Good friggin' grief.... JBHarstad, you are almost too much. You have to earn credibility--it is not something you can bestow upon yourself. Let me remind you again: it is for others to declare your paper and ideas noteworthy--not you. So far, you're not doing so well in that regard, are you?
I wrote the following words yesterday, and then decided I really didn't need to post them. I've changed my mind.
Now, considering that you started posting about your special turn in the recent Wedge Christie discussion, I have to ask: did you read that discussion, at all? In it, there are a number of instructors writing, as well as diagrams, illustrations, animations, and video, NONE OF WHICH describe a "weight shift, up-unweighted" turn. Quite the contrary, in fact. Please read it.
Just so you don't think this is just my opinion, let's ask the question of the many regular instructors here: How many of you teach "conventional weight-shift, up-unweighted turns" as your basic, quintessential turn?
Next, I was truly hoping that you'd come up with a description for "your" turn different from, "to turn right you would push the skis diagonally uphill to the left." Those are the words you repeated over and over in your paper, too, and I was hoping it wasn't really what you meant. As others here have already pointed out, pushing your skis sideways in the opposite direction of the turn describes "negative movements," which are literally movements in the wrong direction. Yes, I know, that's the point of "counter-steering," whether it's on a motorcycle or skis. I won't deny that it's one way to create the "toppling" needed to start a turn--which is exactly why motorcyclists do it--and actually an important option in the technique repertoire of all good skiers. But it's still a step in the wrong direction and I certainly would not recommend it as the "default" movement for turning.
Perhaps you don't actually mean that. But "push the skis ... uphill..." to start a turn downhill sure sounds like you're trying to make the skis move sideways--in other words, pushing them into a skid. Any chance that's not what you mean? If so--and I'm willing to give you some benefit of the doubt--perhaps you're describing a movement pattern we've discussed extensively over the years here, in such threads as "A Tale of Three Turns," "Where Do We Want Our Hips Over Our Feet," "Reconciling Foot Squirt," "Is This Aft?" and even, if you read it closely, the above mentioned "Basic Wedge Christie." I call it the "X Move," and others have dubbed it "foot squirt." Long ago, it was recognized as the "jet turn," and the terms "cross-under" and "retraction turn" have been with us for a long time as well. Descriptive or not, all refer to the simple phenomenon of the paths of the body (center of mass) and the feet (balance point) traveling in different directions and at different speeds, and crossing each other at the transition from one turn to another--the feet moving a different direction from the body. Whether it's "cross-over" or "cross-under" is largely a matter of perspective, but it does more closely resemble what many people call "cross-under."
The key is that, unlike what appears to be your intent in your paper, the "X Move" does NOT entail moving the skis sideways to start the turn. Rather, they move in the direction they're pointed, as the body (cm) travels on a separate path. Those paths cross and then continue to diverge, which naturally ("automatically," if you prefer) creates the inclination into the new turn. And this move requires absolutely no effort on the skier's part through the transition, as the Laws of Physics that you are fond of invoking dictate that bodies in motion will continue...without the need for external force (Newton's First Law of Motion).
I suggest that the biggest flaw with "your turn" lies in your oft-repeated description of how it starts "from a traverse," rather than linking from a previous turn. In a traverse, your body and your feet (skis) do travel in the same direction, so it will take some sort of effort and intentional movement to cause the "toppling" to start a turn. As you suggest, one way to do that is to push your feet sideways (or steer your motorcycle) momentarily in the opposite direction. But most good turns do not begin or end in traverses. Instead, they are linked seamlessly, one flowing effortlessly into the next, allowing the paths of the body and the feet to travel constantly in different directions, eliminating the need for "countersteering" to cause those paths to diverge to start a turn. They're already diverging (if you've done it right)!
Furthermore, if you are starting a turn from a traverse for some reason, "countersteering" by pushing your skis uphill is only one of several ways to get the job done. And of all the options, I would not suggest it as the "best" or as the "default" technique (that is, the movements I would prefer to make barring the need to make some other movement). The simplest alternative--the one you explicitly reject--is simply to move your body downhill, in the direction of the new turn. Unlike a motorcycle or bicycle, we can, in fact, do that by invoking an active weight transfer--either extending the uphill leg or relaxing/retracting the downhill leg (causing pressure to transfer to the uphill leg), literally pushing the body into the new turn. The fact that you cannot do that on a motorcycle is the main reason why counter-steering is an important technique. But we can do it on skis, when we need to (which, again, is not always).
Or, with a functional, open stance, you can simply steer your feet and skis into the new turn from a traverse, more like turning a car than a motorcycle. You don't countersteer a car, because you don't have to--you just steer the wheels in the direction of the turn (causing a "weight transfer"--not caused by one). Both of these options (pushing your body into the turn, or steering your skis from an open stance into the turn) involve "positive movements" in the direction of the new turn. They start the direction change immediately, unlike your counter-steering move, which requires first moving things the opposite direction before you can start moving the intended direction.
And, of course, these things can be combined--feet moving uphill and body moving downhill simultaneously. I'm at a loss why you think they are mutually exclusive, but your description seems quite clear (page 4): "In the crossover movement, the body extends diagonally downhill from the traverse against the support of the snow. In the crossunder movement, the feet and legs ... move diagonally uphill from the traverse .... A body cannot go up and down at the same time. Therefore, by definition, the two movements are mutually exclusive." I hope you can see the confusion here: you're right, of course, that "a body" cannot go in opposite directions at the same time, but that's not what your previous sentence entails--"the body" goes one way while the feet (a DIFFERENT body) go in another--hardly mutually exclusive possibilities! In fact, you seem to contradict your own statement yourself later: "In the crossunder turn, functional upper-lower body separation is natural. The skis move out from underneath the body automatically while the body continues to move downhill" (page 14).
In any case, once again, regardless of your personal preference, none of these exertions will be necessary when turns are seamlessly linked without traverses. That's what I see as the biggest question mark in your paper. "Counter-steering" has been around for a very long time, recognized as a legitimate technique (among many) for causing the required "toppling" for a turn to start, whenever needed.
Counter-turns, checking, pre-turns, lateral steps, scissor steps, and stems all involve the same principle. They are all situationally useful techniques still today, and they've been described long before your self-proclaimed "landmark" and "prescient" and "unprecedented" paper came out--including in the works of Georges Joubert, whom you have referenced in your paper. The old "Austrian Technique" of long ago clearly described twisting the skis out into a skid with counter-rotation and "down-unweighting." How is that fundamentally different from what you're describing (in many of the same words)?
I don't know, JBHarstad--I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt if you convince me that you really didn't mean to imply pushing the skis sideways into a skid to cause the "counter-steering," and if you agree that no pushing of any sort would be needed if the body and feet already travel on different (diverging) paths when turns are linked (as opposed to separated by traverses). To be fair, there are hints of these realizations in your paper: "To get in the ballpark, you need only to push your feet slightly diagonally uphill, i.e., essentially forward." (page 16). If "forward" is really what you mean--not sideways--then perhaps you are in the ballpark yourself. Although the suggestion of "pushing" still rings wrong to me, it is certainly true that in many good turns (the "X Move" that I have described), the feet do move ahead of the body through the transition--across the hill, as the body moves more directly down the hill, perhaps giving the appearance of momentarily being "in the back seat." If this is what you meant (you'll have read up on the threads I linked to early in this post), then I won't object at all--but you could make your point a lot clearer, because it really doesn't sound to me--or other experienced skiers who have commented above--that that is your intent. And if it is what you intend, then it is a bit pretentious to proclaim your ideas "unprecedented" and groundbreaking, don't you think? These thoughts may have seemed a revelation to you, and perhaps they are to others, but they are hardly earth-shattering to many experienced instructors.
Or is my benefit of the doubt misplaced? Do you really mean to suggest twisting the skis uphill, sideways, into a skid, as your preferred technique for starting turns? Well, that's not a new idea either, and you won't find many competent instructors or serious skiers who will join you in that preference. (Of course, you've made it quite clear that your ideas have not been well-accepted by the instructor community. Perhaps there is a good reason?)
Either way, I give your paper an "F," although it may still have merit if it generates some good discussion that we can all learn from.
Thank you for letter,Bob. Thank for spending so much time effort on the automatic Turn. Your frnkness and honesty is rare. Your letter is shure to trigger much response and that's the whole idea. REGARDS, Bruce