EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Outside Ski Bends more than Inside Ski?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Outside Ski Bends more than Inside Ski? - Page 2

post #31 of 46
Thread Starter 
Dang, just popped back real quick after some base and edge repairs from todays rocks to find the thread was alive while I was typing.

ssh, we were looking at the same things but I clipped out my extended wordy thoughts to save for later. I did leave a tidbit about it in though.

Rick, was hoping to hear from you. My world is recreational, not racing and I'd like to know more on how much the SL and GS people really focus on inside-ski activity. Not too interested in the higher speeds myself, but maybe others are.

.ma
post #32 of 46
Thread Starter 
Johnh,
On the displacement of snow beneath the ski as it turns... I too watched my skis off and on all day today. Didn't seem to affect where I was going at all.

Got to thinking that the tip was digging in first and pre-trenching a path for the entire edge to follow. Minimal snow was displaced from under the tip at that spot in the run. As the ski progressed over that given spot, more of my weight pressed down on that spot, squishing more snow out laterally (being that weight is dispersed unevenly over the ski - mostly in the middle with less toward tip & tail).

The snow seemed to be deflected *laterally* off the base *above* where it was squished out by pressure. In wetter snow later in this sunny day, quite a lot squished off to the side even during a great carve (with no skidding).

As to snow off the tails, I got to wondering, wouldn't the snow launched laterally take time to appear from under the ski? Could the ski travel forward enough by that time that much of the snow we *see* coming from the tail area is actually generated from under the foot? (assuming we're not riding the back of the ski)

Hmmm. OK, maybe I'm just tired. Gotta go sleep now.
Dang it's nice to be back on the snow!

.ma
post #33 of 46
I am not convinced that in RR tracks done at the natural radius of the ski any of this is an issue. We all do it and we all see "perfect tracks" with no diverging of the inside ski. Why? Two reasons in my opinion:

1) The radius is too large compared to the relatively small distance between skis (or between arcs).
2) We change edges long before and diverging may happen.

However, when we ski much more aggressively I do believe that the inside ski will need to be "managed" (as mentioned in several posts) to keep it in parallel.
post #34 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
John,

My take on the inside ski compensation steering you refer to is that it's not accomplished through an active twisting of the inside foot. Rather, it's done by maintaining rotational tension in the joints of the inside leg (hip, knee, ankle). This keeps the inside and outside legs and feet rotationally aligned while the outside ski carves through the turn. The inside foot has little to do beyond go where the rotationally harmonic inside leg demands of it. This is why the action seems so automatic to the executioner.
Couldn't agree more, Rick. But, would that not result in a squaring of the hips ? (not square, but less countered)
BTW, I hope you dont get the feeling I am following you around.
post #35 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biowolf
Couldn't agree more, Rick. But, would that not result in a squaring of the hips ? (not square, but less countered)
This harmonic tension I refer to here is independant of the rotational orientation of the pelvis. This tension merely keeps the rotation of the inside femur (in the hip socket) in sync with that of the outside femur, regardless of the amount of rotation that exists. The tension can be maintained with the femurs rotated in the hip socket (counter), just as it can with the femurs square.

Side note; in the above response I didn't differentiate between rotation of the femur within the hip socket, and rotation of the pelvis about a stable femur. I refrained out of a desire for explanation symplicity, but I do infact make the distinction. I consider the femurs stable during a carved turn, and counter the product of the pelvis rotated about the heads of the stable femurs. I consider steering to be the rotating of the femurs within a stable pelvis. Perhaps a minor point, but in I didn't want to mislead through my use of poetic license.


Quote:
BTW, I hope you dont get the feeling I am following you around.
Actually,,,, I do; but you make good company!
post #36 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelA
Rick, was hoping to hear from you. My world is recreational, not racing and I'd like to know more on how much the SL and GS people really focus on inside-ski activity. Not too interested in the higher speeds myself, but maybe others are.

.ma
Great job, MA, on your opening post. Very well thought out and complete.

In racing, focus is placed on efficency of movement, so the technicals found there are very applicable to recreational skiing.

As to inside ski use; I would categorize it as supplimental. The outside ski is still the work horse, carrying the primary load and dictating the course of travel. Generally, the inside ski harbors only a minor portion of the load, though it's sometimes granted a situational leading role, and is always available as a safety valve.

Tipping of the inside ski in semi harmony with the outside ski allows it to cut a similar path to the outside ski, which minimizes needed for line of travel correction. Tipping the inside ski also opens the kenetic gate to optimal functionality of the pelvis and allows for maximum inclination onto high edge angles.

That said, I'll go on to suggest that the primary means of producing concentric arcs of the inside and outside skis are not through micro management of edge angle and pressure (to always ensure a pure and harmoniously carving inside ski), but rather through the tensioning I described above. While micro managing the inside ski carve is possible at low edge angles, it's a more labor intensive option than just general angle simulation with the difference made up via tension. It also becomes nearly impossible to achieve pure inside ski carving at high edge angles because of the severe contortions/inclinations of the inside leg that must occur to make it happen.

If you closely examine WC GS shots you'll typically see outside ski edge angles larger than inside ski edge angles. That evidence makes it obvious that the inside ski is not pure carving, and that some means of compensation is being employed.
post #37 of 46
Rick, your side note is right on. This ability to seperate the upper body from the lower body takes us into higher level skiing. The ability to let not only the upper body serve as anchor but to also let the lower body and the skis serve as anchor are what seperates good skiers from the rest.

Letting the skis and lower body serve as anchors defines the idea that there is counter developing as the skis turn further across the hill than the upperbody. For that matter it is the same when the upper body is anchoring, and the skis turn further across the hill than the upper body.

Same joint movement is happening in both, but with very different outcomes. This isn't in opposition to the blending that can and does occur between the two as the ski/snow interaction goes from carved turns to pure pivots. It seems to be the word counter that people are stuck on. Later, RicB.
post #38 of 46
Hey folks. Is it possable that both skis carve the same radius but with a different center point? Sure, if you skiied a complete 360 degree circle the outer ski would have to travel farther, but for a 1/3 circle or 1/4 circle the pivot point is not the same for both skis. ))))))))))) Parallel arcs with different pivot points.
(((((((((((
post #39 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB
Rick, your side note is right on. This ability to seperate the upper body from the lower body takes us into higher level skiing. The ability to let not only the upper body serve as anchor but to also let the lower body and the skis serve as anchor are what seperates good skiers from the rest.

Letting the skis and lower body serve as anchors defines the idea that there is counter developing as the skis turn further across the hill than the upperbody. For that matter it is the same when the upper body is anchoring, and the skis turn further across the hill than the upper body.

Same joint movement is happening in both, but with very different outcomes. This isn't in opposition to the blending that can and does occur between the two as the ski/snow interaction goes from carved turns to pure pivots. It seems to be the word counter that people are stuck on. Later, RicB.
My hat is off to you RicB,,,, the above is very well said, and very accurate.
post #40 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
John,

My take on the inside ski compensation steering you refer to is that it's not accomplished through an active twisting of the inside foot. Rather, it's done by maintaining rotational tension in the joints of the inside leg (hip, knee, ankle). This keeps the inside and outside legs and feet rotationally aligned while the outside ski carves through the turn. The inside foot has little to do beyond go where the rotationally harmonic inside leg demands of it. This is why the action seems so automatic to the executioner.
Rick,

Absolutely Yes! The rotation, being unconscious as I called it, is mostly from the tension held in the leg. As the ski gets bounced around slightly, it just sort of self-corrects.

Kazooski - that's an interesting thought. But what happens if you make a complete 180 degree turn, which happens quite often?

As for those of you say you cannot detect any drift of the outside ski, I don't doubt that at all. As I mentioned in my original theory about this, it's not much. The line still shows up as a line in the snow, but it's slightly wider than it would be if there was no drift. And yes, the snow MUST displace some amount. Otherwise you'd be skiing on a completly solid surface, and your edges would not hold. The drift ony becomes obvious on a warm day, spring conditons and with some speed. At that point, you will really notice that the snow doesn't hold.

But I still think the theory of some minor amount of drift, along with subtle, unconscious corrections (through rotational tension) are what really keep the skis moving along concentric arcs (that, and the fact that both legs are attched to the same pelvis!)
post #41 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB
.

Letting the skis and lower body serve as anchors defines the idea that there is counter developing as the skis turn further across the hill than the upperbody. For that matter it is the same when the upper body is anchoring, and the skis turn further across the hill than the upper body.

.
Ric:
Remember "afterrotation" and that arm flying up. What happens when it comes down ?
post #42 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biowolf
Ric:
Remember "afterrotation" and that arm flying up. What happens when it comes down ?
Balance. You trying to confuse me Biowolf? ;>D Later, RicB.
post #43 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB
Balance. You trying to confuse me Biowolf? ;>D Later, RicB.
Ric:
Look for my reply at Paragon. This is getting too envolved.
post #44 of 46

The simple answer that no one has considered ????

It seems no-one is thinking in terms of real skis but some idealised torsionally rigid girder with flexibility and sidecut.

If the outide ski carries more weight,then on the outside ski there is more torsion applied to tips and tail edges relative to the waist of the ski (which is jammed firmly to the ground)

Undoubtedly this effectively flattens the inclination of of tips and tails and in combination with flex increases the turn radius (relative to a perfectly torsionally rigid ski). This will be more significant the harder the ski and the shorter the turn radius. Furthermore if snow banks up to form a platform under the outside ski (which it will) then the effective inclination of that ski is reduced (again increasing the turn radius) So this effect applies in both hard pack and softer base conditions.

In other words the grail of total torsional rigidity would prevent a perfect carve AND to attempt propose a perfect (concentric) carve is to rely on torsional weakness.

If manufacturers made better skis we would have to accept that carving is impossible (interesting dilemna) - is this a case of the tail wagging the dog???

Give us torsional rigidity and an asymetric sidecut (inner edge less sidecut allowing inside ski to have tighter radius) and you can have a partial solution (except for the minor problem that the sidecut would have to be variable with respect to inclination of the ski and the weight and speed of the skier and the snow conditions )

Hmm guess I will have to invent intelligently morphing skis if I want an all mountain solution to carving afterall - watch this space - we could simply have a different edge angle on the outside ski (ahh but thats already been thought of and rejected by purists because it compromises carving duuuuh)
post #45 of 46
Thread Starter 
Dang work, haven’t been able to keep up with skiing stuff...

Spent last Sunday's clinic on a wide variety of unrelated skiing topics and had only lunchtime to mess with things from here. Did try more methods of drifting the outside-ski but came to the conclusion it might only work (for me) in very soft snow or at high speeds. Agree with JohnH (post 26) that minor steering adjustments (rotational *or* edge angle) would do the trick and render most skiers unaware of any arc variation. Still, that’s sorta why I stuck my neck out here - it has been an overly unconscious thing for me for too long and I’d rather it be intentional.

Rick, (post 30) That deliberate ‘Lateral Separation’ created by diverging Inside-Ski looks like a good discussion topic all on its own. A narrow stance width can show pretty wide feet on steep hills or with high edge angles. How would we describe this process and teach students the ‘return to neutral’? How should one manage a deliberate divergence and re-convergence? Good things to explore.

And in Post#35, just an aside, but oddly enough your italic text on rotation about a stable femur and related perspective on which is stable vs. rotating came up (all on its own) in our Sunday clinic. We stumbled over the idea that not only does the outside femur rotate into the turn, but the pelvis counter-rotates about that same Outside-femur (a wee bit) to create Inside-Lead during turn initiation. Quite a few conflicting perspective issues to plow thru, but we came to the same end.

---
Hey, Kazooski, that's some pretty creative thinking! Concentric circles and arc (by definition) follow the rule about mutual centers, but I'd not considered a close (but not quite the same) center-point. If I dangle two small chains down from the ends of a horizontal pencil and ... HMmmm... Yep, a lot like your parenthesis. OK, going granular and specific here so put on the jewelers loupes. Consider a recreational, dynamic parallel, short radius turn in firm (not hard) groomed snow. If my hips stay reasonably square to the fall line, I guess the skis are traveling arcs who’s centers are off by my hip socket width…?

Not sure what you meant about the 1/3 or 1/4 circles though.

fairly, that’s a well considered thought - ski torsion considerations.

Older skis likely gave in to twisting forces and permitted the Outside-Ski to violate our carving intent more easily. Probably supports JohnH’s drift idea as well. With wider tips and tail, modern skis would be subjected to greater twisting leverage. Still, skis made with modern design & materials are quite a bit more torsionally rigid, and much shorter lengths (than the classics) would provide less ski length to yield.

No doubt the ski does give-way a bit but I’m not sure it’s enough to account for the difference needed for a short turn radius. In soft snow (4” deep or more) I’d tend to believe support of the entire base would eliminate any torsional deviation. Now, the idea of asymmetric sidecuts… hasn’t that actually been done?

---
Spent a good deal of time Monday on Inside-Ski activity. Started off with Fore/Aft and Lateral balance discussion. Quickly moved into Strictly PSIA Inside-Ski tipping ideas (a HHARBinger of things to come) but with emphasis on two-footed skiing later on. Exaggerated Inside-Ski tipping activities were augmented with Inside-Ski tip pressure, then Inside-Ski fore-body pressure created by pulling the Inside-Foot back and levering the boot-tongue a bit.

Concentration on Inside-Tipping and pulling that ski back filled the morning. During it all, unobtrusively wobbling my Inside-Knee back and forth while carving made for some great experimenting. Less wobble yields lots more impact if the Inside-Ski is pulled back.

Appreciate all the feedback here. Lots of good material to morph into an L3 T/T exam segment.

.ma
post #46 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelA
Dang work, haven’t been able to keep up with skiing stuff...

Spent last Sunday's clinic on a wide variety of unrelated skiing topics and had only lunchtime to mess with things from here. Did try more methods of drifting the outside-ski but came to the conclusion it might only work (for me) in very soft snow or at high speeds. Agree with JohnH (post 26) that minor steering adjustments (rotational *or* edge angle) would do the trick and render most skiers unaware of any arc variation. Still, that’s sorta why I stuck my neck out here - it has been an overly unconscious thing for me for too long and I’d rather it be intentional.

Rick, (post 30) That deliberate ‘Lateral Separation’ created by diverging Inside-Ski looks like a good discussion topic all on its own. A narrow stance width can show pretty wide feet on steep hills or with high edge angles. How would we describe this process and teach students the ‘return to neutral’? How should one manage a deliberate divergence and re-convergence? Good things to explore.

And in Post#35, just an aside, but oddly enough your italic text on rotation about a stable femur and related perspective on which is stable vs. rotating came up (all on its own) in our Sunday clinic. We stumbled over the idea that not only does the outside femur rotate into the turn, but the pelvis counter-rotates about that same Outside-femur (a wee bit) to create Inside-Lead during turn initiation. Quite a few conflicting perspective issues to plow thru, but we came to the same end.

---
Hey, Kazooski, that's some pretty creative thinking! Concentric circles and arc (by definition) follow the rule about mutual centers, but I'd not considered a close (but not quite the same) center-point. If I dangle two small chains down from the ends of a horizontal pencil and ... HMmmm... Yep, a lot like your parenthesis. OK, going granular and specific here so put on the jewelers loupes. Consider a recreational, dynamic parallel, short radius turn in firm (not hard) groomed snow. If my hips stay reasonably square to the fall line, I guess the skis are traveling arcs who’s centers are off by my hip socket width…?

Not sure what you meant about the 1/3 or 1/4 circles though.

fairly, that’s a well considered thought - ski torsion considerations.

Older skis likely gave in to twisting forces and permitted the Outside-Ski to violate our carving intent more easily. Probably supports JohnH’s drift idea as well. With wider tips and tail, modern skis would be subjected to greater twisting leverage. Still, skis made with modern design & materials are quite a bit more torsionally rigid, and much shorter lengths (than the classics) would provide less ski length to yield.

No doubt the ski does give-way a bit but I’m not sure it’s enough to account for the difference needed for a short turn radius. In soft snow (4” deep or more) I’d tend to believe support of the entire base would eliminate any torsional deviation. Now, the idea of asymmetric sidecuts… hasn’t that actually been done?

---
Spent a good deal of time Monday on Inside-Ski activity. Started off with Fore/Aft and Lateral balance discussion. Quickly moved into Strictly PSIA Inside-Ski tipping ideas (a HHARBinger of things to come) but with emphasis on two-footed skiing later on. Exaggerated Inside-Ski tipping activities were augmented with Inside-Ski tip pressure, then Inside-Ski fore-body pressure created by pulling the Inside-Foot back and levering the boot-tongue a bit.

Concentration on Inside-Tipping and pulling that ski back filled the morning. During it all, unobtrusively wobbling my Inside-Knee back and forth while carving made for some great experimenting. Less wobble yields lots more impact if the Inside-Ski is pulled back.

Appreciate all the feedback here. Lots of good material to morph into an L3 T/T exam segment.

.ma
I don't know about that. Any tallk about micro managing the arc of the inside ski by more tipping or by bending it more, or talk about rotating the pelvis to create counter, or about different centers for each ski, or about deliberately diverging the inside ski, or about drifting the outside ski in a carved turn, all of that would set you up to fail. All the theories about the mystery of why the inside ski can stay parallel are a solution looking for a problem. No one who can carve a decent arc with his outside ski is going to trip over his inside ski. If your fore aft balance is good, and your lateral balance is good enough to balance on the outside ski, the next step is to balance on your inside ski. To do that, you need to keep it under you, which is why drawing the inside ski back is good advice for most skiers. That's about all you need to talk about to pass L3.
At least in Eastern, they want to hear simple explanations, something that your typical student can understand and act on.

BK
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 › Outside Ski Bends more than Inside Ski?