or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# PMTS Camp at Hood - Page 4

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh Um, Max? Those two arcs have different radii! They have to! If the distance between the two at the top, middle, and bottom of the arcs was the same, then they'd be the same radius. But, that's not the case.
They are same circle shifted over a bit, exactly the same radius with different center points. Also, that's more or less what my carved tracks look like.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh Um, Max? Those two arcs have different radii! They have to! If the distance between the two at the top, middle, and bottom of the arcs was the same, then they'd be the same radius. But, that's not the case.
I was wrong.

I played around with circles in Word and can see what Max was drawing, I think.

So, they are the same radii, but as a result, the skis converge at top and bottom. In order to keep the skis the same distance apart, they need to be different radii (like the photo I linked, above).

If I spent some time, I could probably come up with an overly complex mathematical formula for the difference between the radius of the two arcs to allow the feet to stay the same distance apart in the turns. But, my brain isn't focused enough to do that just now (and there are only a couple of folks who would care!).
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 They are same circle shifted over a bit, exactly the same radius with different center points. Also, that's more or less what my carved tracks look like.
So your skis move farther apart in mid-turn and closer together at transition? Is this your intent?

FWIW, that is not my intent when I'm skiing arc-to-arc.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh So your skis move farther apart in mid-turn and closer together at transition? Is this your intent? FWIW, that is not my intent when I'm skiing arc-to-arc.
Yes, its my intent, they start close together, widen at the belly of the turn and then come back together at end of turn. When I flex (relax) my downhill leg it moves right up next to my inside leg.

The only way to ski with parallel tracks is to load the inside ski more than the outside ski or to skid it.
I wasn't going to rain on this parade, but I think something about the tracks (diverging/converging) needs to be clarified or at least put into words that are obvious and understandable. In PMTS the "tracks" (which are the skis for all practical purposes) do diverge and converge. Why? VERTICAL SEPARATION!!!!!!!!! Whew... okay... Lets assume you are skiing with your feet about 4 inches apart. When you are intransition (neutral/not turning) your feet will be how far apart? You guessed it; 4 inches. Now lets picture the apex of your turn:

At that instance your inside leg is significantly bent (as you can see in the picture) and your ski is somewhere in the vacinity of your knee. think about this secenario when you are standing up. Pick up your leg to your knee and tip over until both feet are on the ground... Not 4 inches apart anymore are they? Okay, so think about the turn you are making in that instance, your feet are farther apart at the apex (the marks they are scribing on the snow at least) and closer together in the middle of the transition.

As far as intent is concerned, neither should be a goal. Diverging and converging tracks are more a result of other things than a goal to attain or stay away from. Most of the reasoning behind that lies in the type of transition and where you are placing your skis for the next turn; and of course whether you are focusing on vertical or horizontal separation (big key). Really, you can do both; but if you are looking for higher level skiing I would say that keeping a natural stance when standing or in transition should be your goal, and then any separation beyond that as a result of the TURN and ANGULATION should be purely vertical. This is something that I have been trying to work into my own skiing more; and something I will continue to work on in the coming season.

Later

GREG
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 The only way to ski with parallel tracks is to load the inside ski more than the outside ski or to skid it.
I would like to discuss this further along with Bob's PSIMan; taking into consideration vertical separation and centripetal and centrifugal forces... anyone who has thoughts on this feel free to jump in in the mean-time. I will be back shortly.

Later

GREG
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 Yes, its my intent, they start close together, widen at the belly of the turn and then come back together at end of turn. When I flex (relax) my downhill leg it moves right up next to my inside leg.
Fair enough. The two or three people I've seen ski this way do not to my eyes look like they are skiing effectively or in balance. But, perhaps I am not seeing correctly or they are not skiing like you are suggesting. I also do not like the aesthetics of the turns...
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 The only way to ski with parallel tracks is to load the inside ski more than the outside ski or to skid it.
I don't believe that this statement is true. See the photo I attached above. Those tracks are pretty much at the same distance for the distance you can see. And neither is skidding. And the inside is not weighted more than the outside as evidenced by the depth of the tracks in the belly of the turn.
Yup, I'd agree with what Greg said. However, I disagree with his premise of intent and the tracks. The only way to know if you are keeping a consistent stance horizontally with an increasing vertical separation is to look at the tracks. So, I'd say I intend to make the tracks I drew.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh Fair enough. The two or three people I've seen ski this way do not to my eyes look like they are skiing effectively or in balance. But, perhaps I am not seeing correctly or they are not skiing like you are suggesting. I also do not like the aesthetics of the turns....
Not sure who you are looking at but the very best skiers I know all leave tracks like this and I include racers in that batch of folks.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh I don't believe that this statement is true. See the photo I attached above. Those tracks are pretty much at the same distance for the distance you can see. And neither is skidding. And the inside is not weighted more than the outside as evidenced by the depth of the tracks in the belly of the turn.
How do you make the inside ski carve a tighter radius than the outside ski if you don't load it more than the outside ski?
Max, I don't want to dive too much further into what you said, but I think your "intent" is vertical separation. A bi-product of that is inherently diverging and converging tracks... depending of course on the amount of vertical separation, which is dependant on the amount of angulation/tipping in the turn, which is dependant on how fast you are going and how tight your arc is.
Later
GREG
Quote:
 Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier I would like to discuss this further along with Bob's PSIMan; taking into consideration vertical separation and centripetal and centrifugal forces... anyone who has thoughts on this feel free to jump in in the mean-time. I will be back shortly.
I'm not sure about PSIMan. Can someone really ski like that and leave a perfect carve without loading the inside ski more than the outside ski?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier Max, I don't want to dive too much further into what you said, but I think your "intent" is vertical separation.
Sure, I'll agree with that.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier As far as intent is concerned, neither should be a goal. Diverging and converging tracks are more a result of other things than a goal to attain or stay away from. Most of the reasoning behind that lies in the type of transition and where you are placing your skis for the next turn; and of course whether you are focusing on vertical or horizontal separation (big key). Really, you can do both; but if you are looking for higher level skiing I would say that keeping a natural stance when standing or in transition should be your goal, and then any separation beyond that as a result of the TURN and ANGULATION should be purely vertical.
This is my approach, I think. I do not intentionally move my feet in the horizontal plane, although of course they move in the vertical plane. As a result, the width of the tracks that the skis leave may vary from a little bit to a fairly large amount depending on the speed component (and the implied angles used to balance with that speed).

I have seen an exaggerated "in-and-out" move of the feet which looks contrived to me. In these cases it is more than simply allowing the tracks to separate due to vertical separation of the feet. In one case I was skiing with someone who mentioned that it came from study of PMTS. It didn't look efficient to me, and also seemed to effect balance.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 How do you make the inside ski carve a tighter radius than the outside ski if you don't load it more than the outside ski?
Any of a number of ways, including some mix of tipping, tip pressure (fore/aft), and possibly driving the tip into the snow more (the dreaded "steering", I know...).
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 Yup, I'd agree with what Greg said. However, I disagree with his premise of intent and the tracks. The only way to know if you are keeping a consistent stance horizontally with an increasing vertical separation is to look at the tracks. So, I'd say I intend to make the tracks I drew.
...and I think in this case that's insufficient evidence. There are other ways to make those kinds of tracks, and I've seen it done. This gets back to the "one may not be doing what one thinks one is doing" issue.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 I'm not sure about PSIMan. Can someone really ski like that and leave a perfect carve without loading the inside ski more than the outside ski?
I think that he pretty much demonstrates what the skis can do, so yes, I think it's possible. Forces drive most of the weight to the outside as PSIman makes his turns.

What about what PSIman is doing do you think isn't possible for a human?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh It seems to me that you are basically saying the same thing that I am: the answers are not obvious, simply because reasonable people disagree. That's why we're discussing these ideas. They are not uniformly seen as being clearly superior or obviously true. It is when one person says that something is obviously true and dismisses those of another opinion/perception that I cry "foul!" As long as reasonable people are willing to discuss differences of opinion reasonably without considering those of differing opinions to be ignorant or willfully avoiding truth, we have an opportunity to each learn. When the discussion loses its respectful tone and willingness to be shown something new, there is no opportunity for growth on the part of anyone. ...that's what I was attempting to illustrate with that earlier comment. I do not think that there is an obvious truth in these things (yet?). That's why it's worth discussing. And worth avoiding value judgments against those whose opinions differ from our own.
I think I'm trying to say that there may very well be a relatively simple truth but that it may not be obvious even to a reasonable person due to their bias and frame of reference.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Si I think I'm trying to say that there may very well be a relatively simple truth but that it may not be obvious even to a reasonable person due to their bias and frame of reference.
Well, then we're at an impasse, aren't we? "You'll never see it, so what's the bother?" That's how it seems to me, at least. If there isn't sufficient evidence to counter existing bias or the existing bias is so great that it cannot be overcome, then there is no hope of convergence and the effort should be abandoned as hopeless.

I am far too idealistic and optimistic to accept this end. Sorry about that.
I'm with you. It's all about us trying to recognize our biases and to keep them from blocking us in our search for understanding and truth.
Let's not forget that these circles are simplifictions. The centres do not need to be concentric. They can also be further down and further up the hill. The curves don't even need to be circles. In fact the actual centre of the arc in my free skiing is never static. Neither is the radius.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado Note, by the way, that PSIMAN manages some pretty good little turns without any muscular activity all! No flexing or extending of either or both legs, no countering, no counter-rotation, no "steering," no knees bending. To me, he's a great help in understanding some of the cause and effect relationships I've been referring to. He can't "cause" anything! PSIMAN clearly shows that an awful lot of what must happen in skiing will be done for us, if we simply let it. PSIMAN carves great turns. Better than most skiers, wouldn't you say?--proof positive that much of what many skiers "do" is not only unnecessary, but often detrimental! But, of course, he also has no control whatsoever. When, and why, and how, would he have to "do" something he's not doing here? What would those somethings be?
As I said above:

Quote:
 Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier I would like to discuss this further along with Bob's PSIMan; taking into consideration vertical separation and centripetal and centrifugal forces... anyone who has thoughts on this feel free to jump in in the mean-time. I will be back shortly.
Where am I going with this [pure devil's advocate for the "what if" situation]? Okay; first off PSIMAN is a great tool for showing what a carve is, but it makes a few assumptions that are slightly removed from a "real world" situation. A big one of these is that there are no turning forces present for PSIMAN as he appears to be arcing his skis on a flat surface (say as you could on a pair of inline skates). This is even very easy to do on skis but it requires one thing: that you ski in a bow-legged stance and keep your skis equidistant in the horizontal plane throughout the turn. I also think that PSIMAN does not account for human anatomy very well. Can you separate your feet as PSIMAN does and make the same turns without shortening one leg (long-leg/short-leg exercise often used in race training)?

PSIMAN also uses no counter and no counter rotation because first off he has no upper body to counter and second, as I said above the turn does not really represent ANY turn forces; therefore you don't need any counter or counter rotation in PSIMAN's turns. Now, for PSIMAN to carve his turns exactly as he is (both skis arcing, inside ski arcing a tighter arc than the outside) he would have to have an equal 50/50 weight distibution -or- even worse, an inside ski bias. If the weight distribution is 50/50 (or 60/40 with a bias toward the inside) then there are clearly very small or no turning forces occuring (none that require bracing against anyway). If there are no turning forces then there is no centrifugal force, which explains why when angulation occurs that the bias tends toward the inside ski...

Okay, so lets break away from PSIMAN, and get into a real world turn. As Max said, the only way to ski parallel tracks is to load the inside ski more than the outside ski, which in the real world is rarely done, and in practice can prove to be difficult if you are looking for the "clean/proper" turn we are discussing. So with that said, never are both skis carving in a "real" turn. Both skis may appear to be carving, but likely they are not. One ski (the inside ski) is being guided through the turn. The 'phantom move' gets this process started. Just because it isn't 'arcing' as the outside ski is DOE NOT mean that rotary forces are being applied to turn this ski. It is more or less along for the ride. Some pressure may be added and taken away for balance depending on your speed and turn shape, but in essence it really isn't doing much. You aren't steering it though. It is just like if you were to go ice skating and you (in the middle of a cross-over turn) held your inside skate up off the ice and rode the outside skate (as we often see high level speed skaters do in both long and short track events). Are they turning that inside skate, of course they aren't. Is it turning in unison with their other skate, scribing a tighter line (if it were touching the ice); YES!

Skiing works the same way. There have been a lot of misconceptions in this thread that lead me to believe that not everyone undestands that simple fact though. In the video of my turns that I posted a long time back, even though I use a wide stance (too wide; especially for slalom) my inside ski has hardly any weight on it. I use vertical separation in many cases, so my tracks converge and diverge, and that inside ski is just being guided along if you will. And, now I guess I will leave everyone with the real meat of this subject, which I already posted:

Quote:
 Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier I think your "intent" is vertical separation. A bi-product of that is inherently diverging and converging tracks... depending of course on the amount of vertical separation, which is dependant on the amount of angulation/tipping in the turn, which is dependant on how fast you are going and how tight your arc is.
If you need an example of this in action, watch Harald ski sometime. Interestingly, Harald and I discussed divergent and convergent tracks over at realskiers last fall (with Rick before he was banned; for the record we are both banned now). The end result of that discussion was basically what I stated here. In the case of racing however, it was largely dependant on the type of transition you used and where you had to be for the next turn. I argued that by using vertical separation only you could easily end up late, or slower in a course; so basically if was said that racers will use necessary tactics to set themselves up for the next turn (transition type, separation (vertical/horizontal), and weight distribution as a result of the above factors that I mentioned).

Later

GREG

EDIT: I will try to dig up the thread at realskiers and link it here.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh I also do not like the aesthetics of the turns.
There was a day when you had to have your feet glued together to be considered aesthetic. I thought PSIA had progressed to a more functional approach.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh ...and I think in this case that's insufficient evidence. There are other ways to make those kinds of tracks, and I've seen it done. This gets back to the "one may not be doing what one thinks one is doing" issue.
I suppose if you are doing this on your own you might be right about that. But if you are working with a coach that is giving you constant feedback I think you can get to a point fairly quickly where you know what you are doing.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh Any of a number of ways, including some mix of tipping, tip pressure (fore/aft), and possibly driving the tip into the snow more (the dreaded "steering", I know...).
If you tip the inside ski more than the outside ski and put more tip pressure on it then the outside ski then you will probably be bending it more than the outside ski. Isn't that loading the ski?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by newfydog There was a day when you had to have your feet glued together to be considered aesthetic. I thought PSIA had progressed to a more functional approach.
I assume that "PSIA" has (although, to be clear, there isn't a PSIA "technique", per se). I said I didn't like the way it looked. And I don't. That is all. YMMV and all that.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 If you tip the inside ski more than the outside ski and put more tip pressure on it then the outside ski then you will probably be bending it more than the outside ski. Isn't that loading the ski?
I guess it depends on your definition of "loading". I was thinking the term was being used as "put more pressure on it than the outside ski," which isn't necessary. If you mean, "make movements that allow the ski to scribe a tighter arc," then I guess, yes, I mean "loading the ski."
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh I have seen an exaggerated "in-and-out" move of the feet which looks contrived to me. In these cases it is more than simply allowing the tracks to separate due to vertical separation of the feet. In one case I was skiing with someone who mentioned that it came from study of PMTS. It didn't look efficient to me, and also seemed to effect balance.
I wonder what the skiers you are seeing are doing? How are they moving the feet in and out? I can't think of any PMTS movements that would get you into the contrived situation you are describing. You get the vertical separation by retracting the inside leg as you tip. At the end of the turn you relax (flex) the outside leg and it naturally tracks right in to your inside leg. That's all there is to it.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh I guess it depends on your definition of "loading". I was thinking the term was being used as "put more pressure on it than the outside ski," which isn't necessary. If you mean, "make movements that allow the ski to scribe a tighter arc," then I guess, yes, I mean "loading the ski."
Lets make it simple and work with the last post that Greg put up. In your senario they only way to carve parallel tracks is to bend the inside ski more than the outside ski (unless of course its not really carving as Greg suggested).
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh I assume that "PSIA" has (although, to be clear, there isn't a PSIA "technique", per se). I said I didn't like the way it looked. And I don't. That is all. YMMV and all that.
It really depends on what you are looking at. Its hard to imagine that you wouldn't like the skiing that Harald Harb or Diana Rogers perform. It looks so smooth and effortless.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier Okay, so lets break away from PSIMAN, and get into a real world turn. As Max said, the only way to ski parallel tracks is to load the inside ski more than the outside ski, which in the real world is rarely done, and in practice can prove to be difficult if you are looking for the "clean/proper" turn we are discussing. So with that said, never are both skis carving in a "real" turn. Both skis may appear to be carving, but likely they are not. One ski (the inside ski) is being guided through the turn. The 'phantom move' gets this process started. Just because it isn't 'arcing' as the outside ski is DOE NOT mean that rotary forces are being applied to turn this ski. It is more or less along for the ride. Some pressure may be added and taken away for balance depending on your speed and turn shape, but in essence it really isn't doing much. You aren't steering it though. It is just like if you were to go ice skating and you (in the middle of a cross-over turn) held your inside skate up off the ice and rode the outside skate (as we often see high level speed skaters do in both long and short track events). Are they turning that inside skate, of course they aren't. Is it turning in unison with their other skate, scribing a tighter line (if it were touching the ice); YES!
I am trying really hard to understand the distinction you're trying to draw, Greg, and I'll admit that I'm not understanding what is so important about whether or not they are "turning" the inside skate or it is "turning in unison with their other skate." "Guiding" or "steering"? What is it about these distinctions that are so vital to good skiing? I'm just not getting it.
Quote: