New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A frames - Page 2

post #31 of 47
It seems to me WC racers are using an A frame to achieve a high edge angle and a strong, extended outside leg early in a turn. In using this position they choosing to give up the efficient position of parallel shins and equal edge angles until later in the turn.

The value in this choise is that they are ready to support the high forces that will be generated in their turns. Once supported they can move out of the A frame and into a more efficient position.

If this is true the question for us is; Do I generate so much force, so early in my turn that I need to use an A frame position to effectively and efficiently support my CM?
post #32 of 47
Today you need to ski with parallel shins in order to be considered a skier with a modern style. In 5 years time this will be even more so because more and more people learn to ski this way, especially in the race community. WC skiers should be observed skiing outside the race track if we want to use them as a reference.

A related topic would be wide vs close stance. In the -90's a close stance was the only way to ski like a pro. In the late 90's a close stance was considered junk but now we have more and more skiers bringing their skis closer together again. Note, WC skiers have allways used a wide stance. If a close stance becomes the only way to ski in the near future the A-frame issue will be dismissed, lets hope for that .
post #33 of 47
I don't know as I'd call the a-frame position less efficient. It's simply different. It allows more pressure onto the outside ski, thus shortening the turn's radius. Parallel shins allow more dual-edge carving which I would say is more stable.
post #34 of 47
Yes it is more efficient, because as Gurshman says in the detailed article I posted, the skis are both doing the same thing to the skier. The inside ski is not being dragged around, thus slowing you down. Or the outside ski is not being taken out of the carve.

It's a REALLY good article.
post #35 of 47
How about this: a-frame makes transition quicker!?
post #36 of 47
A frame makes transition to high edge angles at low speed possible.
post #37 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Yes it is more efficient, because as Gurshman says in the detailed article I posted, the skis are both doing the same thing to the skier. The inside ski is not being dragged around, thus slowing you down. Or the outside ski is not being taken out of the carve.

It's a REALLY good article.
I've read the article and it does NOT say that you should not a-frame because parallel shins are more efficient. What is says is that at the END of the turn, the shins must be parallel to complete the arc.

Moreover,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurshman
[Parallel shins are] achieved, in reality, only with a certain degree of approximation.
So really, you will almost always see a-framing in a clean arc, and often times even at the end.

Examples:
http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/20...05-gs-2-c.html
http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/20...2005-gs-1.html

A-framing is typically used earlier in the turn and parallel shins (relatively) are used to complete it. That's modern technique. Neither is more "efficient".

Edit:

Also, just because you're a-framing, your inside ski isn't necessarily bouncing around. It's still cutting.
post #38 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg gurshman's article
First of all it is necessary to mention a very simple fact, which is well known to coaches and racers – the force of gravity and inertia at the exit of the turn, when used properly, always provide for more speed than what skier can create by any special movements or muscular efforts. A clean optimally rounded arc of a so-called “pulling radius” (a comma shape) allows for the most efficient transfer of energy from one turn to another. In order for such a transfer to happen, when teaching modern technique, the emphasis should be placed on having parallel shins and an equal degree of edging, with both skis drawing arcs of concentric circles. This is, indeed, an ideal model. It is achieved, in reality, only with a certain degree of approximation. Nevertheless, racers should really strive for ideal carving with both skis edged equally simply because it is the fastest way to make turns in the course.
He provides many details as to why the A-frame occurs and why it will slow the skier if maintained throughout. The entire point of the article is about why you need to get to parallel shins.

I strongly suggest that the above quote indicates that the faster one can get to parallel shins, the better, certainly by completion, and more deasireably at or just after you reach fall-line. If you can manage nearly parallel shins right from the start of the turn, why wouldn't you?
post #39 of 47
Why would you not? Because I disagree with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurshman
Nevertheless, racers should really strive for ideal carving with both skis edged equally simply because it is the fastest way to make turns in the course.
Applying equal pressure to the skis is not the fastest way to make the skis turn. By applying more pressure to the outside ski, you flex it far more than you could if you split the pressure between both skis. The more the ski is flexed, the quicker the racer turns and the tighter the line he/she can take. Both of the examples in my previous post show this method in use.
post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by c4rv3 View Post
By applying more pressure to the outside ski, you flex it far more than you could if you split the pressure between both skis.

You sure? I don't really think that is true on modern equipment.....skis are pretty soft longitudnilly now...especially race stock....the amount of bend you get is a function of how far over you tip the ski, and of course how deep the sidecut is......

Now having said that...and what iI believe is said in the article, and what I tried to say in my first post...you will somtimes want to tip the ski on edge further then the centripidal forces will allow (ie cant inclinate that far) you can compensate by using the inside ski as a "out rigger" to support your mass from falling inside....
post #41 of 47
Well not being an Expert and I only have to go on what works for me, dominant outside ski pressure is faster and stronger. A progressive movement starting with the outside ski and utilizeing the inside ski with a varying engagement and stance width of both, depending on the task at hand.
post #42 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by slider View Post
Well not being an Expert and I only have to go on what works for me, dominant outside ski pressure is faster and stronger. A progressive movement starting with the outside ski and utilizeing the inside ski with a varying engagement and stance width of both, depending on the task at hand.
Just FYI:

The article, and most posts so far definatley agree with you......but that is not to say that "dominate" = 100%....in the article it was given as 80%/20% outside/inside as a rough approximation....or another way to think of it, is the your entire body mass, with the exception of your inside leg should be supported on the outside one...except in the transitions of course...
post #43 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post
You sure? I don't really think that is true on modern equipment.....skis are pretty soft longitudnilly now...especially race stock....the amount of bend you get is a function of how far over you tip the ski, and of course how deep the sidecut is......
I can't tell you how much I wish I had another couple of inches and 30 pounds just to be able to flex my skis harder. I mean yes... they're flexible, but they're still by no means soft. To achieve the tortional rigidity, the good dampening, and the stability at speed that you see in modern race skis, they can only get so soft. They're still wood cores.

Yes, edge angle is the primary factor affecting ski flex during a turn, but the ability to push it even further by using your muscles and weight is a huge advantage. That's why almost all WCers are skiing with most of their pressure on their outside ski. One of the exceptions to this is Maier, who actually had his skis made with a different radius on the outside edges than the inside edges so that he could dual edge carve with equal edge angles (the inside ski must turn harder than the outside ski to achieve this, just like car tires). That said, he's a huge, strong guy who can probably achieve the full flex of the ski while still weighting both without difficulty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post
Now having said that...and what iI believe is said in the article, and what I tried to say in my first post...you will somtimes want to tip the ski on edge further then the centripidal forces will allow (ie cant inclinate that far) you can compensate by using the inside ski as a "out rigger" to support your mass from falling inside....
Yes, you can. But is that necessary at high speed? Not so much.
post #44 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by slider View Post
Well not being an Expert and I only have to go on what works for me, dominant outside ski pressure is faster and stronger. A progressive movement starting with the outside ski and utilizeing the inside ski with a varying engagement and stance width of both, depending on the task at hand.
Short, sweet, and to the point. I feel exactly the same.
post #45 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by c4rv3 View Post
I can't tell you how much I wish I had another couple of inches and 30 pounds just to be able to flex my skis harder. I mean yes... they're flexible, but they're still by no means soft. To achieve the tortional rigidity, the good dampening, and the stability at speed that you see in modern race skis, they can only get so soft. They're still wood cores.

Yes, edge angle is the primary factor affecting ski flex during a turn, but the ability to push it even further by using your muscles and weight is a huge advantage. That's why almost all WCers are skiing with most of their pressure on their outside ski. One of the exceptions to this is Maier, who actually had his skis made with a different radius on the outside edges than the inside edges so that he could dual edge carve with equal edge angles (the inside ski must turn harder than the outside ski to achieve this, just like car tires). That said, he's a huge, strong guy who can probably achieve the full flex of the ski while still weighting both without difficulty..
Um....well actually anyone skiing on Atomic has the dual radius...they even have that on their top skis that they sell to the public...(at least they used to) it has nothing to do with Mairer....I also guess you have never seen or been on a pair of real race stock skis before either..trust me they are very very soft. I had the opportunity a few years back to "play" with Andre Armott (sp?) the Norwegian WC powerhouse skis,...I was blown away by just how soft they were...that being said, the race skis sold to the public are much stiffer...but still not so stiff that you can't flex em...the strenght allows you to manage the forces, and still ski well, to build more forces and so on and so on....again, I am not really disagreeing with you here...definatly true that we ski outside dominate...just my point is, if you think putting all your wieght on your downhill ski will make a tighter or more efficeint turn then say 80/20, either you are super light..ie under 110lbs or are not quiet understanding somthing....if you are a more "normal" weight, but still light...say 150lbs... but still struggle to bend your skis, I say ditch em and get a different pair...you need to be able to flex them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by c4rv3 View Post
Yes, you can. But is that necessary at high speed? Not so much.
Um....not sure what you mean here...as the whole thread talked about why A-Frames are often seen in the turn initiation....also there have been a lot of shots showing it on WC skiers......so ya, I say...so much.
post #46 of 47
I wasn't aware that the other Atomic skiers are using dual radii now. I don't think that anything Atomic sells to the public is dual radii anymore, though.
But back to the topic at hand. What I said was that MOST of the weight was applied to the downhill ski. I was envisioning 80/20 or so myself. But at 80/20, you're really not going to need to worry about making sure that your shins are parallel. You adjust the degree of the inside edge depending on what you need. If that means you achieve parallel shins or you a-frame, does it matter? I don't think so. That's why, as I originally said, in my opinion, neither is more efficient.

I'm 5'8", 150.
post #47 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by c4rv3 View Post
I wasn't aware that the other Atomic skiers are using dual radii now. I don't think that anything Atomic sells to the public is dual radii anymore, though.
But back to the topic at hand. What I said was that MOST of the weight was applied to the downhill ski. I was envisioning 80/20 or so myself. But at 80/20, you're really not going to need to worry about making sure that your shins are parallel. You adjust the degree of the inside edge depending on what you need. If that means you achieve parallel shins or you a-frame, does it matter? I don't think so. That's why, as I originally said, in my opinion, neither is more efficient.

I'm 5'8", 150.
Seems we are in violent agreement. I also said...neither is more efficient...another good article on Ron LeMaster's website about this very topic.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching