New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is carving on the way out? - Page 6

post #151 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinF View Post

 

I've often wanted to get onto a real-deal water-injected race course and see how it compares to New England Ice.  I admit I struggle when New England conditions become "you could see a fish through it" type of clear...  are water-injected race courses even worse?

 

Not necessarily. When you get to the "see through it" level ice is pretty much ice, and conditions equivalent to an injected world-cup course can and do occur naturally, particularly in the east.

 

The point of injection is to achieve a uniformly hard surface top-to-bottom, with a top layer thick enough to prevent ruts and holes from punching through. I've skied (but not raced) injected courses in the past, and I actually find them easier than some naturally occurring hard conditions, in that an injected course is very uniform. You don't have to adapt your technique the way you do with patchy ice. They're actually been a boon to later starters (nominally worse racers) in that the benefit of a low start number isn't quite what it used to be.

 

On a related note, womens' tech-event courses on the WC aren't always injected. It's getting to be more common but isn't universal. Vonn was certainly on fairly hard snow there (easily determined by watching her technique) but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it was injected. Also keep in mind that she's likely running perfectly sharp skis with 4+ degrees of side bevel.

post #152 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by narc View Post

 

This. You need big edge angles and the strength/technique to cope with them to carve clean on anything more than a gentle slope. In Ron LeMaster's book he has figures that a good skier carving with 45deg edge angle will pull about 1.4G, the best GS skiers can peak at close to 3G which is miles greater than just letting skis slide sideways one side and then the other.


LeMaster knows a lot more than I do about skiing, but either he blew this one or something was lost in translation.

 

The edge angle doesn't determine the turning acceleration. What matters is the relationship between the center of mass (CM, roughly your hips/abdomen) and the center of pressure (CP, somewhere between your outside and inside skis, depending on your in:out weight distribution). If you are in equilibrium (i.e. not falling over) and if your CM is 45 degrees inside of the CP on a flat slope, then you will indeed pull about 1.4 G of total acceleration (1G vertical, 1G lateral, so the hypotenuse of the triangle is sqrt(1^2 + 1^2) == ~1.4G). Note that your edge angle could be quite a bit larger than that, and you'd still be pulling the same 1.4G.

 

For a carved turn edge angle is greater the CP->CM angle (henceforth "pressure angle"). If the edge angle is less than the pressure angle then the ski "slides out" of its own track. Draw a free-body diagram of the ski edge to see why. The degree to which the edge angle is greater than the pressure angle depends on how you create the edge angle. If you use whole-body inclination then they'll be pretty similar, since you're tipping your entire body and the ski by the same amount. Hip angulation increases the difference somewhat, and knee angulation increases it still more.

post #153 of 178
I feel like Alvin Nearing, Engineering Guy, has suddenly decided to camp out on Epic Ski. Not that there's anything wrong with that! Just that I don't know what you're talking about, half the time. smile.gif
post #154 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by majortato View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

 
 
 

 

 

Sorry, but you're doing it wrong. rolleyes.gif

 

I know quite a few skiers who can manage the same turn shape, turn rate, and overall speed down any pitch - all with beautiful carved turns.

 

I didn't want to venture into this train wreck of a thread, but this statement couldn't be left to stand without challenge.

 

 

 

 

I think you misunderstood my post.  I'm not talking about not being able to carve down a steep pitch....I see great skiers do it all the time.  I'm saying if you try to park and ride down a steep pitch (aka tip skis and just ride sidecut), you'll build up too much speed too quickly because there is no way to control turn shape, rate, etc. 

Not true.  You can easily carve down a steep without going too fast, to control turn shape, rate, etc.  In Ontario Canada you will max out somewhere around 65 mph, and if you have decent skis you will still be in control of your direction (assuming you know what you are doing). 

 

However, I will admit that at the speeds clean carving will achieve, you will only have to cover about 200 feet of vertical before you approach speeds at which a turn radius that doesn't give you a work out via the excess g-forces exceeds a sl radius ski's ability to make a clean carve.

 

If you have a longish GS or SG ski and don't mind speed, anyone with a modicum of carving skill can ski effortlessly all day long, carving turns without regard to speed control and not even work up a sweat, but where's the fun in that?  The real way to have fun is to turn as tight as you can while skiing as fast as you can.  That is what gives you that good exhausted burnt up but happily high feeling at the end of the day.

post #155 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

Not true.  You can easily carve down a steep without going too fast, to control turn shape, rate, etc.  In Ontario Canada you will max out somewhere around 65 mph, and if you have decent skis you will still be in control of your direction (assuming you know what you are doing). 

 

However, I will admit that at the speeds clean carving will achieve, you will only have to cover about 200 feet of vertical before you approach speeds at which a turn radius that doesn't give you a work out via the excess g-forces exceeds a sl radius ski's ability to make a clean carve.

 

If you have a longish GS or SG ski and don't mind speed, anyone with a modicum of carving skill can ski effortlessly all day long, carving turns without regard to speed control and not even work up a sweat, but where's the fun in that?  The real way to have fun is to turn as tight as you can while skiing as fast as you can.  That is what gives you that good exhausted burnt up but happily high feeling at the end of the day.

 

While I'm philosophically with you, I don't think that's a practical approach to everyday skiing. I own GS and SG boards (and a pair of old DH planks "just because") and I love go fast on them, but there are a lot of situations where you just can't. I also have rockered Super-7s, and can/will "scarve" them (i.e. put them sideways) just like everybody else when needed.

 

The way I personally view carving is as follows:

 

1. If you have the *ability* to carve in a wide range of situations then you can save energy by establishing a stable platform on a gliding edge whenever the need arises. For example, on steep, hard-packed terrain the lowest-effort way to ski it is often to "smear" the turn initiation but then establish a locked-in carve through the body of the turn. Racers describe this as a "stivot", but IMO that's almost as much of a euphemism as "scarve" ("almost" in that the best racers actually steer back out of the skid and initiate cleanly instead of skidding into the turn. I'm still trying to teach myself that move).

 

2. If you *insist* on carving 100% of the time then that demands incredible strength and gets very tiring, very fast. When you carve your speed control comes entirely from wind resistance and friction. Friction is proportional to the force on the ski and the distance travelled, so you actually *can* control speed both by cranking aggressive turns (higher force on the ski) and by skiing a long line (i.e. coming well out of the fall line, assuming you have room). That said, if you work through the numbers you would need to make world-cup-level turns to effectively control speed on a truly steep run. There is a reason why even elite-level race courses are set on runs of fairly moderate steepness.

 

I guess where I would land on this is that instructor should teach carving to whatever degree is needed to give the skier a stable platform, and then beyond that it's a matter of stylistic preference. I suspect that the instructors on this form would argue that that's what they already do... :-)

post #156 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickjchase View Post

 

While I'm philosophically with you, I don't think that's a practical approach to everyday skiing. I own GS and SG boards (and a pair of old DH planks "just because") and I love go fast on them, but there are a lot of situations where you just can't. I also have rockered Super-7s, and can/will "scarve" them (i.e. put them sideways) just like everybody else when needed.

 

The way I personally view carving is as follows:

 

1. If you have the *ability* to carve in a wide range of situations then you can save energy by establishing a stable platform on a gliding edge whenever the need arises. For example, on steep, hard-packed terrain the lowest-effort way to ski it is often to "smear" the turn initiation but then establish a locked-in carve through the body of the turn. Racers describe this as a "stivot", but IMO that's almost as much of a euphemism as "scarve" ("almost" in that the best racers actually steer back out of the skid and initiate cleanly instead of skidding into the turn. I'm still trying to teach myself that move).

 

2. If you *insist* on carving 100% of the time then that demands incredible strength and gets very tiring, very fast. When you carve your speed control comes entirely from wind resistance and friction. Friction is proportional to the force on the ski and the distance travelled, so you actually *can* control speed both by cranking aggressive turns (higher force on the ski) and by skiing a long line (i.e. coming well out of the fall line, assuming you have room). That said, if you work through the numbers you would need to make world-cup-level turns to effectively control speed on a truly steep run. There is a reason why even elite-level race courses are set on runs of fairly moderate steepness.

 

I guess where I would land on this is that instructor should teach carving to whatever degree is needed to give the skier a stable platform, and then beyond that it's a matter of stylistic preference. I suspect that the instructors on this form would argue that that's what they already do... :-)

 

Before anybody nit-picks my physics again, when I said:

 

"Friction is proportional to the force on the ski and the distance travelled"

 

That was shorthand for:

 

"Frictional energy losses are proportional to the force on the ski and the distance travelled". P=fv, E=fd

post #157 of 178

We probably agree more than you think.  If you control your speed while cleanly carving your turns you will get quite a work out for sure.  If you want to make fun turns while carving, you will also get quite a workout.  Your physics is good as far as I can see.   When I take my SLs out, I mostly keep their speed within SL speeds where the skis carve best, by carving tighter turns that go farther uphill, and it is good exercise.

 

However, I can recall spending quite a few days free-skiing on my SG skis, just working on making cleaner carved turns without making any attempt to control speed, except for stopping at the bottom, and it was pretty easy to do (excepting a few compressions that were a challenge to strength and endurance), as compared to, say, skiing the fast line slow.  I'm also pretty sure most ski instructors would agree with you that is not the approach they want to teach their studentssmile.gif.

post #158 of 178

Answer to the original question? 

 

 

"No". smile.gif

post #159 of 178

Yeah. The most effortless way to ski is to point the skis down the fall line and let them run...Anything else requires effort, carving or skidding or whatever. When you ride sidecut you still have to spend the energy to get the skis on edge and hold them...If you make turns and skid and what-not to work against gravity (controlling/scraping speed, hitting bumps, etc), you are spending effort. Carving saves some energy compare with skidding because one is not scraping speed as fast and as obvious. The faster you want to scrape your speed, the more work you have to put in to do that. (Yeees Patrick friction~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)

 

Another good thing about carving is when you are going super fast (put your own super fast speed here) and want to reduce speed, carving is better to use because it allows you to reduce speed gradually. A sudden skid turn is very effective in scraping speed, but at high speed will very likely to cause you to low-side (not enough edge hold cause you to slide feet forward embarrassingly down the hill) or high-side (Worse. speed of feet are dramatically reduced and the speed of upper body is not, generally caused by disturbed balance which can be caused by many reasons especially at high speed. And your head flip forward and tumble embarrassingly down the hill). Did I mention scraping a lot of speed at once takes a lot of energy too? Likely to cause your legs to give up, ruining a day of skiing.

 

So yes, carving takes effort too and no, carving does not use as much energy as skidding, and sorry about all that OP, carving is just a technique you use on snow to keep your speed in check with less effort and drama than skidding, and not a fashion so it probably is not gonna go away.

post #160 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaserPower View Post


Another good thing about carving is when you are going super fast (put your own super fast speed here) and want to reduce speed, carving is better to use because it allows you to reduce speed gradually. A sudden skid turn is very effective in scraping speed, but at high speed will very likely to cause you to low-side (not enough edge hold cause you to slide feet forward embarrassingly down the hill) or high-side (Worse. speed of feet are dramatically reduced and the speed of upper body is not, generally caused by disturbed balance which can be caused by many reasons especially at high speed. And your head flip forward and tumble embarrassingly down the hill). Did I mention scraping a lot of speed at once takes a lot of energy too? Likely to cause your legs to give up, ruining a day of skiing.


No offense, but you need a lesson. Maybe several.
post #161 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

No offense, but you need a lesson. Maybe several.

Care to elaborate? Please correct me if I understood wrong. I'm here to learn too~
post #162 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickjchase View Post


LeMaster knows a lot more than I do about skiing, but either he blew this one or something was lost in translation.

 

The edge angle doesn't determine the turning acceleration. What matters is the relationship between the center of mass (CM, roughly your hips/abdomen) and the center of pressure (CP, somewhere between your outside and inside skis, depending on your in:out weight distribution). If you are in equilibrium (i.e. not falling over) and if your CM is 45 degrees inside of the CP on a flat slope, then you will indeed pull about 1.4 G of total acceleration (1G vertical, 1G lateral, so the hypotenuse of the triangle is sqrt(1^2 + 1^2) == ~1.4G). Note that your edge angle could be quite a bit larger than that, and you'd still be pulling the same 1.4G.

 

For a carved turn edge angle is greater the CP->CM angle (henceforth "pressure angle"). If the edge angle is less than the pressure angle then the ski "slides out" of its own track. Draw a free-body diagram of the ski edge to see why. The degree to which the edge angle is greater than the pressure angle depends on how you create the edge angle. If you use whole-body inclination then they'll be pretty similar, since you're tipping your entire body and the ski by the same amount. Hip angulation increases the difference somewhat, and knee angulation increases it still more.

 

A higher edge angle = tighter radius

post #163 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaserPower View Post

 Carving saves some energy compare with skidding because one is not scraping speed as fast and as obvious. The faster you want to scrape your speed, the more work you have to put in to do that. (Yeees Patrick friction~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)

 

My understanding from reading papers by people who know a lot more than I is that when carving most of the energy loss at the ski<->snow interface does indeed come from friction.

 

The picture for skidding/scraping is vastly more complicated, because even on hard snow much of the energy disspation comes from plastic deformation of the snow. It takes energy to throw a huge spray of snow sideways, or to cut chatter-marks into an icy slope.The energy requried to move that snow/ice around is subtracted from your kinetic energy, and that means you slow down.

-

Of course there is a deformational component to carving (those nice clean trenches represent a very limited plastic deformation of the snow) and a frictional component to skidding, so what I said above is simplified but still accurate enough to constitute a useful mental model IMO.

post #164 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaserPower View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

No offense, but you need a lesson. Maybe several.

Care to elaborate? Please correct me if I understood wrong. I'm here to learn too~


LOL, Markojp just jinxed himself!  Be careful skiiing Marko!

 

Not speaking for Jamt, but it appears the Jamt is suggesting you need to learn how to stop quickly, in any conditions, without highsiding or lowsiding.

Way way back in the day I was very good at doing hockey stops.  I could do them at the drop of a hat, on groomed, in powder, in chewed up deep wet snow, on ice, in moguls, with half my skis catching a mogul and the other have slipping on ice on the back side of another mogul, anywhere any time.  No problem.   Then I became a better skier,  I didn't need to make emergency stops, because I became better at predicting.

 

Then one day, just last year someone zigged when I thought they were going to zag.  They looked me straight in the eye and promptly cut me off.  I braked, and the distance between us returned to normal, and I continued on my way back down the hill.  However, since I hadn't really done a lot of emergency stop - resume course practice for say 20 odd years (no need for emergency stops if your skiing intelligently); What I had ingrained  was skiing basically by rolling my skis onto their edges to make clean turns.  Guess what happens when your roll your skis onto their left  edges as you slide down the hill with the skis perpendicular to the hill and no forward momentum at all (all momentum straight sideways and downhill)?  Yup, got slammed hard.  Just when I thought I was an excellent skier I ended up hurting my shoulder.  It still hurts!

post #165 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickjchase View Post

My understanding from reading papers by people who know a lot more than I is that when carving most of the energy loss at the ski<->snow interface does indeed come from friction.

The picture for skidding/scraping is vastly more complicated, because even on hard snow much of the energy disspation comes from plastic deformation of the snow. It takes energy to throw a huge spray of snow sideways, or to cut chatter-marks into an icy slope.The energy requried to move that snow/ice around is subtracted from your kinetic energy, and that means you slow down.
-
Of course there is a deformational component to carving (those nice clean trenches represent a very limited plastic deformation of the snow) and a frictional component to skidding, so what I said above is simplified but still accurate enough to constitute a useful mental model IMO.
Oh before when I mention you I mean I agree with you~ cheers!
post #166 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post


LOL, Markojp just jinxed himself!  Be careful skiiing Marko!

Not speaking for Jamt, but it appears the Jamt is suggesting you need to learn how to stop quickly, in any conditions, without highsiding or lowsiding.
Way way back in the day I was very good at doing hockey stops.  I could do them at the drop of a hat, on groomed, in powder, in chewed up deep wet snow, on ice, in moguls, with half my skis catching a mogul and the other have slipping on ice on the back side of another mogul, anywhere any time.  No problem.   Then I became a better skier,  I didn't need to make emergency stops, because I became better at predicting.

Then one day, just last year someone zigged when I thought they were going to zag.  They looked me straight in the eye and promptly cut me off.  I braked, and the distance between us returned to normal, and I continued on my way back down the hill.  However, since I hadn't really done a lot of emergency stop - resume course practice for say 20 odd years (no need for emergency stops if your skiing intelligently); What I had ingrained  was skiing basically by rolling my skis onto their edges to make clean turns.  Guess what happens when your roll your skis onto their left  edges as you slide down the hill with the skis perpendicular to the hill and no forward momentum at all (all momentum straight sideways and downhill)?  Yup, got slammed hard.  Just when I thought I was an excellent skier I ended up hurting my shoulder.  It still hurts!

Oh ok...that was quite an ambiguous way of saying that...yeah I'm not saying that I can't do hocky turn to brake. But I'm also not saying that I can just suddenly point my skis perpendicular to the fall line at 120 kph without drama every time I do that. Just saying that the risk of hurting oneself is greater to slam on the brake at high speed (especially for new comers), and it is more likely to disturb one's balance doing so (hitting a few bumps in the process anyone?). When you carve the risk becomes less.
post #167 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by narc View Post

 

A higher edge angle = tighter radius


Absolutely true, but consider two cases:

 

Case 1: A 27-meter radius ski that carves a ~23-meter turn at an edge angle of 45 degrees

 

Case 2: A 33-meter radius ski that carves the same 23-meter turn at an edge angle of ~60 degrees

 

In either case the lateral acceleration at any given speed will be exactly the same, because they're carving exactly the same turn. That's what I meant when I said that edge angle in and of itself doesn't determine lateral acceleration.

 

Now imagine that you're going 15 meters/sec (about 30 mph) and you make a 23-meter turn entirely on the outside ski. In either case the lateral acceleration will be 15^2/23 = 9.8 m/sec^2, which just so happens to be exactly 1G. This means that your center of mass will have to be exactly as far "inside" of the ski as it is above the snow for you to be in balance. For example, if your CM is 30" above the snow, then it would also have to be 30" inside of the outside/carving ski to be in balance.

 

Now comes the fun part. In the case of the 27-meter ski, the edge angle and the CM->ski angle are both 45 degrees, so in this case there's basically only one way to carve the turn in balance: Lean your entire body in by 45 degrees (i.e. full-body inclination; I'm ignoring the fact that the inside of your outside ski isn't exactly centered under your CM to keep things simple).

 

In the case of the 33-meter ski, you have to somehow raise the ski on edge by 60 degrees while still keeping your center of mass 45 degrees to the inside. The way you would do that is by using some combination of knee and hip angulation, since both of those increase the edge angle by more than they increase the CM->ski angle.

 

That's why racers use a "comma shape" body profile on straighter skis (i.e. lots of angulation, not so much inclination), and "stacked skeletal alignment" (the opposite) on curvier ones.

 

Now consider what happens if you get caught "outside", meaning that your CM is either too high or not far enough inside of the carving edge. In the case of the 33-meter ski you can simply release your knee and/or hips (i.e. use less angulation) and the ski will straighten out. In the case of the 27-meter ski above the only thing you can do is skid, since you're already using 100% inclination. If the ski is ultra-sharp with 6 deg of side bevel then it's more likely you'll get "high centered" and crash horribly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Win0irOcLps). This is actually the somewhat valid insight at the heart of the FIS' argument that longer-radius GS skis are safer. I don't agree with the extremes to which they've taken it - 27 m skis are plenty safe in real GS courses on real snow IMO. I actually did agree with the previous increase from 21m to 27m, though.

post #168 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post


LOL, Markojp just jinxed himself!  Be careful skiiing Marko!

 

Not speaking for Jamt, but it appears the Jamt is suggesting you need to learn how to stop quickly, in any conditions, without highsiding or lowsiding.

Way way back in the day I was very good at doing hockey stops.  I could do them at the drop of a hat, on groomed, in powder, in chewed up deep wet snow, on ice, in moguls, with half my skis catching a mogul and the other have slipping on ice on the back side of another mogul, anywhere any time.  No problem.   Then I became a better skier,  I didn't need to make emergency stops, because I became better at predicting.

 

Then one day, just last year someone zigged when I thought they were going to zag.  They looked me straight in the eye and promptly cut me off.  I braked, and the distance between us returned to normal, and I continued on my way back down the hill.  However, since I hadn't really done a lot of emergency stop - resume course practice for say 20 odd years (no need for emergency stops if your skiing intelligently); What I had ingrained  was skiing basically by rolling my skis onto their edges to make clean turns.  Guess what happens when your roll your skis onto their left  edges as you slide down the hill with the skis perpendicular to the hill and no forward momentum at all (all momentum straight sideways and downhill)?  Yup, got slammed hard.  Just when I thought I was an excellent skier I ended up hurting my shoulder.  It still hurts!

 

Well, I did go out on a limb not having seen Laser ski, but by his description, he made it sound that it was dicey to go from a carve to a lower angles skid without a large possibility of wrecking. Edges catch, etc.... I completely disagree with his risk accessment. It's simple to control the outcome if you're in balance. 120k? If it were a problem, racers would be crashing all over the place at speed event finishes. GS'ers would be flying off the course willy nilly whenever they stivot. Free skiers would be tumbling down the face of mountains whenever they adjusted their line at speed. A good skier should have no trouble whatsoever with slowing down a bit by a quick check/skid at speed.  No reason you can't go from a pure carve to a controlled 'slarve' or directed skid... not at all. You could also do a quick, aggressive, pivot slip.One could easily enough turn this into a hockey stop. Edge and pressure control are common elements to all 'better' skiing. If one can't do this, then they aren't skiing in that 'better' range, hence, the walk out onto the proverbial, "you need lessons" limb. 

post #169 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

 

Well, I did go out on a limb not having seen Laser ski, but by his description, he made it sound that it was dicey to go from a carve to a lower angles skid without a large possibility of wrecking. Edges catch, etc.... I completely disagree with his risk accessment. It's simple to control the outcome if you're in balance. 120k? If it were a problem, racers would be crashing all over the place at speed event finishes. GS'ers would be flying off the course willy nilly whenever they stivot. Free skiers would be tumbling down the face of mountains whenever they adjusted their line at speed. A good skier should have no trouble whatsoever with slowing down a bit by a quick check/skid at speed.  No reason you can't go from a pure carve to a controlled 'slarve' or directed skid... not at all. You could also do a quick, aggressive, pivot slip.One could easily enough turn this into a hockey stop. Edge and pressure control are common elements to all 'better' skiing. If one can't do this, then they aren't skiing in that 'better' range, hence, the walk out onto the proverbial, "you need lessons" limb. 

Well I mean skidding possesses a "higher" risk when compare with a "lower" risk carving. Just like riding a motorcycle. Slamming the front brake at speed will not necessarily throw you over the handle bar, and a good rider should not have himself thrown over the handle bar by doing that, but that does not mean slamming the front brake possesses the same amount of risk as gradually letting go of the throttle and apply brakes smoothly. The risk difference will always be there no matter how skillful he or she is. The only point that I tried to convey in the paragraph that you quoted me is just why skid when you can carve. Saves energy, less fatigue, less chance of hurting oneself. 120kph is just an example, maybe a poor one for you in that case. Please do not nit-pick my point. 

post #170 of 178
When you toss out a number, it's fair game to use it to make a point, just as you did to make yours. Gradual release of pressure, sudden'ish... Doesn't matter much. It's well within the skills of 'good' skiing, I'd also argue that it's physically easier to do open parallel turns all day as opposed to pure carves so long as one is in balance, stacked, and skiing skeletally, etc... Of course this makes carving easier as well.... But whatever. It's not that important in the big picture of life, and carving feels better anyhow.
post #171 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

When you toss out a number, it's fair game to use it to make a point, just as you did to make yours. Gradual release of pressure, sudden'ish... Doesn't matter much. It's well within the skills of 'good' skiing, I'd also argue that it's physically easier to do open parallel turns all day as opposed to pure carves so long as one is in balance, stacked, and skiing skeletally, etc... Of course this makes carving easier as well.... But whatever. It's not that important in the big picture of life, and carving feels better anyhow.


As with most things "it depends"

 

I think we can all think of cases where skidding results in very predictable forces, and others where the results are unpredictable and sometimes hazardous. Your example of a racer stivoting falls into the "predictable" category. Race courses are hard and smooth for a reason, and racers don't generally get thrown around while skidding unless they do something unambiguously wrong (like running straight at the gate and then trying to control speed while going inside-out through a nasty rut).

 

Attempting to "slarve" or otherwise chucking your skis sideways at high speed on breakable crust will lead to a rather more unpredictable and exciting experience.

 

LaserPower's point is therefore valid - You want to keep the ski tracking cleanly to the maximum amount possible because that's where you get the most predictable response across the full range of possible snow conditions.

post #172 of 178
Give good skiers some credit, eh? No one is saying to 'slarve' in breakable crust nor is a reasonable experienced 'good' skier (think level 7-9) going to try. Now go carving those railroad tracks in a tight 45 degree chute... That ain't happening either. If you're looking for exceptions to make a point, that's fine. They'll always be there. My all mountain kids are always taught how and in what conditions lowering edge angles is an approporiate tactic for speed/line control.... right after turn shape. If you're talking about skis 'tracking' tip to tail, sure, but I think the discussion was about carving. I 'chuck' my skis sideways to scrub speed when coming to converging trails, slow areas, etc.... Every day I'm on the hill. It's not hard, nor is it any more dangerous than railroad tracking groomed piste.
post #173 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

Give good skiers some credit, eh?

 

Well, at least I didn't tell you to take several lessons...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

Give good skiers some credit, eh? No one is saying to 'slarve' in breakable crust nor is a reasonable experienced 'good' skier (think level 7-9) going to try. Now go carving those railroad tracks in a tight 45 degree chute... That ain't happening either. If you're looking for exceptions to make a point, that's fine. They'll always be there. My all mountain kids are always taught how and in what conditions lowering edge angles is an approporiate tactic for speed/line control.... right after turn shape. If you're talking about skis 'tracking' tip to tail, sure, but I think the discussion was about carving. I 'chuck' my skis sideways to scrub speed when coming to converging trails, slow areas, etc.... Every day I'm on the hill. It's not hard, nor is it any more dangerous than railroad tracking groomed piste.

 

If you're turning then the only way to have the ski "track tip to tail" is to carve. Any steering or pivoting will cause the tail to follow a different path, not matter how slight. I used the looser wording because it also allows for the case of a flat ski tracking in a straight line, i.e. "figure 11s"

 

EDIT: A small amount of steering can serve to pressure the tip of an angulated, carving ski without breaking it out of its carve, so I guess "no matter how slight" isn't 100% accurate above.

 

I also acknowledged your points about steepness and confined spaces when I said "as much as possible". There's no question that you have to do something else in a tight, 45-degree chute (unless you're willing to accept terminal speed in a straight line. Back when I was young[er] and [still] stupid I had this bright yellow pair of 213 cm Wolf SGs you see...). Do you really teach your all-mountain kids to slarve a la McConkey under those conditions, though? That works OK in deep-ish fresh powder but can be deadly if you have shallowly buried terrain features etc.

post #174 of 178

Look Patrick, I told the poster that not having seen him ski I was going out on a limb. I still believe that a skier has many turning options at their disposal (including lowering edge angles) that can be applied absolutely safely to attain a desired outcome in the appropriate terrain/conditions. He made it seem as if turning a carved arc into a controlled low angled skidded turn was somehow risky. I simply disagreed and said that it's a skill all good skiers have. If they don't, they need it. When I test skis, I do this specifically to see how predictable/versatile a particular ski will behave. For a good ski with a proper tune, it's not an issue. Now you're telling me what we teach our all mountain kids is 'deadly'. We certainly DO NOT go out of our way to put students in undue risk. In our program, we all agree that having bomb proof side slipping skills is absolutely fundamental to travel in steep all mountain terrain. We all agree that turn shape is also critical to speed control. Do you side slip in blower? Of course not. In breakable crust? What do you recon?  We DO talk a lot about aspect, etc... and help students make good choices to avoid bad conditions... like breakable crust. If we chose to do a crust/gnarly crud lesson, we do it in terrain, exposure, and angles with run outs that aren't likely to result in injury. 

 

You're painting the world in absolutes when in fact it's largely grey. We know our hill, it's hazards, etc... most of us have a great deal if not extensive back country experience and years of off piste all mountain skiing under our belts. It's why we're chosen to teach his particular program. 

 

And Patrick, if you did tell me to take several lessons, I would tell you that I take advantage of as much training as I can fit in my schedule at the mountain. This usually means about 2-4 hours per week.


Edited by markojp - 5/9/13 at 2:44pm
post #175 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

Look Patrick, I told the poster that not having seen him ski I was going out on a limb. I still believe that a skier has many turning options at their disposal (including lowering edge angles) that can be applied absolutely safely to attain a desired outcome in the appropriate terrain/conditions. He made it seem as if turning a carved arc into a controlled low angled skidded turn was somehow risky. I simply disagreed and said that it's a skill all good skiers have. If they don't, they need it. Now you're telling me what we teach our all mountain kids is 'deadly'. We certainly DO NOT go out of our way to put students in undue risk. In our program, we all agree that having bomb proof side slipping skills is absolutely fundamental to travel in steep all mountain terrain. We all agree that turn shape is also critical to speed control. Do you side slip in blower? Of course not. In breakable crust? What do you recon?  We DO talk a lot about aspect, etc... and help students make good choices to avoid bad conditions... like breakable crust. If we chose to do a crust/gnarly crud lesson, we do it in terrain, exposure, and angles with run outs that aren't likely to result in injury. 

 

You're painting the world in absolutes when in fact it's largely grey. We know our hill, it's hazards, etc... most of us have a great deal if not extensive back country experience and years of off piste all mountain skiing under our belts. It's why we're chosen to teach his particular program. 

 

And Patrick, if you did tell me to take several lessons, I would tell you that I take advantage of as much training as I can fit in my schedule at the mountain. This usually means about 2-4 hours per week.

 

OK, I hit more of a nerve there than I wanted or intended, so I'll back off. I actually agree with you for the most part. As I said in a previous post in this thread, I think that good skiers must be *able* to carve such that they can get to a stable platform on a clean edge when appropriate and in a wide range of conditions. I don't think that they can do it 100% of the time unless they're willing to stick with wide runs and firm[er] snow. That's the same point you were making above.

 

My question about slarving was actually to make sure we're talking about the same thing and to learn what you teach. My mental image of "slarving" comes mostly from TGR and involves sliding down spines and chutes at 40+ mph in a single sustained skid. Are we talking about the same thing, or are you teaching a more conventional turn-based steep technique?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Patrick

post #176 of 178

Turn based.

post #177 of 178

Carving hard turns is more tiring than not carving, but carving lazy SG or GS turns (SG or GS depending on how steep) is less tiring than making turns without carving them.  The reason is that not carving the turn provides a rougher ride (more vibration) than carving, which is very smooth, and the muscles therefore tire more quickly.

 

As far as what is the safer way to slow down, l'm sure everybody will agree it depends on the situation.  If you are skiing way past the limit of the skis you are demonstrating (or if you find that you have made a grave error in judgement and are going way too fast for your abilities), AND you have the room, then doing your best to "carve" (although at that speed it's not exactly carving as you will be turning much wider than the side cut radius of the ski) a gradual turn until you are pointing uphill and use the hill as a run-away lane like the lanes provided for out of control trucks in the mountains.  If you are just skiing normally the skid-a-bit approach is preferable. 

post #178 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

Turn based.

 

OK. now we're *really* in agreement :-)

 

That's actually why I was careful to say "slarve a la McConkey" instead of just "slarve" when I first asked that question. He coined the term as far as I know and used it to specifically refer to those high-speed straight-line skis that the original Spatulas and Pontoons enabled him to do. Since then everybody else has adopted it to make their own skidding sound more hip, which means that you always have to figure out which version of the word is being used in a conversation, but that's a whole different flamewar.

 

Thanks again,

 

Patrick

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion