or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Get off those edges. - Page 11

post #301 of 378
Right on!

Thanks

Cliff- A-man
post #302 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman

Maybe I misworded my question on bevels. I think it takes more edge angle to engage the edge to initiate a turn when you use more base bevel which feels to me like I have to get my skis out from under me further to initiate.
No, A-man, I think it was me being too vague in my response. Sorry, I'll expand a bit.



You’re totally correct, it does take more edge angle to initially engage an edge if we increase the amount of base bevel. The question is how much edge angle do we have add? My answer is we must add the same number of degrees of foot tipping as was added degrees of base bevel.



Example: If we add 1 degree of base bevel then we must tip our foot 1 degree to return the skis edge to the same orientation to the snow as it had before beveling (flat on the snow). From that point on (non beveled ski flat on snow, beveled ski tipped 1 degree) both skis must be tipped the same number of degrees to get them to the point in which their edges engage the snow surface enough to cut an arced platform for the ski to ride.



Now,,,, once the edge is engaged, regardless of base bevel, it all becomes about sidecut. The sidecut, once an edge is engaged, will dictate the turn shape regardless of the amount of base bevel. Two skis of equal sidecut, but differing base bevels, tipped at the same angle will produce the same turn radius because the gap between snow and edge created by that tipping will be the same in both skis, therefore the pre snow contact bending will be the same, therefore the turn radius will be the same. It doesn't matter what the orientation the edge has to the snow surface once the ski is tipped. As long it's able to cut a platform for the ski to ride, the shape of that platform will be dictated by the amount of gap, and the amount of gap will be dictated by the amount of tip.



As to your sensitivity to the amount of tipping you have to do to engage: I think it's great you feel it, as it shows great awareness of your body’s interaction with skis, snow and space. It may be that because you are so sensitive your mind might be perceiving the magnitude of the differences as being greater than the reality. I wish all my students were that aware of what's going on below there nose.

Finally, the more lateral CM movement you feel at the time of engagement is another good sign, as the sensation is accurate. Because the base beveled ski requires 1 degree more ski tipping to engage, the gap at the time of initial engagement will be greater in the beveled ski than in the non beveled ski. That extra gap will result in a smaller radius turn, and the smaller radius will produce higher turn forces. Those higher forces will require a CM location further inside the feet to provide the desired balance point. Be aware though, after initial engagement all rules of tipping/gap/radius resume. The only differences will be found in the amount of tipping necessary to initially engage, and in the resultant turn shapes and forces brought about by those differing amounts of tip. Again, the differences are minimal, so it's a very good sign that your sensitive to them A-man.
FASTMAN
post #303 of 378
Additional thought:

If anyone is having trouble understanding my simplistic gap explanation of how edge angle relates to turn shape,,,, or is having trouble relating it to what actually occurs on snow, where a gap is not (in reality) created,,,, please feel free to ask.


FASTMAN
post #304 of 378
Thanks for the compliments. But, I have been sking for 41 years and if I don't have it down by now, I should probably give up. I am fortunate (or maybe not) that I am very sensitive to ski tune. By the way I am in total agreement with your answer. I am also very fortunate to be around my kids coach who was a ranked downhiller in the 80's on the World Cup and is one of the most helpful, knowledgeable & enthusiastic individuals when it comes to coaching any sport, that I have ever encountered.

It is all about edge control & feel IMHO. This also maybe why I have a more difficult time changing skis during the day. I get locked in my subconcious
how much movement I have to make to make my skis perform as I would like. Sometimes it takes me 1/2 a day to get back to that point on when I switch skis.

An intersting example of no feel:

Season before last one of our team's racers was sponsored by Rossi. His race Stock skis came in and his Dad hand tuned them immediatley. This was a FIS level Junior Olympics qualififying 2nd year J2. This kid also won the overall J3 series as a J3 for PNSA.

He didn't finish one run out of 20 runs in a row. Turns out Rossi race stock skis are not ground flat before shipping. His Dad tuned them without the ski ever being stone ground and didn't check them with a tru-bar. I know this kid very well and the same thing happened to his brother and sister. What I can't understand is how they didn't know their skis were not skiing right. I can almost tell between the lodge and the lift line the 1st run of the morning if my tune is off. Needless to say once their skis were ground & retuned they all 3 went on to have a a successful balance of the season!

It's all about feeling and as you have said so well trusting your edge, extending your outside leg and tipping your ski up and riding a clean arc, particularly at the beginning or top of the turn. It is diffucult for many to not pivot. It takes patience in your skiing and not hurrying the carving process. Adding progressive pressure as you continue your turn. But too much pressure at the top of the turn and any rotary movement with your feet and you skid. When you have it down it is the greatest feeling in the world and you are in complete control of your path down the hill.

Anyway, thanks for all your input. You've confirmed many things I thought were true!

Best Wishes!
post #305 of 378
Skiing falls between..
Blue ice and bottomless
big air and crushing compression
heart and mind.
Mechanics and momentum

Edges are applied where the snow does not yield enough to allow the base to support the skier.

The ski is a tool that will allow any degree of turn based on the inputs of the skiier.

I relate to the original posting. "Edging" is just an extreme case of base contact. Powder skiing is the counter position.

The blazes with side cut. That is just power steering. (Though I enjoy it now)

It makes sense to me.

CalG
post #306 of 378
Reading more and condidering....

Does tipping the ski, that is "edging", with out loading generate a tighter turn? At this time, I think not.
I know I can ride a bicycle "tipped" and still hold a straight line. I can even fly an aircraft "tipped" in a straight path by suitable application of stick and rudder.
Edging a very lightly loaded ski should not demand a turn. Though the skills to do so are not often practiced.
Edges themselves could be considered as extra "lift" or grip on the supporting medium.

I would like to take my snow ski out waterskiing rather than cutting plastic cards and rubbing them over the furniture where the force of the hand overwhelms any real study.

Provocative

CalG
post #307 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgrandy
...cutting plastic cards and rubbing them over the furniture where the force of the hand overwhelms any real study...
Cal - it's actually very easy to hold the card so that the force of your hand doesn't overwhelm the interactions between the card and the surface.

To simulate a carving ski, the only inputs you want to transmit to the card are: (1) an edging torque and (2) a decambering force. I can restrict my inputs to just these two by holding the card with just my thumb and index finger. My thumb presses down onto the fore-aft center of the card, just inside of the sidecut edge, while my index finger pulls up on the opposite edge of the card up off the surface to achieve the desired edge angle. Holding it this way, no rotary (ie, yaw) input is generated, and no inadvertent fore-aft pressuring adjustments are possible.

Tom / PM
post #308 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgrandy

Does tipping the ski, that is "edging", with out loading generate a tighter turn? At this time, I think not.

Edging a very lightly loaded ski should not demand a turn.

CalG
You lost me Cal. :

Unless one can float, the skis can only be unloaded for brief moments through flexion/extension. Or perhaps your referring to unloading one ski by transfering load to the other. I suppose you could tip the inside foot and not turn by placing all your weight on a flat outside foot, but it would look rather stange.

And, yes, you could avoid turning on a lightly pressured, edged, shape ski by steering it away from the resultant arc, but if the ski is tipped and pressured enough to drive the entire edge down onto the snow (which doesn't require much pressure), and no steering is done, the ski is going to turn.

If your talking about cleanly carved turns, SIDECUT CAN'T BE SIDESTEPPED! :

FASTMAN
post #309 of 378
Rick

I'm not thinking about artificially "unloading".
The first rule of any support element is that equilibrium will be sought. Excessive "support", and the skier will start to fly. Too little support, and we sink (Hard to do here in the east, but one can dream!)

So, the loading I referr to is that due to momentum changes caused by directional changes. Turning. creates the loads that bend the ski. The greater the turning loads, the more possibilities to bend the ski. To some degree, at the very early stages of a turn, the shovel "deflection" provides the forces required to develope any subsequent turn. In a soft medium this deflection is not based on sidecut, but only angle of attack. It represents surplus support. This can lead to the sensation of flight! ;-)

I know I can tip a ski without creating a turning load. Again, it is not something practiced, and is likely unnatural and difficult, but it can be done.

Regards

CalG
post #310 of 378
Rick

Where do the forces come from in a cleanly carved turn in a yielding "surface" /medium.

friction , gravity, lift, momentum (others?)

I'm not getting "geometry" in there anywhere though it is in the "lift" catagory. I feel it is more in line with an efficiency concept rather than the fundamental principle.

Regards

CalG
post #311 of 378
Cal,

In any snow condition that I have ever played in if I tip the ski I will turn unless I actively steer against the direction the ski wants to turn in. Gravity provides all the loading that is necessary. Tip a moving ski and it will turn. Conversely, an untipped ski will not turn. It might passively seek the fall line but once pointed straight down there is no turn.

Living where I do I get to ski a great range of snow conditions from fairly hard to truely bottomless light powder. In all cases when I want to turn quicker I focus on tipping the ski earlier and further. The degree of loading that I experence is an outcome of how tight the turn is. Interestingly, even in deep soft snow I feel the pressure under my foot to be greater on the inside edge just as when skiing harder snow. Angle of attack of the ski tip is undoubtably an important factor in skiing in a sot medium but my experience says sidecut still plays a very important role. I ride the edges on hard pack, soft groomed, hero powder, deep crud, and deep powder.

yd
post #312 of 378
Boy this is brings back of my first days on this list.

Ski, snow board, bicycle, motorcycle, skateboard, surf board, sail plane.

All are single track "vehicles" , "Tip them and they will turn"! And how I do love that feeling. Each "tool" has it's working rules and medium of reaction.

For the tools that react against "hard" surfaces, the easy way to get the tools tipped is to turn them out from under the load. Getting the ski "away from the body". The "load" "falls" into the correct attitude to accomodate the forces generated by the turn. Everyone is happy in dynamic stability. Motorcycle riders call it "countersteering". "turn left to go right!"

There is some theory of proof whereby one "proves an opposite is ridiculous" whereby the original idea is somehow substantiated .... help me here.

What if we tried to ski , not the spatula, but a normal deep sidecut, customarily cambered ski of infinite stiffness! Now that would be a ride! Think of the places you could end up. Like the hospital!

That would be a tool that is not designed to follow the single track.

Regards

CalG
post #313 of 378

I really haven't read this thread.

Hey, I first read this topic when it was about 1 page and never came back. Now we're at 16 and I just want to know before I commit to reading all of it, is it worth it? Will it cure my insomnia? Will it truely enlighten me? Is there any worthy humor here or some good flame wars? What is it about this topic that warrants 16 pages?
post #314 of 378
What is it about this topic that warrants 16 pages?
It's July, there’s no snow, and we're all obsessed with skiing.


Read post #280 and #281, skip the rest.
post #315 of 378
S C

I had similar thoughts even while reading through these pages. What the heck?! But the original question / posting is valid. At least to me. To rephrase the original posting to what it means to me, "Have we replaced "Ski the ski" with "get on your edges to turn"? " (Sorry for the double quotes).

I like the idea of the interaction of the skier with the entire ski construction. I take out my K2 710 comps every season just to be reminded how much things remain the same. Long skis ski differently than short. I like to watch the action of the front of my ski while I pressure them into a turn. Some of the softer ones feel like the tips will wrap around and strike you in the ear!
I don't select ski's by sidecut numbers.
I do enjoy skiing. I think msot of us do. So we talk about it here and it may take more than 16 pages, and I bet the topic comes up again some time in the future.

It's not a bad thread, go ahead and read it if you want. Some tempers flaired, but that passes.
post #316 of 378
Since this thread seems to have come full circle back to whether we ski on our edges or our bases, I thought I might as well post the results of a mathematical analysis that I did of the forces on a ski (narrow stance) or board in a turn pulling a specified number of G's in the plane of the slope. The only significant assumption in the calculation is that we are looking at the forces at the bottom of a semi-circular turn at the point where the skier is headed 90 deg to the fall line, and if he held onto the turn, would actually start heading back uphill.

There are surprisingly few assumptions needed to do this calculation, and the only inputs needed are (a) the angle of the slope; (b) the angle between the base of the ski and the snow (ie, the edge angle); and, (c) the lateral G-force (in the plane of the slope).




From the non-zero value of both traces almost everywhere in the above graphs, the obvious conclusion of my calculation (as it applies to the title of this thread) is that a skier almost always skis (ie, exerts a normal force) on BOTH the bases AND edges as they are carving their turns.

Thus, the suggestion made by the title of this thread, "Get off those edges" is clearly a physical impossibility. If a skier wants to stay balanced, he simply can't "get off his edges". Except under some very special conditions, the skier will always be applying force to the snow through both his bases and edges.

To make it perfectly clear, in the above comments, by "base", I am referring to both the P-tex and the base surface of the metal edge, ie, the combined "base" area. Similarly, by "edge", I mean the combination of the plastic sidewalls plus the side of the metal edge facing in the same direction as the sidewall.

In case anyone is interested in the details, my calculation first does a coordinate transformation to convert a specified value of centripetal acceleration in the plane of the slope into its horizontal and vertical components. A second coordinate rotation then converts these values into components in the plane of, and perpendicular to the base of the edged skis. F=ma isn't even in this calculation - it's just geometry, so it applies whether the skis are clinging to an icy slope by a groove only a mm deep, or are sunk completely in bottomless powder.

HTH,

Tom / PM

PS - Fastman, I realized that I just was not going to have time to convert the present calculation for a series of linked semi-circular turns to a sinusoidal path down the hill as I had promised in an earlier post. Maybe someday.
post #317 of 378
Thanks Tom,



That was an interesting study. Makes for a simpler presentation by determining a lateral force level (0 or 1G), and then discussing how that force affects various edge angles, as you did.



A few things:



1) Would your 0 degree slope (graph 1 and 3) not only apply to a skier on flat ground, but also to a skier on a slope with skis pointing exactly down the falline? In this instance the 45 degree to the ground CM lean would also be required for balance, and all the resultant edge angle to base/sidewall load values would be consistent. True?



2) Interesting how this points out (with your help) that situations that require reverse angulation also exert a force vector on the ski that attempts to drive the ski off the platform it has cut; if it has in fact been able to cut a platform in the snow at all. The implication here is that, as I've suspected, there's a threshold in sidecut dimensions that can't be breached by manufactures.



The greater the sidecut the greater the lateral forces created for a given edge angle. Once a skis sidecut is so severe as to produce more than 1G of lateral force on a 45 degree edge angle the resultant force vector will theoretically attempt to drive the ski off its platform, making it difficult to carve a turn. Though, I would also suggest that the greater the edge angle employed, the more resistant the ski would be to drifting off its platform because it would be fighting gravity to slide up the more vertical platform.



3) Your presentation has made it very clear how lateral force combines with edge angle to determine base/sidewall load values, and clearly points out that sidewall loads do exist, and why.



It also relates closely to what I've tried in the past to explain about resultant force vectors and their influence on body positions, angulation, and balance. While your presentation starts with lateral force value and works backwards, in the interest of simplicity of explanation, in real life the lateral force values are the byproduct of the turn shape we desire, and the turn shape is created by the edge angle we employ.



As such, the base/sidewall load values will be dependant on the speed we travel, the shape of the turn we make, and the edge angle the sidecut of the ski we're on demands we use to create that turn shape.



Thanks again Tom, great job!

FASTMAN
post #318 of 378
Thread Starter 
PM

thanks for your research into this which I haven't got time to study now, but it should go without saying, particularly if you bother to read the opening thread, that this is about both and is not about either/or, and also it is about undue emphasis. The title or headline merely suggests the emphasis needs to change imo.

You don't need a phyics degreee to realise that not getting 'on your edges' is physically impossible once any tip is initiated.

Whether you allow this concept to completely dominate your thinking is another matter.

look forward to reading it.
post #319 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by daslider
PM

I haven't got time to study now, but...................

You don't need a phyics degreee to realise that not getting 'on your edges' is physically impossible once any tip is initiated.
Better study first and comment later, daslider. You'll discover that Tom has put his (unneeded) physics degree to work, and has clearly explained why your above statement is totally wrong.

Depending on the relationship between lateral force and edge angle, it is quite possible to have no sidewall load. Tom explains this in his presentation.

FASTMAN
post #320 of 378
I'm taking up water skiing!

Snow skis are too hard to understand.

CalG
post #321 of 378
Rick / FASTMAN - Great comments.

1) I'm pretty sure your comment #1 is correct, but let me double check. There might be some small term present in one case, but not the other.

2) Your comment, "The implication here is that, as I've suspected, there's a threshold in sidecut dimensions that can't be breached by manufactures" is right on the mark. I re-ran the calculation for the same 30 deg slope angle, but a 3 G lateral acceleration instead of 1 G. You are absolutely right that 45 deg edging angle is not enough edging to keep the ski on its snow platform, and even if you could edge all the way up to 90 deg, the maximum force driving the ski into the snow platform at 90 deg is still only about 0.8 G. This is a reasonable amount of force, but less than a third of the normal force on the base. If the snow yields (crumbles) under the 3 G sideways load (with only 0.8 G holding it into the snow), the carve is doomed. OTOH, at more modest lateral G-forces, at 90 deg edging, the maximum force driving the ski into the ledge will actually be much larger than the normal (perpendicular) force on the base, making it much more likely the ski will stay in the carve. This is an implication, which I must confess, I hadn't previously given much thought to. Excellent observation. I'll upload the relevant graph in a couple of days.

3) "... While your presentation starts with lateral force value and works backwards, in the interest of simplicity of explanation, in real life the lateral force values are the byproduct of the turn shape we desire, and the turn shape is created by the edge angle we employ. ... As such, the base/sidewall load values will be dependant on the speed we travel, the shape of the turn we make, and the edge angle the sidecut of the ski we're on demands we use to create that turn shape. ..."

Precisely.

Thanks for looking over the calculations so carefully. Gotta run.

Tom / PM
post #322 of 378
Thread Starter 
Fastman

I can't see the point you are trying to make here, doesn't PM explain in post#316 para 4 that you are nearly always on both edges and bases but by differeing degrees? I was merely pointing out that 'get off those edges' was a thread title rather than an instruction and had more to do with currently fashionable emphases.

On the question of 'Gap Theory' pM's interpretation of what you meant in the stuff about pre and post contact pressure was not what you had written, would you be able to explain whether pre contact is something done in motion (rather than PM's static demo) and does it involve the 'gap' (what else do pre and post refer to?)?

In the other thread on 'the gap' you then say it is only a KISS idea as an intro to carving and that there is no actual gap, the same concession you made to Rusty Guy earlier in this thread.

I have doubts about telling students something that is not based on fact, even if in some ways it is effective. Aren't there better ways which are simplified truths rather than fabrications?

One problem I have seen here is students wanting to deliberately push out into the bend of a turn as if they were doing this static ski bending demo in a real turn, rather than rolling the ski and allowing the turn forces to provide the bending - there is a considerable difference.

If you would prefer to address these matters on the newer Gap thread (which seems already diverted into rotation country) that's fine.
post #323 of 378
Daslider,

Your questions appear legitimate, and I could commit the considerable amount of time it would take to clarify these issues for you, but your history of not being sincere in your search for understanding tells me I would be just wasting more of my time.

Sorry, I'm no longer willing to do that.

FASTMAN
post #324 of 378
Thread Starter 
Fastman

I am sorry you are entrenched in your view of me "but your history of not being sincere in your search for understanding" and are not prepared to answer what is by your own admission a legitimate question.

There is no such history, only your irritation by a thread whose premise seems to have wounded one of your holy cows, but with 5000+ viewings, perhaps it wasn't quite as illegitimate as you would proclaim. You were free to ignore it.

Your ad hominem rudeness might suggest your own difficulty in answering some of these points at a technical level. That's ok on both scores. You are not expected to have all the answers, but you could perhaps try and discuss the differing opinions we have and be a little more polite in doing so, that is assuming you wish to participate at all.
post #325 of 378

R. LeMaster's reply to "Pulling Back Inside Foot"

Hi Ron,
My name is Cliff. I have two teenage racers a J1 & a J2 boys who have experienced a fair amount of success racing. Our home Mt. is Crystal Mountain, WA & obviously ski fro PNSA. Their coach is Alan Lauba. You probably already know our program is where, Scott McCartney, Libby Ludlow, Tatum Skoglund and last years Collegiate slalom champ Paul McDonald all were trained.
I belong to a ski forum called epicski.com. I have been having an ongoing discussion about the need to pull your inside foot back in order to keep your skis parallel through out the turn. I have really stirred the bee's nest with this as many of the participants on the forum are skeptical of this technique.
I looekd through your "On Snow" 2004 Presentation and you have a slide under Teaching Methodology where you mention pulling the inside foot back. Of course, without you speaking with the slide, these bullet points are left open for interpretation.
Could you shed some light on lead change, parallel shins and skis and pulling the inside footback in the turn. I might use your response on the forum to support my position that pulling the inside foot back is an important part of modern technique.
Look forward to hearing from you and I thought your site is fabulous!
Best Wishes,
Cliff Weiss

Ron’s Response, Unedited!

Cliff,
Pulling the inside foot back and lead change are often though of as contradictory, but I don't see it that way at all. In the 1960s and 70s I used to hear instructors talk about deliberately advancing the new inside ski as you went into a turn, and called it "lead change". Today, you don't hear people talk about actively advancing the ski, but it is clear that when a skier is deeply inclined into a turn, the inside ski must be ahead of the outside ski. This is simply a matter of geometry: If the inside and outside ankles are bent to the same degree, the inside foot will be ahead of the outside foot because the inside leg will be bent more than the outside leg. I had an article in Ski Racing last spring describing this along with pictures that I believe show it pretty clearly.

Even if you pull your inside foot back, you can't bring it even with your outside foot. (Unless, that is, you're not inclined very far, which means you're not making much of a turn.) So there is, indeed a "lead change" when you go from one turn to another.

That having been said, some very good coaches report having a lot of success with telling racers to pull their inside foot back so there is no lead change. What this does, I believe, is gets the skier to keep pressure on the front of the inside boot, which in turn puts pressure on the forebody of the inside ski, helping it carve better. The skier may *feel* like the tips of his skis are even, but they aren't.

So, "pulling the inside foot back" is an effective coaching method for some racers, but it is not contradictory to saying that there is a "lead change" going from one turn to another.

The notions of "parallel shins" and "parallel skis" are somewhat similar. There is no questions that we see less of an angle between the lower legs of the best skiers of today than we saw twenty years ago, and that we see lest converging and diverging angles between their skis at certain points in the turn. I think this is due to better skis, which allow for using the inside to carve at times, and perhaps a general use of more lateral canting in ski boots. (The second point is purely unconfirmed conjecture on my part.) As with pulling the inside foot back, telling skiers to keep their shins parallel seems to have a generally positive effect on their skiing. I've got several ideas as to what is really going on, but won't get into it here. But there are plenty of excellent skiers, Bode Miller for example, whose shins are often not parallel at critical points in the turn where he is carving the hardest.

I hope this was not too long-winded or hard to understand.

Regards, Ron

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
post #326 of 378
Atomicman, I'll bite I guess. I read this several times, and the main things he seems to be saying are that even if you think you are skiing without tip lead you still are, because the mechanics of the body dictate this when you are skiing effectively (he says this in two places) and, that the focus of pulling the foot back is done really to achieve full engagment of the inside ski's edge allowing it to work for and with us and to remove any "artificial" tip lead which leads to ineffective skiing. How did you interpret his post? Later, RicB.
post #327 of 378
Quote:
From Ron LeMaster:
...In the 1960s and 70s I used to hear instructors talk about deliberately advancing the new inside ski as you went into a turn, and called it "lead change". Today, you don't hear people talk about actively advancing the ski, but it is clear that when a skier is deeply inclined into a turn, the inside ski must be ahead of the outside ski. This is simply a matter of geometry...

That having been said, some very good coaches report having a lot of success with telling racers to pull their inside foot back so there is no lead change...
So, "pulling the inside foot back" is an effective coaching method for some racers, but it is not contradictory to saying that there is a "lead change" going from one turn to another.
The key words here are "for some racers." Pulling the foot back helped me, probably because I had developed the habit of actively advancing my inside foot, which was pretty effective on straight skis. Sometimes when I tell someone to pull the foot back, he/she drops the hip and ends up in the backseat. Some skiers respond well if you tell them to advance the outside foot, but that seems to put me in the backseat if I actually try it. (Sometimes I tell people to advance the outside foot, then demo it by pulling my inside foot back.) Descriptions are not skiing. You need to adjust your descriptions to get the response you want from the student. You cannot improve your skiing by arguing about whose descriptions are better.

Regards, John
post #328 of 378
Ric B,

I am a little bit confused on parts of his answer, but what I think he is getting at is that pulling your inside footback and lead change are not mutaully exclusive and perfectly even tips and feet are not the goal. It appears that just the attempt or feel of pulling your inside footback and the attempt to roll your inside knee uphill and to try to keep parallel shafts, is all that is needed to aid in efficient skiing/carving. The notion that World Cuppers are always perfectly parallel obviously is not the case. But as Ron says they are a lot more parallel than 20 years ago where A-Frame was the goal & technique "du jour" and 100% of your weight on your outside ski was the goal. NOW THE GOAL SEEMS TO BE TO "TRY" TO ALWAYS BE PARALLEL AND EVEN THE BEST IN THE WORLD CAN'T ACCOMPLISH THIS 100% OF TIME. I think it partially goes back to using the forebody of your ski to initiate a turn. To do this you must pressure forward & pulling yopur inside footback helps pressure your boot cuff and in turn the forebody of your inside ski. Again this is all only apprpropriate with a fair amount if inclination, not standing stright up on a 'Bunny Slope"

Jdowling:

I don't care for the notion of advancing your outside ski. This means to me that your outside foot would get in front of your hips. Now that is not to say that some very high level racers don't use this technique at the end of some turns. They do intentionally. But as you've pointed out most skiers I see on the hill tend to be in the back seat and pusing your feet forward excerbates it. Pulling your inside foot back, as Ron said, helps pressure the cuff of your inside ski which aids in that ski carving.

I still contend that the path your inside ski takes in a given turn is shorter than the path of your outside ski and pulling your inside footback helps tighten the arc of your inside ski. It is similar to the reason they stagger the start (I was watching some of the Summer Olympics) in the races around a track. The inner most lane is the shortest distance around the track and each lane out is longer. Now granted the distance between your feet is not very much, but it still needs to be dealt with to "Attempt" to stay parallel.

Thanks for the comments, I thought it was pretty cool that Ron took the time to answer!

Over & out!
A-man
post #329 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman



I don't care for the notion of advancing your outside ski. This means to me that your outside foot would get in front of your hips. Now that is not to say that some very high level racers don't use this technique at the end of some turns. They do intentionally. But as you've pointed out most skiers I see on the hill tend to be in the back seat and pusing your feet forward excerbates it. Pulling your inside foot back, as Ron said, helps pressure the cuff of your inside ski which aids in that ski carving.

I still contend that the path your inside ski takes in a given turn is shorter than the path of your outside ski and pulling your inside footback helps tighten the arc of your inside ski... Now granted the distance between your feet is not very much, but it still needs to be dealt with to "Attempt" to stay parallel.
I agree that advancing the outside ski doesn't help me. Nevertheless, some kids ski better when I tell them to do just that. Others get it better when I tell them to pull the inside foot back. You need to be there, watch what they are doing, and adjust to get the results you want.

The difference in radius between the inside and outside skis is a non-issue. In most turns the weight goes to the outside ski and the inside ski can be pretty easily steered. You still want to keep the inside ski parallel so that you can step to it if you lose the edge of the outside ski. You see racers do that all the time, and photographers know enough to set up where they'll get the pictures of it.

Regards, John
post #330 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
Ric B,

I am a little bit confused on parts of his answer, but what I think he is getting at is that pulling your inside footback and lead change are not mutaully exclusive and perfectly even tips and feet are not the goal. It appears that just the attempt or feel of pulling your inside footback and the attempt to roll your inside knee uphill and to try to keep parallel shafts, is all that is needed to aid in efficient skiing/carving. The notion that World Cuppers are always perfectly parallel obviously is not the case. But as Ron says they are a lot more parallel than 20 years ago where A-Frame was the goal & technique "du jour" and 100% of your weight on your outside ski was the goal. NOW THE GOAL SEEMS TO BE TO "TRY" TO ALWAYS BE PARALLEL AND EVEN THE BEST IN THE WORLD CAN'T ACCOMPLISH THIS 100% OF TIME. I think it partially goes back to using the forebody of your ski to initiate a turn. To do this you must pressure forward & pulling yopur inside footback helps pressure your boot cuff and in turn the forebody of your inside ski. Again this is all only apprpropriate with a fair amount if inclination, not standing stright up on a 'Bunny Slope"
Well, it seems he was being very diplomatic. I too see a difference between pulling inside foot back and skiing with no tip lead. As Ron said I don't think it is really posible even though some describe it as such. When I use this in a lesson I'm usually trying to get someone to eliminate excessive tip lead and help feel what the inside does when it is engaged. also leads to a more effective stance as I think SD said in the other thread ,because it is more under our hip and so ready for inside work along with new outside work. I like to move from this into movement patterns that eliminate the need for pulling the foot back, movement patterns that keep us standing over both skis better. Now if my inside half isn't strong, if my inside hip is droppng back and/or tipping/dropping down, then all the pulling back on the inside foot won't solve the problem, which is where I see it over used. It's not an end in itself. I prefer to help them find lasting changes by helping them find a good dynamic stance that allows the to stand effectively over their skis and move forward into the turn. The real problem seems to be with those that take a literal no tip lead from this, or that this means that the hips stay totaly square to the skis.

[/quote]Jdowling:

I don't care for the notion of advancing your outside ski. This means to me that your outside foot would get in front of your hips. Now that is not to say that some very high level racers don't use this technique at the end of some turns. They do intentionally. But as you've pointed out most skiers I see on the hill tend to be in the back seat and pusing your feet forward excerbates it. Pulling your inside foot back, as Ron said, helps pressure the cuff of your inside ski which aids in that ski carving. [/quote]

I like keeping the outside hip moving up onto the new outside leg and foot (something I have to work on). This then allows positive progresive inside hip movement up and forward, which seems to eliminate the need to pull anything back.

[/quote]I still contend that the path your inside ski takes in a given turn is shorter than the path of your outside ski and pulling your inside footback helps tighten the arc of your inside ski. It is similar to the reason they stagger the start (I was watching some of the Summer Olympics) in the races around a track. The inner most lane is the shortest distance around the track and each lane out is longer. Now granted the distance between your feet is not very much, but it still needs to be dealt with to "Attempt" to stay parallel.

Thanks for the comments, I thought it was pretty cool that Ron took the time to answer!

Over & out!
A-man[/quote]

Thanks Later, RicB.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching