4 Questions

Yes, we can use too much counter when steering (whatever that is ). Too much counter will block us and prevent us from using our movements dynamically. It lends to scissoring.

Trying to move along here, E, but I'll give this one more go. 

If you don't allow your femurs to rotate in your hip sockets as you steer you legs/feet right or left, your pelvis will remain square to your feet (pointing in the same direction) as you go through the turn. 

If you do allow them to turn you'll become countered.  It's up to us which we choose.  If we do choose counter, it's up to us how much we choose.  Which brings us back to one of the questions at hand in my post #57.   

Thanks, tdk6, now we're getting somewhere.  Anyone else? 

JASP, help me make sure I've got what you're saying straight.  In your pro example, when you say "using entire body to create the turning force", you're speaking of things such as rotation and counter rotation, correct? 

Remember your exercise added to my hop drill. Trying to reverse the direction of rotation after turning just the legs, then by turning the whole body. Excessive momentum inhibits the direction change...

In that exercise we were feeling the momentum effects of a very strong pivot move.  The intensity of that momentum is much muted in a sublty exectued steered turn where the direction change takes place over the course of an entire turn, as opposed to a sudden twisting hop/pivot. 

That's why I also suggested trying the steering square exercise, so people could feel the diminished momentum caused lag time between turns. 

It's also why I mentioned a comparison to the momentum issues in a countered carved turn, as they are very similar to a square steered turn.  Actually, for any particular turn shape, the carved turn will carry more rotational momentum, simply because of the speed of travel difference. 

The source of the difference felt in the ease of turn initiations between steering square, or steering into counter, results more from the anticipation position counter produces.  Anticipation creates a loaded spring effect that helps to power the twist of the legs and feet during the transtion.  That power source that exists when we're anticipated actually lessens our ability to fine controll our turn initiation and turn shape.    

If we're square through the transition we don't have that element of torque waiting to wrench our skis into the new turn, like exists when were anticipated.  When were square the rotational forces are neutral, so we can easily enter our turns very gently, with low edge and low steering power to produce a very long radius top of the turn. 

If we try the same thing from a strongly anticipated position we go into the new turn heavily rotated, fighting to resist our upper and lower body's desire to return to rotation orientation harmony.  The battle is especially severe the moment the skis disengage from the prior turn, when nothing other than our sheer strength is available to keep the skis from auto-pivoting downhill. 

This is why skiing square is an excellent place for skiers to begin learning high quality steering skills.  If they are square during the transition, that loaded spring torque is gone, so they can more easily focus on and execute a pivot free turn initiation.  Most recreational skiers come to us with a default pivot initiation built into their transitions.   Shedding that pivot is a top priority and first order of business in the process of building good steering skills.  Taking them out of a position that encourages a pivot (anticipation with jacket zipper facing down the falline) makes the task much easier. 

Once they've shed the pesky pivot from their skiing, have gotten the feel of what a clean, push/pivot free initiation feels like, and can do it well, anticipation can be reintroduced to speed up the twist in those times it's needed. 
Edited by Rick - 11/3/09 at 4:03pm

If you don't allow your femurs to rotate, your pelvis will remain square to your feet as you go through the turn.  But when steering the legs are used to twist the skis into a new compass direction.  Since there is no twisting of the legs, there is no steering. 

ONLY if I allow the femurs to rotate and the orientation of pelvis and skis change will I be steering.

The only way that the upper body to remain square with the skis while the skis are moved to point to a different direction (not tipped more) is if the upper body drives the turn -- you throw the shoulder to power the turn.  I don't know anyone that would call that steering.

BigE, you're stating as fact things that are miles from correct. 



Those 2 statements are just flat out wrong.  I know some people do believe this.  Straightening out those misconceptions and showing people how to benefit from the other options is what this thread is all about. 

 Ok, then, straighten me out....

What movements do you make to steer yet keep the pelvis and skis aligned?  So far all I have is assertions that it can be done. 

It's actually very easy to do, E.  One leg works against the other as you twist, each providing the leverage/anchor point for other to be twisted/steered against.  The pelvis does not have to be part of the equation.  It can remain rotationally stable, and let the legs turn/steer against each other underneath it, or it can go along for the ride and turn in harmony with the legs, thus remaining square. 

You can prove to yourself steering leverage is provided to one leg by the other by simple standing up right now and steering your legs very gently and slowly left and right.  You can do that while keeping your pelvis facing straight ahead (skiing into counter), or allowing it to turn along with your feet (remaining square).  

Now try lifting a foot off the floor and try to steer again.   It can no longer be done smoothly.  Now an aggressive upper body movement is needed to power the twist because the leverage point of the second foot on the ground is gone.  See?  It's not the pelvis action that makes steering possible.   

Watch this video, especially between 1:20 and 1:35, I demonstrate 3 steered turns done square,,, medium, long and short radius.  

www.youtube.com/watch 

I think part of the confusion here on steering is that we are dealing with more than one plane when the skis are edged.  To me, steering is actively using muscles to control the direction the skis are pointing and is always an action in the plane of the snow and not the edged ski.  When there is torque applied to the skis to load the tips vs the tails as in applying torque in the plane of the edged ski then I do not consider that steering. Its a rotary movement but not steering. That is leveraging and is done by shifting balance fore and aft to apply torque to an angled foot. .


To remain square to the skis while more or less carving or skidding and steering requires blending fore and aft balance changes (including push pull) to keep the body square to the skis. Steering skis in parallel without the fore aft blending results in natural counter and tip lead.  So to remain square, in my opinion, requires more than steering.   Steering in conjunction with push pull fore and aft balance changes also results in anticipation, a windup of tension in the muscles.  Ideal for skiing bumps.


Edited by Pierre - 11/3/09 at 6:27pm

  I get it. Kind of like an aborted moon-walk.....Thanks guys! 

Edit:  While I understand the movement, I like Pierre, believe there is something more than steering happening.

Edited by BigE - 11/3/09 at 8:01pm

Pierre, so if the skidd angle is set up at initiation by up unweighing and slight rotary of legs or hips and thereafter no rotary of the legs (femures rotation) would be used used through out the rest of the turn to increase the turn radius then that would not be active steering? My skis would still be at a skidding angle and I would be skidding the turn. Right?

Edge skis cannot be steered! Somewhat muddy definition because skis are seldome flat on the snow. My conclusion is that the more the ski is on its edge the more effort is needed to steer it. Eventually it will not be able to steer the ski. On the other hand violent knee drive while carving can result in skis braking away from the skidd-angle cero and start skidding. If the torque is still applied it would then be considered steering but if all turning forces and muscle efforts were dropped then it would be skidding. Or like E said, scarving. Muddy definition as well.

So is it possible to turn the legs, rotate them in the hip sockets, without producing counter?

Steering = changing the steering angle.

Rotary steering = changing the steering angle by applying torque to the skis about an axis that is perpendicular to the plane of the snow surface, a torque that is acting between the body and the skis,

Non-rotary steering = changing the steering angle by altering the torque acting between the snow and the skis by a method that does not involve rotary steering, for example shifting weight to the tips to increase steering angle.

Non rotary steering can be done while remaining square to the skis. Rotary steering can not; torque acting between skis and body produces angular acceleration of the body.

Ski nomenclature is a mess.
Sometimes I think the PSIA changes it's nomenclature just so that folks will think that instructors know more than they do.
I ski with a retired PSIA senior examiner and find he is very good at explaining things without resorting to techno babble.

The main thing I see wrong with extreme counter is that it leaves you in the back seat at the end of the turn.
Like in the above photo montage.

It would be helpful if someone could post annotated pictures to show what ski technique nomenclature really refers to.

 Ghost,

The rotary steering you define is called Pivoting.  The non-rotary steering is called Edging.  

The generic term "steering" usually refers to a combination of both Pivoting and Edging.  Hence the notion of skill blend.

The confusion arround the consept "steering" seems to grow by the day. Now we have a new term: rotary steering. I wonder how "steering" is thaught successfully out on the mountain when it seems to be impossible to grabb it by the balls over the internet by expert instructors and coaches?

If "non rotary steering" is "edging" then my question is: can "edging" be done when carving edge locked?

Coming back to this thread I took a look at Rick's video that he referenced.  I found that watching the video enlightened the discussion for me.  I'm with Pierre and Big E that there is more than steering (combination of twisting and tipping the ski) going on here.  Furthermore, the discussion supports my own feeling that people may interpret the inputs to the ski they are performing in combination with the effects of the snow on the ski quite differently.  This delves into the concept of active vs. passive hip joint rotation.

An non-carving edged ski still produces a turning force.  Increase tip or tail pressure a slight bit with minimal fore aft movements and a lot of ski twisting can occur without any active torque (from the skier) applied to the ski in the plane of the snow or the ski.  Personally, I think the only way to resolve these issues is to properly instrument a ski and a skier and measure what's going on in some of these situations.

From me this discussion (at least so far) has supported my personal feeling that steering is not a very effective term/concept for talking about the inputs given to a ski and the outcomes that occur based on ski/snow interaction.

tdk6,

In "non-rotary steering", edging is a skill that causes the steering angle to change.  If your question is "can the steering angle change when carving edge-locked?"  Sure -- tip more.  But it's more compicated than that...

Another approach is to change the pressure distribution on the edge locked ski -- press more on the shovel than the tail -- but watch out you don't get the tip to "dig in"!

As Pierre is saying, blending fore and aft balance changes is also necessary to remain square -- so we've also got balance skills at work. 

There you have it!  Steering is a blend of rotary, edging, pressure control and balance skills. Clear as mud!

What a mess.  No wonder skier retention rates are so lousy!  Something as simple as "turning your feet" has become impossible.

Yes, it's getting overly complex here. 

Tip the skis on edge and they will pull you through a turn of their own accord, supplement with leg steering to sharpen the turn beyond what the sidecut is doing for you, to the desired radius.  That's all it is.

It takes very little leg steering power to do it.  It's so subtle in nature that when done well it can't even be seen by the naked eye.  That's why folks sometimes think something else must be happening.   

It DOES NOT have to involve femur rotation in the hip socket.  What the pelvis is doing above is of little consequence to actually being able to do it.  You can steer while countered, square or rotated.  You can move into counter or out of it while you steer.  It's up to us how we orientate our pelvis as we steer.   

It has little to do with Fore/Aft balance.  In my video I am perfectly center balanced all the way through the turn.  I could also do it while fore,,, or aft,,, or moving from fore to aft,,, or moving from aft to fore.  It makes no difference.  I teach my students to do them all, so they have complete mastery of their fine edge control and balancing abilities. 

Guys, it's just steering the legs to modify the turn radius as desired.  Very simple, very easy (said in my best Asian chef commercial voice).  Beyond that, and the important lesson to be learned here, is how employing different pelvic rotational states can affect the nature of the turns produced.  It's an important topic.  It's the reason I started this thread.  Our ski slopes are abundant with skiers plagued with big tail pushes and pivots to start their turns.  Coming to understand the disconnect between steering and pelvic orientation, that femur rotation in the hip sockets is not a manditory component of steering, is key to avoiding producing another generation of chronic pivoters. 

Thanks for your explanation. Clear as mud as you say. But does it have to have all 4 components present: rotary, edging, pressure controll and balancing. 

Wedging has always been and still is the most popular way to learn how to ski.
The way I teach you are gliding forwards with both skis at a skid-angle mimicing a pizza slice. Legs are passive and skis on edge. In order to turn in eather direction you simply just lean over the opposite ski with your upper body leaving hips and legs unaltered. The added pressure will cause added friction on the edge and the ski will change its direction more in the direction of the edge and the ski. Todays shaped skis will give the turn an even smooth turn shape. Here present are: pressure controll and balance. No steering. If I was to add steering what would I do?

Perhaps there should be a wiki section entitled Steering. This thread could be put there as it does a wonderful job of explaining what steering is. If BB could just add another thousand word post it would be complete. The ski public would be forever indebted.

This is why I will offer this definition of steering as "changing the steering angle".  Nothing more, nothing less, without emphasis on the movement or the technique that can accomplish this "change of steering angle".

That's the outcome, that's "the physics" -- we want to change the direction that the skis are pointing with respect to the instantaneous direction that the CM is headed.

Is it best to:

1) Edge more?
2) Rotate femurs?
3) Edge more while countered?
4) Edge more while square?
5) Rotate femurs while countered?
6) Twist skis while staying square?
7) Change pressure distribution on an edge locked ski?
8) Rotate femurs and change pressure distribution on and edge locked ski while countered?
9) Anticipation?
10) Inclination to change edge angle?
11) Angulation to change edge angle?
12) Others???? 
 
it depends....

But don't all these things "change the steering angle"?  Yes, they do!

What will drive you to select one approach over another? 

How would your posture change? Natural and strong or unnatural and weak?

 

Edited by BigE - 11/4/09 at 1:31pm

If you are carving a pure arc, your steering angle is zero.  At any point along the arc of the ski's edge, the ski at that point is travelling in a direction parallel to the tangent of the arc at that point.

Non-rotary skiing is not a pre-existing term as far as I know; I just made it up to show that steering did not need to have rotary input. (blend with rotary proportion = 0).

There is no changing that steering angle if you are carving a pure arc, even thought there is edging to change the turn radius. 

Steering angle is about the direction the ski is pointing vs the direction the CM would fly off if the ski were not deflecting it.  A carving ski has steering angle.  Zero steering angle happens in Speed skiing:  straight down the fall-line. Skis and inertial path of the CM in the same direction.

If you tip from straight run, the skis turn so the direction of the ski vs inertial direction of the CM changes.  If you tip more, it changes again.

If I'm arcing a turn my ski tips are pointing in one direction, the centre of the ski is pointing in another direction and the tails are pointing in a third direction: three tangents at different points of the arc.

Would call what I have been referring to as "steering angle" as skidding angle or slip angle?

Ghost, BigE stated what steering angle is well.  It's about the radius of the turn.  It's the angular difference between the direction you'll go if you continue turning, and the direction you'll go if you suddenly stopped turning and momentum ejected you out of the arc.  The smaller the radius of the turn you're making, the bigger the steering angle. 

Skid angle is different.  It's not related to turn radius.  It's completely independant of radius.  Within any given turn radius you can employ various skid angles, from 0 to 90 degrees.  Skid angle is simple the angular difference between the direction your skis are pointing and the direction your actually traveling.  The larger the skid angle, the wider skid track you leave in your wake, and the slower you travel.  It's obviously a very useful speed management tool.  

You're speaking about steering angle.   

You will have to explain it to me a little better than that; one of us isn't thinking straight; it might be me.

If I am travelling along an arc, any arc of any radius, the direction I would go if I suddenly ejected from my skis is the direction tangent to that arc.  The direction my skis are pointing measured at the same point as the point I am being ejected from, under my feet, is also in the direction of that same tangent.  The steering angle is zero degrees.  It is zero degrees if I'm arcing a 50 m turn on my SG skis; it's zero degrees if I'm arcing a 5 m turn on my SCs. 

The way you explained it above "It's the angular difference between the direction you'll go if you continue turning, and the direction you'll go if you suddenly stopped turning and momentum ejected you out of the arc." the steering angle would depend not on the radius of the turn, but on how long I remain in that turn.

Ghost, you actually explained it to yourself in post 87 when you said. 


When arcing a turn the front of your skis are not pointing in the same direction as the back of your skis.  Take a moment in time within that arc.  Put an arrow tangent to the arc where your feet reside, and put an arrow tangent to the arc where your tips resides.  There will be an angular difference between those tangents.  That's the steering angle.  The smaller the radius of the arc you're riding, the larger that angular difference between those 2 tangents (the steering angle) will be.
 
That make sense?