or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# The Gap

No, not where Lisamarie used to buy her leg warmers!
In the "get off the edges thread", there was something about a gap when a ski is put on edge. Not being willing to wade through 16 pages of physics lessons and personal attacks, I wanted to discuss this here.
I agree with those who say that there is no gap at the center of the ski when edge angle is increased. How could there be when that is the point of contact between the skier and the ski? It seems to me that what happens is that the tip and tail are torsionally twisted momentarily if they are firmly carving. This twisting force then causes the tip and tail to move to the inside of the turn. If done suddenly enough, I suppose it could deform the ski enough to disrupt the carve?
This is supposing that the snow is hard enough to resist the ends of the ski from simply digging deeper into the snow momentarily as the edge angle is increased.
Thoughts? Has this already been covered?
Sounds like a weighted ski versus unweighted ski - and i assume that we are talking about an unweighted ski - so no gap unless you are in transition and you are releasing the engery from your skis to enter the next turn. ...OR you have a ski that is about as stiff as an oak 4x4...

So it depends what kind of skis you are talking about, but if you examine a video of someone carving on VERY hard snow you will see that there is no gap, even though the tip and tail of the ski are bouncing and flopping all over... the waist stays firmly planted on the snow any time that the skier is experiencing any kind of g-force in the turn (weighting the ski).

Later

GREG
Isn't a gap the genesis for gaper and or gaepicski?

It certainly has been hashed out with passion at the other thread. I have not followed that thread with tremendous care, however, I would argue anything beyond about twenty pounds effectively "decambers/weights" a ski.

I was a little confused by your mention of torsion. I'm not sure I understand or agree with your wording insofar as twisting force causing a tip or tail to move inside a turn.

I have always assumed a lack of torsion or torsional rigidity is in fact what makes a ski hold well on hard snow.

I want to make it clear you can take what I know about ski design and put it in a thimble.

One ancillary point. I was surprised by what I read at another site. In particular the fact that the word rotation was even mentioned.

I want to commend you for broaching the topic as it relates to short radius turns. I think you have hit on an issue that will be difficult to reconcile with anyone who refutes the existance of or efficacy of "rotation" in skiing. You hit the nail on the head.

There have been some great discussions here about "pulling the inside foot back". The writer you spoke to suggests it aids in getting hips aligned over boots. I agree it can. The more I ski the more I believe the best way to get hips over boots is via extension.....just stand up! I think a potential problem associated with any foot pullback is that it levers the ski boot that while engaging the forebody of the inside ski can disengage the tail and cause skidding.

Again, I think you bring up a wonderful question and point about short radius turns and my \$00.02 would be you betcha upper/lower body seperation is a rotational force. It creates torque and/or twisting.

I once heard Burt Skall who is a PSIA examiner and former SSD at Copper give a great explaination as to where the upper body should be aligned in a turn. He said the sternum points towards the apex of the next turn. That works well in short, medium, and big GS turns.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by MilesB In the "get off the edges thread", there was something about a gap when a ski is put on edge.......... I agree with those who say that there is no gap at the center of the ski when edge angle is increased......... Thoughts? Has this already been covered?
Yes, this has been covered. Rusty and I discussed and resolved this issue somewhere midway along that thread. No one on that thread, including myself, was promoting the idea that a gap between the ski and snow actually occurs when a weighted skis is tipped during a turn.

In that thread I made it very clear that the gap description was a simplified explanation of what happens to an unweighted ski when tipped up on edge, and how the amount of gap created by the sidecut of that unweighted ski influences ski bend, and therefore turn shape. It's a verbal explanation similar in purpose to Rusty's visual credit card presentation.

I also made it very clear (as Rusty can attest) that in real life skiing situations a weighted ski does not actually lose contact with the snow as edge angle is added.

There was in fact no true disagreement on that thread with respect to this issue. It was only the result of combative debate tactics that my explanation was purposely ignored and the confusion continued to be promoted.

Upon question, I also went on to offer a hypothesis of how a ski being tipped while under load actually assumes the new shape dictated by its sidecut. It's very similar to yours, differing only in the idea that the ski relieves it's torsional load by carving it's way into the new sidecut mandated bend, as opposed to deflecting into it (which I think you are suggesting).

I'm not prepared to claim unequivocal certainty that my explanation of how a weighted ski assumes a new sidecut mandated bend shape is always correct. I think in reality there are many factors that ultimately determine how it happens. I'm sure depending on snow hardness, torsional ski stiffness, and rate of edge application we very well may both be right.

My gap explanation is designed to provide a quick and clear understanding of the mechanics of how a ski carves a turn, and of the role of ski design, while avoiding the more technical discussions we're engaged in here. I find that for 99 percent of new carvers it quickly provides them with the knowledge they need, and they very seldom express a desire to delve as deep into the subject as we are here. I'm sure Rusty's credit card approach generates similar results.

K.I.S.S. is a good approach. One can always discuss more complex issues if the student desires.

FASTMAN
FM, I was thinking along the same line as you, with the ski relieving the torsional tension into a sharper turn.

Rusty, while I appreciate your commendations, I think you misunderstood my question. Perhaps you should post at that site http://www.realskiers.com/pmtsforum/viewforum.php?f=1&sid=bbe4d833e34668c925b9b1e2da60 0905 . But please don't do it anonymously, as some others have.
I don't have any desire to post at the "other" forum for a wide range of reasons. I don't think I misunderstood your question. It certainly seems plainly stated;

"Specifically, keeping the upper body facing more or less straight downhill adds a bit of twisting to the skis when they are flattened between turns. Is this beneficial, or should it be resisted in some way?"

I was bemused by your use of the word "proper" in the query. I'll anxiously await the response simply because the person you have posed it to has in the past been so vehemently opposed to rotation and it's place in skiing.
Folks, you have to differentiate between active and passive rotation. Passive rotation is a result of the body/hips following the turn initiated by the feet/skis. Passive rotation lags behind. This type of rotation can be ignored as long as it just happens. In case it becomes intentional rotation, meaning the skier actively rotates, a loss of edge control is possible if not likely.

Active rotation is initiated before or as the turn is initiated and the body/hips drive the feet/skis via a blocking motion. This is old technology is no longer needed but it comes in handy when you get into trouble.

I have been posting in the 'other' thread now and then, but have been holding back lately because I find that mostly just different words are used to describe the same old thing and when trying to say so I'm told that I couldn't possibly understand what's going on in that system unless I took a lesson/camp with them.

Which I find strange since all is layed out in a couple of books in black and white (and some color) and in videos on the web site and those maneuvers are easy to do. Then I got the lecture that the books and videos are just lesson/texts to compliment the actual lessons. If there is more to it, why not put it in the books?

Mind you, the above does not all come from the guru but from some of his desciples whom I read with a jaundiced eye.

My take on it is that folks there are impatient and are looking for a silver bullet, but if they find it, more power to them.

....Ott
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rusty Guy There have been some great discussions here about "pulling the inside foot back". The writer you spoke to suggests it aids in getting hips aligned over boots. I agree it can. The more I ski the more I believe the best way to get hips over boots is via extension.....just stand up! I think a potential problem associated with any foot pullback is that it levers the ski boot that while engaging the forebody of the inside ski can disengage the tail and cause skidding.
My understanding from numerous articles I've read and discussions I have had with coaches pulling your inside foot back aids in keeping your shafts and skis parallel throughout the turn and keeps you from becoming scissored and having diverging skis (read a flying V, reverse snow plow) Your inside ski must travel a shorter distance in a turn than the outside ski. I believe pulling your inside foot back aids immensly in the ability to carve both skis and if you do not employ this technique you are much more likely to skid. Almost every Photo of a World Cup level racer shows the extreme bend in the inside knee due to pulling the inside foot back to maintain a parallel stance. I have never heard it or read it being discussed in refernece to hip.

A-man
Ott,

You are correct. After skiing and teaching for sixty years there is no way you could understand.

Atomicman I have a fairly different experience. I have never heard pulling the inside foot back connected with parallel shafts and skis. In addition, why would anyone advocate parallel shafts or skis as purely a goal? I think in recreational skiing it happens with good skiers. I think it is interesting to note I agree with something stated at the "other site" that suggests a little A-Frame is often evident in WC skiers due to the load put on the outside leg.

How does pulling the inside foot back aid in carving or cause skidding if you don't do so? I'm interested in your explaining this.

I would also argue the "extreme bend" you have noted is more a function of the steep terrain found on WC courses.

You cite numerous articles. Could you refer us to any?
Miles,

I just read the response you were given at the other forum. You ask a question about the upper body and the response makes no mention of this.

If you can understand the gibberish that you obtained then you are a far brighter man than I am!

I'd register and respond, however, I'm sure,like Ott, I'd be told I just don't understand what you describe as the "proper" methodology.
It is very difficult to always be parallel, but I think you are misinterpreting what you are seeing in World cup skiing. What looks A-framed is not. Shafts may not completely aligned but skis stay parrallel. No divergence!

One of the articles I am referring to is at the following address. This is written by 2 World cup Coaches. I have run this website by our team coach who was on the World cup himself. He was so impressed with it, he is using this with our entire team. I beleive this applies to recreational skiing equally as much as running gates.

http://www.youcanski.com/english/coa..._technique.htm

When they talk about even tips and no scissoring in the sagittal plane, the only way to accomplish this is by pulling your inside foot back.

And no the steepness of the slope is not the issue. You'll notice under the heading Parallel legs and shins, the picture of what looks like Von Grueningen. The slope he is on is not steep at all, but his inside knee is much more bent then his outside extended leg. This is caused by pulling his inside footback to keep his tips even, his skis parallel and pressure on the front of his boot.

I quote from under the Heading in the article LEVEL TIPS
"Although there is a significant lateral split between the skis in Slalom and GS the split in sagittal (for and aft) plane has been reduced. Having ski tips almost level especially in the first half of a turn assists in keeping them parallel and carving early. Sagittal split produces unnecessary counter-rotation and could also cause premature loading of inside ski. It could alter lateral balance and affect carving of both skis. Keeping minimal sagittal split maintains square relationship between upper and lower body through the first of a turn. This is the most natural and biomechanically strong position similar to the downhill tuck â€“ the most efficient position in skiing"

The issue is parallel skis are faster and carve. diverging edges are slow and scrubbing.

Again, in order to keep parallel, your inside ski must travel a shorter distance than your outside ski, you must pull your inside foot back to reduce your lead change so your skis track parallel!

Additionally, Olle Larsson has written and discusses this in almost every article he has written in Ski Racing magazine. I'll see if I can find some of Olle's articles too!

Here is one of Olle's on the same site! Read the entire article, it talks about holding the inside foot back in a few different spots towards the end and even talks about holding the outside foot back at times. http://www.youcanski.com/english/coa...hort_story.htm

On another subject, Part of Olle's article "Forward Body Position" also seems to contradict whaht Fastman and Physicsman were saying about the only way to tighten the radius of a carved turn is by increasing edge angle. Olle implies this is actually done by applying more forward pressure to the tip and forebody of the ski!
Thanks for the indirect compliment, but I am certainly not smart enough to have figured all this out myself!
First of all Greg has posted here and you can find a great deal of his writings in the archives. I think calling the two WC coaches is a bit of a stretch. Greg coached at an area in Pennsylvania last we heard. Greg came here blasting PSIA and disappeared as fast as he came. Fastman got ticked at me for running the guy off and/or engaging in a flame war and to that I say there is some truth. I wish the guy would come back. I think Lenny taught skiing with Ott at Brandywine outside Cleveland. He may have done a stint at Deer Valley. I don't believe Lenny makes any WC coaching claim but who knows.

I didn't look at all the photos, however, the first four most certainly exemplify a mild A-frame. I am not suggesting this is a negative. I'm suggesting it is the very thing HH is citing at his site due to the natural pressures and loading of the outside ski.

I'm not sure what Greg is trying to suggest in terms of the sagittal plane. The sagittal plane splits the left and right sides of the body. I think he is suggesting tip lead be minimized due to his reference to counter. He goes on to make some relationship between minimizing tip lead and carving. It sure sounds neat to say "sagittal split causes counter-rotation", however I disagree. IMHO tip lead does not CAUSE anything.

Much like "counter".......there is a certain amount of tip lead that exists in every turn. Making a blanket statement, deriding it even in poetic terms like "sagital split" (that is cool) is foolish. You can search the archives and Bob Barnes does a wonderful job of explaining tip lead.

Atomicman, there have been many race coaches and ski technicians esposing varying foot pressure as well as tibia pressure during the course of a turn. I would argue it was a mainstay of teaching in the nineties. I don't pretend to have a "racing" background (well I did ski race in high school which probably makes me qualify as a race coach!), however, I would argue a majority of ski instructors are tending towards a more neutral stance in the ski boot and less levering of the front of the ski boot and or front of the ski. We are trying to use the whole instrument.

As Ott Gangl has so eloquently suggested if the articles written by the ski coach from southeastern Pennsylvania are a silver bullet for you have at it.

I want to finish by saying there are CERTAINLY skiers who need to pull their inside foot back at certain points in there turn. I am a skier who has been working on driving my outside foot forward in an effort to quit levering my ski. You will find PLENTY of ski instructors who will agree that pulling the inside foot back is a great thing.

I merely suggest there is no ONE ANSWER!

One last thing....WC coaches.........puhleaze.
Why are you always so antagonistic?

You will never convince me that ski divergence and scissoring is ever a good thing!

Both my son's coach was on the World Cup & in fact ranked in the top tier in Downhill. He is also one of the most respected, knowledgeable coaches in the West! And always on the cutting edge of technique. I have discussed this issue with him extensively. He is using the "You Can ski site" in his own program! He has produced 3 successful US Ski teamers (Scott McCartney, Tatum Skoglund and Libby Ludlow) Oh, he also produced (coached since he started) last years division 1 College slalom champ and has 2 more that should be on the Ski Team soon. They come back and train with him & our team when they ever they can!

So I have to go with his assessment not yours!

You also very conveniently ignored Olle Larson's article, and he has written many more and referenced this subject. Now you are not going to try to tell me Olle doesn't know shit either!

Maybe those guys puffed up their credentials or maybe I misunderstood their background, but what they say on their site is right on! So what!

You are absolutely wrong, scissoring (you call excessive tip lead and I know you will always have some, duh?) does cause something, you lose pressure on your outside ski particularly at the top of the turn and skid instead of carve! Do you really know how to ski?

You make fun of Greg's use of the term sagittal plane (I don't know why?) It is just a way to differentiate the space between your skis from fore/aft, side to side!

Over & out!

PS Puhleaze take your smart-ass comments and shove them where the sun don't shine! Also, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and send Epic a little money. It is kind of embarrassing that as much as your on here you don't support the site!
Fellows, fellows, please calm down, we all know how to ski and these discussions about theory are just that. Pulling back a ski or pushing one forward is like bending the elbow to put the spoon to the mouth or lowering the head to meet the spoon. What's the difference if they get the food in the mouth. One may be more efficient than the other, but if it works for you, fine.

Lenny did teach at Boston Mills though I did not see that much of him. I don't know if he and his buddy were WC coaches, but hey, I told Tommy Moe he should go faster so I may make that claim also?
These guys do seem to know a lot about skiing no matter what their credentials. Take the information, try it, and if it fits you, use it. That goes for all the info out there.

....Ott
Agreed! Kind of! he is talking about pushing his outside foot forward, I never commented on that!

Obviosusly these guys are some kind of threat to Rusty G! he got all wrapped around the axle!
Let's just drop the personal stuff and have a civil disagreement, it's not worth it to get angry, you can lose your edge that way and skid all over the place.

BTW, I don't know how recent a contribution to AC has to be to be listed as a supporter. Maybe it's a subtle reminder to us former supporters that it is time to help him some more. I'll consider it.

....Ott
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Atomicman Part of Olle's article "Forward Body Position" also seems to contradict whaht Fastman and Physicsman were saying about the only way to tighten the radius of a carved turn is by increasing edge angle. Olle implies this is actually done by applying more forward pressure to the tip and forebody of the ski!

Not at all A-man. Here's a paste of what I said in post 280 of the "get off those edges" thread:

As we make fore/aft pressure adjustments, either toward the tips or toward the tails, we concentrate pressure across smaller surface areas, which results in a more dramatic bend of the ski in that area. That extra ski bend can provide a tighter turn radius. Also, moving the pressure point forward on the ski serves to better engage its wide tip, which also serves to promote radius reduction.

I never suggested that edge angle is the only determinant of turn radius, I suggested it was the major determinant. Fore pressure can tweak the resultant turn shape, but even with fore pressure the resultant turn radius is still ultra dependant on sidecut and edge angle. A long straight ski will never be able to carve a turn radius similar to a short shape ski, regardless of the amount of fore pressure administered.

As to the articles you provided, there's some good stuff in there, but I should call attention to content which I find either inaccurate or outdated.

The article accurately explains that the outside leg is extended to provide a strong structural platform for resisting the high turn forces associated with the new skis. However, it then goes on to advocate assigning high levels of pressure to the bent inside leg during the most intense portion of the turn. Very illogical, very inefficient.

There should be some weight on the inside foot, but primarily only in the sense of using it as a balance stabilizer. The outside leg is in the best structural position (extended) to resist the forces a turn produces, and that is therefore where the majority of those forces should be directed. It may feel to a skier like more weight is on the inside ski then actually exists because of the bent legs limited capacity to bare load.

The other problem with over assigning pressure to the inside ski has to do with the pronation factor. To explain this I also have to simultaneously correct another series of errors in the first article, those being the ideas that counter rotation and inside foot lead are wrong/bad.

Counter rotation serves two important purposes. First it orientates the hip so that the forward flexion in the hip provides the effective angulation (balance adjustments) needed during high edge angle turns. And second, it drives the outside foot into pronation, which serves to direct pressure assigned to the outside foot onto the 1st metatarsal (big ball of the foot). By directing pressure to the 1st MT the inside edge of that ski is driven into a solid engagement of the snow, and the balance point is placed squarely on that edge, which is right where we want it to be.

A similar degree of concentration of pressure can't be duplicated on the outside edge of the inside ski. The mechanics of the foot simply do not provide for as strong drive into supination (with weight forward) as it does into pronation, and this will always make inside ski carving inherently less efficient.

Look at the pictures again in the article. Notice the direction the shoulders and hips are facing in relation to the direction the skis are facing. It's quite clear in most the shots that the racer is employing a degree of counter rotation. They're doing this for the angulation and pronation reasons I explained above.

Now, this leads us into inside foot location. A key to success on the world cup level is structural efficiency. The strongest body position is one which is torsionally aligned. By this I mean shoulders, hips, knees and feet all in the same orientational plane (facing the same way). Any torsion in the body compromises strength potential. Artificially pulling the inside foot back out of that alignment only serves to place on the body a disruptive torque which attempts to pull the hips out of their most efficient orientation.

The dramatic inside knee bend seen in these pictures is not a result of the racer attempting to pull his inside foot back, it's merely something that must be done to assume the high edge angle, low CM positions needed in world cup competition. It's not apparent in these front angle race photos, but if viewed from the side it would be obvious that some tip lead does exist.

Another gross error in the first article has to do with turn placement in a race course. While making 70 percent of the direction change prior to the gate (as the article advocates) is a safe line, it's not a fast line, as the article suggests. The apex of a turn is the point in which 50 percent of the turn is done. It's also the furthest most lateral point of the arc. If the apex is not placed at the gate then the racer has gone further outside the rise line of the gate than necessary. Excluding deteriorating course conditions, rhythm changes, or terrain abnormalities, placing the apex at the gate is always the fastest line.

Finally, the section on turn transition is very outdated. It discusses crossover and crossunder in association with retraction, but it totally ignores the newest transition focus on the world cup level: Inside leg extensionrepresents the highest current state of technical evolution in regard to turn transition on the tour right now.

FASTMAN
I never said their article was perfect. And I apologize, you did say when I specifically asked you that tip pressure can decrease turn raidus, I guess with all the technical stuff in that post, I forgot that!

I agree that your outside edge of your inside ski is what I like to call a virtual edge, not too much pressure.

I was mostly responding specifically to Rusty Guys comment on not pulling your inside foot back. I was not commenting on line or anything else. And I didn't mean to get so fired up, but RG always seems to have a downright Nasty attitude.

I used this article because it was easy to get to. Olle Larsson has written much in ski Racing referencing pull back of the inside foot.
Sure A-man, no problem. Who ever heard of a ski racer who didn't have a little fire in his belly!
Atomicman,

I challenge you to find anywhere that I said to "not pull your inside foot back". In fact I think I did just the opposite.

What I was seeking was for you or anyone else to provide a nexus between "pulling your foot back and parallel skis or shafts."

I did not suggest divergence was good. I'll also reiterate very clearly that I don't see parallel shafts or skis as a necessary goal.

So......in review.....I asked a question and you provided the "numerous articles". Upon review of the articles, like Fastman, I found them a bit dated and did not agree with a few of the basic premises.

In reviewing my verbiage I'll have to say I don't see where I was particularly antagonistic. Maybe you just don't like to be questioned or challenged.

It is you sir who resorts to four letter words, makes a fairly childish comment about whether I can ski, and resorts to the "where the sun doesn't shine comment."

I apparantly angered you and for that I am sorry and offer an honest apology.

P.S. I have for years suggested I'm a very average skier!
Fastman,

I think I may have figured something out. Take a glance at the first photo marked #1 on Greg's website.

I think a difference for you and I in the past has been the use of the word counter. Imagine a horizontal line across the skiers ski tips as well as one across his hips. It is hard to tell from the photo, however, I would say in the picture I chose they are roughly parallel. I guess what I'm trying to say is I see the skier as being "structureally (sp?) aligned. In other words lines across the ski tips, knees, hips, shoulders are fairly parallel. I wouldn't call this skier "countered".

Does that make sense?

In other words I'm suggesting that when you use the term countered in describing a skier I would merely call it square or aligned. I may well be using the term incorrectly because I see the term in a somewhat negative sense.
>>>P.S. I have for years suggested I'm a very average skier!<<<<

I also know that you are a humble person and way under rate your virtues...

....Ott
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ott Gangl I also know that you are a humble person and way under rate your virtues... ....Ott
The older I get the better I was
Rusty, here we again run into perception by all of us of what countered means.

Countered in relation to what? the skis? The travel of the skis? The fall line? Or what?

And you should not see 'counter' as a negative move. There is counter rotation, counter move and a countered stance. On unweighted skis, counter rotation is a turning force, as when you hop up and twist your upper body one way in order to rotate the unweighted skis the other way.

Counter motion is a motion with the upper body which does not affect the skis, as when a racer counters with his shoulder as he brushes a gate.

Counter stance is when the upper body and/or hip is turned more than the tip lead and knees as you described, and you are right that carrying this always is not desirable, but as we finish a turn we often hold back the body and allow the skis to come around more across the fall line, in essence countering, but also coiling the body so as to help in the release for the next turn where during the transition the skis align themselves with the coiled body very quickly.

That's my take on it.

....Ott
Rusty,

Apology accepted, but you still feel compelled to throw in sarcastic comments like, "numerous articles" in your last post. In the post that set me off, it was your Smart Alec "Puhleaze" that put me over the edge. I don't mind being challenged or questioned, but everytime you have responded to anything I have ever posted there is are unnecessary sarcastic remarks in your post that are personal & attempting to belittle.

Leave those out and we could probably have a more productive exchange! And by the way I have come across numerous other articles on the subject, I just didn't have time to find them.

One more thing, I will concede on parallel shafts, but it seems obvious to me that having parallel skis with no diverging edge in a purely carved turn should be every skier's ultimate goal! And why shouldn't it be. It is the only way to carve a pure turn. It is the the essence of effiency. Explain to me why you think otherewise?

Sincerely,

A-man
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Atomicman My understanding from numerous articles I've read and discussions I have had with coaches pulling your inside foot back aids in keeping your shafts and skis parallel throughout the turn and keeps you from becoming scissored and having diverging skis (read a flying V, reverse snow plow) A-man
A-man,

I have to be honest. Please don't take offense. I have never heard anyone connect "pulling the inside foot back" with parallel shafts or skis. I read as much as the next guy hence, I was anxious to see these articles.

The "puhleaze" was indeed sarcastic, was not a shot at you, and was more a reaction to individuals in VARIOUS sports who prop themselves up with former accomplishments, that, in my opinion were all too often pretty brief. A great example is football. Each year teams hire "camp fodder". It may be a quarterback who comes to camp for the defense to "Tee-off" on. It is the baseball player who spends a summer in a lower level minor league team. It is the golfer who spends a summer playing mini-tour golf who says he played on the tour. As an aside after playing golf in college I had a brief mini tour stint where I finally realized I had a L.O.F.T. problem....."Lack Of Freakin Talent".

By the way Greg can clearly claim "former WC coach status". I just don't understand why a guy who was would want to emphasize "former". I also stand corrected in so far as it appears he has departed from Ski Liberty in southeast Pennsylvania and is now coaching for a ski club in Maryland.

On to the parallel business. For years skiers have sought to make the "parallel turn" I wanted to ski "parallel" when I first jumped on a pair of Head 360's in 1966. I'm looking at the Fall 2003 issue of TPS. On the cover is a very good skier in what appears to be a very steep couloir. Is she "parallel"? Heck no....she's in quite the wedge. She has converged. Sometimes we do the opposite and diverge. Looking at ski racers I would suggest skis are often aligned in different directions. Look at Bode.

I return for the last time to my original query. You wrote;

"You are absolutely wrong, scissoring (you call excessive tip lead and I know you will always have some, duh?) does cause something, you lose pressure on your outside ski particularly at the top of the turn and skid instead of carve! Do you really know how to ski?"

You have really lost me. Did you, by chance mean the inside ski or perhaps inside edge of the inside ski?

I still don't know what pulling the foot back has to do with either carving or parallel skis. I'm very sorry and would love to hear this explained. I have not read articles whether numerous or innumerable outlining this concept.

If I read something and disagree, I would suggest it is certainly within the realm of normative behavior to scream "baloney" with or sans sarcasm at a forum.

If you don't like a little spice or a little "flaming" stay the heck away from powdermag or TGR.

I will quote Bob Barnes on the matter of "parallel" because he can sum it up far better and more eloquently than I;

"It is ironic that with modern equipment and teaching methods, we can teach most skiers to make decent "parallel turns" withen a few days, while the best skiers in the world use "parallel" as just one of many options. We handicap ourselves severely if we do not allow other options."

I also do want to confess. You are right......I really only cyberski.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ott Gangl Rusty, here we again run into perception by all of us of what countered means. Countered in relation to what? the skis? The travel of the skis? The fall line? Or what? And you should not see 'counter' as a negative move.
My point precisely and you are correct I was remiss in suggesting it is a negative. It is merely, as you so well describe, a movement OR position we assume while skiing.

What I was trying to convey to Rick, and I'm sure I failed, was that perhaps we were both seeing the same thing and ascribing different names and qualities.

I'll make one last stab. Take a skier making any turn, take a photo.....a point in time, and draw lines across ski tips, tibia, knees, hips, shoulders. If the skier has four inches of tip lead and all the lines are parallel is the skier "countered"?

I've been aerating my lawn with an old pair of ski poles in an effort to assuage the dead spots. Think I'll go make a few turns in the back yard!
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rusty Guy Fastman, I think I may have figured something out. Take a glance at the first photo marked #1 on Greg's website. I think a difference for you and I in the past has been the use of the word counter. Imagine a horizontal line across the skiers ski tips as well as one across his hips. It is hard to tell from the photo, however, I would say in the picture I chose they are roughly parallel. I guess what I'm trying to say is I see the skier as being "structureally (sp?) aligned. In other words lines across the ski tips, knees, hips, shoulders are fairly parallel. I wouldn't call this skier "countered". Does that make sense?
Bingo!! We have a winner! The man in the far corner from Eldora!

It sure does make sense Rusty, you nailed it. Those parallel lines of the shoulders, hips and ski tips you refer to are something I strongly advocate. I refer to that body position as rotational alignment, or torsional neutral. It's a key element in an efficient and strong body position.

Your use of the term counter (rotational misalignment) identifies an inefficient body position that has no place in a well executed carved turn. My ussage of the term counter (in this context) refers to the orientation of those parallel lines in relation to the direction of travel (where the skis are pointing).

My usage of the term allows me to differentiate between the existence of parallel lines (tips, hips, shoulders) and the orientation of those lines.

Excellent post Rusty.

FASTMAN
We were typing at the same time. This is the difficulty of the internet. Had we been on snow perhaps the whole confusion would not have existed.

Parallel lines make sense.

As Ott has noted I still maintain it gets a little dicey in terms of alignment to directon of travel but I won't go there.

I wish I could scan this cover shot from TPS in the fall of 2003. It speaks volumes. Here we have an "above shot" of a demo team member in what is clerly a steep rock filled couloir.

She is in "quite the wedge"!

She has about four inches ot tip lead and is very "square". It seem pretty clear to me that her squareness or, in essence, over-rotation, has contributed to the tail of her outside ski diverging.....hence the little wedge.
I am sure she is in a wedge, but she is not skiing on hardpack and is probably not making a "CARVED" turn. Do we know if she intentionally wedged here?Of course there are times to get defensive, but carving on hardpack efficiently and I submit skiing powder best requires parallel skis.

IMHO the reason you must pull your inside footback is because your inside ski must travel a shorter distance in a carved turn than your outside ski, you must shorten the arc of your inside ski, how els are you going to accomplish this. If you don pull back some you may cross your skis or end up in wedge
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching