or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Great All-Mountain Clinic - Page 5

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh Depending on alignment and body (and foot) position, perhaps. Both inside edges? Which inside edge?
I think the idea is that if a human were on the ski and it were perpendicular to the fall line, the inside/uphill edge would have to be weighted ot the ski couldn't be stationary at that point.

Putting equal weight on both sides and letting it go would cause it to seek the fall line (presuming there was some for or aft bias in the weighting to determing whether ith sought the fall line tip or tail first...otherwise it would theoretically slide sideways...again, assuming it were flat to the snow surface and not set into the snow to sit flat relative to 0 degrees).

Then again, the same thing would theorhetically happen if the edged ski with a skier on it shifted weight to even, side-to-side and took it off edge.
I have forward momentum when I am sideslipping - forward down the hill....

If you mean forward along the ski from a stop I have none.... how do the skis "seek the fall line" then?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh How do you get from "stays across the fall line" to "let the ski seek"? How do you keep it from seeking?
Just as I described above initiated by tipping the downhill ski (which becomes the new uphill ski).

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh Counter and counter balance? Aren't those rotational forces?
Counter balance is not a rotational force. Counter is, however its not used to pivot the ski, we counter in the opposite direction of the turn.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by jstraw I think the idea is that if a human were on the ski and it were perpendicular to the fall line, the inside/uphill edge would have to be weighted ot the ski couldn't be stationary at that point. Putting equal weight on both sides and letting it go would cause it to seek the fall line (presuming there was some for or aft bias in the weighting to determing whether ith sought the fall line tip or tail first...otherwise it would theoretically slide sideways...again, assuming it were flat to the snow surface and not set into the snow to sit flat relative to 0 degrees). Then again, the same thing would theorhetically happen if the edged ski with a skier on it shifted weight to even, side-to-side and took it off edge.

jstraw - when skis & snowboards take off downhill alone which way do they usually travel?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by disski If you mean forward along the ski from a stop I have none.... how do the skis "seek the fall line" then?
If you flatten the skis and apply a tiny bit of forward pressue to the boots what happens?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh Depending on alignment and body (and foot) position, perhaps. Both inside edges? Which inside edge?
I should have been more clear. A single right ski. Boot in the binding. The person balanced so that the ski is flat. Sliding down the gentle slope, the left edge will become weighted, due to the person's mass and the sidecut will start the ski to turn. However, the person cannot be doing counterbalances to keep the ski straight.

RH
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 If you flatten the skis and apply a tiny bit of forward pressue to the boots what happens?

Ahhh - so the skis are not seeking anything then are they....

YOU are doing something to encourage them to move a certain way?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by disski Ahhh - so the skis are not seeking anything then are they.... YOU are doing something to encourage them to move a certain way?
I have no idea what you are getting at. If you take a ski that is pointed down the hill and put in on edge it turns (even if its a soft edge).

I was just giving one example of how a ski might seek the fall line. If you are suggesting that we are using the sidecut of the ski to control our turn shape then I agree with you.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick H PMTS is a teaching system, as is ATS. Primary Movements is a technique. Now for a comparison: Would you agree that ATS advocates steering of the outside (or rotary movement) ski?
I would not agree with this. In fact, the PSIA Visual Cues specifically say that ineffective rotary movements are seen when "The skis pivot or skid throughout the turn, creating a Z-shaped turn." Stemming and using the shoulders or torso are also mentioned as being ineffective.

On the other hand, effective rotary is the skier's legs turning under a stable upper body, femurs turning in the hip sockets for the purpose of turning more efficiently. "Skis are tipped and turned an appropriate amount to create a smooth, C-shaped turn." "Rotary (steering) movements which re-direct the skis at turn initiation are matched in timing and intensity by tipping the skis to prepare for increased forces caused by edge engagement." It also mentions progressive rotary. The definition of rotary is that some part of the body is turning relative to other parts. This includes counter, btw.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by onyxjl Forward momentum. If you were in a sideslip and had someone push you from behind, you would begin to turn.
Actually, no, I wouldn't. I would adjust my balance and continue across the hill with my skis perpendicular to the fall line. In fact, if anything, they would likely turn up the hill (following their sidecut ).
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 Just as I described above initiated by tipping the downhill ski (which becomes the new uphill ski).
Tipping the downhill ski will not cause the skis to seek the fall line. You much change your pressure to do that (at least). Now, what if you want them to seek the fall line faster? What do you do? Let's say from a stop.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 Counter balance is not a rotational force. Counter is, however its not used to pivot the ski, we counter in the opposite direction of the turn.
I am unfamiliar with the term "counter balance", so it would help to have you address my ignorance: what is it?

Why do you counter? Counter, in PSIA terminology, is a form of rotary movement.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick H I should have been more clear. A single right ski. Boot in the binding. The person balanced so that the ski is flat. Sliding down the gentle slope, the left edge will become weighted, due to the person's mass and the sidecut will start the ski to turn. However, the person cannot be doing counterbalances to keep the ski straight.
Ah! Absolutely! Thanks for the clarification. But, to get the weight on one ski, the skier needs to do something, right? Normally, a skier in a straight run will be equally weighted. Now, I think I'm beginning to understand more...

What I do to cause that turn is to tip my left ski (first) without changing pressure (my right ski will follow that tip). I think what you would do is to lift and tip your left ski. Am I getting somewhere in my thinking?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by disski jstraw - when skis & snowboards take off downhill alone which way do they usually travel?
I don't know. Do you know? And if you do know, do you know what the relationship is between that, and the orientation of the ski or board before it started moving?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 I have no idea what you are getting at. If you take a ski that is pointed down the hill and put in on edge it turns (even if its a soft edge).
Yes, it does. But, while on that soft edge, how do you adjust the direction of the ski? I suspect that it won't work in the way that you think it does. Hint: giving it more edge may cause it to begin to carve, but it will not shorten the turn radius until it does.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick H PMTS is a teaching system, as is ATS. Primary Movements is a technique. Now for a comparison: Would you agree that ATS advocates steering of the outside (or rotary movement) ski?
BTW, the Visual Cues also specifically state, "Both skis and legs turn together throughout a parallel turn..." In other words, no special emphasis on the inside or outside ski/leg.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh I don't think so, Si, but I could be wrong. In my analytical brain, there are additional subtleties here that likely overcome this. What I "see" in my imagination is my rotary doing two things: effectively differentially pressuring the tip to cause it to flex more deeply than it otherwise would, thus tightening the radius of the arc of the ski. I also see it "digging" the edge into the snow more, thus keeping the tip from breaking loose while that additional flex is applied. The subtlety comes in while doing this in a way that doesn't effect a break-out of the tail.This tells me that you do not understand at all the turns that I am describing. I know these turns. Ask cgeib, Noodler, or Rick if these are the kinds of turns I make. For reference, this is what Noodler said about my turns during a demo day when we skied togetherReference in this thread.)Riding the arc of the sidecut is definitely easier and recruits far fewer muscles! Of this there is no doubt. I enjoy doing that very much, and often play with tightening my turn arc by increasing my edge angle. The point that I seem unable to communicate is that this is not the only way to do so, and that there are times when it is impractical or not physically possible. It's nice in those circumstances to have alternatives. I think that I probably am, but I haven't considered the physics long enough to know that for sure.How is rotation of the femur different from "steering"? Are you talking about what Uncle Louie has described to me as "resultant rotary"? That rotation of the femur in the hip socket can be applied or allowed. The results are different, but not necessarily visible to the eye.Certainly, a weighted release as you describe is possible, but unless you're on very steep terrain, the skis will not seek the fall line very quickly. They won't even find the fall line unless you move your pressure to the tips (if you don't, you'll just sideslip). They will also not go beyond the fall line, so any turning to a stop will require riding the arc or pivoting the ski (or both). When doing releases, most people naturally pivot their skis in and through the fall line, even when they aren't conscious that this is what they are doing. BTW, the first time I did this was with a staunch PSIA Level III.
Guess all I can say is that I am not at all sold on the physics as you are imagining it. First I don't see how a torque applied to the ski (surface) can "differentially" pressure the tip. Second, if the torque helps dig the ski tip in then it's going to have the opposite effect on the tail. Still seems to me the most effective way to bend the ski further into the turn is via increased tipping and edge angle.

I think I do understand the turns you are describing. It's just that what I interpret as the physics and mechanics of what is happening is somewhat different than your interpretation.

In terms of "rotary" my point is the it is quite possible to rotate the hip (i.e. femur/pelvis joint) for tipping without applying any significant rotary torque to the ski.

Yes the pivot slip like drill I talked about needs to be done on relatively steep hardpack if the tips are to seek the fall line in a short time/distance. I meant to include that but missed it.

I don't believe that "rotary," as defined by a torque applied to a ski to rotate it in the plane of its surface, is something that shouldn't be used. What I have found for myself is:

1) If the balance and movements for effective tipping are well learned then producing rotary is greatly simplified. I don't think the vice versa works nearly as well. An approach that focuses on tipping is much better for teaching good skiing balance and movements than one that includes "rotary."

2) The more I develop in my skiing the more I use tipping and the less I use "rotary." Disclaimer, I'm mostly an off-piste skier who spends no time in gates or racing. So, I have little or no experience talking about "rotary" in the gate environment. However, when I see clips of World Cup level racers I don't see them using "rotary" to nearly the extent that some here claim.

3) In spite of 1) and 2) I still use "rotary" at various times. When I ski with skiers better than me (I regularly get such experiences including some with a few world class skiers) in varied terrain, I invariably find that they use "rotary" much less than I do as they have the ability to maintain balance through steep, crux filled, terrain and thus more effectively continue to use their edges.

4) This one will undoubtedly get me in trouble as a gross generalization but I'll say it anyway: As a group, instructors who ski at a reasonable accomplished level use more "rotary" than other equally or more accomplished skiers who are not instructors. Given my stated feelings about replacment of "rotary" with tipping as one's skiing advances, this implies to me that in general, instructor development (and teaching?) (and posts here on Epic?) focuses too much on "rotary."

Guess I'll run for cover now : as I've observed such expressed sentiment here at Epic to be equivalent to extolling the virtues of "rotary" over at Real Skiers :.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh Yes, it does. But, while on that soft edge, how do you adjust the direction of the ski? I suspect that it won't work in the way that you think it does. Hint: giving it more edge may cause it to begin to carve, but it will not shorten the turn radius until it does.
I always adjust direction the same way (again addressed above). Tipping, Flexing, Counter and Counter Balance. Well, actually I also pull my free foot back. But those are the only moves I use.

Counter Balance as used in PMTS is having the upper body lean downhill. Basically getting your zipper back to vertical after your body has inclined into the turn.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh Tipping the downhill ski will not cause the skis to seek the fall line. You much change your pressure to do that (at least). Now, what if you want them to seek the fall line faster? What do you do? Let's say from a stop.
I didn't say tipping the downhill ski will cause the skis to seek the fall line. I said INITIATED by tipping the downhill ski. Earlier I presented a drill you can do that covers the specifics. If you want to turn faster you can tip/flex more agressively.

I think that instructors as a group tend to use more rotary for historical reasons, not because of the teaching system. I took my first PSIA clinics in early season 03/04, and will tell you that there was a very great focus on tipping and very little on turning. That remains the case through all of the clinics and exams I have taken.

I guess what I'm saying is that the two "camps" are not all that far apart. That's my conundrum: why the animosity when we're all just trying to help skiers become more effective on snow?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Si Guess all I can say is that I am not at all sold on the physics as you are imagining it. First I don't see how a torque applied to the ski (surface) can "differentially" pressure the tip. Second, if the torque helps dig the ski tip in then it's going to have the opposite effect on the tail. Still seems to me the most effective way to bend the ski further into the turn is via increased tipping and edge angle.
Standing statically on my skis and placing them on edge, I think that I can maintain the same tail pressure while pressing my tips harder against the snow. Do you not believe that this is possible? When just standing on the ski, the tip and tail are equally weighted. If I apply a bit of torque to the front of the ski, I can increase the pressure against the snow at the tip without changing it at the tail. Can't I?

I think the most effective way to bend the ski further into the turn is by forward pressure. But, again, we have to watch out that we don't break the ski loose. Additional tipping can often (most of the time?) work, too. Rotary is just another option (from my perspective).
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh Si, ready for this? I agree completely with your assessment! I think that instructors as a group tend to use more rotary for historical reasons, not because of the teaching system. I took my first PSIA clinics in early season 03/04, and will tell you that there was a very great focus on tipping and very little on turning. That remains the case through all of the clinics and exams I have taken. I guess what I'm saying is that the two "camps" are not all that far apart. That's my conundrum: why the animosity when we're all just trying to help skiers become more effective on snow?
This is interesting. If I'm a beginner (first time skier) and take 5 days of lessons what does the progression look like? I mean, what are you going to teach me each day. Assume I'm athletic, in alignment, and have good the proper equipment.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 I always adjust direction the same way (again addressed above). Tipping, Flexing, Counter and Counter Balance. Well, actually I also pull my free foot back. But those are the only moves I use. Counter Balance as used in PMTS is having the upper body lean downhill. Basically getting your zipper back to vertical after your body has inclined into the turn.
What do you do if you want to get your skis to turn faster than this will allow? Beware of counter, too. When applied too dramatically, it becomes counter rotation and an upper-body force applied to turn the skis under the body.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 I didn't say tipping the downhill ski will cause the skis to seek the fall line. I said INITIATED by tipping the downhill ski. Earlier I presented a drill you can do that covers the specifics. If you want to turn faster you can tip/flex more agressively.
Same question: what if you want it to turn faster than tipping and flexion allows?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh Rotary is just another option (from my perspective).
From my perspective rotary is just another opportunity to damage my knees.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh Same question: what if you want it to turn faster than tipping and flexion allows?
Why is there an assumption that you can't do it as fast as you need to using these moves?
Steve, twice I have simply and truthfully answered your questions, and twice you have responded as if you had asked a different question. I don't think you are looking for understanding at all.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh Standing statically on my skis and placing them on edge, I think that I can maintain the same tail pressure while pressing my tips harder against the snow. Do you not believe that this is possible? When just standing on the ski, the tip and tail are equally weighted. If I apply a bit of torque to the front of the ski, I can increase the pressure against the snow at the tip without changing it at the tail. Can't I?
Not hardly!
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 This is interesting. If I'm a beginner (first time skier) and take 5 days of lessons what does the progression look like? I mean, what are you going to teach me each day. Assume I'm athletic, in alignment, and have proper equiment.
It's not possible to answer this directly. What you would do is dependent upon the ski school you choose and the individual instructor. This is (as I understand it) a significant departure from PMTS.

An LTS (learn to ski) progression focuses on orientation on and off skis, stepping and walking on skis, sliding and gliding, and turning and stopping. There are a number of stepping stones that fall into each of these areas.

The PSIA Alpine Technical Manual shows a parallel progression (starting on page 38) where it is stated, "PSIA's goal is to have skiers experience the fun and accomplishment of skiing parallel on intermediate slopes in three to five days." The manual then shows three distinct progressions based on the individual. An example:

Sidestep up and down...herringbone...straight run on two skis...straight run with hop...straight run over terrain changes...traverse to a stop...hockey stops...parallel turns.

One other note: "Skis are not always parallel throughout the progression (a 'spontaneous wedge' may arise)." The point of this section of the manual is to create options for teaching students how to get to parallel quickly (which is the desired outcome) while not relying on the wedge.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 Why is there an assumption that you can't do it as fast as you need to using these moves?
Because I don't believe you can. Example: Contest Bowl at Breck is a steep (45 degree-ish?) ungroomed slope. In some conditions, I would like to spend very limited time in the fall line. If I rely on tipping/edging exclusively on this terrain, I will drop approximately 20-25 feet per turn. I'd prefer not to use that much vertical per turn. So, I tighten the turn.

Are you suggesting that I can use pure tipping to turn more tightly than that?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh Standing statically on my skis and placing them on edge, I think that I can maintain the same tail pressure while pressing my tips harder against the snow. Do you not believe that this is possible? When just standing on the ski, the tip and tail are equally weighted. If I apply a bit of torque to the front of the ski, I can increase the pressure against the snow at the tip without changing it at the tail. Can't I?
No, I guess I don't believe it's possible. You cannot apply a torque differentially to the tip. If you torque the tip to turn further into the turn and into the snow you are torquing the tail out of the turn and out of the snow.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 Why is there an assumption that you can't do it as fast as you need to using these moves?

ummm I'm just going by the fact that I have never seen anyone make a series of turns through my fav tree run in a carve.... EVER... not ONE set of carved tracks.... even the austrians (including the B-team guy) did pivots at certain crucial spots....

THAT is what finally got me to give in re learning to pivot better (I wanted to perfect carving more first).... I simply was UNABLE to concieve of how this run was going to be "carved" ....

Now one of my instructors leaves pairs of trenches everywhere he goes... I can almost pick where he skied in the morning (I start at first lift but he race coaches before that) by the tracks he makes (BIG BOY - very few others have same stance width & carved pairs)....
I have learned (& used as a cue in my skiing for years & probably still do unconsciously) to "read tracks" as clues to what i am likely to need to do.... I can tell you HE leaves no tracks there... unlike most of the mountain he chooses to PIVOT his skis to make the line he desires!!

the austrians fought me tooth and nail over the whole deal.... they were determined I MUST learn a pivot..... but of course we all know they are terminal intermediates because they learnt a snowplow - right? :
Quote:
 Originally Posted by MilesB Steve, twice I have simply and truthfully answered your questions, and twice you have responded as if you had asked a different question. I don't think you are looking for understanding at all.
MilesB, I'm sorry. I just went back and reviewed my responses to your posts. You may not believe that I am seeking understanding, but I would ask that it may rather be an issue with my inability to communicate rather than any intent to deceive on my part.

My responses were intended to communicate that I don't see the differentiation. That's all. Sometimes, even when I write as much as I have in this thread, it's very difficult for me to communicate electronically to the extent that I'd like (or think I am!). Believe it or not, I really am trying to understand. I admit that I've not had a PMTS lesson, clinic, or read the books. I may still do this at some point, but probably not this season (too much else to study!). I have tried to glean information from the RealSkiers and PMTS sites, but mostly unsuccessfully. Sorry.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching