or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Weight Distribution Question???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Weight Distribution Question??? - Page 5

Quote:
 Originally Posted by PhysicsMan This simply is not true. There is another way to adjust your daylight/horizontal leg separation without unweighting a ski / picking it up. You merely edge each ski by slightly different amounts. Each weighted ski then follows a path of slightly different curvature, and thus, depending on whether you went a bit bow-legged or A-framed, you wind up (respectively) with either more or less daylight between your legs in the next part of the turn. Tom / PM
True....but isn't bowlegged, or A-Framed a weak position to be in? Are you saying one should ski bowlegged or A-Framed? Why would you do this?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat I just tried this, while seated, so there wasn't all my body weight acting through my legs. With my feet, ankles and knees touching each other, if I incline to the left, there is more weight on my left leg than on my right, in fact if I do it quickly, my right foot lifts off the floor. So, are you advocating outside foot unweighting?
Ughhh....No. that outside foot unweighting you got....is what happens when you don't lift the inside foot out of the way. Bad Bad Bad....with a wider stance, or feet farther apart your could do that same thing, and incline more before needing to move that inside foot....(in case you havent got this.....the reason you move the inside foot is to prevent it from forcing you to lift the outside one....)....make sense?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Skidude72 True....but isn't bowlegged, or A-Framed a weak position to be in? Are you saying one should ski bowlegged or A-Framed? Why would you do this?
A degree or two of difference in edge angles at the transition is enough to change the daylight/horizontal separation by many inches at the next apex (and visa versa). You should play with my spreadsheet model from the "Geometrical" thread to get a feel for this.

Any reduction in skeletal strength by such small amounts of edge angle difference will be utterly negligible.

Tom / PM
Quote:
 Originally Posted by PhysicsMan A degree or two of difference in edge angles at the transition is enough to change the daylight/horizontal separation by many inches at the next apex (and visa versa). You should play with my spreadsheet model from the "Geometrical" thread to get a feel for this. Any reduction in skeletal strength by such small amounts of edge angle difference will be utterly negligible. Tom / PM
Not wanting to debate the 2 or 3 inches argument, as I have said many times, I will just say..."fair enough"...but answer me this....why would you do this?...why deliberatley strive for this?...why not parallel shins and align things?
I have no idea how such a question could be usefully discussed for over a hundred posts, as all the mental rehashing here makes didelysquat for difference until it is tried on the hill. In REALITY one must develope a muscular memory through trial and error (even if this is guided by intellect) of what allows them to feel balanced. This is how we learn to walk, and skiing isn't a whole lot different in the developement of musculature, it just comes later in our developement. Debating proportions of weight to each foot can do nothing but fill bandwidth while there is no snow on the ground. It's like debating how to have sex when there's no one to do it with.

I'm only responding here because I'm sick of looking at this thread come up in the list of new posts. I haven't read it, but I bet it's about as useful as the Tai Chi Skiing thread. It is the art of skiing without skiing.....:
Quote:
 Originally Posted by PhysicsMan A degree or two of difference in edge angles at the transition is enough to change the daylight/horizontal separation by many inches at the next apex (and visa versa). You should play with my spreadsheet model from the "Geometrical" thread to get a feel for this. Any reduction in skeletal strength by such small amounts of edge angle difference will be utterly negligible. Tom / PM
PM, I respectfully disagree with the effect on strength. Take canting/boot sole planing as an example.

Canting ones boots correctly has a remarkable effect on skeletal strength. Moving the knee 1 degree out or in has a huge effect on the forces you can apply. Just like a powerlifter needs to be aligned for maximum strength, so does the skier.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by BigE Just like a powerlifter needs to be aligned for maximum strength, so does the skier.
So, is there one alignment that gives maximum strength - if so, then power lifters must be getting it wrong by having their legs so far apart.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by PhysicsMan A degree or two of difference in edge angles at the transition is enough to change the daylight/horizontal separation by many inches at the next apex (and visa versa). You should play with my spreadsheet model from the "Geometrical" thread to get a feel for this. Any reduction in skeletal strength by such small amounts of edge angle difference will be utterly negligible. Tom / PM
Tom, as BigE commented, I think it's the fact that a small difference in edge angles can produce a change of many inches in horizontal separation that makes alignment so critical.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat So, is there one alignment that gives maximum strength - if so, then power lifters must be getting it wrong by having their legs so far apart.
You pick that heavy stuff and see where your legs end up. good thing in skiing we just carry our weight and whatever gravity places on us
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 I don't think balance is a function of width. Balance is a skill that is learned and once learned on a single ski a wider stance for stability becomes less important. What I'm saying is that with practice you learn to balance on a single ski so you don't need both skis in a wide stance to be stable. The balance skill is a major component of PMTS and I have found that it works great for all the conditions I ski in (which is pretty much everything). I find a wider stance limits my skiing and stresses my kness. But we are all different and I'm sure there are experts out there that find a wider stance to their liking.
I think this is a pretty fair statement. Balance may not be a function of width, but, varying our width does allow us the opportunity to play with our balance with different mechanisms, so to speak. Balance skill is a major component of everything we do dynamicly, whether this is skiing, tai chi chaun, walking, or running.

I think you are also right that learning how and where to direct our balance is a cornerstone of advanced skiing. Which is why I think the skier example of a wide stance that Greg posted is inapproriate for this conversation. It shows a skier that has not developed this skill to where they need to be.

In tai chi we call this learning to differentiate between substantial and insubstantial. (Volantaddict rolls his eyes ) But in tai chi like in skiing we only use 100% as a practice exercise because all things dynamic have a constant flow between one and the other, the yin and yang of it all. In skiing I find that 100% is about as rare as 50/50, unless artificially done for experimentation. I would also add that it is about as fleeting as 50/50 is too. This leaves us a huge middle ground, but still requires us to differentiation between what should be substantial and insubstantial. No matter what or how we ski we should always be fluidly moving between the two, paying attention to our gravity/force line, then we should be able to recognize and adjust between these two as needed. Then we have a good skier.

Outside ski dominance to me simply means that we are recognizing that in every turn. That we have a developing substantial leg/foot/ski and developing insubstatial leg/foot/ski, and so we direct and adjust our balance and alignment according to this enviroment. What it doesn't mean in tai chi or in skiing, in my opinion, is that the insubstatial goes to sleep, becomes limp or inactive. We keep everything in balance and recognize that double weighting is a path to being out of balance or uprooted, and that if we keep the inside leg (insubstantial) in it's role then we will have it if we need it suddenly, or when we move to the next turn.

In my oppinion, you can apply these priciples in a wide or narrow stance, but I find that I put in less in energy when I maintain my bodies natural stance width. Not to narrow, not to wide. It is the principles that are important, and not nessasarily the position of the body. Of course the only way we can play out the priciples in our skiing is with movement and posture. The more fluid and constant we keep our movement, the more effective it will be. When I opened my stance just a little a few years ago, and applied my tai chi priciples and range of motion to my skiing, I got the most improved award in my locker room. It did change my skiing, and it is something I get to work on the rest of my life. Later, RicB.

P.S. Just an addition. Balance to many is a funtion of width because they have not developed and refined this ability in the skiing enviroment. I think also that even with a narrow horizontaly, but vertically seperated stance in a carved turn, a skier is still using the big seperation between their inside foot for fine tuning their balance control.
Could this be the voice of reason.?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by BigE PM, I respectfully disagree with the effect on strength. Take canting/boot sole planing as an example. Canting ones boots correctly has a remarkable effect on skeletal strength. Moving the knee 1 degree out or in has a huge effect on the forces you can apply. Just like a powerlifter needs to be aligned for maximum strength, so does the skier.
I'm with you here too BigE. for every degree out of alignement we get our structure, the muscle effort compounds. What seems simple from the skis perspective can be very complex from the bodies perspective. Roberts speaks of this in his book "Understanding Balance:The Mechanics of Posture and Locomotion". Maybe we are missing something here Tom. Later, RicB.
At the risk of sounding old...

With the "old skinny unshaped" skis, weighting and unweighting were much more pronounced. There were many cases on steep slopes you had to kick the tails around and kind of hop. I think they used to call this a kick turn (ie KT 22 at Squaw - 22 kick turns).

In modern times you're supposed to do more of a roll of your ankles to use the shape to help the carving. It's not 50-50 at turn initiation (the beginning) IMO but it's closer to equal weighting than it used to be. Putting some weight on the uphill ski will be necessary to link the turn. During the transition from one edge to the other it will go through 50-50. This is more like skiing in powder also.

It depends on the slope, surface, tracked or untracked, grooomed or not. Whatever you need to do to hold the edge on a steep slope - do it even if it's skiing 100-0 on the outside ski. On lesser slopes and groomed you probably want to link the turns more fluidly and weight the uphill one a little more. Does that make sense?
i have only glanced through this thread, however, it brought to mind something our director of training mentioned last year.

weight is a unit of measurement not to be confused with forces we create or feel.

i have always enjoyed the following definitions of centrifugal and centripetal force. one is us pushing on the snow and the other the snow pushing on us. i don't know who came up with that, wasn't me, however, i do think it is good stuff.

i think when we ski we do a heck of a lot less disribution of mass then we think. we do manage forces or pressure.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Skidude72 Not wanting to debate the 2 or 3 inches argument, as I have said many times, I will just say..."fair enough"...but answer me this....why would you do this?...why deliberatley strive for this?...why not parallel shins and align things?
Because it's far easier to tell the distance between my shins perpendicular to their axis than it is to tell the distance between my feet on the snow when at various different angles.

If I was any good at drawing this, I would. It's actually quite easy to see that keeping your legs a constant distance apart while you incline/angulate means that their distance apart in the plane of the ground/snow will change. And if you keep your feet a constant distance apart on the ground while you incline/angulate, your legs will need to move apart and together. Simple, no?

FWIW, I also think this is one of those areas that what we think we feel may very well not be what's happening on-snow. Again, I think it is far easier to sense the distance between my legs perpendicular to the axis of my tib/fib than it is to tell how far apart my feet are at the odd angle that is the plane of the ground/snow.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Skidude72 The only way that inside foot will move in, is if you unessarily unweight it.....
Here's how I do it when skiing. At transition I have a hip width (or narrower) stance and my legs are flexed (bent). As I enter the turn I gradually extend my outside leg while flexing (retracting) my inside leg as I tip my inside foot. I do this to keep my inside boot out of the way as my CoM moves to the inside of the turn. By roughly 3 o'clock (with 12 o'clock being uphill and 6 o'clock being downhill) I have my outside leg fully extended. From 3 o'clock until 4:30 or 5 I keep the outside leg fully extended. While my tracks appear wide during this period the actual horizontal distance between my legs is small. Around 5 its time to start the release. I gradually relax my outside leg and it moves right back to my original stance of hip width. To be clear, at release my outside leg moves up to my inside leg, not the other way around. As you can see there is no unweighting of the inside ski at release, in fact the opposite occurs as I move from outside foot dominace to roughly 50/50 weight distribution at transition.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 Here's how I do it when skiing. At transition I have a hip width (or narrower) stance and my legs are flexed (bent). As I enter the turn I gradually extend my outside leg while flexing (retracting) my inside leg as I tip my inside foot. I do this to keep my inside boot out of the way as my CoM moves to the inside of the turn. By roughly 3 o'clock (with 12 o'clock being uphill and 6 o'clock being downhill) I have my outside leg fully extended. From 3 o'clock until 4:30 or 5 I keep the outside leg fully extended. While my tracks appear wide during this period the actual horizontal distance between my legs is small. Around 5 its time to start the release. I gradually relax my outside leg and it moves right back to my original stance of hip width. To be clear, at release my outside leg moves up to my inside leg, not the other way around. As you can see there is no unweighting of the inside ski at release, in fact the opposite occurs as I move from outside foot dominace to roughly 50/50 weight distribution at transition.
Pretty much what I do for many of my turns, as well. There are times I use other transition styles (crossover, ILE), so the moves into and through transition are different. But, the stance width and track width elements are the same.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by volantaddict I have no idea how such a question could be usefully discussed for over a hundred posts, as all the mental rehashing here makes didelysquat for difference until it is tried on the hill. In REALITY one must develope a muscular memory through trial and error (even if this is guided by intellect) of what allows them to feel balanced. This is how we learn to walk, and skiing isn't a whole lot different in the developement of musculature, it just comes later in our developement. Debating proportions of weight to each foot can do nothing but fill bandwidth while there is no snow on the ground.
I disagree pretty strongly, actually. Feeding good images to our mind and then visualizing them is actually a very strong approximation of real practice. I've started a new thread on visualization to discuss this in some detail, but to simply dismiss detailed conversation about a skiing-related topic because it's too detailed seems silly. Especially on a snowsports forum.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 No, its possible to be too narrow. But I don't share your viewpoint that balance is related to stance width. Stability yes, but not balance. They are not the same thing.
Grey Cook in his book "The Athletic Body in Balance", defines stability as the "ability to control force or movement". Cook says that athletic movement requiresa a functional balance between mobility and stability. To me balance is related to movement (mobility), the movements we use to adjust to the forces acting on us and our own intentional movements that we make to work the skis. Our stability is the other side of the coin that we use to make our movements (mobility) effective and efficient. If stance width is an outcome of good functional movement then it stands to reason that we would also have stability. But if the stance width is from a lack of refined or functional movement, like with a lower level skier or beginer, then we can have a wide stance width without having effective stability, or effective control of the forces or movement. Same arguments could be said for a narrow stance. I don't think that a narrow stance has any more garantee of stability than wide does, unless the stance width is an outcome of good functional movements.

So to sum up my position, our stabilty allows us to use our strength and mobility, and it is our strength and mobility that allows us to make the adjustments to keep ourselves balanced. Later, RicB.
I posted this in the Ski Tracks Perceptions thread as a way to 'wrap up' the thread and all of its points. Even though this topic was originally supposed to be about ski weighting, it has digressed into a track width discussion, making the post below highly relevant, although some of the points are well beyond the scope of this discussion.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier Bullet points for each track scenario:Constant Track Width: The inside ski must track a smaller radius than the outside ski. Horizontal separation in transition is larger than horizontal separation at the apex of the turn. As the edge angle increases it becomes increasingly difficult to continue carving a smaller radius with the inside ski â€“ the inside leg/boot will eventually be â€˜in the wayâ€™ and balance will also be effected. Basic low edge angle turns will be very easy and able to be done by actually carving the inside ski (sayâ€¦ open parallel turnsâ€¦), but once speed and edge angle increase steering of the inside ski will be needed to maintain the inside ski (smaller) radius. In high edge angle scenarios creates a stance in transition that is too wide and makes the skier very bow-legged. [NOTE: This is an important factor that effects the movement of the CM and where it falls in the turn] Convergent/Divergent Track Width: Variable width tracks with perfectly parallel skis will require the inside ski to be dragged across the snow by flexion/contraction as vertical separation increases toward the apex and then decreases toward the transition. Without the dragging of the inside ski mentioned in the previous bullet (that creates track separation) increasing the edge angle would pin the legs together (as vertical separation would not be possible) and likely the outside ski would disengage. In a high edge angle turn with perfectly parallel skis will still require steering of the inside ski in order to get the inside ski to track the proper radius and stay parallel with the outside ski. It is nearly physically impossible (or at least VERY inefficient) to get the body into the position where you can create an edge angle on the inside ski that will allow you to carve the needed radius for this ski (high edge angle turn). Constant steering and lateral dragging are inefficient movements (few people actually ski like this), and are eliminated by a very small redirection of the inside ski at the top of the turn (what I have been trying to point out). The importance of this redirection is that it puts the inside ski on the proper radius in order to allow the inside ski to be carved at a lower edge angle than the outside ski. Dragging of the inside ski and constant/excessive steering is not needed to produce high edge angle turns when a lot of vertical separation is employed/needed. When you see a WC racer with slightly divergent skis at the top of the turn, or convergent skis at the bottom of the turn (meaning skis pointed toward or away from each other) the inside ski has actually undergone a tiny, nearly un-noticeable, redirect that has allowed the skier to carve from one turn to the other easily and efficiently (no dragging of the inside ski, and no constant steering to keep the two skis parallel continuously). Later GREG
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Skierdude72 True....but isn't bowlegged, or A-Framed a weak position to be in? Are you saying one should ski bowlegged or A-Framed? Why would you do this? Not wanting to debate the 2 or 3 inches argument, as I have said many times, I will just say..."fair enough"...but answer me this....why would you do this?...why deliberatley strive for this?...why not parallel shins and align things? If you start with your feet at say 12 inches apart, and incline, your legs will adjust as required, but still keep things at 12 inches, then as you leave the turn, and incline less, again if you were at 12 inches between your feet, keep it there...your body will adjust....that is more effieceint then having the space between your feet go from 6 to 12 to 6.....
Yes, bowlegged and a-framed positions are not ideal positions, you are correct. You should strive for parallel shins, although based on PhysicsMan's ski track model it is not likely that your shins will ever be perfectly parallel (not a big deal as long as they are close).

So, here are some things you may want to take into consideration:
• By skiing with your feet 12 inches apart and maintaining equal track width you are limiting yourself in the turn. This will likely work for instructor turns but when speed and edge angles increase you will find that 12 inches doesn't cut it anymore because the inside leg/foot/ski will be in the way of your angulation. This is opposite of what you suggested earlier in the thread - that when speeds appraoched race speeds maintaining a relatively constant horizontal stance and varying the vertical separation would hinder you.
• If you adjust your stance width to create parallel tracks throughout the turn you will be in a 'gorilla' turn stance in transition - meaning VERY bow legged.
• When in a turn that creates parallel tracks the inside ski (as in the quote above) is always tracking a significantly smaller turn radius. Thus the inside ski is being steered, because the only way to carve it in a tighter radius would be to give it more weight than the outside ski. As the angulation increases, the disparity between these two arcs increases, thus the inside ski is undergoing even more rotary/redirection through this turn in order to keep the track parallel.
• So, when skiing with constant track width you are steering the inside ski and skiing bowlegged. If you are not skiing bowlegged in this situation you have already limited yourself as to the amount of angulation that you will be able to use - directly limiting your speed and turn shape.
Now, some extra points on tracks that diverge and converge, since the above information focused more on a 'phantom' redirection that was discussed in that thread.
• You stated above that parallel shins are a goal. What I have been suggesting all along will give you nearly parallel shins in all turning situations - the main reason is that you do not have to ski bowlegged or A-framed.
• You also said that unnecessary movements should be eliminated. I agree. The key here is defining which movements are unnecessary. Think for a minute: You can make a turn by varying your horizontal separation and your vertical separation; but you can also make a turn by keeping your horizontal separation constant and varying your vetical separation. If you are going to throw out a deliberate movement, it would seem to me that you would throw out the one that you don't need to make... especially since you cannot make a turn without varying your vertical separation - it is a necessary movement, and should not be limited. Vertical separation is purely a function of turn shape and speed and the skier should not seek to control it in one direction or the other.
• Track width is (as we have said all along) a resultant, or an outcome. What it is an outcome of is much more important than the fact that it is an outcome. The biggest contributing factor is vertical separation (since we can see that this is really the only variable component that you need for the turn). By allowing your tracks to do whatever your vertical separation dictates you are removing all unnecesary movements related to track width.
• Vertical separation is a result/outcome as well. It is the result of angluation... which interestingly is also a result of turn shape, and speed. So vertical separation is a result of your speed and turn shape. If you make an adjustment (say horizontal separation) that is going to effect your vertical separation you are effecting the shape of your turn or the maximum speed that you will able able to travel at and still resist the centrifugal and centripetal forces (which I believe Rusty Guy asked who originally brought those terms up here - they were first discussed in detail by Rick (my old coach), PhysicsMan (I think), Gary Dranow, and a few others last summer - before that they were only tossed around here).
Later

GREG
Quote:
 Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier You also said that unnecessary movements should be eliminated. I agree. The key here is defining which movements are unnecessary. Think for a minute: You can make a turn by varying your horizontal separation and your vertical separation; but you can also make a turn by keeping your horizontal separation constant and varying your vetical separation. If you are going to throw out a deliberate movement, it would seem to me that you would throw out the one that you don't need to make... especially since you cannot make a turn without varying your vertical separation - it is a necessary movement, and should not be limited. Vertical separation is purely a function of turn shape and speed and the skier should not seek to control it in one direction or the other.
This is the key to the whole thing. Well said, Greg.
Greg,

Play with physicsmans calculator. It shows that the INSIDE ski tracks a LARGER radius than the outside ski at apex if you keep the track width constant!!!

What do you make of that? is PM in error or are our perceptions incorrect? Perception vs. reality indeed!

Apparently, the outside ski needs to turn harder at the apex to stay with the inside ski! This happens in the middle third of the turn always:

1) During the first third of the turn, the inside ski has a smaller radius of curvature than the outside ski.
2) During the middle third of the turn, the outside ski has a smaller radius of curvature than the inside ski.
3) During the last third of the turn (back to neutral) the inside ski again has a smaller radius of curvature than the outside ski.

Assuming parallel shins:

What this says to me about weight distribution is that you need to shifting your weight EARLY in the turn, to preferentially load the inside ski on turn completion. Then, at transition, you need to use inclination (banking) to move the dominant weight onto the new inside ski. Then one third of the way into the turn, you'll be 50/50 AGAIN and the outside ski will become dominant.

There are THREE places in the turn where you are at 50/50 weight distribution: neutral, 1/3 past neutral and 1/3 from neutral.

This is really exciting stuff.
Ok, played a bit more

changing only the apex daylight width to 4.3" got the inside and outside ski radii at apex to be equal. Lower than 4.3" and the inside ski carves a harder turn. Greater than 4.3 and the inside ski carves a longer arc.

So that's 12 at transition (hip wide) and 4.3" at apex, all other parameters the same. The track spacing is only 8.6 inches at apex like that.

In this scenario, I could imagine a 50/50 weight distribution in the apices of the turn, and at neutral. However, using weight distribution alone to bend the ski into the greater radius would have the inside ski as weight dominant at ALL other parts of the turn, switching to the new inside ski at transition. Flatboering anyone?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by BigE PM, I respectfully disagree with the effect on strength. Take canting/boot sole planing as an example. Canting ones boots correctly has a remarkable effect on skeletal strength. Moving the knee 1 degree out or in has a huge effect on the forces you can apply. Just like a powerlifter needs to be aligned for maximum strength, so does the skier.
How about mis-aligning the lightly-loaded ski only, while keeping the more- loaded ski well aligned to make the width adjustments via a slightly different tipping angle?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh Feeding good images to our mind and then visualizing them is actually a very strong approximation of real practice.
: : :

### I hope this makes sense

Well I am glad to see this thing raged on during the night..(night for me). It seems it is tuff to tell who I am even debating with anymore....I think a few others are confused too, hell some seem confused at which side they are on! So I will just try to sum up my argument here:

Constant track width is not the goal....the goal is to ski efficeintly with control and performance...in racing efficenancy means fast, for the public it means less tiring and more fun...we generally achieve this by moving as required, when required, no more, no less.

We see some variance in WC tracks, especially those with very high edge angles. This is necessary to prevent being in really akward positions in the transition....hence we may see a WC skiers feet be 24inches apart in the fall-line, then drop to 18 in the transistion. Track width may also vary as a skier comes over a rise, moves into a rhthm change etc.

My issue is with people who interpret this to mean that if a WCer has tracks very from 24 to 18 inches in their best most high performance turns, then it is good sign when they see their tracks go from 12inches to 6. This is simply incorrect.

If you understand why a WC tracks may vary from 24 to 18, then you should be able to understand why your tracks might vary from 12 to 10, but not cut in half. The difference is simply how we are built. At very high edge angles the feet must be apart to keep the outside foot on the snow, this may be wider then is workable in a transition...(Remeber: wider is more stable, but results in less agility)....but we must keep in mind that at 18 inches that is still a very wide stance, and yet it still provides the right balance of stability and agility for the turn......for joe public, it is extremely unlikely they will ever find themselves in a turn that REQUIRES 24 inches of feet separation...if you could make turns like that...you would be on the WC (further: turns like that need things like very very very hard snow to push back on the skier...WC uses water injection in their courses...I grew up in the East, so I thought I new what ice was all about, until I skied a WC slalom...WC combat this with very very sharp skis....5degree side bevels in slalom are common, 3 in GS...)

Hence this extreme angles goes beyond what their bodies can do in the transition, and that is fine, they compensate....but if your stance in the apex is 18...what are you compensating for by going back to 6?...so what causes it?....generally it is caused when a skier holds onto the downhill ski too long. So what does that mean?

By holding on to the downhill edge too long, the dh ski is still edged with pressure and it is still steering across the hill...this pressure comes from resistance to the path of the COM. However wanting to leave the turn the skier does allow the COM to move across...some up, some across...the result is less edge angles and less pressure...which are both effective at making the skis "turn less" and begin to transition....hence what is happening is your COM begins to move downhill and as it does it "pulls" your knees and ankles downhill with it, reducing the edge angles and ending the turn...it doen't do this evenly of course, hence the inside ski loses pressure first and thus tracks straighter sooner, causing the converging tracks.... to ensure that your knees and feet do get pulled over some tension in the legs is required...ie you can just go limp...this causes the "up"...subtle yes...a few inches yes, but a few inches of hip movment is a lot.

I understand this way of skiing will feel great...it will be a very quick edge change as the mass is already inside both feet the instant the new dh ski is edged.

The drawback with this is you are skiing with your body, and using its momentum to pull your feet from one edge to the other....it works...I know, becuase I skied this way for years, and was even able to get my CSIA 3 skiing this way. But be aware that it also gets your tranistion being from apex to apex: 80/20, 80/20, 80/20, 50/50, 40/60, 30/70, 20/80

What I advocate is this....harness the energy built in the fall-line by releasing both skis together....by shifting your weight onto the back of the skis to diminish their self-steering effect...causing them to "turn less" equally. As your skis are straightening, you relax both legs to allow your COM to "flow" to inside your feet uninterruppted....as your COM continues to move acros you are progressivley putting more weight on the uphill ski, while at the same time from the feet up, decrease the edge angles. Hence your transistion from apex to apex will be: 80/20, 70/30, 60/40, 50/50, 40/60, 30/70, 20/80...much smoother and progressive.

Hence one technique begins the tranistion by diminishing edge angles, the other by working the skis self-steering effect. The difference at the end of the day is pretty subtle. One uses your mass to pull the skis off edge, up and over to start ending the turn...the other uses the self steering effect, then with relaxing both legs evenly lets the COM flow, and the edges are then reduced from the feet.....

The second one is definatley higher skill, and following from what people say it sounds like PMTS advocates the first scenario (if i am wrong on that fine...), which makes sense as it is easier and effective for most people...but if you want to step up to the big game, then you need to get more technical.

To sum up, real world means that tracks converge and diverge, but the less you have means you were closer to scenario 2...which is more effiecient, as it allows your COM to flow, and promotes skiing from your feet, as opposed to working with the COM, effectivley having the COM control the skis...of course at WC level, some of the extremes force you to take into account some limitations of the human body...but that rarely applies to 99% of us.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Skidude72 The second one is definatley higher skill, and following from what people say it sounds like PMTS advocates the first scenario (if i am wrong on that fine...).
This would be an incorrect assumption. PMTS teaches a gradual release via a flex move.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by volantaddict : : :
Right. Another example of "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's already made up," I guess.

Try these scholarly papers on visualization:

Using Your Minds Eye for Optimal Athletic Performance

THE USE OF VISUALIZATION AND OTHER MOTIVATION ENHANCING TECHNIQUES IN ATHLETICS

Educational papers, etc. on it:

Virginia Tech

Psyched Online

The Effects of Mental Imagery on Athletic Performance

But, I'm sure your extensive knowledge on the topic trumps the research. : : : (I can do it, too.)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Skidude72 we must keep in mind that at 18 inches that is still a very wide stance, and yet it still provides the right balance of stability and agility for the turn......for joe public, it is extremely unlikely they will ever find themselves in a turn that REQUIRES 24 inches of feet separation...if you could make turns like that...you would be on the WC ... Hence this extreme angles goes beyond what their bodies can do in the transition, and that is fine, they compensate....but if your stance in the apex is 18...what are you compensating for by going back to 6?...so what causes it?....generally it is caused when a skier holds onto the downhill ski too long. So what does that mean?
Do you mean "stance width" (the distance between the legs) or "track width" (the distance between the tracks on snow)? They are very, very different things.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh Right. Another example of "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's already made up," I guess. Try these scholarly papers on visualization:Using Your Minds Eye for Optimal Athletic PerformanceTHE USE OF VISUALIZATION AND OTHER MOTIVATION ENHANCING TECHNIQUES IN ATHLETICS Educational papers, etc. on it:Virginia TechPsyched OnlineThe Effects of Mental Imagery on Athletic Performance But, I'm sure your extensive knowledge on the topic trumps the research. : : : (I can do it, too.)
Ouch ..Did he dare intrude in your discussion with his own opinion. Should we call his post unschooled . his opinion unworthy and not teach him any of the percieved wisdom herein??

Look for wisdom from with out when your vision becomes so narrow

Ok you can flame me next
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Weight Distribution Question???