look again. You can't get tele skis without sidecut. Given
your myopia you may have to place them side by side in order
to notice the sidecut obvious to the rest of us.

Read again, I only said that "Tele carves on the skis without sidecut,"
not "tele skis without sidecut." And my Pheonix 210 is nearly
sidecutless.


I don't know about track skis which may actually be
sidecutless and I do know jumping skis are sidecutless. Those
are I suspect the only skis made in the last 80-90 years
without sidecut (even the Spatulas have sidecut - just reveresed.)

Sidecut is a design feature of a ski to make the ski do certain turns
easier, but sidecut itself is not the necessary feature that a ski must
have in order to turn. That's why I said that it's function is
secondary.


IS

Sven Golly wrote:
"yunlong" wrote in
ps.com:

Of course it will. Just not as much. I can create an
infinitely stiff ski and as long as it had sidecut and was
perfectly flat or had some reverse camber built in, it
would turn by tipping. It wouldn't be a very pleasant
experience but it would turn.

No, you won't be able to hold your balance/body in that position.


Huh? Maybe you wouldn't be able to but just about any
competent skier I know would.

Even though they may be high on muscles and low on IQ, no, I don't
think they can turn it.


Do you know why there's no snake-like lizard in the wild?
Because its clumsiness won't make it in the real world.

It was a joke Yummy. Think short snake = lizard.

Do you know why there's no "infinitely stiff ski" out there
in the market? "Because its clumsiness won't make it in the
real world."

Duh. Are you really that dense? You said a ski that had
sidecut but couldn't bend wouldn't turn. You are wrong. It
will turn. Just not very well or very much. I never claimed it
was practical.

Tumble maybe, no, an infinite stiff ski won't turn.


That's because you keep making up your OWN definitions for them.

As they are valid, the distinction exists, even with
different definitions.

You just make up new ones as you go along.

Yes, that's how knowledge progress; nevertheless, I always verify my
words for their accuracy.


You could say anything, even deceive yourself.

I could, but I don't.

You already did.


That's because English language is a partitioned language,
and you cannot comprehend a meaningful whole.

Well you can't even comprehend a meaningful part of a whole so
neener, neener, neener.

Yup, you can even deceive yourself.


You already said that both only happened in "circular"
motion.That is simply false.

The false is yours; on a straight line motion, there's
neither skid nor slip.

Wrong. A ski moving straight sideways is in either a skid or a
slip. Call it either one. Even in a wedge, the skis are moving
"straight" but both skis are skidding (or slipping).

No, they just go straight sideways; there's no skid or slip when
there's no turn.


Given two skis equally weighed, they run straight; when one
ski is slipping, it becomes slower, and the faster ski would
push the two ski turn to the slipped ski side if the skier
maintains its balance, simple.

This I agree with but that's not what you said before.
However, my example of a wedge (snowplow) produces no turning
if both skis are equally weighted.

"There's no skid or slip when there's no turn," you are only
"breaking."


Or maybe because you are lacked the capacity to understand it.

Fripe norkin' santeggle impusm more thelickht entenianq.

You said it, yabadabado.


Apparently, not on a ski turning mechanism/how.

Nice try troll but once again you're wrong. I understand very
well how a ski turns. I had to in order to design a binding
and do my release force studies. I also tested bindings for
Burt, Allsop, K2 and Ramy (Geze).

Binding, binding, binding, anything to do with how a ski turn?


Hmmm, I can ski without poles with my arms held out like an
airplane.

Didn't say you cannot ski the way you described; just it's clumsy.

So you finally admit that flatboarding is clumsy.

"You like to admitting for me, so you can cheat yourself to
think that you have won the argument, don't you?"

Acknowledging the problem is your first step to enlightenment.

Better heed your own advice.


In the realm of arrogance, ignorance reigns.

In the realm of idiocy, Ichin Shen is king.

Name-calling won't take you anywhere but shows you are a boring little
character.


IS


--
Sven Golly
Trolling as usual
Remove "_" to reply

"yunlong" wrote in message

That is not it; those are only your confusion. My mistake is in my
Chinese English, as Chinese speech/structure pattern is different from
English, and through the translation the language may be sounded
differently from a native English speaker. Nevertheless, I do believe
I've presented an accurate and consistent idea on what I was saying.

so then in translation.
your original post here was mostly copied.

because it's not your writing et al.

yunlong wrote:

VtSkier wrote:

yunlong wrote:

and so on...

(snip)

You said:

My errors are in language, and your errors are on the
principle of skiing; my errors won't affect my skiing much,
not sure about your predicament though.


And I agree fully with this statement of yours. Your errors
have been in language and in your ability to accurately
and consistently convey your thoughts and ideas about skiing
in WORDS.


That is not it; those are only your confusion. My mistake is in my
Chinese English, as Chinese speech/structure pattern is different from
English, and through the translation the language may be sounded
differently from a native English speaker. Nevertheless, I do believe
I've presented an accurate and consistent idea on what I was saying.

Yes, I can see some other syntax getting into your writing.
Presumably it's Chinese. But I could probably get around that
if you demonstrated a command of vocabulary and idiom, which
you don't. We won't even talk about grammar because meaning
can be determined without the writer adhering to strict
grammatical rules, which again you don't.

Both skidding and slipping are defined in the top post.

OK, I'll concede this one. You did define skid and slip in
the beginning of your post. You defined skid as the tails of
the skis moving faster (rotationally) than the tips and you
defined slip as the tips moving faster (rotationally) than
the tails. What you didn't do was define specifically "slip"
as used in an aeronautical sense at the outset.

What I objected to was that I didn't believe that "slip" as
you defined it was a kind of turn in skiing. You didn't define
it that way in 2001 and I didn't think you should have defined
it that way in this thread. I also didn't think that "slip"
was/is appropriate as you describe it because of what is
necessary to make the ski "slip" as you describe it.

Further:
As a technical
discussion, you would try to duplicate the moves according the
description

What makes you think I haven't made the moves as you describe?
The only way I can make my skis "slip" as you describe is to
be in the back seat. At any kind of speed, this is counterproductive.

As I pointed out, I can make my skis "slip" from a position
standing across the fall line by flattening my skis and shifting
my weight back toward the tail of my skis.

I can also do this from a turning maneuver by going back and
flattening my skis if I am carving, they are fairly flat if
my turn is a skidding one. This has the effect of increasing
the radius of my original turn, and giving me a feeling of
loss of control. I will immediately get my weight forward to
regain a feeling of control and if I need to change the radius
of my turn, do something else.

and produce a result to see if the description is correct
or not, and that is called "independent scientific investigation."

Apparently I did this.

Instead, you ranted with your misinterpreted terms, cannot explain
them, and cannot demonstrate them,

I believe I interpreted you terms correctly. Or at best I understood
the words you used, if indeed you really used the words you wanted
to use to have me understand your meaning. I think in the case of
"slip" I do understand what you are/were saying.

but think you have known all? Yup,

I don't really think so.

that's called a "hypocritical little knowledge."

Your words, your accusation. My words and my actions
speak for themselves. Others here have skied with me
and have some judgment of my ability.

As I have said repeatedly, I have no real quarrel
with your ability to ski or even to teach skiing since I have
absolutely no way of knowing what you can do other than your
WORDS.

Cannot cross-reference for your "absolutely no way of knowing," eh?

What does this sentence mean in the context of what I wrote?

But nevertheless you rip my skiing as for beginners and no good for you
advanced skiers because "somebody has done it before" yet cannot do it
yourself? Yup, that's called a "hypocritical small mind."

Rip your skiing, eh? You presented your "Flat Boarding" here
as something new and wonderful. I, and others, pointed out to
you that you hadn't invented a thing. And, yes, I can do it
myself.

Begin quoted material: yunlong in Flat-Boarding II
================================================== ==========
Now there's even simpler/easier way to ski:

From "Flat-Boarding" we've learned that "On two skis, when they are
held parallel and equally weighed, they will run straight. If one ski
is weighed more than the other ski, they will turn (changing direction)
to the weighed-ski side if the turning balance is maintained." To weigh
on the ski is the "cross-over," one of the most difficult concept and
technique to comprehend and to achieve in high-level downhill skiing,
where the conventional (pole-planting) parallel skiing techniques
employ four distinct steps (1. pole-plant, 2. unweigh, 3. change
direction, and 4. traverse) to achieve it.

The new way? Bleed the speed of the inside ski by slipping the
"outside" edge of the inside ski (which would scrape the snow downward
a bit thus slow down the ski), and the other ski, now is "outside" ski,
goes faster, so would push both ski to change the direction, and if the
same force is maintained, the turning would continue. The "cross-over"
is now simply to stand/weigh on the inside ski. By maintaining 50/50
balance on both skis, the skis "track" "straight" again.
Fun stuff,
IS
================================================== ==========
End quoted material

Many of us recognized that there was nothing "new" here. In fact, as
I reread it, there are problems with language that we had discussed
earlier that also brought up confusion and questions about what you
were trying to say.

(snip a little more)

The following reply to my statement has absolutely no
meaning in the context of what I said:

For context you have to know the reason behind the text.

I wrote, "Otherwise you are 'preaching to the choir' which
is know to be a waste of time."

And you replied, "You may gold-plate your face, it is not
something I care."

You were speculating that you were so important that I needed to spend
my energy to "preach" you to get your acceptance?

The context of my statement had to do with why your were
trying to convince us about your skiing technique.

"Preaching to the choir" is an American idiom which means
that the speaker is talking about something the listener
already believes and so the speaking is a waste of time.

You are speaking to generally accomplished skiers here. You
are describing methods (with some reservations about
appropriateness of method) that is best used to teach
beginners through probably intermediate skiers. If you are
not talking to us about teaching, we can already ski, and
most of us quite well, why are you talking to us about it?

I have described a theory in skiing technique and how I do with it in a
public discussion forum, you don't like it because you cannot get a
grip on it, and my explanations become a "preach" to you? You think
that you own this newsgroup?

You are describing a theory of teaching/learning skiing and how
you do it. In many areas I have no quarrel with you. In a few
areas I do have issues with you. Your choice of words and not
using them in a conventional, common usage way without first
telling us how you are using them is one area. When your are
asked what you mean, and you reply that my understanding is at
fault for needing to ask, and I'm arrogant or stupid for asking
is another area. It took a great deal of time to get you to
tell us that you were using "slip" in the aeronautical sense.
This sense is NOT common usage, or even scientific for that
matter. It is jargon of a specific field.

This is somewhat typical of many of your rebuttals. It has
no contextual meaning. Why did you write this?

To say only an incompetent person needs to gold-plate its face to
glorify itself, to be self-importance, a Chinese proverb.

So clearly you didn't understand the idiom.

(snip some more)

I also think that your writing here is to elevate yourself
in the eyes of someone who might be wanting to take lessons
from someone who can teach them with some new "magic bullet"
technique that will make them expert skiers overnight.

Not overnight, nevertheless, it will definitely make them a
better skier.


Okay, if this is your aim, AND you want to use WORDS to
convey your thoughts, It is important that you do so in
a coherent and consistent way.

Here you go again to say/imply my WORDS are inferior but you don't
really how or what words I use when I teach.

You are a bull****.

You said your words are inferior, I only said they were
unclear. And I've been called worse. See what Scooter
says about me.

(and snip the rest)

VtSkier