Sounds like this thread is about to get hot and heavy again. The original poster seemed sincere in this question so I will try to provide a somewhat objective presentation of this.
First, Let's define what "arcing" is. The definition of "arcing" is pretty unanimous. Pretty much everyone agrees that an "arcing" ski is one that is following a curved path where the tail is following exactly behind the tip. Railroad track turns, etc. The skis make a thin line in the snow and at no time during the turn does the width of the ski track widen from smearing.
There are a variety of opinions out there about what exactly constitutes "carving". There seem to be two basic groups, group 1 is the group that believes carving and arcing are absolutely the same concept and there is no distinction between the two concepts. So people in that group define carving = arcing.
The rest believe that "carving" MIGHT
include some amount of smearing of the ski edge and still may POSSIBLY be considered a carve, depending on what else is happening.
The USSA manual states their official position on page 43:
|"Carving by definition for the USST is a form of steering or turning on a semi-engaged edge. The National team staff makes a distinction between carving and arcing, which is a pure carved turn."
"Arcing is a turn on a completely engaged edge, where the tail follows the tip throughout the turn radius. In general terms, it is the fastest and most efficient turn possible"
Ok. So far we have one easy definition for arcing, one group of people that has an easy definition for carving and another group of people that must now get quite complicated to decide whether a ski is carving or not.
If a ski is not arcing, then it is skidding. I think we are all pretty much in total agreement on this as well. If its not a pure arc, then there is some skidding component involved. The disagreement comes by all of the various interpretations of skidding that would make one turn be considered "carving" to some and not by others. To everyone in group 1 above, if there is a skidding component, then it is not carving, period. To many others, it might be. Depends on the kind of skidding, what is causing it, the general turn shape, whether the sidecuts of the skis are being used to create a curved path for the ski to follow, etc. From my perspective it also depends a whole lot on who you're talking to at the time. If I am teaching an intermediate skier and I notice them achieve a particularly carvy turn that is rounder then what they have been doing previously, then you know what, to me they are carving and I tell them so.
These days with modern skis, almost everyone on the mountain is actually "carving" to some degree(according to me). Group 1 does not like this definition because it blurs the distinction of what constitutes carving. It becomes a very subjective. I will also suggest that with modern skis perhaps we are raising the bar a bit of what exactly should constitute "carving" compared to the olden days of 20 years ago. As more and more skiers are achieving what would have bloody well been considered carving 20 years ago by many, today its just status quo common and only stuff closer to pure arcing seems to be worthy of the "carve" title. (shrug). Its clearly very subjective and depends on who you're talking to.
now all that being said, what has been asked is about the skidding component. IS there more than one way to skid the skis? Absolutely there are more ways to have a skidding component. And I think the various terms that have been asked are not absolutely defined by anyone. Brushing, scarving, drifting, tail washing, etc.. many other terms have been used and you can not expect any consistency whatsoever for what they mean without other information to help you figure it out.
There are a lot of ways to cause a skidding component to be present in the turn, thus rendering it definitely NOT an arc but possibly a carve, depending on who you are and your perspective on the matter. A lot of it has to do with the INTENTION of the skier at the time.
In answer to Bud's question, yes its perfectly possible for a ski to have the tip and tail skidding equally and still follow a curved path. This is what is sometimes referred to as "brushing" or perhaps "drifting" depending on who you are. is it carving? Maybe(see above).
Obviously, if both the tip and tail are skidding excesively, then it would literally just drift sideways. However, if the skidding component is smaller, then even while there is a little skidding in the tail and tip together, the sidecut is still providing a redirection of the ski which gives it a curved path through the snow, albeit not as pure or fast as a pure arc would be. According to USST, in fact, an awful lot of skiers are actually doing this even when they think they are arcing. Whether you are talking about a couple nanometers of slippage or centimeters, its the same. That is why some people can refer to the terms "brushed" and "carving" in the same sentence.
However, even if you believe that there is such a thing as "brushed carving", that does not necessarily mean that a brushing skier is actually "carving". Are you confused yet? Good, so is everyone else on this forum.