or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Let's talk about over-angulating
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Let's talk about over-angulating - Page 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by skiatansky

Quote:

I am surprised though by the above bolded statement.

One interpretation of LF's statement is that the inside half moves forward as a unit.

That would be exactly what I meant.

There's this drill called "skate-to-shape."  The skier skates downhill, skating the normal way propelling forward off one foot, then the other,

gliding on the landing foot.  The skier pumps the arms as in running, cross-laterally, to aid the forward movement.

The drill requires the skier to slowly morph the skating into skiing on both feet.

Stand below and watch someone do this sometime, as they skate towards you.  You'll see those arms pumping and those legs skating.  Then the morphing happens.  If the skier hangs onto the arm pumping movements into the skiing portion of the drill, you'll see the outside arm and shoulder come around through the turn, following the turning of the outside ski.   The skier will at some point stop doing this, as it's an upper body rotation move and not productive.  There's a change in the arm and shoulder action that needs to happen between skating and skiing.

Skating is like running as far as the upper body is concerned; skiing is not.  Yes, I know I'm oversimplifying, but I am doing that because this part is important to understand in the context of this discussion.

Regarding the base of the ski as a platform, it is NOT true that pressure is always perpendicular to the base of the ski. There is a critical edge angle which has to be obtained to avoid skidding and that is an edge angle where the base of the ski is perpendicular to the resultant force vector, that is the MINIMUM required edge angle. Actually you need to be usually 1 degree beyond that to account for base bevel, but that is not the whole story. If the resultant force vector is lined up down the leg into the center of the foot, then the ski will have a tendency to lever off edge. It's desirable to angulate so that the force vector is directed to the inside edge, not the middle of the ski. That will create slightly more edge angle then the critical edge angle and definitely not perpendicular.

In a ski turn we balance on the inside edge, not the base. Further to that, it's the movements to these edges from one side to the other that is very different from other natural activities like walking. In skiing we don't propel ourselves like walking. We simply move our body into states of balance from the edges on one side to the edges on the other side. This is not a movement found in more natural activities.

Compared to gait, there is some similarities with how the pelvis swings around the axis of the stance hip socket, but a skier has to do this without advancing the free foot, as in walking. Meanwhile the free foot needs to be inverted and tipped aggressively in a way that would cause an ankle sprain while walking or running, generally accompanied also by lateral movement of the knee with femural rotation that is also not present in gait.

The outside stance foot does come close to resembling what happens in gait, everting with extension and stacking on it like we do when walking, but that is presuming you aren't using knee angulation or femur steering, in which case it would also be quite different from walking.

I differ with LF, I think the inside half does advance like in walking, including the arm, but its true we don't swing the arms forward and back like we do when walking.

The timing of everything is also different. As if we are walking and when we lift the free foot up we hold it there in the air for a long time.

Mainly I see the lateral movements into states of balance on opposite edges as unlike anything else humans have done naturally through evolution. It's a learned set of coordinated movements.
That's all nice and what not but what about snow deformation? What about the different contact points due to the shape of the ski? What about torsion of the tip and tail?
If you look at the rail road tracks you notice that more than half of the base is actually in contact with the snow, it's not just the edge.
I don't remember what study it was, but they looked at this very carefully and it's clear that the greater the angle the greater the amount of base running on snow.
Unless it's a WC injected ice course where the snow doesn't really "give"
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

Regarding the base of the ski as a platform, it is NOT true that pressure is always perpendicular to the base of the ski. There is a critical edge angle which has to be obtained to avoid skidding and that is an edge angle where the base of the ski is perpendicular to the resultant force vector, that is the MINIMUM required edge angle. Actually you need to be usually 1 degree beyond that to account for base bevel, but that is not the whole story. If the resultant force vector is lined up down the leg into the center of the foot, then the ski will have a tendency to lever off edge. It's desirable to angulate so that the force vector is directed to the inside edge, not the middle of the ski. That will create slightly more edge angle then the critical edge angle and definitely not perpendicular.

In a ski turn we balance on the inside edge, not the base. Further to that, it's the movements to these edges from one side to the other that is very different from other natural activities like walking. In skiing we don't propel ourselves like walking. We simply move our body into states of balance from the edges on one side to the edges on the other side. This is not a movement found in more natural activities.

Compared to gait, there is some similarities with how the pelvis swings around the axis of the stance hip socket, but a skier has to do this without advancing the free foot, as in walking. Meanwhile the free foot needs to be inverted and tipped aggressively in a way that would cause an ankle sprain while walking or running, generally accompanied also by lateral movement of the knee with femural rotation that is also not present in gait.

The outside stance foot does come close to resembling what happens in gait, everting with extension and stacking on it like we do when walking, but that is presuming you aren't using knee angulation or femur steering, in which case it would also be quite different from walking.

I differ with LF, I think the inside half does advance like in walking, including the arm, but its true we don't swing the arms forward and back like we do when walking.

The timing of everything is also different. As if we are walking and when we lift the free foot up we hold it there in the air for a long time.

Mainly I see the lateral movements into states of balance on opposite edges as unlike anything else humans have done naturally through evolution. It's a learned set of coordinated movements.

The inside half does advance when skiing on a tilted surface, with heels locked down onto the ski.  The arm and the leg and the hip and the shoulder all advance.

This is not like in walking, where the leg and hip on one side advance and the arm and shoulder on the OTHER side advance.

I think we are not in disagreement.

Oops you are correct LF, I had walking backwards hahaha
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp

That's all nice and what not but what about snow deformation? What about the different contact points due to the shape of the ski? What about torsion of the tip and tail?
If you look at the rail road tracks you notice that more than half of the base is actually in contact with the snow, it's not just the edge.
I don't remember what study it was, but they looked at this very carefully and it's clear that the greater the angle the greater the amount of base running on snow.
Unless it's a WC injected ice course where the snow doesn't really "give"

if the snow is that soft, then the same applies.  near the surface the snow would not be as firm as the bottom of the trench where the edge is.  Also, unless the trench were deep enough for more than half the ski, you'd still have the problem of levering.

The analogy to rock climbing is interesting.  Notice how climbers position their hips away from the rock, so that pressure goes against the face of the rock and not all into the bottom of their feet.  Same principle as angulation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by msprace

That is not true.  Balance for athletes is around the Center of gravity, it is in three dimensions, horizontal plane, vertical plane, and depth plane.  (or Frontal, Sagital, Transverse)

The fact that you are turning at high speed, causes a RG effect, this will then move the balance point, this point can even be outside of your physical being when you are making turns.

You are making this more complicated that it needs to be. Simplify to balancing over the BOS, which is typically the skis.

Since you referred to LeMaster with the image you posted I'd like to direct your attention to pages 138-139 of Ultimate Skiing.

Quote:
Marc Girardelli, the only skier to win the overall World Cup five times, and certainly one of the best skiers to ever slide down the hill, has said that once you can balance perfectly on the outside ski, everything else follows.

Quote:
...you turn better when you balance most of your weight on your outside foot.

Quote:
There is also a tactical advantage to balancing predominantly on the outside ski...

KEEP IT SIMPLE!

Edited by skiatansky - 1/24/14 at 8:00pm

LF, here an idea to consider, the legs pivoting in the hip sockets produces the lead we see in the turn. The implication here is the inside half isn't thrust anywhere, it's an incidental outcome of the ILS. Barnes and Joulbert before him describe this quite well. The two bar stool drill in Bob's encyclopedia addresses exactly this misconception of moving the inside half forward. Look under fulcrum turns and Braquage. Of special interest would be his comment about how braquage is different from Vissage, or even what we would see in a javelin turn where the pelvis and torso rotates as a unit on the rotationally stable femoral head. The short version is the pelvis and rest of the torso are rotationally stable and the fulcrum and dual pivot points in the hip sockets allow the feet and thus the skis to change directions without any twisting, or blocking of the upper body. (No blocking pole plant is needed). Any lead thus becomes a function of the difference between where the torso and pelvis are still facing and the new direction the feet and by association the skis are facing. I know the optical illusion suggests otherwise but if you investigate this idea I'm quite sure you will find this explanation quite congruent with both men's writings and PSIA literature on the subject.

Additionally, the idea of angulation includes some unique upper and lower body mechanics that go right along with my assertion that cross lateral activities occur. An opinion promoted by Eric Lipton and Bobby Murphy in clinics they did for our training staff a few years ago. Being on the demo team might not be enough credentials for some but considering you are working your way through their certification process it might be worth considering what I'm writing. The short version is the inside shoulder moves towards the outside foot as the outside foot moves towards the inside shoulder. And the opposite of that would be as the outside leg extends the inside shoulder moving away from that foot produces the stance where the pelvis and shoulders stay parallel to the snow. Being on the East coast it might be worth trying to reach out to Eric and I highly recommend attending one of his many clinics. If you can't do that maybe reviewing Bob's encyclopedia will make this idea clearer.

As far as foot to foot movements and step turns well these very same mechanics I mentioned are very much part of executing those moves. Frame four to five show the cross lateral extension during a step turn and frames seven through ten show the cross lateral flexing I am talking about. So even though some here might suggest ducking the gate is the primary reason for this cross lateral flexing. Lipton suggests it's part of dynamic turns outside the gates as well. I suppose some here might question this but call Eric and I think you will find independent of my writing that this concept is part of PSIA's teachings. I also am confident your area trainers would confirm all of this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet

There's this drill called "skate-to-shape."  The skier skates downhill, skating the normal way propelling forward off one foot, then the other,

gliding on the landing foot.  The skier pumps the arms as in running, cross-laterally, to aid the forward movement.

The drill requires the skier to slowly morph the skating into skiing on both feet.

Stand below and watch someone do this sometime, as they skate towards you.  You'll see those arms pumping and those legs skating.  Then the morphing happens.  If the skier hangs onto the arm pumping movements into the skiing portion of the drill, you'll see the outside arm and shoulder come around through the turn, following the turning of the outside ski.   The skier will at some point stop doing this, as it's an upper body rotation move and not productive.  There's a change in the arm and shoulder action that needs to happen between skating and skiing.

Skating is like running as far as the upper body is concerned; skiing is not.  Yes, I know I'm oversimplifying, but I am doing that because this part is important to understand in the context of this discussion.

While there are obvious differences in skate skiing and parallel skiing I think this comparison is lacking a bit.  I don't  think anyone watching a person skate down a slope and then transition to parallel skiing could disagree that there are some significant movement differences.  That being known I think the oversimplification prevents people, or maybe a better word would be it allows us to not have to look any deeper.  I am intrigued by your stance LF, I feel I should convey I am not trying to argue, but do you not feel the counter rotation that occurs between the upper body and the lower, how somewhere in the middle of the spine there is an opposition in how the two halves move in conjunction with the firing of certain muscle patterns.

The outside leg utilizes extension, to evert the foot, or at least engage those muscles uninterrupted from the inversion group, that is enhanced and made more efficient via the contraction of it's synergy, adductors, hip int rotators, hip extensors.  The extensors fire and that engages the opposite side lat which pulls at the insertion of the opposite side arm. I should add this doesn't mean the other muscles aren't working, but in a well coordinated mover they are not interfering or inhibiting to the same degree.  In the same but opposing pattern the inside leg needs the foot to invert, a component of the flexor synergy, ankle dorsiflex, knee flex, hip flex, hip abduction and external rotation. This engages the abdomen and crosses over the the pectorals of the opposing arm.

The curious part about looking at it in stills is those patterns don't all appear clearly present because its the pelvis that is getting compressed by the ground reaction force, hence the constant attention to hip and pelvic bone disassociation here, if the pelvis is having trouble rotating into the turn, the hips have to in order to keep the skis on track.  I think this is where the waist steering movement came to focus, incorporating the pelvis into that rotation pattern, effectively decreasing the need for so much hip and pelvic disassociation, less hip ROM was needed.  That to me is a movement that actually would require significant development time and is not based on a natural pattern of movement we develop with, like walking.

I will not get into gait mechanics, there are plenty of resources to check out. It is simply a movement pattern we all develop prior to skiing, it is therefore where we will draw from to create the motor engram for skiing, there is no avoiding it. I am shocked somewhat there seems to be such a separation from looking at it as a base for skiing motor control. While skiing generates forces much larger, and that requires more tensile stiffness and heavily biased flexion postures, how we absorb those from our feet to our head looks to me and feels to me very similar.  You don't walk swinging the same side arm and leg forward, it takes more energy(unless your a camel).  While we may need to keep both arms in front of our bodies while skiing to maintain balance we do so with opposing rotations in the arms, the outside arm rotates inward indicative it is under flexion pattern while the outside leg is an extension pattern, the inside arm, although held forward (as balance takes precedence) it will be rotating outward/a part of the extensor pattern as the inside leg is relying heavily on the flexion pattern.  The same side  arm and leg are in opposition, no different than in walking.  Constrain the upper end of these patterns like Mr. Mosely in the training video and it allows for quicker control of the lower end, it takes a lot more energy,but its the only way to move that fast.

Whether it looks like walking is not the question in my mind.  Obviously it's not. If we stop there at the surface though I think there is a loss for how to connect to someone, there are similarities that I hope I conveyed that seem as though they could be relative and a way to branch from someones own inherent patterns to skiing patterns.  I certainly dont' reject that skiing takes a large learning curve.  Just some ideas and feelings in my own skiing I suppose.

Pretty fun stuff to look at.

nice pic JASP. LF, look at the arms, the rotation and the opposing leg.  did I write a thousand words?  the pic says it all.

What would you have people concentrate on in your description? In order to harmonize with gait mechanics.

Back to the feet briefly.

One doesn't necessarily walk on the whole bottom of the foot equally. It's something that varies and also something that can be trained.

In Pilates they call it walking on the inside half - feet straight, weight on a line ball of foot to heel. That's very different from say the young guy I saw out running and his feet hit the ground toed out at a massive angle. Basically he landed on his arch sideways. Very odd.

Anyway, regardless how it's done, it's still the basis of input from the feet - how the base of the foot is tensioned. It is not the side!

As far as BTS's assertion to the contrary of what Ron wrote on pages 19 and 20 and included in figures 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, well I think Ron's got it correct. The platform being perpendicular to the force you apply to that platform has the direct and indisputable consequence of defining the force vector representing the reaction forces coming up from the snow. It's perpendicular to the platform and the platform is the interface between the ski and the snow. Yes if the critical angle is greater than 90 degrees slip occurs and the platform will not support us but I don't quite understand BTS's requirement that an angle less than 90 degrees is needed. If the edge is holding exactly as we want it to what advantage would there be to trying to create an acute platform angle? Is that even possible considering the force vectors and the geometry of how they line up? More angulation would change the platform angle but it would also change the sum force vector of how the forces are being applied and thus where perpendicular to that force vector would be. That doesn't mean the idea of pressure being focused on the boot edge changes the perpendicular relationship of the platform and the direction of the reaction forces. Maybe he means skidding rather than carving being an option means an angle greater than 90 degrees is an option. That is certainly congruent with what Ron wrote. The bevel idea is interesting but even on injected race courses I 've watched WC racers leave some pretty impressive trenches much wider, or perhaps more accurately deeper, than the few mm where the ski edge is beveled.

Edited by justanotherskipro - 1/24/14 at 10:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro

As far as BTS's assertion to the contrary of what Ron wrote on pages 19 and 20 and included in figures 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, well I think Ron's got it correct. The platform being perpendicular to the force you apply to that platform has the direct and indisputable consequence of defining the force vector representing the reaction forces coming up from the snow. It's perpendicular to the platform and the platform is the interface between the ski and the snow. Yes if the critical angle is greater than 90 degrees slip occurs and the platform will not support us but I don't quite understand BTS's requirement that an angle less than 90 degrees is needed. If the edge is holding exactly as we want it to what advantage would there be to trying to create an acute platform angle? Is that even possible considering the force vectors and the geometry of how they line up? More angulation would change the platform angle but it would also change the sum force vector of how the forces are being applied and thus where perpendicular to that force vector would be. That doesn't mean the idea of pressure being focused on the boot edge changes the perpendicular relationship of the platform and the direction of the reaction forces. Maybe he means skidding rather than carving being an option means an angle greater than 90 degrees is an option. That is certainly congruent with what Ron wrote. The bevel idea is interesting but even on injected race courses I 've watched WC racers leave some pretty impressive trenches much wider, or perhaps more accurately deeper, than the few mm where the ski edge is beveled.

JASP, I believe you are referring to his earlier book "The skiers's Edge".  In which case check out page 104 figure 9.3 where inside edge hold is explained by Ron.

Base angle does not determine the resultant force vector.  The resultant force vector is determined by gravity and by centrifugal turn forces coming from momentum.  Centripetal forces are reactionary in nature.  See p124 for the classic resultant force vector diagram.

Let me try to explain another way.  Imagine a book shelf.  If the base of the bookshelf is exactly horizantal, then critical edge angle is acheived.  Gravity is pulling downwards, the shelf reacts upwards and stops the books from falling to the ground.

Now imagine that the shelf is not built very well and the base of the shelf is not horizantal, but tipped down such that books can slide off the shelf.  Critical edge angle is not acheived and the force of gravity will be able to slide the books off the shelf and eventually to the ground.

Now imagine the shelf is the other way, tilted upwards a bit.  Critical edge angle is MORE than acheived. The books will rest against the side and there is zero chance they will slide off the shelf.  In skiing terms, this is "edge lock".  The shelf that is tipped up, "locks" the book onto the shelf.

In skiing terms the critical edge angle and the shelf on the snow are relative to the resultant force vector, coming from gravity and momentum.  Centripetal forces push back only as much as the reactionary force provides.  if the shelf meets the critical edge angle or better, then centripetal forces will prevent skidding.  However, in the third case above, notice how the force vector is directed to the inner edge of the book.  In such a case, the book shelf could theoretically be shorter then the book and still hold the book in place.

In the first case, the force vector is directed to the middle of the shelf base and if the shelf is shortened enough, the book will topple over the edge.

We are getting a little off base though related to the assertion that skiing is substantially different activity then walking, running or other activities that are more wired into our DNA.  Even if the snow is really soft, as in powder or crud or spring snow to the point that the entire ski is digging out a trench, making it perhaps unneccessary to direct the force to the inside edge quite as much as on ice...  in such a case, we still make movements that transfer our balance relationship from one set of edges to the opposite edges, back and forth.  To say that we just ride around on our bases the whole time like walking or running is ludicrous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro

LF, here an idea to consider, the legs pivoting in the hip sockets produces the lead we see in the turn. The implication here is the inside half isn't thrust anywhere, it's an incidental outcome of the ILS. Barnes and Joulbert before him describe this quite well. The two bar stool drill in Bob's encyclopedia addresses exactly this misconception of moving the inside half forward. Look under fulcrum turns and Braquage. Of special interest would be his comment about how braquage is different from Vissage, or even what we would see in a javelin turn where the pelvis and torso rotates as a unit on the rotationally stable femoral head. The short version is the pelvis and rest of the torso are rotationally stable and the fulcrum and dual pivot points in the hip sockets allow the feet and thus the skis to change directions without any twisting, or blocking of the upper body. (No blocking pole plant is needed). Any lead thus becomes a function of the difference between where the torso and pelvis are still facing and the new direction the feet and by association the skis are facing. I know the optical illusion suggests otherwise but if you investigate this idea I'm quite sure you will find this explanation quite congruent with both men's writings and PSIA literature on the subject.

Additionally, the idea of angulation includes some unique upper and lower body mechanics that go right along with my assertion that cross lateral activities occur. An opinion promoted by Eric Lipton and Bobby Murphy in clinics they did for our training staff a few years ago. Being on the demo team might not be enough credentials for some but considering you are working your way through their certification process it might be worth considering what I'm writing. The short version is the inside shoulder moves towards the outside foot as the outside foot moves towards the inside shoulder. And the opposite of that would be as the outside leg extends the inside shoulder moving away from that foot produces the stance where the pelvis and shoulders stay parallel to the snow. Being on the East coast it might be worth trying to reach out to Eric and I highly recommend attending one of his many clinics. If you can't do that maybe reviewing Bob's encyclopedia will make this idea clearer.

As far as foot to foot movements and step turns well these very same mechanics I mentioned are very much part of executing those moves. Frame four to five show the cross lateral extension during a step turn and frames seven through ten show the cross lateral flexing I am talking about. So even though some here might suggest ducking the gate is the primary reason for this cross lateral flexing. Lipton suggests it's part of dynamic turns outside the gates as well. I suppose some here might question this but call Eric and I think you will find independent of my writing that this concept is part of PSIA's teachings. I also am confident your area trainers would confirm all of this.

I've got all this, jasp... I am in agreement with you.  However, I've not been talking about how to initiate a turn.  My only point is that for much of each turn, when the inside foot and knee and hip are ahead of the outside foot and knee, the inside shoulder and arm are also ahead.  I'm not asserting anything about how that relationship developed.

When we walk or run, when one foot/knee/hip advances, the opposing shoulder and arm advance.  This is different from skiing.  That's all that I am asserting.  If I've miscommunicated that point, I'm trying to clarify it here.

I continually find it interesting that some people get better results from finding the common ground between different movement patterns, while others get better results by finding the differences.  I think these two are equal and opposite sides of the same coin; sometimes one works better than the other and having the flexibility to shift from one to the other is a skill worth building.  I'm working on that skill.

So, my point in asserting the differences between skiing and walking/running is particular to this thread; honestly I can't remember why I chose to make the point but it was something someone said that I thought called for a different perspective, lest some misconceptions catch hold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro

As far as BTS's assertion to the contrary of what Ron wrote on pages 19 and 20 and included in figures 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, well I think Ron's got it correct. The platform being perpendicular to the force you apply to that platform has the direct and indisputable consequence of defining the force vector representing the reaction forces coming up from the snow. It's perpendicular to the platform and the platform is the interface between the ski and the snow. Yes if the critical angle is greater than 90 degrees slip occurs and the platform will not support us but I don't quite understand BTS's requirement that an angle less than 90 degrees is needed. If the edge is holding exactly as we want it to what advantage would there be to trying to create an acute platform angle? Is that even possible considering the force vectors and the geometry of how they line up? More angulation would change the platform angle but it would also change the sum force vector of how the forces are being applied and thus where perpendicular to that force vector would be. That doesn't mean the idea of pressure being focused on the boot edge changes the perpendicular relationship of the platform and the direction of the reaction forces. Maybe he means skidding rather than carving being an option means an angle greater than 90 degrees is an option. That is certainly congruent with what Ron wrote. The bevel idea is interesting but even on injected race courses I 've watched WC racers leave some pretty impressive trenches much wider, or perhaps more accurately deeper, than the few mm where the ski edge is beveled.

Ron's diagrams are correct but don't include all the components of the forces involved. Resolving the force vector perpendicular to the platform, for example, yields components (actually a pair of components) that act normal to the snow surface - that is to say aligned with the ski's edge as it is tipped. There is also a moment about the center of a tipped ski that acts to flatten it unless resisted - hence the injunction to balance over the inside edge of the stance ski - which increases the wider the ski. That is why fat skis are harder to tip on edge than narrower ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDaysNight

There is also a moment about the center of a tipped ski that acts to flatten it unless resisted - hence the injunction to balance over the inside edge of the stance ski - which increases the wider the ski. That is why fat skis are harder to tip on edge than narrower ones.

Yup. Not the mention the increased stress and wear and tear on the knee joint.

Risers change that leverage equation and unlike a long time ago very few bindings nowdays allow the boot to actually contact the ski directly. So widening the base isn't the only way to change that leverage equition. So does stack height inside the boot. Not to mention the lateral sides of the cuff. But perhaps the part of this that is being misunderstood is the trench itself. A base side and a sidewall side exist. If the ground force reaction forces were coming perpendicular to the general slope angle the net result would be it would push back in a way that would not turn us. If it pushed back from the sidewall side of that trench the skis would move away from the turn. The only place where they would deflect us into the turn is how that is described in the book I mentioned and in the chapter verse I cited. BTW BTS, read the introduction Ron wrote and especially how he has stated quite clearly that he revised some of what he wrote in the previous book. In other words he change his mind about some things.

Ron's newer book, "Ultimate Skiing" covers this on p123.

Risers can reduce the angulation requirement, but not eliminate it.  Wider skis are the inverse, they require more angulation to get to the edge.

Nobody is suggesting we ride on the sidewall.  Balance on the edge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skiatansky

Yup. Not the mention the increased stress and wear and tear on the knee joint.

Depends if you are knock kneed or bowlegged. For some people it may reduce the sideways bending moment in the knee

Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

Wider skis are the inverse, they require more angulation to get to the edge.

Even though they require more work to get on edge it is actually the reverse. They require less angulation for the same amount of edge angle. For the same kind of balance you get more edge in a pure banked turn than on a narrow ski, but it is more difficult to get up on edge and balance.

The edge platform is what we stand on. The force coming up through the base side of that edge is what supports us. The net here is the centripetal forces deflect the ski and those forces come through the base. Angulation above that help us line up along the balance axis and create the platform Ron describes earlier in his book. The platform holds if it's 90 degrees and slips when greater. If as you guys insist we get over edged a whole slew of compensatory moves become necessary. Something covered quite well in the 96 Alpine manual. It's why I question the pursuit of over edging. That might be worth a thread all it's own. Probably in the boot fitters forum. Hip dump is associated with over edging BTW. Which again makes me question why in the pursuit of curing excessive hip dump we would create a stance that would cause more?
In any event if all of this leads to folks reading those books and maybe some of the references mentioned it's a very good thing.
Edited by justanotherskipro - 1/26/14 at 7:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt

Even though they require more work to get on edge it is actually the reverse. They require less angulation for the same amount of edge angle. For the same kind of balance you get more edge in a pure banked turn than on a narrow ski, but it is more difficult to get up on edge and balance.

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other but I don't see how that can be the case jamt. Wider skis have the edge further away from the center of the foot. Angulation raises the com and changes the angle of the resultant force vector so that it goes to the edge instead of the center of the foot. Wider means more angulation to get there. This is a seperate issue from the actual edge angle and I am not talking about which are easier to tip. This is an issue of how to position the edge directly in line with the force vector
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other but I don't see how that can be the case jamt. Wider skis have the edge further away from the center of the foot. Angulation raises the com and changes the angle of the resultant force vector so that it goes to the edge instead of the center of the foot. Wider means more angulation to get there. This is a seperate issue from the actual edge angle and I am not talking about which are easier to tip. This is an issue of how to position the edge directly in line with the force vector

I guess it depends on what "require angulation" means. My take what that is the amount of angulation in your body you reguire to reach certain edge angle.

Your definition seems to be closer to something like "how much do you need to angulate to balance on the edge while standing still.

Here's an idea, could it be the assumption that we need to create an acute platform angle needs closer examination. The logic behind the "some is good more must be better" way of thinking in particular needs to be examined. Considering the compensatory adjustments needed when we are over edged, I would strongly question that logic. Is a student doing this because they're operating under that mistaken notion? Are some here doing the same? Please don't take that personally, I really don't mean it that way. What I 'm sharing is something Squatty taught me on my very long learning journey. Another way to express this is the ability to over do a move doesn't change the fact that we are actually over doing it. As in not matching the DIRT to the situation. Calling me out for doing that with my short turns was a hard pill to swallow but over time I came to appreciate what he meant and my trust in his advice grew a lot. It's when I learned to appreciate the power of feel and touch in skiing and forever abandoned the "some is good more is better" way of approaching ski technique. If a platform supporting us does so at 90' why would we want do more than that and if that ski slips at platform angles greater than that, well could we exploit that result as we release that turn? My conclusion is pretty simple and straight forward, yes we can exploit both and no we can't improve on that performance by over doing any moves.

Edited by justanotherskipro - 1/26/14 at 1:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro

Here's an idea, could it be the assumption that we need to create an acute platform angle needs closer examination. The logic behind the "some is good more must be better" way of thinking in particular needs to be examined. Considering the compensatory adjustments needed when we are over edged, I would strongly question that logic. Is a student doing this because they're operating under that mistaken notion? Are some here doing the same? Please don't take that personally, I really don't mean it that way. What I 'm sharing is something Squatty taught me on my very long learning journey. Another way to express this is the ability to over do a move doesn't change the fact that we are actually over doing it. As in not matching the DIRT to the situation. Calling me out for doing that with my short turns was a hard pill to swallow but over time I came to appreciate what he meant and my trust in his advice grew a lot. It's when I learned to appreciate the power of feel and touch in skiing and forever abandoned the "some is good more is better" way of approaching ski technique. If a platform supporting us does so at 90' why would we want do more than that and if that ski slips at platform angles greater than that, well could we exploit that result as we release that turn? My conclusion is pretty simple and straight forward, yes we can exploit both and no we can't improve on that performance by over doing any moves.

JASP, IMO there are situations where you want a more aggressive platform angle and some cases where you want to stay close to 90 degrees.

A more aggressive platform angle will do several things e.g. dig the ski deeper into the surface and tighten the turn radius.

For example, to dig the ski deeper into the surface may be very attractive if you are negotiating ice, not so much if you want to maintain speed on a flat slope.

Tighten the turn radius is offten useful in racing for obvious reasons, however if you max it all the time it will be slow.

Relative to the slope angle I agree higher edge angles work that way but relative to the balance axis, the platform angle and an acute one produces over edged stances and that in turn produces things like excessive hip dumping. If all it took was to create an acute platform angle, canting the boot to produce that would be the easiest solution. Since that isn't where our boots are set up, that idea seems questionable.
Edited by justanotherskipro - 1/26/14 at 3:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

What would you have people concentrate on in your description? In order to harmonize with gait mechanics.

Back to the feet briefly.

One doesn't necessarily walk on the whole bottom of the foot equally. It's something that varies and also something that can be trained.

In Pilates they call it walking on the inside half - feet straight, weight on a line ball of foot to heel. That's very different from say the young guy I saw out running and his feet hit the ground toed out at a massive angle. Basically he landed on his arch sideways. Very odd.

Anyway, regardless how it's done, it's still the basis of input from the feet - how the base of the foot is tensioned. It is not the side!

Tog-  this will have to be a generalization,  but take some of the drills you know and apply attention to the relationships between the hip/opposite shoulder. If there is change in position at the foot level, one more forward than the other, the ability to feel these patterns is in there, it is often just being interfered with.  In the same sense you can use the shoulder and arm positioning movement to feel it connect to the opposite hip.  One of the drills I see here often is the pivot slip drill, while it may be under the genre of hip movement, I think it could easily be a movement that enhances these underlying pattern reorganizations.  Not only could it be a great sensory drill for hips, feet, etc, attention to the pelvic rotation and contralateral shoulder blade makes the feeling very clear ( very similar to johnny's video in fact).  There will usually be an easier, more well coordinated side, I would say one of the keys to balancing the movement is feeling how these oblique patterns are different.  Accordingly, the spine will have more mobility, more segmental freedom in the drill to the "easier" side.  Just one idea.  The reality is any movement requiring rotation of the upper body or pelvis will use these synergies.

Even simply standing on the trail you can play with this, I am sure there are names for these that you guys use, but to stand with one leg up the hill relative to the other, if the feet are together, and the ribs are not allowed to move, the pelvis on the uphill side elevates and you tip downhill, to level the pelvis you slide the foot forward, this movement actually clarifies both pelvic rotation and side bending movement, add in opposing shoulder movement and it is a great way to feel the segmental movement of the spine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt

I guess it depends on what "require angulation" means. My take what that is the amount of angulation in your body you reguire to reach certain edge angle.
Your definition seems to be closer to something like "how much do you need to angulate to balance on the edge while standing still.

Has nothing to do with standing still. Its also not about the greater lateral balance at the macro level. It's about lining up the resulting force vector to the inside edge instead of the middle of your foot. If you are purely banked with zero angulation, and presuming you are in balance laterally, then the force vector will be lined up with the middle of your foot, which will tend to lever the ski back off edge or at the least creates untipping forces to contend with. If you think about it, they are not really in balance at all without balancing on the inside edge.

On the other hand, if the skier angulates such that lateral balance is achieved, the legs will be inclined more then the upper half and the resultant force vector is somewhere in between, resulting it passing through the inside edge instead of the middle of the foot. This is more ideal, and is true balance on the edge
Edited by borntoski683 - 1/26/14 at 4:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro

Relative to the slope angle I agree higher edge angles work that way but relative to the balance axis, the platform angle and an acute one produces over edged stances and that in turn produces things like excessive hip dumping. If all it took was to create an acute platform angle, canting the boot to produce that would be the easiest solution. Since that isn't where our boots are set up, that idea seems questionable.

There are also situations where you want to be close to 90 degree or have at least parts of the ski skidding, so canting the boot would not work. You can find lots of pictures where racers have huge angulation and you can also find lots of pictures when they don't

Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

Has nothing to do with standing still. Its also not about the greater lateral balance at the macro level. It's about lining up the resulting force vector to the inside edge instead of the middle of your foot. If you are purely banked with zero angulation, and presuming you are in balance laterally, then the force vector will be lined up with the middle of your foot, which will tend to lever the ski back off edge or at the least creates untipping forces to contend with. If you think about it, they are not really in balance at all without balancing on the inside edge.

On the other hand, if the skier angulates such that lateral balance is achieved, the legs will be inclined more then the upper half and the resultant force vector is somewhere in between, resulting it passing through the inside edge instead of the middle of the foot. This is more ideal, and is true balance on the edge

BTS, You are one of the persons with the best understanding of ski technique on epic IMO and I have learned a lot from you, but on this one I think you got it reversed. Say that I balance completely on one ski an that the balance point is in the middle of the ski. To achieve this position the body is somewhat angulated and the CoM located somewhere around around the belly is straight above the middle of the ski. However if I want to move the balance point closer to the edge I need to reduce this angulation, or move the upper body closer to that inside edge. If the ski is wider I need to "de-angulate" more before the balance point is at the inside edge.

Another way of moving the CoM is maintaining the same angulation and incline instead. With a wider ski I need to incline more before the CoM is straight above the edge and thus the edge angle will be higher with the same amount of angulation on a wider ski.

thank you all for the feedback on my earlier video - the consensus was that there was early counter... @Tog - it was not concious, i was most likely focusing on something else...

i managed to get video of just skiing large turns, this time on longer masters GS skis, 180/18m... if in the previous video, which was on SL skis, maybe there was a hint of early counter, allowed by me rotating with the skis too much, I don't see any here - this is "normal" GS skiing... albeit on a blue run.

would this fall in the category of early angulation - the subject of this thread?

@Jamt i do like your definition of hip dump - I look at sort of the same thing - if the hip is the first to move in as opposed to the knees...

@markojp guided discovery, eh? still figuring it out...

@LiquidFeet - I hear you and it makes sense, but i'm not sure what to do with that...

cheers

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Let's talk about over-angulating