Originally Posted by BillyRay
…A lot of people do not understand that every move we do when skiing is to counteract the forces that the ski/slope/speed/terrain combination creates,…
I think this idea is a matter of individual Intent
more than an absolute. Still, it’s a pretty good intent.
Many people deliberately make a big move dedicated to an expected outcome - only to require another big move to re-adjust the actual outcome closer to their desired outcome. The ‘huckover’ style of turn entry comes to mind right off but so does the average dynamic parallel turn-entry when the skier feels a need to execute a strong diagonal movement over their skis because the slope is getting steeper.
Thinking along the lines BillyRay stated above, consider treating a moving pair of skis as a moving wobbly platform. We just need to stand in balance on “it” as it tracks our chosen line. How do we initiate changes to that line? With miniscule movements that take us only *slightly* out of balance.
Any tiny imbalance will grow to a greater imbalance if we do nothing to correct it. In the huckover, the skier does nothing about it for quite a while (a feeling of ‘falling’) and the resulting large imbalance now requires a large adjustment. In a more precise turn-entry we do
correct the growing imbalance - just not quite back to perfect lateral balance…
The initial imbalance initiates our turn transition process. If we maintain a continuing slight
imbalance thru turn entry (rather than allowing it to grow into an energetic crossover) we end up with a graceful & gradual transition from one set of edges to the other - and because we’re so close to being in precise lateral balance all through our turn-entry we have plenty of time for our edges to properly engage and create the centripetal force that will ‘catch us’.
In truth, there’s a large range in the lateral-out-of-balance condition that can be tolerated through transition - so long as we make appropriate compensatory movements later.
The greater our out-of-balance state, the greater the degree of ‘extra movement’ we need to make later to recover from that state. If we are only minimally out-of-balance, we get away with minimal adjustments. The more you feel like you’re ‘falling over’ into the next turn the more energetically you’ll need to ‘catch’ yourself later. (Not a bad thing - just ... a thing)
I like the description of our skis “pulling the skier into the turn” because that’s exactly
how it feels when our balance is very close to being precisely over our skis as they begin to engage and turn. We don't feel this sensation if we've passively submitted to an entierly inertia-driven crossover. (And certainly not if we are actively pushing ourselves into the new turn.)
We feel the skis start to re-direct while our body wants to continue on toward the trees. Our feet feel like they’re being ‘pulled’ toward the downhill-side and we automatically re-balance our overall selves to compensate.
It feels very much the same as if standing sideways on a flatbed truck and the truck is just barely starting to accelerate forward. No, we don’t fall out the back of the truck - but only because we immediately compensate for the increasing lateral imbalance.
Seems to me that any
movement of any
kind in skiing requires at least some muscular effort. The trick of course, is to conserve the magnitude and intensity of those movements. So…
Originally Posted by bolter
The best way to bend a ski is to apply downward pressure at the ski’s center.
First, to ensure clarity for others; by ‘downward’ I’m quite sure you mean perpendicular to the ski base (straight down into the ski itself) rather than ‘downward’ into the snow.
That said… would you be willing to accept the idea that a ski can be properly de-cambered by ‘pushing up’ the Tip & Tail
while not moving the middle of the ski?
And if so, would you consider that a skier’s Mass alone is sufficient to hold the ski’s midpoint solidly in-place while the snow
combines with forward movement of the edged ski to bend its Tip & Tail upward, thereby de-cambering the ski? I know, kind of a reversal for conventional thinking - but this perspective goes well with the idea of our skis serving as a moving platform that we merely stand upon and operate with minimal effort.
I think I disagree with the idea that “Any movement away from a ski’s tip by steering, twisting or guiding will reduce the bend potential in that ski and may induce skidding.” The reason I’m not entirely sure is because I’m not certain how a skier can ‘move away’ from their ski tip by ‘twisting, steering or guiding’.
If the statement refers to a dislodged ski skidding uncontrollably away from the skier’s CM, then I’d agree it’s a situation to be avoided. If you include all forms of ‘steering’ concepts in general, then I’d disagree.
An intentional twisting movement which dislodges our skis from their ruts in order to deliberately ‘scarve’ the ski’s edge thru the turn (to effect greater speed control via increased friction) or to forcibly change line into a tighter turn seems reasonable. (Whether doing so is “Right” or not in the minds of others is of no consequence to me. I just care about what’s Doable