or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Riding The Bend - Page 2

Maybe we can measure level of the carve quality by amount of g-force generated at any given point of the turn.  After all, if you're skidding, you're losing g's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars

So, if it's not "Carving", what is it then?  Skiing.  This is like saying "If it's not a Hockey Stop, what is it then?  I don't know.  Maybe a side slip , Hockey slow (down).  An attempted hockey stop?  In my classes when we cover hockey stops, if they don't come to a complete stop, they are reminded what the skill is and have to do it again.  Isn't a side slip just a of a hockey stop without an ending? If someone is supposed to do a hockey stop, and tries to do a hockey stop, but does a side slip instead, do they get an A? No they do not.  Nor a B or a C.

I still stand by the two ends of the spectrum have hockey stop at one end and carving at the other.  Everything in between is a combination and at some point that combination will be a needed skill.  The fact that it isn't a carve doesn't make it bad; it just makes it something else.

Is any form of carving, not carving?  As long as it meets the definition of carving.

Does carving have to be perfectly performed to be carving?  I believe anything less than a perfect carve is still a carve but in order for it to be called "carving", you have to get at least a C (an A wold be perfect).  It would still have to meet the definition of carving.

When is carving not carving?  When it doesn't meet the definition of tail follows tip in a single track while on edge.

see, it's all a matter of speculation. Certainly no one performs perfect carves down 2000 verticle feet of run every time. Not even the best of the best do.  There's also a whole thread here on it being impossible to do a single perfect turn.

there are so many instances during a ski run when you will have to brake or change lines due to obstacles or other skiers, moguls, trees etc where you will have to brake from the carve to steer, skid or even use a hockey stop braking or slow down motion.  That's just part of skiing.  I don't think anyone is saying that to be a perfect skier you have to carve.  There are many instance when carving isn't appropriate and a well rounded skier will pull a different turn from their tool box.

so, if true carving is not present when is something less, still carving? When it still meets the definition of carving.  And at what point can it be perceived as "hacking" as BB likes to say.  When it no longer meet the definition of carving.

Carving is carving when the same snowflake touches the tip and the tail of your ski's edge.  If you ski doesn't cut through the snow with tip and tail running over that same snow flake, it's not carving.

It's still skiing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

Carving is carving when the same snowflake touches the tip and the tail of your ski's edge.  If you ski doesn't cut through the snow with tip and tail running over that same snow flake, it's not carving.

It's still skiing.

I like this definition even more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

Carving is carving when the same snowflake touches the tip and the tail of your ski's edge.  If you ski doesn't cut through the snow with tip and tail running over that same snow flake, it's not carving.

It's still skiing.

Then by this definition, no one has or ever will carve.  Great for the theory folks but I like skiing in the real world.

Carving is a verb, not a result.  I view carving as a whole lot more than just the result it leaves in the snow.  I have seen some pretty wierd movements lay down some pencil tracks that I think would not do justice to being called carving.

I like L&AirC's grading but have trouble giving a B or a C to someone who did all the right things but happened to make a turn whose radius in is Rick's "no carve" zones and had to add in the rotary to do so.  I'm not trying to "grade" the skis, I'm trying to "grade" the individual on top of them.  To limit A's due to equipment?  "I'm sorry, you could have gotten a better grade on your knowledge of the material if you had used a #2 pencil."  I view Rick's diagram as what the skis can do, not the skier.

In my view, pencil lines (done right of course) is a "pure carve".

And why is it that you cannot run over the same snowflake with tips and tails?  The tip squashes it down under the edge on the downhils side of the grove _/  and it stays there as the tails follow along in the grove cut by the tips and deepened as the skis go through, perhaps displaced by compaction, but still there.

We are not grading skiers, nor their abilities, we are defining what carving is.  Perhaps it's true that you can't fly with a boat, but that doesn't mean we should change the definition of flying to include floating on water.

Quote:
Then by this definition, no one has or ever will carve. Great for the theory folks but I like skiing in the real world.

Carving is a verb, not a result. . . . .

Well said, Snowhawk. It is an intent, not an event. I like how you think, and I agree that the purist definition of carving that focuses on the result of zero skidding or lateral movement, while clear and simple, is so restrictive as to be useless and impractical in the real world. By that definition, as you have said, the true carved turn does not exist except in theory. Indeed, if the ski leaves a track at all, it is evidence that the snow compressed to at least a small degree, resulting in some lateral movement of the edge.

Here is the definition and a bit of discussion ihat I wrote for The Complete Encyclopedia of Skiing some time ago:

---

Carving

Carving is turning with little lateral slippage of the skis. The carved turn is a turn made by the ski, bent into reverse camber, slicing a clean arc in the snow. Ski tail follows tip as the entire ski edge passes through roughly the same point.

This description may seem clear enough. But the real essence of carving defies such simplicity. If you prefer to keep things simple, do not read on!

Digression—an inquiry into the essence of Carving:

We usually distinguish carved turns from skidded turns, and there does appear to be a clear distinction. But all real turns skid to some degree, just as a car slips and perhaps squeals a little as it clings to a curve. If carving is the opposite of, or the absence of, skidding, then the pure carved turn exists only in theory. By this definition, carving represents a theoretical extreme on the spectrum of turns, with straight slipping on the opposite pole. Horst Abraham, in ATM Teaching Concepts, calls all turns skids:

“. . .we are making skidding the generic term for direction changes where the skis are in contact with the snow. If the skier skids a lot, he may come closer to ‘slipping’ his turns; if he skids less, he will come closer to ‘carving’ his turns.”

Abraham is right, of course. On one level, there is no such thing as a pure carved turn, with no skidding. But I can’t accept this idea as a working definition of carving. Where is that clear distinction? Look on any ski hill and you will see skiers who carve, and skiers who don’t. It is not an arbitrary line on a continuum, either—there are two distinct types of turns. Indeed, some clearly “carved” turns skid more than some obviously “skidded” turns. Think of a top downhill racer barely clinging to her line on an icy race course at eighty miles per hour. That ski may skip and chatter several feet sideways, yet there remains something very “carved turn-like” about her movements. Nor does the difference seem to relate entirely to skill level. Many skiers are very, very good at skidded turns! And some beginners and intermediates do the best they can at obviously carved turns.

So we still need a real definition of what makes one turn carved and another skidded, something that accounts for what we see and experience. Some say carving is a product of the amount of rotary force applied to twist the skis, that carving is the result of reducing rotary and focusing on pressure and edge control movements. True, tipping a modern ski on edge and riding that rail through a turn is one way to carve. And pivoting a flat ski that was sliding forward will cause it to skid sideways. Yet some carved turns involve powerful steering input. And pressuring the front of an edged ski (“forward leverage”) to tighten the turn radius causes the tail to straighten out and skid, even without any twisting. At best, this idea still only offers a scale of mostly gray area, that does not fit our observations. Once again, there is some truth here, but it still isn’t quite right.

Here (I believe) is the answer! What separates carved-type turns from skidded-type turns is what I call “positive” vs. “negative” movements. Simply put, a positive movement is one in the direction of the intended turn. To initiate a carved turn, every movement should tend toward the new turn. The body (center of mass) moves downhill, into the turn, aided perhaps by a pole swing. The skis roll toward the new turn, flattening, then increasing their edge angle. Rotary, if any, steers the tips downhill, into the turn.

Skidded turns, on the other hand, are just the opposite, as they are based on negative movements. Initiating a skidded turn involves pushing the ski tails uphill, or away from the turn. The center of mass also moves away from the turn, perhaps pushing off from a “platform” created by increasing edge angle, and aided by a blocking pole plant that prevents movement down the hill. What could be more different? To carve, I pull my inside ski tip into the turn. To skid, I push my outside ski tail away from the turn.

So that’s it! Carved turns result from positive movements, skidded turns from negative movements. Black vs. white—this definition finally expresses that undeniable observation that there are two distinct types of turns out there. There is no hazy sliding scale here. By this definition, the amount of slippage is not important. The skill level is irrelevant. These factors may indicate how good a turn is, but neither defines the type of turn.

Carved turns are offensive; skidded (intentionally) turns are defensive. Both are useful in their place. Like so many things we do, state of mind affects movements. Carved turns are the embodiment of a skier’s intent to go in a particular direction. Skidded turns are the result of the skier’s intent to stop going in a particular direction. Either can be done expertly or shoddily. Carving, in short, is really an intent, not an event!

---

These thoughts really do not conflict with the purist definition of carving as a theoretically perfect result. We can still refer to how close the result of a skier's intent and movements come to the theoretical extreme of carving on a spectrum of outcomes from pure slipping to "pure carving."

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes

Quote:
Then by this definition, no one has or ever will carve. Great for the theory folks but I like skiing in the real world.

Carving is a verb, not a result. . . . .

Well said, Snowhawk. It is an intent, not an event. I like how you think, and I agree that the purist definition of carving that focuses on the result of zero skidding or lateral movement, while clear and simple, is so restrictive as to be useless and impractical in the real world. By that definition, as you have said, the true carved turn does not exist except in theory. Indeed, if the ski leaves a track at all, it is evidence that the snow compressed to at least a small degree, resulting in some lateral movement of the edge.

Here is the definition and a bit of discussion ihat I wrote for The Complete Encyclopedia of Skiing some time ago:

---

Carving

Carving is turning with little lateral slippage of the skis. The carved turn is a turn made by the ski, bent into reverse camber, slicing a clean arc in the snow. Ski tail follows tip as the entire ski edge passes through roughly the same point.

This description may seem clear enough. But the real essence of carving defies such simplicity. If you prefer to keep things simple, do not read on!

Digression—an inquiry into the essence of Carving:

We usually distinguish carved turns from skidded turns, and there does appear to be a clear distinction. But all real turns skid to some degree, just as a car slips and perhaps squeals a little as it clings to a curve. If carving is the opposite of, or the absence of, skidding, then the pure carved turn exists only in theory. By this definition, carving represents a theoretical extreme on the spectrum of turns, with straight slipping on the opposite pole. Horst Abraham, in ATM Teaching Concepts, calls all turns skids:

“. . .we are making skidding the generic term for direction changes where the skis are in contact with the snow. If the skier skids a lot, he may come closer to ‘slipping’ his turns; if he skids less, he will come closer to ‘carving’ his turns.”

Abraham is right, of course. On one level, there is no such thing as a pure carved turn, with no skidding. But I can’t accept this idea as a working definition of carving. Where is that clear distinction? Look on any ski hill and you will see skiers who carve, and skiers who don’t. It is not an arbitrary line on a continuum, either—there are two distinct types of turns. Indeed, some clearly “carved” turns skid more than some obviously “skidded” turns. Think of a top downhill racer barely clinging to her line on an icy race course at eighty miles per hour. That ski may skip and chatter several feet sideways, yet there remains something very “carved turn-like” about her movements. Nor does the difference seem to relate entirely to skill level. Many skiers are very, very good at skidded turns! And some beginners and intermediates do the best they can at obviously carved turns.

So we still need a real definition of what makes one turn carved and another skidded, something that accounts for what we see and experience. Some say carving is a product of the amount of rotary force applied to twist the skis, that carving is the result of reducing rotary and focusing on pressure and edge control movements. True, tipping a modern ski on edge and riding that rail through a turn is one way to carve. And pivoting a flat ski that was sliding forward will cause it to skid sideways. Yet some carved turns involve powerful steering input. And pressuring the front of an edged ski (“forward leverage”) to tighten the turn radius causes the tail to straighten out and skid, even without any twisting. At best, this idea still only offers a scale of mostly gray area, that does not fit our observations. Once again, there is some truth here, but it still isn’t quite right.

Here (I believe) is the answer! What separates carved-type turns from skidded-type turns is what I call “positive” vs. “negative” movements. Simply put, a positive movement is one in the direction of the intended turn. To initiate a carved turn, every movement should tend toward the new turn. The body (center of mass) moves downhill, into the turn, aided perhaps by a pole swing. The skis roll toward the new turn, flattening, then increasing their edge angle. Rotary, if any, steers the tips downhill, into the turn.

Skidded turns, on the other hand, are just the opposite, as they are based on negative movements. Initiating a skidded turn involves pushing the ski tails uphill, or away from the turn. The center of mass also moves away from the turn, perhaps pushing off from a “platform” created by increasing edge angle, and aided by a blocking pole plant that prevents movement down the hill. What could be more different? To carve, I pull my inside ski tip into the turn. To skid, I push my outside ski tail away from the turn.

So that’s it! Carved turns result from positive movements, skidded turns from negative movements. Black vs. white—this definition finally expresses that undeniable observation that there are two distinct types of turns out there. There is no hazy sliding scale here. By this definition, the amount of slippage is not important. The skill level is irrelevant. These factors may indicate how good a turn is, but neither defines the type of turn.

Carved turns are offensive; skidded (intentionally) turns are defensive. Both are useful in their place. Like so many things we do, state of mind affects movements. Carved turns are the embodiment of a skier’s intent to go in a particular direction. Skidded turns are the result of the skier’s intent to stop going in a particular direction. Either can be done expertly or shoddily. Carving, in short, is really an intent, not an event!

---

These thoughts really do not conflict with the purist definition of carving as a theoretically perfect result. We can still refer to how close the result of a skier's intent and movements come to the theoretical extreme of carving on a spectrum of outcomes from pure slipping to "pure carving."

Best regards,
Bob Barnes

I think you may have answered part of my question in the other thread i just started. Makes sense Bob, thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes

Here (I believe) is the answer! What separates carved-type turns from skidded-type turns is what I call “positive” vs. “negative” movements. Simply put, a positive movement is one in the direction of the intended turn. To initiate a carved turn, every movement should tend toward the new turn. The body (center of mass) moves downhill, into the turn, aided perhaps by a pole swing. The skis roll toward the new turn, flattening, then increasing their edge angle. Rotary, if any, steers the tips downhill, into the turn.

I really don't understand. Especially not the two bolded parts.

Counter rotation, what is that in relation to the first bolded part?

How do you steer your tips downhill using rotary as a way of carving? It doesn't make sense to me.

It's fun to read all the interpretations of the basic concepts of skidding and carving. Like Bob I see intent as an important factor but unlike Bob I don't see skidding as always defensive.

Bode turned heads when he won the national title skiing on K2 fours. Did those "recreational" shaped skis allow him to carve more than his competion? K2 certainly played that up in their commercial hype. As ski teachers we dutifully followed their lead and the "carving skis" revolution exploded. Years later we can see his contributions to the sport includes so much more than that. It may just be my opinion but his use of tactically "offensive" skidding (stivot turn entry) allowed him to ski a tighter, more direct line. I'm not suggesting speed scrubbing doesn't occur in the stivot, just that the speed loss from that move is less than the speed gains from the tighter line.

On a more basic level, I am quite confident that everyone here would agree that a gliding wedge has a greater offensive intent than a braking wedge. Even though the gliding wedge features more skidding. Same hold true for the transition phase of every turn where releasing the old turn means no edge purchase is happening and the skis by definition cannot be carving. Glide is IMO the most offensive thing we can do on skis and glide does not alway include the skis carving.

The microscope track inspection argument is an old one, and doesn't really address the issue here.

When carving, things will not necessarily be perfect.  Edge angle development will necessarily change arcs, and compact the track more.  Undulating terrain may affect contact, pressure and bend. And different types of snow will show different levels of microscopic perfection.  That's not the point, those imperfections go with the territory of high level carving.

Carving ends when intentional rotary, due to skier intent, or mistaken rotary, due to skier error, enters the picture and impacts the skis ability to track clean.  It injects a degree of smear, skid, steer or pivot into a turn, where better skiing, or different intent, could have avoided it.

Expert skiers know when ski twisting rotary is present in their turn, and it's usually intentional.  They can inject rotary so precisely and minutely that outside observers think they're carving, but they know they're not.  Lesser skilled skiers may think they're carving, but undesired rotary can be present, and they don't yet have the skill to eliminate it.  In both those instances, whether they realize it or not, whether they can fix it or not, the skier is not carving.

The reality of our mantra is as sound today as it was in the days of straight skis, when carving had yet to become cool.

Quote:
Either you're carving or you're not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars

Certainly no one performs perfect carves down 2000 verticle feet of run every time. Not even the best of the best do.

there are so many instances during a ski run when you will have to brake or change lines due to obstacles or other skiers, moguls, trees etc where you will have to brake from the carve to steer, skid or even use a hockey stop braking or slow down motion.

so, if true carving is not present when is something less, still carving? And at what point can it be perceived as "hacking" as BB likes to say.

There may well be instances on any given run where a skier makes tactical decisions and tactical adaptations that result in some sections being skied on a skidded line rather than a carved line, but why would that change the definition of carving?

To me there is no doubt that BB's perspective of intent is a key component of the difference.
But it I think it is more than that.  And that is based upon his definition of skidding (the tails moving out) that skidded turns are defensive and therefore not carved....and really a lot more as well.

Charlie comes ripping by and says "Hey, look!"  a smooth quick 1-2    "I'm carving!  park and ride until the next turn....
He leaves two thin lines in the snow!
Is he carving?  By Rick and Ghost's definition - yes?  By BB's - no.
My thought - a slow intake of breath with a big grimace and  -  no.

Suzy come ripping by and makes a smooth crossover of the CoM, rolls her feet onto an early edge angle, active continuous movement of the legs,
evident angulation, progressive edging (and un-edging) and says "Hey look, I'm carving!".
She leaves a foot wide cresent around the turn.
Is she carving?  By BB's definition - yes?  By Rick and Ghost's - no.
My thought - a slow intake of breath with a little tiny grimace and  - no - but darn closer than Charlie.  At some point, as the cresent gets smaller, I would call it carving and reserve the "pure carve" designation when it is twin thin lines.

If carving is the pillar at the high end of the spectrum then it has to represent a whole lot more than just two thin lines in the snow.

Then again, good skiing is the real pillar and carving is just one of the many tools in the toolbox.
But from my experience, the good carver has a pretty full toolbox - they had to have to get there.
Some may be a bit rusty but seem to be instantly accessable when needed.

The mantra still stands however - you're either carving or you're not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhawk

good skiing is the real pillar and carving is just one of the many tools in the toolbox.
But from my experience, the good carver has a pretty full toolbox -

Snowhawk, I extracted that from your post, because it's so true, it needed to be highlighted.

Now, let me throw a question at you, that may add something more to think about as you continue to process all this for yourself.

Jenny skis by, seemingly park and riding on a very low edge angle, leaving rail tracks in the snow, and says, "look, I'm carving".   Jenny is an amazing skier and racer.  She can tip into mega high edge angles whenever she wants, and can carve absolutely sick (Rick attempting to talk young) turn shapes at those big angles.  When she skied by and yelled, she was riding a low edge because she WANTED TO carve as big a turn as she could, and she wanted to ski fast.

Was she carving?

Rick, by all accounts I would think Jenny is carving.

Snowhawk,

You are confusing a value judgment on the "goodness" of the skiing with a definition of what the ski is doing on the snow.

BB's post is a pretty good "how to" instruction for achieving carving, but regardless of how you make a knife carve a turkey, it is carving when the knife is slicing back and forth along its long axis  even if you do so by holding it between your toes and nudging it with you elbow, and not carving when the knife is scraping, even if you are efficiently scraping some meat off the rib bones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

but regardless of how you make a knife carve a turkey, it is carving when the knife is slicing back and forth along its long axis  even if you do so by holding it between your toes and nudging it with you elbow,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick

Snowhawk, I extracted that from your post, because it's so true, it needed to be highlighted.

Now, let me throw a question at you, that may add something more to think about as you continue to process all this for yourself.

Jenny skis by, seemingly park and riding on a very low edge angle, leaving rail tracks in the snow, and says, "look, I'm carving".   Jenny is an amazing skier and racer.  She can tip into mega high edge angles whenever she wants, and can carve absolutely sick (Rick attempting to talk young) turn shapes at those big angles.  When she skied by and yelled, she was riding a low edge because she WANTED TO carve as big a turn as she could, and she wanted to ski fast.

Was she carving?

This one is easy, yes.

"Carving ends when intentional rotary, due to skier intent, or mistaken rotary, due to skier error, enters the picture."

No, carving ends when the ski edge no longer has purchase. Release a turn and guess what you are not carving! It's really that simple. Pivotting, or not pivotting is an option during this phase but it is not necessary for the ski to stop carving.

It injects a degree of smear, skid, steer or pivot into a turn, where better skiing, or different intent, could have avoided it.

I've used an offensive skid to lower my line to go below an obstacle, or to set me up for a new line. Neither are defensive maneuvers and in fact hanging onto an edge instead of going down the hill is IMO the most defensive maneuver of them all. So IMO, all this hype about carving being the only offensive way to make a turn ignore what's happening in the modern ski world. Far too many disciplines exist where carving is absolutely the wrong tactic. Get out of the race course mindset for a moment and I'm sure you will agree with me fellas!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

Snowhawk,

You are confusing a value judgment on the "goodness" of the skiing with a definition of what the ski is doing on the snow.

Yeah, beginning to see that.  My own trap really.  Thanks.

But I still feel that carving, the act of, the verb, is measured by more than only the result (2 tracks).

For the most part, on blues and greens it is pretty easy, twin tracks.  And I could easily agree that twin tracks, regardless of the shenangans that might have gone on to create them, are carved.

In my minds eye, however, I am picturing a black slope, higher speeds, higher edge angles (if for no other reason than to hold the slope), tighter line.

A pure carved, railed, twin tracks laid down, turn can get pretty fast.  So now I want to slow it down, take a tighter line, shorter turns, more completed turns.

For one, it seems like I would begin to throw more snow which makes seeing the tracks harder.  The tracks would get wider as the pressure increases and deflects the snow more.  At some point, because I am not strong enough, good enough, flexible enough, young enough, whatever, I cannot get to the 70 degree edge angle of WC racers and the skis start to slip.  So now I am no longer carving!?  Maybe so but per L&AirC, it at least deserves an A- or B+.

Our season has just ended but I want to remember this discussion next season and take a much finer look at what a skier is doing when I give them my seal of carving approval.

Quote:
So IMO, all this hype about carving being the only offensive way to make a turn ignore what's happening in the modern ski world.

JASP, I'm not sure anyone has ever said that carving is the only way to make an offensive turn.  There are certainly many other turns that are offensive in nature (no pun intended) - like gliding wedge turns for example, a forward side slip, etc.  This whole intent thing permeates all of skiing.  I really like it because it does change how you ski at all levels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl R

So for a brushed carve turn, should just the carve be removed like in brushed turn or should another term be inserted?

What would be a more correct tern for the turn by some called QCT?

skidded turn

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl R

So for a brushed carve turn, should just the carve be removed like in brushed turn or should another term be inserted?

What would be a more correct tern for the turn by some called QCT?

Skidded turn like the brushed carved turn which are turns using some elements of carving but produce a skidded turn. By intention I would think.

.............

Just because you are no longer carving making tight turns on a steep slope doesn't mean the skiing doesn't deserve an A+.

If you are making perfect bicycle turns down a steep chute with a mandatory sharp turn at the bottom of it, whether or not you are carving has nothing to do with how well you are making those turns.

It is just a description of what you are doing, not how well you are skiing.  If your intent is to carve and you are not carving, then you get a low grade for not meeting your intention, but perhaps your intention should not be carving where carving is not desired.  If your intention is to control your speed and you are going too fast, then you get a low grade too.  If you want to carve very fast turns on steep terrain, you can do that; if you want to descend at a slower pace using turns that better control your speed, you can do that too.  Neither is "better" than the other; they are just different types of turns, both of which can be done well and both of which can be done poorly.

..........

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarryZ

..........

I agree!

.ma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

Just because you are no longer carving making tight turns on a steep slope doesn't mean the skiing doesn't deserve an A+.

If you are making perfect bicycle turns down a steep chute with a mandatory sharp turn at the bottom of it, whether or not you are carving has nothing to do with how well you are making those turns.

It is just a description of what you are doing, not how well you are skiing.  If your intent is to carve and you are not carving, then you get a low grade for not meeting your intention, but perhaps your intention should not be carving where carving is not desired.  If your intention is to control your speed and you are going too fast, then you get a low grade too.  If you want to carve very fast turns on steep terrain, you can do that; if you want to descend at a slower pace using turns that better control your speed, you can do that too.  Neither is "better" than the other; they are just different types of turns, both of which can be done well and both of which can be done poorly.

Great post Ghost!
Reinforces your previous point of what vs how.

Kinda puts a different view of intent as well.

Thanks!

I kind of like' Bending the Ride' better.   It seems a more focused  intent.  Riding is good here but bending the ride is a good goal. I like the idea of making something happen rather than going along for a ride.

Seemed like a good time to pick on the title for absolutely no reason what so ever other than to spray a little snow on Rick. Where's the hockey stop icon when you need it ?

Hi GarryZ.  Good to cyber see you.  Let me brush myself off and say, I like the sound of "bend the ride" too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarryZ

I kind of like' Bending the Ride' better.   It seems a more focused  intent.  Riding is good here but bending the ride is a good goal. I like the idea of making something happen rather than going along for a ride.

Seemed like a good time to pick on the title for absolutely no reason what so ever other than to spray a little snow on Rick. Where's the hockey stop icon when you need it ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick

Hi GarryZ.  Good to cyber see you.  Let me brush myself off and say, I like the sound of "bend the ride" too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart