or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Only Two ways to slow down! - Page 3

post #61 of 169
To reiterate, from the first post:
Quote:
You can increase the resistance to gliding--brake, generate "friction"--usually done on skis by twisting them across the direction of travel and digging in the edges to scrape off speed by braking (but also including things like falling down, running into trees, and so on).
post #62 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff2010 View Post

I plan to experiment with the "going uphill" idea this season, and I greatly appreciate Mr Barnes' explanation of the concept in reply to my question in the "Crudology" thread (http://www.epicski.com/t/103844/crudology/90#post_1343520) earlier this year (sadly, post-season so I have not been able to apply it).

One question: I try to keep my upper body facing down the fall line. It seems that this will be very difficult to do if the skis are actually pointed uphill for part of the turn. Do you simply accept that you will be turning your upper body at least partly, or are you extremely flexible in your twistability, or have I misunderstood something?

Good answers from Ghost and Metaphor to this question, Jeff. "Upper body facing fall line" is another myth of conventional wisdom that, like most, has some truth, but is often misinterpreted, or taken too far. As a general rule (certainly with exceptions), Ghost summed it up well: your upper body generally faces the direction you're going, or the direction you're about to be going. It is generally "countered" to some degree to your lower body (legs and skis), meaning that, like a car to its front wheels in a turn, your body is not turned as far as your skis and thus faces somewhat toward the outside of the turn. At the end of the turn, it should be facing at least somewhat more down the hill (or less up the hill, if the turn is completed that far), than your skis. And any turning of your upper body should almost always follow--not lead--the turning of your feet.

But in practice on steeps and crud and such, you'll rarely actually need to complete your turn that far. It is the intent, but not necessarily the actual outcome, to "go uphill" that matters. In truth, in most challenging conditions, you will encounter enough friction (resistance) no matter how well you turn that you will not need to complete the turn to the point of actually going uphill. Ironically, this becomes more true the faster you actually go, as at high speeds, air resistance plays a dramatically increased part in checking your speed.

There's a close correlation between braking friction and noise. The louder your turn, the more friction you're probably creating. Even the most cleanly carved turns will have a little "noise." It is the intent to minimize that that counts.... And in steeps and crud, you'll certainly hear your turns as the snow breaks away under force, and your skis bend and claw to create often very short-radius turns.

If you've ever stood by the side of a GS or Super-G course and watched--and listened to--World Cup racers whizzing by, you can't help but be impressed by the sound. It's like a bullet train, as the skier cuts through the wind and the edges slice through the snow. As little friction as possible...but there's still plenty of it. That's the intent!

JF Beaulieu's skiing in the clip in Metaphor's post is an exquisite example of "skiing the slow line fast." His intent is clearly offensive, his turns clearly made to "go that way," not to brake. But they are also clearly not "pure-carved arcs," and while they are nicely completed, they rarely if ever actually take him back uphill. Obviously, his chosen speed is a pretty good clip, so the "slow enough line" does not need to be all that slow. It is a great image of skiing "a slow enough line as fast as you can." If he wanted to ski slower, he would complete those turns further, possibly even back up the hill. But he doesn't!

Here it is again:




Best regards,
Bob
post #63 of 169



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes View Post


JF Beaulieu's skiing in the clip in Metaphor's post is an exquisite example of "skiing the slow line fast." His intent is clearly offensive, his turns clearly made to "go that way," not to brake. But they are also clearly not "pure-carved arcs," and while they are nicely completed, they rarely if ever actually take him back uphill. Obviously, his chosen speed is a pretty good clip, so the "slow enough line" does not need to be all that slow. It is a great image of skiing "a slow enough line as fast as you can." If he wanted to ski slower, he would complete those turns further, possibly even back up the hill. But he doesn't!
Here it is again:

Best regards,
Bob
 
So Bob, wouldn't you agree that if he wanted to ski even faster he would ski a more direct line? Epecially if he is already skiing that "slow enough line" as cleanly as possible. That in a nutshell is all I was trying to express earlier.

 

post #64 of 169
Well, JASP, if he is skiing as fast as possible on whatever line he's skiing, then of course, if he wants more speed, he'll choose a faster line. I would think that would go without saying, as a simple logical deduction. The only other way to go faster is to improve your technique--as a better skier could ski faster on any line than an inferior skier, all else being equal.

The offensive skier (which is to say, any skier when skiing offensively, which can vary moment by moment) controls direction (not speed) with turns, and controls speed with direction. Restated, the offensive skier controls direction with technique, and controls speed with tactics. Most skiers control speed with technique (which they probably call "turning"), and as a result they have very little and imprecise control of direction. You simply cannot complete a turn and glide back uphill by just pushing your tails out into a braking skid. Defensive skiing is about "stop"; offensive skiing is about "go." With braking technique, you can stop going down the hill, but you cannot go uphill.

Because of their limited direction control, therefore, many skiers never even consider the offensive option--skiing the slow line fast. If your brakes are on, the only way to slow down is to put them on harder. Ironically, though, the moment you stop braking and starting going where you want to go, it gets easy! It's an interesting conundrum, a catch-22 that prevents most skiers from ever breaking through to the effortless gliding ease of experts. But the breakthrough is there, waiting, available to anyone at any level.

All you have to do is to learn to think like an expert! For many skiers, this different way of thinking--this polar opposite way of thinking about why (not about how) you turn--will make immediate and profound global transformations in your skiing that you are guaranteed to like.

If you lack the "GO! Factor," go get it!

Best regards,
Bob
post #65 of 169

So, is Bode trying to slow down here in this clip at 18 seconds? - the left turn. He's certainly skiding up a storm.

Offensively defensive, or defensively offensive?

 

video by 3Caconcept: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfHMvG49Hrg

post #66 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

So, is Bode trying to slow down here in this clip at 18 seconds? - the left turn. He's certainly skiding up a storm.

Offensively defensive, or defensively offensive?

 

 

video by 3Caconcept: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfHMvG49Hrg



I think of it as aggressively defensive. 

 

Is he actually trying to slow down or just get his skis in the right line?  I'm sure he would prefer to not slow down.  His intent is to get in the right line so he can make the next gate.  If he carved the gate at 18 seconds, he would be late for the next gate.  I also think if he was on a shorter turn radius ski, he wouldn't have skidded and might even have gone faster.

 

He wasn't uncomfortable with the speed, has the ability to make the turn at that speed, isn't on the skis that will allow it at that speed on that gate on the line he was in.

 

 

post #67 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

So, is Bode trying to slow down here in this clip at 18 seconds? - the left turn. He's certainly skiding up a storm.

Offensively defensive, or defensively offensive?

 

video by 3Caconcept: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfHMvG49Hrg



Yes, he is skidding to slow down. If he took that turn as fast as he could, he would carry too much speed around it to make the next one with the line that would give him the lowest time through the series of turns.  One of the secrets of going fast is knowing when to slow down.

post #68 of 169

He is slowing down before the first red.

Breaking and then directly going directly into carving is faster than stivoting, but most of the time you do not have time to do it.

 

 

http://www.ronlemaster.com/articles/skidding-SR6_TechTalk.pdf

post #69 of 169
Thread Starter 

The better I get at turning the less I need to brake!

post #70 of 169
Aggressively defensive--L&AirC, those are exactly the words that came to my mind as well as I read Tog's post. That is exactly what it is--I agree. Sometimes a good defense, as they say, is the best offense. I think that Ghost summed it up well too. And Tog--I suspect that his moment of "aggressive defensiveness" was at least partially due to trying to "just get his skis on the right line," as you wrote, as well.

For whatever reason, at the brief moment, Bode was not in the "go that way" mode. He waited, realigned his skis, scrubbed whatever speed he felt was necessary, waited patiently (or perhaps impatiently) for his skis to get to the right line, and then when everything was right, his intent changed back to "go" and he engaged his edges and went!

Intent does change moment by moment. Braking is not always a bad thing, as any race car driver knows. The point is that intent, even in microsecond form, dictates technique. Racing differs from freeskiing perhaps only in that the racer's need is to get to the finish line asap, and there are no points for just enjoying the ride. So racers, while they can carve the best turns out there, have little use for the pure joy of gliding smoothly linked turns when a straighter, more direct line may get them to the bottom faster, even if harsh braking and pivoting may need to get involved.

Clearly, in the clip of Bode, you can see his intent change in that moment--and his technique along with it. The moment the "GO! factor" switches on, his turn becomes more like the turns many recreational skiers strive for. The only problem is that, while they covet the technique, if they don't share the offensive intent, they'll never get it. Obviously, you'll gain speed the moment you dive down the hill with the brakes off. But most skiers think of turns as a way to slow down and, indeed, the "little voice" that tells 'em it's time to turn doesn't speak up until they do need to slow down. So if they succeed with the technique of offensive turns in that defensive state of mind, they will instantly fail--because it does not satisfy their intent.

It's not what you "should" want. It's simply a fact of what is. If you are defensive, even for a moment, your technique will reflect it. If you want to make great offensive turns, you have to start by being offensive--by trying to go faster all the time--even when you're going uphill--and let the speed take care of itself by choosing good tactics and line.

Best regards,
Bob
post #71 of 169
Thread Starter 

Racers' intent is to ski the course (line) as fast as possible with as little braking as possible.  Sometimes the fastest line is straighter with a brief braking movement here or there to redirect.  Sometimes they are turning and sometimes they are breaking as evidenced in the clip above.  Certainly Bode wants to minimize the amount of slowing but has found a straighter line is faster even with the need to brake on occasion. 

 

Just wait to see how the turns change when/if FIS enforces the new GS turn radius rules???

post #72 of 169

I agree. I don't think there was any attempt at "braking" or slowing down at all.

 

Essentially, it's like instead of running down a ramp outside a building entrance, he jumped off and took a short cut. I think it's all go, you can see his upper body go for the inside of the gate, downhill. He gets upright a bit to get the skis out of the way.

 

Supposedly he used to have one ski's inside edge tuned with a massive base bevel to make maneuvers like that.

If gs skis go to 40 meters sidecut, we'll see a lot more of this probably? Ligety is not happy about it.

post #73 of 169

Back in the late 70s/Early 80s there were two different and equally popular schools of though regarding race course preferred lines.  One school of though was that the fastest line was the one most tie directly parallel to the fall line, i.e. keep the skis pointing down hill flat as much as possible and toss them sideways here and there to briefly change direction or check speed.  The other school of thought was that railing the turns, carving arcs and kicking up as little snow as possible was preferable, even if it meant more time skiing across the fall line instead of down it.  As the sidecuts got deeper, and the ability to cut arcs back parallel with the fall line quicker resulted, the railing approach became the favored one.

post #74 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post


If gs skis go to 40 meters sidecut, we'll see a lot more of this probably? Ligety is not happy about it.


I wanna see a golden circle celebration on a 40 m LOL!

 

post #75 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

I agree. I don't think there was any attempt at "braking" or slowing down at all.

 

Essentially, it's like instead of running down a ramp outside a building entrance, he jumped off and took a short cut. I think it's all go, you can see his upper body go for the inside of the gate, downhill. He gets upright a bit to get the skis out of the way.

 

Supposedly he used to have one ski's inside edge tuned with a massive base bevel to make maneuvers like that.

If gs skis go to 40 meters sidecut, we'll see a lot more of this probably? Ligety is not happy about it.


There is a difference to a normal stivot. He puts his skis almost perpendicular to the travel direction of the CoM. If that is not braking I don´t know what is. He then quickly brings the skis back to a smaller steering angle.

 

Its down to 35 m now, but its still pretty bad.

 

post #76 of 169

So here's a thought to ponder fellas, If a slow line can be skied offensively (seeking as much speed as possible), why can't a braking move be performed with an offensive intent as well?  In my world they can and Bode's clip shows exactly that. So does Bob's "seek speed" while sideslipping drill I mentioned earlier. Does some braking (drag) occur in both? Yup.  That doesn't change the fact seeking speed during either, or while skiing the slow line fast for that matter automatically makes that an offensive maneuver. At least that's one skier's opinion... 

post #77 of 169

Braking means one intends to slow down. The intent here is not to slow down, but get around the gate on that path. It's a tactical choice using a technique. He's sliding the skis instead of carving.

I could do drift turns all day long on an easy trail without braking.

If one drifts a car around a turn with the intent to get around the turn as fast as possible, it is not "defensive" nor braking. Any skid is definitely slower than not, but it doesn't mean it's defensive.

Frankly, I think the idea that he's braking is ludicrous. Let's not forget this is slo mo. Do you realize how insane that maneuver is at that speed on a world cup course?

 

 

post #78 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

Braking means one intends to slow down. The intent here is not to slow down, but get around the gate on that path. It's a tactical choice using a technique. He's sliding the skis instead of carving.
I could do drift turns all day long on an easy trail without braking.
If one drifts a car around a turn with the intent to get around the turn as fast as possible, it is not "defensive" nor braking. Any skid is definitely slower than not, but it doesn't mean it's defensive.
Frankly, I think the idea that he's braking is ludicrous. Let's not forget this is slo mo. Do you realize how insane that maneuver is at that speed on a world cup course?



The fastest way to drive in F1 is to brake and then rail the turn. Why do you think the same tactic is ludicrous in skiing?
post #79 of 169
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

Braking means one intends to slow down. The intent here is not to slow down, but get around the gate on that path. It's a tactical choice using a technique. He's sliding the skis instead of carving.

I could do drift turns all day long on an easy trail without braking.

If one drifts a car around a turn with the intent to get around the turn as fast as possible, it is not "defensive" nor braking. Any skid is definitely slower than not, but it doesn't mean it's defensive.

Frankly, I think the idea that he's braking is ludicrous. Let's not forget this is slo mo. Do you realize how insane that maneuver is at that speed on a world cup course?

 

 

 

Braking does mean one intends to slow down.  It is an intent whether conscious or subconscious.

 

I would suspect the wcup stivot is more of an intent to redirect with the least amount of braking BUT there IS certainly some degree of braking going on.  No matter how little friction is applied, it is still there.

 

You could do drift turns, but not without friction which is braking.  It's gravity or friction!

 

Again guys, we are trying to turn this into a TECHNIQUE debate when it is simply a PSYCHOLOGICAL intent.    

 

Everyone in the start gate is creating friction skiing down the race course, the one who creates the least friction wins!
 

 

post #80 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

So Bob, wouldn't you agree that if he wanted to ski even faster he would ski a more direct line? Epecially if he is already skiing that "slow enough line" as cleanly as possible. That in a nutshell is all I was trying to express earlier.

 

 


A thought I ponder. 2 turn shapes; One a 'slow line fast' and the other a straighter line. Assuming both reach the bottom at the same time. The slow line fast covers more distance in the same time.

Speed = distance/ time therefore the 'slow line fast' is the skier with higher speed. Now I wonder if it actually is possible that both can reach the bottom at the same time...

post #81 of 169
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigatoh View Post


A thought I ponder. 2 turn shapes; One a 'slow line fast' and the other a straighter line. Assuming both reach the bottom at the same time. The slow line fast covers more distance in the same time.

Speed = distance/ time therefore the 'slow line fast' is the skier with higher speed. Now I wonder if it actually is possible that both can reach the bottom at the same time...



It most certainly is possible Gigatoh!  and it is a fun challenge to play with here's how...  When you recognize someone skiing the fast line slow (going almost directly down the fall line an tossing their tails back and forth to use friction to slow their descent,  Jump in behind them and match their speed of descent but see how round you can make your turns behind them.  When you get good at this you will find it is possible to cover more than two or three times the ground as the leader and be going two to three times faster yet your descent rate down the fall line can be equal.

 

I use this task all the time with instructors by pairing them up to see who can ski more efficiently, the goal being to try to take a longer path than your partner yet descend at the same rate.

post #82 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

So here's a thought to ponder fellas, If a slow line can be skied offensively (seeking as much speed as possible), why can't a braking move be performed with an offensive intent as well?  In my world they can and Bode's clip shows exactly that. So does Bob's "seek speed" while sideslipping drill I mentioned earlier. Does some braking (drag) occur in both? Yup.  That doesn't change the fact seeking speed during either, or while skiing the slow line fast for that matter automatically makes that an offensive maneuver. At least that's one skier's opinion... 



 

icon14.gif Yep I agree with you JASP, that is why I don't like the use of the words offensive and defensive for this discussion, it seems to be interpreted different ways.  

 

Perhaps pro-active vs reactive?    Like someone pro-actively knows what they need to do and pro-actively does it, including control their speed with braking; as opposed to someone who is forced to slam on the brake reactively due to mismanagement earlier in the turn or due to mis reading the situation, etc..

 

 

post #83 of 169

interesting thread which (if) i understand Bob's initial premise as two things, one which he defines as offensive - conservation of energy and defensive - loss of energy, offensive is better.  other words can be used as definitions but the premise seems to reside on the idea that conserving energy through direction is better than losing energy by friction.

 

Keeping the theoretical basic, two forms of energy exist. The potential at the top of the hill which can be exchanged for kinetic by going down (effectively the speed) the hill.

 

Ignoring the addition of any other energy (wind, muscles - pumping) the energy is fixed.  It can be exchanged by converting between potential and kinetic, or lost through friction.

 

At any set point down the hill, if not moving, the only remaining energy is the remaining height on the hill to the bottom, the rest (between set point and top) is lost through friction (ignoring gravity).

 

If frictional losses are minimized by perfectly waxed skis and perfect carves, or maximized (lost) by skidding, sliding, etc then Bob's premise is simply:

 

If one controls their speed by skidding or sliding (or other forms of breaking) to a stop, then where ever you stop on the hill your remaining potential energy is the remaining hill.  In this case, you've exchanged your speed (kinetic energy) for friction traveling further down the hill.

 

However if you use direction, turn "uphill" to come to a stop, you could in theory ski back up the hill to a higher point before any "minimum" friction stops your ascent.  One has used their speed (kinetic energy) and exchanged it for extra height.  Since you are higher than one would be in using skidding, sliding (friction) you have greater potential energy and less 'wasted' energy.

 

In normal skiing, one may not typically ski uphill to lose speed but one can reduce wasted energy by skiing direction, and perhaps ski longer.  Of course, as shown (videos) and discussed, people will to varying degrees lose energy through either not allowing direction to control speed or the need to slow or stop for other reasons - friction.

 

This I believe is what Bob is advocating, if one skies offensively (conserving energy) to a greater degree, one in theory should be better off.   Of course, electric cars use a somewhat analogous theory with regenerative breaking.   ah, now back to a fine calculas book : )

 

 

 

post #84 of 169

The crux of the question I guess is whether wasting energy by skiing in the opposite direction as gravity is somehow more offensive and less defensive then using skidding edges to waste the energy.

post #85 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post


 

Perhaps pro-active vs reactive?    Like someone pro-actively knows what they need to do and pro-actively does it, including control their speed with braking; as opposed to someone who is forced to slam on the brake reactively due to mismanagement earlier in the turn or due to mis reading the situation, etc..

 

 

I like this. There are a lot of people here in Europe who start out carving but they really loose control of speed and then do not carve cleanly. They are not aware of this so in their minds they are offensive and carving cleanly. They are not pro-active because if they were they would have needed to concentrate on early engagement and line in order to keep things under control.

Now someone who is really good and realizes that he needs to control his line and early engagement in order to keep things controlled is acting pro-actively, but in some sense you could argue that he is more defensive than the other guy since he keeps the speed under control.

 

A side note. I've heard quite often that ski-salesmen ask "are you an agressive skier?". How many Guys answer no to that question? Great, then he can sell them some expensive skis :-)
 

 

post #86 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post

wasting energy by skiing in the opposite direction as gravity

It's not wasting energy--that's the point of the OP. If you ski uphill to slow down you are storing your energy for future use. If you scrape your skis to slow down you have converted some of your energy to heat.

 

Simple analogy: Imagine you are on a swingset, swinging up and down and back and forth like a pendulum. You are going fastest when the swing is near the ground. Two ways to slow down: drag your feet, scraping up dirt and heating up the soles of your shoes, or just let yourself go up to the top of the arc, at which point you have zero velocity. On a regular swing gravity will immediately pull you back down, but a trapeze artist can simply step off onto a platform at that point. Similarly, a skier who has turned uphill can simply come to a stop and stay there with a tiny amount of edge set and friction, or (more interestingly) only go up just enough to shave off some speed. This is basic physics.

 

I think this will be a great technique especially for skiing through crud on steep sections without many people. My only significant wipe-out last season was on Union Bowl at Copper Mountain, when my tips crossed in the crud because I was braking for speed control. Practicing this technique on a crowded run will be an interesting challenge, however.

 

post #87 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt View Post


The fastest way to drive in F1 is to brake and then rail the turn. Why do you think the same tactic is ludicrous in skiing?

Well I could buy that.

There are a lot of differences though, including they can accelerate with a motor, and braking loads up a car's suspension. Braking there actually does intend to slow the car momentarily.

In Bode's case, I think the intent is just to get the skis on a line from the gate down. It's not a curved line, and the skis have to be thrown sideways for a bit and then get them to hook up as quickly as possible on the desired line.  I suppose you could call that braking, but it's not what we usually mean when we talk about people braking in turns.

So ok, it's offensive braking like a race car, but it's more offensive drifting to me.

 

 

post #88 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt View Post


The fastest way to drive in F1 is to brake and then rail the turn. Why do you think the same tactic is ludicrous in skiing?


They look to be railing but in reality there is a rotary component built into the Aero of the car. Loose is fast all the ways up to the ranks of F1.

post #89 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post



They look to be railing but in reality there is a rotary component built into the Aero of the car. Loose is fast all the ways up to the ranks of F1.

What do you mean by this? Sounds interesting.

btw, seen the film "Senna"? very good film.

 

 

edit: replaced us with uk trailer

 

 


Edited by Tog - 11/11/11 at 9:45am
post #90 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

What do you mean by this? Sounds interesting.

btw, seen the film "Senna"? very good film.

 



 

 




On high speed tracks with decreasing radius turns(think the spoon at Suzuka, or turn 8 at istanbul park) alot of F1 teams(or any car driven on down force), The team's engineers will work with the driver to dial in oversteer mostly though the aero of the car.

 

In simpler terms say an F1 car can generate a maximum of 2000lb of down force front and rear. An at 2000lb the cars handling is neutral. By decreasing the rear downforce the car will rotate faster allowing a driver to take a turn at a faster rate.  In reality the downfoce maximum is higher in the rear and its much higher than 2000lb at max speed. In theory a F1 car could drive upside down at speeds greater than 90mph.

 

At place like monoca they might even toe out the rear ends to give them faster rotation.

 

The real point is that loose is fast even at the highest level of asphalt racing. its not 'drifting" but its not out right railing either. You can actually clearly see the "rotation" in this video of senna

 

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching