or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Angulation Versus Inclination
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Angulation Versus Inclination

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
I though I had a pretty good understanding of the difference between angulation and inclination. Angulation was building angles with your body to be able to keep more even pressure on both skis while increasing edge angle. Inclination was banking to increase the edge angle on the ski, thus resulting in more pressure on the outside ski. It is my understanding that inclination is the same as banking.

In recreational skiing, psia method, that it seems that we want more angulation and less inclination, is this different in race skiing?

In my personal skiing being angulated well allows me to maintain better balance, get bigger edge angels, and ski more smoothly from turn to turn.

In the previous angulation thread, here, there were pictures from 1999 and one more recent. I noticed in both pictures that at some point there was a step or the ski is off of the snow. To me this would result from not enough angulation.

Am I off track here on what angulation and inclination are?
post #2 of 25
Yes on the angulation being a body shaping maneuver but where did you hear that it was to facilitate even pressure on both skis? Back in the days when there was a complete transfer of pressure to the outside ski, we used angulation. So I'm not sure why or what led you to the believe angulation keeps both skis on the ground. Could you explain that?
Inclination is banking on purpose. Which is different from it happening as an unconscious consequence. How do you tell? Well think about it for a minute, if you see someone struggling because they are stuck inside a turn (especially late in the turn) they are banking.
post #3 of 25
Thread Starter 
I think maybe I should've said balanced more evenly over both skis as opposed to pressure, but not sure. Instead of being 80/20 being more 60/40. I'm don't know where/how I came to think this. I'm thinking, and thinking is bad, my head is spinning now.

Some thoughts that I'm dwelling on and coming up with some of this; however, there are other things that say otherwise.

"The upper body remains more vertical than the lower body throughout the shaping and finishing phases of the turn, creating body angles which align balance over the outside ski." Visual Cues to Effective Skiing

To me this says that angulation is helping to align balance over the outside ski. Why is it then that we talk about skiing two footed?

How do both skis do the same thing if we aren't balanced over both skis? The shape of the turn and track of the ski is dependent on all of the skills. How will the inside ski make the same track as the outside ski if there is less pressure on it, without adding rotary to it?

The inside ski techniquely has to make a shorter radius arc to keep a parallal track to the outside ski, does this mean that we need to add more steering to the inside ski to keep up with the outside ski? Passing railroad tracks requires that equal distance is maintained between the skis during the turn. Pressure and edging are the control factors of turning while doing railraod tracks. How does one maintain equal distance if the skis are doing different things?

I think I understand that more weight ends up on the outside ski, but should we try to maintain both legs doing more equal work, or should we let the outside ski do more work becuase we can make it stronger by long leg/short leg, stacking the bones on the outside leg so that it is stronger?

When I one ski ski, I need to be angulated or I will fall over or get out of balance, this leading me to think that i'm controlling my ballance where I want it. But since I'm only on one ski is this because I'm always on the outside ski?

I believe that if you are properly angulated, you are better suited to handle irregularities that occur. While skiing a ski hits something and you are properly balanced, you are able to make a small adjustment to compensate and keep going, sometimes on only your inside ski. If i'm more centered over both skis, then it will be a smaller movement and faster to complete. If I'm balanced over my outside ski and find ice all of a sudden and lose my edge engagement, but my inside ski is not on ice I could easily continue skiing on that ski.

If I'm angulated, I can easily pick up either ski, where as if I'm inclined I can't. 1000 Step turns, I'm constantly going from outside to inside ski back to outside ski. This excersise helps hip angulation according to the level III study guide. To me this seems to also would cause you to be using both skis equally, although at seperate times. Hmmm.

These are things I'm thinking, not sure to if they are correct thoughts or not, just trying to understand more.

Thanks
post #4 of 25
Thread Starter 
Should it be said then that "Through a blend of angulation and inclination we are able to effectively pressure both skis throughout the turn"?
post #5 of 25
I understand Inclination as center of mass/body being to the inside (of turns) to balance in relation to forces. Angulation as the use of joints to create body angles.

Inclination can occur w/out angulation

or inclination can occur through angulation

It is common for inclination and banking to be seen as interchangeable words, for a time they were actually defined as such(in PSIA literature). There are people who define the two differently; inclination as the result, banking as the cause of said result.

At the time banking and inclination began to be differentiated from each other, some began calling banking as "whole body angulation."

In my mind, angulation can be used for various purposes; to affect edge angles, balance, pressure or direction of the Center of mass (in no particular order)

One purpose I see for angulation is to align the upper body for the next turn's inclination, as the skis finish one turn the torso can aligned for the beginning of the next one, so when edges change, there you are, in balance in relation to forces. This is can be a curious thing to consider, because in this situation, as angulation increases, edge angles can decrease, which is sorta opposite from a common understanding of angulation (to increase edge angles).

Heh, this was supposed to help simplify, somehow I doubt it did so. Thanks for asking though. I am happy to clarify anything that isn't....clear
post #6 of 25
All good stuff on definition. There is no such thing as 60/40 or 80/20 or anything else. Two footed refers to a mental sense that both skis are engaged in the process.

The blend between angulation and inclination will vary depending upon the snow conditions, dynamics, timing and intensity of the turns desired at any particular moment.

A two footed sense is the brains easiest way of handling the feedback and coordinating movements that result in good blending between angulation and inclination that results in dynamic balance.

It's safe to say that angulation will be more dominate in hard pack conditions than in softer snow.
post #7 of 25
I like to think of it like this: choose an edge angle, then use your body to balance primarily along the inside edge of the outside ski. If the snow and equipment allow you to, go ahead and bank. It's easy and fun. It tends to work best on forgiving snow. And, you will want to work on your transition as a result, since your body has farther to move from the inside of one turn to the inside of the next.

If conditions don't allow, angulate. Orient your body to balance along that inside edge of the outside ski, increasing the edge angle and then moving your body to really ride that ski.

Angulation is really a balancing movement. Think about what you want to hold constant (edge angle, for instance) and then think about body position that will keep you in balance, remembering that the force (usually from velocity) will be a primary contributor.
post #8 of 25
I believe that inclining is what I do to create a curving platform to stand against. (This platform is at an angle to the overall slope.) If I'm completely inclined--where the entire vertical axis of my body--torso AND legs--are aligned, then I have the maximum amount of resiliency available to manage the pressure to the skis as needed. This is the ideal suspension system--working free and unfettered by kinks in the joints (angulation).

The problem with being completely inclined (aligned) is that very small changes can cause problems. Slight loss of speed, deflection from the snow that alters the angle of the platform to the slope--all kinds of things--can interfere, and therefore the complete inclination (that some people call banking) is risky to both line and balance.

To manage this risk, I can counter-lean--tipping outward starting with as little as one hand reaching to the outside, but usually tipping away from the turn (to varying degrees) at the waist (first) and hips (second). The more I tip outward, the more balanced I can be if the ski drifts.

The trade-off here is that, the more I angulate, the more I lose the pressure management adjustability on the desired platform. Therefore I won't be able to give the turn enough juice--I won't get enough of the full flex capacities of the skis. When carried too far, it actually overcomes the platform and causes the release. This last is sometimes purposeful, because it helps me get off the old turn and into the new turn.

I think the problem in these angulation/inclination discussions is that we tend to look at them as pretty much the same thing when, in fact, they have very different functions. So it's a matter of doing bits of each to achieve the purpose I need at each moment in each turn.

As far as students are concerned, it is usually wise to opt for balance over alignment as terrain acquisition increases. However, on the greenies, it is really available to them to understand this capacity for full resilient alignment.
post #9 of 25
I think that there is a practical aspect to hip angulation, too: it helps me to get my inside ski closer to my butt, allowing me to create greater angle with my outside leg.
post #10 of 25
How about this,

Inclination is a turn entring strategy.
Angulations is a turn exiting strategy.
post #11 of 25
Mosh, I like that angle!

That kinda coincides with my understanding of the terms.

I think of inclination as the general line which balances the forces and angulation as the finer movements allowing us to maintain balance on the edges while fluidly linking turns.
post #12 of 25
Thread Starter 
I'm gaining a much better understanding. Thanks for all the great posts.

So we use angulation and inclination while skiing dynamically to achieve the balance platform we desire.

Thank you.
post #13 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaughtben View Post
I'm gaining a much better understanding. Thanks for all the great posts.

So we use angulation and inclination while skiing dynamically to achieve the balance platform we desire.

Thank you.
That's a really great statement.
post #14 of 25
On a bike trip with one of my ski school directors many years ago he demonstrated the 'why' of inclination and angulation. In an empty parking lot he asked me to follow him, first we went as fast as we could in a circle of about hundred feet in diameter, we used inclination to tip the bike.

Next we went slow in a circle about fifteen feet in diameter and automatically I angulated, tipping the bike one way and my body the opposite way. He explained that gravity pulls us toward the center of the earth and in the slow circle we needed to keep pressure on the tires to keep adhesion and since there was no force trying to throw us to the outside of the circle, the more we tipped the bike (edges) the more angulation we needed.

There are infinite steps between the all out speed and the slow speed and the decision has to be made where the center of mass has to be to balance when the bike is edged, even at high speed if the in inclination is high, angulation is used to keep the tires (edges) from losing adhesion.

Please take this for what it's worth, it simplified my understanding of your question.

...Ott
post #15 of 25
I have been trying to link to the thread "Turning-a bike analogy" by the Fox and it didn't work when I posted the above (I'm learning, forgive me) so I'll try it again.

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=56647
post #16 of 25


Inclination ("leaning") describes the movement of tipping your body into a turn, as we do on bicycles, running, standing on a bus, and many other things that require balance.

Angulation suggests creating angles. In skiing, it refers specifically to the more-or-less lateral (sideways) movements of various joints--particularly feet and ankles, knees, hips, and spine. (Note that it's a little more complicated than that, though, since knees and ankles really don't bend sideways. What we call "knee angulation" really combines normal flexion of the knee with rotation of the femur in the hip joint.) Angulation allows us to increase the skis' edge angle while remaining in balance.

One is not "better" than the other, contrary to common suggestions often debated here at EpicSki. They are both important movements that we must manage skillfully and continuously throughout turns to maintain balance and control edge angle and pressure on the skis.

That's it, in a nutshell. A search of the Epicski archives will unearth several lengthy discussions about these terms, but they're really quite simple. Applying them effectively in skiing may be another story!

Welcome to EpicSki, Yaughtben!

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #17 of 25
Bob! Bob! That is way too short. Are you all right?

Great graphic!
post #18 of 25
A little pressed for time--but if a picture is worth a thousand, that 2-frame animation must be worth a couple! I think I'm about on pace. . . .



Best regards,
Bob

PS--It's snowing hard here in Summit County!
post #19 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by mosh View Post
How about this,

Inclination is a turn entring strategy.
Angulations is a turn exiting strategy.
I like this too! You got to tell George this. I know he will like it.-----Wigs
post #20 of 25
I think George helped me understand this in the first place.
post #21 of 25
If we think about the middle of the turn transition & edge change, when skis are flat on the slope, when we are neutral, is when we probably see the least amount of lateral angles (angulation). Where ever in the arc we reach the highest edge angle is probably where we see the most angulation.

So as the turn developes from neutral, we create angulation as a function of creating the edge angles when and where we want them, and release those angles into the next transition as a function of how we want to release our edges. The process of angles-in, angles-out can become more radical as the turn shape becomes more radical, or leasure and we idle back and just cruise.

Weems refered to the stength of being aligned to our platform, with fewer angles. I see this reflected more in longer higher speed turns where the forces are greatest for the longest duration and we need to be stronger longer (by being longer and stacking the bones). Or in easy cruising when edge angles do not get all that high.

I grew up with inclination being a physics function of balancing to the outside forces of turns (represented as the line from CM to base of support). Angulation being a function of adjusting the edge angles. While they interacted, the served different functons. So I learned that the physics is that if we are turning we are inclined, with or without angles.

So it kinda boils down to what you is your purpose?
And how efficient do you want to be in making it happen?
Seems an invite to exploration and experimentation?

Lends to the old addage: 'Intent dictates technique'
post #22 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcmeister View Post
If we think about the middle of the turn transition & edge change, when skis are flat on the slope, when we are neutral, is when we probably see the least amount of lateral angles (angulation). Where ever in the arc we reach the highest edge angle is probably where we see the most angulation.

So as the turn developes from neutral, we create angulation as a function of creating the edge angles when and where we want them, and release those angles into the next transition as a function of how we want to release our edges. The process of angles-in, angles-out can become more radical as the turn shape becomes more radical, or leasure and we idle back and just cruise.

Weems refered to the stength of being aligned to our platform, with fewer angles. I see this reflected more in longer higher speed turns where the forces are greatest for the longest duration and we need to be stronger longer (by being longer and stacking the bones). Or in easy cruising when edge angles do not get all that high.

I grew up with inclination being a physics function of balancing to the outside forces of turns (represented as the line from CM to base of support). Angulation being a function of adjusting the edge angles. While they interacted, the served different functons. So I learned that the physics is that if we are turning we are inclined, with or without angles.

So it kinda boils down to what you is your purpose?
And how efficient do you want to be in making it happen?
Seems an invite to exploration and experimentation?

Lends to the old addage: 'Intent dictates technique'
Hi Arcmeister,

Am I reading you right that you are saying there is no inclination from neutral on through the turn?------Wigs
post #23 of 25
Nope...

As a generic perspective of balancing, inclination as a balanced equilibrium is instinctively sought by novice skiers to prevent falling. Yet as a technical component that is manipulated more complexly by more skilled skiers to use the effect of falling inward or falling outward to facilitate their intents and purposes while smoothly linking dynamic turns.

Simply applied:
If we are turning, we need to employ some form of inclination to preclude falling over to the outside of the turn.

Complexly explored:
As a point of reference I'll use the classic skiing physics def of inclination as the angle from CM to base of support, representing a balanced equilibrium between lateral forces of a turn and vertical forces of gravity.

So at a true neutral, where there are no turning forces being balanced against, there would be no need for any inclination at that point (tho some may appear, stay tuned).

However, as soon as there is a direction change and lateral forces occur, our balancing reaction to them is to create some form of inclination. So any time we are turning there is a need for inclination, however we may choose to create it, whether by banking without angulation, or just angulation, or some creative combination of the two.

What has to be factored when observing dynamic skiers is that they seldom seek the ideal inclination that would maintain a perfectly balance equilibrium (more so in longer turns, less so in shorter). The rhythm and flow exhibited by expert skiers reflects their technique of employing excess inclination (falling inward) in the top of the turn to facilitate the desired flow of CM to the inside of the arc (so angulation can easily regulate edging). Yet thru the crux of the power zone their inclination achieves equilibrium when needed most. Only to give it up to become under-inclined (falling outward) entering the next transition so as to release the CM and let it's momentum facilitate the flow thru neutral toward the inside of the next turn.

Inclination and angulation are but technical tools to be employed as a function of our intents and purposes. We can't ski without them, so we should explore learning how to best use them to enhance our skiing.
post #24 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcmeister View Post
Nope...

As a generic perspective of balancing, inclination as a balanced equilibrium is instinctively sought by novice skiers to prevent falling. Yet as a technical component that is manipulated more complexly by more skilled skiers to use the effect of falling inward or falling outward to facilitate their intents and purposes while smoothly linking dynamic turns.

Simply applied:
If we are turning, we need to employ some form of inclination to preclude falling over to the outside of the turn.

Complexly explored:
As a point of reference I'll use the classic skiing physics def of inclination as the angle from CM to base of support, representing a balanced equilibrium between lateral forces of a turn and vertical forces of gravity.

So at a true neutral, where there are no turning forces being balanced against, there would be no need for any inclination at that point (tho some may appear, stay tuned).

However, as soon as there is a direction change and lateral forces occur, our balancing reaction to them is to create some form of inclination. So any time we are turning there is a need for inclination, however we may choose to create it, whether by banking without angulation, or just angulation, or some creative combination of the two.

What has to be factored when observing dynamic skiers is that they seldom seek the ideal inclination that would maintain a perfectly balance equilibrium (more so in longer turns, less so in shorter). The rhythm and flow exhibited by expert skiers reflects their technique of employing excess inclination (falling inward) in the top of the turn to facilitate the desired flow of CM to the inside of the arc (so angulation can easily regulate edging). Yet thru the crux of the power zone their inclination achieves equilibrium when needed most. Only to give it up to become under-inclined (falling outward) entering the next transition so as to release the CM and let it's momentum facilitate the flow thru neutral toward the inside of the next turn.

Inclination and angulation are but technical tools to be employed as a function of our intents and purposes. We can't ski without them, so we should explore learning how to best use them to enhance our skiing.
Thanks Arcmeister. A great explanation of the two.-------Wigs
post #25 of 25
Great perspective Arc! thanks!
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 › Angulation Versus Inclination