or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Skiers think they carve but they don't... correctly anyway...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Skiers think they carve but they don't... correctly anyway... - Page 7

Maybe carving and arcing are being misunderstood here.:

If you are not arcing you can tighten your turn shape via adding tip pressure while at the same time using a lower tipping angle, but if you are arc-to-arc skiing, your ski must cut along it's edge where it meets the snow at a radius determined by it's shape and the tipping angle.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by cgeib It's interesting that BigE refers you to LeMaster! Since they don't agree
They do agree.

Lemaster says the same thing - the step that is cut in to the snow by the edge must be at 90 degrees to the applied force, othewise the ski will slip off the platform/step it has cut.

Since you have Lemaster handy, See figure 3.3 page 20.

Normally, when we reference edge angle, it is against the plane of the snow.

Fig 3.3 shows what happens when the 90 degree requirement is no longer met -- the ski will slip out. The difference between figures in 3.3 can be described as the difference in the edge angle referencing the snow, as the direction of the applied force does not change. An edge angle that is too low, will not place the ski perpendicular to the applied force.

Bottom line -- if the edge angle is not high enough, ie. the ski is not perpendicular to the applied force, the ski will slip off the platform that it has cut in the snow.

There is no irony, just simpler reference point when comparing two turns.
Roto, the original question:

"How will "directing my CM" differently lower the edge angles required by an 8 m radius carve on a 12m radius ski at say 20mph? Assume that the ski is at critical angle, and the turns are arc-to-arc.

Please explain the mechanics you need to use to lower this edge angle and maintain the 8 m turn radius of these arc-to-arc turns."
Thanks, BigE. I don't follow all the logic there, but it's off topic on this thread, so I'm just gonna bow out.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Atomicman Excerpt from Ott's post:Carving takes no more effort. How hard is it to roll your ski up on edge and stand on your edges in balanced position, particularly on a Blue/Green run!The above sentence is what I wrote. So , yes i agree with myself! This is exactly opposite of what Ott said.He said, Why would a skier ever carve on a blue or green slope. He said he could see no point in it! other then to show off or something similar.Am I missing something here?:
Maybe. I can't say what Ott meant for sure. I guess people just look at things differently. I don't take Ott's comments on carving to mean all carving. Because of some of the content of his post I see the issue being what I mentioned in an earlier post:
Quote:
 I think he is talking about a certain set of "carvers" who fail to realize that they are out of balance most of the time even though they are leaving trenches, or RR tracks. These skiers work far harder than they need to.
.

Whether or not this is how Ott meant it is beside the point. I just bumped it because (again) I think what he had to say is more pertinent to the original thread topic than a lot of people realize, regardless of his intentions

It's not that carving is bad. It's that trying too hard to carve often leads people further away from their goal. This is something that makes skiers think they carve when they don't. Either that or the movements, stance etc, that get reinforced by trying to trench it up so hard on moderate terrain are not movements or stance that are going to work when they really do need to trench it up.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by BigE Roto, the original question: "How will "directing my CM" differently lower the edge angles required by an 8 m radius carve on a 12m radius ski at say 20mph? Assume that the ski is at critical angle, and the turns are arc-to-arc. Please explain the mechanics you need to use to lower this edge angle and maintain the 8 m turn radius of these arc-to-arc turns."

So I thought the original context of this whole discussion/DEBATE was skiers who think they carve but they don't. Are you guys thinking I am talking to you about your skiing with these comments?

All I am going to say, BigE, about your above questions is that I can't answer "how will directing your CM differently...." because I can't see how you do it now so I have no context as to how you would need to change it. As for the other one, about critical angle (as defined by you an edge angle which if you go below it will result in skidding), is simply a context I never suggested. I might suggest experimenting with lower edge angles in order to help a person discover "critical edge angle" so they can find "as much edge as they need to get the job done."

If you are interested, I can explore the idea more in response to nolo's questions about directional movements and well-directed movements, which I will get to. I believe that this matter is pertinent to the original topic in here so I will keep posting here unless anyone really has a problem with it, then we can start a different thread or something.
Quote:
 I might suggest experimenting with lower edge angles in order to help a person discover "critical edge angle" so they can find "as much edge as they need to get the job done."
I'm with you, Roto. Effortless power is the real deal in skiing (powerful effort is just fool's gold). Please carry on, some of us are very interested in what you have to say about directional and well-directed movements.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by nolo I'm with you, Roto. Effortless power is the real deal in skiing (powerful effort is just fool's gold). Please carry on, some of us are very interested in what you have to say about directional and well-directed movements.
Dear Nolo- fluid aggression plus effortless power= ?

IMO it is maximum use of ski design, athletic capabilities and clarity of perception/purpose.: FWIW

Directional movements . . . I am very interested and have disengaged my bias filters to ready myself.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Roto All I am going to say, BigE, about your above questions is that I can't answer "how will directing your CM differently...." because I can't see how you do it now so I have no context as to how you would need to change it. As for the other one, about critical angle (as defined by you an edge angle which if you go below it will result in skidding), is simply a context I never suggested. I might suggest experimenting with lower edge angles in order to help a person discover "critical edge angle" so they can find "as much edge as they need to get the job done."
Roto, you don't have to see it. Since the skier is skiing at critical angle, they ARE using "as much edge as they need to get the job done". No more, no less.....

Using less edge angle means I cannot follow the same line, as you have earlier suggested.

Anyway, I'm done.

Cheers!
Quote:
 Originally Posted by BigE Roto, you don't have to see it. Since the skier is skiing at critical angle, they ARE using "as much edge as they need to get the job done". No more, no less..... Using less edge angle means I cannot follow the same line, as you have earlier suggested. Anyway, I'm done. Cheers!
Reading that makes me think we agree more than you realize
Quote:
 Originally Posted by nolo Please carry on, some of us are very interested in what you have to say about directional and well-directed movements.
I have been thinking about what I have to say about them. Just to set the stage, one of my intentions here is to stay:

Tight in concept, loose in details.

I also will do my best to operate in a "discussion framework", which means I will ask questions until I know enough about someone else's viewpoint before I decide to agree or disagree rather than formulating an opposing viewpoint as I'm reading their post.

Tell me what "directional movements"(in brief) are to you nolo. Are they associated with any specific skills or body parts?
Directional would refer to the anatomical planes of movement and well-directed movements would be when left-right, up-down, and fore-aft, my complementary body parts are on the same plane. Joints are the body parts I most associate with directional movements while recognizing the role of the core muscles with stabilizing/coordinating these movements.
Don't you think, guys, that fat skis make skiing in powder too easy .
I think they reward slopiness.
What do you say ?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by nolo Directional would refer to the anatomical planes of movement and well-directed movements would be when left-right, up-down, and fore-aft, my complementary body parts are on the same plane. Joints are the body parts I most associate with directional movements while recognizing the role of the core muscles with stabilizing/coordinating these movements.
I'm glad I asked! Directional Movements, to me, are any movements made with by a skier with the express purpose of going in a certain direction.

I do refer to the anatomical planes in a sense of learning how the body moves, and I may refer to it during MA to figure out how someone moves/what they could change. However, due to recent changes in my understanding of skiing, directional movements has expanded to include much more than that.

For starters. Everything in or attached to one's body is a part of ones center of mass. Movements of body parts that are further away from ones CM have a greater effect on it's location/direction of travel than ones that are closer; such as the hands/arms & head etc.

A simple movement of the head, like looking down, can have significant effect on stance because it is a part of the CM

All of us are trained to view body movements in certain contexts, these contexts may differ, but these contexts do limit what we can see nonetheless.

Take flexion & extension, perhaps

What is your understanding of the purpose for flexion extension movements?

You could look at it conversely as well, as in the CM in relation to body parts further away from it having a large effect on a skiers ability to move/balance.

Gotta go. back later
Quote:
 Directional Movements, to me, are any movements made with by a skier with the express purpose of going in a certain direction.
That's a better definition, Roto. What I was trying for was a three dimensional definition instead of just right-left, but yours has that too.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Atomicman Am I missing something here?:
I agree it doesn't seem to make much sense today, but in the context of times past it probably made a lot more sense. Before modern skis the carving Ott describes was a technique that required substantial effort, so when just puttering around on a gentle slope it would be understandable to do something that was less work. 15 years ago carving anything other than a very long turn was real work.

In the context of the last 15 years or so, its a different story. Anyone can just park and ride with zero effort.
Nolo, Roto,,,, what the frig are you guys trying to figure out?

"Directional Movements, to me, are any movements made with by a skier with the express purpose of going in a certain direction."

Pretty much covers anything and everything. Says very little. You must be trying to go somewhere with all this blather. Where?

I hope it's not a feeble attempt to explain how Roto carves similar turn shapes at higher speeds and lower edge angles than other carving people.
Ahhh, back from huckleberry pickin on the very slopes we ski on. Whatta great day.

To continue on with the stage setting...

I have this question I ask people sometimes

What really determines edge angle?
There are a lot of things that affect edge angle, but, in my mind only one that really determines it in a fundamental sense.

The relationship of the CM to that edge.

Lately I have received much coaching on the importance of the relationship between the CM and point of contact (with the snow) and have grown to realize that not only does the relationship between the CM & edges determine edge angles, but the relationship between our CM and point of contact determines everything we do, can, or cannot do while skiing. This is a far more important matter than the former.

In a general sense the CM must be "over" (aligned with) the point of contact, platform, or whatever someone wants to call it. Addressing this becomes the first order of business, because without that alignment any movements/decisions we make are simply attempts to make up for that first error.

I think this fits your 3 dimenstional model nolo, because the CM can be moved in any plane or direction to maintain alignment or screw it up.

If we look at an accomplished skier through this lens what starts happening to us PSIA types is that we begin to get taken out of the "Skills Concept" context a bit, because if a person is "over edged" or "under pressured" etc. it ceases to be a skills issue, but a CM/point of contact issue. If the CM/point of contact issue is addressed & fixed the skills problem goes away because nature takes it's course when alignment is acheived & maintained (with an accomplished skier)

Therein lies the Directional Movement focus. Keeping CM alignment is determined by where we direct our CM so it "keeps up" with the point of contact as it moves around the hill.

Since every part of our body is part of & affects CM, every movement we make becomes invloved with where the CM is going.

If we make movements that direct our CM away from where point of contact is going or want it to be it can only result in alignment problems, even if it digs our edges in more, less or does anything else to the skis.

So if you take the body movements we associate with anything we do "to" the skis, say controlling pressuring on them, like flexion/extension movements and put them for a moment under the heading of "directional movements" a lot of things we take for granted about those movements suddenly no longer apply and we may find we can use them at different times, in different combinations for different results than we did before.

So I think that might "set the stage" for where I am with this directional movement thing.

Now, it is a sure thing that anyone can respond in anyway they would like, but I would appreciate a "discussion format" rather than "debate" if you will. I don't mind people disagreeing with me at all, but it's nice if they actually have enough information to know if they really do or not.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Roto What really determines edge angle? There are a lot of things that affect edge angle, but, in my mind only one that really determines it in a fundamental sense. The relationship of the CM to that edge. Lately I have received much coaching on the importance of the relationship between the CM and point of contact (with the snow) and have grown to realize that not only does the relationship between the CM & edges determine edge angles, but the relationship between our CM and point of contact determines everything we do, can, or cannot do while skiing. This is a far more important matter than the former.
Roto, you've got the cart before the ass. If you allow CM position to determine the edge angle your riding, not driving. Drivers determine there course of travel via edge angle, and the resultant forces determine where the CM needs to be to ensure the state of balance they desire. Yes, the CM/point of pressure relationship is crucial, but you're looking at that relationship upside down. The foundation of your continued narration seems faulty.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick Roto, you've got the cart before the ass. If you allow CM position to determine edge angle your riding, not driving. Drivers determine there course of travel via edge angle, and the resultant forces determine where the CM needs to be to ensure the state of balance they desire. Yes, the CM/point of pressure relationship is crucial, but you're looking at that relationship upside down. The foundation of your continued narration seems faulty.
So you would rather see me say the relationship of the edge to the CM? I'm fine with that. You Master-Debater, you
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Roto Ahhh, back from huckleberry pickin on the very slopes we ski on. Whatta great day. To continue on with the stage setting... Lately I have received much coaching on the importance of the relationship between the CM and point of contact (with the snow). The relationship between our CM and point of contact determines everything we do, can, or cannot do while skiing. In a general sense the CM must be "over" (aligned with) the point of contact, platform etc. Addressing this becomes the first order of business, because without that alignment any movements/decisions we make are simply attempts to make up for that first error. I think this fits your 3 dimenstional model nolo, because the CM can be moved in any plane or direction to maintain alignment or screw it up. If we look at an accomplished skier through this lens what starts happening to us PSIA types is that we begin to get taken out of the "Skills Concept" context a bit, because if a person is "over edged" or "under pressured" etc. it ceases to be a skills issue, but a CM/point of contact issue. If the CM/point of contact issue is addressed & fixed the skills problem goes away because nature takes it's course when alignment is acheived & maintained (with an accomplished skier) Therein lies the Directional Movement focus. Keeping CM alignment is determined by where we direct our CM so it "keeps up" with the point of contact as it moves around the hill. Since every part of our body is part of & affects CM, every movement we make becomes invloved with where the CM is going. If we make movements that direct our CM away from where point of contact is going or want it to be it can only result in alignment problems, even if it digs our edges in more, less or does anything else to the skis. So if you take the body movements we associate with anything we do "to" the skis, say controlling pressuring on them, like flexion/extension movements and put them for a moment under the heading of "directional movements" a lot of things we take for granted about those movements suddenly no longer apply and we may find we can use them at different times, in different combinations for different results than we did before. So I think that might "set the stage" for where I am with this directional movement thing. Now, it is a sure thing that anyone can respond in anyway they would like, but I would appreciate a "discussion format" rather than "debate" if you will. I don't mind people disagreeing with me at all, but it's nice if they actually have enough information to know if they really do or not.
How about that? Since it was not the foundation of my narration, merely an analogy of sorts to start out simply I took it out. Thanks for showing me the error of my ways.
Roto, I'm not sure you understood what I said. It's not a question of calling it Roto and Ricks place, or Rick and Roto's place. It's this statement you made:

Quote:
 the relationship between the CM & edges determine edge angles
That can be true, but it's indicative of a skier not in control of their course of travel down the slope. It sounds like you're saying you assume a certain CM/contact point relationship, and that determines the edge angle needed. As edge angle in a carved turn determines turn shape, this leaves turn shape a secondary/arbitrary commodity.

The way you've stated it, the word order is not in question, the whole concept is. In a driver controlled skiing, where course of travel is the main objective, a skier assumes the edge angle needed to get the job done, and the CM is then positioned to provide the desired state of balance through the trip. You appear to be advocating a CM positioning as the priority, and edge angle as the enabler of that position. Am I reading you wrong?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Roto How about that? Since it was not the foundation of my narration, merely an analogy of sorts to start out simply I took it out. Thanks for showing me the error of my ways.

Better
Sounds like a house of mirrors. The relationship of our cm to our skis and desired acceleration dictates the forces we apply to the skis to shape the skis to alter our cm's position.
Quote:
 In a general sense the CM must be "over" (aligned with) the point of contact, platform etc. Addressing this becomes the first order of business, because without that alignment any movements/decisions we make are simply attempts to make up for that first error. I think this fits your 3 dimenstional model nolo, because the CM can be moved in any plane or direction to maintain alignment or screw it up.
This is good stuff, Roto. Please keep going.

You asked, what is my impression of the purpose of flexion-extension movements? I would say now that they are to move the CM closer and away from the base of support.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick It sounds like you're saying you assume a certain CM/contact point relationship, and that determines the edge angle needed. As edge angle in a carved turn determines turn shape, this leaves turn shape a secondary/arbitrary commodity.
I am saying turn shape desired would determine what CM/Contact point relatiionship were needed

edge angle, though important, would be secondary as far as establishing. Not arbitrary by any means, but simply a result of the turn shape wanted and the body movments needed to propel the CM along the path to maintain/aniticipate alignment. Alignment inlcudes consideration of forces.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick A skier assumes the edge angle needed to get the job done, and the CM is then positioned to provide the desired state of balance through the trip. You appear to be advocating a CM positioning as the priority, and edge angle as the enabler of that position. Am I reading you wrong?
I would ask how DOES a skier assume the edge angle needed?

I am advocating CM movement as the priority and since it doesn't have muscles our body parts have to be used to get it there.

Edge angle and CM movement are a symbiotic relationship, since our body parts have to have a platform off which to affect the CM, but where the CM is has a lot to do with that platform being solid, which includes but invloves more than edging.
Roto, you're kind of on the right track, but fuzzy in some key points. I'll work on a response for you. In the meantime, read through this article of mine when you get a moment. It speaks in depth on the CM/point of contact relationship.

http://modernskiracing.com/balance.php
Isn't your point that you choose the edge angle needed to do whatever maneuver you have undertaken ? You establish the relation ship of CM to balance on that edge angle and this will make directional movements more effective and takes advantage of a higher efficiency of movement and energy used to complete them

Doesn't this tie in with your efficiency of movement thoughts in that if one doesn't need a high edge angle to achieve that movement if it is in balance with the CM in support of the edge angle necessary to complete the maneuver ?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick Nolo, Roto,,,, what the frig are you guys trying to figure out?
If we understand each other before we start calling each other names perhaps?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by nolo This is good stuff, Roto. Please keep going. You asked, what is my impression of the purpose of flexion-extension movements? I would say now that they are to move the CM closer and away from the base of support.
Apply the 3-dimensional perspective to moving CM closer and away from base of support.

Would this change your understanding of, or purpose for, flexion/extension movements from fall-line-to-transition in turns?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick Roto, you're kind of on the right track, but fuzzy in some key points. I'll work on a response for you. In the meantime, read through this article of mine when you get a moment. It speaks in depth on the CM/point of contact relationship.http://modernskiracing.com/balance.php
Sound article. I am glad to see you differentiate between point of balance and point of pressure, I was wondering about that.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by GarryZ Isn't your point that you choose the edge angle needed to do whatever maneuver you have undertaken ? You establish the relation ship of CM to balance on that edge angle and this will make directional movements more effective and takes advantage of a higher efficiency of movement and energy used to complete them
My point is that I think a lot of us refer to edging so much that we influence people to move more laterally than along their path of travel (in reference to CM movements) which puts them out of balance. If I may:

Isn't your point that you choose whatever maneuver you have undertaken, make directional movements to establish the relation ship of CM to balance on the edge angle needed and this will make skiing more effective and takes advantage of a higher efficiency of movement?
That's close

Quote:
 Originally Posted by GarryZ Doesn't this tie in with your efficiency of movement thoughts in that if one doesn't need a high edge angle to achieve that movement if it is in balance with the CM in support of the edge angle necessary to complete the maneuver.
Sounds like it might be close, but could you try reading that sentence again and see if it's the way you meant it? I can't follow it all the way.
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 › Skiers think they carve but they don't... correctly anyway...