滑雪人論壇  

返回   滑雪人論壇 > 滑雪技術討論區 > 雙板Ski > Ski技術討論區

Ski技術討論區 管他是好咖還是怪咖,只要是咖就能發言,有任何技術問題,在此討論就對啦。

回覆
 
主題工具 顯示模式
舊 2015-02-21, 01:22 PM   #341
pku
滑雪瘋7級
 
註冊日期: 2010-05-30
文章: 3,787
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: norman 查看文章
我得更正一件事,這位L3的動作比PKU差。
He skis very good.



You Tube


此篇文章於 2015-02-21 01:24 PM 被 pku 編輯。
pku 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-02-21, 01:42 PM   #342
pku
滑雪瘋7級
 
註冊日期: 2010-05-30
文章: 3,787
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
不需要用“喊”的,你講話大聲並不表示你講話有理或是有力,事實上卻是剛好相反,它們正透漏了你內心的恐懼不安,絕望的爭扎,用“喊”的來壯膽。 :)
IS
喊,喊什麼,什麼時候喊,頑固老頭精神病,無中生有,悲哀,悲哀



引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
你自己不會“物理”又“瞽盲不視”,奈何,實致名歸無恥的偽教練? :)
IS
什麼 kinetic energy. , 加條 formula , 便當自己識物理,典型無恥下流頑固老人的例子


引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
看來是你看不出skidding在那,或是看不懂什麼是“skidding”而亂七八糟的說,堂塞‧那段影片我滑的是“slipping turns”,沒有skidding‧下面的影片是同一個人拍的,看我用“同樣”的“skidding”追snowrider的“carving”,厲害!

Taichi Skiing/Flatboarding: Chasing through Olympic Downhill, Heavenly - YouTube


:)
IS
Snowrider 滑的是一般的中小彎,根本不是 carving , 要跟不難。而且在 trail ,直衝下也不難。中小彎速度本就不會太快

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
不稀奇,我要是有GS Skis一樣“from green tun to black run all the way down,”,是你的“管眼”“只能”看到我“自能在trail 滑幾個彎”,“自欺欺人”‧

Taichi Skiing/Flatboarding: Pinnacles, Heavenly - YouTube

:)
IS
我說用 GS skis 由頭到尾刻畫,你的 turn 那麼多 skidding , 刻畫,你省點罷

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
已經給你看過了,自己不看,還亂七八糟的說,小知小人‧

Taichi Skiing/Flatboarding: carving on flat boards - YouTube

:)
IS
盲的是你,雙手亂舞,

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
另外,下面這影片,這L3用的是刻板,所以比我快,看我怎樣把“雙手放後”追他‧

Heavenly skiing: local hotdogs II, Ricardo, Olympic Downhill, Heavenly - YouTube

:)
IS

這人滑得不錯,你說他用刻畫板,所以比你快,你不是說刻畫沒有你路線直,

人家用了 poles , 仍可快你那麼多,


引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
同意你說的這一段,但是你自認滑雪不合那標準,不敢當“高手”?還是你小人「以退為進」說自己不是高手來說別人高手不是高手來滿足你“以下犯上為榮”更厲害的虛榮?那不是“高手”的技術,那是“固步自封”。 :)
IS
你要閃閃避避,滑一下,慢一下,高手,只有你這無恥老頭講得出口




引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
沒說過“滑得下來便算高手”,那是你小知小人“自騙自”的“曲解事實”。

:)
IS
你當然沒有講,但你用行動表達出來。




引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
我想你是一口咬太大,結果嚼不動也吞不下‧給你解釋,你看不懂就否認,或是不看,我沒有那麼呆,你自己慢慢看吧‧

http://www.taomartialarts.com/ski/ski_prin_tech.html

:)
IS
你是用你的白痴理論,來推廣白痴偽太極滑雪。

此篇文章於 2015-02-21 11:07 PM 被 pku 編輯。
pku 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-02-21, 04:49 PM   #343
norman
滑雪瘋隕石級
 
norman 的頭像
 
註冊日期: 2008-09-24
文章: 12,242
發送 MSN 訊息給 norman 發送 Skype™ 訊息給 norman
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: pku 查看文章
滑得不錯,但....不在我認為真正好的程度,還有相當需要進步的空間。

再過兩三年,也許你會了解我這個說法。

在相同的動作下,至少要像這樣才算真正好。

__________________
目前總滑天數80天。繼續累積中...我想滑雪。

滑雪人
norman 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-02-21, 11:10 PM   #344
pku
滑雪瘋7級
 
註冊日期: 2010-05-30
文章: 3,787
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: norman 查看文章
滑得不錯,但....不在我認為真正好的程度,還有相當需要進步的空間。

再過兩三年,也許你會了解我這個說法。

在相同的動作下,至少要像這樣才算真正好。

http://youtu.be/oqtNZh6lFOQ
進步空間當然有,而且他只是在平坦的 trail 這樣滑,而 JF 好像到什麼地方也可這樣滑
pku 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-02-22, 09:56 AM   #345
norman
滑雪瘋隕石級
 
norman 的頭像
 
註冊日期: 2008-09-24
文章: 12,242
發送 MSN 訊息給 norman 發送 Skype™ 訊息給 norman
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: pku 查看文章
進步空間當然有,而且他只是在平坦的 trail 這樣滑,而 JF 好像到什麼地方也可這樣滑
看不太懂你的意思,我再細說一下。

在兩個人在類似的斜坡上,做相同性質的中轉彎,至少要像jf的0:36~050這樣子。

因為太極拍的那位,練得已經很不錯了,所以說技術不錯也OK,但是因為傾沒有正確,所以他沒有辦法把轉換跟轉彎效率提升到最好,所以不用看也知道,他的下饅頭速度應該快不了,如果他未突破這點,技術大概就止於此了。
__________________
目前總滑天數80天。繼續累積中...我想滑雪。

滑雪人
norman 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-02-23, 01:17 AM   #346
taichiskiing
滑雪瘋7級
 
註冊日期: 2009-02-07
文章: 3,756
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: B2L2 查看文章
You sure that's your mathematical and scientific prove? Your math and phy must be really bad to begin with or your just go copy-n-paste some formulas. I give you a 2nd chance to "correct" your answer here. Let some one to correct a so-call TaiChi master with so many years of claimed experience is a shameful thing to happen.
That is your little knowledge's shameful whinning. You didn't read my article, did you?

http://www.taomartialarts.com/ski/ski_prin_tech.html

What really “shameful” is you gappers don't read my articles, my rebuttals, and my video clips then ask questions to play dumb as an answer or just lie through your teeth bashing; you know the whip you whip will come back to hit you when you lack of skills.

引用:
Could you also define what is "flatboard carving" and how does that different from pure-carving?
First thing first, do you know what “exactly” “carving” is?

引用:
And could you also define what is "line skiing" and how that different from "turn skiing"?
We do have these definitions defined on this forum over and over and all over the places, if you have difficulty to comprehend them, you need to improve your reading capacity.

引用:
Just don't want to keep arguing what is what. Let's listen to your definition and follow that.
Nevertheless, I'll try one more time, “line skiing” utilizes terrain feature to make/find a “suitable”/interesting line to ski on, (note the “irregular” “turn-shapes.”)

Heavenly skiing: TTB, Olympic to Boulder, Heavenly - YouTube



and “turn skiing,” like your CSIA system, just making turns, disregard the terrain features. (note the “regular” “turn-shapes.”)

video 3: Expert skiing, various situations: Jf beaulieu training in Whistler, April, 2014 - YouTube



:)
IS
taichiskiing 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-02-23, 01:22 AM   #347
taichiskiing
滑雪瘋7級
 
註冊日期: 2009-02-07
文章: 3,756
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: pku 查看文章
喊,喊什麼,什麼時候喊,頑固老頭精神病,無中生有,悲哀,悲哀
網路上的習慣,在論壇上討論用異常的大字叫作“喊”,小知的半老頭。

引用:
什麼 kinetic energy. , 加條 formula , 便當自己識物理,典型無恥下流頑固老人的例子
物理是大家的,formula是公認的,你不會物理就是不會,無恥下流的半老人。

引用:
Snowrider 滑的是一般的中小彎,根本不是 carving , 要跟不難。而且在 trail ,直衝下也不難。中小彎速度本就不會太快
為了保持自己的面子,朋友的技術是可以貶的!?“無恥下流的半老人”‧他這影片滑的了?

ChineseSkiClub: snowrider on Olympic, Heavenly - YouTube



引用:
我說用 GS skis 由頭到尾刻畫,你的 turn 那麼多 skidding , 刻畫,你省點罷
就說你自己不知道什麼“skidding”吧‧“平板刻滑”,外腳“刻滑”,內腳“斜滑”/slipping,用以條整滑線,比“純刻”more mobility。

引用:
盲的是你,雙手亂舞,
你看不懂。

引用:
這人滑得不錯,你說他用刻畫板,所以比你快,我也是用刻畫板,我也會比你快,
很難說,我也有刻板,我是留著跟我ex clinician朋友滑時用的,不然我跟拍會太快要煞車,太累。

引用:
你要閃閃避避,滑一下,慢一下,高手,只有你這無恥老頭講得出口

你當然沒有講,但你用行動表達出來。

你是用你的白痴理論,來推廣白痴偽太極滑雪
你小知小技的嗚咽。

:)
IS

此篇文章於 2015-02-23 10:38 PM 被 taichiskiing 編輯。
taichiskiing 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-02-23, 08:39 AM   #348
B2L2
滑雪瘋3級
 
註冊日期: 2011-03-04
文章: 346
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
Not sure if you have the back ground knowledge to comprehend what I say, but ok, I'll try. Given a curved ski track, the relationship between the “angular acceleration” (a) (you do know what that is, don't you?), velocity (V), and the radius of the curved path (R) is given as R= V*V/a, and that is to say, mathematically, the longer the turn radius the faster the speed. The faster speed gives higher Kinetic Energy, which is given as KE=1/2* m*V*V, and the higher the KE gives higher performance. So, by observing the tracks that the skier left behind, we can estimate the energy the skier carried. When all else are equal, the straighter ski tracks carry higher energy than curvier one.

Flatboard carving shows straighter line above than the pure-carving track below, “line-skiing” carries higher energy than “turn skiing.” And you don't know these relationship and cannot see that, your “tunnel vision” is proven.
If you insist this is correct, let's have a look in what are wrong.

1) R= V*V/a
if you said a = angular acceleration, then this isn't the formula for it. Ask yourself do you actually know what's angular acceleration (change of angular velocity / time).
It is a correct formula but for a different thing, and that's why I call you just copy-n-paste. Here, a = centripetal acceleration. And this formula applies to object moving in a circular path of radius r with constant angular velocity V
Put the formula in different way, a = V*V/r. I would rather read this formula as either:
* the centripetal acceleration will be higher if the object have to move in shorter radius; or
* the centripetal acceleration will be higher if the object have to move faster

2) You claimed "R= V*V/a, and that is to say, mathematically, the longer the turn radius the faster the speed"
[let's assume you're actually talking about centripetal acceleration here for a second]
To correct your wrong and incomplete statement, we will have to say:
IF the centripetal acceleration is equal, then "the longer the turn radius the faster the speed".

When you claim "mathematically, the longer the turn radius the faster the speed" is a false claim without saying the condition. Now under what condition, we will have the same centripetal acceleration? You completely skip and avoid that.

3) "KE=1/2* m*V*V, and the higher the KE gives higher performance"
Don't really understand why higher KE means higher performance and I personally against using KE as the measurement. However, if that's your definition of higher performance, let's stick with that for this discussion.
Just a note here, the V here is linear velocity which is totally different than the V in the first formula in (1) where V = angular velocity. Another reason why I guess you just copy-n-paste formulas.

4) "by observing the tracks that the skier left behind, we can estimate the energy the skier carried"
Nope, you are wrong. You can't estimate the KE by looking at a track. The two formulas you provided proved you wrong. First, given two tracks, nothing tell you that the centripetal acceleration are equal in both. So the tracks can't tell you which has a higher V than the other. Second, KE determined by the mass of the object. The track doesn't tell you how heavy is the object. If it belongs to a light weight skier or a heavier weight skier, the KE isn't the same.

5) You claimed by using Norman's photo: ""Flatboard carving shows straighter line above than the pure-carving track below, “line-skiing” carries higher energy than “turn skiing.” "
As a conclusion above, your claim is baseless. Your "line-skiing" may or may not carries higher energy than "turn skiing".

6) "And you don't know these relationship and cannot see that, your “tunnel vision” is proven.""
This is your last line in that paragraph where you finally have something correct. Your "tunnel vision" has been proven.

This is such a basic math and physic question and you already have some many things wrong. Do you feel shameful when you keep telling people you have so many years of studies and experience in such and such...??

此篇文章於 2015-02-23 08:52 AM 被 B2L2 編輯。
B2L2 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-02-23, 10:36 PM   #349
taichiskiing
滑雪瘋7級
 
註冊日期: 2009-02-07
文章: 3,756
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: B2L2 查看文章
If you insist this is correct, let's have a look in what are wrong.
Interesting, let's go for it, and see who is wrong; but I can tell now, at the end you would deny the result, so, what's the point?

引用:
1) R= V*V/a
if you said a = angular acceleration, then this isn't the formula for it. Ask yourself do you actually know what's angular acceleration (change of angular velocity / time).
“change of angular velocity / time,” good copy&paste, what does that mean?

引用:
It is a correct formula but for a different thing, and that's why I call you just copy-n-paste. Here, a = centripetal acceleration. And this formula applies to object moving in a circular path of radius r with constant angular velocity V
Put the formula in different way, a = V*V/r. I would rather read this formula as either:
* the centripetal acceleration will be higher if the object have to move in shorter radius; or
* the centripetal acceleration will be higher if the object have to move faster
You may reinterpret the formula, but for what? We were talking about the relationship between the radius R and the velocity V, what you said was not wrong, but did not answer the question.

引用:
2) You claimed "R= V*V/a, and that is to say, mathematically, the longer the turn radius the faster the speed"
[let's assume you're actually talking about centripetal acceleration here for a second]
To correct your wrong and incomplete statement, we will have to say:
IF the centripetal acceleration is equal, then "the longer the turn radius the faster the speed".
I did put the condition “with all else equal” in first, what do you think that means? “What you said was not wrong, but did not answer the question,” you are badgering my rebuttals that you cannot answer with “trivial” questions.

引用:
When you claim "mathematically, the longer the turn radius the faster the speed" is a false claim without saying the condition. Now under what condition, we will have the same centripetal acceleration? You completely skip and avoid that.
How easy that you gappers get trapped in your “文字獄.” Ahh... no, a different value of “a” does not change the “relationship” between the R and V. What do you think approximate value of “a” would be?

引用:
3) "KE=1/2* m*V*V, and the higher the KE gives higher performance"
Don't really understand why higher KE means higher performance and I personally against using KE as the measurement. However, if that's your definition of higher performance, let's stick with that for this discussion.
Just a note here, the V here is linear velocity which is totally different than the V in the first formula in (1) where V = angular velocity. Another reason why I guess you just copy-n-paste formulas.
If you “Don't really understand...” should you keep quiet so nobody knows that you are dumb? And for what reason that you “personally against using KE as the measurement”? (Arrogance?) The problem with these “high sounding” words—“high performance,” “high energy,” and etc.—been thrown around all over the places, and end up “the bigger the term, the lesser the meaning.” So, what do you mean by “higher performance”? I'll give you my answer after you. But here's hint, I used to compare “line-skiing” and “turn-skiing” as WWII German fighter ME262 and American fighter P-51 (if you know what those are). ME262 is a jet fighter, 100+ mph faster than P51, and that’s what I call “high energy, high performance.” “V” is a physics symbol for “velocity,”and “velocity” is a physics term defined as “speed”+ “direction,” a “vector,”(a mathematical term, do you know what it is?) so, “angular velocity” is also “linear,” and the path/the track the object left behind is still a “linear” line, guess that it is your “copy-n-pasted” ideas doesn't work, dumbo.

引用:
4) "by observing the tracks that the skier left behind, we can estimate the energy the skier carried"
Nope, you are wrong. You can't estimate the KE by looking at a track. The two formulas you provided proved you wrong. First, given two tracks, nothing tell you that the centripetal acceleration are equal in both. So the tracks can't tell you which has a higher V than the other. Second, KE determined by the mass of the object. The track doesn't tell you how heavy is the object. If it belongs to a light weight skier or a heavier weight skier, the KE isn't the same.
Do you know what does “estimate” mean? I don't need to know “exactly” the KE to know the “energy the skier carried,” we are talking about the “performance,” the “outcome” of the expanded energy, not the energy itself.

引用:
5) You claimed by using Norman's photo: ""Flatboard carving shows straighter line above than the pure-carving track below, “line-skiing” carries higher energy than “turn skiing.” "
As a conclusion above, your claim is baseless. Your "line-skiing" may or may not carries higher energy than "turn skiing".
You can draw that conclusion “only if” you can do “both” line-skiing and turn-skiing, to meet the requirement “all else are the same.” Can you line-skiing?

引用:
6) "And you don't know these relationship and cannot see that, your “tunnel vision” is proven.""
This is your last line in that paragraph where you finally have something correct. Your "tunnel vision" has been proven.
I think I have “totally” destroyed you arguments. Your “tunnel vision” IS still your “tunnel vision,” thanks for proving it.

引用:
This is such a basic math and physic question and you already have some many things wrong. Do you feel shameful when you keep telling people you have so many years of studies and experience in such and such...??
Given my rebuttal above, you are the “shameful critic, shameful person.”

:)
IS
taichiskiing 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-02-23, 11:33 PM   #350
norman
滑雪瘋隕石級
 
norman 的頭像
 
註冊日期: 2008-09-24
文章: 12,242
發送 MSN 訊息給 norman 發送 Skype™ 訊息給 norman
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
Interesting, let's go for it, and see who is wrong; but I can tell now, at the end you would deny the result, so, what's the point?



“change of angular velocity / time,” good copy&paste, what does that mean?



You may reinterpret the formula, but for what? We were talking about the relationship between the radius R and the velocity V, what you said was not wrong, but did not answer the question.



I did put the condition “with all else equal” in first, what do you think that means? “What you said was not wrong, but did not answer the question,” you are badgering my rebuttals that you cannot answer with “trivial” questions.



How easy that you gappers get trapped in your “文字獄.” Ahh... no, a different value of “a” does not change the “relationship” between the R and V. What do you think approximate value of “a” would be?



If you “Don't really understand...” should you keep quiet so nobody knows that you are dumb? And for what reason that you “personally against using KE as the measurement”? (Arrogance?) The problem with these “high sounding” words—“high performance,” “high energy,” and etc.—been thrown around all over the places, and end up “the bigger the term, the lesser the meaning.” So, what do you mean by “higher performance”? I'll give you my answer after you. But here's hint, I used to compare “line-skiing” and “turn-skiing” as WWII German fighter ME262 and American fighter P-51 (if you know what those are). ME262 is a jet fighter, 100+ mph faster than P51, and that’s what I call “high energy, high performance.” “V” is a physics symbol for “velocity,”and “velocity” is a physics term defined as “speed”+ “direction,” a “vector,”(a mathematical term, do you know what it is?) so, “angular velocity” is also “linear,” and the path/the track the object left behind is still a “linear” line, guess that it is your “copy-n-pasted” ideas doesn't work, dumbo.



Do you know what does “estimate” mean? I don't need to know “exactly” the KE to know the “energy the skier carried,” we are talking about the “performance,” the “outcome” of the expanded energy, not the energy itself.



You can draw that conclusion “only if” you can do “both” line-skiing and turn-skiing, to meet the requirement “all else are the same.” Can you line-skiing?



I think I have “totally” destroyed you arguments. Your “tunnel vision” IS still your “tunnel vision,” thanks for proving it.



Given my rebuttal above, you are the “shameful critic, shameful person.”

:)
IS
談什麼物理公式?是會有幫助嗎?

滑雪需要的只是物理常識跟邏輯就足夠了。

人不是機器卻更勝機器。

人無法照著物理公式及物理理論去滑雪,那是完全不切實際的。

人滑雪可以依照體重、速度、阻力…等去反推公式。但無法先算出公式再去滑雪。

滑雪只要知道三大物理要素就行了,地心引力、離心力、向心力就行了。

而最大的變數是人,人控制阻力多寡,阻力多就慢,阻力少就快,就這樣而已,再厲害點就是增加推力及收力。

整個滑雪的關鍵,還是在於「人」,老講物理理論跟公式去滑雪是「豪小/唬爛」,有人能依自己想要的公式去滑雪嗎?有那麼精密嗎?不可能的嘛!那講理論跟公式幹嘛?能讓自己滑雪變厲害嗎?不可能的嘛。

有測量機器及場地可以幫滑雪者測量然後叫滑雪者要增減幾分力,身體在何時要用幾分力及多少角度,行嗎?滑雪者做得到嗎?不可能的嘛。那你講那麼多幹嘛?

所以只要知道物理三要素就足夠了,剩下的要靠自己學習如何運用這三要素。

所以基本結論如下:

1. 基本滑線速度 = 地心引力(天)+滑雪者本身重量/重心(人)+板底接觸面積多寡所製造的阻力(地)。
2. 滑線C彎會產生離心力,速度越快離心力越大。人向C彎圓心傾倒會產生向心力。所以離心力越大就要倒越快,才能平衡兩者之力。
3. 半徑10公尺的圓,走半徑10公尺的C彎是10秒,走半徑直線10公尺也是10秒,哪個人的移動速度比較快?當然是走C彎的人比較快,因為C彎的路線比較長。所以別再比較誰速度比較快了,要比就比技術,技術的高低控制在於「人」。
4. 人的身體裏面也會產生動量,動量控制速度,錯誤的動量控制只會減速,正確的動量控制可以穩定速度、甚至增加速度。人的動作技術才是關鍵。

不多說了,由上幾點得知,你的平板滑雪時板底觸雪面積大,你的身體的動作把力量給分散了(這句你是看不懂我的意思的),所以你的速度快不是真快,只是假快而已,所以在困難的地形就更明顯了,我不反對你挑容易滑的路線,但是即使你挑容易滑的路線相對下還是太慢了,真正技術好走跟你挑出來一樣的路線都可以滑得比你快兩倍以上。

總之,講物理公式就能進步嗎?滑雪就比較厲害嗎?還是面對現實吧,滑雪要滑得好還是要靠自己,別再講公式如何又如何了,就算你能寫出一條完美的公式,你就會滑得比較厲害了嗎?問題是滑雪技術高低是很現實的,你的技術未逹到前,任你想破腦袋也無法想像出真正的動作運用是什麼的啦。

如我前面說的,人不如機器卻更勝機器。別再講你研究理論如何如何了,那真的是豪小啦。
__________________
目前總滑天數80天。繼續累積中...我想滑雪。

滑雪人
norman 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-02-24, 12:13 AM   #351
pku
滑雪瘋7級
 
註冊日期: 2010-05-30
文章: 3,787
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
d

為了保持自己的面子,朋友的技術是可以貶的!?“無恥下流的半老人”‧他這影片滑的了?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfqsMCIJZNs




就說你自己不知道什麼“skidding”吧‧“平板刻滑”,外腳“刻滑”,內腳“斜滑”/slipping,用以條整滑線,比“純刻”more mobility。



你看不懂。





:)
IS
It's obvious Snowrider didn't get 2 clean lines on the snow. That's the fact.



You Tube



See those 2 lines left on the snow, we call this carving. No clean lines, not carving.





You Tube





From the video of Ricardo,I can see the 2 clean lines on the snow left, so he is skiing fast and and with quite a bit of performance

You Tube




While the Snowman doesn't get that kind of perforamnce in the video so he skied much slower.

You Tube


此篇文章於 2015-02-24 02:24 AM 被 pku 編輯。
pku 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-02-24, 10:44 AM   #352
B2L2
滑雪瘋3級
 
註冊日期: 2011-03-04
文章: 346
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
Interesting, let's go for it, and see who is wrong; but I can tell now, at the end you would deny the result, so, what's the point?
Math and sci doesn't lie, so let's stick with.

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
“change of angular velocity / time,” good copy&paste, what does that mean?
So you have another definition, or something you don't understand that you need more explanation?

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
You may reinterpret the formula, but for what? We were talking about the relationship between the radius R and the velocity V, what you said was not wrong, but did not answer the question.
You quoted the very 1st formula and get it wrong. You basically lost the whole discussion already. The quoted formula describes the relation between R and V, but it didn't imply what you claimed is correct. You said "mathematically, the longer the turn radius the faster the speed" is plainly wrong, unless "centripetal acceleration is equal".

I asked the question again, why and how you could assume the centripetal acceleration is equal in these two cases? Even Norman could name one thing that affects centripetal force, he named lean angle. How could you assume that the bigger turn and small turn both have the same lean angle from the skier?

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
I did put the condition “with all else equal” in first, what do you think that means? “What you said was not wrong, but did not answer the question,” you are badgering my rebuttals that you cannot answer with “trivial” questions.
Let's re-use your logic here.
A person height = length of lower body + length of upper body
With the person height the same, the longer his lower body, the shorter his upper body. Fair. Now I say playing soccer will make his legs longer. Putting the condition "will all else equal" (i.e. his height remains the same). Could then I conclude that playing soccer will shorten his upper body?

Is this logic make sense to anyone?

Apply this back to skiing, does it make any sense to assume the longer turn radius to have the same centripetal force as the shorter turn?

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
How easy that you gappers get trapped in your “文字獄.” Ahh... no, a different value of “a” does not change the “relationship” between the R and V. What do you think approximate value of “a” would be?
In math, nobody don't care about approximate value of "a". If you want to draw a conclusion between the relation between R and V, you will have to use a constant "ac" value. Otherwise, your conclusion means nothing at all.

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
If you “Don't really understand...” should you keep quiet so nobody knows that you are dumb? And for what reason that you “personally against using KE as the measurement”? (Arrogance?) The problem with these “high sounding” words—“high performance,” “high energy,” and etc.—been thrown around all over the places, and end up “the bigger the term, the lesser the meaning.” So, what do you mean by “higher performance”? I'll give you my answer after you.
In math, nobody have to keep "quiet". There is only right or wrong. Even I keep quiet doesn't make your right.

You're the person using the "the higher the KE gives higher performance" statement. The question should be for yourself, and I even said to stick with this for discussion. What're you whining about?

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
But here's hint, I used to compare “line-skiing” and “turn-skiing” as WWII German fighter ME262 and American fighter P-51 (if you know what those are). ME262 is a jet fighter, 100+ mph faster than P51, and that’s what I call “high energy, high performance.”
Did the P-51 ever shot down any ME262?
Back to math for a sec. If both ME262 and P-51 carry a weight of 10,000lb, both travelling at 400mph. Using "KE=1/2* m*V*V", they both have the same KE. Is there still performance difference between the two plane? If you simply use KE for measurement for performance, at this case they have the same. This is what I disagree on using KE for performance measure.

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
“V” is a physics symbol for “velocity,”and “velocity” is a physics term defined as “speed”+ “direction,” a “vector,”(a mathematical term, do you know what it is?) so, “angular velocity” is also “linear,” and the path/the track the object left behind is still a “linear” line, guess that it is your “copy-n-pasted” ideas doesn't work, dumbo.
i) "angular velocity" is not "linear". When an object spin at the same spot for 360degree/min, its linear velocity = 0, its angular velocity is 6 degree/sec. Please check your definition again.

[the object also have a 0 linear KE, it's angular KE is not, please check your definition as well.]

ii) Are we talking about the ski track? The ski track left behind is clearly in a curve. I can't agree that you name it a "linear" line.

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
Do you know what does “estimate” mean? I don't need to know “exactly” the KE to know the “energy the skier carried,” we are talking about the “performance,” the “outcome” of the expanded energy, not the energy itself.
Again, in math, no one cares about "estimate". KE is defined by the formula you quoted. If you know m and V, no one needs to estimate. If you don't know the KE, you couldn't conclude which one has higher performance (since you said higher KE equals to higher performance). If you're guessing/estimating, then you're guessing/estimating.

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
You can draw that conclusion “only if” you can do “both” line-skiing and turn-skiing, to meet the requirement “all else are the same.” Can you line-skiing?
If you could prove one thing math/sci/physically, then the prove shouldn't required people's experience in doing the two different turns. Your question is unrelated to this math prove. If this is your way to exit your ill-prove, then said it that way.

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
I think I have “totally” destroyed you arguments. Your “tunnel vision” IS still your “tunnel vision,” thanks for proving it.

Given my rebuttal above, you are the “shameful critic, shameful person.”
Wait until you could answer the questions and finish your proof before saying this. You have so many wrong and misleading info.

此篇文章於 2015-02-24 02:30 PM 被 B2L2 編輯。
B2L2 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-02-24, 01:12 PM   #353
pku
滑雪瘋7級
 
註冊日期: 2010-05-30
文章: 3,787
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: norman 查看文章
談什麼物理公式?是會有幫助嗎?

滑雪需要的只是物理常識跟邏輯就足夠了。

人不是機器卻更勝機器。

人無法照著物理公式及物理理論去滑雪,那是完全不切實際的。

人滑雪可以依照體重、速度、阻力…等去反推公式。但無法先算出公式再去滑雪。

滑雪只要知道三大物理要素就行了,地心引力、離心力、向心力就行了。

而最大的變數是人,人控制阻力多寡,阻力多就慢,阻力少就快,就這樣而已,再厲害點就是增加推力及收力。

整個滑雪的關鍵,還是在於「人」,老講物理理論跟公式去滑雪是「豪小/唬爛」,有人能依自己想要的公式去滑雪嗎?有那麼精密嗎?不可能的嘛!那講理論跟公式幹嘛?能讓自己滑雪變厲害嗎?不可能的嘛。

有測量機器及場地可以幫滑雪者測量然後叫滑雪者要增減幾分力,身體在何時要用幾分力及多少角度,行嗎?滑雪者做得到嗎?不可能的嘛。那你講那麼多幹嘛?

所以只要知道物理三要素就足夠了,剩下的要靠自己學習如何運用這三要素。

所以基本結論如下:

1. 基本滑線速度 = 地心引力(天)+滑雪者本身重量/重心(人)+板底接觸面積多寡所製造的阻力(地)。
2. 滑線C彎會產生離心力,速度越快離心力越大。人向C彎圓心傾倒會產生向心力。所以離心力越大就要倒越快,才能平衡兩者之力。
3. 半徑10公尺的圓,走半徑10公尺的C彎是10秒,走半徑直線10公尺也是10秒,哪個人的移動速度比較快?當然是走C彎的人比較快,因為C彎的路線比較長。所以別再比較誰速度比較快了,要比就比技術,技術的高低控制在於「人」。
4. 人的身體裏面也會產生動量,動量控制速度,錯誤的動量控制只會減速,正確的動量控制可以穩定速度、甚至增加速度。人的動作技術才是關鍵。

不多說了,由上幾點得知,你的平板滑雪時板底觸雪面積大,你的身體的動作把力量給分散了(這句你是看不懂我的意思的),所以你的速度快不是真快,只是假快而已,所以在困難的地形就更明顯了,我不反對你挑容易滑的路線,但是即使你挑容易滑的路線相對下還是太慢了,真正技術好走跟你挑出來一樣的路線都可以滑得比你快兩倍以上。

總之,講物理公式就能進步嗎?滑雪就比較厲害嗎?還是面對現實吧,滑雪要滑得好還是要靠自己,別再講公式如何又如何了,就算你能寫出一條完美的公式,你就會滑得比較厲害了嗎?問題是滑雪技術高低是很現實的,你的技術未逹到前,任你想破腦袋也無法想像出真正的動作運用是什麼的啦。

如我前面說的,人不如機器卻更勝機器。別再講你研究理論如何如何了,那真的是豪小啦。


偽太極講到天花龍鳳,做出來......

此篇文章於 2015-02-24 10:45 PM 被 pku 編輯。
pku 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-02-24, 01:13 PM   #354
pku
滑雪瘋7級
 
註冊日期: 2010-05-30
文章: 3,787
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: B2L2 查看文章
Math and sci doesn't lie, so let's stick with.



So you have another definition, or something you don't understand that you need more explanation?



You quoted the very 1st formula and get it wrong. You basically lost the whole discussion already. The quoted formula describes the relation between R and V, but it didn't imply what you claimed is correct. You said "mathematically, the longer the turn radius the faster the speed" is plainly wrong, unless "centripetal acceleration is equal".

I asked the question again, why and how you could assume the centripetal acceleration is equal in these two cases? Even Norman could name one thing that affects centripetal force, he named lean angle. How could you assume that the bigger turn and small turn both have the same lean angle from the skier?



Let's re-use your logic here.
A person height = length of lower body + length of upper body
With the person height the same, the longer his lower body, the shorter his upper body. Fair. Now I say playing soccer will make his legs longer. Putting the condition "will all else equal" (i.e. his height remains the same). Could then I conclude that playing soccer will shorten his upper body?

Is this logic make sense to anyone?

Apply this back to skiing, does it make any sense to assume the longer turn radius to have the same centripetal force as the shorter turn?



In math, nobody don't care about approximate value of "a". If you want to draw a conclusion between the relation between R and V, you will have to use a constant "ac" value. Otherwise, your conclusion means nothing at all.



In math, nobody have to keep "quiet". There is only right or wrong. Even I keep quiet doesn't make your right.

You're the person using the "the higher the KE gives higher performance" statement. The question should be for yourself, and I even said to stick with this for discussion. What're you whining about?



Did the P-51 ever shot down any ME262?
Back to math for a sec. If both ME262 and P-51 carry a weight of 10,000lb, both travelling at 400mph. Using "KE=1/2* m*V*V", they both have the same KE. Is there still performance difference between the two plane? If you simply use KE for measurement for performance, at this case they have the same. This is what I disagree on using KE for performance measure.



i) "angular velocity" is not "linear". When an object spin at the same spot for 360degree/min, its linear velocity = 0, its angular velocity is 1 degree/sec. Please check your definition again.

[the object also have a 0 linear KE, it's angular KE is not, please check your definition as well.]

ii) Are we talking about the ski track? The ski track left behind is clearly in a curve. I can't agree that you name it a "linear" line.



Again, in math, no one cares about "estimate". KE is defined by the formula you quoted. If you know m and V, no one needs to estimate. If you don't know the KE, you couldn't conclude which one has higher performance (since you said higher KE equals to higher performance). If you're guessing/estimating, then you're guessing/estimating.



If you could prove one thing math/sci/physically, then the prove shouldn't required people's experience in doing the two different turns. Your question is unrelated to this math prove. If this is your way to exit your ill-prove, then said it that way.



Wait until you could answer the questions and finish your proof before saying this. You have so many wrong and misleading info.

pku 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-02-26, 01:35 AM   #355
pku
滑雪瘋7級
 
註冊日期: 2010-05-30
文章: 3,787
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: norman 查看文章
看不太懂你的意思,我再細說一下。

在兩個人在類似的斜坡上,做相同性質的中轉彎,至少要像jf的0:36~050這樣子。

因為太極拍的那位,練得已經很不錯了,所以說技術不錯也OK,但是因為傾沒有正確,所以他沒有辦法把轉換跟轉彎效率提升到最好,所以不用看也知道,他的下饅頭速度應該快不了,如果他未突破這點,技術大概就止於此了。
我是說偽太極片中那人,是在平坦的壓雪道滑得這樣,而你看 J.F 的片,他好像在什麼地形,雪況都可以滑得差不多一樣的動作。

J.F 差不多是 CSIA 最厲害的一個,而那人只是普通的 PSIA 3 , 水準應該仍有一段距離。

不過 J.F. 能否在日式饅頭做出跟他平常一樣的動作,我也很有興趣想知。

連 Paul Lorenz 在北海道技術選中跌倒,便可想而知日式饅頭困難程度有多小
pku 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-02-26, 11:40 AM   #356
norman
滑雪瘋隕石級
 
norman 的頭像
 
註冊日期: 2008-09-24
文章: 12,242
發送 MSN 訊息給 norman 發送 Skype™ 訊息給 norman
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: pku 查看文章
我是說偽太極片中那人,是在平坦的壓雪道滑得這樣,而你看 J.F 的片,他好像在什麼地形,雪況都可以滑得差不多一樣的動作。

J.F 差不多是 CSIA 最厲害的一個,而那人只是普通的 PSIA 3 , 水準應該仍有一段距離。

不過 J.F. 能否在日式饅頭做出跟他平常一樣的動作,我也很有興趣想知。

連 Paul Lorenz 在北海道技術選中跌倒,便可想而知日式饅頭困難程度有多小
看懂了。

是的,真正的技術本位就應該像這樣子,在什麼地形滑,動作就是差不多那個樣子。所以我只有區分成伸展釋壓跟收縮釋壓兩種不同的滑法。

Paul Lorenz跟J.F兩人都會這兩種滑法。根據地形的簡單到複雜性還是會有所選擇這兩種之一的滑法。

伸展釋壓針對一般整理的滑道會比較輕鬆。收縮釋壓則是鬆雪跟饅頭會比較輕鬆。但不代表用伸展釋壓就不能滑鬆雪跟饅頭,一樣可以,只要傾正確就會輕鬆很多,但在效能上還是沒有收縮釋壓那麼好。

Paul Lorenz在下日式饅頭,我的看法是他下得太急了,他的身體的動作跟不上速度,如果他能放慢一點點的話,基本上應該是能下得完的。比賽就是這樣,急超出自己能力時,要嘛就超越,不然就慘摔。

J.F下日式饅頭應該也是沒問題的,但快不快就很難講了。因為日式饅頭沒好好去練習慣,突然練少少的趟數就要比賽的話,應該成績不會太亮眼。你有滑完日式饅頭,你就能有很深的體會,能滑完後,其他一般的饅頭根本是小菜一碟,唯一能比的大概就是超級大饅頭了(超級大饅頭應該是由中彎以上形成的),那個我很久沒遇到了,在日本應該是遇不到的,那邊的人喜歡滑小彎,所以才容易形成像日式饅頭那種特色。

另外額外分享一段影片給你看,阿德的下直線饅頭,這段應該是在安比拍的,就是我那時拍小彎跟最後一段的綠線直線饅頭。在影片最後面出現在他前面的穿著亮粉紅褲是他女兒,聽說去年有去紐西蘭上一個月的課。他的問題跟PILI一樣,就看他能不能想通囉。我覺得你下的速度比較快。

光是「傾」有沒有正確就差很多了。

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1057057410978054
__________________
目前總滑天數80天。繼續累積中...我想滑雪。

滑雪人
norman 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-02-26, 03:22 PM   #357
pku
滑雪瘋7級
 
註冊日期: 2010-05-30
文章: 3,787
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: norman 查看文章
看懂了。

是的,真正的技術本位就應該像這樣子,在什麼地形滑,動作就是差不多那個樣子。所以我只有區分成伸展釋壓跟收縮釋壓兩種不同的滑法。

Paul Lorenz跟J.F兩人都會這兩種滑法。根據地形的簡單到複雜性還是會有所選擇這兩種之一的滑法。

伸展釋壓針對一般整理的滑道會比較輕鬆。收縮釋壓則是鬆雪跟饅頭會比較輕鬆。但不代表用伸展釋壓就不能滑鬆雪跟饅頭,一樣可以,只要傾正確就會輕鬆很多,但在效能上還是沒有收縮釋壓那麼好。

Paul Lorenz在下日式饅頭,我的看法是他下得太急了,他的身體的動作跟不上速度,如果他能放慢一點點的話,基本上應該是能下得完的。比賽就是這樣,急超出自己能力時,要嘛就超越,不然就慘摔。

J.F下日式饅頭應該也是沒問題的,但快不快就很難講了。因為日式饅頭沒好好去練習慣,突然練少少的趟數就要比賽的話,應該成績不會太亮眼。你有滑完日式饅頭,你就能有很深的體會,能滑完後,其他一般的饅頭根本是小菜一碟,唯一能比的大概就是超級大饅頭了(超級大饅頭應該是由中彎以上形成的),那個我很久沒遇到了,在日本應該是遇不到的,那邊的人喜歡滑小彎,所以才容易形成像日式饅頭那種特色。

另外額外分享一段影片給你看,阿德的下直線饅頭,這段應該是在安比拍的,就是我那時拍小彎跟最後一段的綠線直線饅頭。在影片最後面出現在他前面的穿著亮粉紅褲是他女兒,聽說去年有去紐西蘭上一個月的課。他的問題跟PILI一樣,就看他能不能想通囉。我覺得你下的速度比較快。

光是「傾」有沒有正確就差很多了。

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1057057410978054
亞德跟 Phil Lai 算是職業指導員,我只是週末滑雪人,很難跟他們比較,而且我滑日式饅頭只能一年兩三天,滑得下來已經算不錯。你說他們的問題我看懂一點點,但看起來亞德很穩,那又是什麼原因,想看看你怎樣分析
pku 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-02-26, 05:46 PM   #358
norman
滑雪瘋隕石級
 
norman 的頭像
 
註冊日期: 2008-09-24
文章: 12,242
發送 MSN 訊息給 norman 發送 Skype™ 訊息給 norman
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: pku 查看文章
亞德跟 Phil Lai 算是職業指導員,我只是週末滑雪人,很難跟他們比較,而且我滑日式饅頭只能一年兩三天,滑得下來已經算不錯。你說他們的問題我看懂一點點,但看起來亞德很穩,那又是什麼原因,想看看你怎樣分析
不要妄自菲薄,我看的是整體的技術。

我以我的看法來說明幾點。

PILI他用的是伸展釋壓的滑法,滑的路線跟你一樣,是走溝外側,只是陡度只有綠線而已。

阿德用的是收縮釋壓的滑法,他走的是溝內側,但我覺得他的收縮釋壓有點被動,被動收縮跟主動收縮的效率是差很多的。

走溝外側速度較均一,以陡度該多快就是多快。走溝內測容易控制速度,可很慢也可很快。

另外阿德的第二段是我下面這段4:22秒開始的這一段,這陡度比你的簡單多了。

所以因為你的傾是正確的,雖然你不會收縮釋壓的動作,但你的收縮還是有被動收腳,這也是我判定你的技術性能比較高,要是用相同的滑雪天數的話,只要你學會主動收縮釋壓的方法後,你是有機會達到跟J.F那層次等級,就算沒有一樣厲害,也差不了多少了,這也是為什麼我會提到你再三年應該能體會到我的講法,有正確傾跟沒正確傾,天差地遠,比主動收縮釋壓的效果還明顯。但現階段你應該要嚐試用正確傾的滑法擴大你的伸腿跟收縮的長度,能伸腿就儘量把腿伸直,能縮腿就儘量把腿收到自己胸前,有機會的話應該試試看,這是要讓自己的伸收腿更具彈性及增加更動態的平衡,但請小心安全。

__________________
目前總滑天數80天。繼續累積中...我想滑雪。

滑雪人
norman 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-02-26, 11:24 PM   #359
pku
滑雪瘋7級
 
註冊日期: 2010-05-30
文章: 3,787
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: norman 查看文章
不要妄自菲薄,我看的是整體的技術。

我以我的看法來說明幾點。

PILI他用的是伸展釋壓的滑法,滑的路線跟你一樣,是走溝外側,只是陡度只有綠線而已。

阿德用的是收縮釋壓的滑法,他走的是溝內側,但我覺得他的收縮釋壓有點被動,被動收縮跟主動收縮的效率是差很多的。

走溝外側速度較均一,以陡度該多快就是多快。走溝內測容易控制速度,可很慢也可很快。

另外阿德的第二段是我下面這段4:22秒開始的這一段,這陡度比你的簡單多了。

所以因為你的傾是正確的,雖然你不會收縮釋壓的動作,但你的收縮還是有被動收腳,這也是我判定你的技術性能比較高,要是用相同的滑雪天數的話,只要你學會主動收縮釋壓的方法後,你是有機會達到跟J.F那層次等級,就算沒有一樣厲害,也差不了多少了,這也是為什麼我會提到你再三年應該能體會到我的講法,有正確傾跟沒正確傾,天差地遠,比主動收縮釋壓的效果還明顯。但現階段你應該要嚐試用正確傾的滑法擴大你的伸腿跟收縮的長度,能伸腿就儘量把腿伸直,能縮腿就儘量把腿收到自己胸前,有機會的話應該試試看,這是要讓自己的伸收腿更具彈性及增加更動態的平衡,但請小心安全。

http://youtu.be/gnQAUY0WJvM
明白,謝謝意見,我會盡量嘗試

明年看看可不可在志賀一起滑幾天
pku 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-02-27, 12:08 PM   #360
lelo
滑雪瘋9級
 
註冊日期: 2008-10-08
文章: 5,341
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: norman 查看文章
另外額外分享一段影片給你看,阿德的下直線饅頭,這段應該是在安比拍的,就是我那時拍小彎跟最後一段的綠線直線饅頭。在影片最後面出現在他前面的穿著亮粉紅褲是他女兒,聽說去年有去紐西蘭上一個月的課。他的問題跟PILI一樣,就看他能不能想通囉。我覺得你下的速度比較快。

光是「傾」有沒有正確就差很多了。

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1057057410978054
看不到影片,有沒有什麼辦法能看到啊?Norman 去下載下來,放上 youtube 一會兒再刪掉?

另外 PILI 是 Phil Lai 的簡稱?那阿德臉書那個 Maugyver PiLi 是誰?
lelo 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
回覆

書籤

主題工具
顯示模式

發文規則
不可以發表新主題
不可以發表回覆
不可以上傳附件
不可以編輯自己的文章

啟用 BB 代碼
論壇啟用 表情符號
論壇啟用 [IMG] 代碼
論壇禁用 HTML 代碼


所有時間均為台北時間。現在的時間是 08:47 AM


Powered by vBulletin® 版本 3.7.4
版權所有 ©2000 - 2021,Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.