This is a nice convention in my opinion: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8336350/ First, we rotate around the frontal axis by the flip angle, then around the sagittal axis by the tilt angle and then around the longitudinal axis by the twist angle. This means the tilt angle can be used to quantify how off-axis a rotation is.
We should first rotate around the frontal axis by the flip angle, then around the sagittal axis by the tilt angle and then around the longitudinal axis by the twist angle. This is a nice convention to describe twisting somersaults, and the tilt angle quantifies how off-axis it is. Note however that we have to divide the body into rigid segments and choose one of them to be the segment in which orientation we are interested in, e.g. the torso. The rest of the body is tied to it only by range of motion constraints. Therefore, a segment far away from it, e.g. the foot, can have an entirely different orientation than the segment of interest.
Thank you, very interesting video 😃 If I can give you an advice for the next videos (I work in the sound industry), you can put furnitures and a carpet to have a much better sound quality on your voice, or use a software like izotope RX to remove the room reverb. Don't get me wrong we hear you clearly, but it will make a noticeable difference. Thanks for your work !
Oh damn, I love subjects like this! I’ve spent decades trying to understand and catalog tricks, and I’ve made some interesting findings: 1. One of them (and you touch upon this at 1:44) is that the parkour side flip is not a true side flip because you don’t go over your head, which I figure would be a primary condition for a move to be considered a flip. The parkour “side flip” is more like a tucked horizontal twist. For a good example of an overhead side flip, you’d need to look at the rare clips of gymnasts doing side flips. Or… the side flip that happens in cartohara. I mean the part of the move after take-off from your hands. It’s a pure 1.5 overhead side flip. And since I’m a bit cheeky, I’ll call overhead sideflip a real side flip. 😁 2. All tricks can be done through three cardinal directions: front, back, and side*. In the video, you give an example of an off-axis move (shant), demonstrating back and front variations of it, but there is a high likelihood the side version could be done as well. I have never found an exception to the three cardinal direction rule. It’s also a really fun exercise that allows you to create a lot of new tricks: trying to figure out the missing directions of a given trick. For example, the cork is a backflipping trick, so let’s call it a “back cork” for the sake of this example. Now, try to imagine how a front cork or side cork would look. 3. *Side flipping should actually be broken down into left and right. So we should train left flips and right flips. Imagine you do a combo backflip punched straight into a front flip. To do the side equivalent of that, you would need a left flip and a right flip. That’s one of many examples I could give. 4. When analyzing flips and tricks, one should observe how the torso moves, as that’s basically what doing tricks is about-using your limbs to move your torso through a particular plane/axis of your choice. Following this rule, at 8:44, you and Jim are doing two different tricks. 5. 9:31 When I discovered them, I called them blideflip and frideflip, or if you applied the rule from point 3, it would be frightflip, fleftflip, beftflip, and bightflip. 6. Each trick can be done forward, backward, leftward, and rightward, resulting in four possibilities. Each of these can have twists added: quarter twist, half twist, 3/4, full, all the way up to let's say four twists (which, if you count by quarters, is 16 options). 4x16 = 64 possibilities already. Now, each of these can be done on the floor, wall, ceiling, or a bar. 64x4 = 256 tricks. You can then do a 1/4 flip, 1/2 flip, 3/4 flip, full flip, up to a lets say triple flip, resulting in 12 options. 256x12 = 3,072 tricks. Now, each of these can have different take-offs, which would take a lengthy paragraph to explain all permutations, but to simplify, I’ll assume 10 take-offs. That’s 30,720 tricks. I think I could ramp it up to a million. Apologies if I went bit of topic, but this the first time I've come across anyone analysing flips like that and I got bit excited! I look forward to your next video! PS: i use spiderman action figure;d
1) I think the side flip is as true as it can get (tucked). The reason we go over our head on front and back flips is that we tuck in the same plane of movement than the flip (there is no movement to the left or right) whereas the tuck on a side flip is not on the same plane as the flip. And if you tuck your legs, by reaction your torso will also bend towards the middle and that's why it's impossible (in my opinion) to do a true tucked side flip as you describe them. I will check gymnastics version to see what it looks like though
3) the reason side flips are not separated is because you can get right or left version by symmetry, like twist, as opposed to front and back. However if there's a side component and a twist component, it's important to count two variations: one where the twist is on the same side as the side flip component, and one where they are opposite, which he covered at the end !
Great video, Jannis! I also looked into this a few years back. I would like to stress again that a freely rotating rigid body can't perform these rotations. As you said, changes in posture (changes in moment of inertia) are necessary. Therefore, using Jim to show where the feet are might be a little confusing😅
Yes I think you are correct, showing where the feet are is indeed not very precise, I should have stuck with the axis of observation. I guess you are referring to the fact that these in-between axis are not stable and would result in a stable rotation? I think that's also correct and its the reason why there is no such thing as a shant layout. The body position needs to be adapted so that the rotation is stable ( which sould however always work if you are tucked). But what I dont fully understand is shouldnt the backflip layout be instable, too? And also, these in-between axis are stable when additional twists are added (like with the cork 7 example or most off-axis standing doublefulls), would you agree?
sehr geil! Parkour braucht wieder mehr solche Formate
5 дней назад
Thank you for this fantastic video! I really enjoyed your approach and effort to categorize these different types of flips. I've always been puzzled by these unusual angled flips, but now I have a bit more clarity.
On the topic of zeros all the front flipping variations have 0s too. Then on another branch of this off axis stuff by changing your orientation in relation to your direction of movement you get even more flavors (like how you can backflip, but also caster backflip sidewards in both directions, and gainer). Plus anywhere you can put a backflip or front flip (i.e. castaway, hang gainer, gaet, etc.) you can replace it with a variation that is off axis. A whole spectrum of tricks to explore!
Das Bohrersetup… genial. Manches muss ich erst verdauen. Zb dass du jetzt genau weißt welche flips prinzipiell noch gemacht werden können Der front hate ist auch real 😂
Very interesting, I want to dive deeper now. I've done quite a lot of physics but I don't have a good intuition for complex rotations, especially when the rotating object is not solid and can move, weird stuff becomes possible, like full/unfull. One thing that I find strange also is that you "add" different axis components for example back + twist components, and you get an axis that's the sum of both vectors, the same way you can add velocity components to get the overall velocity. But then what is a backfull ? It looks like a back flip + twist as well but the axis are separated in a way, and that feels strange to me. Do you have any insight on that ?
Great video! Coming from an aerospace background, I've always found the rotating coordinate frames in sports and especially parkour fascinating. What I find interesting is describing tricks like in trampoline gymnastics (e.g. backflip full twist), where the twists are perfectly "straight". I think that this cannot be shown with the drill, as the axis of the twist itself is also rotating around the axis of the flip. And therefore the orientation of the twist axis is time variant in the "ground fixed frame". One would need to attatch a drill to a drill to demonstrate this with Jim. Would you think of this in the same way?
I really like your way you conceptualized the cork 0, I've had something like that in mind for a long time. However, as for the idea of mathematically describing each axis in the same terms, you run into problems if you don't consider different tucks or flipping positions to be completely separate things, given that you're changing your centre of gravity, and therefore, changing the point relative to which you're rotating. What this means in the real world is that it isn't really posible to do the off-axis backflip (i think you called it shant?) in the straightened body position you're using for reference, you always need to go into this awkward position that fundamentally changes the nature of the motion. Same would go for the flatspin, where your real world example of yourself attempting one didn't really look to me like the same motion you were showing with the drill. I would love to be wrong, but I can't really picture anything that isn't a sideflip, backflip, or frontflip (or their twisting variations) being performed in a straightened body position, I would love to see a deeper analysis on this. Those are just my thoughts, maybe stupid ones, cool video either way.
I agree that my tuck or pike in some of the examples changes the look of the flip almost entirely. I tried to neglect the influence of the shape by basically reducing myself to my axis of observation which I do think is legit to some extend because this axis is really relatively independent of the tuck/posture. During my research I really struggled to find examples in a layout position, but I cannot follow your argument why they should be impossible. I would love to understand though :D
@@JannisSchauer I would love to, and I will try to, find a better and more rigorous explanation as for why, but have you ever tried to flip the figure, or just a water bottle or anything, making it do a "shant" or rotate in any of those alternative axis? Without the drill keeping a hold of it, and only giving it some initial momentum, it seems impossible to me. My explanation for this (which can definitely be wrong) is that, if you draw out the axis it cuts the figure asymmetrically, you have an asymmetry with respect to the axis of rotation. Traditional axes, on the other hand, cut the body into halfs that are more symmetric, which is what makes it possible to do them without changing body position. Whereas, if you look at the tucks people do for this off-axis flips, their body postition is such that if you draw out the axis they are rotating with respect to, you get some symmetry in the momentum, the shapes they choose are very intentional even if they don't think about it, which is what allows the rotation to be performed. So my (intuitive) argument is that the motions you describe the axis with are not physically possible, which makes them not ideal for describing the flips. Again, I would love to be wrong, or find better proof of this, maybe I'm not making sense. Either way, you're a legend man, love to see you talking about this stuff.
@@filamproductions3I was feeling the same and your explanation really made sense ! I think there's something to do with the components of the K matrix that's on the board, I have a vague memory of this but I think you can describe an object moment of inertia completely in a 3x3 matrix, and the diagonals are the moments of inertia in the 3 axes of the matrix's base, but if their are diagonal terms (like the ones on the board) then the object cannot turn around the axis without external forces (which is usually the case during a flip)
@@filamproductions3 also I just remembered that there are more stable axis than others (what's the plural of axis btw ?). For example if you flip your phone (be careful) it's very stable if you spin it like a freesbee, or around the long direction of the phone, but it's much harder to flip it around what I'll call the "Samsung's flip phone" axis without it rotating. I can't remember if air resistance is a reason or not though, I think veritasium made a video on the subject, with a really strange example of a butterfly bolt on the iss (you can find it on RUclips), where it flips between two stable rotation modes
@@lucasboisneau4256 I came across that exact same video. I think I understand now. A rigid body has three principal axes of rotation that are determined by its moment of inertia, and they should coincide in this case with the axis he drew out of the blackboard. However (and this is derived somehow from Euler's equations of motion), a rotation around any axis other than those three will be impossible to maintain without applying external force. Veritasium's video was on intermediate axis theorem, which explains how any small deviation in a rotation about its intermediate axis (on of the three principal axes, would be the backflip axis for us) will build up over time and cause it to do the bizarre flip shown in the video. Here, we don't need to consider that effect at all, our deviation is so great that it is immediately appreciated, in the form of loosing your axis and falling on your face. The way people get around this in off-axis flips is by redefining their moment of inertia by changing body position, which changes what their three principal axes would be, allowing them to perform a stable (enough) rotation in the axis desired. So moment of inertia restricts your rotation to three axes, but people break away from this by changing that very moment of inertia inherent to body shape/weight distribution. Either way, that's my theory, thank you for bringing some actual physics into this!
I mean no offense, but you are pretty incorrect with the trick names. I also don’t understand why you don’t use the flip/axis names that have been around longer than parkour has been flipping. For instance frisbee is on flat axis. Flat can be barrel roll(side flip over back), frisbee, or orbital (probably only possible on skis). Flat is when your back/hips/center of gravity are parallel with the ground. One reason you seem to be having trouble with “off axis” is because you’re not using established axes. You misrepresent cork 0, 3, and 7 by showing it on flat axis. As well calling it off axis is misrepresentation imo. They are all on an axis.
I am sorry that i didn't use the trick names that you are used to. The main point of the video was to show how flips look when the axis of rotation is placed in between the standard axis (front, back, side and twist). These in between axis is what i call off-axis in the video. I further try to bridge the gap to existing flips (mostly parkour specific names because that is my background). I wonder how i misrepresent cork 0, 3 and 7 because from the videos I've watched of skiers doing these flips it seems pretty uniform what skiers understand by a cork 0, 3 and 7. Imo there is no such thing as "showing it on the flat axis" because there is no such thing as showing it on any axis. the definition of these tricks is just fixed.
@ you need to look at the axes before you look at tricks. Axes would be front/back, side, vert twist, bio, cork(different than tricking corkscrew), flat, and rodeo. Flat can be further distinguished with orbital, barrel, or frisbee. These axes have been around since before we were even flipping in parkour.
Die Promotionsurkunde in Kombi mit dem Storror Award :D
bisschen Deko muss sein sonst ist der Frame so leer :D
This reminds me of a math lecture and I love it. It may be too much for some people, but introducing the x, y, and z axis would be helpful
This is a nice convention in my opinion: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8336350/
First, we rotate around the frontal axis by the flip angle, then around the sagittal axis by the tilt angle and then around the longitudinal axis by the twist angle. This means the tilt angle can be used to quantify how off-axis a rotation is.
We should first rotate around the frontal axis by the flip angle, then around the sagittal axis by the tilt angle and then around the longitudinal axis by the twist angle. This is a nice convention to describe twisting somersaults, and the tilt angle quantifies how off-axis it is. Note however that we have to divide the body into rigid segments and choose one of them to be the segment in which orientation we are interested in, e.g. the torso. The rest of the body is tied to it only by range of motion constraints. Therefore, a segment far away from it, e.g. the foot, can have an entirely different orientation than the segment of interest.
Thank you, very interesting video 😃 If I can give you an advice for the next videos (I work in the sound industry), you can put furnitures and a carpet to have a much better sound quality on your voice, or use a software like izotope RX to remove the room reverb. Don't get me wrong we hear you clearly, but it will make a noticeable difference. Thanks for your work !
Oh damn, I love subjects like this! I’ve spent decades trying to understand and catalog tricks, and I’ve made some interesting findings:
1. One of them (and you touch upon this at 1:44) is that the parkour side flip is not a true side flip because you don’t go over your head, which I figure would be a primary condition for a move to be considered a flip. The parkour “side flip” is more like a tucked horizontal twist. For a good example of an overhead side flip, you’d need to look at the rare clips of gymnasts doing side flips. Or… the side flip that happens in cartohara. I mean the part of the move after take-off from your hands. It’s a pure 1.5 overhead side flip. And since I’m a bit cheeky, I’ll call overhead sideflip a real side flip. 😁
2. All tricks can be done through three cardinal directions: front, back, and side*. In the video, you give an example of an off-axis move (shant), demonstrating back and front variations of it, but there is a high likelihood the side version could be done as well. I have never found an exception to the three cardinal direction rule. It’s also a really fun exercise that allows you to create a lot of new tricks: trying to figure out the missing directions of a given trick. For example, the cork is a backflipping trick, so let’s call it a “back cork” for the sake of this example. Now, try to imagine how a front cork or side cork would look.
3. *Side flipping should actually be broken down into left and right. So we should train left flips and right flips. Imagine you do a combo backflip punched straight into a front flip. To do the side equivalent of that, you would need a left flip and a right flip. That’s one of many examples I could give.
4. When analyzing flips and tricks, one should observe how the torso moves, as that’s basically what doing tricks is about-using your limbs to move your torso through a particular plane/axis of your choice. Following this rule, at 8:44, you and Jim are doing two different tricks.
5. 9:31 When I discovered them, I called them blideflip and frideflip, or if you applied the rule from point 3, it would be frightflip, fleftflip, beftflip, and bightflip.
6. Each trick can be done forward, backward, leftward, and rightward, resulting in four possibilities. Each of these can have twists added: quarter twist, half twist, 3/4, full, all the way up to let's say four twists (which, if you count by quarters, is 16 options). 4x16 = 64 possibilities already. Now, each of these can be done on the floor, wall, ceiling, or a bar. 64x4 = 256 tricks. You can then do a 1/4 flip, 1/2 flip, 3/4 flip, full flip, up to a lets say triple flip, resulting in 12 options. 256x12 = 3,072 tricks. Now, each of these can have different take-offs, which would take a lengthy paragraph to explain all permutations, but to simplify, I’ll assume 10 take-offs. That’s 30,720 tricks. I think I could ramp it up to a million.
Apologies if I went bit of topic, but this the first time I've come across anyone analysing flips like that and I got bit excited!
I look forward to your next video!
PS: i use spiderman action figure;d
1) I think the side flip is as true as it can get (tucked). The reason we go over our head on front and back flips is that we tuck in the same plane of movement than the flip (there is no movement to the left or right) whereas the tuck on a side flip is not on the same plane as the flip. And if you tuck your legs, by reaction your torso will also bend towards the middle and that's why it's impossible (in my opinion) to do a true tucked side flip as you describe them. I will check gymnastics version to see what it looks like though
2) you probably meant front, right and side ? In any case I think he covered most of the variations of not all
3) the reason side flips are not separated is because you can get right or left version by symmetry, like twist, as opposed to front and back. However if there's a side component and a twist component, it's important to count two variations: one where the twist is on the same side as the side flip component, and one where they are opposite, which he covered at the end !
4) I don't really agree with the 8:44 example, because his legs are also super tucked, and if he would open his body I feel like he would be horizontal like Jim. But I feel like that is not the case on other examples, for example at 4:48, his legs are vertical like Jim's but his torso is completely downward, and it looks like he would belly flop if he opened up (©domtomato)
5) I like the names !
Great video, Jannis! I also looked into this a few years back. I would like to stress again that a freely rotating rigid body can't perform these rotations. As you said, changes in posture (changes in moment of inertia) are necessary. Therefore, using Jim to show where the feet are might be a little confusing😅
Yes I think you are correct, showing where the feet are is indeed not very precise, I should have stuck with the axis of observation.
I guess you are referring to the fact that these in-between axis are not stable and would result in a stable rotation? I think that's also correct and its the reason why there is no such thing as a shant layout. The body position needs to be adapted so that the rotation is stable ( which sould however always work if you are tucked). But what I dont fully understand is shouldnt the backflip layout be instable, too?
And also, these in-between axis are stable when additional twists are added (like with the cork 7 example or most off-axis standing doublefulls), would you agree?
Yaaaay! Jannis’ Brain
That thumbnail is so damn good
Alle credits natürlich an @matttma!
Great video! The sideflip/backflip axis happens a lot in the second flip of full-in when the full is undertwisted.
Good video and great explaining, thank you Jannis
So interesting thank you !! at 9:25 it looks like a flat spin no ? ski tricks
never mind aha, just saw that the flatspin was explained right after in a different axis
Das war sehr nice! In Komni mit dem Bohrer ist Jim der Off-Axis Drillmaster 🙂
10:17 i would say its the side pre axis
How did I miss that :D
I was just about to comment this!
sehr geil! Parkour braucht wieder mehr solche Formate
Thank you for this fantastic video! I really enjoyed your approach and effort to categorize these different types of flips. I've always been puzzled by these unusual angled flips, but now I have a bit more clarity.
I've been waiting for a video like this!
I suspect this video will be a reference video for years to come.
On the topic of zeros all the front flipping variations have 0s too. Then on another branch of this off axis stuff by changing your orientation in relation to your direction of movement you get even more flavors (like how you can backflip, but also caster backflip sidewards in both directions, and gainer). Plus anywhere you can put a backflip or front flip (i.e. castaway, hang gainer, gaet, etc.) you can replace it with a variation that is off axis. A whole spectrum of tricks to explore!
Such a cool idea 💡
9:44 reminds me of a grandmaster scoot from tricking without hands touching down.
The front variant seems like a very stepped out side heavy webster
Geil! Maximum confusion haha. Inspired to do one as well! Especially from the learning perspective. Thank you!
Das Bohrersetup… genial. Manches muss ich erst verdauen. Zb dass du jetzt genau weißt welche flips prinzipiell noch gemacht werden können
Der front hate ist auch real 😂
Check den front hate nich ganz, der kommt teilweise sehr nice. Siehe Dratva...
Haha die fronts kommen schon sehr kurz, aber es ist lang genug :D
Such a sick breakdown! Thank you!
really cool video!! I really enjoyed guessing what flip each demonstration of Jim would be
Omg das wird sich ja so reingezogen gleich
schönes video. spannend wie du darüber denkst.
Thanks for that knowledge.
Legend 💯💯🔥
Love this!
Very interesting, I want to dive deeper now. I've done quite a lot of physics but I don't have a good intuition for complex rotations, especially when the rotating object is not solid and can move, weird stuff becomes possible, like full/unfull.
One thing that I find strange also is that you "add" different axis components for example back + twist components, and you get an axis that's the sum of both vectors, the same way you can add velocity components to get the overall velocity.
But then what is a backfull ? It looks like a back flip + twist as well but the axis are separated in a way, and that feels strange to me.
Do you have any insight on that ?
This is wild! So useful!
The content I signed up for
Great video! Coming from an aerospace background, I've always found the rotating coordinate frames in sports and especially parkour fascinating. What I find interesting is describing tricks like in trampoline gymnastics (e.g. backflip full twist), where the twists are perfectly "straight". I think that this cannot be shown with the drill, as the axis of the twist itself is also rotating around the axis of the flip. And therefore the orientation of the twist axis is time variant in the "ground fixed frame". One would need to attatch a drill to a drill to demonstrate this with Jim. Would you think of this in the same way?
Nice
❤❤❤❤
I kinda have to call this a kong shant now 5:16
Explanation for the most asked questions from every freeskier before gta6
Absoluter Premiumcontent 👌
id say the backflip sideflip axis is what freeskiers would call flatspin
Bring out the quaternions!!! lol
genial
Yes sir! 👊
10:16 is a "sideflip" pre right?
richtig nice, nächstes mal mit mic!
ja ich brauch n mic am körper bzw mund. Auf der cam war eins...
ja ises, hab ich einfach straight nicht dran gedacht :D
I think the closest thing to an off-axis front would be Takuraba.
12:16 wouldn't that be a cheat gainer?
I really like your way you conceptualized the cork 0, I've had something like that in mind for a long time. However, as for the idea of mathematically describing each axis in the same terms, you run into problems if you don't consider different tucks or flipping positions to be completely separate things, given that you're changing your centre of gravity, and therefore, changing the point relative to which you're rotating. What this means in the real world is that it isn't really posible to do the off-axis backflip (i think you called it shant?) in the straightened body position you're using for reference, you always need to go into this awkward position that fundamentally changes the nature of the motion. Same would go for the flatspin, where your real world example of yourself attempting one didn't really look to me like the same motion you were showing with the drill. I would love to be wrong, but I can't really picture anything that isn't a sideflip, backflip, or frontflip (or their twisting variations) being performed in a straightened body position, I would love to see a deeper analysis on this. Those are just my thoughts, maybe stupid ones, cool video either way.
I agree that my tuck or pike in some of the examples changes the look of the flip almost entirely. I tried to neglect the influence of the shape by basically reducing myself to my axis of observation which I do think is legit to some extend because this axis is really relatively independent of the tuck/posture.
During my research I really struggled to find examples in a layout position, but I cannot follow your argument why they should be impossible. I would love to understand though :D
@@JannisSchauer I would love to, and I will try to, find a better and more rigorous explanation as for why, but have you ever tried to flip the figure, or just a water bottle or anything, making it do a "shant" or rotate in any of those alternative axis? Without the drill keeping a hold of it, and only giving it some initial momentum, it seems impossible to me. My explanation for this (which can definitely be wrong) is that, if you draw out the axis it cuts the figure asymmetrically, you have an asymmetry with respect to the axis of rotation. Traditional axes, on the other hand, cut the body into halfs that are more symmetric, which is what makes it possible to do them without changing body position. Whereas, if you look at the tucks people do for this off-axis flips, their body postition is such that if you draw out the axis they are rotating with respect to, you get some symmetry in the momentum, the shapes they choose are very intentional even if they don't think about it, which is what allows the rotation to be performed. So my (intuitive) argument is that the motions you describe the axis with are not physically possible, which makes them not ideal for describing the flips. Again, I would love to be wrong, or find better proof of this, maybe I'm not making sense. Either way, you're a legend man, love to see you talking about this stuff.
@@filamproductions3I was feeling the same and your explanation really made sense ! I think there's something to do with the components of the K matrix that's on the board, I have a vague memory of this but I think you can describe an object moment of inertia completely in a 3x3 matrix, and the diagonals are the moments of inertia in the 3 axes of the matrix's base, but if their are diagonal terms (like the ones on the board) then the object cannot turn around the axis without external forces (which is usually the case during a flip)
@@filamproductions3 also I just remembered that there are more stable axis than others (what's the plural of axis btw ?). For example if you flip your phone (be careful) it's very stable if you spin it like a freesbee, or around the long direction of the phone, but it's much harder to flip it around what I'll call the "Samsung's flip phone" axis without it rotating. I can't remember if air resistance is a reason or not though, I think veritasium made a video on the subject, with a really strange example of a butterfly bolt on the iss (you can find it on RUclips), where it flips between two stable rotation modes
@@lucasboisneau4256 I came across that exact same video. I think I understand now. A rigid body has three principal axes of rotation that are determined by its moment of inertia, and they should coincide in this case with the axis he drew out of the blackboard. However (and this is derived somehow from Euler's equations of motion), a rotation around any axis other than those three will be impossible to maintain without applying external force. Veritasium's video was on intermediate axis theorem, which explains how any small deviation in a rotation about its intermediate axis (on of the three principal axes, would be the backflip axis for us) will build up over time and cause it to do the bizarre flip shown in the video. Here, we don't need to consider that effect at all, our deviation is so great that it is immediately appreciated, in the form of loosing your axis and falling on your face. The way people get around this in off-axis flips is by redefining their moment of inertia by changing body position, which changes what their three principal axes would be, allowing them to perform a stable (enough) rotation in the axis desired. So moment of inertia restricts your rotation to three axes, but people break away from this by changing that very moment of inertia inherent to body shape/weight distribution. Either way, that's my theory, thank you for bringing some actual physics into this!
nahezu überfällig so ein Kurs
I was here
I mean no offense, but you are pretty incorrect with the trick names. I also don’t understand why you don’t use the flip/axis names that have been around longer than parkour has been flipping.
For instance frisbee is on flat axis. Flat can be barrel roll(side flip over back), frisbee, or orbital (probably only possible on skis). Flat is when your back/hips/center of gravity are parallel with the ground.
One reason you seem to be having trouble with “off axis” is because you’re not using established axes. You misrepresent cork 0, 3, and 7 by showing it on flat axis.
As well calling it off axis is misrepresentation imo. They are all on an axis.
I am sorry that i didn't use the trick names that you are used to. The main point of the video was to show how flips look when the axis of rotation is placed in between the standard axis (front, back, side and twist). These in between axis is what i call off-axis in the video. I further try to bridge the gap to existing flips (mostly parkour specific names because that is my background).
I wonder how i misrepresent cork 0, 3 and 7 because from the videos I've watched of skiers doing these flips it seems pretty uniform what skiers understand by a cork 0, 3 and 7. Imo there is no such thing as "showing it on the flat axis" because there is no such thing as showing it on any axis. the definition of these tricks is just fixed.
@ you need to look at the axes before you look at tricks. Axes would be front/back, side, vert twist, bio, cork(different than tricking corkscrew), flat, and rodeo. Flat can be further distinguished with orbital, barrel, or frisbee. These axes have been around since before we were even flipping in parkour.
this guys gaslighting ppl