New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Gap - Page 4

post #91 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Rusty,


At the end of a turn a skiers balance point is commonly toward the heal of the foot. If pressure is transferred onto the old inside/new outside ski prior to the pelvis returning to rotational neutral, (as during inside leg extension transitions) one has in essence made a step forward onto the heal of the new stance foot just like a runner does, minus the toe lift, and is in a state of supination.



As pelvis rotation goes to neutral, and then onto countered again, and weight is simultaneously moved forward on the foot, the foot rolls laterally from a state of supination to a state of pronation. This is exactly what we want because it directs pressure to the inside edge of the outside ski, providing us with an optimal point of balance/pressure.



If, on the other hand, pressure is not transferred to the new outside ski until after the pelvis rotated back to the opposite side of neutral, and the CM has returned to a fore position, (as during retraction transitions)then the supination phase is eliminated and the skier applies pressure directly to a pronated foot.

FASTMAN
Thanks Rick...

I have been getting very confused about that - because when i do it I can feel my foot supinate & then pronate... yet I got the bit about no dynamic strike in skiing also.... & people kept telling me I was only tipping foot over - but I can feel that I am not
post #92 of 116
Rusty,

I never thought of lightening and lifting the foot before tipping it!!

Seriously though, I did do my tipping experiments with my foot loaded because that's how I tip it when I'm skiing. I tried doing it with the foot lifted off the floor and indeed experienced a tendency for the foot to point in. But then I played with what I had to do to minimize the toe in. I could almost eliminate the rotation if I focused on tipping the foot at the heel and I noticed that when I tipped at the heel my knee was involved in the process moving in a lateral direction. Tipping focused at the ball of the foot required no knee involvement and produced pronounced toe in. I need to make a note to play with this when I get back on snow. I think there is something to learn here.

yd
post #93 of 116
The Gap

This theory is still alive and kicking.

The earlier PMTS thread discussed the mechanism by which a ski might change its shape during a carved turn and introduced the possibility of a microwash as the ski bellied out into a tightening turn. This idea was later combined with the credit card demo showing the sidecut-gap as a ski is pushed out to bend it. Hence gap theory.

A curious situation then arises where most people seem to agree that there is no actual gap, but that it is a useful demo anyway; Fastman's recent postings in "get off your edges" expains some ideas on pressure by using gap theory, pre-contact and post contact pressure, as did postings by Physicsman on the skiing credit card.

The static demo suggests a lateral push, but at turn initiation before the forces are developed the tipping neither requires nor creates any push at all. Once those forces are at work, there is no point in pushing, furthermore entrenched in its carving groove, the ski certainly does not lift out to drop in further out leaving only tip and tail in snow contact. The static demo demos very little useful indication of what actually happens in motion.

The alternative to the microwash is that the turn shaping occurs at the skitip due to tipping and the loaded ski then bends further to follow the tip into the tightening groove (in which sidecut and flex play their parts in allowing the change) but all along remaining entrenched in the carving groove. This is quite different from the gap theory which really ought to be put out to grass.

Talk of torsional and sidecut-mandated pressures are still focussed at the feet, on the gap theoretical or real, but this again misses the point that the feet follow the tips and the pressure the feet apply fasciliates the change in shape that allows a carve to spiral smoothly as radii change.

Another way to think of sidecut is not just by the narrowness of the waist, but by the relative width of the tip which allows the tip to make a stronger early engagement.
post #94 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Rusty,

I for the most part agree with your doc. The foot of the skier does much the same thing as the runners foot, minus the toe/heal lift and more pronounced dorsi/plantar flexions. Depending on the fore/aft balance point movement pattern, the skiers outside foot can, and should, move into a state of pronation. But as your doc says, it happens within the parameters of a somewhat planted foot.


----------------------------------
RicB: Rick from the reading I've done, this phase of the gait cycle is called the loading response phase. To me this is a very descriptive term. The foot is responding to the load being placed on it. Thinking of it in this way, it's easy for me to see the mechanics of this loading response, or the foot pronating as a result of a load being paced on it. It would seem that the critical point to be taken here is that the foot respondes a certain way to being loaded, whether it's rockering from heel to toe, as in forward gait, or simply being loaded and unloaded in a more static manner, as in a transfer of load while skiing.
----------------------------------
At the end of a turn a skiers balance point is commonly toward the heal of the foot. If pressure is transferred onto the old inside/new outside ski prior to the pelvis returning to rotational neutral, (as during inside leg extension transitions) one has in essence made a step forward onto the heal of the new stance foot just like a runner does, minus the toe lift, and is in a state of supination.



As pelvis rotation goes to neutral, and then onto countered again, and weight is simultaneously moved forward on the foot, the foot rolls laterally from a state of supination to a state of pronation. This is exactly what we want because it directs pressure to the inside edge of the outside ski, providing us with an optimal point of balance/pressure.


-------------------------------------
RicB: Very integral to this pelvis rotation is pelvic obliquity, or pelvic tilt. From my understanding, this is tied to aligning the gravity line to parts of the foot, shock absorption, and also maybe even more important, it's tied to swing leg function and mechanics, more specifically, knee flexion and the ability to move freely.

I came across a study a while back of gait mechanics where the movement patterns where tracked with normal knee flexion and compared with the same movements with both knees flexed considerably more than normal. The changes in fluid motion and ability to balance and absorb shock were greatly reduced. Big relevance to skiing here as I see it.
-------------------------------------
If, on the other hand, pressure is not transferred to the new outside ski until after the pelvis rotated back to the opposite side of neutral, and the CM has returned to a fore position, (as during retraction transitions)then the supination phase is eliminated and the skier applies pressure directly to a pronated foot.
-------------------------------------
RicB: Don't know if I can agree with you here Rick. Everything I've read says that the foot pronating is a direct response to a load being placed on it. How can the foot be pronated when there is no load being placed on it? To me this is tied directly to our discusions last winter and the loading of the instep with the boot tounge to preload the instep so to speak, and so keep the foot primed. My view at this point, is that the foot does move between supination and pronation inside the boot, strictly depending on whether it is loaded or not, in other words dending on whether there is weight being placed on it or some form pressure directed to it. What's your take on this?
--------------------------------------
FASTMAN
Later, RicB
post #95 of 116
daslider,
I think I've mentioned before that my subjective feel is that it happens at the tip - you can feel it biting more as you increase the edge angle. That is how the ski "tries" to get back into its natural amount of reverse camber.
And I just think if there was any "microwash" at all you would feel the momentary reduction of "centripetal force" pushing back from the ski.
post #96 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed
Hmmm...Skier on right is Dane Spencer, skier on left is Bode Miller. Spencer is sliding top of turn--started too early. Bode is clelan.
Ed, Just checked on the FIS website and we were both wrong! (Although you were closer than I was!)
On the left is Bode Miller (start number 3) on the right is Thomas Vonn (start number 34) in the Alta Badia GS, December 2002.
Of course, is it totally fair to compare the "clean carving" of a racer on a smooth course and a racer on a course that has had 30 other skiers chop it up?
post #97 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Bell

Of course, is it totally fair to compare the "clean carving" of a racer on a smooth course and a racer on a course that has had 30 other skiers chop it up?
Not fair at all, thus the rational behind reverse thirty for the second run (that, and an attempt at better theater).

A couple thoughts on that though:

1) Even running first on a perfect course a racer ranked 34 is going to show technical inferiority to the worlds #1. It's why he's has the bib number he does, and his skill deficit is very apparent in this side-by-side. Start Bode 34th (he often starts the second run of a race around 30th) and he still wouldn't toss em side ways like Vonn does here.

2) Do we know this wasn't the second run?

3) If it was the first run, then Bode (number 1 GS racer in the world) is on a clean course, and we should have here a prime environment for viewing the pinnacle of current technical and tactical application.

FASTMAN
post #98 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastMan

If, on the other hand, pressure is not transferred to the new outside ski until after the pelvis rotated back to the opposite side of neutral, and the CM has returned to a fore position, (as during retraction transitions)then the supination phase is eliminated and the skier applies pressure directly to a pronated foot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB

Don't know if I can agree with you here Rick. Everything I've read says that the foot pronating is a direct response to a load being placed on it. How can the foot be pronated when there is no load being placed on it?
Yep, you’re right Ric. Poor communication on my part. The foot, of course, does not actually pronate until pressure is reapplied to it. The point I was going for here was the idea that once load begins to be applied to the foot, the first destination in this situation is pronation. Supination gets bypassed.



Here's a rewrite:


If, on the other hand, pressure is not transferred to the new outside ski until after the pelvis is rotated back to the opposite side of neutral, and the CM has returned to a fore position, (as during retraction transitions)then the supination phase is eliminated and, upon loading, the foot is immediately driven into pronation.

Better?




Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB





My view at this point, is that the foot does move between supination and pronation inside the boot, strictly depending on whether it is loaded or not



What's your take on this?








Agree. The foot must be loaded, and it must be loaded in the appropriate manner. It can be loaded, but if not done properly, the foot won't naturally pronate.



This is why inside ski carves are performed more easily when utilizing a slightly aft balance point. With aft pressure on the inside foot, and the pelvis countered, the foot will naturally supinate, which directs pressure to the outside edge of the inside ski.



If the skier moves the balance point forward of center, and removes the counter, the foot will attempt to pronate which encourages the ski flatten. Not what we want.



This is one of the reasons the idea of keeping the pelvis square, pulling the inside foot to the point of fore pressure, and attempting to clean carve the inside ski in harmony with the outside ski is so inefficient and impractical. The disciple of that philosophy is trying to maintain edge angle on a ski whose natural state of equilibrium is flat on the snow

FASTMAN
post #99 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Bell

daslider,
I think I've mentioned before that my subjective feel is that it happens at the tip - you can feel it biting more as you increase the edge angle. That is how the ski "tries" to get back into its natural amount of reverse camber.
Good luck Martin. Same thing we've been trying to get through to him for over 300 posts. Better put your helmet on, beating your head against a wall starts to hurt after a while.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Bell

And I just think if there was any "microwash" at all you would feel the momentary reduction of "centripetal force" pushing back from the ski.
Right on.

FASTMAN
post #100 of 116
Rick, I agree with everything you said here. I kinda figured your point was just not clear. I bring up the things that I've read because there is really alot of information out there. Information that doesn't require a degree to understand, and if you think about pronation from the idea that it is a "loading response", it's not hard to understand it's role in skiing relative to balance and where our gravity line drives down onto the ski. As Rusty's doc pointed out though, it is often confused with other foot movements controled through muscle action (tipping of the foot).

The whole square hip and pulling the inside foot back seems to be trying to create an effect through unatural means. Not that it can't be done, but that it can be done in a more natural and efficient manner, with way less effort. I do use pulling the foot back in teaching, but I now use it only for feeling the effect of what a good stance and strong inside half can give to our skiing. Best to find good movement patterns that don't put us in a position where we need to pull our inside foot back.

For what it is worth, I agree with the idea that the tip has the most action and bite in the snow. This is tied to pronation of the foot, inclination of the leg, and where this creates the fulcrum point that the ski rotates around as it tips on edge and how this creates more pressure or torque at the tip because of it's distance from the fulcrum point. Least that's how I see it. later, RicB.
post #101 of 116
Fastman

if you are able to use gap theory in your 'Lesson on Pressure' but also agree that it doesn't exist, it is you who might have some explanations to make, rather than cowardly sideswipes through third parties. Can you answer the question?

Some of your stuff is quite interesting but your stuff about pre and post contact pressure was pure rubbish; even PM had to contradict it to make any sense of what you had written! And as for 'sidecut-mandated pressure', you ought to be writing scripts for B grade Sci-Fi movies.
post #102 of 116
Martin Bell

exactly my point. Gap theory is rubbish. I don't know what this 'naturalistic' explanation is though, a tipping ski bends itself leading from the front and with sufficient pressure in its midsection the ski follows into the new radius shape and carves, otherwise it washes out into a skid. Trying to explain how a stable and fully entrenched midsection twitches the tip is a nonsense. It is back to front.
post #103 of 116
But a ski tip can only be tilted if the boot is tilted - that's why torsional rigidity is so much more important for "shaped" skis than it ever was pre-1997. When the tip is tilted, it bites into a tighter arc.

I think "gap theory" merely states that if the ski were to have no weight on it when tilted, then there would be a gap beneath the binding. I don't think anyone is arguing that the gap actually appears beneath the outside ski during a well-carved turn. Only, perhaps, if all the weight momentarily goes on to the inside ski.
post #104 of 116
Daaaahhhhhslider,


For the 24th time,,,,,hello!!,,,, you awake?,,,, pay attention now!!,,,,, here it comes!!



The gap explanation is nothing more than a simple and effective means of providing novice carvers with a basic understanding of why sidecut has influence on turn shape.



It's not intended to provide an exact explanation of the precise manner in which a ski under load assumes the bend its sidecut demands. Such a detailed explanation is not needed in a basic explanation of a rather simple concept. In fact, to include it would only serve to interject unnecessary confusion.



The gap explanation has served its purpose very well for me over a very long and successful coaching career. With it, 99% of the time my students acquire an immediate grasp of the mechanical significance of sidecut and express no interest or need to explore the subject further, much less to the depth we have here. You are literally the first person I've ever encountered during all my years of coaching that has expressed such dramatic difficulty in grasping this extremely basic concept. Through a gap explanation even 8 year old children quickly come to comprehend why a ski with a wider the tip and tail in comparison to its center will carve a turn.



And this isn't new stuff here. Ski pros have been explaining sidecut significance in similar manners for many, many, many years. You're adamantly discounting a teaching technique that has been time tested, and proven unquestionably effective, over and over again. To make the fuss you have here over this, and other similarly elementary concepts, is so unbelievably ridiculous that I can only conclude that you are either monumentally lacking in mental capacity, or totally insincere in your professed desire to learn. I don't think you’re really that stupid, so I can only assume the latter.



Now,,, are you going to ask me to explain it for a 25th time? :
post #105 of 116
Fastman you write;

"To make the fuss you have here over this, and other similarly elementary concepts, is so unbelievably ridiculous that I can only conclude that you are either monumentally lacking in mental capacity, or totally insincere in your professed desire to learn. I don't think you’re really that stupid, so I can only assume the latter."

another possibility is in what you are 'teaching' me, while I am prepared to 'learn', maybe I'm not interested in nonsense!! You cannot disclaim gap theory's veracity while using it in your pre and post contact pressure stuff, either there is no loss of contact, or there is (the gap).

Martin Bell,

Agreed. Reading Fastman's stuff refered to here (post*280 edges thread) should explain why gap theory is alive and well and not just in static demos.
post #106 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by daslider
Martin Bell

exactly my point. Gap theory is rubbish. I don't know what this 'naturalistic' explanation is though, a tipping ski bends itself leading from the front and with sufficient pressure in its midsection the ski follows into the new radius shape and carves, otherwise it washes out into a skid. Trying to explain how a stable and fully entrenched midsection twitches the tip is a nonsense. It is back to front.
I think of it this way, if there is a gap because of some ineffective movements by the skier, or intentional movement, the fulcrum point or axis of rotation moves away from the midsection edge of the ski. The axis might be more towards a line from tip to tail. This will create less torque on the tip and thus be less effective in creating tip pressure, at the same time lifting the midsection of the ski, and thereby reduce the pressure of the midsection edge. It all has to with where the fulcrum or axis of rotation is and whether or not the edge under foot is being pressured and engaged. If it is right under the foot, then this has to be the fulcrum point which means that the tip recieves the most movement into the snow and thus the most torque. The forward movement of the ski, turns this torque into deflection and bends the ski more. That's my take on it. Later, RicB.
post #107 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by daslider

Fastman;

maybe I'm not interested in nonsense!! You cannot disclaim gap theory's veracity while using it in your pre and post contact pressure stuff, either there is no loss of contact, or there is (the gap).
The reason I took the gap approach in my pressure analysis post (#280,edges) is that it provided the easiest way to clearly explain what could potentially be a very confusing topic.



The description was not based on an inaccurate account of what really occurs when skiing, simply a selective account. In actual skiing situations the creation of a gap prior to pressure application is in truth a frequent occurrence. When skis are unweighted between turns, through extension or retraction, the ski is typically tipped before pressure is reapplied to it. In this situation the gap theory is totally valid.



Once pressure has been reestablished, and the gap has been eliminated, the gap is for the most part gone for the duration of the turn. Here the ski will assume new bend shapes as dictated by the modification of edge angle through a more complicated journey. When I've said before that in reality a gap is not created when edge angles are altered, this is what I was referring to: alterations made to an already pressured ski.



In my PRE CONTACT/POST CONTACT analysis I chose to focus on the Gap situation because it offered the best vehicle to clearly explain an important and somewhat complex topic. From the response I received on that post, I think I was successful in my effort.



Also realize, there's no significant variance in the load values needed to get a gapped or ungapped ski into its sidecut mandated bend, values for each situation are close to equal so my thesis carries validity in both instances. The only real variances are seen in the manner in which a gapped or ungapped ski assumes the new bend, and in the level of difficulty in describing each particular journey. In the spirit of the K.I.S.S philosophy, the course I took was the best option.



There you have it, the explanation you've been pleading for. Write it all off as rubbish if you wish, I don't particularly care, and I suspect you will. My main reason for providing this was to offer others some resolution for the confusion you continue to create.

FASTMAN
post #108 of 116
The gap is for real. Everybody can carve. It's an intermediate skill anymore. Maintaining the gap throughout the turn ok, now that's skiing!
post #109 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
If the skier moves the balance point forward of center, and removes the counter, the foot will attempt to pronate which encourages the ski flatten. Not what we want.

This is one of the reasons the idea of keeping the pelvis square, pulling the inside foot to the point of fore pressure, and attempting to clean carve the inside ski in harmony with the outside ski is so inefficient and impractical. The disciple of that philosophy is trying to maintain edge angle on a ski whose natural state of equilibrium is flat on the snow

FASTMAN
Sorry folks, I'd like to request a reality check to see if I do actually follow the meat of this thread:

IMO, given the natural tendency of the foot to go from supination to pronation (as pressure moves from the heel to the outside of the foot to the front and then across the ball to the inside), inside ski pull-back could be effectively used at the end of the turn, to effect transition. The pressure on the inside foot is necessarily back at turn completion, so that when pull-back is performed, the pressure moves forward along the outside, which begins the chain of events ending in pronation of the inside foot.

Inside foot pull back is not performed throughout the turn, "attempting to clean carve the inside ski in harmony". However, if the move is performed at completion/start of transition, inside ski pull back effectively short circuits the negative movement of stepping up onto the outside edge of the inside ski during transition. It is the origin of the slow backpedalling movement.

Close or was that even in the ballpark?
post #110 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
Sorry folks, I'd like to request a reality check to see if I do actually follow the meat of this thread:

IMO, given the natural tendency of the foot to go from supination to pronation (as pressure moves from the heel to the outside of the foot to the front and then across the ball to the inside), inside ski pull-back could be effectively used at the end of the turn, to effect transition. The pressure on the inside foot is necessarily back at turn completion, so that when pull-back is performed, the pressure moves forward along the outside, which begins the chain of events ending in pronation of the inside foot.

Inside foot pull back is not performed throughout the turn, "attempting to clean carve the inside ski in harmony". However, if the move is performed at completion/start of transition, inside ski pull back effectively short circuits the negative movement of stepping up onto the outside edge of the inside ski during transition. It is the origin of the slow backpedalling movement.

Close or was that even in the ballpark?
Pulling the inside foot back will cause more pressure to be applied to the foot, which does make the foot pronate, but the question as I see it, is why do we want to create a situation where we have to overide the foot tendancy to pronate by compensting moves such as more inside leg inclination to keep it from flattening? Your point of the timing of the inside foot pull back is a good one. If I introduce this in a lesson it would be at this point. Then I would try to follow this with an introduction to positive hip movements that will help eliminate the need to artificially pull the inside foot back.

If I don't have some positive movements of the inside hip lifting and moving forward in the turn, then pulling the foot back will only load the front of the ski more because my inside leg is bent more. I think Fastman said this already.

as I see it, the hip tilt and rotation allows the balance point to focus effectively over the outside foot as the outside leg gets long, which allows me to work the inside ski with the least effort and the most effectiveness. As I redistribute the pressure to my new outside leg and it gets longer, the inside hip lifts and moves forward into the turn alinging my balance over the new outside foot. I thnk it is important to note here that the primary muscles that lift a hip are the opposite leg abductors. The significance here is that there is a lateral move of the hips asociated with this pelvic tilt and hip/leg abduction. What I feel in myself and see in my students is good movement into the turn in conjunction with balancing focus over the new outside foot, and good structural alignment. If I do force my hips to stay square, then I am forced to keep pulling my inside foot back through the turn. That's my take. Later, RicB.
post #111 of 116
I'm a bit confused by the terminology you guys are using, and it probably would only take a second for someone to straighten me out.

In particular, it would help me a lot if everybody could be very clear about whether a particular suggestion or flaw or technique is meant to apply to the OLD inside ski or the NEW inside ski, in other words, before or after the transition. In many of the posts, the all-important old/new modifier is missing and I can't figure out which is meant, which then totally confuses me.

Correct me if I'm wrong or this is an oversimplification, but am I correct to presume the whole "pull back the inside foot" concept is simply meant to avoid having a skier finish a turn with the uphill or OLD inside foot scissored too far ahead BEFORE the transition?

I see quite a few intermediate skiers on terrain that scares them traversing between turns, all wound up with their upper body pointing straight down the fall line in preparation for a rapid pivoting and their upper leg scissored way ahead. To me, this looks completely unnecessary except on the very steepest and narrowest of terrain. Is this one of the things that "pull back the inside foot" is trying to minimize?

Am I also correct to have concluded from reading this thread, that AFTER the transition, pushing the NEW inside foot and pelvis ahead several inches is also frowned upon by PSIA types but is not as serious a sin to Fastman, a race coach, and he may even consider it desirable or inevitable? If I remember correctly, I thought most racers go into a new turn leading with their NEW inside shoulder, hip and foot (maybe not quite so much with their foot as their shoulder). Is this a correct read on the situation?

Anyway, if someone could help me out on the real basics -- WHAT is desirable without getting into too much detail on the WHY and the HOW -- I'd sure appreciate it.

Thanks,

Y.O.T.
post #112 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB
as I see it, the hip tilt and rotation allows the balance point to focus effectively over the outside foot as the outside leg gets long, which allows me to work the inside ski with the least effort and the most effectiveness. As I redistribute the pressure to my new outside leg and it gets longer, the inside hip lifts and moves forward into the turn alinging my balance over the new outside foot. I thnk it is important to note here that the primary muscles that lift a hip are the opposite leg abductors. The significance here is that there is a lateral move of the hips asociated with this pelvic tilt and hip/leg abduction. What I feel in myself and see in my students is good movement into the turn in conjunction with balancing focus over the new outside foot, and good structural alignment. If I do force my hips to stay square, then I am forced to keep pulling my inside foot back through the turn. That's my take. Later, RicB.

That is how it feels to me.... if I get the hip right it is so much easier to do the rest.... when the hip had problems the rest was hard.... interestingly the hip also had problems in loaded exercise at the gym - subtle but there for a good trainer to see & correct.
post #113 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by disski
That is how it feels to me.... if I get the hip right it is so much easier to do the rest.... when the hip had problems the rest was hard.... interestingly the hip also had problems in loaded exercise at the gym - subtle but there for a good trainer to see & correct.
So Disski, did you improve your skiing hip function with your trainers hip corrections? Later, RicB.
post #114 of 116
Yes Ric - told that the hip is no longer folding under pressure (ie dropping back at end of turn)....

I still sometimes feel like this - but it is usually when I am scared & skiing diffidently.... then instructors will tell me to pull foot back.... I tend to just try to think about the core being strong through the turn - the foot self fixes then.... trying to pull foot back is not good for me....


I use the same "feel"(ie I think of same thing) of strong core in the gym - but results don't match those in skiing - I think I still need to develop a sense of how a strong core really "feels" doing those exercises that I struggle in the hip area folding.... a NEXT summer job along with trying to learn to TURN that surf board!!!!
post #115 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by YoungOldTimer in post #111
it probably would only take a second for someone to straighten me out.
tap - - tap - - Hello? - - - HELLO??? - - - Is this thing on? - - Can anyone hear me? - - tap - - tap

I guess either it WAS that dumb of a question, or everybody is just totally fagged out after verbally battling each other for the past 400 messages.

Am I at least on the right track?

Y.O.T.
post #116 of 116
What is desirable YoungOldTimer, is the we stand in the right place on our skis. For our balance to be focused on the inside edge of our outside ski under our outside foot, and the inside ski to be engaged so that it is not just in the way but working in a parallel fashion to the outside ski we need to maintain certain complimentary angles. These angles start at the snow in two planes, one is the angle of the feet on the snow created by the pitch of the hill, and the other is the angle of the feet as it relates to the ski direction, or the inside foot lead.

The angle of the feet on the snow or pitch of the hill should show to some degree in a complimentary tilt of the pelvis and hips and in the shoulders.

The angle of the feet from inside foot lead should also be shown in a comlimentary angle to the hips and shoulders.

Both of these work together to create a good dynamic stance on our ski and what we call a strong inside half. Take away any one part of these positve angles and we get into inefficient movement patterns. we all do this some times, some of us more often than others.

I don't think telling someone to just push their inside hip and shoulders forward is how I would present this. This should come as a result of the bio mechanics of our skiing, and shouldn't be confused with counter rotation. However, getting a student to pull the inside foot back can help them find out what these positive angles can do for their skiing, but as I said above, keeping the inside foot back without the complimentary angles in the hip and shoulders doesn't get the job done. It can enlighten someone to how the inside ski can work with and help guide the outside ski in the turn.

The effect on our stance is to keep us more aligned structuraly over our foot and ski so that we get the entire edge working for us as we move through the turn. This is true for the inside ski as well and this then relates to the effectiveness of our transition into the next turn also. Tried to keep it simple. Later, RicB.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching