or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Skiing Styles and Instruction
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skiing Styles and Instruction - Page 6

post #151 of 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy
Great description
So here is one last stab. IF one moves their weight uphill it is a negative movement. I THINK in many instances what you describe is, in fact, merely "pressuring" the new outside ski which can certainly be done via extension at the outset of any new turn. "Weight" never has to move uphill.



yes - I think your use of weight is interchangable with my use of the term CM or center of mass. Changing pressure from the downhill ski early to the uphill ski to effect the nature and style of the turn at transition, (such as allowing for greater tipping action of the downhill ski then if they were flat to the hill at the fall line exact center point) does not move or change the CM. One legs pressure is exchanged for the other. As long as it's a functional stance, this does not change the nature of the turn.

Do the stepping drill on a black slope in a set of slalom gate turns and you can be on either edge and any point of the turn without any effect on the primary direction of the CM or the turn.

So, changing pressure (better term than early weight shift - thanks Rusty) can be an effective option for changing the nature of the turn.

I like that much better than Lito's "early weight shift" description that obviously can really confuse people.

Thanks!
John,

I guess I'd like to 'see' this. Sure sounds different than what I envisioned you were describing.
post #152 of 336
Thread Starter 

for starters - check out the references

cgeib - check out the references - they contain excellent slow speed picture photography of these moves.

Also min 20 on HH's 2nd video is excellent too

Also - for a better give and take to help us mutually understand and sort out our different terminolgies I'm working on a 4 perfect turn's thread (perfect turn is tongue and cheek since every agrees there is none). In this new thread I'll contrast 4 turn styles, their pros and cons. All 4 of these turn styles are efficient without negative movements. (which a turn without negative movements might be a partial definition of a perfect turn) I'll try to be as brief as possible, then let the ensuing discussion complete the picture.

Thanks for the comments on the picture. Photography is my other love.

The ironic thing about that trip, was I was still a very new skier (only about 20 days under my belt), and had never skied powder. It was our first foray to Beaver Creek where we had heard tell of their excellent grooming conditions. Imagine our delight at a 30+ inch overnight powder dump. Imagine our frustration with 6 stars and one ski technique in that pow .

Yes - we still had fun. (we also snickered at the snowboarders that had no way to even start without initially getting some speed up in a skier's track) (but I try not to have too much fun at other's expense)
post #153 of 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason
http://www.fototime.com/7C933367D58D733/orig.jpg

If only I had the correct understandings of how the edges provide support in 34 inches of fluff, this would not have happened to me!

(so far my one and only skiing in powder day) (never did see that day after that somersault)

And look, he's on his arse.

Am I getting this right?

Here we have a close to 50 something guy, who's book-learned a lot in 18 months of skiing, taken a handful of lessons, who's now a racer, instructor, and only spent ONE day in powder, arguing with Bob Barnes? :

I can't believe I read the whole thing. (burp) I've had my fill.
post #154 of 336
He's laying an egg, but at least his legs are together!
post #155 of 336
Thread Starter 

yep - after a sommersault

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonni
And look, he's on his arse.

Am I getting this right?
I don't look like it as arguing. I'm just trying to understand where he is coming from in regard to the SP turn.

But your're certainly correct. I'm a rank beginner.
post #156 of 336
JohnM -

IMHO, the problem is that while you may not intend to come across as an arrogant and argumentative know-it-all, it obviously appears that way to quite a few people.

This is exactly why I made my earlier recommendation to you to insert more phrases like, "IMHO", "I think", "What I felt was..." into many of the sentences of each post, instead of inserting a single, half-hearted disclaimer like, "Of course I'm a rank beginner" or "Of course, everything that I say is an opinion", every few pages.

A little humor (self-deprecating is always nice) and insights into yourself as a person, exactly as your photo provided, are also wonderful social lubricants.

Just my $0.02,

Tom / PM (who, of course, is never arrogant or opinionated, especially in the above comments - )
post #157 of 336

John's Turn....a good one!

Whoa! Wow! I am stunned by the number of posts this thread is generating rapidly! I composed the following reply off line to John's post #95, and now when I log in to post it, there have been 50 more posts on two more pages! I have not read the new posts yet as I post this, so I apologize in advance if I am repeating anything that's already been discussed, and I apologize for the discontinuity that this post may cause to the discussion. Nevertheless....

(Oops, looks like I'm going to have to break this post into two as well, as it exceeds the single post size limit. Sorry!)

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

I'm at a loss for words, John. (But I'll get over it.) Please don't be reluctant to edit that last post for a little clarity.

I don't know where to start after that meandering post. First, keep in mind that I am not, at the moment, discussing these issues with HH, LF, or ED (gee, how did I know? You might as well add CM in there as well, to make it four authors. And if you really want information about the virtues of one-footed balance, add in GJ, HA, RL, S and PM, WW, JH, SC--no wait, you've already written him off, KG, LD, and, for that matter, BB.) I wish I was discussing this with them. But I am discussing this with YOU, and you're doing your best to represent them, but you are not them. I actually know that those authors have some good points, and I respect them, even if I don't necessarily always agree with them. They also have the background and depth of understanding to explain their points, as well as to know where they fit into the big picture. You don't. That a first grader gets hold of an accurate physics text and tries to read it does not detract from the irony that he'd try to debate PhysicsMan about the fundamentals of the subject!

Anyway, let's see, where to start this time....

There is one big difference between Rusty's analogy and many ski turns, and it is not clear whether you grasp its signficance, although there are hints that perhaps you do: Rusty's exit turn begins from a straight line, while typical ski turns are linked to previous turns.

In linked ski turns, the skier's CM comes out of the last turn moving in a diagonal path across the skis, relative to the skis. That is, it is already moving into the new turn, and unless you need to disrupt that motion, you don't need to do anything. In Rusty's analogy, your CM is traveling in a straight line prior to the turn, and you DO have to do something to get it moving in the new direction. That's why I suggested that, in Rusty's truck, you might have to "lift or lighten" your right foot slightly before the truck actually starts turning. This "weight shift" creates a force that pushes your CM in the new direction.

But in the linked ski turns, the CM is already moving that way (you have suggested this yourself). Speaking of physics, remember that law that "an object in motion remains in constant motion" unless an external force acts on it? You're in motion. You're going the right direction. So any lateral force from an "early weight transfer" will only disrupt that! (Of course, since few skiers really do link their turns effectively, this may be a moot point. If you need to get your CM "falling" into the turn, then transferring your support foot to the uphill ski will provide a quick fix. The real solution lies back in the previous turn!)

Anyway, that's one important point, and it argues AGAINST an "early" (meaning prior to the actual turn start) weight transfer in most good, linked turns.

Let's cut right to the chase here, John. An "early" active weight transfer--prior to the appearance of forces that pull you toward the outside ski--can only mean one of two things: Either you shift your BALANCE to the uphill ski, which entails moving your CM uphill (away from the turn), or you simply remove pressure from the downhill ski (lift, relax the leg, whatever), removing its support, causing you to start "falling" across the skis and, presumably, into the next turn. (Yes, you could do some of each.)

These two scenarios are easily demonstrable in your own living room, as I've often described. Stand up, feet naturally separated, weight on both feet. Now, lift your right foot off the floor. If you did not either move left to balance on the left foot, or start falling to the right because you were OUT of balance, then the laws of physics have ceased to apply to you, and you may skip the rest of this discussion.

Either of these two options may be "right," depending on your intent and desire. Neither is necessary for most turns, and I realize that you have not denied this fact. What you have done is expressed a personal preference for turns that are preceded by an active "early" weight transfer.

And that is absolutely fine, John. I do not denounce it, I do fully accept it, and I completely agree that such turns can be fun. And, unless you're in this for something else, fun is what it's about (although these turns are arguably better exercise too, because they involve a little extra work).

Your turn...
The turns you have described, as far as I can tell, are essentially the racer's classic "inside-outside" move that I have described in my book. Let me know if I have misinterpreted your description. They involve a distinct step (weight transfer) to the uphill edge of the uphill ski before the old turn is finished, causing the uphill ski to continue to carve the end of the turn, even as you release the edge of the dowhnill ski. In the "old days," this was a very common racing move when the gates were far offset across the hill. Often (usually) combined with a diverging ("scissor") step, it allowed the racer to "gain height" toward the next gate while carrying speed across the hill. Because the old skis could not carve as tight a turn as today's skis, if the racer stayed on the old downhil ski, he/she would either carve too low (too straight), or have to skid the finish. Transferring weight to the uphill ski, especially diverging, essentially accomplishes the same thing as carving a tighter finish to the turn.

As you would expect, the transfer of weight to the uphill ski, if it does not actually move the skier uphill, at least delays the move downhill. Again, that is why it was used--to allow the skier to carry speed across the hill more, rather than starting the new turn downhill immediately (and missing the next gate). It is a "crossunder move" in the sense that your balance point seems to move laterally beneath you (from downhill ski to uphill ski), rather than your CM moving downhill across it.

And if you time it right, when you finally roll that uphill ski to its inside edge, it can start carving smoothly and quickly. This timing is tricky, because you will typically be traveling across the hill and, unless you have a lot of speed or it isn't too steep, there will be no force to resist to bend that ski. Staying "low" through the transition, so that you can extend into the turn, allows you to add a little pressure for at least a moment--a move that you have accurately described, John.

The key to doing this turn smoothly is to make sure that your CM is actually moving downhill as you step to the uphill ski. It should not be an abrupt step up the hill that disrupts the smooth flow of the CM. The uphill ski is on its uphill (outside) edge, but it is not static--it is rolling downhill. Its edge angle is decreasing as you step to it, and it will soon roll flat, and continue smoothly onto its inside edge. Timing and balance are critical here. But when it is done just right, this turn does produce some wonderful sensations, very dynamic, very carved, very fun!

(continued next post....)
post #158 of 336
Indeed, John, I share your taste for this turn! It is one of my favorite turns too. Besides being fun, it is a great balance and skill-building drill as well. I recommend mixing it up with its "cousins"--the "inside-flat" move and "inside-inside" move (all named, by the way, for the edges you move from and to--inside edge of downhill ski to inside edge, outside edge, or flat uphill ski). Each has its use, and each produces unique sensations. The "inside-flat" weight transfer causes a gliding, smooth, but immediate start to the new turn--racers used it for medium-offset gates. It is most similar to the standard, two-footed smooth weight transfer of the "perfect turn" that I have described. (It is important to note that a weight transfer does not necessarily require a ski to come off the snow.) The inside-inside move (you'd like this one, John!) was used for minimally-offset gates, down the fall line. It brings you dramatically from one strongly carving ski to the other, which starts carving hard as soon as you step on it. It doesn't take you far across the fall line (so it doesn't slow you down much), and it isn't for the faint of heart! But it is fun. The final "cousin" to these turns is the "White Pass Turn," which involves what you (John) might call a "weighted release," and a very late weight transfer. You stay on the downhill ski, roll it to its outside (downhill, little toe) edge and begin carving the turn balanced on what is now the inside ski. Somewhere around the fall line, you transfer your weight to the outside ski, which immediatedly engages and carves with a vengeance!

I use past tense in the above paragraph, because you see these moves much less commonly in racing today. Today's skis just don't require such dramatic steps as before to get the job done. The "inside-outside" move (John's turn), in particular, is rarely needed because, first, gates tend to be less offset than before, and second, today's skis carve such tight arcs that the racer doesn't need that diverging uphill step to finish the direction change and "gain height." But you still do see these moves in racing, if you look closely. They may be less dramatic, with less or no divergence, due to the new skis. But they do happen!

And these skills certainly have a place in every day skiing too. They are not "better turns," fundamentally, than any other. I would not recommend them as your basic standard technique, but they are great special arrows for your quivver, and again, they can be a blast to play with.

It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that today's trends have become so strongly focused on two-footed pressure. Yes, that's important too, but many instructors seem to be "afraid" to play with these "old" techniques, which really are as contemporary and important as they ever were--and as much fun. I do not waver from my stance that good skiing requires becoming adept at ALL of these options, with the ability to balance on either or both skis and to transfer your weight at any moment, at will, or as the need arises. Skiing is about SKILL. With skill, you can do anything you want!

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

Other things from your post have caught my eye. "Rebound." Not sure exactly what you mean by this term, but it generally refers to stored energy that is released from your legs and your reverse-cambered skis when the pressure is released. If that is what you are referring to, then keep in mind that it cannot, in fact, "propel you into the new turn." Rebound from the skis can only create a force perpendicular to the running surface of the skis. Imagine a ski supported between two chairs. Put a hockey puck in the middle of the ski, press down to flex the ski, and then release it. The ski snaps back, and which direction does that hockey puck fly? Straight up, of course. That's what classic "rebound" does to you. It's useful for unweighting, which can be helpful if you want to redirect your skis before reengaging them. And it can be fun! It's like bouncing on a trampoline, or on your bed, or a diving board. It's fun! But other than unweighting, it is not terribly useful. And it contradicts your described goal of getting pressure on your new edges and carving as early as possible in the turn.

Of course, you may have something else in mind by "rebound." Whatever it is, I don't deny that it's probably a real sensation you feel, and that you like it. Good for you!

Quote:
"You are most happy to stick with your passive weight shift style of turns while I make even more efficient use of ski design and gravity with my active weight shift style of turns and work with coaches that teach the same."
Honestly, John, how do you know what makes me happy? Happiness is a personal thing, and there is no accounting for taste. My descriptions of various turn types should never be construed as a value judgement, or a statement of preference--unless I say they are! They can all be fun.

I have stated on a number of occasions that "perfect turns" are not necessarily the most fun. Remember that I was extremely reluctant to even use the term "perfect turn" (reread the preamble to the thread in which I described it, and the prior thread that inspired that one). It was really at the request of SCSA, who was uncomfortable with my contention that there is no "perfect turn," no one technique that is the be all, end all of skiing. He did not like my suggestion that skiing is about skills and versatility, rather than one, clear, easily described "one size fits all" technique that could be developed with a single technical progression. The "perfect turn" discussion was my response to that request. Before I could describe the technique, I went to great lengths to establish the parameters of that turn--the intent, the outcome, the purpose. Only when you establish a clearly defined intent can you discuss technique as "good" or not. But I have also taken pains to point out that, because you may have many different intents, you MUST NOT practice only one kind of turn!

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

Unfortunately, this will probably be my last post to this thread. I do enjoy this lively discussion, but I really cannot afford to neglect my other priorities. At least, I'm hoping that I can stay away--I've got a book to finish....

Have fun, keep learning, and, oh yeah--make sure your skiing embodies the GO! Factor!



Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #159 of 336
Thread Starter 

thanks for the tips

yes - no one can see when I'm grinning on the forum. let me know if my style is improved in the next post. (which is now up)
post #160 of 336
Thread Starter 

Sorry Bob - your big post inserted in

Yes -your describing the turn pretty accurately. Sorry for my sarcastic "stick to your passive turn comment". It was obviously misplaced and I was out of line.

Sounds like I might like SC after all!

Rebound, - the way I meat it follows.
post #161 of 336
Thread Starter 

Rebound

Rebound, as the skis become unpressured, is much like a bow and arrow. The skis natural shape is, like a recurve bow, is reversed when it's pressured into the snow. Depending on the dampening and how it is built into the ski and the actually "springiness" and "stiffness" and "heft of the skier" all relate to how much the ski will bend and give energy back when the weight is removed from the ski. Personally I have only skied on a few skis, but I find my 6 stars have a lot of rebound and my head I75 M's do not.

As your turn is ending as ski with good rebound will allow you to use the skis energy to keep your distance vertical from the slope maintained through transistion. In a ski with poor rebound, the skier will have to supply this force themselves.

At least this is how I have come to understand the term.
post #162 of 336
Thread Starter 

great post Bob

I like your historical perspective on those various turn types. I popped up a post of 4 major turn types. You clearly understand them all. Your descriptions are similar. The inside inside turn is about the only one I haven't tried. (though you can accidently get into that on a weighted release if your not active about getting that outside ski back onto the snow - I've certainly done that!)

I think I just got overreactive about all the historical threads on the early shift as a negative movement. I didn't understand where you were comming from.

I think the key on having the early pressure switch turn to work, is in having a narrow stance at that point. Otherwise it is quite disruptive to the CM. Your analogy on standing and picking up one foot demonstrates this perfectly. If you widen stance and do it while standing you'll move side to side with some force. If you feet are together there is not much lateral movement generated.
post #163 of 336

Rebound forces

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason
Rebound, as the skis become unpressured, is much like a bow and arrow. The skis natural shape is, like a recurve bow, is reversed when it's pressured into the snow. Depending on the dampening and how it is built into the ski and the actually "springiness" and "stiffness" and "heft of the skier" all relate to how much the ski will bend and give energy back when the weight is removed from the ski. Personally I have only skied on a few skis, but I find my 6 stars have a lot of rebound and my head I75 M's do not.

As your turn is ending as ski with good rebound will allow you to use the skis energy to keep your distance vertical from the slope maintained through transistion. In a ski with poor rebound, the skier will have to supply this force themselves.

At least this is how I have come to understand the term.
John, you may not notice this, but you and Bob have described the same phenomenon. Also note Bob's comment about the direction that the rebount force takes: perpendicular to the skis' base. It doesn't necessarily feel that way, but that's what it's doing.

ssh (addicted to rebound for years, but now playing with other sensations, too!)
post #164 of 336

Maybe it's just the term "negative"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason
I think I just got overreactive about all the historical threads on the early shift as a negative movement. I didn't understand where you were comming from.
My interpretation of "negative movement" is a movement that is unnecessary or superfluous to the intent of the skier. I also think of it as a question of efficiency of movement for a specific intent.

Does that perhaps help?

In this context, negative is not a value judgement, but a term used to represent the propriety of a movement within the union of all movements intended to result in a specific outcome.
post #165 of 336
Quote:
Steve Hultquist - less than 60 days to first turns...
You need to update your signature line, Steve. Otherwise, some of us will have been skiing for a month by the time you make that first turn!

post #166 of 336
Thread Starter 

Nothing wrong with a negative turn

actually I think I'm using the term negative in the same fashion Bob uses it.

A negative turn is one that has contrary motion components to it. Thus, more energy is exerted than is needed.

Turning, by it's nature, must apply force to change the momentem and redirect the inertia of the CM. A study of negative movements helps to identify the most efficient way to ski down the hill given ideal conditions.

If someone wants to hop and pivot or kick their heels side to side and ski skidding z's down the hill, that's fine. Both of those turns have gross and easy to see negative movements. It's when a skier is trying to get more efficient that this type of turn analysis can be helpful.

Your absolutly correct. Negative is not "bad".

For instance, in the Early Weight Shift turn, or Super Phantom turn, or Early uphill ski pressure turn, there is technically a negative movement since your taking your pressure off the lower ski and putting it on the top ski. But, this avoids other active steering inputs to maintain balance at the top of a high C turn. So in overall energy expenditure it my well be less. But in that statement I'm throwing a curve ball on my own definition of negative. Active steering and pointing actions of the outside leg are in the direction of the turn and are thus, not negative. But they require more muscle action and thus energy then the more automatic high carve turn produced by the early weight shift style of turn (imo).
post #167 of 336

Skiing soon!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado
You need to update your signature line, Steve. Otherwise, some of us will have been skiing for a month by the time you make that first turn!

Well, 30 is less than 60, isn't it?

Man, I'm getting stoked. I'm glad I dropped back into EpicSki. I've been so swamped with a new job, etc. that I've just not been able to do that. But, I'm getting stoked, now!
post #168 of 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason
A study of negative movements helps to identify the most efficient way to ski down the hill given ideal conditions.

.

Most efficient?

Surely that is simple
1) stand at top of hill
2) point tips down hill
3) go to bottom

so why turn?

- it's OK Nolo & Ric B I'm not turning into a speed freak
post #169 of 336

Truck on the Highway Analogy

Wouldn't Rusty Guy's truck-exiting-the-highway analogy be closer yet if we just had the truck taking a curve to the left (for instance) and then taking the next curve to the right. I could very much see myself balancing on the right foot as I rode out the left hand curve and, seeing the next curve coming, decide to allow pressure to build on the little toe edge of my left foot somewhat before Rusty hit the right hand turn. In fact, that might be a reeaal fun way to ride the pickup. Question: Would my body inclination and crossover happen faster and earlier than if I kept the pressure on the right foot for a little longer? At the same rate? Slower?

Also, all my weight shifting focus and corresponding lifting, tipping, whatever would be accomplished before the crucial moment when Rusty cranked the steering wheel right. During that critical phase, I'd only have to concern myself with balancing on that new weighted foot and enjoying the changes in the g's.

Anyway, just musing.

Paul
post #170 of 336

Does the truck analogy really work?

Hey Paul:

Just musing myself here ....

I haven't really studied it, but sure seems -intuitively- that there is a bit of a difference between trying to stay upright in the back of a truck vs. skiing. Am I wrong?

While it may appear that the same movements are made, is it not different for me to be gliding down/across a stationairy slope vs trying to remain stationary in the back of a moving pick up truck? Or is the truck supposed to represent my ski's? I don't know, but I do know I at least attempt to make it look like I'm driving my skis ...I know I can't drive a pickup truck from the bed:
post #171 of 336

Trucks ???

I read this thread and visualize train wrecks.
post #172 of 336
I first got the idea riding the train at DIA as it made the one little turn out of the station.

My daughter and I try to see who can make the turn without grabbing the hand rails.
post #173 of 336

Keep on truckin'

Quote:
Originally Posted by cgeib
Hey Paul:

Just musing myself here ....

I haven't really studied it, but sure seems -intuitively- that there is a bit of a difference between trying to stay upright in the back of a truck vs. skiing. Am I wrong?

While it may appear that the same movements are made, is it not different for me to be gliding down/across a stationairy slope vs trying to remain stationary in the back of a moving pick up truck? Or is the truck supposed to represent my ski's? I don't know, but I do know I at least attempt to make it look like I'm driving my skis ...I know I can't drive a pickup truck from the bed:
cgeib, I think that the truck replaces the skis. What if you could steer the truck from the bed? How would that change stance and sense of weight shift? Think about a couple of pads in the bed that would be sensitive enough to allow you to use them to turn the truck. Wouldn't your sense of weight shift be about the same as if you knew what the driver was going to do?

And isn't that what it feels like on skis?
post #174 of 336

trucks and highways and skis and forces

You're right Chris,

I'm sure there are a bunch of differences, but there may be enough similarities for the analogy to be useful. Actually, when it was originally posed, the question was [Why] "would we shift all our weight to the left foot?", and the answer was, quite reasonably, we wouldn't. However, by extending the analogy I hoped to explore a different question. Something along the lines of: What if you just allowed your base of support to shift to the left foot without moving your CM at all? Your CM would then start to move to the outside of the just-about-to-end turn, but as the skis tilt and engage and curvature reverses, that same movement of the CM would now be toward the center of the new turn.

My questions about the rate of the movement of the CM into the new turn were to elicit responses on how fast that CM moves and the body tilts as a result of the inside-outside edge turn initiation [Bob Barnes' terminology, or Early Weight Shift (John Mason's), or Super Phantom (Harald Harb's)], rather than an inside-flat, or inside-inside move.

Now let's go back to a cyber ski slope rather than the highway. If your inside edges are say six inches apart and your skis three inches wide, the shift of your base of support from the downhill inside edge (DIE) to uphill outside edge (UOE) would shift that base by 9 inches. My guess is that this would produce enough inbalance in the system to cause your CM to project reasonably quickly downhill, and your skis to tip quite quickly. Again, I wonder if anyone has an opinion as to whether the CM projection/body tilting would be faster with this "early" weight shift than with a later one to a flat or already tilted ski? If so, a follow-on question would be whether this fast projection/tilting is desirable -- can it be handled by ordinary skiers?

Again I emphasize that the suggested turn is not initiated by stepping up onto the old uphill ski, but rather by merely relaxing the old downhill ski and allowing the base of support to switch from DIE to UOE. You're immediately out of balance, but that's the point of the move... I think?

Paul
post #175 of 336
Let me add one more point to my truck tale. As I describe the truck taking the exit to the right I ask students.....which way is your weight moving. Invariably most say to the left.

Now remember, it's a right turn!

I repeat the question and eventually I get folks to say their mass is GOING right. It simply FEELS like it wants to go left.

So why would we ever move or shift our weight, COG, COM, or anything in a direction that is not where we intend to go.

I'll add one more point. What makes one turn end and another bebin? Shifting weight or changing edges?
post #176 of 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy
So why would we ever move or shift our weight, COG, COM, or anything in a direction that is not where we intend to go.

I'll add one more point. What makes one turn end and another bebin? Shifting weight or changing edges?
I guess I'm just a novice at this but I don't purposely shift squat. I don't even consider how much weight is on which foot. I just ski and the pressure builds, on the outside leg, on its own in different amounts as I progress through a turn. Am I missing something? I think it's actually pretty natural.
post #177 of 336
Quote:
I think it's actually pretty natural.
Well said, Coach13. You make it seem so easy--like all great skiers!

Are you paying attention, JM? You make it seem so hard!

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #178 of 336
Hi Rusty,

"So why would we ever move or shift our weight, COG, COM, or anything in a direction that is not where we intend to go."

You absolutely don't. You don't step up or make any movement uphill at all. You merely lighten the downhill ski... You pick it up if you will. That necessarily transfers your base of support to the uphill ski (you can't lighten both skis at once, that's either jumping or flying). And the reason you might do this (I'm exploring rather than advocating) is solely to unbalance yourself and get the CM going downhill faster and earlier than it would if you kept some pressure on your downhill ski a bit longer and delayed the complete transfer until, say, when the uphill ski is already flat (inside/flat move) or even edged (inside/inside move). Oh, and I'm implicitly assuming in all this that we want to keep both skis at the same edging angle, no A-framing going on.

"I'll add one more point. What makes one turn end and another bebin? Shifting weight or changing edges?"

First, I'd define the turn change as when the curvature goes from one direction to the other. In linked carved turns, if the skis are flat, you can't be turning and that must be the transition between turns. Thus, the end/start of a carved turn takes place only when the skis are flat, moving from one set of edges to the other. Weight shift has no direct bearing on this, or one footed skiers could never turn, and there'd be no White Pass turn or Weighted Release.

How'd I do?

Paul
post #179 of 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyD
You're right Chris,

I'm sure there are a bunch of differences, but there may be enough similarities for the analogy to be useful. Actually, when it was originally posed, the question was [Why] "would we shift all our weight to the left foot?", and the answer was, quite reasonably, we wouldn't. However, by extending the analogy I hoped to explore a different question. Something along the lines of: What if you just allowed your base of support to shift to the left foot without moving your CM at all? Your CM would then start to move to the outside of the just-about-to-end turn, but as the skis tilt and engage and curvature reverses, that same movement of the CM would now be toward the center of the new turn.

My questions about the rate of the movement of the CM into the new turn were to elicit responses on how fast that CM moves and the body tilts as a result of the inside-outside edge turn initiation [Bob Barnes' terminology, or Early Weight Shift (John Mason's), or Super Phantom (Harald Harb's)], rather than an inside-flat, or inside-inside move.

Now let's go back to a cyber ski slope rather than the highway. If your inside edges are say six inches apart and your skis three inches wide, the shift of your base of support from the downhill inside edge (DIE) to uphill outside edge (UOE) would shift that base by 9 inches. My guess is that this would produce enough inbalance in the system to cause your CM to project reasonably quickly downhill, and your skis to tip quite quickly. Again, I wonder if anyone has an opinion as to whether the CM projection/body tilting would be faster with this "early" weight shift than with a later one to a flat or already tilted ski? If so, a follow-on question would be whether this fast projection/tilting is desirable -- can it be handled by ordinary skiers?

Again I emphasize that the suggested turn is not initiated by stepping up onto the old uphill ski, but rather by merely relaxing the old downhill ski and allowing the base of support to switch from DIE to UOE. You're immediately out of balance, but that's the point of the move... I think?

Paul
Hi Paul:

The last couple of days have been much too long for this much thinking! However (still without exploring that crazy truck driver thing) I do have some ideas about your CM flow. For starters, here is a response I posted to JM in his other thread (no response as of yet):



Quote:
Originally Posted by cgeib

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason
There are a gazillion ways to turn.
I agree with that



Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason
Which turn style do you use yourself?
All of the above I'm sure, plus a whole lot more. Sorry, I don't know all the names or numbers....



Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason
In what circumstances to you prefer one turn type to another?
In most conditions I prefer, and have been working on, something akin to BB's perfect turn (however, I disagree with your interpretation of it.) If I have my slalom ski's on, then I'll lean more towards the carving spectrum where it's appropriate. In powder and moguls I'll dial in more steering. On icy steep moguls, maybe even full pivot and drift ...just cause I'm chicken!! But these are just generalities, I play with different things all the time.



Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason

How would you improve my descriptions above?
When I read your descriptions above (and your prior writings), I get the understanding that you feel a turn ends at a specific 'point' ... then you do something at that 'point' to cause the next turn? I don't agree with this perspective.

You are referencing the transition and having it take place when the skis cross the fall line. What is happening leading up to that 'point'?

At this time in my skiing, I am trying to begin my work towards that next transition before the apex of the current turn ( knowing in advance where I want to "go" ), so I can exit this turn (progressively) and flow right thru that 'point' of transition with my CM heading 'on-track' into the next turn; that can be on a track to carve the top of the turn or a track requiring I steer my skis into line to support it - no matter, the point is that the transition happened as a result of everything that came before it rather than something that was done at that 'point'. [Progressively does not = slow! It can be slow, likewise, it can be very quick] Your thoughts?

Also, yes, there are a lot of times where things wont go as planned and a turn, or the brakes, need to happen NOW ...not arguing that! And I wont argue that my skiing lives up to this ideal ...but I'm working on it
Does that make sense?

"If your inside edges are say six inches apart..." I can't relate to such a wide stance: You've skied with me enough to know that by now:

"Again, I wonder if anyone has an opinion as to whether the CM projection/body tilting would be faster with this "early" weight shift than with a later one to a flat or already tilted ski?" My take is that this "early weight shift" is actually a "late" weight shift! ...at least for you and I in most circumstances. BB has outlined several appropriate cases where it might be used/required, but do we typically encounter those?? No. Seems to me for most turns this is not necessary, and is actually a correction for not already having your CM on course to cross the path of your skis at the point you wanted. Also, no, I don't necessarily think it causes a faster CM projection, although I'll bet it feels faster because of the acceleration/change of direction. What do you think?

"If so, a follow-on question would be whether this fast projection/tilting is desirable -- can it be handled by ordinary skiers?" Apparently.

"Again I emphasize that the suggested turn is not initiated by stepping up onto the old uphill ski, but rather by merely relaxing the old downhill ski and allowing the base of support to switch from DIE to UOE. You're immediately out of balance, but that's the point of the move... I think?" Why are you out of balance? Is that a condition you want to seek? If you're haulin the mail it may not effect your CM nearly as much as if you puttering along a cattrack, right? The faster you're going the more inertia you have and your CM will want to continue on its current path - will you be out of balance? On the other extreme, if you're standing still (without any forward inertia) you'll fall over - that's probably considered being out of balance (until you hit the ground!) Seems like it's kinda speed dependant to me. If I'm going slow, then I either have to 'move up' and balance on the uphill ski or redirect (pivot) my skis to come in line to support the new direction of my CM; If I'm going fast enough, then my CM doesn't really change direction as dramatically and the uphill ski quickly starts to cut across the path it is on, then pushes it where you've now decided it needs to go. Your thoughts?

Chris

PS Saw you're response to Rusty on when a turn ends. When do you 'start turning' the other way?



post #180 of 336

Drop on in

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyD
Now let's go back to a cyber ski slope rather than the highway. If your inside edges are say six inches apart and your skis three inches wide, the shift of your base of support from the downhill inside edge (DIE) to uphill outside edge (UOE) would shift that base by 9 inches. My guess is that this would produce enough inbalance in the system to cause your CM to project reasonably quickly downhill, and your skis to tip quite quickly. Again, I wonder if anyone has an opinion as to whether the CM projection/body tilting would be faster with this "early" weight shift than with a later one to a flat or already tilted ski? If so, a follow-on question would be whether this fast projection/tilting is desirable -- can it be handled by ordinary skiers?

Again I emphasize that the suggested turn is not initiated by stepping up onto the old uphill ski, but rather by merely relaxing the old downhill ski and allowing the base of support to switch from DIE to UOE. You're immediately out of balance, but that's the point of the move... I think?
Paul, this does a great job of describing the situation we've been discussing! Thanks for the clarity. My sense is that the rapid movement of the CoM that results from this shift of the base of support is the "pop" that John describes (although this is very different from what I this of as "pop"). I have experimented with this type of turn and it does give a real sense of "dropping into the turn" in my experience. It's fun, for sure!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Skiing Styles and Instruction