This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
http://telemarktalk.com/
You're describing Norway.GrimSurfer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 12:30 pmIf 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.
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.Musk Ox wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 4:09 pmYou're describing Norway.GrimSurfer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 12:30 pmIf 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.
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 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 4:34 pmYeah, 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.Musk Ox wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 4:09 pmYou're describing Norway.GrimSurfer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 12:30 pmIf 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.
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 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.GrimSurfer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 6:09 pmconnyro wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 5:48 pmThe 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 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 4:34 pm
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)).
Sample sizeconnyro wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 5:48 pmThe 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.
For sure!
And while one can make progress via hours and hours of "feel",GrimSurfer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 6:43 pmEven if we don’t ski competitively, we are in competition with ourselves.