or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › How do we add rotary at high edge angles?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How do we add rotary at high edge angles? - Page 4

post #91 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post


Reading it again here in your posting I see that OPs friend insructor was right after all. She did not mean steered turns but carved. And by adding femur rotation, what some call tipping, you increase edge angles and you tighten the arc. Totally obvious. Sorry if I ever said anything different.

Femur rotation is not the same as rotary. What you are describing is still sidecut skiing, what she was referring to was some kind of steering ("tighter than what is possible with sidecut")

post #92 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post


Reading it again here in your posting I see that OPs friend insructor was right after all. She did not mean steered turns but carved. And by adding femur rotation, what some call tipping, you increase edge angles and you tighten the arc. Totally obvious. Sorry if I ever said anything different.

 

Femur rotation IS NOT tipping...let's not get into the whole tipping concept, which I think leads to banking. If you are on a carving ski, more angle and/or more pressure can tighten the arc...at this point rotating the femur is not going to buy you anything...

post #93 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

Really? That should be pretty obvious. Versatility comes from applying a wider variety of tactical and technical solutions to where we ski. Limited options lead to limits in where you can ski and how well you can ski while there. As far as what benefit my students gain,
Ask any of my students if you like. Their confidence in an expanded range of terrain and new found ability to execute multiple options at will are the immediate benefits. They also learn to recognize dogma and limited thinking in their ski coaches and mentors. In a race course imagine a gate set where you have to do some reaching slalom turns. What I described are exactly that. Not every gate would be set that way outside of training but for those couple of gate the course setter purposely forces you to execute some reaching slalom turns the answer should be obvious, without that skill set you struggle through those turns, or dnf.

 

Fine. That makes sense, and what you're essentially talking about is LeMaster's idea that it's generally not possible to ski purely arc to arc...maybe in SG or DH in sections where there is very little offset is about all. Other than that, you have to steer the ski to what he calls "the effective steering angle", that point at which a carved turn will keep you on line, whether it's in a course or free skiing. Maybe that's what you were getting at in post #87, but I didn't get what you were talking about there. I've been skiing, racing SL, GS, SG and DH in USSA Masters, and coaching (I'm USSA Alpine Level 100 and PSIA Alpine 3) for more years than I like to think about. And for a bunch of those years, my profession was software technical documentation. So I've read a ton or so of heavy duty engineering docs and turned them into Admin. Guides, and the like...but I still have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in post #87...

post #94 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt View Post

Femur rotation is not the same as rotary. What you are describing is still sidecut skiing, what she was referring to was some kind of steering ("tighter than what is possible with sidecut")

Thats true.... my bad.
post #95 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post



I think we are reading your posts correctly OSS but clarifying what you meant might be in order. You mentioned diving, not me. You also mentioned aft stances and tightening the radius. The montages from Lemaster show no such diving, or radius reducing from tail levering. If anything they show plantar flexing of the feet as the outside leg extends. The tibia moving to a more perpendicular to the ski position is clearly evident. Nor does the plantar flexing drive the hips aft. The hip extending simultaneously prevents that. Those reaching moves keep harmony and balance within an acceptable zone while applying just enough pressure to the tip to keep it engaged. All within the 3d infinity movement pattern I described earlier. When you master the ability to swoop your feet around all the preconceived notions about stance and balance suddenly don't seem to make sense. Reaching isn't done on a fully loaded ski as much as just to maintain tip contact. So levering because of that tips down move and that driving our stance aft is a wrong assumption. Granted when fully engaged and pressured that same move would move us aft. But momentum and trajectories allow us to not move our balance point when just keeping the ski tip working.


Often times the debates here seem to be between different philosophies in skiing.  One approach is from a race coaches perspective where the "emphasis on the clock" bias is applied to recreational skiers and one where the bias is on efficiency and conservation of energy often applied towards a racer.   Each has strong reasons to believe their approach is superior. The problem for the original posters in these discussions is not understanding how the bias affects outcome and not being able to say who is right.  From their  perspective the discussion has gone off the rails.

 

That said my BIAS is from the perspective of purely recreational skiing as I believe most of JASP's post tend towards.  With that in mind I will add a different perspective to this thread that goes hand in hand with what JASP has said in post #87.   Some perspective: My own skiing tends to be short to medium radius high edge angle highly carved turns with the earliest possible edge in the new turn.  I reach both feet out into the new turn with very little pressure on the skis and wait for momentum to pressure the skis well above the apex of the turn.  I reach maximum angulation and edge near the fall line/apex of the turn. In the second half of my turns, from the apex to the edge change, I am decreasing ski edge and angulation.  I have minimal counter at the fall line/apex and maximum counter at edge change.  My turns tend to be a combination of cross over/cross under with a shorter stance at edge change and long legs at the apex.  I am 60 yo, 5'9" and 185lb I ski on 182cm Rossi Experience 100's usually at mach schnell.

 

What I want to add is that I shorten my turns from the apex to the edge change using rotary but not through increasing edge angle, I do it through progressive release and decreasing edge angle. The way our ankles work even inside the boots, is that the toes want to move in a direction opposite the direction we are tipping the skis.  If you are on the left edges of the ski at the apex and begin to tip the skis back towards your right side your toes will naturally want to turn to the left to complete the left turn. Let them and encourage your toes to do this all the way through the edge change.  The result is what you read above in JASP's post on steroids. Very effective at shortening and rounding turns to form C shapes.

 

At dynamic speeds my turn tracks do not show a traditional 2-4-2 edge change.  At the edge change the tips of my skis pivot slightly up hill about the width of the ski and the tails pivot slightly downhill about the width of the ski.   The result is what looks like seamless tracks with no displacement downhill of the edges at the edge change.  To observers it appears as though I warp the ski at edge change and gain an earlier edge than the traditional 2-4-2 (two edges touching the snow at the finish of the old turn to  four edges touching the snow when the skis go flat to two edges touching the snow in the new turn).  The skis rocket out higher and earlier into the new turn with the result of tightening the next turn.

 

I can use the same technique to carve downhill from a slow traverse with no downhill edge slipping.

post #96 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiRacer55 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

Really? That should be pretty obvious. Versatility comes from applying a wider variety of tactical and technical solutions to where we ski. Limited options lead to limits in where you can ski and how well you can ski while there. As far as what benefit my students gain,
Ask any of my students if you like. Their confidence in an expanded range of terrain and new found ability to execute multiple options at will are the immediate benefits. They also learn to recognize dogma and limited thinking in their ski coaches and mentors. In a race course imagine a gate set where you have to do some reaching slalom turns. What I described are exactly that. Not every gate would be set that way outside of training but for those couple of gate the course setter purposely forces you to execute some reaching slalom turns the answer should be obvious, without that skill set you struggle through those turns, or dnf.

 

Fine. That makes sense, and what you're essentially talking about is LeMaster's idea that it's generally not possible to ski purely arc to arc...maybe in SG or DH in sections where there is very little offset is about all. Other than that, you have to steer the ski to what he calls "the effective steering angle", that point at which a carved turn will keep you on line, whether it's in a course or free skiing. Maybe that's what you were getting at in post #87, but I didn't get what you were talking about there. I've been skiing, racing SL, GS, SG and DH in USSA Masters, and coaching (I'm USSA Alpine Level 100 and PSIA Alpine 3) for more years than I like to think about. And for a bunch of those years, my profession was software technical documentation. So I've read a ton or so of heavy duty engineering docs and turned them into Admin. Guides, and the like...but I still have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in post #87...


... are you implying that someone that can carve arc to arc in a variety of conditions can also be versatile and steer and skid his tails off in a variety of conditions?

 

:eek

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
 

My own skiing tends to be short to medium radius high edge angle highly carved turns with the earliest possible edge in the new turn.  I reach both feet out into the new turn with very little pressure on the skis and wait for momentum to pressure the skis well above the apex of the turn.  I reach maximum angulation and edge near the fall line/apex of the turn. In the second half of my turns, from the apex to the edge change, I am decreasing ski edge and angulation.  I have minimal counter at the fall line/apex and maximum counter at edge change.  My turns tend to be a combination of cross over/cross under with a shorter stance at edge change and long legs at the apex.  I am 60 yo, 5'9" and 185lb I ski on 182cm Rossi Experience 100's usually at mach schnell.

 

What I want to add is that I shorten my turns from the apex to the edge change using rotary but not through increasing edge angle, I do it through progressive release and decreasing edge angle. The way our ankles work even inside the boots, is that the toes want to move in a direction opposite the direction we are tipping the skis.  If you are on the left edges of the ski at the apex and begin to tip the skis back towards your right side your toes will naturally want to turn to the left to complete the left turn. Let them and encourage your toes to do this all the way through the edge change.  The result is what you read above in JASP's post on steroids. Very effective at shortening and rounding turns to form C shapes.

 

At dynamic speeds my turn tracks do not show a traditional 2-4-2 edge change.  At the edge change the tips of my skis pivot slightly up hill about the width of the ski and the tails pivot slightly downhill about the width of the ski.   The result is what looks like seamless tracks with no displacement downhill of the edges at the edge change.  To observers it appears as though I warp the ski at edge change and gain an earlier edge than the traditional 2-4-2 (two edges touching the snow at the finish of the old turn to  four edges touching the snow when the skis go flat to two edges touching the snow in the new turn).  The skis rocket out higher and earlier into the new turn with the result of tightening the next turn.

 

I can use the same technique to carve downhill from a slow traverse with no downhill edge slipping.

 

Short radius high edge angle highly carved turns on a long soft fat ski, at mach schnell, would be a very interesting thing to watch...

 

I don't think that a progressive release and decrease of edge angles, starting at the fall line, is going to shorten the turn radius at all... however, super counter will help... we may have different understanding of what actually happens at the bottom of your turns... but without seeing them, it's all a guessing game...

 

cheers


Edited by razie - 3/27/16 at 7:23pm
post #97 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
 


Often times the debates here seem to be between different philosophies in skiing.  One approach is from a race coaches perspective where the "emphasis on the clock" bias is applied to recreational skiers and one where the bias is on efficiency and conservation of energy often applied towards a racer.   Each has strong reasons to believe their approach is superior. The problem for the original posters in these discussions is not understanding how the bias affects outcome and not being able to say who is right.  From their  perspective the discussion has gone off the rails.

 

That said my BIAS is from the perspective of purely recreational skiing as I believe most of JASP's post tend towards.  With that in mind I will add a different perspective to this thread that goes hand in hand with what JASP has said in post #87.   Some perspective: My own skiing tends to be short to medium radius high edge angle highly carved turns with the earliest possible edge in the new turn.  I reach both feet out into the new turn with very little pressure on the skis and wait for momentum to pressure the skis well above the apex of the turn.  I reach maximum angulation and edge near the fall line/apex of the turn. In the second half of my turns, from the apex to the edge change, I am decreasing ski edge and angulation.  I have minimal counter at the fall line/apex and maximum counter at edge change.  My turns tend to be a combination of cross over/cross under with a shorter stance at edge change and long legs at the apex.  I am 60 yo, 5'9" and 185lb I ski on 182cm Rossi Experience 100's usually at mach schnell.

 

What I want to add is that I shorten my turns from the apex to the edge change using rotary but not through increasing edge angle, I do it through progressive release and decreasing edge angle. The way our ankles work even inside the boots, is that the toes want to move in a direction opposite the direction we are tipping the skis.  If you are on the left edges of the ski at the apex and begin to tip the skis back towards your right side your toes will naturally want to turn to the left to complete the left turn. Let them and encourage your toes to do this all the way through the edge change.  The result is what you read above in JASP's post on steroids. Very effective at shortening and rounding turns to form C shapes.

 

At dynamic speeds my turn tracks do not show a traditional 2-4-2 edge change.  At the edge change the tips of my skis pivot slightly up hill about the width of the ski and the tails pivot slightly downhill about the width of the ski.   The result is what looks like seamless tracks with no displacement downhill of the edges at the edge change.  To observers it appears as though I warp the ski at edge change and gain an earlier edge than the traditional 2-4-2 (two edges touching the snow at the finish of the old turn to  four edges touching the snow when the skis go flat to two edges touching the snow in the new turn).  The skis rocket out higher and earlier into the new turn with the result of tightening the next turn.

 

I can use the same technique to carve downhill from a slow traverse with no downhill edge slipping.

 

Okay, fine. I can't argue with what you're doing. Yep, there is a difference between running gates and what you do outside the course, but they are still in the same universe, which is something all the Masters racers I ski with understand. In the fall, our coaches won't even let us in a course until we've had at least 8 to 10 days of structured free skiing on both GS and SL skis, including drills. And once we start training and racing, it's all just a part of skiing. We have a "six inch rule", which reads that if we show up for training and there's six inches or more of new snow, it's time to get out the fat skis and forget about running wickets. We had a day about a week ago where we got on the hill an hour before the public in two feet of new snow; best day of the season, equaled only perhaps by the last time we got to run full-length, FIS set GS with the CU development team.

 

So racing and skiing aren't opposed, but they are different. You can make up any story you want about what you're doing when you can turn anywhere you want; it's a different game when somebody else is telling you where to turn. Sounds like you have all the skills and experience, so my advice is...if you haven't done it yet, go run some full-length, high-speed GS and then tell me what you think about warping the ski at edge change...

post #98 of 116
Transitions and the first few and last few ski lengths of a turn usually are thought of as not where we can reduce turn radius. Using the edge pressure model where downward pressure alone creates edge purchase and ski flex, that is true. This is where a different approach must be employed. A US team friend, an E4 d-teamer, Barnes, and an Europa Cup racer I mentored, all helped me understand how to flex an engaged ski through the low angle turn phases without creating skid. In short, that input reduces the native radius of those flattening but still carving skis.
An easy excercise demonstrating this is RRX turns at a TA level and above where taking a few meters out of those turns without inducing edge slip. Or over tipping.
post #99 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

Transitions and the first few and last few ski lengths of a turn usually are thought of as not where we can reduce turn radius. Using the edge pressure model where downward pressure alone creates edge purchase and ski flex, that is true. This is where a different approach must be employed. A US team friend, an E4 d-teamer, Barnes, and an Europa Cup racer I mentored, all helped me understand how to flex an engaged ski through the low angle turn phases without creating skid. In short, that input reduces the native radius of those flattening but still carving skis.
An easy excercise demonstrating this is RRX turns at a TA level and above where taking a few meters out of those turns without inducing edge slip. Or over tipping.

 

Once again, I've parsed what you've written and have no idea what you're talking about. So here it is, y'all:

 

- I was wrong, the earth is flat.

 

- Your check is in the mail.

 

- The government is here to help you.

 

- Two plus two does equal five.

 

Enjoy, I'm going skiing...

post #100 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiRacer55 View Post

Once again, I've parsed what you've written and have no idea what you're talking about.

You're not alone. It's the BBB model!
post #101 of 116

I'm with @SkiRacer55 on this one.  The OP said this...

When our skis are tipped to higher edge angles, that same rotation of the femurs will essentially be pushing down into the surface of the snow rather than along that surface.  In other words, a flat ski will easily pivot, but a ski tipped to 90 degrees would just push the sidewall of the tip down into the ground.  The closer we get to 90 degrees, the less we can pivot.  

 

So how do we generate steering forces at high edge angles if we can't do it from the femurs?

 

If we're talking about an arc to arc or carved turn, there is a limit or an area in which a ski will carve based on the side cut of the ski.  The minimum radius that is printed on some ski's by the manufacturer, is based on an unweighted ski.  This is done by projecting the ski's side cut into a full circle to get it's diameter.  The radius is half of the diameter.  The only way to decrease the skis turn radius is to bend it into reverse camber from a low edge angle all the way to as far as it will go.  In order to achieve it's maximum turn radius, you need to tip it on it's side to a high edge angle while weighted.  You can carve anywhere within those limits.

 

If what TreeFiter is getting at is... How do we maintain high edge angles and get an even smaller or shorter turn radius?  A good example was Jamt's post #64.  The skier is using what I understand to be Anticipation/Rebound turns.  The skier is hyper-loading the outside ski, and clearly the ski is on as high an edge angle as possible.  The skier is also strongly countered.  Those 2 elements combined create torque, which when released, will allow the skier to gain a faster entry into the next turn and make a smaller radius turn.  The school of thought I subscribe to tells me that this is a pivoted turn entry and not a pure carve.  Nothing wrong with that.  I wish I could ski that well.  It's just a tactic to use and there are others.  I think TreeFiter is correct in his line of thinking.  Once the ski is bent to it's maximum and on it's highest edge angle, any external steering forces introduced would result in an undesired outcome.            

 

 

post #102 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

Transitions and the first few and last few ski lengths of a turn usually are thought of as not where we can reduce turn radius. Using the edge pressure model where downward pressure alone creates edge purchase and ski flex, that is true. This is where a different approach must be employed. A US team friend, an E4 d-teamer, Barnes, and an Europa Cup racer I mentored, all helped me understand how to flex an engaged ski through the low angle turn phases without creating skid. In short, that input reduces the native radius of those flattening but still carving skis.
An easy excercise demonstrating this is RRX turns at a TA level and above where taking a few meters out of those turns without inducing edge slip. Or over tipping.

So, are you saying that you bend the fore part of the ski early in the turn phase, and the aft part late in the turn phase?

post #103 of 116
The reaction force causes the tip flex Jamt.
post #104 of 116
It is hard to post a thoughtful response to silly posts like #99. Edge and pressure are two dimensions and as such fit strikingly well in that two dimensional "flat Earth" you mentioned SR55. Just sayin...
...in contrast, Post 3 offered a reasonable explanaiton where shades of grey rather than just black and white dominate our thinking.

Can we add tip pressure with steering? Yup.

Is it always appropriate? Nope.

Should we over use it and make the skis skid? The carvaholics say no.

The rest of us ask about intent and see steering as a choice nothing more. If it helps you acheive your intent use it. If not don't. So go play with it, figure out what it can and can't do for your skiing. Only then can you truly understand what that friend was trying to share with you.
Edited by justanotherskipro - 3/28/16 at 9:29am
post #105 of 116

In a word: JASP_has_secret_move_to_do_something_to_the_ski... :devil:

 

... kind of a long word...

 

:dunno 


Edited by razie - 3/28/16 at 1:23pm
post #106 of 116
Opening and closing the radius of a carved turn is old hat. Lever, steer, tip more, your choice. Use a combination if you like. The bottom line here is inspite of all the extraneous noise each option has validity and scope. Outside that scope each can be an error.

As an aside, All the sillyness about secrets, flat Earth, 2+2=5, adds nothing substantive to the discussion. It's the same kind of noise that led to Deb Armstrong leaving this site.
post #107 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

Opening and closing the radius of a carved turn is old hat. Lever, steer, tip more, your choice. Use a combination if you like. The bottom line here is inspite of all the extraneous noise each option has validity and scope. Outside that scope each can be an error.

As an aside, All the sillyness about secrets, flat Earth, 2+2=5, adds nothing substantive to the discussion. It's the same kind of noise that led to Deb Armstrong leaving this site.

The "flat earth" post that seems silly to you appears as commentary to me. It is as useful a post as most of the instruction given here at epic by many of those with "instructor" appearing under their username.
post #108 of 116
Thanks for pointing out the obvious. I believe that tactic just proves the poster lacks anything substantive to add to the discussion at that point. I could follow them down that path and sling insults and suggest their views have no basis in reality. But what exactly would that add to the discussion? Nothing. We can respectfully disagree without any of that sillyness.
post #109 of 116

The subject is can you tighten a turn with the edges engaged. I think we all agree that at the apex and under maximum load steering is not going to have much effect. So the original description is a bit questionable if we assume the majority opinion is steering at the apex adds little. Not sure we can state that emphatically though. Tightening the radius of a turn was covered in Larsson and Majors landmark book, World Cup Ski Technique. They used a photo montage of Klaus Heideggar of Austria in the 1978 Kitzbuhel slalom and they broke down the turn he made into five frames (pgs 40-43). The commentary corresponding to that montage exposes the inaccuracy of the theory that minimizes the effects of ILS and U/L separation through the apex of a slalom turn. Notice the progressive medial rotation of the left leg (stance leg) through the apex where maximum pressure and edge purchase occur. By the final frame a redirect of about 90 degrees has occurred, Consider the fact that at frame four he is in the air, making it impossible for edge and pressure to be how he redirects the skis. Yet in frame five the commentary starts with the following " As he steers the skis around the pole, Heidegger's chest faces the outside of the turn. Again he weights only his outside ski which flexes under the pressure."

 

In her 2000 book Ski Faster Lisa Densmore talks about how carved turns changed due to the advent of shaped skis. Leg extension that occurred at transition back in 79,  now occurs at the apex and the turns themselves resemble what we once called retraction turns. She goes on to talk about touch and feel for the snow. Too much pressure too early screws up the line and creates a need for a line correction many call a double turn. Beginning the turn at the rise line and being patient until you arrive there is one suggestion she offers to correct that issue. She also  talks about how winners think about minimum edge angles instead of maximum edge angles. A concept many here dismiss in their quest to always develop higher than necessary edge angles. It's fun to feel those high edge angles but often that fun leads to habitual over-edging. A habit Squatty Schuller helped me break about ten years ago when I was practicing slalom turns. Years later Barnes and Sear helped me further refine that in my reaching slalom turns where flattening the skis became just as strong a focus as reaching whatever edge angle I need at the apex. Which I immediately thought about when I read the OP's description and the suggestion that ninety degree edge angles were something they were working on. Extending out lateral RoM as far as possible is something we all experiment with but once we can do that ultra high edge angles turns, the question of where that would be appropriate comes up. Booting out is a very likely outcome as you experiment with that ultra high edge stuff. So be careful.

 

Fast forward to today and while establishing an edge in GS and the speed events is apparent, pressure before the rise line is not there unless the turn features an opening radius "comma" shaped turn. In slalom a strong redirect is very much present in all the races I recently watched. As is the ILS and U/L separation described by Larsson and Majors decades ago. Like Lisa suggested most of the upward redirection of the core is gone and lateral leg extension is present. The skiing resembles Barnes' trampoline turn video and their feet swoop around just like his infinity graphic suggests. Add some of the reverse pedaling action because of the leg flexing that occurs and the model is fairly complete.

 

So while some may write dissenting opinions and suggest I am suggesting radical stuff, a Flat Earth, 2+2=5, naked emperors, or whatever silliness they choose, the simple truth here is four decades of writing by some of the sports best are the basis of what I have shared. In the end believing otherwise doesn't invalidate what I have shared and I don't expect them to change their hard line insistence that their dogma is gospel. I do hope the average reader sees the blind spots in their theoretical philosophies. As I stated previously, tip pressure can be produces a variety of different ways and through active experimentation a skier can experiment with all the possible ways to create and manage  tip pressure.  Enjoy the exploration...


Edited by justanotherskipro - 3/29/16 at 4:22pm
post #110 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post
 

The subject is can you tighten a turn with the edges engaged. I think we all agree that at the apex and under maximum load steering is not going to have much effect. So the original description is a bit questionable if we assume the majority opinion is steering at the apex adds little. Not sure we can state that emphatically though. Tightening the radius of a turn was covered in Larsson and Majors landmark book, World Cup Ski Technique. They used a photo montage of Klaus Heideggar of Austria in the 1978 Kitzbuhel and they broke down the turn he made into five frames (pgs 40-43). The commentary corresponding to that montage exposes the inaccuracy of the theory that minimizing the effects of ILS and U/L separation through the apex of a slalom turn. Notice the progressive medial rotation of the left leg (stance leg) through the apex where maximum pressure and edge purchase occur. By the final frame a redirect of about 90 degrees has occurred, Consider the fact that at frame four he is in the air, making it impossible for edge and pressure to be how he redirects the skis. Yet in frame five the commentary starts with the following " As he steers the skis around the pole, Heidegger's chest faces the outside of the turn. Again he weights only his outside ski which flexes under the pressure."

 

In her 2000 book Ski Faster Lisa Densmore talks about how carved turns changed due to the advent of shaped skis. Leg extension that occurred at transition back in 79,  now occurs at the apex and the turns themselves resemble what we once called retraction turns. She goes on to talk about touch and feel for the snow. Too much pressure too early screws up the line and creates a need for a line correction many call a double turn. Beginning the turn at the rise line and being patient until you arrive there is one suggestion she offers to correct that issue. She also  talks about how winners think about minimum edge angles instead of maximum edge angles. A concept many here dismiss in their quest to always develop higher than necessary edge angles. It's fun to feel those high edge angles but often that fun leads to habitual over-edging. A habit Squatty Schuller helped me break about ten years ago when I was practicing slalom turns. Years later Barnes and Sear helped me further refine that in my reaching slalom turns where flattening the skis became just as strong a focus as reaching whatever edge angle I need at the apex. Which I immediately thought about when I read the OP's description and the suggestion that ninety degree edge angles were something they were working on. Extending out lateral RoM as far as possible is something we all experiment with but once we can do that ultra high edge angles turns, the question of where that would be appropriate comes up. Booting out is a very likely outcome as you experiment with that ultra high edge stuff.

 

Fine...so far what I see is words...show me a video of you doing what you're talking about, and I'll believe you...

post #111 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiRacer55 View Post
 

 

Fine...so far what I see is words...show me a video of you doing what you're talking about, and I'll believe you...

 

If everyone had to post a video to support their words, would your words still be here? Well, without your video, we'll never know. You may want to think twice before letting the air out of the tires of same bus that you are riding. There is a good number of very knowledgeable contributors on this site that may no longer be able to fully demonstrate what they know and share. This is a place where you too will be soon enough if not there already. Are you going dismiss all of them and your future self with the same stroke of opinion? Why go out of your way to be so disparaging? The dude simply wishes to discuss ski technique. That is what these threads are for. It is very obvious that he doesn't care whether you agree with him and is only interested in an engaging discussion. If you cannot contain your disagreement without your anonymous headhunting, I'm not too sure too many will care whether you are right or wrong which seems, from what I read with a neutral standpoint knowing neither of you, to be the only pacifier that you have to suck on.

post #112 of 116

Video is often solicited but even when one gets posted, it gets dismissed by those who's only purpose here seems to be to discredit others. A while back Bode did some instructional videos and someone posted one of those videos here at Epicski.com. Sadly, instead of seeing that as an opportunity to learn many here chose to turn a deaf ear to what he was saying. Others saw that as an opportunity to criticize him and suggest their understanding of skiing was superior to his. Would another video of his skiing change that? I doubt it.

 

As far as me posting video of the simple act of steering of an engaged ski, that will have to wait until I have recovered from a season ending ski accident. Not that doing that will prove much since many here only see what they want to see in any video. I say that after witnessing how Bode's instructional videos were met with so much criticism. The same sort of thing happened when Deb Armstrong wrote some things under the Alpental Angel pen name. It didn't take long for her to leave Epic over that same sort of closed minded heckling

 

Anyway SR55, next fall we should get together to ski this stuff rather than just discuss it here at Epicski.com. I see that you live in Berthoud, which is just down the road from my summer home in Loveland. I also noticed you wrote about skiing with the CU team. Last fall I met and worked with a young man who was a freshman on their team. Small world. BTW, Back twenty years ago Chris Easton was the head coach at Eldora and the SSD of the ski school as well. Tony Sear hung out there as well. Making it a magnet for learning among the front range ski areas. Were you around Eldora back then? Oddly enough when I moved back from Aspen both Chris and Tony were working at Keystone and I had the opportunity to again learn from both of those guys as well as work with Bob Barnes who asked me to serves as a staff trainer for the school. I just realized that was nine years ago,  OMG how time flies. In any case I hope your results met your expectations this season and next year as well. Ski well my friend...

post #113 of 116

When all else fails? ...Name drop. 

post #114 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich666 View Post
 

 

If everyone had to post a video to support their words, would your words still be here? Well, without your video, we'll never know. You may want to think twice before letting the air out of the tires of same bus that you are riding. There is a good number of very knowledgeable contributors on this site that may no longer be able to fully demonstrate what they know and share. This is a place where you too will be soon enough if not there already. Are you going dismiss all of them and your future self with the same stroke of opinion? Why go out of your way to be so disparaging? The dude simply wishes to discuss ski technique. That is what these threads are for. It is very obvious that he doesn't care whether you agree with him and is only interested in an engaging discussion. If you cannot contain your disagreement without your anonymous headhunting, I'm not too sure too many will care whether you are right or wrong which seems, from what I read with a neutral standpoint knowing neither of you, to be the only pacifier that you have to suck on.

 

Your point is well taken. Time for me to bow out of this discussion; y'all enjoy...

post #115 of 116
Actually heluva the pupose was to find out if SR55 and I shared common friends and to offer a chance to meet and share ideas. Even though I stopped being active in race coaching and officiating world when I left Aspen, that world is pretty small and I suspect SR55 and I know many of the same folks. Especially those who like me helped AVSC host the women's world cup every fall. That event is a lot of work and IMO most of those worker bees never get enough credit for their efforts. Same goes for the Loveland derby. So to suggest I am name dropping would be inaccurate, if anything the opposite is the case.
post #116 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
 

When all else fails? ...Name drop. 

 

I am not so sure you are correct. I just had lunch 5 minutes ago with the world's foremost authority on name dropping who often comes to me for advice so you should feel more than comfortable being corrected by him through me. Name dropping in advance of either failure or success is the way to do it.

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 › How do we add rotary at high edge angles?