EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › "NEW School" v "OLD School"???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"NEW School" v "OLD School"??? - Page 5

post #121 of 142

Why Does This Keep Coming Up?

Quote:
Originally Posted By Rick
On the 50-50 thing. Of course you can distribute weight 50-50, or any other ratio for that matter. Can you know for sure to the percentage point? I doubt it. But you for sure can do 100 percent on either leg, and a multitude of variations in between, simply by moving the CM laterally. This is not a hard thing for skiers who've refined their balance skills.

Check out these images I've borrowed from Ron Lemaster's site. They're the best he had of current images for clearly illustrating lateral pressure distribution. I hope everyone can see the dominant outside ski pressure in these shots, it's very apparent (look at the amount of bend in each ski). These guys may not have studied physics, or done the math, but they know instinctively that trying to resist the mega forces acting on them predominantly with their bent inside leg just won't fly.
Sorry to plagarize you Rick, but I am doing it to make a point. I don't know if this Tim character can ski or not; but I really wish someone would go back and READ my first post. I am not here to argue that your inside ski gets no weight, because it does get weight - but in a race-type carved turn it gets a lot more weight (since we are analyzing racers I am assuming that is the basis for the discussion). The point to this and Tim's point (I am assuming) is that there is NOT 50/50 weight distribution in modern carved turns. If a skier is in an icy race course and skids out of the course (possibly causing a fall), a clear majority of the time is due to weighting the insde ski too much in the turn, especially toward the bottom of the turn (commonly called a hip-check). This is not rocket science folks.

Due to the speed and angulation of race turns the outside ski MUST get the majority of the weight. How much? I don't know for sure, but it is WAY above 50/50, or even 60/40. If there is anyone out there that thinks they should be skiing with a 50/50 distribution I would CRINGE to see their skiing. A lot of weight on one edge holds better than a little weight on two edges. I am not saying that distribution can't change due to terrain or trying to change the shape of your turn of course, but in the middle half of the turn (1/4 turn - apex - 1/4 turn), excluding the half you are in transition, the MAJORITY of the weight is on the outside ski. Why is this so hard for people?

Any real skier can play around with this distribution to tailor the turn to the shape they need to make. The simple fact remains that you are not going to make race turns with 50/50 distribution. Now, I can carve entirely on my inside ski (no weight on the outside), but it requires you to get your CM VERY far inside the turn to make it work. This is not really that fast when talking about racing unless you have a nasty rut to contend with.

Now we can throw around credentials all day, but the fact will remain that most turns are far from 50/50 weight distribution. Maybe compared to what you used to do on straight skis it feels like 50/50, but it isn't equal. Sometimes I would just love to put some of those believers on a steep, glare ice, eastern GS course and watch you use 50/50 weight distribution down something like the head wall. There would have to be nets to catch you at the bottom you'd be sliding on your hip/back so fast. With luck you would have a coach standing where you finally stopped saying: "Do you know why you fell? ...You weighted your inside ski too much; do it again."

Anyhow, you can believe it or not. I don't really care that much, but I get annoyed to watch instructors mislead people into thinking that a 50/50 weight distribution is the ideal way to ski. I know many will probably state that I too am confused about skiing and racing and what is actually going on, and will probably question my ability to ski and teach (which I do not teach), and question the quality of my coaching over the years (which may offend some), but it won't change what is actually happening in real skiing/racing.

Later

GREG
post #122 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier
Due to the speed and angulation of race turns the outside ski MUST get the majority of the weight. How much? I don't know for sure, but it is WAY above 50/50, or even 60/40. If there is anyone out there that thinks they should be skiing with a 50/50 distribution I would CRINGE to see their skiing. A lot of weight on one edge holds better than a little weight on two edges. I am not saying that distribution can't change due to terrain or trying to change the shape of your turn of course, but in the middle half of the turn (1/4 turn - apex - 1/4 turn), excluding the half you are in transition, the MAJORITY of the weight is on the outside ski. Why is this so hard for people?

Any real skier can play around with this distribution to tailor the turn to the shape they need to make. The simple fact remains that you are not going to make race turns with 50/50 distribution. Now, I can carve entirely on my inside ski (no weight on the outside), but it requires you to get your CM VERY far inside the turn to make it work. This is not really that fast when talking about racing unless you have a nasty rut to contend with.

Now we can throw around credentials all day, but the fact will remain that most turns are far from 50/50 weight distribution. Maybe compared to what you used to do on straight skis it feels like 50/50, but it isn't equal. Sometimes I would just love to put some of those believers on a steep, glare ice, eastern GS course and watch you use 50/50 weight distribution down something like the head wall. There would have to be nets to catch you at the bottom you'd be sliding on your hip/back so fast. With luck you would have a coach standing where you finally stopped saying: "Do you know why you fell? ...You weighted your inside ski too much; do it again."
Absolutely right on, Greg!

With modern skis on gentler groomed terrain, there is a much broader variety of weight distributions possible than on steep and hard snow. However, that said, at speed your distribution naturally (and appropriately) moves more outside your turn. Even on groomed terrain this is obvious.

While trenching with Uncle Louie on Monday and doing some track study afterwards (note: moderate blues at Breck under the chairs), the tracks looked pretty even. However, as the guy making those tracks, I can tell you that the majority of my weight was on that outside ski. Perhaps 90 percent or more at times. We were skiing pretty fast (even on my Metrons, a bit over 20mph ), and this has something to do with it, as well. I can play with the distribution, certainly, but, as you note, Greg, the CM has to move farther into the turn to put more pressure on that inside ski.

Regardless of how I was distributing my weight, though, it sure was fun!
post #123 of 142
Rick, Ghost… I finally came up with a formula I can live with on the 30-mph turn and any similar questions. Most of my post above was reasonable but it wasn’t the horizontal component of the tangential acceleration that I needed - it was a compensatory horizontal acceleration at the given angle. OK, maybe that’s a YuK of a statement. Maybe I can explain it better.

Earlier I’d used the horizontal component of our 22.733 f/s², or 16.075 f/s². This wasn’t really relevant to the question at hand. Instead, I actually needed the ratio of sideways force to downward force.
Basically: (tan(45) = sideways / downward) with ‘downward’ being 32.15 f/s².

As Rick kind of noted in post#91, since tan(45) works out to =1 we get right back to a required horizontal acceleration of 32.15 f/s² matching our vertical acceleration.

Fortunately, V²/r or (Velocity²/radius) still gets us the proper radius. Since we want it to equal 32.15 f/s² we get back to …
(44 f/s)² / (unknown-radius in feet) = (32.15 f/s²)
(1936 f²/s²) / (32.15 f/s²) = (60.22 feet)

Close to Rick & Ghost's calculation and pretty much exactly half of my original belief of 120.4355. Funny how that works out. Anyway, to get the required horizontal acceleration in the future just use…

Sideways_Acceleration_needed = tan(angle) x (gravity)

And to get the a required Turn Radius more directly use…

(speed²) / (tan(angle) x (gravity)) = (unknown-radius in feet)

Kind of a fun thing to figure out here in this text-based virtual world where one cannot actually ski. Glad you posted the question Rick, I'd not have found the glitch in my spreadsheets otherwise.

As to the ski-sidecut required, I think I’ll still just plead the Fifth.

I could go back and correct my post #93 above but since ssh informs me there's no way to 'strikeout' text I think I’ll just leave those grasshopper footprints in the rice paper.

.ma
post #124 of 142
Say, I don't suppose someone can tell me the typical distance between racing gates can they? Specifically the distance down the hill and offset for both SL & GS?

.ma
post #125 of 142
Thread Starter 
Bumpalicious...

Sorry to bring this back after so many years... But, assuming you PSIA type guys still claim it's either possible or ideal to get 50/50 weight distribution in any real world carved turn... you are full of horse shit (can I say "horse shit" on gapic?). I was just too polite to say it quite that way this many years ago.

I do have to say that I am totally in awe of the time some of us/you spent really hashing out some great detail on this subject! Not that way everywhere... enjoy it.

Have a great season everyone!!!
post #126 of 142
 LOL, even this "NEW School" is 4 years old at this point. 
post #127 of 142

Timvwcom, I have answers to your questions! I have lived with those same questions for 5 years and it took me becoming a PSIA Certified instructor to get the answers:

1.      You are not wrong – the more you advance in your skiing, the more relevant “old school” becomes again. Eitherwe want it or not, laws of physics remain unchanged – therefore complete revolution in sliding down is impossible.  However, while we pretend we invent new technique, we do modify existing technique a little so some things are not so much strength demanding

2.      There is a concept: “PSIA Center Line”: very disciplined way of skiing which is most appropriate movements for intermediate to advanced groomed skier/slope (This is my definition, not the official one). Now, as conditions/skills change one can allow himself to deviate from the Center Line to be more effective. Since majority of ski school students are at best intermediates who want to carve and do not look at skiing as way to be close to nature during winter, this Center Line concept works for most.

3.      50/50 weight distribution happens only at a single point of a turn – “shaping” (when your ski run flat down the fall line). At all other times outside ski is loaded more then the inside ski. The change in weight distribution happens gradually (imagine the pendant of the clock). The load of the inside ski could theoretically go down to zero, but with the new shaped skis there is no need to compromise stability (plus you can get away with softer ski that require less work in moguls and trees) – so load outside ski only as strong as you need to make a turn of the desired radius. Do not forget to tilt un-weighted  inside knee towards the slope (you will get rid of the A-frame that everybody is bragging about and will still feel natural)

4.     “Why always only wait for your edges to change slowly?” If you want to ski a carved turn and get that kick at the end of the turn (some people love it, others not so much), then load your skis and wait. Otherwise (if you prefer 4x4 trucks vs. little sport cars) add some gradual rotation of the skis. (Gradual does not mean slow)

5.     “Why not plant a pole and use the back force to help unweight the downhill ski for a quick edge change???”  If you are not in moguls, why waste energy? You will get the same effect if you will tilt flat-to-opposite edge your downhill ski and simultaneously move you center of mass down the fall line towards the center of your next turn. This move require mental commitment, but does not require strength (comes handy after 3PM)

6.     “Give them an idea this is not ALL there is to skiing..” Majority of students in a ski school do not want to know that!  They want to think of themselves as aspiring experts and if they would knew how much more to it, they would  be discouraged/ intimidated /bored /discussed (pick on) and would not ever take another lesson and may be even stopped skiing at all

 

Where do you ski in Wisconsin and Colorado?

post #128 of 142
I did not read all of this since Im short of time but had a glanze through. Very nice discussion and the math is impressive, way over my engineering skills.

However, let me share some information with regards to the 50/50 weight distribution discussion. According to a study made of by our top coaching staff the weight distribution when wc skiers were fitted with pressure soles proved that there was in this stydy no such thing as 100/0 weight distribution during the pressure phase of a default turn which lasted approx 0,5sec. Max pressure on outside ski 1250N with all passive weight taken off.

Of 3 skiers two of them had 50/50 or very close in 4 turns out of 9 on both steep and flat. The 3rd skier had only one turn with 50/50 on flat but 4 first turn on steep close to 50/50 and then about 70/30. One of the guys/gals had on steep 50/50 on every other turn and then close to 80/20 on opposite turns.

If you dont measure it you cannot be sure. Its not uncommon to be convinced close to fanatism you do something in a certain way even though you are doing it differently. And never realizing your missunderstanding. Applies to both camps in this discussion. The fact that the old ski comes up off the snow at the end of the turn as you enter the floating phase of the turn moving into transition does not prove your weight distribution is not close to 50/50 during that 0,5sec you are actually turning.
post #129 of 142
I took the time to browse through all my five-year-old posts above (and in other places) wondering if my thinking on any of this has changed over the years and find that I'm of the same opinion:

a) A skier can ski 'carved' turns with anything from 0-100% of their weight on their Inside-Ski. (At 100% inside, the outside-ski is no longer able to carve)

b) Weight-shifting from ski-to-ski can be active (meaning deliberate) or passive (allowing the shift to be driven mostly by centrifugal force).

c) Since a single leg/foot/boot/binding/ski represents maybe 25% of the skier's overall Mass we can conclude most skiers support about 25% of their Mass with the inside-ski when carving - even when they make no conscious effort to do so.   (They'd have to make a deliberate effort to lift that inside-leg & ski in order to get more than 75% of their Mass onto the outside-ski.)

d) 'Weight' in any high-G turn is more efficiently supported by the outside-ski if the outside-leg is straighter than the inside-leg (Structural considerations become dominant at high-G's).

e) Balance is improved with the CM more over the outside-ski at Turn Apex because the inside-foot is generally well ahead of the CM (Otherwise, standing too much on a leading-foot will tend to drive the skier into the back seat).

f) Probability of successfully completing a high-G turn is slightly increased when balance and weight are mostly directed to the outside-ski. (If the outside-ski slips away a bit, the skier still has the inside-ski to 'fall onto' and survive.  Not the case if the skier is balanced mostly over the inside-ski.)

g) If terrain, intent and snow conditions permit, there are definite advantages to skiing more two-footed (with no emphasis on a specific ratio!).  Advantages are: overall lateral balance enhancements, increased lateral movement options, F/A & Lateral stability, increased probability of successfully surviving hidden hazards, etc.

h) Whether or not one ski-edge has a more tenacious hold on hard snow than two ski-edges is debatable and requires more careful examination.  (The definitive answer relies on the snow surface's lateral cohesion at different depths, Critical Edge-Angle, exact edge-angle of each ski, our ability to keep even and constant pressure on that single ski, etc.)


So, I guess the final answer on ski weighting is: It Depends...

.ma
post #130 of 142
Quote:
So, I guess the final answer on ski weighting is: It Depends...

Perfect .ma, now I don't have to digest the whole thing.
Thanks,
JF
post #131 of 142
Great posting mA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelA View Post
a) A skier can ski 'carved' turns with anything from 0-100% of their weight on their Inside-Ski. (At 100% inside, the outside-ski is no longer able to carve)
 
Correct. The weight distribution is seldome fixed in a turn. It varies through out the turn. Depending on technique used typically becomming more two footed towards the end of the turn. This is the reason its kind of missleding to state a ratio of 50/50 or 80/20.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelA View Post

b) Weight-shifting from ski-to-ski can be active (meaning deliberate) or passive (allowing the shift to be driven mostly by centrifugal force).

 
Correct. However, the active weight transfer is not allways straight coupled to turning in the sence that relesing the old outside ski and stepping onto the inside ski LTE can be considered a weight transfer but the actual turning is taking place after the old inside ski has changed edges and become the new outside ski and weight is then increased due to ski turing according to its turn radius and centrifugal force kicks in. For this reason the word "weight transfer" can be thaught of as confusing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelA View Post

c) Since a single leg/foot/boot/binding/ski represents maybe 25% of the skier's overall Mass we can conclude most skiers support about 25% of their Mass with the inside-ski when carving - even when they make no conscious effort to do so.   (They'd have to make a deliberate effort to lift that inside-leg & ski in order to get more than 75% of their Mass onto the outside-ski.)

 
Correct. But that calculation does not take in consideration the increased pressure when turning. As I wrote in previous posting the increased weight can go as high as 127kg (280lb). You are much better than me on math but if the skier weighted 80kg the ratio would be closer to 90/10 during the pressure phase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelA View Post
d) 'Weight' in any high-G turn is more efficiently supported by the outside-ski if the outside-leg is straighter than the inside-leg (Structural considerations become dominant at high-G's).

 
Correct. If the increased pressure is 127kg then its obvious it would be much more difficult resting it all on a bent leg insted of a straight one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelA View Post

e) Balance is improved with the CM more over the outside-ski at Turn Apex because the inside-foot is generally well ahead of the CM (Otherwise, standing too much on a leading-foot will tend to drive the skier into the back seat).

 
Correct. And how right you are. Even if inside ski is pulled back, if edge angles are high the inside ski is tracking ahead of outside ski and pressuring that ski more would shift the CoM back. This is one reason people end up in the back seat. Especially on a racing track. The wider the stance the more this effect is increased.


Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelA View Post

f) Probability of successfully completing a high-G turn is slightly increased when balance and weight are mostly directed to the outside-ski. (If the outside-ski slips away a bit, the skier still has the inside-ski to 'fall onto' and survive.  Not the case if the skier is balanced mostly over the inside-ski.)

 
Correct. But this has been up for debate for as long as I can remember. I have been thaught a demo a long time ago where you stand downhill from someone and this person lets you grab his poles that he points at you downhill and you pull that skier towards you as he stands perpendicular to the fall line and holds his edges. If the skier puts all or too much of his weight on the inside ski then when you let go of your pull the person will fall uphill. If he stands mostly over his outside ski and angulates and counters with his upper body then he will be able to remain upright.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelA View Post
g) If terrain, intent and snow conditions permit, there are definite advantages to skiing more two-footed (with no emphasis on a specific ratio!).  Advantages are: overall lateral balance enhancements, increased lateral movement options, F/A & Lateral stability, increased probability of successfully surviving hidden hazards, etc.

 
Correct. Well said. 


Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelA View Post

h) Whether or not one ski-edge has a more tenacious hold on hard snow than two ski-edges is debatable and requires more careful examination.  (The definitive answer relies on the snow surface's lateral cohesion at different depths, Critical Edge-Angle, exact edge-angle of each ski, our ability to keep even and constant pressure on that single ski, etc.)

 
Correct me if Im wrong but in order for the ski to hold on ice it needs to sink down in it. So if the ice is very hard it might be better to put more weight on one ski and have that edge go as deep as possible insted of having two edges dont sinking down deep enough?
Edited by tdk6 - 10/6/09 at 3:29am
post #132 of 142
Tdk6,

Regarding (c) above, you state, "...But that calculation does not take in consideration the increased pressure when turning."  If you think about it, my statement under (c) really does take it into consideration (ie: the added centrifugal force).

Say a section of a 100 pound object equals 25 pounds (25% of the total weight).  If we put that object into a centrifuge and spin it up until the object appears to weigh 200 pounds then how much will that formerly 25 pound section now weigh?  Obviously, it will now be up to 50 pounds as the entire object is subject to the same centrifugal force - and 50 pounds is still 25% of the new total weight (200 pounds).

For a skier in a high-G turn the situation is the same.  If the centrifugal force increases the total weight of the skier it also increases the weight of each element of the skier.  That inside-leg is still 25% of the skier's total weight.  

This is where the possibilities get interesting when we examine ski-snow interaction during carving.  That inside-ski may not provide much edge-hold at slower speeds due to a lack of hard-surface penetration but at speed it has a lot more pressure on it - especially at the Apex of a turn.

.ma

PS: I'm finding it much easier to just Cut, Paste and manually quote ( "..." ) the text of others when responding since the ability of this new software to create multiple quotes is so awful.  Looks like you're having the same issues with it everyone else is having.
post #133 of 142
Hi mA. Yes, Im still struggling with the software and was interupted during posting so I see you have replied allredy. Anyway, I stand corrected. How dumb of me. I was not thinking straight. That is the reason the wc guys in the study I talked about in my posting a few days back have so much pressure on the inside ski. In fact, even if there is pressure the skier might be applying some kind of muscle effort of lifting the inside ski up. In order to lift it up in the air they need to overcome the centrifugal force pull on the mass in that part of the body including boots, bindings and skis. Correct?
post #134 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post
Correct me if Im wrong but in order for the ski to hold on ice it needs to sink down in it. So if the ice is very hard it might be better to put more weight on one ski and have that edge go as deep as possible insted of having two edges dont sinking down deep enough?

 
It depends. My opinion is that if one's edges are dull relative to the hardness of the ice and the pressures involved, it's better to have the friction of 2 edges dragging better than one edge that can't hold. The problem is that there is a gray area where an edge is sharp enough to hold if it is pressured enough, but will slip if it's not. This is more of a problem for recreational skiers with "recreational tunes" and "recreational turns".  Skiers with efficient technique and sharp skis find comfort in loading the outside ski and having faith that it will engage when surfaces get really hard, but will ski two footed when conditions allow.
post #135 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty View Post



It depends. My opinion is that if one's edges are dull relative to the hardness of the ice and the pressures involved, it's better to have the friction of 2 edges dragging better than one edge that can't hold. The problem is that there is a gray area where an edge is sharp enough to hold if it is pressured enough, but will slip if it's not. This is more of a problem for recreational skiers with "recreational tunes" and "recreational turns".  Skiers with efficient technique and sharp skis find comfort in loading the outside ski and having faith that it will engage when surfaces get really hard, but will ski two footed when conditions allow.
 

actual IMO the worst the tune of the ski, or the worst the ski in on hardpack or ice, the more one footed skiing becomes a nessacity.

when skiing big skis on hardpack the only way to survive is to ski the outside ski.
post #136 of 142
I think you've got the whole CF thing Tdk6.    

On the One vs. Two Edges in Ice thing, it's complicated by several factors that literally get Microscopic in nature.   I spent a lot of time looking into it have written quite a lot of material on it but have nothing succinct to post.

The nature of high-speed skiing on hard surfaces tends to put the skier onto the outside ski for a variety of reasons and may account for the perception that focusing on that ski is the only way to go but a more careful analysis suggests a two-edged intent with an expectation of considerable time on one edge is probably the best way to go. 

If we try to achieve two working edges and lose one, we're still OK.  If we try to achieve a single edge and lose it, we're not so well off.

If our skis are tuned properly for a given hardpack condition then two edges will engage and hold just as well (or better) than one lone edge pressed more deeply.   Of course, tuning edges properly for one single capability is a poor idea in a race as the skier also needs to skid, pivot and such.   A ski tuned to provide the most versatility probably wont meet the criteria for ideal two-edged hold.  Optimizing one parameter for one specific intent tends to de-optimize all other parameters for meeting other intents.

.ma
post #137 of 142
Thanks for your explanations mA.
post #138 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post




actual IMO the worst the tune of the ski, or the worst the ski in on hardpack or ice, the more one footed skiing becomes a nessacity.

when skiing big skis on hardpack the only way to survive is to ski the outside ski.

 


While it might seem this is true, I really think it's the result rather than the intention.
post #139 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post




actual IMO the worst the tune of the ski, or the worst the ski in on hardpack or ice, the more one footed skiing becomes a nessacity.

when skiing big skis on hardpack the only way to survive is to ski the outside ski.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post

While it might seem this is true, I really think it's the result rather than the intention.
What I recall the PSIA position to be on this in the early 80s was kinda opposite of using ONLY the outside ski on bad surfaces. That was the only time folks suggested using both skis mid radius of the turn. The outside ski was the main influence of the turn most of the time.   It was when that outside ski hits surface that sacrifices the edge hold i.e.wicked ice or rocks that the inside ski is used to help  When they hit ice theye'd drop the inside ski and add more weight to that to help hold.  There were already a few folks skiing on both skis through most or all of the turns at this time, mostly bump skiers, powder skiere, and a few pure carvers.  Racers and old school PSIA types rarely, if ever used the inside ski mid turn, but might if the outside wasn't holding for reasons aforementioned.
post #140 of 142
Quote from: BushwackerinPA "actual IMO the worst the tune of the ski, or the worst the ski in on hardpack or ice, the more one footed skiing becomes a nessacity."

What if we looked at two-footed skiing control vs edge-sharpness as being on a bell-curve?

If our edges are sharp and well-tuned then they'll hold on hardpack and ice reasonably well most of the time making outside-ski dominance practical, but skiing predominantly on the inside-edge would also work quite well (in terms of edge-hold) - as will two-footed skiing since both edges will hold nicely. This delivers a very low 'problem rate' when skiing two-footed.

If edges are tuned a bit but are not all that sharp (or not consistently sharp) then they'll hold under many conditions but release in many other conditions.  To keep them engaged we need to press them into the surface further - past any microscopically rounded-over edge to engage the flat surface just beyond the rounded-over portion of the metal edge.    Here, if we predominantly pressure one ski (either one) then we get enough surface penetration to get beyond that rounded-over portion and it holds.   If we ski with weight distributed across both skis then neither edge gets deep enough to engage that flat surface found beyond the rounded-over portion and our 'problem rate' for such two-footed skiing goes way up.

If edges are badly tuned, hacked up or not sharp at all then the situation changes back the other way.  We can no longer expect either edge to hold regardless how much pressure we apply to it - so we're stuck with two-footed skiing as this at least delivers consistent control and consistent scarving/skidding and our 'problem rate' goes way down again.

.ma
post #141 of 142
Agree mA. Bad tune and edge hold dreives us to two footed skiing and that again l makes us skidd even more. This is the probem that most racers experiance on a icy race track. Even wc skiers have this problem.
post #142 of 142
Even though I ski pretty well tuned gear all the time, I ski pretty much with both feet all the time (even when one is in the air it still has a role to play).  I think of skiing "equal weight" most of the time, but seldom "equal pressure" (get the difference?)  I prefer to allow each turns dynamics to create it own optimum pressure distribution bias, even as I balance on both feet.

old vs new?  Old seemed to be about causing everything you could, New allows for allowing everything you can and causing only what you must.

There are things you should cause and things you should allow.
When you try to cause what you should allow,
you can only muck up the process.
arc
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 › "NEW School" v "OLD School"???