or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A Tale of Three Turns - Page 19

post #541 of 566
Sorry Bolter, didn't mean to imply that your own term of 'neutral' was a "mislabeling" but rather as RicB suggests is a term that 'doesn't exclude anything' thus leaving the door open to any potential interpretation a person desires. As you say, neutral seems missing from the longstanding lexicon of skiing.

Angulation on the other hand is not misleading in that it has a very specific meaning. True, the skiing neophyte might not have a clue what it means any more than the general public might know what a King Bolete is. Anyone in the ski-teaching industry a little while can probably provide a reasonable definition for angulation.

.ma
post #542 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems View Post
This is Chris Geib, right?

No way, Weems! I mean, on one hand, I'll never be as good as Rocky. Did you see the ski's he's on? He's essentially doing Pivot Slips on razor blades: On the other, I try to incorporate the requisite pole swing and touch

How'd this get to be about me?

I had nothing to do with Rocky at all! It's all Bob, and I shamelessly deflect this back at him: Clearly he needs to replace Rocky's skis with some of measurable width then create the overhead Pivot Slips illustration corresponding with the Dynamic Parallel Turns illustration. Oh, and Rocky needs a pole touch if he ever hopes to pass the maneuver!
post #543 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgeib View Post

How'd this get to be about me?
You pivot-slippers are all alike!
post #544 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post
I personally don't see neutral excluding anything. Even if we are wound up there is a moment in time when we move through neutral. No matter how brief. Now if you want to talk about lingering in neutral or drawing it out, then maybe we need to give consideration to being torque neutral as well. The forward direction on the other hand seems to be a given to me. My preference is to keep it simple.
I am with you and michaelA on this in many ways but not all. It is not my intent to define arc to arc skiing by the fleeting moment of Neutral, I never have, Joel Munn told me not to (note ARC TECH's four phases, not five).

The mechanics of arc2arc skiing and the methodology to coach it are the issues that matter to me, and you folks also I bet. There are disagreements posted on this forum in the BASIC mechanics that best produce arcing. That's to be expected and is actually a good thing. Who knows, initially some "off the wall" concept might (after further thought and discussion) turn out to be a great path to follow, maybe not. IMO, it is worth the trouble to find out. Maybe it is impossible to come to any consensus on any subject on an "open forum." There is no shortage of sharp thinkers on this site to meet the task.

So far, I see a division between two basic concepts of how to arc:

Anticipation (stored torque) and skiing into counter

vs

Squaring up (minimize stored torque) and counteraction

Both of the above movements/concepts reside in Transition and then develop as the turn progress.

IMO. Regardless of where you stand on the above or if you have not formulated an opinion, there are axioms for arcing that I believe make a strong case for one of the above (no mystery which one I am for).

Axiom#1 Arcing skis- the tail should follow the tip. This is true of (both) the inside and outside ski. BTW, I know there is some truth in "the arcing skis are an impossibility argument" but this is a moot point IMHO and does nothing to help in the "how to" that is at issue here.


Axiom#2 Rotary movement of the body to pivot or steer the skis during Transition should be minimized or eliminated so axiom #1 is not compromised. BTW, I use pivot and steer as defined by Horst in ATM (as per michaelA's suggestion). Please note: The Steering mechanism is placed in the controlling/shaping phase and is not seen as a turn initiation force (anticipation is preferred for that). Steering is also not included in the turn initiation mechanics of a turn started by de-cambering and edged ski.

Regarding the bold in your post. Static positions or lingering Neutral is not my idea of solid Tech while linking arcs. BUT, In the initial stages of learning/development neutral can be emphasized (take time/distance for it) so the body can "face" the DOT. Neutral's intrinsic benefit is to start the new arc in balance and torque neutral. Oh wait, is that a new term I see on the rise? No! Quickly shoot it it's Beelzebub, the prince of confusion!
post #545 of 566
Bolter,

During initial stages, the notion of the "stong neutral" works. It includes being "cuff neutral" as well -- the 'ready' position if you like. It is not restricted to arc2arc skiing, as it easily extends to pivotted turn entries. See post 16.

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=54920
post #546 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Bolter,

During initial stages, the notion of the "strong neutral" works. It includes being "cuff neutral" as well -- the 'ready' position if you like. It is not restricted to arc2arc skiing, as it easily extends to pivoted turn entries. See post 16.

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=54920
"The benefits to doing this, is you'll be in a better position in which you can choose the type of turn you are going to make."

Strong Neutral makes a lot of sense to me. Options are open, nice. Come to think of it I often ski this way, regardless of the type of turn to follow.

Not to beat a dead horse. . . Anticipation does not enjoy the freedom of being torque neutral, which your strong neutral does. Anticipation, predestines the upcoming turn to vulnerability or bias to a pivot entry. It's in its nature, this is what it does best.
post #547 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado View Post
Hi

Here is another look at the same images, this time somewhat higher resolution (click on each image for the full-size version) and numbered to make discussing them a bit easier.

Sequence #2




For the sake of the discussion, I've placed the frame numbers on the outside of each arc, to help visualize Best regards,
Bob
Still, no microscope needed . . .
Several folks have identified the turn initiation mechanics as rotation in all three of BB turns. I would like to point out that turn #2 (above) is as BB suggested, not Rotation. OK, it is not rotation but it is also not anticipation release. Please, look at frames 1,2,3 and 4. There is UB movement to the inside of the turn in 2 - 3. "This is a movement toward anticipation (same rotational direction), that is made with sufficient momentum to "kick off" the turn with a touch of (UB) Rotation, in which case we can no longer call it anticipation-release (AR)." nor Rotation, as usually seen/defined. (ATM in above quotes)
Then what is it called? . . . . I've heard it called (in certain circles) Thrown Anticipation. That's what I think it really is. New term? Nah.
post #548 of 566
Actually - I kinda like the term "Torque-Neutral" because it intrinsically tells me what thing is actualy neutral. Kinda like BigE's "Cuff-Neutral" as well because this readily suggests an image of not pressuring the boot cuff in any particular direction - a clearly conveyable idea.

BigE's "Strong Neutral" is a term that requires us to go investigate his earlier post and get onboard with a variety of his preferences and ideas to re-generate his own image of his particular use of the term 'Strong Neutral'. This leaves it somewhat fuzzy to me without repeated re-investigation. Worse, if he changes his mind or adds refinements to his idea I'm left totally behind.

I say this just to reveal a necessary perspective in the matter of terminology and to admit that I often have difficulty following discussions where subsequent arguments or ideas follow on previous personally-packaged declarations of complex movements, relationships and positions.

It's entirely possible that I'm the only person on this forum who gets confused by such references.

.ma
post #549 of 566
You're gonna have time, I won't refine it any in the near future. I plan to be away from a computer for about 2 weeks.

And you've got to know my posts are based on CSIA terminology. The CSIA has three turn phases:

1) Completion to neutral,
2) Neutral to fall-line
3) fall-line to completion.

Completion is when the CM is released from it's arc.

In fact, if you use this terminology, it can redefine completely what the "rotation assisting turn finish" thread is all about ( if completion = finish ).

You think you have problems understanding shifting meanings! We don't really speak the same language at ALL, and I'm from a "traditional" school of skiing too.

See you in two weeks....
post #550 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
So far, I see a division between two basic concepts of how to arc:

Anticipation (stored torque) and skiing into counter

vs

Squaring up (minimize stored torque) and counteraction
Bolter I think that's a very lucid description. It may not necessarily be an either/or matter though. Perhaps you might see the world's best skiers using either of these, primarily depending on how much time they have betweeen turns. (So, more of the former in slalom and more of the latter in GS.)

And I second MichaelA: "torque neutral" seems pretty self-evident terminology for defining the opposite of "anticipation".
post #551 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Bell View Post
Bolter I think that's a very lucid description. It may not necessarily be an either/or matter though. Perhaps you might see the world's best skiers using either of these, primarily depending on how much time they have between turns. (So, more of the former in slalom and more of the latter in GS.)

And I second MichaelA: "torque neutral" seems pretty self-evident terminology for defining the opposite of "anticipation".
Thank you, I agree, but I don't know if they are opposites, maybe. BTW, Please refer to ARC TECH in Tech Supporters area (open to all) and look at "Slip IN" about "time between turns." Take the time to download the PDF, it is somewhat easier to read.

FWIW . . . In world class skiing- technique is tactics and terrain driven. IMO habituated movements (through years of training) are not chosen one vs the other, during "peak performance." The act-react cycle of movement in WC, is a stream of fluid aggression that blurs all habituated techniques into a mix, blend or conglomerate. All techniques (with implied limits) are available to the world class skier, if something is needed, then it is done (often with no time wasted "thinking about the options"). No news really, some call it "the zone."
World class skiers are able to perform various techniques (at will), they "know" what the action and its result/reaction will be in all/most situations. In short, they've been there and done that (or something very similar) thousands of times while training. That is the purpose of training- to free the athlete, allowing top performance. You know all this.

My entire point is focused on how to arc- through a progression of movements (skill sets). As you pointed out, WC exhibits permutations or overlapping techniques, with the freedom to do what works best, carrying no obligation/burden to any one technique or system. BUT, how did they become some versatile? In my experience (IME) it arises from disciplined practice of the basics. The basics are not the blend, the basic are not the end result that we marvel at in world class skiing. The basics are the building blocks that are assembled into the "work in progress"- from NASTAR, to age/ability class, to Masters, to FIS, to Europa Cup and finally to WC.

IME, linked arc turns are the starting point for development in this progression. At the entry level, I am not concerning myself or my developing athletes, instructors and guests with the (complexities of) variations needed to compete at the WC level. The first fundamentals are, clean line (technique) and right line (tactics).
IMO anticipation (torque stored) is a movement pool that is one or two levels removed/above torque neutral transitions. Anticipation introduces a movement that can induce a pivot at the top of the arc. That is counterproductive- when learning how to arc, which is the point of this discussion.
MA of WC is the most difficult of all skiing. I firmly believe that our techniques should be reversed engineered WC. BUT, to do so we must see through the blended techniques of the worlds best (at their upper limits of athleticism), to reveal the basics; which IMO boil down to clean, right and torque neutral. So, when confronted with a skier that has the basics habituated, then the combinations, choices, variables and challenging/focused course sets are introduced. Roll over, sit up, crawl, walk, then run. JR
post #552 of 566
Quote:
IME, linked arc turns are the starting point for development in this progression. At the entry level, I am not concerning myself or my developing athletes, instructors and guests with the (complexities of) variations needed to compete at the WC level. The first fundamentals are, clean line (technique) and right line (tactics).
IMO anticipation (torque stored) is a movement pool that is one or two levels removed/above torque neutral transitions. Anticipation introduces a movement that can induce a pivot at the top of the arc. That is counterproductive- when learning how to arc, which is the point of this discussion.
MA of WC is the most difficult of all skiing. I firmly believe that our techniques should be reversed engineered WC. BUT, to do so we must see through the blended techniques of the worlds best (at their upper limits of athleticism), to reveal the basics; which IMO boil down to clean, right and torque neutral. So, when confronted with a skier that has the basics habituated, then the combinations, choices, variables and challenging/focused course sets are introduced. Roll over, sit up, crawl, walk, then run. JR
IMO this is where femur rotation and waist skills come into play. The ability to not only increase femur rotation but to control, slow and reverse femur movement timed at various points in the turn is very relevant. In arc to arc skiing the ability to maintain inside half lead yet release the stored torque as we release the turn involves the hip joint and also the waist. Letting the feet, legs, and hips control our movement, not only into the turn, but also out of the turn. After all femur rotation is not just one way.

Good waist skills come into play here as well, being that the waist is the transmission of forces between the lower body and the upper body. Playing with "waiststeering" goes a long way towards understanding how this functions. Maybe Gary or Rick could elaborate a little on this.

Imo controling and neutralizing torque when moving from turn to turn, requires active participation. Not with big energy, but with well directed minimal energy and movement.
post #553 of 566
Being "torque neutral" in a turn? How would that turn look?
post #554 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman View Post
Being "torque neutral" in a turn? How would that turn look?
I think the idea is how can we be torque neutral at neutral Bud. How do we neutralize any unwanted or excessive torque as we exit a turn and move through neutral. Seems worthy of discussion to me. In my mind we do this with the same mechanisms we introduce extra torque and turning energy. Kinda like having our own internal power steering. Working to sustain but dampen the movements in both directions.
post #555 of 566
I understand the mindset, though I would agree with Martin Bell in that it would be more prevalent at the longer radius turn end of the spectrum and less so toward the short turn end. However, I think there may be merits to working it more toward the short turn end than many skiers do.

I also can see, coming from a relatively flat hill in PA myself, that doing most of ones skiing on a flatter hill it would be more appropriate than doing most of ones skiing on much steeper and very grippy snow out West where it is not as critical or neccessary?

The description IS very self explanatory and easily understood!
post #556 of 566
As Bolter pointed out, being torque neutral at transition will probably make it easier for those who are still learning to carve, by removing the potentially ski-pivoting force of anticipation.

Once you reach a higher skill level, and can "manage" the torque present in an anticipated postion at transition, it is probably the only way to go for SL-radius turns. Simply because there isn't time to rotate the upper body around the vertical axis on every turn.

Which is why even modern SL racers still pretty much adhere to the old "shoulders facing down the fall-line" axiom:
http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/la...2006-sl-2.html
http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/la...2006-sl-2.html
post #557 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Bell View Post
As Bolter pointed out, being torque neutral at transition will probably make it easier for those who are still learning to carve, by removing the potentially ski-pivoting force of anticipation.

Once you reach a higher skill level, and can "manage" the torque present in an anticipated position at transition, it is probably the only way to go for SL-radius turns. Simply because there isn't time to rotate the upper body around the vertical axis on every turn.

Which is why even modern SL racers still pretty much adhere to the old "shoulders facing down the fall-line" axiom:
http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/la...2006-sl-2.html
http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/la...2006-sl-2.html
Thank you, very much. I agree with your post.
IMO, Hosp and Schld show (an outside leg) flexion to release movement and as a consequence, a "Driven transition"- where flexion begins Transition to an Anticipated "flat ski moment." What great links, thanks, JR
post #558 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman View Post
I also can see, coming from a relatively flat hill in PA myself, that doing most of ones skiing on a flatter hill it would be more appropriate than doing most of ones skiing on much steeper and very grippy snow out West where it is not as critical or neccessary?

Bud, if the bold is a question, the answer is no. IMHO.
post #559 of 566
For me it is interesting in light of the fact that we have do have to "manage" it. In high level skiing we are constantly changing the torque as we move from different turn size and vary our turn type and shape. In my mind it may be even more important as we ski at a high level off the groom, where we are constantly changing things to adapt to changes in terrain, tightness, pitch and conditions.

Even though it has never been presented this way, we played with this some this winter by putting different turn styles together. Say one style on the right, with another style on the left. Moving smoothly and progressively through our turns on both sides, with good flow down the hill. It really does change ones perspective and awareness of the "residual energy artifacts" (can I say that?) left over in our movements, and how refinement and precision of our movements goes hand in hand with the management of those "residual energy artifacts".
post #560 of 566
And now for something completely different.

Applied torque is what causes a change in the rate of rotation of the skis.

You start to turn left, then skis quickly turning left, then skis still turning left but changing less and less as the turn goes on, and finally turning left hardly at all, then turning right a little, turning right a little more.

Defining an axis of rotation parallel to the snow surface: You start down the hill with skis pointed straight ahead || until you reach operating speed and then turn left for sake of argument \\, although the shape of the decambered ski is more like )) but pointing as above, then right // and so on. The skis must "somehow" turn from || to \\ to // to \\ to //.... When the skis are going from || to \\ they do so because there is a a net torque applied to them. This torque directly affects the rate of change of direction; with no torque applied an object would spin at a constant rate, neither increasing its rate of direction change nor decreasing it. At the beginning of the turn a torque, supplied mostly from pressure on the ski tips being greater than that on the tails, causing the skis to move into the new direction quickly. As the turn progresses the skis keep turning first at an increasing rate, but but then later at an decreasing rate. By the time you reach \\ and wish to start approaching //, you change of direction per 1/10th of a second is decreasing. You are decreasing the rotational momentum as it were, mostly by applying more force to the tails, than the tips. When the skis go through flat, they must go through a phase of have a slight direction change to the left followed by having a slight direction change to the right. There must be a slight torque applied to affect this slight change if you are to be smooth and ski with zero "jerk". Of course, skiing with a constant change of jerk is also fun.
post #561 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
And now for something completely different.

Applied torque is what causes a change in the rate of rotation of the skis.

You start to turn left, then skis quickly turning left, then skis still turning left but changing less and less as the turn goes on, and finally turning left hardly at all, then turning right a little, turning right a little more.

Defining an axis of rotation parallel to the snow surface: You start down the hill with skis pointed straight ahead || until you reach operating speed and then turn left for sake of argument \\, although the shape of the decambered ski is more like )) but pointing as above, then right // and so on. The skis must "somehow" turn from || to \\ to // to \\ to //.... When the skis are going from || to \\ they do so because there is a a net torque applied to them. This torque directly affects the rate of change of direction; with no torque applied an object would spin at a constant rate, neither increasing its rate of direction change nor decreasing it. At the beginning of the turn a torque, supplied mostly from pressure on the ski tips being greater than that on the tails, causing the skis to move into the new direction quickly. As the turn progresses the skis keep turning first at an increasing rate, but but then later at an decreasing rate. By the time you reach \\ and wish to start approaching //, you change of direction per 1/10th of a second is decreasing. You are decreasing the rotational momentum as it were, mostly by applying more force to the tails, than the tips. When the skis go through flat, they must go through a phase of have a slight direction change to the left followed by having a slight direction change to the right. There must be a slight torque applied to affect this slight change
Yes and that slight torque, to change direction, can be applied initially to the tipping/edging axis of the ski, it is not necessarily applied to the pivot/turning axis. Right?
post #562 of 566
You seem to have good visual-spatial reasoning skills. Envision one one axis perpendicular to the snow, and another axis perpendicular to the surface of the ski, with the two coinciding when the ski goes through flat.

The non-rotational no-steering at transition turn would be applying a torque about the axis perpendicular to the snow surface (but not about an axis perpendicular to the ski surface) via pressure and edging right up to flat and again right after flat, said torque decreasing smoothly and approaching zero on flat and increasing smoothly after flat. The rate of change of rotation of the skis would be slowing down to zero at transition.

Whether the actual rotation of the skis (not its rate of change) is zero or not when they go through transition depends on timing magnitude and duration of the applied torques (in both planes) affected by pressure control and tipping angle, and some "steering" (as in torque applied in the plane of the ski) could compensate for timing issues to prevent or aid in pivoting of the skis at transition.
post #563 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
You seem to have good visual-spatial reasoning skills. Envision one one axis perpendicular to the snow, and another axis perpendicular to the surface of the ski, with the two coinciding when the ski goes through flat.

The non-rotational no-steering at transition turn would be applying a torque about the axis perpendicular to the snow surface (but not about an axis perpendicular to the ski surface) via pressure and edging right up to flat and again right after flat, said torque decreasing smoothly and approaching zero on flat and increasing smoothly after flat. The rate of change of rotation of the skis would be slowing down to zero at transition.

Whether the actual rotation of the skis (not its rate of change) is zero or not when they go through transition depends on timing magnitude and duration of the applied torques (in both planes) affected by pressure control and tipping angle, and some "steering" (as in torque applied in the plane of the ski) could compensate for timing issues to prevent or aid in pivoting of the skis at transition.
Ghost, thank you for your insight.

In the bold above; is said torque from deflection via edging/pressure?
Is the rate of change of rotation of the skis from changes in the amount of deflection? and these varying amounts of deflection are a product/result of edge and pressure?

Are these (following) OK by you?
Pivoting the skis: turning (torque applied) the skis about an axis perpendicular to the running surface.
Tilting the skis: torque applied to the ski about the longitudinal axis.
post #564 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
Ghost, thank you for your insight.

In the bold above; is said torque from deflection via edging/pressure?
Is the rate of change of rotation of the skis from changes in the amount of deflection? and these varying amounts of deflection are a product/result of edge and pressure?

Are these (following) OK by you?
Pivoting the skis: turning (torque applied) the skis about an axis perpendicular to the running surface.
Tilting the skis: torque applied to the ski about the longitudinal axis.
As I see it. Said torque results from the force and direction of said force acting on the ski and the forces lever arm about a reference point. [mathmode] It's the vector integral of force (force being pressure x area and in a direction perpendicular to the area) x lever arm [/mathmode]. The deflection is also a result of that force, and the deflection changes the direction of that force and it's lever arm to some extent. Both the torque and shape result from the forces. The deflection not only results from the force, but alters the force, which alters the shape, and so on. Stable configurations are possible, as are changing ones.

I like your definitions. Even though some folks might not be able to distinguish between pivoting a flat ski (works with the definition) and doing the same thing using the same technique but with the ski tipped (regardless that the axis of rotation is no longer the running surface).
post #565 of 566

Bump for Throwback Thursday.

post #566 of 566
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching