Releasing inside ski first? - Page 2

Beyond:

If you are looking for THE definitive way to release your edges and perform a strong, effective transition, you are unlikely to find it. If, however you realize that there are a variety of approaches, thoughts, cues each with their merits (or lack of) you can learn a lot. Your instructor at Mont Ste. Anne was certainly on solid ground with his advice to think about tipping the outside (soon-to-be-inside) foot on to the little toe edge. If, on the other hand, he had coached you to gently "lighten" that same outside ski while simultaneously applying gentle pressure to the uphill edge of the uphill ski and THEN tip the outside ski over, he would also have been in the ball park. Ultimately, it is up to you to experiment and see what seems to be right for you. Many ways to skin a cat; makes the process interesting; yes?

The patience to release and re-engage an edge on a 30 degree slope is hard because it means getting your torso and legs perpendicular to the snow before the next turn can start. The reason most people do not finish the turn (to 90 degrees out of the fall line) during this maneuver is confidence. Yes your body is leaning away from the hill at a 30 degree angle to get aligned over a flat ski. As soon as you move beyond 30 degrees you will engage the new edges. Be patient and allow the edge angle to increase as a function of adding slope angle. When you get a feel for this, shorten the turns but do not lose the movement by rushing it and creating too much edge too soon.
The tendency to hurry through this is what the little toe exercise addresses. However, if you just roll the foot and lower leg downhill without allowing your torso to follow you end up fighting your body and the whole movement breaks down. The body needs to move progressively towards the middle of the next turn as the foot/lower leg rolls.
J turns do this a little differently because you start in the fall line neutral and build edge angle to move you across the hill. This is where the confidence thing come into play because most people are willing to project into the inside of the half turn (thus the term "J" turn). As you gain the confidence to stand on a flat ski you can do so while the skis are further and further out of the fall line (across the hill). It takes time to work up to doing this but only because it is a mental thing that you need to overcome in small steps. I teach this all the time and when it finally clicks, most students tell me the move is simple but the downhill lean is such a mental leap of faith.
A second issue that I see being discussed here is getting up to a fifty degree edge angle as quick as possible. Ironically, a lot of the carvers erroneously believe you need a huge edge angle to make your skis turn quickly. If you use too much edge you lock yourself into a "sidecut defined" turn radius of at least 30 feet (even a slalom ski has a 9-11 meter side cut), or you end up braking excessively as you skid the tails. Yes bowing the skis reduces the radius somewhat but if you are trying to do a 3 meter turn it will take more than edging and pressuring the ski (into reverse camber) to make the skis turn that short.

The first time I saw someone ski a steep & narrow shoot with fully carved short radius turns, I thought his skis were waxed with Velcro. Joining the ranks of ski instruction, I often heard how this is impossible. Knowing differently, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how it could be done. While many posts above cover the idea pretty well, I’d like to add some of that infinitesimal detail I enjoy so much. Please pardon any uncredited overlap with prior posts.

I too agree that traveling at ‘high speed’ across a wide hill helps to establish Early-Edge Carving.
But what of narrow shoots and short radius turns?

First, consider that we don’t really need a high edge angle that early in the turn - it’s supposed to be progressive anyway, right? So when turn transition is 90-degrees to a 30-degree slope we’d need a ski-tilt of maybe 35-degrees off horizontal (5-Deg engaged)? Sure, that would work - to start anyway.

Second, as the turn progresses toward the fall line (say 15-degrees further into the turn) deliberately holding that same ski-tilt angle off horizontal translates into an effective ski-tilt angle of 40-degrees relative to the current slope-surface underfoot. And this does not include any deliberately added increase.

Many past threads have described this ‘increased effective-edge angle’ as occurring late in the turn where the increase can cause the ‘spiral-in’ effect that Prosper mentions above. We generally don’t notice that it also occurs early in our turn - probably because we’re so busy noticing the falling-sensation and lack of weight (and therefore pressure) on our skis. Active extension of previously flexed legs at this point also renders it less noticeable.

Side thought: YOT mentions ‘reverse angulation’ above. Standing motionless on a 30-degree slope we

could contort into a severely angulated position (dramatic use of knees) and balance over our engaged downhill edges. OK, not for long. And it would be pretty precarious - but it could be done and without our whole upper body hanging out in open space at 35-degrees. The further out in space we’re willing to dangle, the less contortion we'd need. But then, we'd be falling over too. Anyway Third, Digging out the Lateral-Foot-Thrust concept from the Ankle Power thread, consider the potential for laterally thrusting our feet up the hill at moment of edge-change.

Since our upper body is way more massive than our ski-laden feet, our skis will be pressed into the hill for a bit - before our upper-body is driven out into space. From this subtle effort we gain another little bit of early-edge engagement - one that actually serves to bend our skis as well - even if they are only slightly angled away from flat. Extension of legs at this moment only increases the effect.

Fourth idea: The relevance of Speed. Turns out it’s not our forward speed that counts - it’s the Ratio of our Falling speed to our Forward speed (and rate-of-turn) that matters most. In particular, the speed at which our upper body (CM) is falling over (tipping) down the slope as it pivots laterally from our skis.

Regardless how fast we’re moving forward, a body tipped at any given angle sideways will always topple over at the same rate of acceleration when only gravity is to blame. Whether moving at five, or fifty mph forward - we topple sideways at a rate determined by the angle (from vertical) our CM happens to be away from our ‘Base-of-Support’. I fuzzy-qualify ‘Base-of-Support’ because the precise point of pivot is a messy concept with two independent legs & feet involved…

The further past vertical we deliberately tilt into our new turn, the faster we will fall over - and the less time we have for our skis to generate a supporting centripetal force. I think this argues loudly against making an excessive diagonal movement. If you choose to ‘dive’ into your new turn your only recourse is to twist your skis to an edge.

What it boils down to is at transition we need our rate of lateral falling to be less than our rate of direction change.

We can improve the situation by completing our turns on steeps to just beyond 90-degrees - specifically to create a teeny bit of CM momentum up the hill (or at least, directly across the hill) to assist our early-edge engagement efforts.

The importance of 'ratio' mentioned above is strictly true in all cases - just as it is in very short radius turns. If we can arc our skis through the entire turn quickly enough, the speed with which our skis come back “under” us is faster than our fall to the side can dump us on our ear - we catch ourselves.

I suspect most of us use bits & pieces of the components above but the most common technique is likely to be the launch & catch method. As I've said before - it's all good. And great fun to experiment with.

.ma

PS: Hopefully, PhysicsMan has not bartered into any 'owed' assassinations lately. If I turn up missing...

Michael A:

I'm not one of those instructors who will say it is impossible to carve tight short radius turns, BUT I've never seen it. I should say that by tight I mean tight, and by carve I mean that the tail of the skis follow exactly in the same pencil-thin track as the tips throughout the whole turn. I have watched many videos of short turns demonstrated on steeps by the best Level 4 instructors in Canada and invariably there is some pivoting of the skis to a new steering angle during the transition, clearly a rotary action that precludes carving. Furthermore, usually the rest of these turns are powerfully steered to completion. (In Canada, we define steering as a blend of leg rotation and edging movements done with pressure.) I also see a lot of pivot when watching videos of extreme skiers doing short turns on mind-numbing steeps. In short, the tightest turns that I've seen done by some of the very best skiers do not seem to be carved. I should mention that there was no pretence of carving-no one in these instructional videos was saying that they were demonstrating carving.The point is that carving was never a part of short, tight turns in these demos.

So while I don't dispute the possibility that it can be done, and I yield to your obviously strong (and well articulated) technical knowledge, I ask if you are sure that what you believe you were seeing was really happening: ie a very tight turn that was truly carved. No possibility of some rotary move to get the skis to start pointing in the new direction? No possibility of leg steering anywhere?

BTW I certainly hope you view this post in the spirit in which it is offered; as a dialogue between pros who enjoy learning. In no way am I dismissing your point of view.

cdnguy

Ya got some good points there guy and i actuall agree with most of what you said, but Ive got to nitpick on the ones I picked out.

1) The only way you can lean out at 30 degrees and not fall over is if you are moving fast in a pretty tight arc. One way to look at it is that the centrifugal force trying to throw you back up the hill is enough to counteract you falling over. Another way to look at it is the way MikeA did which is that you are constantly falling over but your movements are lrge enough and in the right direction to keep this from happening. These are two identical ways to say exactly the same thing.

Anyway the bottom line is that you cant lean out at 30 degrees while standing still or even moving fast but in a straight line across the hill - youve got to be moving reasonably fast and in arc curving down towards the fall line in order to lean that far out and not fall over. And the line below that bottom line is that having confidence or not, this just isnt the first thing lower level skiers should be told that they need to do when they first get on the steeps. My beef is that they should first be taught the rotary skills they need so that they can go down the hill at 1 mph and drop 1 foot with each turn if they want to or need to go that slow, and that just aint carving.

2) I think youre talking about where I mentioned 50 degrees in my message. I never said anyone actually needed that much edge angle just that thats what you would get if you used a normal amount of angulation at the bottom of a turn on a 30 degree slope. The number I was shooting for to engage the downhill -new inside- edges was 20 deg.

3) When you said that big edge angles lock you into a turn thats at least as large as the sidecut radius, youve right that big edge angles can lock you into a radius set by the sidecut but you got the size backwards. You can only do true carved turns SMALLER than the sidecut radius not larger. I think phyiscmans formula is that you decrease the carving radius by the cosine of the edge angle so if the ski base makes a 60 degree angle with the snow it would theoretically let a 10 meter sidecut radius ski carve a 5 meter radius turn if everything else was working to let the carve happen.

4) The bowing out of the middle of the ski is exactly what lets the middle and tail of the ski follow in exactly the same groove as the tip but yeah I get your point that a 3 meter turn radius or 18 feet in diameter is awfully tight for a pure carve.

michaelA - ya got lots of good stuff in that message that I have to chew on. Im on my lunch break. Ill try to get back on later with my thoughts.

later guys

YOT

Yup, guess the King doesn't like to be told that he is naked, maybe, the reality really bites?

Oh yah, BTW, "well-qualified, knowledgable, helpful, and damn fine people" dress properly and speak softly, they don't "bark."



Yup, but you rather overlook the technical merits and miss the opportunity to discuss it, but deride it with your double standard little moral preaching?



Yup, the exact sentiment I have for the "barking" bears.



Can't help much when the true reality bites, as it is already in the history, nevertheless, we sure can work together to build a better future, of course, but not until we can see eye to eye.

So it goes, 'later,
IS

cdnguy,

The example I saw years ago was on classic skis so there’s little chance for perfect ruts. Still, it was impressive because the person seemed to be moving downhill in slow motion, sliding the skis directly forward - with no hurried twisting. He even demonstrated the appearance of ‘Pushing’ himself downhill from his skis behind him. Downright Mesmerizing.

Gotta agree: Description is certainly easier than Execution. I’m not sure at what degree of steepness my own execution starts to fail. Each year, I take it up higher, though with only six days skiing on rocks and scrub last season, I’m hopeful it still works at the top of the Magic Carpet.

A recent reactivation of my interest in photography caused me to review old ‘Focal Length’ ideas. In truth, no ordinary camera ever takes a single picture perfectly in focus because the lens, light and distance-to-object combine to yield differing focal lengths. There’s simply no way all of the subject-image can be in focus at the same time on the Focal Plane. But this doesn’t matter to us because the granularity of the film (or CCD) is larger than any Focal Differences. Heck, we humans can’t even resolve differences in the film’s own granularity. 'Focus' is really a measure of 'fuzziness-acceptance'.

I think this is similar to our perception of ‘Carving’. We each take a peek at our tracks and pronounce them ‘In Focus’ or not depending on our own exacting standards (expectations might be more accurate). Also, if we had our weight forward and skied a ‘perfect’ tip-carve, our less-bent tails would still brush-out the outside of each rut, fuzzing them up a bit. Any scarving effort to decrease turn radius would further reduce the degree of Track-Focus.

In my mind the Open Parallel, WC and Wedge turn all use a deliberate ski-displacement mechanism to effect a change in direction - the Skier turns the ski. A Dynamic Parallel turn involves operating the ski so that the ski itself effects the turn and we just ride the induced bend - the Ski turns the Skier. “Carving” is a loaded term and implies ideal forward-only ski-snow interaction. I’m more interested in ideal intent and our intended movements that may (or may not) translate into such ideal ski-snow interaction.

As to daily reality, I agree with you -rotary-displacement of the skis is our dominant Steeps turn-initiation technique. It’s what we know to do. And nope, I’d never take offense at honorable discussion of ideas, nor at any debate with integrity. The nerdy post above was not intended to be a snobbish description of carving perfection that I'd need to 'defend' - just as an interesting analysis for consideration and debate. Knowing what is physically possible sometimes delivers sufficient confidence to try it (for me at least).

I don’t (generally) lean out over a cliff just to see what’ll happen. I kinda know. But are there any ways I can lean out there and not die? Finding one would be cool. And I’d certainly prefer having a deep comprehensive understanding on how it can be done successfully before my very first, and perhaps fatal attempt. Were I to attempt a ski-jump over a crevasse from a precipice above - you bet I’ll do the math and calculate the speed required to clear the gap. Well before my first attempt.

Again, I make no assertion about the description above being ‘the right way’ nor do I lay claim to such perfection (…yet ). One of these days… maybe. I rarely see Dynamic Parallel turns on the Steeps without some degree of rotary-steering - my own included. Come to think of it, I like your Canadian definition of ‘steering’ too. It clearly states the mechanism(s) without a particular skill emphasis.

.ma

Heh, heh -

sure we can - so long as we don’t mind falling on our ear. Absolutely, positively agree! As stated above, I’ve no snobbish interest in advocating a particular turn type or technique in replacement of all others. They’re all good and some far easier than others. Yours is also the ideal argument supporting the teaching of Wedge Turns to enable beginners to enjoy the sport right off.

On your Point#4 above, if we accept the fuzziness of carve-perfection, would you buy it if I suggest that ski-flex softness is the key determinant of a ski’s minimum true-carve capability? (Er, in relation to the pressure a skier can put on it - weight for instance)

.ma

taichiskier

Nope, I’m not a King of any kind - but I do enjoy Reality and certainly don’t mind being naked. Some of my finest realities have occurred in the buff.

Out of respect for the many who have you on ‘Ignore’ I will not quote your words and thus avoid delivering to them any backdoor irritations.

Quoting my words to you from above and Reflecting them back at me in a kind of Reversal Reply…? Hmmm, is that the typographical equivalent of ‘using your opponent’s weight and power against them’? Serious overuse has diminished its value to you but it’s still an interesting concept.

Regrettably, I’ve no weight here on EpicSki to be reflected. I’m just another grasshopper munching on the manna these lifelong instructors and mentors selflessly offer up for our contemplation and discussion. They are exceptional people who essentially volunteer their time to help others both here and on the slopes (no way they do it for the money - it’s minimal at best). Why do you remain here if you’ve no interest in what they have to offer?

Discuss the Technical merits of your post? Why, I’d love to. Geeze, always! Probably my most annoying quality. As on so many prior occasions I would like to have discussed technical details with you - but you always attempt to extinguish reasonable discussion by declaring your utter contempt for all dissenters and by denouncing the character of any who provide insurmountable evidence supporting their point of view. This is why so few people are willing to respond to you - about anything.

My own request that you tone it down would never have occurred had you not begun your post with a broadcast of malice. I would simply have responded politely and respectfully to your salient observations. I still offer to eradicate all evidence of this side-discussion if you clean up your initial post and delete your retaliatory post above.

In all seriousness TCS… I’ve only been unwilling to discuss ideas with you in the past because of your ongoing deliberate displays of contempt and antagonism. Why must you advertise malicious contempt in your every post? No one else on EpicSki does this. We nip and poke a bit - but nothing so antagonistic as you tend to put up.

The Host of this party is trying to reduce needless animosity and participant contention. In the interest of continuing access to this community wouldn’t it be best if we both tidy up this thread? And before dchan tidies up overall to render us both out of existence?

(Apologies to beyond - just toss us on Ignore for a while.)

.ma

Only in soft snow. On hard snow the center of a ski up on edge should stop bowing out pretty much as soon as it touches the snow. More weight or more softness in the flex won't help one whit once the center of the ski has touched the hardpack. Somehow though I think you already knew this so Im not sure why you asked - was it a trick question and I fell for it???

By the way, I can't find a single thing to nitpick about in your long message from earlier today. Not that Im any great judge of such stuff but I dont think you have to worry about the P-man getting on your case for anything you said. It all sounds reasonable to me. TCS ... well ... thats another story.

best

YOT

YOT, MA,
Getting to an engaged edge on the steeps involves giving yourself to gravity. This is a high end variant of a patience turn we do with level 4-6 intermediates. Another variation of this is pivot slips. As the skis release Gravity pulls you downhill and can be exploited as a major turning force (it will do the first half of the turn for you). YES YOU WILL be pulled downhill! However, when this happens does this mean we will automatically fall on our face? Hardly.
The released ski seeks the fall line (turns and accelerates) without causing the tail to move uphill. For a nanosecond our feet are uphill but as they enter the fall line they have already caught up with the body because the skis are accelerating faster than the body. If you do not project your body downhill early, you end up behind the skis when they accelerate and you are forced to work really hard in the second half of the turn, usually from the back seat. Yes the edge angle increases as the body moves into the inside of the turn but think about adding only enough angle to keep the skis tracking while allowing you the option of steering them through the turn. In the first third of the turn think about keeping the edge angle progresively building from 0 to about ten degrees. If you need more add it from there but remember the slope will also be adding to that angle so excessive angles do not need to happen. Also think about getting off that edge (reducing the edge angle) to facilitate a smoother release. Interestingly enough a lot of people think releasing the edge includes a big movement when it actually just requires us to get the skis flat to the surface of the snow. Until you have done that you are not finishing your turns.
A lot of skiers use an airborne edge change. However, if that is all you can do, then you need to work on keeping your skis on the snow and getting them flat to release the edge. That is the next level which seperates advanced skiers and expert skiers. Terrain without mechanics does not.

YOT
Nope, wasn’t a trick question. Bear-Baiting isn’t legal here in WA. Course, always good to be wary of questions hung out there like that. Rick sometimes puts up tasty little tidbits of technical Cheese. And now he’s got quite the collection of crushed and captured colleagues.

No, just wondering what particular frame-of-reference you were envisioning for the thought described. Your restriction to soft snow only in response to the soft-ski question points us toward an image of firm or hard snow. That’s all I was wondering.

I realize we’re way off-topic from Prosper's original post but the continuing flow of discussion has once again led back to concepts of carving and relevant applications. With so very many discussions funneling back into this same area of debate something hidden herein lurks still needing to be known. I’m just poking around people's thoughts to see what detail I can find in seeking out some missing links.

Still mulling over whether to post ideas likely to get me flayed and dismembered, as well as killed. Need a bit more time. Ducks are pretty well in their Rows. They just need a bit more body armor. The missing Kevlar must be around here somewhere.

---
jasp - certainly agree with the idea of a fall-line-seeking ski and all that. We were just momentarily poking at upper body lateral-tilt in isolation, and in relation to Centripetal Acceleration. Looking into the matching of CA to rate of Fall-over.

For an edge-released ski (flat) to rotationally seek the fall-line in the pivot-turn you’re currently describing, there's a lot more Open-Parallel implication than the stuff we were mulling over above.

Skis seeking the fall-line in a pivot slip need something to induce that initial rotation. Gravity will serve, but what technique do you use to first initiate? Moving weight forward on the ski, or a subtle twist of the legs (in a pivot I mean) for turns that start from 90-degrees to the fall-line…? Guess I’ve not really thought about what I do, but suspect a combination of both.

I’d also go with your idea of teaching the value progressive edge release more often. Lots of important ideas there. Exact mechanisms and intent are probably topics for a standalone thread.

.ma

It's all good MA. No new thread is needed. CA vs fall over? Go out and play with it. It take a lot to fall downhill.
Addition in editing:
The release by flattening the ski(s) is a common thread for all linked turning maneuvers, not just pivot slips. To answer your "trigger" inquiry, let me say that it takes a willingness to flatten the ski and let things happen, instead of searching for a magic movement that will make it happen. Another way to say this is, The flattening is the "movement" and the "trigger". The active pivoting is optional and was included as a graphic example of the wide application (carving through pivot slips) of getting your skis flat to the snow. Assuming you are perpendicular to the fall line when you flatten the ski, the tip will seek the fall line, the tail will not. Any forward momentum you carry over from the previous turn will move you across the hill. Go out and try this. The experience will explain it more effectively than sharing the detailed theoretical analysis. It really is quite simple.

Methinks that you missed the metaphor of the "naked king" story, maybe on purpose to shed off the embarrassment, but not knowing that you fall right back in the predicament. The metaphor is to say how one twists the words around to avoid seeing the "true" reality.



Yup, you used the words, so you should know the meaning of them, and just in case you missed, the reflecting does enhance the emphasis a bit.



As I said, I'm here for the high level skiing techniques, and to meet the people who are sincere and enthusiasm about in pursuing such a high level skiing and pushing the envelope for it.

Yup, the good gems are definitely here, only they are far between and hard to find, so I need to poke around a bit.



But you rather talk about your little moral issues? It is known fact on the net that when you avoid the technical discussion and turn it into discussing none related moral issues, you are slinging mud.



Maybe that just you own view, I don't "denouncing the [any] character" in a technical discussing. And in a technical discussing, only "prove your statements" or "disprove my statements" counts, and yes, the "TRUTH" is always contentious, but to turn it into a personal/character attack [on you] is your own doing.



Maybe they're just keeping quite on the questions/subjects that they couldn't get a grip of? That's quite wise, and a nice discipline too.



But you rather talk about your little moral issues instead of SKIING techniques, as shown in this post? To imply I have little moral, are you not broadcasting a malice? What makes you feel so pompous that you can dress a moral issue on a forum dedicated for SKIING related subjects?



Let me lend you a secret, since you are so nice to talk to me , the "words" have no power, they have power only when you let them get to you, As you said, I only reflected/quoted your words, so you are contempt and antagonized by yourself.

To say if you don't hold the "contempt and antagonism" [against TCS] in the first place, the "contempt and antagonism" may never happen.



As the records stand, I have never started an attack, sorry if you get hurts in my self-defense. Do you think that this post is attacking you?



Who is Prosper? I thought I was answering to "beyond," who got pissed off by some, ok I'm not using "barking," bears overlooked his question and derided his terminology and left, but you praised them bears have done a good job?



Should I ask for clarification what so "outstanding" about, or point out beyond's complain and get called antagonizing? Interesting, what moral codes that you live by, [so I may follow your solution]?


IS


Ps. should we start to talk about something skiing related now?

Not if you stop right next to your ski instructor on the lip of a road....but the edge is angled......

I did a nice slow motion fall straight onto my face.... just like the coyote in a cartoon

Luckily it was dumping new snow & the landing was very soft

I've done the same thing, but my point is that you usually have to move a long way to do so.
JASP

Well in most circumstances you have to move a long way. There is one major exception I can think of. One of the risks of doing pivot slips is catching the downhill edge and splatting onto the ground before you realize what's happening. I had a bruise the size of a grapefruit for four weeks and I know others who have broken their shoulders/arm/collarbones the same way.

And what of those pivot slips in the Bumps where the basket of the downhill ski pole gets pinned under our skidding downhill ski?

---
Sure most of the time we don’t actually fall over. If we’ve moved our CM further downhill than centripetal force can accommodate we just add in a quick pivot-to-an-edge move and we’re back on track.

I’m not sure I agree that just ‘flattening a ski’ will cause it to seek the fall line though. Teaching my classes the merit of weight-positioning, I frequently do drills of the Falling-Leaf variety which suggest there’s more to it. From perpendicular to the slope we flatten our skis and ‘skid’ sideways as straight down the hill as possible. We then play with weight-forward and weight-backward on the skis - experimenting with the Fore/Aft direction of our skid.

Then we move on to continuous sideways skidding - continuing to reverse direction even when our tips are pointing partially downhill as we skid forward. There is certainly a bit of surreptitious edging and rotational stuff hidden in the control process but not a lot. Mostly it's where the pressure is applied.

A partial quote from above that "Any forward momentum you carry over from the previous turn…" got me to wondering if maybe it’s that classic ‘Diagonal Movement’ of the CM during crossover that quietly imposes some rotational momentum to our otherwise flat skis.

That would certainly do it. Momentum carried toward new-turn apex combined with leg-extension would permit our more massive upper-body to easily torque the much lighter feet and skis toward the fall line. And we generally have pleanty of 'counter' prepackaged and waiting to assist the rotation as well.

The ‘fallover’ question YOT and I were poking at above was what we do when we are (or wish to be) firmly on our new edges right at crossover. With our new-edges engaged immediately we’ve no way to easily twist our skis more quickly toward the fall line - we need to wait for them to come around. We're seeing it as a question of tipover-time vs. catchme-carve.

.ma

Q. And what of those pivot slips in the Bumps where the basket of the downhill ski pole gets pinned under our skidding downhill ski?

A. Same results, bang!

Q. Sure most of the time we don’t actually fall over. If we’ve moved our CM further downhill than centripetal force can accommodate we just add in a quick pivot-to-an-edge move and we’re back on track.

A. That's one way. Another is just to go straight and recenter.

Q. I’m not sure I agree that just ‘flattening a ski’ will cause it to seek the fall line though. Teaching my classes the merit of weight-positioning, I frequently do drills of the Falling-Leaf variety which suggest there’s more to it. From perpendicular to the slope we flatten our skis and ‘skid’ sideways as straight down the hill as possible. We then play with weight-forward and weight-backward on the skis - experimenting with the Fore/Aft direction of our skid.
A. Levering while doing a falling leaf exercise certainly teaches the skills you mentioned. Consider this though, without that extra levering the skis react as I have mentioned because the extra friction under foot creates more drag there and the tips accelerate faster than the rest of the ski causing the skis to "turn" into the fall line.

Q.Then we move on to continuous sideways skidding - continuing to reverse direction even when our tips are pointing partially downhill as we skid forward. There is certainly a bit of surreptitious edging and rotational stuff hidden in the control process but not a lot. Mostly it's where the pressure is applied.

A. So I would assume you would agree with my last answer. Take away all the other stuff and the pressure is the key. Another way to change this is by opening or closing the ankles and forcing the pivot point back to the tails, or forward to the tips. This is a lot easier to manage than leaning the whole body and requires a much smaller corrective movement.

Q. A partial quote from above that "Any forward momentum you carry over from the previous turn…" got me to wondering if maybe it’s that classic ‘Diagonal Movement’ of the CM during crossover that quietly imposes some rotational momentum to our otherwise flat skis.
A. No. Inertia is linear unless another force is involved (gravity). Moving your weight forward would cause the tips to become the pivot point and the tails would release down the hill. You would end up facing uphill and sliding downhill.

Q. That would certainly do it. Momentum carried toward new-turn apex combined with leg-extension would permit our more massive upper-body to easily torque the much lighter feet and skis toward the fall line. And we generally have pleanty of 'counter' prepackaged and waiting to assist the rotation as well.

A. The extension sets the tails as a pivot (see above) and projects the body into the future momentarily. As the skis accelerate they catch up to the body but the redirecting (rotation) has less to do with an active steering movement. When you do that you will over rotate the skis and do a windsheild wiper turn. Causing you to do a rotary push off turn finish. A countered stance would add rotation if you use the upper body as an anchor or maybe by using a blocking pole plant. It is not necessary to be that active in a rotational sense. You have more than enough time to create the turn.

Q. The ‘fallover’ question YOT and I were poking at above was what we do when we are (or wish to be) firmly on our new edges right at crossover. With our new-edges engaged immediately we’ve no way to easily twist our skis more quickly toward the fall line - we need to wait for them to come around. We're seeing it as a question of tipover-time vs. catchme-carve.

A. By definition the edge change is already over when you re-engage the new set of edges, so doing so in the middle of the cross over is way too early. You need to pass through neutral (flat to the snow) before thinking about re-engaging the skis on the new set of edges. You are correct that it locks you up on an edge and your only option at that point is to ride it out. So to avoid that locked up position consider a more progressive approach to changing edges. No edge, to a little bit of edge, to more edge, then back to a little bit of edge, to no edge. Or if you prefer lots of edge, to no edge, to lots of edge (the "s" turn, fall line to fall line stuff I posted earlier)

An additional though...
...you should be constantly adding edge angle or subtracting edge angle. Avoid camping at a particular edge angle. That should help you be more progressive.

Nice breakdown jasp. Gotta let my neurons feed on all that manna for a bit. Great to have such a variety of input to think about.

On your response to the 'fallover' thing: Agree that being on new edges must by definintion be after 'flat'. But at the moment our skis are flat, would you be OK with the idea that our CM could be directly over, or on either 'side' of our flat skis? (vertically WRT gravity *or* perpendicular to the hill - either way)

Not making any assertion about where it should be for any particular intent - to avoid debate about correctness, just that we can get away with a lot in that moment and if we can momentarily have our CM in any of those three relationships to 'flat' (within a reasonable range), what possiblities does this open up?

What if the final bit of momentum imparted to us by our Old turn's Outside-Ski is directed slightly uphill?

I'd also agree that establishing any particular edge-angle and camping out is doable but not nearly as useful as progressive edging.

.ma

PS: Corrected earlier comments that were incorrectly addressed to Prosper instead of beyond. Multiple windows with multiple tabs is a bane as much as benefit.

MA,
To get the skis flat when the body is not symmetrically aligned over the skis is possible (see the 1980 step turn progression) but would require an additional corrective movement to get the skeleton back into the most effective weight bearing position. Since we are talking about cleaning up the transitions this seems counter productive and not all that effective. The cleaner the movement the better. Flat means symmetrically aligned on the skis, and all four edges in contact with the snow. No short cuts are needed and as I said before keep it simple. Additionally, let me share an idea...
... I use the mantra that a little touch during this phase of the turn trumps power every time. While some movement is good, less is even better. You have three quarters of the turn left, don't be in such a rush to do it all in one ski length.

In so far as camping, DON'T EVER CAMP! Oh, did I forget to mention DON"T EVER CAMP!!! Add or subtract edge angle but alway be changing your edge angles.

A slight uphill finish to the turn would decrease you speed but the rest is not effected that much.