or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › The Iconoclastic Automatic Turn
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Iconoclastic Automatic Turn - Page 7

post #181 of 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post

It may surprise you, but the way to get the bike upright from the last turn and throw it into the next is counter-steering. Sure, you can weight the outside peg or shift your body or a number of things, but primarily CS.
The physics of it is relative to you current stable situation and while hanging off through the apex, the combined force vector goes through the wheels... Push it more and it gets upright and throws you over... Just like in skiing wink.gif

 

I understand that...but you are just turning "more" to induce a lateral imbalance to move the bike across...with skiing its not necessary as with skiing you dont have two huge gyroscopes to overcome, nor the pure mass of a bike....so it is much much easier to "release" the COM from a ski turn....no countersteer required.  Getting the mass to release from one turn to flow to the next is something almost 99.9% of people get naturally within the first hour of skiing...

 

The whole motorbike countersteer argument like skiing has been brought up before, and  shown to be irrelevant....except in the case of the skier coming off a long traverse into a turn.  Countersteer provides extra "umph" by gettig the bikes own momentum to pull the bike across...we dont need extra umph on skis...the flow from the last turn is plenty, and we have more options to induce the needed imbalance...because its just our body which we can manipulate easily...unlike a rider/motorbike combo, where the the bike can only be alter its steering angle and amount of grip....skiers have that, plus we can alter the whole geomotery at will (leg flex/extend, angulation, etc)

post #182 of 224
To which, sadly, i mostly agree. I only mentioned the Two situations i found similar...

I am not giving up on this hybrid just yet though. Right now i tried counteracting/separation in enduro and... it's interesting. Not certain it is better...

The biggest problem that me, the OP and everyone has is to separate what you feel internally and think it is happening from what is actually happening.

Cheers
post #183 of 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post


The biggest problem that me, the OP and everyone has is to separate what you feel internally and think it is happening from what is actually happening.
Cheers

 

And that is the trick isnt it?  Often what we feel and what is happening are not the same...

post #184 of 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

 

And that is the trick isnt it?  Often what we feel and what is happening are not the same...

 

That's where video instruction can be so helpful.  Same is true with golf.  Another trick I used with students is for them to observe their shadows on sunny days.  You can see a lot when you can see your own shadow.  

post #185 of 224
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buttinski View Post

JB

 

Maybe when I'm bored, I'll remember to do some wedge turns across the hill just for grins.  

 

But the other non trainwreck thread about Cross Under vs Cross Over really cinched it down for me.

 

Yesterday I was mixing and matching the two styles, and the clarity of how they work, the ramifications of the energy levels used, and their overall polarity while not enlarging my bag of tricks definitely puts each trick in a more defined niche.  

 

Good luck with your endeavors, I do hope you can get many skiers crossing under AND knowing the difference, the world will be a better place.

BUTTINSI,  I thought tou  were interestd in learning the Automatic Turn. To give you the best chance of success I referred you to the Automatic beginner wedge turn.

post #186 of 224
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes View Post

Well well--finally! JBHarstad--THANK YOU for posting that video. I really appreciate it, and it helps make sense of some of what has sounded like contradictions in your verbal descriptions.
I do think you're onto something, and you've made an observation about good skiing that is often missed, even by some high-end instructors. As I suspected, I think your observation of the "forward" movement of the feet in the transition (relative to the body, and across the hill) has some validity to it. And you are right, too, that it is a stark contrast from the "pull your feet back" or "push your hips forward" to start the turn school of thought that is not uncommon--and with which I also share your reservations.
I think you'd gain more traction if you did not try to portray it as "iconoclastic" or any of the other bombastic hyperbole you've used. It is enlightened, but not completely unique and certainly not unknown. I submit that you have been trying to describe something that has actually been very much discussed here over the years--the "X-Move" (my term), the "foot squirt" (Epic's term), the "Jet Turn" (commonly attributed to Ingemar Stenmark), the apparent "back seat driving" of Bode Miller and others, and more. Welcome to the club!
That said, I still do have some reservations about your learning progression. And I think that some tweaks of the timing, the direction, and the source of the movements you demonstrate in the video are in the cards. But again, I think you are absolutely on the right track.
---
Oh, yes you can!

Laure Pequegnot, winning a World Cup Slalom at Copper Mountain.
Best regards,Joubert described
Bob

Thank you for your encouraging words. I do not share your opinion of the uniqenessof the Automatic Turn But I maybe speaking too soon sinc I dont know what the squirt and X-MOVE are. JeJoubert described the Jet Turn many years agobut I it was an upunweigted turn for sure. Is it the same turn you attributed to Stenmark? REGARDS, Bruce

post #187 of 224
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post

Thanks for reminding me - the other reason i read the thread is because I am an avid motorcycle racer as well, on road but lately more off-road and you mentioned counter-steering.
The only thing close to. You are absolutely right counter-steering i have encountered in skiing though is moving your body down the fall line while the skis cross sideways, in transition, in SL and the "von Gruningen" or "HH weighted release" in GS. I can assure you the forces experienced in those two situations at high speeds or steeps are something to bring a big smile.
I haven't seen any of that in your video though.
For counter-steering to work, traction is a must, i.e. a carve, holding an edge of some kind.

RAZIE,   Great post your motorcycle skills and experience are just what tis thread needs. You are absolutely right about traction and carving. I say as much in my manuscript. Automatic Turns are great fun to do and thats an understatement. REGARDS,  Bruce

post #188 of 224
Quote:
Joubert described the Jet Turn many years ago but it was an up-unweighted turn for sure.

Bruce--if you have not already, I encourage you to review the recent thread about "Cross-over vs. Cross-under," which is (for better or worse) largely a discussion about extension (up-unweighted, if you will) vs. retraction (down-unweighted) transitions. You seem convinced that there is a dramatic difference between the two, but I believe that the discussion in that thread very much blurs the distinction, and suggests that it is more of a continuum, at least. In modern turns, I submit that "extension and retraction turns" represent more the ends of a spectrum, and that they are not so much different and opposed techniques as they are simply extreme examples of what is really just the constant management of pressure and "loft" of the center of mass through the transition and throughout the turn--situationally dependent.

The "move" I believe you have identified is not automatic or magic, but when done correctly, it may well feel like it is. The new turn will start without any apparent effort on your part, as the movements that cause it to begin are merely continuations of the movements already occurring when you exited the "control" or "shaping" phase of the previous turn. You need to make no effort--literally--as those movements continue entirely by virtue of their own momentum.

Because none of the movements of the turn initiation actually begin at the beginning of the turn, teaching this concept is no simple task. What must you do to learn, when the goal is to do nothing? That is one of the reasons why your progression--well intended as it may be--does not work for me. In particular, as I noted some time ago in this thread, the critical part of this is that the ideal movements began in the previous turn, while much of your progression begins from traverses. As SkiDude has suggested, an active "counter-steering" movement can motivate the "toppling" ("falling" into the turn) that all good turns require, when beginning from a traverse or straight run--just as on a bicycle (which may be a better analogy for skiing than a massively heavy motorcycle). But your wedges (stems) involve lateral ski movements--very much in contrast with the gliding/carving movements of skis in high-performance turns. Indeed, the very thing that makes the transition feel "automatic" is absent when the turn begins from a traverse.

Furthermore, as we have much discussed in other threads on the topic, the "forward movement" of the feet that you have accurately (in my opinion) identified in high-performance turn transitions represents more the facts that a) the feet and skis move faster than the body on their longer paths, and b) the movement of your feet is not so much "forward" as in a direction that will be, later in the turn when you re-establish pressure, out to the side--in other words, laterally, to the outside of the turn. For both of these reasons, it is a movement that must be MUCH more subtle at low speeds, where the skis' path will never be nearly as far to the outside of the body's path, and the speed differences between feet and body are negligible. That's why the forward foot movements you show in your low-speed turns put you way in the back seat and on the inside ski. The resemblance between those forward and lateral movements in your wedge turns and the accurate movements of a racer at high speed is superficial at best. In your low-speed demos, the movement is mis-timed (starts at the initiation), wrongly motivated (you push your feet, rather than allowing their momentum to carry them accurately), and overly intense ("too dynamic") for those slow turns.

You might argue that they still do resemble the movements high-speed World Cup racers use and that your progression seeks to introduce the "right" movements, even in the wrong situation, so that when the student picks up enough speed they will work perfectly. There is possibly some merit to that approach, but it is not one that I generally condone.

---

Anyway, again, I give you credit for bucking the dogma and popular opinion, and putting your ideas out there for scrutiny. That's never easy. There are many high-level instructors and coaches who, while perhaps considerably more experienced and skilled than you, lack the courage to question dogma.

Best regards,
Bob
post #189 of 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes View Post

Anyway, again, I give you credit for bucking the dogma and popular opinion, and putting your ideas out there for scrutiny. That's never easy. There are many high-level instructors and coaches who, while perhaps considerably more experienced and skilled than you, lack the courage to question dogma.
Best regards,
Bob

 

Boy, how true!  When we challenge dogma, resistance is met.  I believe those who cling to dogma are similar to those with large egos, they are both cover for a lack of confidence and knowledge.  Trying new ways, testing new concepts, challenging the status quo may prove unproductive in many instances but from those failures a better understanding of the truths always occurs.

 

Joubert's jet turn "upunweighted"?  I had better dig that book out again!

post #190 of 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman View Post

 

Boy, how true!  When we challenge dogma, resistance is met.  I believe those who cling to dogma are similar to those with large egos, they are both cover for a lack of confidence and knowledge.  Trying new ways, testing new concepts, challenging the status quo may prove unproductive in many instances but from those failures a better understanding of the truths always occurs.

 

What dogma is being challenged here?  I dont see it. 

 

 

Challenging the status quo is healthy, but the way to do it is to understand the "dogma" then pointing out the holes, and then following up with a better or more accurate method/description.  But we are not seeing any of that here.

post #191 of 224
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman View Post

Hey! welcome back jbharstad!  Glad you chose to reengage.  

 

Please clarify for me here, rather than refer me back to your paper, how we "rebound unweight from a shallow traverse" as I am having difficulty envisioning this?

 

Please clarify for me how rebound unweighting is "passive"?  Don't we need to develop some energy by shortening the radius of a turn and load up the skis to get some rebound?  How can we do this from a shallow traverse with a beginner?

 

How does a "conventional" turn includes both down unweighting and up unweighting?  I don't think my basic parallel turn uses down-unweighting.  Are you saying that simply flexing the legs to release the old turn is down unweighting?  

 

Hopefully as we get into the ski season you will be able to shoot some video of your technique and share it with us to help clarify your iconoclastic turns.  In all honesty I believe I, as well as many other here, do know exactly what you are trying to describe here.  It is just your description seems to lack clarity and understanding of some terms commonly used amongst instructors.  I also believe attempting to teach this turn to beginners is a very lofty goal unless when you say beginners you are referring to experienced skiers who are merely new to your method? 

 

I truly hoped to learn about some new technique that would revolutionize skiing but when you said that all the world cup level skiers use your technique, I knew we were not talking about anything revolutionary as these elite skiers' technique have been dissected by many many top coaches and instructors since the days of wooden skis so there are no surprises here.  

BY comparing the extremes.If you start withe wedge turnn none of these effects are apparent,but as you advance the become very apparent. The turn end with flexing that reduces pressure on the skis , thats unweighting, specifically down unweighting. Purest,yes.

post #192 of 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

 

What dogma is being challenged here?  I dont see it. 

 

 

Challenging the status quo is healthy, but the way to do it is to understand the "dogma" then pointing out the holes, and then following up with a better or more accurate method/description.  But we are not seeing any of that here.

@SD  not necessarily referring to any particular posts here, rather the ski instruction world in general.  I see it most with Level 3's and above who perhaps haven't reached the higher levels of thinking?

 

@JB,  actually JB, simply flexing does not necessarily create down unweighting, sorry.  Down unweighting requires our mass drops faster than the pull of gravity to affect any unweighting effect, and that is if we are just standing still.  Add in turning forces and down unweighting requires even faster retraction of the legs to occur.  Just sayin....

post #193 of 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman View Post

@SD  not necessarily referring to any particular posts here, rather the ski instruction world in general.  I see it most with Level 3's and above who perhaps haven't reached the higher levels of thinking?

 

 

I am not so sure - I dont really think the ski insturction world is as full of Dogma as you and BB seem to be suggesting.  Misunderstandings...it has in spades...but that is not necessarily dogma.

 

Can you give me an example of a widely held and preached belief within say the PSIA that is actually not true?  (Sorry I am assuming that is the def: dogma).

 

 

 

I can think of lots of dogma in skiing....but its not coming from instruction or coaching:

 

Classic dogma today:

 

  • You need to be on 110mm waisted skis to ski off-piste.
  • Skiing without a helmet is dangerous
  • All skis need and should have "rocker"
  • Tanner Hall can ski biggrin.gif
  • etc

Edited by Skidude72 - 11/29/12 at 2:32pm
post #194 of 224

SD,

 

Actually, dogma can be correct or true. Dogma is a strongly held and expressed belief handed down from on high. Nail's constant restating of the same ideas even though they have been shown to be inaccurate is dogmatic. Not all he says is wrong but he will keep repeating the same things he has been told by his personal guru no matter what. TDK6 is dogmatic in his insistence that simply releasing the edge of one ski in a gliding wedge will not produce a turn, you must have a deliberate weight shift. In this case his authority is himself. I'm dogmatic in believing that the highest levels of skiing will only be reached if the skier adopts a offensive 'go there' attitude rather than a defensive 'don't go' attitude.

 

Dogma can be good or dogma can be bad, but if there is no room for any other ideas then it is dogma.

 

fom

post #195 of 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatoldman View Post

SD,

 

Actually, dogma can be correct or true. Dogma is a strongly held and expressed belief handed down from on high. Nail's constant restating of the same ideas even though they have been shown to be inaccurate is dogmatic. Not all he says is wrong but he will keep repeating the same things he has been told by his personal guru no matter what. TDK6 is dogmatic in his insistence that simply releasing the edge of one ski in a gliding wedge will not produce a turn, you must have a deliberate weight shift. In this case his authority is himself. I'm dogmatic in believing that the highest levels of skiing will only be reached if the skier adopts a offensive 'go there' attitude rather than a defensive 'don't go' attitude.

 

Dogma can be good or dogma can be bad, but if there is no room for any other ideas then it is dogma.

 

fom

 

Ok interesting. 

 

I guess my question should be rephrased to what is an example of bad dogma?

 

I think consistency of message for large organisations is a point of strength.

post #196 of 224
Quote:
I think consistency of message for large organisations is a point of strength.

Interesting point, SkiDude. I suggest that you have uncovered a "Weemsian Polarity."

In general, consistency is a good thing. But creativity, growth, innovation, and evolution are also, generally, strengths as well, are they not? Yet in some ways, "consistency" and "innovation" lie on opposite ends of a spectrum. Embrace one too completely, and you exclude the other. Growth entails change; consistency precludes it.

As instructors, must we not seek both? Can we be consistent and yet creative? Can we maintain unity, while pushing the forefront of our evolving sport? Consistency involves following. Innovation involves leading--and constantly challenging the status quo. Can we do both?

I believe we can. And to remain relevant, I believe that we must!

Best regards,
Bob
post #197 of 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes View Post


Interesting point, SkiDude. I suggest that you have uncovered a "Weemsian Polarity."
In general, consistency is a good thing. But creativity, growth, innovation, and evolution are also, generally, strengths as well, are they not? Yet in some ways, "consistency" and "innovation" lie on opposite ends of a spectrum. Embrace one too completely, and you exclude the other. Growth entails change; consistency precludes it.
As instructors, must we not seek both? Can we be consistent and yet creative? Can we maintain unity, while pushing the forefront of our evolving sport? Consistency involves following. Innovation involves leading--and constantly challenging the status quo. Can we do both?
I believe we can. And to remain relevant, I believe that we must!
Best regards,
Bob

 

I totally agree Bob.

 

But there is a right way to innovate, and a wrong way.  Acedemics get extremely pandatic about things like that....I am not saying ski orgs need to go that far...but there is big difference between true innovation, and just making stuff up to cover lack of knowledge.  At the risk of offending a few around here, I see far more of the latter. 

 

True innovation is not easy...and for large orgs it needs to be managed.  We have a Technical Committee whose job it is to innovate.  Innovation can come from anywhere, ie themselves, other ski orgs, the WC, the latest ski movie, or some lowely Level 1 working in whoop whoop nowhere ville (anyone can approach the TC anytime, or have someone do it on thier behalf)...but it all gets filtered there.  Good ideas are adopted and evolve the org....bunk is bunked, and what happens with most stuff, is, its added to the "bag of tricks" pile, as it might not be new, or require a change to anything, as it fits with the status quo...just perhaps provided a new way of looking/explaining/feeling/presenting/etc the old stuff.

 

Having 20,000 people all innovating on thier own, kinda kills the point of having an org in the first place.

post #198 of 224
I tend to agree, SkiDude, and I respect CSIA's solution--sounds like it could work well.

I say "could," though, because I still have reservations. It's still a "polarity" situation. As you say, if 20,000 people all "innovate," it can lead to nothing but chaos. But when you select a certain very small subset (or at the extreme, a single person) to arbitrate what is bunk and what is not, you run the risk of failing to recognize true innovation.

Many great innovations in human history have come from individuals who were widely thought by "the authorities" of the time to be heretics. Why would skiing be any different?

So, while I believe I share your concerns with the details--and the presentation--of JBHarstad's "automatic turn," I respect his willingness to think outside the proverbial "box," and to try to express something that he believes contradicts current trends and popular thinking. And really, the fundamental movement that I suspected he was trying to describe from the start, and that I think his video confirms--the apparently "forward" movement of the feet through the transition as the paths of the skis and the body cross--is something that we have discussed at great length here, a number of times, in many different threads. And it does, indeed, conflict with something many instructors seem to promote--the so-called "foragonal" movement of the hips up and forward of the feet to start turns. That very movement has been described in these threads as "dogma"--an "unquestionable truth"--by at least one highly experienced and respected (by me) instructor (who was, admittedly, using the expression somewhat sarcastically as we openly explored the topic). (For those who may have missed those discussions, I'll just say that, while "foragonal movement" may not be exaclty wrong, it is largely misunderstood and misinterpreted when it comes to beliefs and instructions of exactly "what you should do." For more than that, please search the archives!)

Best regards,
Bob
post #199 of 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes View Post

I tend to agree, SkiDude, and I respect CSIA's solution--sounds like it could work well.
I say "could," though, because I still have reservations. It's still a "polarity" situation. As you say, if 20,000 people all "innovate," it can lead to nothing but chaos. But when you select a certain very small subset (or at the extreme, a single person) to arbitrate what is bunk and what is not, you run the risk of failing to recognize true innovation.
Many great innovations in human history have come from individuals who were widely thought by "the authorities" of the time to be heretics. Why would skiing be any different?
So, while I believe I share your concerns with the details--and the presentation--of JBHarstad's "automatic turn," I respect his willingness to think outside the proverbial "box," and to try to express something that he believes contradicts current trends and popular thinking. And really, the fundamental movement that I suspected he was trying to describe from the start, and that I think his video confirms--the apparently "forward" movement of the feet through the transition as the paths of the skis and the body cross--is something that we have discussed at great length here, a number of times, in many different threads. And it does, indeed, conflict with something many instructors seem to promote--the so-called "foragonal" movement of the hips up and forward of the feet to start turns. That very movement has been described in these threads as "dogma"--an "unquestionable truth"--by at least one highly experienced and respected (by me) instructor (who was, admittedly, using the expression somewhat sarcastically as we openly explored the topic). (For those who may have missed those discussions, I'll just say that, while "foragonal movement" may not be exaclty wrong, it is largely misunderstood and misinterpreted when it comes to beliefs and instructions of exactly "what you should do." For more than that, please search the archives!)
Best regards,
Bob

I am not a professionally trained instructor (though I've been encouraged by many to become one), I agree with you both Bob and SkiDude, that correct development is a good thing and that in most cases jumps in development occur when someone (usually an individual) does and tries something different.

 

My concern though is when what is being described as new and improved is something that is old and discarded, along with the fact that equipment has changed sufficiently enough that the "new and improved" can actually lead to more injury.

 

I must compliment most of the instructors on this site in the format in which they present the information in words (and occasional pictures) that should make it understandable by just about anyone.  That alone is an accomplishment in itself.  The second part that most of you all do is explain the why, and sometimes, understanding why self explains the how to. 

post #200 of 224

Nice to talk motorcycles for a change smile.gif

 

There is a very direct similarity between carving and cycling that has to do with inclination and "counter steering".

 

On a bike, inclining the bike induces a turning effect through the "coning" effect of the inclined wheels on the pavement.  A bike leaned hard right  (./) for example will behave much like a traffic cone with the pointy end to the right.  The right contact side of the tire covers less distance per revolution than the large diameter left contact patch and the bike turns.  If you counter steer by pushing on the right handle bar, the bottom of the bike (touching the road) will get pulled to the left, while inertia resists the motion causing a bigger lean angle to the right.  this works for starting a quick right turn, or for tightening up a right turn that is already in progress.  You can also push the right handlebar when in a left leaning left turn and cause the bike to stand up and reduce the lean angle making the turn less sharp or over do it and snap into a tight right from a hard left. (careful with that one!)

 

With skiing, a tipped loaded ski on hard pack will turn.  The side cut and lean angle interact to "carve" a curved path,  More lean = a tighter circle.   Since your knees are attached to your ankles via your shins which are attached to your skis via ski boots,  moving your skis to the left side of your cm typically (assumes skis are left of knees, which you can alter if you have to for certain situations, but let's not talk about exceptions) , causes the skis to tip to the right, and "automatically" turn right.  Just like moving the contact patch to the left causes the bike to lean to the right.  

 

The difference is that with skis, we have an extra degree of freedom in that we can adjust the ride height while moving and don't need to vault the cm over the contact patch to exit the turn if we flex. We can still vault if we want to, or use any combination of flexing and extending to adjust our turn exit and future "counter-steered" position.

post #201 of 224
Good analysis, Ghost--I particularly like your last paragraph, for its relevance to skiing:
Quote:
The difference is that with skis, we have an extra degree of freedom in that we can adjust the ride height while moving and don't need to vault the cm over the contact patch to exit the turn if we flex. We can still vault if we want to, or use any combination of flexing and extending to adjust our turn exit and future "counter-steered" position.

Yes! And that statement neatly sums up the "extension/retraction" issue, as we have discussed (both here and in the "Cross-over vs. Cross-under" thread). It is not one or the other, as in two distinct techniques, but a continuous management of what you have called "ride height" as needed to manage pressure on the skis and to direct the motion of the body (center of mass). It is, as you point out, an opportunity unique to skiing--at least in comparison to motorcycles and bicycles and unicycles and such. It would be a shame to miss the opportunity due to a misunderstanding!

Best regards,
Bob
post #202 of 224
Thread Starter 

YOUR ON THE SNOW EXPERIENCES   I would like to hear from you about your experinces  learning  the Automatic Turn. ,ie a countersteerd turn iusing the same forces a motoricylist uses to turn automatically.


Edited by jbharstad - 12/1/12 at 10:25am
post #203 of 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

Nice to talk motorcycles for a change smile.gif

 

There is a very direct similarity between carving and cycling that has to do with inclination and "counter steering".

 

On a bike, inclining the bike induces a turning effect through the "coning" effect of the inclined wheels on the pavement.  A bike leaned hard right  (./) for example will behave much like a traffic cone with the pointy end to the right.  The right contact side of the tire covers less distance per revolution than the large diameter left contact patch and the bike turns. 

 

 

You sure?  I know the idea you are referring - it is the primary mechanism by which trains steer.  Thier wheels are cut to be conical, to steer as you suggest...however the steering force comes from the solid axel spread across a left and right wheel which for NA rail is 4ft, 8.5 inches apart...a gummy motor bike tire, the spread is a few "mm"?  On 4x4s with locked differentials this idea causes major problems too, as unless you are a slippery surface, there will all kinds of problems as the outside wheels need to rotate a different rate to the inside ones...

 

Not sure how this relates to skiing.

 

 

Quote:

Quote:Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

If you counter steer by pushing on the right handle bar, the bottom of the bike (touching the road) will get pulled to the left, while inertia resists the motion causing a bigger lean angle to the right.  this works for starting a quick right turn, or for tightening up a right turn that is already in progress.  You can also push the right handlebar when in a left leaning left turn and cause the bike to stand up and reduce the lean angle making the turn less sharp or over do it and snap into a tight right from a hard left. (careful with that one!)

 

How can the same move result to completey opposite outcomes?

post #204 of 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post

I agree with you both Bob and SkiDude, that correct development is a good thing and that in most cases jumps in development occur when someone (usually an individual) does and tries something different.

 

Well there is actually alot more involved in creating "jumps" in change then that.  To create jumps in change you need the following, in order of steps:

 

  1. a truly new idea (old ideas with new names dont count)
  2. rock solid evidence the new idea is bettter then the status quo (usually requires data - in skiing that is often WC results, or with the new ski movie culture...a few movie deals!, or good old fashioned empical data...or something...anything as long as its irrefutable, and repeatable!  Dam science!)
  3. a voice - you need to have enough standing in the community to have a voice, so people will hear and listen to your idea (where this voice comes from is usally personal crediability - or credentials above and beyond the norm - if we look at those who changed history for us, it was done by men who were powerful and very well respected before their change - their "new idea" often was (at least at the time) was thier downfall - Gallieo for example- was a uni professor so he knew the conventional wisdom back to front...he then added his ideas, which challenged the world as many new it at the time. 

 

Here we failed at step 1, fwiw even if you entered this and went to step 2, we can see another massive failure.

post #205 of 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

Nice to talk motorcycles for a change smile.gif

 

There is a very direct similarity between carving and cycling that has to do with inclination and "counter steering".

 

On a bike, inclining the bike induces a turning effect through the "coning" effect of the inclined wheels on the pavement.  A bike leaned hard right  (./) for example will behave much like a traffic cone with the pointy end to the right.  The right contact side of the tire covers less distance per revolution than the large diameter left contact patch and the bike turns. 

 

 

You sure?  I know the idea you are referring - it is the primary mechanism by which trains steer.  Thier wheels are cut to be conical, to steer as you suggest...however the steering force comes from the solid axel spread across a left and right wheel which for NA rail is 4ft, 8.5 inches apart...a gummy motor bike tire, the spread is a few "mm"?  On 4x4s with locked differentials this idea causes major problems too, as unless you are a slippery surface, there will all kinds of problems as the outside wheels need to rotate a different rate to the inside ones...

 

Not sure how this relates to skiing.

 

 

Quote:

Quote:Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

If you counter steer by pushing on the right handle bar, the bottom of the bike (touching the road) will get pulled to the left, while inertia resists the motion causing a bigger lean angle to the right.  this works for starting a quick right turn, or for tightening up a right turn that is already in progress.  You can also push the right handlebar when in a left leaning left turn and cause the bike to stand up and reduce the lean angle making the turn less sharp or over do it and snap into a tight right from a hard left. (careful with that one!)

 

How can the same move result to completey opposite outcomes?

Roll a cone on the ground.

Take a wheel off your bike and roll it on the ground as you change the lean angle.  More lean= more turn.  Yes, steering force, rubber stretching, and directions can all come into it, but the basic rule is still the same,   more inclination => more turning.

 

the same move leads to completely  the same outcome;  bottom moves left, causing the lean angle to change in clockwise direction if viewed from the rear.  More clockwise than a left turning lean is a not so tight turn.  More clockwise in a right turn = a tighter turn.  

post #206 of 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

Roll a cone on the ground.

Take a wheel off your bike and roll it on the ground as you change the lean angle.  More lean= more turn.  Yes, steering force, rubber stretching, and directions can all come into it, but the basic rule is still the same,   more inclination => more turning.

 

 

I get the concept.  But the turning force comes from the differential of the speed of the outside larger "circumference" vs. the smaller inside one, and the gradation inbetween. 

 

More inclination will generate more turning, only if the differential between the circumferences increases....does that happen via inclination alone?  I dont think so.  I think you will see that a bike tire does not have a constant arc, but rather a progressive one...Its this progressive curve of the tire that cause the differential in cirucmferences to increase with inclination...its possible to go other way to, and create a stablising effect, like a car tire.  There is more at work here then just inclination.

 

I do understand however that a "steeper" cone, with a greater change in circumference across a given distance will turn sharper then a cone with less differential...but again this all about variance of circumference...not about inherent effects of inclination.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
the same move leads to completely  the same outcome;  bottom moves left, causing the lean angle to change in clockwise direction if viewed from the rear.  More clockwise than a left turning lean is a not so tight turn.  More clockwise in a right turn = a tighter turn.  

 

This makes sense...but its not what you wrote above.  Typo.

post #207 of 224

I guess I can't see my own typos th_dunno-1[1].gif

What I (wrote cut and paste)

push the right handlebar when in a left leaning left turn and cause the bike to stand up and reduce the lean angle making the turn less sharp 

 
Yes there is more going on.  Push the right handle bar forward.  This move turns the front wheel to the left, and thus moves the contact patch to the left ( the more going on is that the initial steering move is actually a left turn, but it results in a right turn when the bike tips, tips more, or tips less, and you recover balance with a new steering heading setting, that's why it's called counter steering),  causing the  bike to lean (bottom more left than before).  If you are in a left turn already, and leaning left already, pushing the right bar forwrd  moves the bottom of the tire left and the bike will lean less. 
 
What I wrote (cut and paste)
pushing on the right handle bar, the bottom of the bike (touching the road) will get pulled to the left, while inertia resists the motion causing a bigger lean angle to the right.  this works for starting a quick right turn, or for tightening up a right turn that is already in progress.  
 
If you are in a right turn already, the move makes the bottom  move more to the left causing a greater lean and a tighter turn.
 
Just like a ski's sidecut relates tipping angle to turn radius, a tire's profile relates lean angle to radius.   A tire in a right lean right turn will have the rubber touching the road on the inside of the turn spinning a tighter radius, and the rate of change of curvature as you fit a circle of different radii to the cross-section affects the rate at which the bike falls into a turn.
 
Where's the typoconfused.gif
post #208 of 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

I guess I can't see my own typos th_dunno-1[1].gif

What I (wrote cut and paste)

push the right handlebar when in a left leaning left turn and cause the bike to stand up and reduce the lean angle making the turn less sharp 

 
Yes there is more going on.  Push the right handle bar forward.  This move turns the front wheel to the left, and thus moves the contact patch to the left ( the more going on is that the initial steering move is actually a left turn, but it results in a right turn when the bike tips, tips more, or tips less, and you recover balance with a new steering heading setting, that's why it's called counter steering),  causing the  bike to lean (bottom more left than before).  If you are in a left turn already, and leaning left already, pushing the right bar forwrd  moves the bottom of the tire left and the bike will lean less. 
 
What I wrote (cut and paste)
pushing on the right handle bar, the bottom of the bike (touching the road) will get pulled to the left, while inertia resists the motion causing a bigger lean angle to the right.  this works for starting a quick right turn, or for tightening up a right turn that is already in progress.  
 
If you are in a right turn already, the move makes the bottom  move more to the left causing a greater lean and a tighter turn.
 
Just like a ski's sidecut relates tipping angle to turn radius, a tire's profile relates lean angle to radius.   A tire in a right lean right turn will have the rubber touching the road on the inside of the turn spinning a tighter radius, and the rate of change of curvature as you fit a circle of different radii to the cross-section affects the rate at which the bike falls into a turn.
 
Where's the typoconfused.gif

 

Ok, I read it again....s l o w l y...and what your wrote was fine, no typos.  I read it wrong.

 

 

Either way, the turn comes from the variable circumferences...which are accessed through inclination...not just inclination itslef...the shape of the tire is critial to making this work.  That is the "more going on" that I was referring to.

post #209 of 224

I'd say that on a vehicle with two wheels the coning effect is negligible. Basically the very small torque from the back wheel would have to push the front wheel to the side. Very small effect compared to the steering of the front wheel. 

post #210 of 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt View Post

I'd say that on a vehicle with two wheels the coning effect is negligible. Basically the very small torque from the back wheel would have to push the front wheel to the side. Very small effect compared to the steering of the front wheel. 

Very observant Jamt,

In fact, after countersteering, into a turn turn (which uses the steering of the front wheel to get the bike into a lean), the rider "automatically" steers to the appropriate steering angle to maintain balance at that lean so as not to fall down.  Without the steering, you wouldn't be able to turn a motorcycle much at all.  The front wheel has to be steered, because the radius at the front wheel and the radius at the back wheel are at different angles on the same circle and need to point in different directions to point at the same centre.  Because the wheels are linked, the back wheel tracking would put the front wheel off track.  Thanks for pointing out these complications.  Maybe unicycles are more appropriate to skiing smile.gif.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › The Iconoclastic Automatic Turn