or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Teaching Angulation - Page 3

Rick, good series of posts. I noticed what you were getting at with the picture with the vectors drawn on it. Would a more fair representation be to have two resultant vectors (of four forces?)to the snow, originating at both hip sockets. From there it is a simple "combining of vectors" physics/statics problem (assuming a snapshot of the skier frozen in time) to get one single resultant... which would place the CM in a different location and the resultant we see now would actually not fall directly in line with the outside leg.
Later
GREG
By the way, I second the "Schlopy" drill for learning agulation. It is however important that is is properly executed. Many skiers end up bending at the waist too much, and not lowering their hips to the snow, which combined with touching your hand to your boot is the key aspect of the drill.
Later
GREG
The ski bone's connected to the binding bone
The binding bone's connected to the boot bone
The boot bone's connected to the foot bone
The foot bone's connected to the leg bone
etc...

There are actually a bunch of vectors adding up to that green vector (think of it as a summary). And this is just in a static snapshot... In the picture, it looks as though both skis are engaged and carving - so the inner ski is carrying/transmitting meaningful force ("horizontal" and "vertical")between the snow and the body. Try to explain that (reasonably) unless the green vector lands between the skis. If it were 100% on the outer leg/ski the inner ski could not be "carving" - it would just be along for the ride. Do the thought experiment and see what happens (in a simple static example) if the green vector gets outside the skis...
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick The Schlopy drill is excellent for working on counter and angulation. Ditch the poles. Outside hand goes on outside hip and pushes hip into turn. Inside shoulder is kept high. Inside hand is driven forward at shoulder height, elbow extended. Inside knee is driven into the turn to maintain edge angle symmetry. Give it a try.
I think I did this with the Italian dude in Livigno
Quote:
 Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier Rick, good series of posts. I noticed what you were getting at with the picture with the vectors drawn on it. Would a more fair representation be to have two resultant vectors (of four forces?)to the snow, originating at both hip sockets. From there it is a simple "combining of vectors" physics/statics problem (assuming a snapshot of the skier frozen in time) to get one single resultant... which would place the CM in a different location and the resultant we see now would actually not fall directly in line with the outside leg. Later GREG
Uh, yeah - that's what I was trying to get at while you were posting this one step ahead of me If you start at the skis, there is a resultant vector transmitted to/from each ski (for discussion purposes, I suspect we can call it zero if the ski is not engaged on edge)... Curious to see what Rick &/or PM has to say...
uhmmm.. hmmmm

Your legs do not generate force. Gravity generates downward force. Turning in a new direction creates centrigal force due to momentum.

The only thing you do with your body is figure out ways to maximize how your edges will hold back against those forces(to avoid slipping sideways) and maintain your balance while doing so. But the actual force vectors remain two...gravity and centrifigal, combined into one resultant force..and nothing your body does can change what those force vectors are (except changing your speed, turn shape...or also I guess if you allow your edges to slip then you will be reducing some of the centrifigal force vector also).

What you can change with your body are some of the angles of the CM relative to your skis. There are a million variations for how you can inclinate more/less, angulate more/less, Get higher/lower edge angles, allow more/less of the resultant force vector to be transmitted to one ski or the other by actively relaxing one or the other, etc.. But the actual force vector is not any different then the simple 3 arrows.

The reason you experience changes in pressure as you try different things is because you are either changing the turn shape, slowing down, sliping sideways and losing some of the built up force that way, etc..these all change what you FEEL in your body..but the actual forces involved are exactly 2. Centrifigal and gravity....unless there happens to be an earthquake right at the moment you are making your turn.. ;-)
uh oh..I just realized I made another "absolute" statement by saying "exactly" two. Ok..for the sake of this discussion...how about "pretty much 2, is all I can think of". I suppose there could be gryoscopic forces or some such thing..I GOT IT.
Sticking with Newton's simplified view of the world, if you are in any form of equilibrium at any moment, there is an implication that two (or more) relevant vectors have cancelled each other out... Simplifying, if you did not exert forces (which can be described as a sum of a set of vectors) to counteract the "down" gravity vector, you would fall down. Exert too much and you bounce up. If you do not exert the right amount of force to counteract the the "out" forces, you either fly to the outside of the turn or you bounce horizontally to the inside of the turn...

BTW - I just got around to ordering Lemaster's books. So if this is covered, can someone just point that out????? (and maybe point out how "correct" the books are?)
Dewd, I see what you are getting at, which is the point I made above about there being one resultant set of forces... but there will be more than one set of "two vector forces" exerted on your skis if there are two contact points (two footed turn). Remember, the snow is exerting forces on your skis, just as your skis are exerting forces on the snow. If they are not in equilibrium is when you get sliding I think... (alas I am not a physicist). I suppose you could break it down into a set of hundreds of forces, but in the end they would all add up to the main two forces and their resultant.
Later
GREG
Quote:
 Originally Posted by spindrift BTW - I just got around to ordering Lemaster's books. So if this is covered, can someone just point that out????? (and maybe point out how "correct" the books are?)
Congradulations. I will look forward to hearing from you after you read it. It blew me away. It only takes a few hours. Short and sweet and to the point. He doesn't teach how to ski, but he is an expert on the physics of skiing and explains it all better than anyone else that has ever tried in 30 years that I've been paying attention to it. So many people have the physics wrong...its astounding...
Quote:
 Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier We just changed the edit/delete time for posts. It has now been cut back to an hour I believe. Having it be almost two weeks was disrupting the flow of threads. Later GREG
hmmm...I like being able to edit later, so as to delete superfluous, hunourous threads/posts in the name of bandwidth conservation.
I posted about a half-dozen cat shots two weeks ago, and later deleted them, once they were 'old news'.
Thanks for the heads-up.
oh, and, dewdman, your 'standing' statement notwithstanding,
it was, nonetheless, incorrect. angulation is NOT necessary in order to maintain edge hold.
I agree that it's a weird practice to carve without angulation, but it is doable, and actually very popular amongst rocky mountain alpine 'boarders, french skiers, and most any young european who wears tigh-fitting race garb while riding ultra-shape skiis.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by dewdman42 Congradulations. I will look forward to hearing from you after you read it. It blew me away. It only takes a few hours. Short and sweet and to the point. He doesn't teach how to ski, but he is an expert on the physics of skiing and explains it all better than anyone else that has ever tried in 30 years that I've been paying attention to it. So many people have the physics wrong...its astounding...

...and if leMaster claims that angulation is essential to carving, then he's got the physics wrong, as well.
reading's one thing, coaching and doing are quite another.
http://ronlemaster.com/images/2003-2...e-width-A.html

You guys are on the right track. The single resultant force vector (green arrow) displayed in the picture is simply a representation of the central effect of the all the forces acting on the entire body. In reality, there are an infinite number of resultant force vectors acting on each micro piece of body mass, each with the same (as green arrow) directional orientation.

Because their number is infinite, I like to describe it as a vector zone, and referring to the resultant force vector emerging from the body's Center of Mass (green arrow) is just a convenient way of representing the cumulative affect of that force zone on that body from the concept of a central point. It's not actually the reality, but it provides an excellent way of explaining balance.

Because the point we call the CM is the exact center of the zone, it represents the point of balance. If the body were completely rigid, and the force vector emerging from the CM and going to the ground was a stick, the body would balance perfectly on that stick. Any movement of mass from one side of the zone to the other would disrupt the state of balance, and the body would topple off the stick.

As long as the resultant force vector (green arrow) emerging from the CM intersects the ground somewhere within the skiers base of support (between the his/her feet) some form of balance exists and the skier will remain upright. If the resultant force vector intersects the ground outside of the base of support (outside the feet) balance is lost and the skier falls. Its really that simple.

The skier controls the ground intersection point of the resultant force vector (green arrow) via angulation. Because the angle of the resultant force vector (green arrow) is dictated by speed and turn shape, the only way a skier can control where that vector intersects the ground at any specific moment, during any specific turn, is by moving the location of his/her CM in relation to his/her base of support (feet). That's done by modifying the type and/or amount of angulation being used.

This is how a skier fine tunes his point of balance on the snow. When the resultant force vector ground intersection point (balance point) is somewhere between the feet, it can be adjusted toward the outside foot by increasing the amount of angulation, which moves the CM outside,,,, and it can be moved toward the inside foot by reducing the amount of angulation, which moves the CM inside.

Where the vector intersects the snow dictates the point of balance, and therefor the amount of pressure on each foot. a resultant force vector ground intersection point (balance point) exactly half way between the feet would result in equal pressure on each foot. The closer the vector intersection point (balance point) moves towards one foot the greater the pressure becomes biased on that foot. That is why we can tell that the resultant force vector ground intersection point (balance point) in the Herman picture is not directly under his outside foot, but is instead somewhere between his feet, very close to his outside foot. We know this by observing the amount of bend in each ski, and then assigning pressure levels to each foot according to those observations.

Finally, pressure levels can be artificially varied by extending or relaxing one leg. The problem is by doing so we are removing one foot from our base of support, which reduces the entirety of our base of support down to the width of the remaining single pressured foot. If we have not moved our CM in a manner that places the resultant force vectors ground intersection point directly under that remaining base of support (foot), the CM will begin an out of balance topple. We use that very principle to employ the external turn forces to disengage us from a completed turn.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick http://ronlemaster.com/images/2003-2...e-width-A.html You guys are on the right track. The single resultant force vector (green arrow) displayed in the picture is simply a representation of the central effect of the all the forces acting on the entire body. In reality, there are an infinite number of resultant force vectors acting on each micro piece of body mass, each with the same (as green arrow) directional orientation. Because their number is infinite, I like to describe it as a vector zone, and referring to the resultant force vector emerging from the body's Center of Mass (green arrow) is just a convenient way of representing the cumulative affect of that force zone on that body from the concept of a central point. It's not actually the reality, but it provides an excellent way of explaining balance. Because the point we call the CM is the exact center of the zone, it represents the point of balance. If the body were completely rigid, and the force vector emerging from the CM and going to the ground was a stick, the body would balance perfectly on that stick. Any movement of mass from one side of the zone to the other would disrupt the state of balance, and the body would topple off the stick. As long as the resultant force vector (green arrow) emerging from the CM intersects the ground somewhere within the skiers base of support (between the his/her feet) some form of balance exists and the skier will remain upright. If the resultant force vector intersects the ground outside of the base of support (outside the feet) balance is lost and the skier falls. Its really that simple. The skier controls the ground intersection point of the resultant force vector (green arrow) via angulation. Because the angle of the resultant force vector (green arrow) is dictated by speed and turn shape, the only way a skier can control where that vector intersects the ground at any specific moment, during any specific turn, is by moving the location of his/her CM in relation to his/her base of support (feet). That's done by modifying the type and/or amount of angulation being used. This is how a skier fine tunes his point of balance on the snow. When the resultant force vector ground intersection point (balance point) is somewhere between the feet, it can be adjusted toward the outside foot by increasing the amount of angulation, which moves the CM outside,,,, and it can be moved toward the inside foot by reducing the amount of angulation, which moves the CM inside. Where the vector intersects the snow dictates the point of balance, and therefor the amount of pressure on each foot. a resultant force vector ground intersection point (balance point) exactly half way between the feet would result in equal pressure on each foot. The closer the vector intersection point (balance point) moves towards one foot the greater the pressure becomes biased on that foot. That is why we can tell that the resultant force vector ground intersection point (balance point) in the Herman picture is not directly under his outside foot, but is instead somewhere between his feet, very close to his outside foot. We know this by observing the amount of bend in each ski, and then assigning pressure levels to each foot according to those observations. Finally, pressure levels can be artificially varied by extending or relaxing one leg. The problem is by doing so we are removing one foot from our base of support, which reduces the entirety of our base of support down to the width of the remaining single pressured foot. If we have not moved our CM in a manner that places the resultant force vectors ground intersection point directly under that remaining base of support (foot), the CM will begin an out of balance topple. We use that very principle to employ the external turn forces to disengage us from a completed turn.
Rick- this is all very well and good, but sometimes this quantum approach is a shortcut to actully getting out there and being sssmmmmmmmmmooooooooooootttttttttthhhhhhhhhhhhh
( )
You're right, Vlad. Understanding the physics isn't the same as having the skills to put the physics to use.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick You're right, Vlad. Understanding the physics isn't the same as having the skills to put the physics to use.
which certainly isn't to say that understanding the physics precludes the possibility of one having great skill, as I'm sure, in your case, you've both (based upon some of your accounts )
I just get back 1970s flashbacks to early pinhead stuff.
things were dark and scary, then
Thanks, Vlad. I didn't take your comment in any way as personally directed,,, and it's premise is completely accurate. Understanding the "pinhead" stuff helps some in their personal approach to acquiring skills. For others, not at all. Not everyone learns in the same way. It's up to the coach/instructor to use whatever methodology works best for the particular student.

Some will really enjoy this thread,,, some will find it simply provides confirmation of existing thinking,,, some will find it very new, enlightening and useful. Others will read only a portion, then roll there eyes, proclaim it nothing more then a major waste of forum space, and leave it behind.

But,,, you know all that.
It is a sad but true fact:sometimes skiers ski too slowly. The radius of their turn is such that if they simply banked their turn, keeping their CM perpendicular to their skis, they would fall into the inside of the turn. It's just sad.

Fortunately , for these poor speed-deprived (emoticons should be sadly shaking heads) skiers there is a technique now called angulating, that used to be called "adopting the "comma" shape", that allows for a greater tipping angle of the skis, thus enabling the tighter turn, without having the CM that far inside the turn.

Of course, for skiers skiing at decent speeds, reverse angulation is also available.

The true art is in finding the speed and the amount of reverse angulation required at the point where the skis are just about to break loose. Unfortunately, sometimes with dull edges or soft snow this point can be right at banking or even in some cases have a little angulation.

BTW. I liked Rick's explanations.
There's been a bunch of post season wrangling going on here, but I though't I'd throw some coals on the fire....

Yes, you absolutely can hold an edge without angulation. Not only that, when forces get great enough, you need to start banking, because angulation causes the CM to be closer to the skis. If you need the CM to be waaaayyyyy inside the turn to counteract the forces of the turn, the only way to do it is to lose some of the angles. However, there are some pitfalls to this, which is why we want to angulate.

By angulating, we are more easily able to keep enough pressure on the outside ski. When we bank (inclination without angulation), it is difficult to not have too much pressure on the inside ski, resulting in the skis running apart.

By angulating, we can achieve higher edge angles at lower speeds, helping to reduce the turn radius and to keep the skis from skidding on firmer snow.

By angulating, if the skis do skid out or hit uneven or inconsistant snow conditions, we are able to keep our balance better. If you are completely banked on soft snow then hit an ice patch, you are most likely going to end up with your body parts touching the ground. this becomes especially important when you are on a snowboard, because you don't have a second point of contact to save your butt when that edge breaks loose.

In this image, Bode has to lower himself to make it around a gate. If he had remained angulated, his CM would not have been far enough inside the turn to resist the forces of the turn and he would have either skidded or high sided. Because he had to lower his CM, he has to bank to get inside enough to resist the forces. This happens a lot in WC racing because of the insane forces these guys build up.
http://ronlemaster.com/images/2004-2...004-gs-1d.html

If he hadn't had to lower himself to get around the gate, he'd probably have had this kind of angulation. Both of these sequences are from the same race, same run.
http://ronlemaster.com/images/latest...c-2004-gs.html

And here's one of Janica. Is she holding her edge while she's banking? Um... Yeah.
http://ronlemaster.com/images/2002-2...c-sl1a-ws.html

Here's more banking
http://ronlemaster.com/images/latest...2004-sl-1.html
Quote:
 Originally Posted by JohnH http://ronlemaster.com/images/2004-2...004-gs-1d.html
Bode is an inconsistent skier at best anyway, so god only knows what he's trying to do half the time. In any case, he is angulated in this photo especially in the 2nd frame. He's also riding both skis which will in fact allow him to move his CM deeper inside. The last frame his skis are on their tails so its hard to say which one is carrying the load...I might even guess he's already starting his release there.

In this one he maintains his angulation through the turn...for good reason...it appears to be a higher speed, off camber turn..

Quote:
 And here's one of Janica. Is she holding her edge while she's banking? Um... Yeah.http://ronlemaster.com/images/2002-2...c-sl1a-ws.html
Lots of snow squirting off the sides of those skiis. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to....that doesn't mean she won this race. She's also riding her inside ski a lot...which she HAS to do because she's not angulated and her outside ski is starting to lose it. Got any pics of Liggity?

Quote:
 Here's more bankinghttp://ronlemaster.com/images/latest...2004-sl-1.html

Neither ski is bent. Hmm... I'd be willing to bet he was pivoting and sliding sideways...and losing the race...

### Great stuff but more Drills

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick A simple way to add angulation is to think about lifting the inside shoulder. The Schlopy drill is excellent for working on counter and angulation. Ditch the poles. Outside hand goes on outside hip and pushes hip into turn. Inside shoulder is kept high. Inside hand is driven forward at shoulder height, elbow extended. Inside knee is driven into the turn to maintain edge angle symmetry. Give it a try.
Rick now that what I am looking for!!! This drill will cerainly help someone feel the proper pressures and where hips, knees and shoulders should be in relation to each other without talking it to death. I also think this is where video will help the student understand where all the parts should be at.

ed
Quote:
 Originally Posted by dewdman42 Bode is an inconsistent skier at best anyway, so god only knows what he's trying to do half the time. In any case, he is angulated in this photo especially in the 2nd frame. He's also riding both skis which will in fact allow him to move his CM deeper inside. The last frame his skis are on their tails so its hard to say which one is carrying the load...I might even guess he's already starting his release there. In this one he maintains his angulation through the turn...for good reason...it appears to be a higher speed, off camber turn.. Lots of snow squirting off the sides of those skiis. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to....that doesn't mean she won this race. She's also riding her inside ski a lot...which she HAS to do because she's not angulated and her outside ski is starting to lose it. Got any pics of Liggity? Neither ski is bent. Hmm... I'd be willing to bet he was pivoting and sliding sideways...and losing the race...
Oh, come on, dood! Bode is doing what is the fastest thing at the time. His inconsistency is due to the fact that he sometimes skis too fast for the course. And whether any of those runs was a winning run or not is completely immaterial. The fact is, all of these poeple are insanely fast. Just because someone else had a faster time don't mean squat. In that 1st sequence, look at the last image. I agree that noone is going to ski an entire course intentionally angulating.

Looking at Janica's pictures, if you think snow doesn't fly in a carved turn at those speeds on those conditions, then you don't know. Look at the bend in those skis. She's carving, and she's banked.

I have no idea why you are so stuck on your opinion that you can't carve when banked. Please explain to us what makes you think this is the case. Noone is arguing the fact that angulation is better than banking, but to say that you can't carve when banking is ludicris.
John, I totally agree with your and Vlad's contention that you can bank and still be in balance and carve, if the nature of the existing forces allow/demand it, but that picture of Janica is not a good example. She is not pure banking in that picture, she's angulating.

Notice the counter she's using (chest/shoulders out of directional alignment with skis). There's little counter in a pure banked turn. Little need for it. Too,,, notice the angle of her shoulders in comparison to her edge angle. Big contrast. Shoulders are much flatter to the snow. This is a clear indication of the presence of angulation. And,,, project a 90 degee line up off top of her outside ski (follow the shin line), which is a representation of the edge angle. In a true banking situation her head would be positioned below that projected line. Here her head is well above the edge angle line. That can only happen via angulation. Also, notice she's slightly angulating the outside knee, which accounts for the slight edge angle divergence present between the two skis. Easy to see by inspecting the shin to snow angle of each leg.

I've been, and will continue looking for a picture of a pure banked turn with no angulation, but so far I'm finding it rather hard to locate. Most turns do have some built in angulation. LeMaster has none. Pure banking is easiest at low edge angles because it requires less speed to successfully accomplish, but no one takes pictures of that.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Powdigger Rick now that what I am looking for!!! This drill will cerainly help someone feel the proper pressures and where hips, knees and shoulders should be in relation to each other without talking it to death. I also think this is where video will help the student understand where all the parts should be at. ed
Yes, the Schlopy is a great drill. There are others, but this one has always provided good bang for the buck. It's my personal favorite.

Here are a few more;

* Extend both poles, to the side and touch continuously to the snow while turning. Helps keep shoulders level.

* Flex laterally at the waist and reach down with the outside hand to touch outside boot while turning. Purpose obvious.

* Both hands on hips while turning (no poles). Hands drive hips into each turn, while feeling that they're remaining level to snow.

* Lift the inside ski off snow for the entirety of a turn. It forces angulation be done so balance can be maintained.

* While lifting inside ski, cross inside tip over outside ski, pointing inside ski toward the outside of the turn. It adds an element of counter that aids in effective anglulation.
Everyone.... This forum is such a waste of time I swea...

first of all it was never my intention to say that its impossible to get some carvage, particularly at slower speeds without much or any angulation. Unfortunately I expressed one sentence as an absolute-ism in my original post, Vlad created a debate around that absoluteism regarding whether it is at all possible to get carvage without angulation....taking us completely away from the original poster's question... which was...how and why should he angulate....and I am unable to go back and edit the post to change that one sentence to remove the absoluteism that drove all you debators insane in rage...and to simply state the edging will not be as good as it would be with angulation. What is really wrong with a little exaggeration to make a point? I'm sure you use exaggeration every time you teach someone how to ski. If I can't freaking make one solid point without the ridiculous idiots on this forum picking apart every sentence to find a flaw, then frankly I'm wasting my time here...and so are all of you.

My intention in the original post was to make a very clear point...which like it or not you have ALL substantiated in a round about way...which is that you will get superior edge hold with angulation then without. Whether or not its possible to complete SOME turns without much of it...is absolutely no argument against the overall meaning of my original post..if you read carefully enough or had the intellect to understand it. Why some of you are now taking the stand that somehow angulation is not needed or not good...is totally beyond me. there is only one reason..its for the sake of debating, and trying trying to make yourself look smart. But unfortunately you are making yourself look very very dumb.

You come on John...you're being ridiculous just to try to make a debate out of nothing.

Angulation is better, you know it. With angulation your edges WILL work better. Anyone who says otherwise does clearly not understand the physics of skiing.

I've only been on this forum a couple months now, but I can tell you that I am quickly losing interest in wasting my time here. The people that know what they're talking about rarely voice their opinions. most of the loud mouthes are clearly misguided. What a total waste of time. I'm learning nothing and every time I try to help there are 5 people ready to challenge and debate. Its a complete waste of time.

happy angulating.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by dewdman42 You come on John...you're being ridiculous just to try to make a debate out of nothing. Angulation is better, you know it. With angulation your edges WILL work better. Anyone who says otherwise does clearly not understand the physics of skiing. I've only been on this forum a couple months now, but I can tell you that I am quickly losing interest in wasting my time here. The people that know what they're talking about rarely voice their opinions. most of the loud mouthes are clearly misguided. What a total waste of time. I'm learning nothing and every time I try to help there are 5 people ready to challenge and debate. Its a complete waste of time. happy angulating.
The problem, dewdman, is that your ski season hasn't ended yet, so you're not all pissy about not being able to ski anymore, like a bunch of us here. It gets better in July and August :
Where is here?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by dewdman42 Where is here?
1/4 mile west of the DC Beltway.:

There are a bunch of mid atlantic people here. Sucks to be you, huh?
Rest easy, dewd, you've got a good handle on this stuff.
By the way, dewd, notice the highlighted portion of my statement.

Quote:
 John, I totally agree with your and Vlad's contention that you can bank and still be in balance and carve, if the nature of the existing forces allow/demand it
That's the key point. Balance is about the relationship between the point of balance and the CM. Theres only one CM location that will provide balance on a desired point of balance at any particular instance during a turn. If that CM location happens to fall upon the edge angle rise line, then banking is appropriate. If not, then angulation is called for. Simple stuff, really.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching