EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Why do people keep using this picture?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why do people keep using this picture? - Page 2

post #31 of 58
Quite the resume, eh, Nolo? Dave is a very gifted skier indeed. There is video of a run of his off piste somewhere in the PSIA-RM Skiing Standards DVD (admittedly getting long in the tooth these days--the DVD, not Dave) that is truly superb.

Given that Lyons has been a member of both the US National Alpine race team, and the PSIA National Alpine Demonstration team, I must question your statement, Newfydog, that "They ski rather differently." Care to elaborate?

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #32 of 58
http://www.lyonskischool.com

Is that one of those (very rare in the US) independent ski schools that I mentioned (rather vaguely) in an earlier discussion?

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...568#post544568

Wonder how they got away with that one?

(I just remembered this doesn't have much to do with the vectors acting upon The Herminator - sorry! )
post #33 of 58
Thread Starter 
Stevens Pass is working hard at squeezing out all the independents, like Lyon's, they've had on the mountain for many years.

FWIW - on average, the Lyon's instructors and their students are noticeably better than most of their Stevens Pass counterparts. Note that this is not an absolute statement - but I see lots more Lyon's instructors skiing with real confidence and well rounded technique quivers than I do the SP "in house" crowd (of course, not talking about you Phil...). OTOH, I did hear about some technique pointers he gave some folks that made me wonder if he was keeping up on things - although honestly, what the heck do I know about running slalom gates! . Yet more OTOH - folks I know who have seen him ski were wowed. And he's well thought of by my favorite Intermountain LIII/Clinician/Examiner type. Regardless, he and his school are generally well regarded - and operate legitimately as a concessionaire at Stevens Pass.
post #34 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo
Isn't that Dave Lyon who's on the D-Team? (There is a Rick Lyons from Hood Meadows/Timberline too, very good instructor but not PSIA D-Team.)
Oops! - You are correct of course, it being Dave Lyon rather than Rick Lyons at that Event.

Because I was injured, I stayed off my skis for a while - and the very next time I skied an Event (two weeks later) it was to shadow an L3 Exam with Rick Lyons as one of the Examiners. I've been easily confused ever since...

Both are extremely good skiers.

.ma
post #35 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado View Post
(Image of Hermann Maier copyright Ron LeMaster ([/b]www.ronlemaster.com). Since LeMaster's original copyright is missing from these retouched images, they should be included here. Ron--if you object to this use of your images, please let us know.
Best regards,
Bob
RE: copyright, In multiple email conversations with Ron LeMaster, He has given us (EpicSki) specific permission to use his images however If you photoshop them to change arrows, etc, PLEASE DO NOT photoshop out the the copyright watermarks and please DO give him credit for the images. These are copyrighted by him and by not giving credit to Ron, you may put us in a position that we would have to remove all his images..

Thanks for the catch Bob

DC
post #36 of 58
dchan,

Thanks for the clarification with the copyright issue. I new that we somehow needed to give credit, but the fact that the original image never had a copyright watermark threw me off.
post #37 of 58
The very problem with this conversation and partly why the criticism of RonLeM's diagram is valid, is that we should be talking dynamics and not statics; acceleration is key.

In fact the bi-planar simplification of fore-aft and then inside-outside ski cross-sections is self evidently ludicrous; countervailing forces are what keep this show on the road. From a particular static view it is possible to conjure illusions of static imbalance (he's way too far back etc) and yet it clearly can work (these guys win races).

There is a lot of rubbish which stems from this about getting hips over boots and about boot flex that allows this. There may be reasons for boot flex, but this is definitely not one of them.

It is actually imbalance that is at skiings heart. And its calling to anyone lucky enough to have felt it.
post #38 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by daslider View Post
The very problem with this conversation and partly why the criticism of RonLeM's diagram is valid, is that we should be talking dynamics and not statics; acceleration is key.

In fact the bi-planar simplification of fore-aft and then inside-outside ski cross-sections is self evidently ludicrous; countervailing forces are what keep this show on the road. From a particular static view it is possible to conjure illusions of static imbalance (he's way too far back etc) and yet it clearly can work (these guys win races).

There is a lot of rubbish which stems from this about getting hips over boots and about boot flex that allows this. There may be reasons for boot flex, but this is definitely not one of them.

It is actually imbalance that is at skiings heart. And its calling to anyone lucky enough to have felt it.
Wow... ...what can we say to this...?

While there are some pretty cool words in there, I gotta wonder... did you just put this topic into a random word generator and post the result?

.ma
post #39 of 58
Lol MichaelA, a quick search for hyphenations, amazing what comes to the surface. It has to mean something, or it did when I wrote it, or is that also just a static viewpoint?
post #40 of 58
heh ...Is it possible you've been awake for maybe 30 or 40 hours? I find that my own text gets amazingly dense (in more ways than one) after too many waking hours. It becomes more like 'word art' than communication.

What's scary is that I think I got the gist of what you were trying to say.

.ma
post #41 of 58
In Ron LeMaster's presentation at the 2001 National Coaches Acadamy he said that skiers only are in balance ("static balance") at the bottom of a carved turn. The rest of the time they are falling or moving out of balance. The photo he used was not much different, a little more into the turn maybe, than the one here. He had an arrow going down and one opposing it going up the leg.
Fun fact on balance. The reason Ossimo and other "walking" robots have such a strange gate is that walking is actually falling forward then catching yourself. They haven't been able to duplicate that in a machine.
Which brings up another thought. At the 1988 Acadamy George Twardokkens said that no one he knew of had been able to make a skiing machine. He'd been trying to figure out edge and pressure problems with a sled device but it kept tipping over.
post #42 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slatz
At the 1988 Acadamy George Twardokkens said that no one he knew of had been able to make a skiing machine.
1988? Well, perhaps people might find this interesting.

.ma

(or this from nl)
post #43 of 58
That skiing robot is too cool for school.

I am so, so jealous of a guy who makes his living building that robot. Impressive the way he has modeled the progression from snow plow to parallel- a nice chunk of work there.
post #44 of 58
Is that what you get if you strip the flesh and skin off The Herminator?
post #45 of 58
That is really cool. Thanks
The last one, the one that most resembles a human I mean. The first "carving model" is just another PSIMan.
post #46 of 58
Before saying anything about Tinman's technique, it is important that we learn of his intent in these clips and also his learning profile.
post #47 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by daslider View Post
Before saying anything about Tinman's technique, it is important that we learn of his intent in these clips and also his learning profile.
Let's also realize that he's not "skiing". He's demoing.
post #48 of 58
WOW! You guys are Mean! You even try to discredit a hunk of metal...

Quote:
Originally Posted by daslider
Before saying anything about Tinman's technique, it is important that we learn of his intent in these clips and also his learning profile.
For us humans intent drives (or modifies) our efforts at everything. It would be really cool to have toys like these evaluate the mechanical realities of skiing. We could specify the context, the technique and the parameters up front and gage only the outcome.

And I agree - these little beggers would be 'demoing' rather than skiing since they'd have no way to respond intellectually or emotionally to 'the moment'. Their responses would be limited to a list of pre-programmed courses of action. Any 'technique' applied would 'demo' its merits and weaknesses in isolation of reactionary patterns.

Still... Probably can't eliminate the inherent variability of snow conditions so we'd still argue endlessly about the literal successes and failures of any experiment.

.ma
post #49 of 58
Joubert got it right. His last book was Skiing an Art a Technique
I participate in these things with that always in the back of my mind. The longer I hang around the more I realize the "art" part.
Anyone can draw a bow across the strings of a violin, few can make beautiful music. (a line I often use when I'm teaching)
post #50 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLATZ View Post
The longer I hang around the more I realize the "art" part.

Anyone can draw a bow across the strings of a violin, few can make beautiful music.
Great quote SLATZ......that one sentence is very insightful. To me it explains why some people will know lots of jargon, resite concepts verbatim, yet still don't understand.
post #51 of 58
The detail in this discussion is great and really easy for someone like myself (physics challenged) to follow. Yet I believe the statement below justifies the original arrows for the purposes intended.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelA View Post
The bottom line is that readers should not take any such diagrams as the Full and Complete All-Encompassing Literal Truth. Such diagrams are merely conceptual representations of basic ideas.
In a teaching sense, it's simple to take such a diagram and use it, or a description of it, to indicate to a student that this is "sort of" what it feels like. Or it's "as if" these vectors were going on this way.

In the process of translating a complex reality into a communication that will result in a reasonably accurate movement on the part of athletes of various abilities and knowledge, it's useful to use a simplified version. It's the fine and difficult line between simple and simplistic. Spindrift's original objection indicates that it is inaccurate, therefore simplistic. My feeling is that it is simple, therefore more useful than absolute accuracy.

I look at this as a communications issue, and as such, it needs some wiggle room.

But thanks guys. I will now go strap myself to the wheel of my bicycle for a "real" ride!
post #52 of 58
Thread Starter 
weems, I disagree. The picture is designed to help people create a mental model of what is going on in the turn. And because it is a picture of the Herminator it is not just creating a mental model of what is going on, but also implying how one should apply forces in order to ski like one of The Great Ones.

The first thing to remember about models is that, as you and michaela note, they are by definition simplifications. As a rule when creating a model you throw out all the irrelevant distracting stuff that adds complexity but does not communicate anything important about the phenomenon you are discussing. And then, to the extent appropriate, you simplify what is left to the greatest extent possible to create correct understanding and communication.

In the case of the picture being discussed, the first obvious simplification is the projection of a 3D event that flows through time onto an instantaneous snapshot in a 2D plane. No problem - it is, at least to me, a natural simplification. In addition, hundreds or thousands, of vectors are reduced to 3. Another natural, and, to me, understandable simplification. At least in principle.

Where it falls down, IMO, is that the mental model created by this specific picture/diagram is one of the skier directing all force through the outside ski. In effect sending the message that "monopodal" skiing is how it is done. But this is a fundamentally flawed model. As far as I can tell, all of today's best skiers use a primarily two-footed stance. Now Rick noted that in this case most of the force appears to be applied through the outside leg - but what the skis are doing says that at least a bit is applied to the inside leg. Even if most of the force is driven through the outside ski, it is a fundamentally different model than "one footed" skiing. So... I'd argue that a better simplification for modeling purposes would have been to drop the vector dead middle of the skis. Even if it would have been further off or literally "less correct" in terms of force distribution, it would have caused people to think about a two-footed stance in the context of most of the turn.

And I think this matters in practical terms. Not all that long ago when I started skiing, I was led to believe that carving was all about lightening up the inside ski & relying on the "inside" edge of the outside ski for all important aspects of engaging the snow in a turn. Just as that diagram and others like it would make you believe. Long story short - once someone started to teach me about skiing with a two-footed stance my skiing improved a great deal. But it took me a full two seasons to rid myself, mostly, of old habits. What a waste or time and life and energy. Furthermore, I think this has practical implications with respect to skiing on modern equipment. It is my opinion, after reading many pages of threads discussing recent injuries suffered by veteran skiers, that one significant contributor to these injuries is the use of modern highly sidecut equipment with relatively old-school technique. That leaving the inside ski to its own devices increases the likelihood of unexpected hookup & an assortment of ensuing possibilities...

Soooo.... I agree that simplification can aid understanding. I just think that simplifying in the wrong way can create or reinforce incorrect "understanding". As this diagram does.
post #53 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado View Post
Ahh--be careful what you say about "imaginary" forces, Slatz! There's nothing imaginary about it--ignore it at your peril! I love this little cartoon I came across on the 'net (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/centrifugal_force.png):

It doesn't matter whether you believe in it or not, or what you choose to call it, or how you choose to explain it. It'll kill you. For real!



Best regards,
Bob

Speaking of copyright, that comic should probably be attributed to its proper source, out of respect if nothing else. Not that I'm saying it's your fault or anything, but yeah. There's a whole lot of these comics on a site somewhere.... just can't remember what it's called at the moment. If i remember I'll let ya know heh.
post #54 of 58
Quote:
Where it falls down, IMO, is that the mental model created by this specific picture/diagram is one of the skier directing all force through the outside ski. In effect sending the message that "monopodal" skiing is how it is done. But this is a fundamentally flawed model. As far as I can tell, all of today's best skiers use a primarily two-footed stance. Now Rick noted that in this case most of the force appears to be applied through the outside leg - but what the skis are doing says that at least a bit is applied to the inside leg. Even if most of the force is driven through the outside ski, it is a fundamentally different model than "one footed" skiing. So... I'd argue that a better simplification for modeling purposes would have been to drop the vector dead middle of the skis. Even if it would have been further off or literally "less correct" in terms of force distribution, it would have caused people to think about a two-footed stance in the context of most of the turn.
for me this picture explains roles as much as it explains forces. Understanding the different roles both legs and feet play is more important than precisely locating just where the force is projected IMO. If you want to confuse people, tell them to direct the force to a spot somewhere between their feet.

Learning to differentiate between substantial (outside dominate role) and insubstantial (inside subordinate role) with respect to our balance, alignment and their roles in shaping our turns is key to realizing and executing effective efficient movements. As I see it, we are constantly manipulating pressure between 50-50 and 100-0 between our feet just as we constantly changing the roles as our skis feet perform as we manipulate this pressure change from turn to turn.

Somehow we need to show that the dominate role is played out by the foot having between 51 and 100% pressure, while the subordinate role is played out by the foot having 0 to 49% pressure, and somehow we need to show that as the pressure changes the roles change. Even if the pressure is 55 versus 45, the roles being played would still be same as 90 versus 10. The other concept that needs to be understood is that even though the pressure is constantly evolving and changing, the roles are more tied to an individual turn rather than changing within a turn, even though the roles change smoothly and progressively as we move form one turn to another rather than abruptly.

So even though this picture may be a simplistic view of the forces at work, to me it shows a good relationship between the forces and the roles the feet and legs have to play. Good two footed skiing in a high force turn, showing the dominate and subordinate roles being played out. My $.02
post #55 of 58
The key point over this picture is the author's intent,

I would imagine that his intent was to show the 3 most dominant forces.

Gravity, centrifugal force and the immense pressure felt up the outside leg to counter the other 2 forces.

Sean
post #56 of 58
I would propose that the intent of this thread should be to enhance understanding of what we're trying to teach. I would NEVER use something like this in a lesson with a student or an athlete.
It's great (summer) dialogue among instructors, coaches and techno-geeks It makes us think. (when thinking about it is as far as most of us can get )
post #57 of 58
I can't believe he has that much pressure on the inside ski because it is in a fairly bent muscular position compared to the right leg which is skeletal and bearing much of the weight/force.
post #58 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnSean View Post
The key point over this picture is the author's intent,

I would imagine that his intent was to show the 3 most dominant forces.

Gravity, centrifugal force and the immense pressure felt up the outside leg to counter the other 2 forces.

Sean
I think we have a winner!
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 › Why do people keep using this picture?