or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# The best technical advice - Page 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet

I'll see your Einstein 6-3=6 image, and raise you a Britney Spears' Guide to Semiconductor Physics:

http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist

Dynamic balance on the stance ski is the Alpha and the Omega, the underlying foundation for all good skiing.   When practicing any skill, it must be done from within this state of balance.  If you are out of balance, your mechanics are off, and you should correct this before proceeding further.  If you are sacrificing balance for speed or amplitude, you are degrading your mechanics, not improving them.

What does "Dynamic balance on the stance ski" really mean. Balance with dominant outside or all balance with more or less all pressure on outside?

If it is the former I agree, if it is the latter it would disqualify one of the worlds best skiers:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spooky

Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet

Good tip. 6 - 3 = 6 is true in Z3. Nice.

There is no 6 in z3... so you could say that 2+2+2-2-1 is 0 but not that 6-3 is 6...

That equation actually means speed of light is constant...

Quote:
Originally Posted by razie

There is no 6 in z3... so you could say that 2+2+2-2-1 is 0 but not that 6-3 is 6...

That equation actually means speed of light is constant...

calm down buddy. sorry, shorthand...... [6] -[3] = [6]  in Z3

I believe einstein was in major favor of shorthand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by razie

There is no 6 in z3... so you could say that 2+2+2-2-1 is 0 but not that 6-3 is 6...

That equation actually means speed of light is constant...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt

What does "Dynamic balance on the stance ski" really mean. Balance with dominant outside or all balance with more or less all pressure on outside?

If it is the former I agree, if it is the latter it would disqualify one of the worlds best skiers:

Good question.  You could also have noted that, as the snow gets softer, to keep the skis at the same height you need to adjust your weight distribution, ultimately reaching 50-50 in deep, light powder.

The answer is that, depending on the snow conditions and the situation, you won't always have all your weight on one ski.  But many people who weight both skis (including myself under some circumstances) don't do it out of choice, but rather because our lack of balance puts us onto two skis.  This is bad.   To really develop our technique, we need to develop the capability to be balanced on one ski throughout the turn.  Once you have that capability, should you choose to allow there to be some weight on both skis, you will be doing it from a state of balance and control.  I.e., you want to be the skier that weights two skis out of choice, not the one who weights them because he or she doesn't have the balance to do otherwise.

Then you can do stuff like this :

As well as this....

I have some kinematic studies of skiers, but none (I recall) that show the forces on the inside ski.   If you have it as a link, could you please post it or PM me?

Edited by chemist - 11/18/15 at 6:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist

Good question.  You could also have noted that, as the snow gets softer, to keep the skis at the same height you need to adjust your weight distribution, ultimately reaching 50-50 in deep, light powder.

The answer is that, depending on the snow conditions and the situation, you won't always have all your weight on the outside ski.  But many people who weight the inside ski (including myself under some circumstances) don't do it out of choice, but rather because our lack of balance puts us on our inside ski.  This is bad.   To really develop our technique, we need to develop the capability to be balanced on our outside ski throughout the turn.  Once you have that capability, should you choose to allow there to be some weight on your inside ski, you will be doing it from a state of balance and control.  I.e., you want to be the skier that weights his or her inside ski out of choice, not the one who weights it because he or doesn't have the balance to do otherwise.

I have some kinematic studies of skiers, but none (I recall) that show the forces on the inside ski.   If you have it as a link, could you please post it or PM me?

Well put, we need the capability to balance on the outside before we use the inside.

Regarding the reference it is from the proceedings of ICSS 2013 http://www.amazon.com/Science-Skiing-VI-Erich-Muller/dp/1782550666 I have it in paper form. I buy all books electronically if I can, but this one I could not find.

The picture above was from a presentation that RLM held at ICSS 2013, but he borrowed it from J Kröll also from ICSS 2013. You can find the presentation at RLMs homepage: http://www.ronlemaster.com/presentations/Systematic%20Use%20of%20the%20Inside%20Ski%20in%20Carved%20Turns-LeMaster-Supej-ICSS-2013.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt

Regarding the reference it is from the proceedings of ICSS 2013 http://www.amazon.com/Science-Skiing-VI-Erich-Muller/dp/1782550666 I have it in paper form. I buy all books electronically if I can, but this one I could not find.

The picture above was from a presentation that RLM held at ICSS 2013, but he borrowed it from J Kröll also from ICSS 2013. You can find the presentation at RLMs homepage: http://www.ronlemaster.com/presentations/Systematic%20Use%20of%20the%20Inside%20Ski%20in%20Carved%20Turns-LeMaster-Supej-ICSS-2013.pdf

Thanks.  Since this is an interest of yours, you might want to check out Robert Reid's 2010 Ph.D. thesis,  A kinematic and kinetic study of alpine skiing technique in slalom (http://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/171325).

I should also note that many of the drills Shiffrin used at Burke emphasize single-ski balance, e.g.:

Edited by chemist - 11/2/15 at 11:52pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by lakespapa

Typical fate of most internet discussions.

As the thread starter, yesterday I requested that anyone interested in contributing to keep on topic and give ONE SHORT, SIMPLE TO UNDERSATAND ADVICE.

Within a matter of minutes there are two long posts, one about sidecut and calculations on turning radius of a ski! Something that I'm sure we will all want to remember while skiing!

Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist

I'm familiar with that last quote.    First, I think you may be misunderstanding it -- it seems what Einstein was actually expressing in his conversation with deBroglie was not a test for the quality of our understanding (like what Feynman was doing), but rather a test for the quality of the physical theory itself.  I.e., what Einstein is saying here isn't "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough", but rather, "If you can't explain it simply, the physics might be bad."  Second, and more importantly, we weren't talking about that quote, we were talking about this one (below) which is, again, contrary to your assertion, an attributed quote, not a known one. I.e., the status of the Einstein quote you originally presented is no different from that of the one I presented.  In both cases, they've (a) been attributed to him; (b) yet are of uncertain provenance; and (c) are similar in content to ones that are known Einstein quotes.*  The difference is that I knew my quote was merely attributed, and thus presented it accurately. You then for some reason decided you needed to challenge me by obnoxiously,  and incorrectly, responding as follows:

Then, when I pointed out that your quote was merely attributed as well, instead of just accepting that you made an error, you tried to obscure your mistake with a new post containing a different quote (see top of this post).  Given this, your insistence on keeping the thread on-track is disingenuous, since if that was truly your concern you wouldn't have made the initial challenge, nor written the subsequent one.

It pisses me off when people challenge me for no good reason, are factually wrong about the challenge, and then, when called on it, aren't willing to man up and admit they were incorrect.

Frankly, it was completely unnecessary to go after me in the first place.  Your original post asked for the one best tip each of us received this year (without specifying what its nature should be), and I took the time to put into words what I (and at least two other thread participants) thought was a great one.   Why gratuitously go after someone that took the time to give you a serious response to your request?

**************

*Just in case you need me to make this explicit:

Your "attributed" quote: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"

An actual Einstein quote to which it (weakly, as I explained above) corresponds: "All physical theories, their mathematical expressions notwithstanding, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description that even a child could understand them."

My "attributed" Einstein quote: "You want to make your model as simple as possible, but not too simple."
An actual Einstein quote to which it corresponds:  "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."

So, broadly speaking, the status of my "attributed" quote is at least as good as yours.

Dude, take a chill pill, breath deep and relax. And if it makes you feel better, you're right about everything except for trashing what could have been a helpful thread for others. Peace out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damavand

Dude, take a chill pill, breath deep and relax. And if it makes you feel better, you're right about everything except for trashing what could have been a helpful thread for others. Peace out.

With all due respect, that's a false accusation.  The digression happened because you made the completely unnecessary choice to go after me (like you're still doing), not visa versa.  And I hardly need (very presumptuous) mental state advice from someone not willing to take responsibility for the consequences of his own actions.  You really want it to stop?  Then stop.

I understand what went on here.  You wanted quick, one-line tips, but didn't specify that initially.  After I wrote my tip (Post #67), you realized you did need to make that clear. This happens all the time, and it shouldn't be a big deal, if it were handled properly.  The problem is that, in Post#97, where you added the clarification, instead of just saying "Sorry, wasn't clear enough, I wanted one-line tips; to those who wrote long tips, your effort is sincerely appreciated, just not what I was looking for, mea culpa.",  you criticized my tip as worthless, because of its length (I disagree, the length was needed to understand the tip, but once you understand it, it can be reduced to a single line in your head).  If you get replies you didn't want because you weren't clear enough from the start, don't go after posters who made a sincere effort.

Edited by chemist - 11/3/15 at 11:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damavand

Quote:
Originally Posted by lakespapa

Typical fate of most internet discussions.

As the thread starter, yesterday I requested that anyone interested in contributing to keep on topic and give ONE SHORT, SIMPLE TO UNDERSATAND ADVICE.

Within a matter of minutes there are two long posts, one about sidecut and calculations on turning radius of a ski! Something that I'm sure we will all want to remember while skiing!

Once you have it figured out, it's easy to remember, "Tip the ski more to shorten the ski's turning radius."

I should have followed the previous piece of advice:

Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp

Best technical advice? Stop following any thread on epic past page 2.

Again.

Post # 7

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4ster

Markojp, I may use that one third handed. I can see it clearing up some stiff outside legs.

Without getting all esoteric on yer asses 😜, I'll keep it simple:

"Balance against the inside edge of your outside ski"

Pretty basic right but if you think about it, that is really more than half the battle & is as true now as it was then 🎿🎿.

Can we just start over & go back to page 1?  The point of the thread was much clearer to me then.

Thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ster

Can we just start over & go back to page 1?  The point of the thread was much clearer to me then.

Thanks

Ummm ... I do believe we have moved on to monkeys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ster

Can we just start over & go back to page 1?  The point of the thread was much clearer to me then.

Thanks

Inquiring minds want to know if you will be instructing again this season?

Quote:
Originally Posted by contesstant

Inquiring minds want to know if you will be instructing again this season?

PM sent

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich666

Ummm ... I do believe we have moved on to monkeys.

Have you ever tried to get a monkey into ski boots, the alignment issues are beyond belief?  Much better suited for snowboarding...  that's my tip

Chimps on the other hand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spooky

Quote:
Originally Posted by razie

There is no 6 in z3... so you could say that 2+2+2-2-1 is 0 but not that 6-3 is 6...

That equation actually means speed of light is constant...

calm down buddy. sorry, shorthand...... [6] -[3] = [6]  in Z3

I believe einstein was in major favor of shorthand.

He came up with screwy complicated stuff like E=mc2 when he could've just left the equal sign and let everyone make up their own left ANd right sides of that... now THAT would be shorthand for everything and in fact an elegant solution for the unification he was so desperately looking for and which I just solved!

But... you can keep believing that he was more interested in pre-school algebra than... I don't know, speed of light or... relativity... that's weird stuff for a grown up, true! Because there, guess what:  (6-3) D = 6 D....

cheers

Quote:
Originally Posted by razie

He came up with screwy complicated stuff like E=mc2 when he could've just left the equal sign and let everyone make up their own left ANd right sides of that... now THAT would be shorthand for everything and in fact an elegant solution for the unification he was so desperately looking for and which I just solved!

But... you can keep believing that he was more interested in pre-school algebra than... I don't know, speed of light or... relativity... that's weird stuff for a grown up, true! Because there, guess what:  (6-3) D = 6 D....

cheers

My belief isn't false, because I was speaking of Einstein Summation convention, which is extreme shorthand for writing out complex long equations. He is a firm believer in short hand because writing equations in General Relativity would be 100s of pages without it. That is why he created it. It relates to what I said because I used shorthand 6 - 3 = 3 in Z3, which translates for anybody that knows math, congruence classes [6] - [3] = [6] in Z mod 3. It was a nerdy joke; one which flew over you.

I am glad you you find that all that simple, you probably ski 66mm skis in waist deep like a champ.

Einstein was so terrible at math, he had to get his buddy Hendrick to help him out with his transforms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

Einstein was so terrible at math, he had to get his buddy Hendrick to help him out with his transforms.

I'm good at math; I still need 115s though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spooky

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

Einstein was so terrible at math, he had to get his buddy Hendrick to help him out with his transforms.

I'm good at math; I still need 115s though.

The best thing for powder that i have ever used were toilette lids. Freely available in hotels, as a kid, in various camps.... steered with an electrical cord stolen you-don't-want-to-know-how...

Wow, this is a fun and funny thread, but difficult (at times) to separate the kernels from the chaff.

I used to hang here a lot when I was a "ski pro", instructor, bootfitter, and alignment NERD!

But that stage of my life is gone. At times, I miss it terribly, it is what it is.

Rigid vs flexible footbeds... a little articulation of the food is needed for balance, because the foot is not static.

Those that are "blessed" with a more rigid foot may not notice much difference. Others need more "wiggle".

A footbed designed/built for the skier is the appropriate choice, and it may change with time, age, and ability.

Ya think ya can ski in cement boots? Hrm?

As a veteran of many a BBS and forum, and an 8+ year moderator of an infamous Ham Radio forum...

The nerdy stuff makes me feel right at home. OMG, this makes me wanna play bongos!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

Einstein was so terrible at math, he had to get his buddy Hendrick to help him out with his transforms.

Einstein was actually quite talented at math :)

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/12/albert-einstein-did-not-fail-at-mathematics-in-school/

He was a terrible mathematician, compared to Hendrick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist

The best tip I received this year (yes, it's a bit long, but it is a single tip):

"You like laying them over and going for the big angles.  I understand this, it's fun.  But when you do this, you often put yourself out of balance, and then make corrections to catch yourself and finish the turn.  This is the opposite of what you want to be doing to develop technique.   As you know, you want to be able to initiate and regulate the turns by continuous tipping of the inside foot, combined with continuously-changing CA and CB.  But doing this requires that the entire inside of your body be relaxed, particularly for the tipping (you can't freely move something in a precise way if it's locked up).  And proximal freedom requires distal stability.  I.e., the inside (unweighted) side isn't going to have the ability to move freely and precisely unless the outside (weighted) side is providing a stable platform.   This means that, at all points through the turn, you need to be comfortably balanced on that outside ski (the test is that you can lift the inside ski off the snow at any point in the arc).  You are never looking for balance, because you are always in balance.  Thus, in practice, you need to limit yourself to only those angles you can achieve while maintaining this comfortable outside ski balance throughout the turn.  This does not mean you should stop pushing your envelope for getting bigger angles; quite the contrary.    Rather, opening up your envelope now no longer means seeing what angles you can can get and still recover and finish the turn.  It instead means seeing how much you can increase your angles while maintaining this comfortable balance.  Eventually you will get those high angles again (indeed, higher than what you're getting now), but when you get them following this path they will feel much better, because you'll be in balance, and thus comfortably relaxed (at least as far as as balance goes), through the entire turn.  Finally, for a while you should confine yourself mostly to short turns, since that will ensure you properly develop the mechanics (long turns allow you to get away with things that don't work in short turns)."

This sounds like an excellent tip, but could you explain what "CA" and "CB" stand for / mean?

For bonus points, what exactly do you mean by "you want to be able to initiate and regulate the turns by continuous tipping of the inside foot"? If you're balanced on the outside ski and can lift the inside at any point, what exactly is the inside ski controlling? (This may be clearer while actually skiing, but it sounds contradictory in writing.

Edited by Unpiste - 11/5/15 at 4:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unpiste

Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist

The best tip I received this year (yes, it's a bit long, but it is a single tip):

"You like laying them over and going for the big angles.  I understand this, it's fun.  But when you do this, you often put yourself out of balance, and then make corrections to catch yourself and finish the turn.  This is the opposite of what you want to be doing to develop technique.   As you know, you want to be able to initiate and regulate the turns by continuous tipping of the inside foot, combined with continuously-changing CA and CB.  But doing this requires that the entire inside of your body be relaxed, particularly for the tipping (you can't freely move something in a precise way if it's locked up).  And proximal freedom requires distal stability.  I.e., the inside (unweighted) side isn't going to have the ability to move freely and precisely unless the outside (weighted) side is providing a stable platform.   This means that, at all points through the turn, you need to be comfortably balanced on that outside ski (the test is that you can lift the inside ski off the snow at any point in the arc).  You are never looking for balance, because you are always in balance.  Thus, in practice, you need to limit yourself to only those angles you can achieve while maintaining this comfortable outside ski balance throughout the turn.  This does not mean you should stop pushing your envelope for getting bigger angles; quite the contrary.    Rather, opening up your envelope now no longer means seeing what angles you can can get and still recover and finish the turn.  It instead means seeing how much you can increase your angles while maintaining this comfortable balance.  Eventually you will get those high angles again (indeed, higher than what you're getting now), but when you get them following this path they will feel much better, because you'll be in balance, and thus comfortably relaxed (at least as far as as balance goes), through the entire turn.  Finally, for a while you should confine yourself mostly to short turns, since that will ensure you properly develop the mechanics (long turns allow you to get away with things that don't work in short turns)."

This sounds like an excellent tip, but could you explain what "CA" and "CB" stand for / mean?

For bonus points, what exactly do you mean by "you want to be able to initiate and regulate the turns by continuous tipping of the inside foot"? If you're balanced on the outside ski and can lift the inside at any point, what exactly is the inside ski controlling? (This may be clearer while actually skiing, but it sounds contradictory in writing.)

It does sound odd.  Just give it a try.

The inside foot/leg/ski has to be "worked" in order to keep it out of the way of the outside ski/foot/leg, but that's not all you can do with the inside foot/leg/ski.  Think of the inside foot as the brains of the turn, and the outside foot as the brawn that does the heavy lifting.  The inside foot (or leg) does something, and the outside foot/leg in response receives the task of carrying the weight.

"Working" the inside foot/ski/leg in a good way triggers the outside ski to do its thing just right.  But when people focus primarily on the outside ski, all kinds of bad stuff happens-- stems, sequential turn entries, and pushing on the outside ski which creates all kinds of bad results.  However, tipping the inside foot triggers simultaneous turn entries and eliminates stemming.  Bending the inside knee to lighten that inside ski creates the angles that so many people admire.  Keeping the inside foot up under the inside hip keeps one balanced on the outside ski.  "Working" the whole "inside half" of the body is the way to go.

Edited by LiquidFeet - 11/5/15 at 5:56pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching