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 8

post #211 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarryZ View Post
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
A skier should not be chosing edge angle as a means of dictating the turn. The first thing that the skier should choose is turn shape/size, and commit to staying in balance with the loaded ski throughout the turn. Everything else in the turn from edge angle, to stance, to CM location is a resultant of the turn you choose to make.

Think of it this way: if you want to change the location/orientation of your CM when skiing you cannot just say "I'm going to move my CM over here" and just plop it down someplace; you have to make movements that act on your CM to change it's location. These movements usually originate at your feet, and will affect turn shape and balance point. If they do not affect turn shape, you're no longer in balance, and risking losing the ability to properly carve the turn.

Later

GREG

Top of the page! :
post #212 of 239
How would you cultivate movments designed to align the body above the BoS? Not by dragging the BoS around after becoming unbalanced!

If movement of the CM is the primary cause of edge angle changes, then you are fundamentally out of balance. Skiing starts at the feet -- movement originating at the feet changes the path of the skis and the forces applied to the CM. The path of the CM must also change to remain in balance to accomodate these changes.

Experience will tell you what the proper *directional movements* are at any given moment, to anticipate this alignment. (They are actually just balancing movements.)

Thankfully, we are wired to ensure that we remain upright...

Consider if you will, skiing slow carved arcs down a very green run. If the position of the CM chooses this edge angle, you will fall, more sooner than later. Moving the balance point of the CM off the Base of Support (BOS) is by definition being out of balance -- ie falling. eg. RR tracks are not created by driving the CM off the BOS -- no one I know teaches this.

The position of the CM is determined solely by the need to maintain the balance point over the BOS. Making a change in the BOS while keeping the balance point over the BOS is the successful approach. This is how RR tracks are commonly created.

There are several problems with moving the CM first. By far the greatest one is that movement of the BOS under a falling CM is by defintion a recovery move.

Others are, low early pressure, insufficient early edge engagement, and often rotation into the turn, due to poor feedback on the position of the skis relative to CM. These issues are all cured by ensuring that the feet (platform) moves first.
post #213 of 239
The type of turn or path would determine the edge angle. This would also determine where your CM should be to be in balance. If your mass moves with the skis,not before ,not after ,then it wouldn't have to adjust itself because of cheating into the turn or lagging behind one.
Movement of CM would be be used only enough to reinforce the edging you have chosen .
This is also what you are saying isn't it BigE ?
post #214 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
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.
post #215 of 239
Thank goodness you guys started discussing feet and edge angle!!!! :
post #216 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarryZ View Post
The type of turn or path would determine the edge angle. This would also determine where your CM should be to be in balance. If your mass moves with the skis,not before ,not after ,then it wouldn't have to adjust itself because of cheating into the turn or lagging behind one.
Movement of CM would be be used only enough to reinforce the edging you have chosen .
This is also what you are saying isn't it BigE ?
Yes. You can lead, follow or move the CM in concert with edge changes.

Generally, the movements of the CM are taught by following the changes in the BOS, and through experience become less sequential and more concurrent.
post #217 of 239
It seems to me that many of our discussions of the relationship of CM to BOS end in a chicken-or-egg controversy depending on which you believe to be the Prime Mover in the relationship. The important point to me is that they are in a connected (symbiotic?) relationship, dancing together like Fred and Ginger--who leads, who follows, who cares?
post #218 of 239
nolo,

It's a critical distinction. When the CM drags the skis onto edge, the body is toppling another fancy word for falling. The result is that the skis must be skied back under the body to recover. That makes this sort of skiing based on a recovery move. It also makes skiing more like an "open chain"
activity. Repositioning the feet in response to changes of CM position is difficult, error prone and often has a disconnected feel to it.

If the BoS is shifted, and the position of the CM must be altered to remain balanced, there is no recovery. The CM moves with the skis. This makes skiing like a "closed chain" activity. Being a "closed chain" activity is what makes the functional tension/kinetic chain able to work to reposition the CM. There is no disconnect, as the platform does not have to play catchup to a falling body.

Skiing starts in the feet. As does MA.
post #219 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo View Post
dancing together like Fred and Ginger--who leads, who follows, who cares?

Hmmmmm,,, not a bad analogy, Nolo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKQpUa3-eiY

Sometimes one leads, sometimes the other,,,, but for the most part moving as one in harmony. Can ya feel it?
post #220 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo View Post
It seems to me that many of our discussions of the relationship of CM to BOS end in a chicken-or-egg controversy depending on which you believe to be the Prime Mover in the relationship.

Also, though, understand there are times a leader is necessary.
post #221 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
Also, though, understand there are times a leader is necessary.
And there are times when it is faster. But it needs a solid foundation.
post #222 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
nolo,

It's a critical distinction. When the CM drags the skis onto edge, the body is toppling another fancy word for falling. The result is that the skis must be skied back under the body to recover. That makes this sort of skiing based on a recovery move. It also makes skiing more like an "open chain"
activity. Repositioning the feet in response to changes of CM position is difficult, error prone and often has a disconnected feel to it.

If the BoS is shifted, and the position of the CM must be altered to remain balanced, there is no recovery. The CM moves with the skis. This makes skiing like a "closed chain" activity. Being a "closed chain" activity is what makes the functional tension/kinetic chain able to work to reposition the CM. There is no disconnect, as the platform does not have to play catchup to a falling body.

Skiing starts in the feet. As does MA.
Yes Sir.
post #223 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
...... There are several problems with moving the CM first. By far the greatest one is that movement of the BOS under a falling CM is by defintion a recovery move. .
how about throwing the body forward to make use of rebound?
post #224 of 239
>>> Originally Posted by Ott Gangl View Post
Wen we taught carving thirty five or forty years ago it was done by laying the skis up on as much edge as needed, putting quite a bit of pressure on the tongue of the boots to get the tips to bite and the carving took place from the tip to underfoot. The narrow stiff tails of the skis would skid or chatter with the highest edge angle.

But carving was for when the terrain called for it. Edge control meant that one could brush at a very low edge angle at very slow speeds on very shallow terrain and one increased the edge angle with more bite and less drifting as the terrain get steeper or the conditions got rougher.

What I still can't get is why skiers go to the trouble to carve on a blue groomed slope where they could ski as if they were taking the dog for a walk and are making a mental shopping list of what to buy on their way home. Unless it is done for fun or for show why carve on easy terrain? It certainly isn't needed to go wherever you want on that kind of slope. As a recreational skier you are not there to win races.


Skiers don't know how to unweight anymore, up or down, the try hard to keep their upper body from varying in height during a turn and so they look like they are sitting on a potty taking a dump, there doesn't seem to be any elegance in this power skiing today. I know I am generalizing but this carving bit, when there is no need for it, sometimes gets me. What is so great about leaving trenches or RR tracks on blue groomers?

....Ott<<<
================================================== =======
Oh my! Just today I stumbled back into this thread and find that my post of long ago was discussed in depth and in rereading it I see where I made some flippant remarks that could have been made with less emphasis.

The first paragraph was purely historical, as was the second paragraph which was meant to say that when skiing very flat terrain where brushing and drifting the skis was needed to make any turns at all and where many skiers just went straight down and carving as it is known today would last for about three turns after which schussing would be needed to gain speed again to make three more carving turns, it seemed counterproductive to carve a any cost.

When encountering steeper terrain where keeping up speed is of no concern, we would increase our edge angle appropriately to avoid slipping sideways.

The third paragraph gets to the meat of the discussion.

As I see it there are mainly two kind of recreational skier on the slopes, the dancers (thank you nolo) and the power skiers. The dancers don't worry if they are carving or not, they ski any terrain with little effort making minimal movements, doing just what is necessary to make the turns efficiently and in balance and in utter control. They don't much care if the turn is 8 meter or 12 meter radius as long as it gets them where they are going, it is all done instinctively, they carve when it is needed and don't necessarily when not. The accomplished ones are the elegant skiers.

Here I want to insert that my comment about taking the dog for a walk, etc, was meant to say that a good skier could just let his skiing happen on those easy slopes and not worry or think about technique. Sorry about the flippant comment.

Then there are the power skiers. You can tell them by the effort they put into every turn, transition, early high edge angle and so forth. Often they come from a racing background, their poles punching imaginary gates, they ski fast and in control and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that if he wants to do that all the time and on easy slopes it is either done out of habit, for the fun of feeling the G force or just because they can.

When we carve there certainly is a solid platform underfoot and balancing on a solid platform is relatively easy compared to drifting and brushing, where balance has to be maintained in an additional plane. I consider any sideway movement of the tail or the whole ski done intentionally and in control as part good skiing, many skiers confuse it with the skis sliding out unintentionally and upsetting balance, they are different.

The last paragraph pretty much represents my opinion as I see skiers huck from one side to the other in a low stance being supported by their thigh muscles and God forbid their heads should come up or down a little, thus my remark about potty sitting, I like my bones stacked.

Lastly, skiing is not really that difficult and there are a million ways to do it and have fun, as recreational skiers all of us are not necessarily after perfection. Your mileage as a ski professional may vary, as they say.

....Ott
post #225 of 239
carver_hk,
I'm not sure what you mean...rebound can propel the body only when the CM is aligned with direction of the skis rebound force. If you have thrown the body downhill, you won't get propelled by the rebound.
post #226 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
carver_hk,
I'm not sure what you mean...rebound can propel the body only when the CM is aligned with direction of the skis rebound force. If you have thrown the body downhill, you won't get propelled by the rebound.
good point, i guess if one knows how to make use of rebound for acceleration, one should have adjust the BOS and CM at the same time so that the force and the load aligns.
post #227 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
nolo,

It's a critical distinction. When the CM drags the skis onto edge, the body is toppling another fancy word for falling. The result is that the skis must be skied back under the body to recover. That makes this sort of skiing based on a recovery move.
I think this is exactly what many skiers are influenced to do BY focusing mostly on edge angle, end up moving CM off BOS because they are thinking in less than 3 dimensions; focusing on lateral moves and forgetting about balance. Not that this is an intended result of the focus on edge angles.

If you consider the CM can be moved forward, in the direction the platform or BOS is "going to be" as part of using it's path to accomplish turn shapes, the "toppling" or "falling body" problem can be avoided. Various joints are what can be utilized in the fine tuning of chosen edge angles if CM moves to be over BOS.
post #228 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto View Post
I think this is exactly what many skiers are influenced to do BY focusing mostly on edge angle, end up moving CM off BOS because they are thinking in less than 3 dimensions; focusing on lateral moves and forgetting about balance. Not that this is an intended result of the focus on edge angles.

If you consider the CM can be moved forward, in the direction the platform or BOS is "going to be" as part of using it's path to accomplish turn shapes, the "toppling" or "falling body" problem can be avoided. Various joints are what can be utilized in the fine tuning of chosen edge angles if CM moves to be over BOS.
Hmm edit function not available. I am not saying the CM should be thrust or thrown downhill "ahead" of BOS. I intend to say the purpose of focus on CM direction is to maintain & build CM/BOS alignment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo View Post
It seems to me that many of our discussions of the relationship of CM to BOS end in a chicken-or-egg controversy depending on which you believe to be the Prime Mover in the relationship. The important point to me is that they are in a connected (symbiotic?) relationship, dancing together like Fred and Ginger--who leads, who follows, who cares?
Heh, for a second I read that as "Freud & Ginger." How's that for changing context?
post #229 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto View Post
If you consider the CM can be moved forward, in the direction the platform or BOS is "going to be" as part of using it's path to accomplish turn shapes, the "toppling" or "falling body" problem can be avoided. Various joints are what can be utilized in the fine tuning of chosen edge angles if CM moves to be over BOS.
Roto, I've been saying this for a long time now.... when you use the energy from the previous turn, ie. with a well timed release, remember, no longer deflecting the CM? - you can use the inertial path of the CM as the motive force behind the movement of the CM both forward and across the skis. A powerful move, yet if just slightly misapplied can lead to the same "falling body" problem we are trying to avoid.
post #230 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Roto, I've been saying this for a long time now.... when you use the energy from the previous turn, ie. with a well timed release, remember, no longer deflecting the CM? - you can use the inertial path of the CM as the motive force behind the movement of the CM both forward and across the skis. A powerful move, yet if just slightly misapplied can lead to the same "falling body" problem we are trying to avoid.
-is it true that if the alignment is right, you would feel a thrust from the skis propelling your forward?
-i was told to ski faster one have to keep the pressure constant once enter lower-C (that is dont let it build up). and then make use of the rebound to propel body forward near to end of turn and do the transition at the same time?
post #231 of 239
1) yes.

2) if you do keep the pressure constant, you will be absorbing the energy that would otherwise be stored in the ski.

Most claim that minimizing the pressure at the bottom of the arc is faster.
post #232 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Roto, I've been saying this for a long time now.... when you use the energy from the previous turn, ie. with a well timed release, remember, no longer deflecting the CM? - you can use the inertial path of the CM as the motive force behind the movement of the CM both forward and across the skis. A powerful move, yet if just slightly misapplied can lead to the same "falling body" problem we are trying to avoid.
I suppose a more specific post would be needed to really express the deflection of CM thing. What I was thinking was the more the CM is already traveling to where it needs to go, the less it needs to be deflected in that direction. The greater the deflection angle required, the more deceleration will occur. So "the skis won't have to deflect the CM AS MUCH" is probably close to what I meant, though it may still not be specific enough to suit you.

I agree that the interplay between BOS & CM through turn shape does get the CM to go where it needs to go. To me the word deflection connotes a somewhat unintentional thing, esp. if a large change of direction happens at once. I'm suggesting there are things we can do with our bodies that will minimize how much deflection need happen at any given moment, because we have already moved in the desired direction. I believe this is something the best skiers in the world have come close to mastering.

For the record, I haven't tried to communicate to you guys that anything of a technical nature you have posed is "wrong." If you ask me we, are describing different ways to acheive the same thing. I certainly don't disagree with any of the fundamentals you have put forth. I do, however believe there are different ways to acheive these things. Furthermore skiing is so situational there are times when breaking some of the rules is necessary, so I do not generally communicate in terms of absolutes.

Neither am I attempting to redefine ski technique or posit any kind of innovative or revolutionary change in technique. There is nothing in my beliefs expressed here that does not fit firmly into the time tested fundamentals of the sport. I assure you my technical understanding of skiing is as sound as anyone's, though I do know there is still much to learn.

This release thing you mention. It is a big part of the Directional Movements quest I am on at the moment.

Lates. (apologies for any typos, in a hurry)
post #233 of 239
Take the notion of deflection a step back. Back into the previous turn to the previous turns deflecton of the CM. I prefer to think deflecting the inertial path of the CM, than just the CM, as that makes me think "where would the CM go if I released right now?".

That awareness of the inertial path of the CM allows me to pull the trigger on release to target where I'd like the inertial path to take the CM where it needs to go in the next turn.
post #234 of 239
I never learned to carve from a instructor on the mountain.  Not that they did not try. 

I finally learned to pay attention to the foot on the inside of the boot and the pressure needed to start the ski into its own turn and really carve a smooth turn on a moving carpet at Virtual Snow.  It worked and now I can Carve.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nelgc1GNM70

And now that I am getting ski fever  for our next trip to Mammoth I may have to go back and tune up and shape up.

Takes getting in touch with your foot/boot/ski edge to put a smooth carving turn all together for a smooth run.  Love it!

IMHO  Keith
post #235 of 239
May I take this opportunity to wish this 5 year old thread a happy birthday?
post #236 of 239
Here is a historical question for you.  Do more skiers carve than 5 years ago?
post #237 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post

Here is a historical question for you.  Do more skiers carve than 5 years ago?

Not that I have observed.

As for me, I carve less than I did 5 years ago because I've given up on the idea that "to skid is to admit defeat" and now happily practice speed control on steeps by slipping my turns.  YMMV. 
post #238 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post




Not that I have observed.

As for me, I carve less than I did 5 years ago because I've given up on the idea that "to skid is to admit defeat" and now happily practice speed control on steeps by slipping my turns.  YMMV. 

 
Question is are you slipping the top of the turn or the bottom of the turn.

Slipping the top intentionally = GOOD offensive move when your skis are light.

Slipping the bottom of the turn = BAD as it is very defensive move and occurs when your skis are the heaviest!

So slip on! But  make it at the top of the turn for speed control.
Edited by Atomicman - 10/14/09 at 10:15pm
post #239 of 239
No, they do not carve more even with the change in sidecut.  Of course, average golfers don't have lower handicaps even though equipment changes improved the scores of the best golfers.  The point is the better skier (golfer or whatever) improves with technology changes more than the average guy or gal.  Why?  Because fundamentals do not change, and the average skier doesn't have the fundamentals that allow for carved turns just as the average golfer can't repeat a good swing. 

BTW, I think there is a difference between carving and arcing.  Arcing is the rail-type turn that comes from the skis radius.  Carving is simply when the tails follow the tips with a minimum of skidding.  A carved turn, therefore, is not always an arced turn, but an arced turn is always a carved turn.  I have an "all-mountain" ski that arcs a great turn, but is difficult to carve tigher radii (I am selling it).  My cariving and/or racing skis, with a more traditional tail, allow me to carve turns of varying radii.
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...