or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Do skis steer themselves? - Page 4

Originally Posted by borntoski683

More food for discussion...

Talking about non-arcing, steered turns, tipping and engaging the bent edges while in motion, with weight on it, is what brings two things into play:

1. It causes self-steering effects of the ski to operate on the ski, which rotates it on the snow, creating additional steering angle.
2. The additional steering angle eventually gets to the point that, combined with edge engagement and weight, causes the ski to deflect in a new direction.

So edge the ski, weight it, the ski bends, there is some steering angle mostly on the front half of the ski, the midsection and tail are curved back so that they are more in line with the direction of travel.  This bias of steering angle on the front causes the ski to rotate itself.  When it rotates itself into a bit more steering angle, the mid section then also has steering angle and the entire skier is then redirected into a new direction.  Thus the ski self-steers itself on a curved path by continually rotating itself and redirecting itself.  The redirection itself also reduces the steering angle because the ski is being redirected to move more in the direction it is pointing.  However the ski is also continually creating more steering angle by rotating itself.  If the rotation can keep up with the redirection, a sustained, round turn shape can be steered.

Some more interesting things to think about....   If the steering angle is increased even more, what do you think happens?  I mean if a little steering angle causes the ski to rotate into more steering angle, and more steering angle causes the ski to create sharper turn shape, then what happens if we somehow get even more steering angle?

Interestingly, creating even more steering angle has a self-straightening effect on the ski.  When the steering angle increases to the point that the tail also has some steering angle, then the self-steering rotation diminishes, but the forces to redirect the skier on a new direction, increase.  In other words, the turn shape is made even sharper suddenly (not round), but the ski does not rotate itself even more to keep up, it straightens itself into less steering angle, the ski seeks to move in the direction it is pointing faster then any self-rotating effects the ski can do.   Thus, turn roundness is lost.

In fact with the tail in steering angle also, the self-rotating is diminished quite a lot.   Yet redirection is increased.  The skis will then seek a straighter line and lose steering angle.  This type of move cannot be sustained on a round, steered turn.

For example, if you are making Z shaped turns, there is a large pivot entry, which creates large steering angle.  The skis are eventually edged and the direction of motion changes suddenly towards the direction they are pointing, reducing the steering angle in the process.  In this method, the self-steering can not really be maintained, certainly at the large steering angle that was created with the pivot.  The pivot sets up a one-time redirection of the skier, but the large steering angle does not cause the skis to rotate themselves further to sustain this larger steering angle and turn shape.

So truthfully, for sustained, round turn shape, steering; there is a sweet spot area of steering angle where the self-steering properties of the skis cause it to rotate and generate new steering angle at the same rate it is changing direction.  This sweet spot is surprisingly not that far away from arcing..in other words, not a whole lot of steering angle.  Go past that sweet spot and the skis will either wash out if too flat, or seek a straighter line to lose steering angle if they are edged and engaged enough with weight.   The wash out means turn shape is widened.  Hard edge set means turn shape is less round.

If you want smooth round, steered turns, the best way is to achieve the sweet spot of steering angle and increase edge angle if you want to tighten the turn.

But why should we care about making round turn shapes?

..... more????

Edited by LiquidFeet - 11/3/13 at 5:06am

Well. This raises a few interesting questions here (well, interesting to me).

Clearly active rotary is generally going to be detrimental if one is to harness the benefits of the skis design. Twist 'em to a large steering angle and what happens? Well, nothing much really...we are at the mercy of the fall line and how we have positioned ourselves sagitally. Except for that whole stivot/redirect thing of course   But for the most part passive rotary seems to be the key here in the context of this thread. We want the skis rotating our femurs not the other way around.

Speaking of fore and aft---LF, you started that other thread about the 2 footed pullback/push forward. Now what would be the point of that, if one were indeed to do that? To manage our fore/aft balancing of course. To leverage the tip and the tail, which in turn as we have seen in this thread, can affect to a large degree the self steering properties of the ski. Sure we have to tip 'em, but does it not also benefit us to "add a little"? To pullback as we are toppling? Maybe so, and I have used this on occasion, but now I've begun to think.......

IF I incline deeply into the new turn and as a result I generate very large angles, and if these large angles cause the ski to come around sharply and quickly towards the next Bos/CM intersection, doesn't this in fact immediately (well, you know what I mean) position me on the front of the ski (assuming I don't have undue tip lead as per our previous discussion) as they will arc sharply in "front" of me? By the same token, as I come out of the apex, since my skis and body are intersecting at a greater angle, does this not reduce self steering just as quickly?

Basically what I'm getting at is this: We have already discussed that tipping is king over twisting here...isn't tipping also king over fore/aft since said fore/aft can be generated VIA sufficient inclining?

zenny

Last season I was playing with what I did with my feet after releasing, up there at the top of the turn.  I'm talking about before skis turned down the fall line.  I was playing around with how much I'd push both feet forward; if I pushed them forward dramatically, they'd go waay out before turning back.   This seemed like a way to add time and distance to the skis' line above the fall line.  Since it extended the turn above the fall line, it slowed me down.  I couldn't check my tracks, wasn't interested in climbing back up that far to see them.  So I'm speculating based on feel as I say that most likely this tactic got me some very round turns.  Seemed like a trick to me, cosmetic in nature.  I have no idea if others do this.

So how does this fit into what you're thinking?

Well, I'm just kind of chewin' on this right now in my mind's eye but I'm thinking more of a flex to release (but it needn't be) and lte tip with little or no 2 footed pullback, toppling high in the c with inclined with little or no angulating (so that I don't move back into balance too soon), and then progressively (which in real time would be quickly) adding angulation once high angles had been established. But mainly focusing on tipping over moving to the fore ie, moving out of, and then into balance..

But again, I'm ruminating...

zenny

Exactly that, along with some foot pushing after the release.

Flex, drop in inclined, push feet forward,

angulate as they come around while pulling feet back, repeat.

I'm ruminatin too.  Nothin better to do.

Walked part way up the hill today. The moss was spongy.

Well, I don't want to say too much at this point but I will say that properly timed releases and sufficient inclining may super cede fore/aft concerns--assuming one isn't excessively aft or fore at initiation. As we have discussed in the past (we being Jamt, Skidude, and others) too much fore high up can lead to a pushback later on....

But now maybe we should stop as we are getting more into specific technique?? IDK.....

zenny

Quote:
Originally Posted by zentune

Clearly active rotary is generally going to be detrimental if one is to harness the benefits of the skis design. Twist 'em to a large steering angle and what happens? Well, nothing much really...we are at the mercy of the fall line and how we have positioned ourselves sagitally. Except for that whole stivot/redirect thing of course   But for the most part passive rotary seems to be the key here in the context of this thread. We want the skis rotating our femurs not the other way around.

Well its not quite that cut and dry.   I say that femur activity is pretty much aways active.  However, rotating the skis on the snow may be passive.

Some thoughts....

If you maintain your pelvis square to your skis while making a smooth, round, steered turn...then are the femurs turning in the hip socket at all?   They are for the purposes of tipping, which is very much active....but unless we are skiing into counter then not.

The skis can and do rotate on the snow without the femurs rotating in the hip socket!!   And the femurs can rotate in the hip socket without the skis rotating on the snow (as during tipping).

Secondly, hypothetically If you think about what would happen while skiing into counter with the kind of passive femur rotary you are describing, the self steering properties of the skis would have to rotate not only the skis, but also the boots, the leg up to the femur that is attached to it also.  That would take a good deal more torque to do so. On the other hand, you could actively turn your femurs JUST ENOUGH to match the rotation induced by the self steering so that the skis don't have any other resistance from rotating themselves.  Not so much femur rotation to actually twist the skis on the snow, just enough so that the skis don't have to actually turn your femurs.  just enough.   The ski rotation on the snow would be passive.

Further you could even apply just a smidgeon more than that which would apply just a bit of rotational pressure in the direction you want the skis to self rotate themselves.  Not enough to actually pivot the skis, just enough that it will assist the self steering effect and optimize it.  Both of those things are very much active...without actually twisting the skis on the snow.  Also, applying this pressure provides something to push against for turning the upper body outwards for creating counter by using upper body muscles, rather then trying to twist the legs into it.  All of that is pretty darn active.

But what is passive is the rotation of the skis on the snow.

Unless of course you want a bigger pivot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

Quote:
Originally Posted by zentune

Clearly active rotary is generally going to be detrimental if one is to harness the benefits of the skis design. Twist 'em to a large steering angle and what happens? Well, nothing much really...we are at the mercy of the fall line and how we have positioned ourselves sagitally. Except for that whole stivot/redirect thing of course   But for the most part passive rotary seems to be the key here in the context of this thread. We want the skis rotating our femurs not the other way around.

Well its not quite that cut and dry.   I say that femur activity is pretty much aways active.  However, rotating the skis on the snow may be passive.

Some thoughts....

If you maintain your pelvis square to your skis while making a smooth, round, steered turn...then are the femurs turning in the hip socket at all?   They are for the purposes of tipping, which is very much active....but unless we are skiing into counter then not.

The skis can and do rotate on the snow without the femurs rotating in the hip socket!!   And the femurs can rotate in the hip socket without the skis rotating on the snow (as during tipping).

Secondly, hypothetically If you think about what would happen while skiing into counter with the kind of passive femur rotary you are describing, the self steering properties of the skis would have to rotate not only the skis, but also the boots, the leg up to the femur that is attached to it also.  That would take a good deal more torque to do so. On the other hand, you could actively turn your femurs JUST ENOUGH to match the rotation induced by the self steering so that the skis don't have any other resistance from rotating themselves.  Not so much femur rotation to actually twist the skis on the snow, just enough so that the skis don't have to actually turn your femurs.  just enough.   The ski rotation on the snow would be passive.

Further you could even apply just a smidgeon more than that which would apply just a bit of rotational pressure in the direction you want the skis to self rotate themselves.  Not enough to actually pivot the skis, just enough that it will assist the self steering effect and optimize it.  Both of those things are very much active...without actually twisting the skis on the snow.  Also, applying this pressure provides something to push against for turning the upper body outwards for creating counter by using upper body muscles, rather then trying to twist the legs into it.  All of that is pretty darn active.

But what is passive is the rotation of the skis on the snow.

Unless of course you want a bigger pivot.

Nicely put.  The only variable in question is how much of the skis resistance to the self-steering you want to take over from the snow.  If your knees are like mine, the answer is usually none, especially if your skis are long and heavy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by borntoski683
....

If you maintain your pelvis square to your skis while making a smooth, round, steered turn...then are the femurs turning in the hip socket at all?   They are for the purposes of tipping, which is very much active....but unless we are skiing into counter then not.

The skis can and do rotate on the snow without the femurs rotating in the hip socket!!   And the femurs can rotate in the hip socket without the skis rotating on the snow (as during tipping).

....

It's good to see this put so succinctly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

Well its not quite that cut and dry.   I say that femur activity is pretty much aways active.  However, rotating the skis on the snow may be passive.

Well, I guess you've got me there BTS. The point I was trying to make was that we didn't want to twist the skis in order to turn them but I failed to take this into account.

zenny

Some more thoughts along that line, what kind of counterproductive things happen when trying to actively twist the ski on the snow?

Well counter productive in terms of steering. If you actually want a larger disengaged pivot then it's not counter productive, and sometimes we do want that. For example, your skis leave the snow after cresting a mogul and you need to do a so called air carve. You better be ready to actively twist the skis in the air. We have seen many videos of racers using pivot entries at times, perhaps used too much at times but nonetheless there is a time and place for large active pivots.

But how do those negatively effect the skis self steering effects? For one thing, skis have to largely be disengaged in order to actively pivot them. Self-steering = zero when disengaged. We don't need the skis to pivot themselves if we are actively twisting them, but what about turn shape? If the skis are disengaged we lose turn shape. If they are even flattened we lose turn shape. We will go in a straighter line until we engage and edge and create those forces of redirection under our feet.

Active pivoting is diametrically opposite of creating turn shape, even though it can create steering angle, the steering angle is useless on flattened or disengaged skis.

And realistically you can do a pivot entry once per turn. After that the skis have to be edged if you want to actually have a turn, and once you are into the edge angles, further active pivoting is really not much of a possibility.

On edged skis you can embrace self steering effects to get smaller amounts of pivoting, you can play with fore-aft balance as you guys have begun to discuss, which can influence the self steering outcome. You can do a heel push also if you must, but actively twisting skis into a pivot at that point is largely futile unless you keep the skis flat, which loses turn shape.

But the question is, why do we care about turn shape? Why not just pivot hard and set the edges hard? What does a round turn shape give us? If we are in difficult terrain, steep terrain, do we want to do big pivots to get the skis back across the fall line sooner? Why would we want to wait for a round turn shape to get us there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

But the question is, why do we care about turn shape? Why not just pivot hard and set the edges hard? What does a round turn shape give us? If we are in difficult terrain, steep terrain, do we want to do big pivots to get the skis back across the fall line sooner? Why would we want to wait for a round turn shape to get us there?

If we choose to use the length of the ski we will benefit from the stability it affords us (helping us to absorb terrain features) and we will be in better control of our tactical "destiny" among other things (line, intent, etc). That's not to say that actively twisting doesn't have it's place (what if we simply don't have much room to work with??)...

It also seems that the crossing of paths is more easily facilitated via roundness.

zenny

Fundamentally, control comes from engaging the edges.  If you disengage to pivot, then you give up control until re-engagement.  Folks that pivot a lot to get the skis turned back across the fall line, give up the opportunity to use their edges during high-C for speed control.  When they finally do engage their edges during low-C they have to do so more harshly and with more force.  On steeper terrain that part of the turn is even more harsh to set the edges hard in low-C.   Using pivot and hard edge set will create fast-slow-fast-slow skiing.  Round turn shapes with steering provide smooth speed control where the speed control in the top half of the turn removes the necessity to have to slam on the brakes in the bottom half of the turn.

These are some of the reasons why embracing round, engaged, self-steered turns bring smooth, speed controlled skiing.  This necessitates a focus on tipping to create turn shape, and being very careful with rotary input so as to not lose the self-steering effects, to not lose the edge engagement, etc  from top to bottom of the turn.

The point about not enough room to work with is interesting.  I believe that bigger edge angles and commitment, can get some pretty darn small sized scarvy steered turns with edge engagement top to bottom.  But yes, I agree there are definitely cases where its not possible and a pivot/hard edge set is the only way.  Pivoting is also an important skill, I most definitely do not mean to completely demonize it.  Just saying, use that spice when it makes sense to use it.  Black pepper is great on my eggs, but not on my vanilla ice cream.

Yes, I had less experienced skiers in mind in sort of had a steepish/narrowish chute type of scenario in mind (don't ask me what they are doing there but it happens )---many skiers aren't going to be able/willing to move their CM's inside enough in this type of scenario but of course you are right...speed control via turn shape is certainly a good mantra to live by and is critical for advancement

Those less experienced will seek speed control via braking movements low c--those more experienced will seek it via early tipping at transition...

And certainly I prefer cayanne on my tacos!!!

zenny

Edited by zentune - 11/3/13 at 11:58am

Quote:

...Round turn shapes with steering provide smooth speed control where the speed control in the top half of the turn removes the necessity to have to slam on the brakes in the bottom half of the turn.

These are some of the reasons why embracing round, engaged, self-steered turns bring smooth, speed controlled skiing.  This necessitates a focus on tipping to create turn shape, and being very careful with rotary input so as to not lose the self-steering effects, to not lose the edge engagement, etc  from top to bottom of the turn.

Just wanted to point out that you can have "round" turns without being edge-locked in a carve the whole time -- or ever.  You can make nice round wedge christies, for instance, with consistent speed throughout the turn, even though you're constantly 'pivoting' or 'smearing' the skis.  You do still need to engage the skis (or at least the outside ski) before the fall line, though!  If you use a stem entry or just skid on flat skis and push the skis to the outside you won't get much speed control in the first half of the turn, and then you have the same problem of either picking up speed or having to 'slam on the brakes' with defensive movements to slow down at the bottom of the turn.

There is no "high c" carving in these wcup turns. He gets on his edges just above fall line or at fall line through what are essentially air pivots, or turning the skis while unweighted at transition.

The skis are not steering themselves initially.

Soelden 2013 gs Aksel Lund Svindal

http://youtu.be/yAjpJNTKVhE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias99

Just wanted to point out that you can have "round" turns without being edge-locked in a carve the whole time -- or ever.  You can make nice round wedge christies, for instance, with consistent speed throughout the turn, even though you're constantly 'pivoting' or 'smearing' the skis.  You do still need to engage the skis (or at least the outside ski) before the fall line, though!  If you use a stem entry or just skid on flat skis and push the skis to the outside you won't get much speed control in the first half of the turn, and then you have the same problem of either picking up speed or having to 'slam on the brakes' with defensive movements to slow down at the bottom of the turn.

Mathias, all of my comments on this thread, and indeed the entire purpose of the thread is to discuss non edge locked carves.

Speed control in the top half of the turn is the secret to ultra smooth high end skiing. Speed control comes from edge engagement. If you flatten to pivot, you give up speed control. Edge engagement does not have to mean edge locked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

There is no "high c" carving in these wcup turns. He gets on his edges just above fall line or at fall line through what are essentially air pivots, or turning the skis while unweighted at transition.
The skis are not steering themselves initially.

Soelden 2013 gs Aksel Lund Svindal

Definitely there is no high c speed control here. He is skipping high c. Its not smooth either, his edge sets are athletically difficult. There is no possibility for steering of any kind during the disengaged high c. Only pivoting, which is not steering as there is no turn shape yet. There is no turn shape here until the skier starts the turns in the fall line.

There is nothing smooth or more controlled about this and the tactics for racing don't necessarily demand smoothness. If the skier were scarving high c they would be smoother and more constantly in control, but possibly too slow to win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

Mathias, all of my comments on this thread, and indeed the entire purpose of the thread is to discuss non edge locked carves.

Speed control in the top half of the turn is the secret to ultra smooth high end skiing. Speed control comes from edge engagement. If you flatten to pivot, you give up speed control. Edge engagement does not have to mean edge locked.

It just started to sound you like you were contrasting 'pivot and hard edge set' with 'round turns'.  I agree that "round" turns shouldn't have a hard edge set at the end, but you can make turns that I would describe as "round" while doing an awful lot of pivoting.

I would say you can 'flatten' (ie, reduce edge angle) and 'pivot' a ski without completely disengaging the edge or losing speed control.  If you follow the same line, 'brushing' the turn will actually slow you down more than carving because you get more resistance from the snow.  Of course, you may not be able to follow the same line...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias99

It just started to sound you like you were contrasting 'pivot and hard edge set' with 'round turns'.  I agree that "round" turns shouldn't have a hard edge set at the end, but you can make turns that I would describe as "round" while doing an awful lot of pivoting.

I would say you can 'flatten' (ie, reduce edge angle) and 'pivot' a ski without completely disengaging the edge or losing speed control.  If you follow the same line, 'brushing' the turn will actually slow you down more than carving because you get more resistance from the snow.  Of course, you may not be able to follow the same line...

Yes I am definitely contrasting pivoting with round turn shapes!!! Active pivoting and steering are diametrically opposed. In order to steer a turn shape you need more edge angle. In order to slow down you need more edge angle. But in order to pivot you need flatter ski. Actively pivoting results in LESS steering for as long as you continue trying to pivot.

None of what I am saying is meant to imply edge lock. For steering purposes, our skis will self pivot all that is needed and more active pivoting will destroy steering due to edge disengagement. That is EXACTLY the point.

As the race video above shows, pivoting is sometimes needed, but results in delayed steering. Yes it's possible to pivot a tiny bit on fairly flat skis that have a small amount of edging, and have small amounts of steering but the flattened skis are drastically widening the turn shape. When you finally stop pivoting and edge the skis you will finally get some steered turn shape.

And yes a flatter ski means less speed control. Think about side slips. What makes you slow down, flatter or edgier?
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

Definitely there is no high c speed control here. He is skipping high c. Its not smooth either, his edge sets are athletically difficult. There is no possibility for steering of any kind during the disengaged high c. Only pivoting, which is not steering as there is no turn shape yet. There is no turn shape here until the skier starts the turns in the fall line.

There is nothing smooth or more controlled about this and the tactics for racing don't necessarily demand smoothness. If the skier were scarving high c they would be smoother and more constantly in control, but possibly too slow to win.

Skis on edge at the top of the turn, aka high C carving, result in a faster speed, not slower. There is no "speed control" at the top of the turn when skis are on edge- carving. Why? They are starting to go into the fall line, aka heading downhill, so they are accelerating not slowing down. Yes, a skidding ski will allow some speed control, but at the top of the turn - high C, there is almost no pressure on the skis thus little speed control.

In these turns in the wcup gs video they are on a 34.5m radius sidecut and cannot carve the whole turn. There are many, many parallels to rec skiing. You cannot carve the whole turn in a limited width steep slope.

Yes, sometimes the stivot is used to both reduce speed for the turn and shorten the line. Bode pioneered stivoting on one turn direction and carving the other because he could not carve both and make the turn- too much speed. He used massive base bevels on one side and much smaller on the other.

Quote:
For steering purposes, our skis will self pivot all that is needed and more active pivoting will destroy steering due to edge disengagement. That is EXACTLY the point.

Active steering is not necessarily pivoting. Active steering does not "destroy steering", it is steering. Clearly there's some skidding involved.

If you really want "speed control", then ski on opposing edges. Aka "a wedge". Clearly that is not desirable. We are back to speed control via line, not braking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

Definitely there is no high c speed control here. He is skipping high c. Its not smooth either, his edge sets are athletically difficult. There is no possibility for steering of any kind during the disengaged high c. Only pivoting, which is not steering as there is no turn shape yet. There is no turn shape here until the skier starts the turns in the fall line.

There is nothing smooth or more controlled about this and the tactics for racing don't necessarily demand smoothness. If the skier were scarving high c they would be smoother and more constantly in control, but possibly too slow to win.

Skis on edge at the top of the turn, aka high C carving, result in a faster speed, not slower. There is no "speed control" at the top of the turn when skis are on edge- carving. Why? They are starting to go into the fall line, aka heading downhill, so they are accelerating not slowing down. Yes, a skidding ski will allow some speed control, but at the top of the turn - high C, there is almost no pressure on the skis thus little speed control.

In these turns in the wcup gs video they are on a 34.5m radius sidecut and cannot carve the whole turn. There are many, many parallels to rec skiing. You cannot carve the whole turn in a limited width steep slope.

Yes, sometimes the stivot is used to both reduce speed for the turn and shorten the line. Bode pioneered stivoting on one turn direction and carving the other because he could not carve both and make the turn- too much speed. He used massive base bevels on one side and much smaller on the other.

Quote:
For steering purposes, our skis will self pivot all that is needed and more active pivoting will destroy steering due to edge disengagement. That is EXACTLY the point.

Active steering is not necessarily pivoting. Active steering does not "destroy steering", it is steering. Clearly there's some skidding involved.

If you really want "speed control", then ski on opposing edges. Aka "a wedge". Clearly that is not desirable. We are back to speed control via line, not braking.

Some confusing on the word "carving"; you seem to be using carving to be equivalant to pure-arc-carving, in which case doing so at the top of the turn will indeed not control speed, but if you interpret the word to mean using the edges without pivoting, but not necessarily edge-locked carving, then speed control is achieved.

Tog you are hitting on a very important point here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tog

They are starting to go into the fall line, aka heading downhill, so they are accelerating not slowing down.

This is precisely why edge engagement during high-C is so critical if speed control and smoothness is your goal.   If you don't do it, you will accelerate.  Engaging your edges with skidding or brushing will absolutely restrain some of that acceleration.  If you pivot, you are disengaged and gravity is pulling you unrestrained until you get your skis to the fall line or past and finally set the edges.  Making pivots for high-C basically hucks your tails into the abyss and delays speed control until later.  Engaging your edges enables you to restrain some of the acceleration, which makes lower-C easier since you don't accelerate so much going into the fall line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

Skis on edge at the top of the turn, aka high C carving, result in a faster speed, not slower. There is no "speed control" at the top of the turn when skis are on edge- carving.

.

.

Yes, a skidding ski will allow some speed control

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

Some confusing on the word "carving"; you seem to be using carving to be equivalant to pure-arc-carving, in which case doing so at the top of the turn will indeed not control speed, but if you interpret the word to mean using the edges without pivoting, but not necessarily edge-locked carving, then speed control is achieved.

Yep as Ghost already responded.  I put an 's' in front of the word "carve" for a reason.  If there is brushing or skidding, i.e. non edge locked carve, then there is speed reduction.  And I submit to you that bigger edge angles are more effective for this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

high C, there is almost no pressure on the skis thus little speed control.

There can be!  If you don't develop pressure there you aren't going to be able to carve a turn either!  Developing pressure in high-C is  expert skiing, don't get me wrong.  But if you can develop enough pressure to bend the ski and carve it, then you can develop enough pressure to scarve it, brush it, skid it, whatever you want to call it.

Now...if you try to do that with a flat ski, its gonna be hard.  A flat ski can't create the pressure you need, its just gonna fan out.  If you are accustomed to being flat during high-C so that you can do a lot of pivoting there, then naturally you would not experience high-c pressure and engagement and speed control.  You would just experience a washed out pivot and basically a nonexistent high-C.

This is a very high end skill, particularly on steeper terrain

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

In these turns in the wcup gs video they are on a 34.5m radius sidecut and cannot carve the whole turn. There are many, many parallels to rec skiing. You cannot carve the whole turn in a limited width steep slope.

Yes, sometimes the stivot is used to both reduce speed for the turn and shorten the line. Bode pioneered stivoting on one turn direction and carving the other because he could not carve both and make the turn- too much speed. He used massive base bevels on one side and much smaller on the other.

A couple things.  For one thing, Ted Ligety is showing everyone how to carve high-C on the long boards.  You're right a lot of guys can't.  Yet.  I feel that a lot of them have been pointed in the wrong direction for a while and didn't believe it was possible, but Ted is raising the bar.

Sometimes the gates are set in such a way that a strategic stivot or pivot entry of some kind is needed, even for Ted.  Ok fine.  But right now Ted is putting everyone else to shame by carving through high-C stuff that nobody else seems to be able to on the long boards.  So yes its possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

You cannot carve the whole turn in a limited width steep slope.

How narrow are you talking?   If you read all my posts on this thread then you know that I also endorse pivot entries for when it makes sense.  But I think a lot of people under estimate what is possible to do, even on very steep and very narrow, its possible to scarve high-C.  Sometimes you can do a small pivot entry to narrow it up a bit, but its not necessary to give away the entire high-C.   You don't have to pivot all the way to the fall line.  You can pivot just a bit to narrow up the width you need, while still getting as much edge engagement as possible for at least part of high-C; and speed control skiing into the fall line.

In fact the more of high-C that you give away, the less control you have and the faster you'll be going during low-C.

Scarving tight turns top to bottom requires big edge angles in a short amount of time, and very expert skills to get it.  Just sayin'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

Active steering is not necessarily pivoting. Active steering does not "destroy steering", it is steering. Clearly there's some skidding involved.

This sentence doesn't make sense so I can't respond.

Quote:

Originally Posted by borntoski683

A couple things.  For one thing, Ted Ligety is showing everyone how to carve high-C on the long boards.  You're right a lot of guys can't.  Yet.  I feel that a lot of them have been pointed in the wrong direction for a while and didn't believe it was possible, but Ted is raising the bar.

Sometimes the gates are set in such a way that a strategic stivot or pivot entry of some kind is needed, even for Ted.  Ok fine.  But right now Ted is putting everyone else to shame by carving through high-C stuff that nobody else seems to be able to on the long boards.  So yes its possible.

In fact the more of high-C that you give away, the less control you have and the faster you'll be going during low-C.

Scarving tight turns top to bottom requires big edge angles in a short amount of time, and very expert skills to get it.  Just sayin'

You're throwing around this idea of carving the high C in places it just doesn't happen.

Please identify in the following videos from Soelden, Austria 2013 GS where Ted is carving "high C" or the top of the turn.

Perhaps you define "high C" differently, but to me it means literally the top of the turn or the top of the letter 'C'. In all these turns, Mr. Ted is carving well below the top of the turn. He is not carving the top at all. Very similar to Svindal. It is not drastically different, just better.

Carving at the top of the turn at these speeds means you will be "upside down". That is, your feet are up the hill and your head below them. This never happens in any of these turns. The turns just aren't set up for "high C" carving.

If you stretched these turns way out, say double the offset and increased the vertical, they would get upside down and carve the top. That's not the case here.

Run 2 starts here at roughly 0:30 on the video:

http://youtu.be/xxkv55DG15E

Slow motion of some of the course. I might give you the turn at 9 seconds. Most of the top of the turns are chopped off:

http://youtu.be/Mswj24rZcDw

Tog, you may find this interview interesting:

http://universalsports.com/video/universal-sports-reviews-skiing-with-ron-lemaster/

cheers

Yes interesting. (Btw, there's your upside down high c turn.) They really should show the turn before also to show LM's point that Hirscher comes out too low. It's pretty much a done deal right there. Ligety is set up to just carve because he's on the line he needs to be. Hirscher isn't, so he looses some time setting his edge. So of course Ligety is faster because he's in a position to set his ski carving early. Everyone knows setting a ski down and having it carve as soon as possible with as little bounce as possible is faster. No mystery there. They act like only Ted knows that. They all know it, but he consistently puts himself in positions to accomplish it, and doesn't blow a turn so badly he looses time. Only takes one mistake to blow the race.

I think he's on to something with the Super G comment, and Ligety doing well in that and transfering it to gs.  Super G radius is 45m.

He's locked in right now in GS, always ahead of the skis. He really seems to love leaping downhill. In fact he frequently moves inside too quickly and ends up on the inside ski.

So, the description of "setting the ski on edge and letting it go" is the result of what he's doing right.(Of course he has to be able to do it, but they all can). What sets  that up is probably a combination of everything he does. The conditioning, balance training, movement practice,his vision, relentless testing of skis going to the new sidecuts. All that with tactics, really enjoying it, and being consistent turn after turn and not loosing focus during the race. Maybe his body type is also just better suited to GS than Hirscher also. Who knows, but if you blow other elements it's not a factor.

Interesting thread. Been away for  a while.

A few points, perhaps it has been covered but anyway.

When the skis are flat it takes very little force to get them self-steering. For example, if you go slow straight forward with flat skis and then pull back and tip the inside ski the only significant lateral force will be way in front and thus the skis will start to rotate. You don't even need sidecut but of course the effect is larger with more sidecut. When you want to reduce this self steering you simple increase the edge angle of the outside ski. I guess this is similar to Zenny's foot-shuffling example.

This is just one simple example but in general you can accomplish a lot with independent edge and fore-aft control.

I don't like the term foot steering, because twisting the feet in a certain direction tips the skis in the opposite direction. Most of the time this is not what you want.

LF, your examples of twisting on the heels on the ground is not relevant because it requires fore-aft friction, which you don't have a lot of on snow.

Regarding the speed control in the high-C. Off course you can have more speed control if you don't carve here, however, if you want to carve the high-C is vital for speed control. If you don't engage in the high C you will spend a lot of time in the fall line and the speed will build up. If you engage in the high-C you will turn a lot by the time you reach the fall line and will thus not spend as much time there, and the speed will not increase as much.

Welcome back Jamt! Great point about starting above the fall line to keep the time spent in the fall line brief.

Tog, you have brought up the idea that the fact that skis can self-steer doesn't totally obviate the need for pivoting due to tactical concerns. Sure, in racing (and freeskiing) there will situations where we have gone off line and/or are simply going too fast for our next turn and a redirect will be required. But I think the point of this thread is that with the proper amount of tipping, and the proper amount of fore/aft balancing the skis will do the steering on their own, (all other things being equal) and therefore technically don't need to be twisted--even though sometimes we may need to twist them.

zenny

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt

If you don't engage in the high C you will spend a lot of time in the fall line and the speed will build up. If you engage in the high-C you will turn a lot by the time you reach the fall line and will thus not spend as much time there, and the speed will not increase as much.

Jamt thanks for chiming in and welcome back to town.  This is another great point about minimizing time in the fall line.  That is, I suspect a big reason why most recreational skiers do not pivot their skis to the fall line like racers, but usually pivot well past the fall line,  losing even more precious edge engagement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zentune

Tog, you have brought up the idea that the fact that skis can self-steer doesn't totally obviate the need for pivoting due to tactical concerns. Sure, in racing (and freeskiing) there will situations where we have gone off line and/or are simply going too fast for our next turn and a redirect will be required. But I think the point of this thread is that with the proper amount of tipping, and the proper amount of fore/aft balancing the skis will do the steering on their own, (all other things being equal) and therefore technically don't need to be twisted--even though sometimes we may need to twist them.

Exactly!  Pivoting for tactical reasons is absolutely part of every day skiing.  But its often over used when it doesn't need to be.  Its a brute force method of getting the skis to point the other way across the hill rather than using the skis like a tool that can turn themselves.  This brute force method also disengages the edges, thus forsaking control in the process.  So there is tremendous value in trying to avoid resorting to pivoting whenever possible and use it only on an as-need basis.

The unfortunate thing is that the instant you start to actively twist the skis to muscle a larger pivot, then in addition to disengaging your edges, you compromise the self-steering effects built into the skis.   In other words, pivot more and you turn less.  The more you pivot, the more you're giving up on a nice controlled smooth turn and committing yourself to some kind of big edge check in order to change the direction you're sliding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

Yes interesting. (Btw, there's your upside down high c turn.) They really should show the turn before also to show LM's point that Hirscher comes out too low. It's pretty much a done deal right there. Ligety is set up to just carve because he's on the line he needs to be. Hirscher isn't, so he looses some time setting his edge. So of course Ligety is faster because he's in a position to set his ski carving early. Everyone knows setting a ski down and having it carve as soon as possible with as little bounce as possible is faster. No mystery there.

Definitely no mystery there.  I suspect that Ted is getting a higher line coming under that gate because he started the previous turn higher also.  But yes agree, the line is a huge part of success there.  I also happen to think that Ted has figured out how to pressure and bend these new longer skis early enough to get high-C carving and so he is committing to high-C carving while the others are still trying to figure that out.  You might want to check out the Ted Ligety thread we had a few weeks back, maybe you can add some thoughts too.

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