New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PMTS Camp at Hood - Page 11

post #301 of 324
In the edge tipping model, will you not require a perfect 50/50 weight distribution? Isn't that a problem?
post #302 of 324
This is too hard. I'm takin' up snowboarding!

Fun conversation folks. Cost me an afternoon to catch up, and I'm still not sure I understand it all.

I do know that I don't like to finish the turn with the skis closer together than they were in the middle of the turn. It's so much easier to start the next one, when the skis don't wander towards or away from each other. Look back at the picture of Hermann Maier (post #234).

That's the value for me of PSIman that he maintains that distance. How do I do it? A bit like Max501 said--by adjusting a lot and aggressively with my inside foot, leg (ankle, knee and hip).

When I do this, I don't have to counterbalance to the outside so much: the body feels aligned, strong, and ready for the next dive into the next turn.
post #303 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems
I do know that I don't like to finish the turn with the skis closer together than they were in the middle of the turn. It's so much easier to start the next one, when the skis don't wander towards or away from each other. Look back at the picture of Hermann Maier (post #234)
Very interesting. I'm exactly the opposite and feel its easier for me to start a new turn with my feet closer together. I feel balanced that way. For me the skis don't wander around...rather they go right where I want them (well, most of the time : ).

Like this:




Skier: Giorgio Rocca
Image: Ron LeMaster

Also, not to be argumentative but when I look at the image of Hermann Maier in post #234 I see his skis coming closer together as he begins his transition.
post #304 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501
Also, not to be argumentative but when I look at the image of Hermann Maier in post #234 I see his skis coming closer together as he begins his transition.
Are we talking physically closer, on the horizontal plane, or vertical plane.

If you are tipped way over and the inside foot's boot is almost in contact with the inside of the outside leg (say at the calf) then the distance apart in the horizontal plane is actually very small.

So depending on what angle you are looking and your defination of "close" might mean something totally different.

DC
post #305 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan
Are we talking physically closer, on the horizontal plane, or vertical plane.

If you are tipped way over and the inside foot's boot is almost in contact with the inside of the outside leg (say at the calf) then the distance apart in the horizontal plane is actually very small.

So depending on what angle you are looking and your defination of "close" might mean something totally different.

DC
Weems specifically mentioned PSIMan so I figured he was talking any movement at all (vertical or horizontal) as PSIMan is always the same distance.

In my case my feet stay the same horizontal distance but move alot along the vertical plane.
post #306 of 324
Actually using PSIMan is a great example. If you move PSIMan's shield all the way to one side so it's almost sitting on the ground(you couldn't because of the skis) , then took the plane that the skis were sitting at, and applied the seperation based on that image, the skis would actually be farther apart during the transition.

From what I read of both your comments, you do the same thing. You are just looking at it from a different perspective.
post #307 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan
Actually using PSIMan is a great example. If you move PSIMan's shield all the way to one side so it's almost sitting on the ground(you couldn't because of the skis) , then took the plane that the skis were sitting at, and applied the seperation based on that image, the skis would actually be farther apart during the transition.

From what I read of both your comments, you do the same thing. You are just looking at it from a different perspective.
I thought PSIMan left parallel tracks?
post #308 of 324
Max, those racing pictures show the feet much more the same distance apart than the arc drawings you made. What I object to is the kind of turn that your drawing implies, where at the end of the turn the feet would come quite close together.

If you're using Rocca's and Maier's example, I'm happy with that and agree with you.

But for most recreational skiers, the inside ski tends to drift toward the other one, and/or, when they do the edge change, the new inside ski gets pulled into the other one. I hate that. Don't do that. It makes me puke.
post #309 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems
Max, those racing pictures show the feet much more the same distance apart than the arc drawings you made. What I object to is the kind of turn that your drawing implies, where at the end of the turn the feet would come quite close together.
That drawing shows the tracks you'd make if both skis maintain the same radius for a full turn. My tracks look like more or less like that...the horizontal distance of my skis stays the same but the vertical distance changes. You'd probably hate my skiing.
post #310 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501
That drawing shows the tracks you'd make if both skis maintain the same radius for a full turn. My tracks look like more or less like that...the horizontal distance of my skis stays the same but the vertical distance changes. You'd probably hate my skiing.
How can your tracks on the snow look like that, while at the same time argue for the distance you see in Rocca and Maier. What am I missing?

It seems to me that I also advocate maintaining the horizontal distance and changing the vertical distance (if that's what you mean when the one leg flexes more than the other).
post #311 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems
How can your tracks on the snow look like that, while at the same time argue for the distance you see in Rocca and Maier. What am I missing?

It seems to me that I also advocate maintaining the horizontal distance and changing the vertical distance (if that's what you mean when the one leg flexes more than the other).
If you increase vertical distance while maintaining horizontal distance your tracks diverge as you enter the turn and converge as you exit the turn. If you ski with a fairly wide stance then the overall change would be less noticeable than if you ski with a narrow stance.
post #312 of 324
Okay, whatever. I guess that's a distinction I don't really deal with. I just keep working the inside ski so that it doesn't slip out of the turn toward the outside one. I like putting the pressure towards the tip of it and keeping it strong on the edge. Then it's ready to go when I come across into the next one.

My concern is the tendency to be so dead with the inside ski that it drifts towards the other one, or, when people enter the turn, they pull the downhill ski towards the outside one. Those are the ones that I don't feel use the skis well.
post #313 of 324
In the pictures of Rocca and Maier the "daylight" between their legs is pretty constant. As edge angles increase the feet separate (vertically) and the width of the track increases. Many times the athlete will transition without retracting the downhill foot. The parallelogram effect leaves them in a wide stance and the tracks are equal distant. Many elite slalom racers retract the downhill foot abrubtly and it looks like they pick it up and move it next to the other one. I've seen Harald do this as well. The tracks then diverge and converge.
post #314 of 324
If we could move like psiman different mechanics would come into play.

limitations in the range of motion for our hips would prevent movement in the same way psiman moves.

In order to make true parallel tracks, we would not be able to make consistant radius turns with the inside and outside ski. Physically can not be done.

for most of us, to make truly parallel tracks (or as close as we can to this goal) the width of our stance (horizontally) would have to get more narrow at the apex of the turn but vertically it would be larger. Then we would have to make the stance horizontally wider at the transition.

DC
post #315 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan
If we could move like psiman different mechanics would come into play.

limitations in the range of motion for our hips would prevent movement in the same way psiman moves.
So one could make the argument that PSIMan is not a very useful example for skiing by humans but a great example of skiing by little metal dudes.
post #316 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501
So one could make the argument that PSIMan is not a very useful example for skiing by humans but a great example of skiing by little metal dudes.
Well, yes he is a great example of "skiing by little metal dudes" (I like that phrase), but I think he is useful as well for humans - particularly those who over-analyse and over-complicate things (and I've yet to visit a ski forum where this doesn't occur, never mind it happening in real life with ski instructors, their naming of things, etc).

See, PSIman shows that skiing can be such a simple thing that something with an IQ of zero can accomplish it with a certain level of style. So, apart from for business and ego purposes, why does it need to be made so complicated?
post #317 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems
I just keep working the inside ski so that it doesn't slip out of the turn toward the outside one. I like putting the pressure towards the tip of it and keeping it strong on the edge. Then it's ready to go when I come across into the next one.
OK, I'll be the first:PULL THE INSIDE FOOT BACK!

post #318 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat
So, apart from for business and ego purposes, why does it need to be made so complicated?
Exactly, that's why I enjoy PMTS.
post #319 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
OK, I'll be the first:PULL THE INSIDE FOOT BACK!

Yup. Exactly. That's how you keep the pressure on the front, because the ski wants to escape forward.
post #320 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501
So one could make the argument that PSIMan is not a very useful example for skiing by humans but a great example of skiing by little metal dudes.
yes you could.

PSIMan is a tool to show specific mechanics. PSIman also shows us some limitations that we can overcome by making other adjustments. He's a great teaching tool and not an absolute. Just as ATS, PMTS, or any other teaching system has to be considered a teaching tool and not an absolute.

So my take is PSIMan is a VERY useful example. Not specifically how humans should ski and not how little metal dudes ski but what the mechanics are and what some of their limitations are.
post #321 of 324
PSIman has a parallogram linkage with four joints for his "hips. His Center of Gravity is at or below is knees. There is absolutly no simialarity to the human body.
Technique wise, the thing turns by the CG shifting over the front, outside edge of the inside ski. The loosness in the joints makes it so the skis are rarely parallel. Often it appears to "stem" but that is caused when it gets up on the tip of the inside ski and the outside comes off the snow (most of the time the subsequent tipping over is edited out of the video)(careful examination of the video shows that the thing rarely links turns, rather the images are sumperimposed to make it appear that it does) I am unable to tell if it actually bends the ski but I doubt that it does.
The only useful thing that I can see is that the point of the shield points at the place on the snow where the pressure of the CG is applied.
post #322 of 324
I think PSIman also shows how skis can move forward through the turn rather than sideways by heel thrust or by oversteering. For recreational skiers, that is a really good image. It also involves the slow line fast. It also shows the idea of making the next turn without traversing. It also gives a sense of how the skis can be more or less oriented the same way on the same edges. These are all issues that recreational skiers can get a good sense of by watching it.

Exact reproduction of human movements is less important than all that other stuff. LMD (little metal dude) is a really useful metaphor. Metaphors don't need exactitude.
post #323 of 324

An experiment...

Here is something you can try which will give you some feedback on what you're really doing with your feet. The "extra" equipment is derived from equipment used to assist people with some motor control challenges.

You will need:
One old pair of skis.
Two pieces of 1/2" diameter pipe. PVC works fine. The length should be the distance you want between your feet at the transition, when your feet are flat on the snow.
Two pieces of cheap rope about 24"-30" long, small enough to fit through the pipe but large enough so it doesn't fit through the pipe after you've tied a knot or two in it.

Place a piece of rope through each piece of pipe and tie knots in the rope so that the knots are right at the ends of the pipe and there are several inches of rope left past the knot at each end.

Now these two contraptions must be attached to the skis, one at the tips and one at least as far back as the heels. An easy way, if the skis are old enough and the ski has a little turn up at the tail, is to drill holes in the tips and tails, and stick the rope through the top of the ski and tie a knot or two on the other side and cut off the extra rope so it doesn't drag under the ski. Alternatively, the rope may be clamped at the ski tip (which still doesn't do the skis any good - don't use a new pair!) and between the boot and ski under the heel of the boot. Depending on your boots and bindings, this may require some experimentation.

You can probably see where this is going.

The skis and pipes, when placed against a surface, form a parallelogram. With no tip lead, your feet will be as far apart as the pipes are long. This will occur for an instant during transition. As tip lead increases, the skis will get closer to each other. There are also enough degrees of freedom in our parallelogram to allow one foot to come close to the other lower leg if there is sufficient angulation.

Be careful. Depending on how you end up putting things together, it may still be possible to pick one ski up and cross one tip over the other, which will suddenly place you in the snow face first if you are moving at the time.

This arrangement allows infinite combinations of tip lead and distance between feet (at least by a perpendicular or "horizontal" measure), and it allows the two skis to be edged and weighted differently, but it also restricts movement considerably. The skis must always remain parallel - no converging or diverging. As tip lead or edge angle increase, the skis must get closer together. As you flatten the skis and reduce tip lead heading into transition, your skis will be forced apart by the pipes.

It doesn't take too much imagination to realize that, while this may enforce some kind of idealized "style" (for lack of a better word), the inability to dynamically adapt to many of the variables inherent in skiing will make life difficult. Further, if you want (or need) to extend your movements beyond those allowed by our little apparatus, it ain't gonna happen!

So, everyone who thinks they ski with their stance width just so, with them getting close at one part of the turn and farther in another, or who think they ski perfectly parallel, saddle 'em up! Find out how close you are to this parallelogram.

Caution! Opinion mode on!

It is possible to ski smoothly with this apparatus, but it tends to look and feel static, forced and artificial. But maybe that's just me. Perhaps I should do it more often. It is an educational experience, in any case.

Similarly, attempting to conform exactly to any idealized geometry which may help us visualize a particular skiing goal or set of goals will, ultimately, interfere with our skiing.

Don't get me wrong - the pictures are useful, and moving toward a particular visualization can often be very helpful. The parallelogram apparatus can be a useful drill. But if you get dragged down into the minutiae and try to make your skis conform exactly to a particular set of curves, your skiing will be less interesting, less satisfying and less functional.

And that's my opinion. Reality may be different. Your mileage may vary. Do not remove this tag. Do not fold, spindle or mutilate!


Go play!
post #324 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat
See, PSIman shows that skiing can be such a simple thing that something with an IQ of zero can accomplish it with a certain level of style. So, apart from for business and ego purposes, why does it need to be made so complicated?
Exactly. Some might argue the same when I ski!

But all this pushing, pulling, lifting, widening, narrowing, etc. seems mostly superfluous. PSIman, when he first appeared here at EpicSki, helped me to see that I had a lot more to take out of my skiing than I realized. The more I remove, the better I ski. I still have a long way to go, though, as Deb and Mike can tell you...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching