or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Regarding Tipping - Page 2

Quote:
 Originally Posted by BigE "To much ILE and you are pushing out the tail more than you want to."?
Well I didn't put that much thought into every word, sorry for the confusion. When I said "more than you want to", I meant you don't want to.

What I mean by getting some tail push if you're not careful is exactly that. Push too hard and you can compromise your edge and result in pushing the tail. This is why HH is so dead against ILE as a flat absolute answer. I don't agree with him entirely though. I think ILE can be very useful and should be available to me, but much care is needed to avoid overdoing it.

It might be possible to move your COM across using almost exclusively ILE, though that is not a good way to do it, I'm sure you would agree. Most likely that results in a pop extension, which results in an unweight, followed by a bad turn.

Quote:
 In my books, OLR means OLR -- the CM is released because the outside leg is relaxed. In ILE, the CM is released becase the inside leg is extended. (Call it toppling if you must, but really, it's just release). This grey area is where I have considerable trouble.
Ah, i see now. In that sense, pure ILE is not really a "release", is it"? It would simply be a forced movement. Actually, I don't think pure ILE is even possible the more I think about it. If you aren't using at least some small amount of OLR, then how can ILE move your COM across if the other leg is blocking it? At some level you have to release that old leg to let your COM go that way.

But I think there is grey. When you release with OLR, your COM moves across at a speed that is dictated by the laws of physics. Just take that alone for a minute. If your OLR is perfectly 100%, then there is some pendulum speed determined by the laws of physics that determines how fast your COM will move across into the new turn simply by changing the balance point through a perfect OLR. However, consider what it means to have a perfect OLR release. That means that leg is rubber. Dead. No weight on it. Like knocking the leg out from under a chair. It is certainly well possible to only remove a certain percentage of your weight from that leg through muscle relaxation, which will result in a "weighted release". However, that will also result in a slower crossover without some help from ILE. The balance point change is not as drastic.

Maybe you don't need the help to get across faster in a certain transition, maybe you do...but there are many shades of grey in between by combining different levels of OLR (relaxation of that leg) with different levels of ILE force(pushing down with the other leg). What we do know is that you spread the load of your weight and G's onto two legs and some amount of muscle control will effect how much weight is on one leg or the other, combined with the changing forces due to physics as your balance point changes.

Sadly, some people don't use enough OLR, which results in them having to use too much ILE to move across, and often requiring even worse, a pop extension. But its not really fair or true in my view to say that it must be all of one or the other. People are probably using varying degrees of both in many/most situations.

Quote:
 Take the transition speed thing. Isn't what is actually slowing the transition that both skis are weighted? Then what you are calling a mix of ILE and OLR is nothing more than simultaneaous extending and flexing.
Almost. Flexing is not the same as relaxing. Flexing is really only about shortening. You could easily leave your weight on that flexing leg and you would have very little balance point change in that case other than that given by moving the COM into a new position and causing the balance point change that way.

Relaxing the muscles will be like knocking out the leg from under a chair...instant change in balance point. I am of the opinion that the focus should be on relaxing and controlling the amount of relaxation...while the amount of flexing is a "result" of what happens as the COM moves across and other skiing factors...not so much as a movement to create a release. Simply relaxing that leg creates the release. Flexing it is what you are going to have to do as your COM moves that way, in order to shorten the leg and keep it out of the way of your COM. Its also mentally difficult to relax your leg without flexing it at the same time, which is one reason I think people tend to equate flexing with relaxing. But it does not necessarily need to be so. You can bend your leg easily while still carrying the same level of weight, and you can relax it without flexing, though in reality, relaxing your leg will result in your limbs moving into a more relaxed, flexed position, not FULLY extended,

Likewise, I prefer to think of ILE as more of a movement that takes place as my COM topples across and I'm extending that leg to keep it on the snow as my COM falls down the hill and moves away from the leg in question.

However, there is no reason in my mind to assume that some small amount of actually pushing might sometimes be beneficial. Nonetheless, that is normally not MY focus because I know that if I push too hard I can easily destroy my edge, particularly in ice. However, should it not be an available option?

However, regardless of all that; for me one factor that remains in my mind a lot is that I know that standing on flexed legs is a vulnerable position to be in. If I am unweighted, then fine. If I am not unweighted, then every time I stand my weight on a flexed leg, I shorten my ski day. I'm not talking about big G forces here like are present later in the turn. I'm talking about just my own body weight. In the transition and high-C, you're not dealing with much in the way of G forces, but you still have to stand on your body weight. If you're doing it standing on a flexed leg, then you're working too hard.

If you are transferring your body weight and support of G forces from one extended leg to the other from turn to turn, then one key is to get that weight transferred from one extendedleg to the other with as little time as possible supported by flexed legs. You can only be weightless for a very short period of time in a medium to large radius turn.

If you think, on the other hand, that you need to relax your old outside ski, wait for it to flex down a ways until it matches your old inside leg and only then start to extend your new outside leg...well, frankly I think there are many situations where you are working too hard like that by virtue of allowing your quad muscles to have to support your weight while flexed.

An effective release will make it so that normally, very little or no ILE pushing is needed to move the COM across, however, that leg can easily be extended more pro-actively, not withstanding. That can result in the "up and over" look that we can observe in many skiers, including WC. Just because they are going up and over, does not mean they are doing a pop extension or using too much ILE. In my mind it can mean they are carefully managing the blending of OLR and ILE so that they transition exactly at the speed they need to; and minimize the amount of time they spend lingering with flexed legs to support the forces, without compromising their new outside edge by pushing on it too hard or popping.

The reality is that the OLR will provide enough weightless float period for me to get quite a bit of ILE happening during the crossover. By the time I'm standing on that new outside leg again, its already well on its way to being extended. It is NOT necessary, in my view to find yourself with both legs flexed before gingerly extending the new outside leg. Early ILE can most definitely be combined, earlier and in conjunction with aggressive OLR.

Still not clear? Still think I'm wacked...?
BigE (and all), what do you think of this?

Only by entirely removing the base of support (BOS) would we totally release the CM, and the result would be the skier going to the snow. If something is done to alter the nature of the BOS via flexion or extension of a leg, such that balance is disrupted, but at least a portion of the BOS remains intact, then only partial release takes place, and the CM rather than enjoying full unencumbered release, deflects. That deflection will take place regardless of how displaced the point of pressure (POP) becomes from the point of balance (POB), but will deflect faster as the amount of POP/POB displacement grows.

And what role would the above play in the relationship between stance width and speed of transition?

Just thought I'd offer some ideas to chew on.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by borntoski Ah, i see now. In that sense, pure ILE is not really a "release", is it"? It would simply be a forced movement. Actually, I don't think pure ILE is even possible the more I think about it. If you aren't using at least some small amount of OLR, then how can ILE move your COM across if the other leg is blocking it? At some level you have to release that old leg to let your COM go that way.
Really, it's simply a matter of what move comes first. Both (ILE and OLR)accomplish the same thing, moving pressure from one foot to the other, while not changing the point of balance, which ignites CM toppling into the new turn. ILE does not, when done properly, push the CM across the skis anymore than OLR does. The turn forces do it in both.
And you're right,,, ILE to aggressively, and the superb ski to snow contact and edge feel it provides is lost.
It seems to be we have a definition problem.

By what you said, ILE is not really the "Extending" part of the equation, its the "standing on" part. And OLR, is perhaps more accurate. It should really be ILS(Inside leg support) vs OLR(outside leg relax).

If we want to talk about flexing and extending and the various timing issues then I guess we would then say ILE and OLF. But I think ILE aned ILS are two completely different concepts that are often coordinated together, while OLR and OLF are also two completely different concepts that are often coordinated.
If I understand what you're saying, BTS, I guess my response would be: ILE produces ILS,,, and OLF produces ILS too. Both ILE and OLF create the state of imbalance which allows the turn forces to move the CM laterally. Neither ILE nor OLF can take place if OLR is not allowed.

Did I read you right? Both OLF and ILS are new terms. I always used OLR to mean what you meant by OLF, and ILS I never really talked about, but it is in fact the end result. Yet I imagine someone reading this is thinking, "what the ef did he just say?" It might take us into the land of term use overkill?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick BigE (and all), what do you think of this? Only by entirely removing the base of support (BOS) would we totally release the CM, and the result would be the skier going to the snow. If something is done to alter the nature of the BOS via flexion or extension of a leg, such that balance is disrupted, but at least a portion of the BOS remains intact, then only partial release takes place, and the CM rather than enjoying full unencumbered release, deflects.
OK, I'll go with that.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick That deflection will take place regardless of how displaced the point of pressure (POP) becomes from the point of balance (POB), but will deflect faster as the amount of POP/POB displacement grows.
The speed of deflection increasing involves a force/acceleration.

Only initial acceleration is proportional to distance between POP/POB, but there can be no increase in deflection speed as the POP/POB displacement grows during release, as there are no added forces.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick And what role would the above play in the relationship between stance width and speed of transition?
Wider stance => increased speed of transition, due to the pre-existing POP/POB displacement.
Hmm

What I mean is that flex means flex and extend means extend. In both cases, the flexing may or may not be unweighting a leg and extending may or may not be weighting a leg. Above you mentioned a transfer of weight from one leg to the other. To me, there is no "extending" that should be automatically always inferred there in that statement. It is simply a transfer of weight from one leg to the other. In that sense, OLR works for one half of the equation, but ILE is misleading for the other half.

The idea of flexing and extending our legs has different purposes. Yes, extending MIGHT happen when you transfer your weight to that leg or it might not be happening. Flexing MIGHT be happening when releasing your leg or might not. See what I mean? The flexion and extension of legs are independent concepts from weight transfer.

So in this way, I feel OLR works fine for the weight transfer concept, but "ILE" is misleading unless you specifically mean to say that leg extension is related in some way.

I realize that many people have been using ILE and OLR and understanding the concepts, but I think what I'm trying to say is that there is some amount of understood implicit meaning we have been using in our discussion and perhaps the terms should be clarified.

Myself, I always thought ILE, meant actually extending the leg, regardless of weight transfer. Complete weight transfer can occur without any ILE. If that is the case, then what is the purpose of ILE? My understanding of OLR has been that its a relax of the outside leg, which MIGHT involve flexion or might not. I do not think its absolutely implicit that flexion is involved in the weight transfer.

There really are 4 seperate concepts, but we've always been kinda naming two of them and glossing over the other two. Furthermore, one is a concept about leg extension, which may or may not result in weight transfer, and the other is a concept about weight transfer that may or may not involve some leg flexion.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by BigE The speed of deflection increasing involves a force/acceleration. Only initial acceleration is proportional to distance between POP/POB, but there can be no increase in deflection speed as the POP/POB displacement grows during release, as there are no added forces. Wider stance => increased speed of transition, due to the pre-existing POP/POB displacement.

Yep, initial is what I was referring to. I'm preaching to the choir here, ain't I. Well done, bud.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by BigE Only initial acceleration is proportional to distance between POP/POB, but there can be no increase in deflection speed as the POP/POB displacement grows during release, as there are no added forces.
You lost me for a bit on the physics there, but can you please elaborate on what that means in practical skiing terms?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by borntoski683 I prefer to think of ILE as more of a movement that takes place as my COM topples across and I'm extending that leg to keep it on the snow as my COM falls down the hill and moves away from the leg in question.
So you are saying ILE is just extension of the leg to maintain snow contact, while something else is responsible for the release of the CM ( the CM topples ).

Why can't ILE be responsible for the release? You don't need OLR once ILE has been engaged, you can even lift.....
well clearly I am lost on what ILE actually means at this point. Can't continue the discussion without sorting that out.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Borntoski The idea of flexing and extending our legs has different purposes. Yes, extending MIGHT happen when you transfer your weight to that leg or it might not be happening. Flexing MIGHT be happening when releasing your leg or might not. See what I mean?
BTS, dang, you've got me scratchin my head on this one. While in a turn with outside ski dominance, how can you extend the old inside leg, while doing nothing else, and not increase pressure on that foot? Or how could you not relax the old outside leg and have pressure move to the old inside foot (if the leg is willing to accept it)?
i didn't say that. If you are extending, its quite likely you will be increasing pressure on that foot. However, I do not think that you neccessarily have to be extending your leg to increase pressure on that foot.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by borntoski683 You lost me for a bit on the physics there, but can you please elaborate on what that means in practical skiing terms?

I was addressing a confusing sentence, where Rick seemed to be saying that the speed of the toppling increases as the POP/POB grows which happens as you topple. But there is no speed increase caused by an increase in displacement of POP/POB (except coincidentally due to gravity). However, the initial aceleration is quicker if POP/POB is further away..

Sumo stance -- you topple real fast if you relax/lift a leg because of the initial POP/POB difference.

Click the heels together and relax or lift one leg and you don't, since POP/POB are close together.

Hmmmm..... how is lifting all that different from ILE?
and likewise, if you relax the old outside leg, of course weight will transfer. I'm not saying otherwise. but the leg does not neccessarily need to be flexing(in a major way) for that to happen.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by borntoski683 i didn't say that. If you are extending, its quite likely you will be increasing pressure on that foot. However, I do not think that you neccessarily have to be extending your leg to increase pressure on that foot.
OK, sorry, I miss read. Good. You're of course right, you don't. There are other ways, OLR being one.

Quote:
 well clearly I am lost on what ILE actually means at this point. Can't continue the discussion without sorting that out.
This might help everyone

Quote:
 Originally Posted by BigE I was addressing a confusing sentence, where Rick seemed to be saying that the speed of the toppling increases as the POP/POB grows which happens as you topple. But there is no speed increase caused by an increase in displacement of POP/POB (except coincidentally due to gravity). However, the initial aceleration is quicker if POP/POB is further away.. Sumo stance -- you topple real fast if you relax/lift a leg because of the initial POP/POB difference. Click the heels together and relax or lift one leg and you don't, since POP/POB are close together.
Excellent, BigE. Thanks for the detailed explanation of what I was getting at.
The whole point I was trying to make in earlier posts was that it should not be assumed that (A) inside leg extension is required to transition or that (B) outside leg flexion is required to transition. This thread started out talking about leg flexion during release. I do not feel its neccessary to move through a transition where both legs end up flexed. Sometimes it makes sense for certain transitions. It is not always. I failed at explaining what I was thinking.

ps - I've read all the posts about ILE. I still think the term is being overloaded. (shrug)

Boy, Nolo was actually nice to Rick in that thread!
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick This might help everyonehttp://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=31521
that looks like a great thread over there. Reading it now. I didn't even know about that forum.
One interesting thing that popped out at me in that Snowheads write up of ILE is the notion that a good portion of ILE push down is happening while on the LTE of the uphill ski. At least until the ski is flat, it seems to me there should be very little or no concern about losing the edge connection. Its the transition through a flat ski and onto the BTE where the loss of edge connectedness could come from pushing too hard. yes?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick @ snowheads OK, so here's how ILE works. When we're turning while balanced on the outside foot the resultant force is directed at that outside foot. When we push down on the inside foot, we're removing our outside foot from our base of support. We have nothing to balance on, so we topple over. That toppling rolls us off our uphill edges, and brings our prior turn to an end. This only works if we don't move our CM uphill. If we move the CM uphill we move our balance point toward the inside foot, so balance is not lost, because we still have that foot to balance on. We simply continue turning, balanced on that uphill foot.

FYI:
Replace the first bolding with "our CM is released", and remove the second.

That's what I'm talking about when I'm saying "release". Any added deflection is an artifact of transition.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by borntoski683 One interesting thing that popped out at me in that Snowheads write up of ILE is the notion that a good portion of ILE push down is happening while on the LTE of the uphill ski. At least until the ski is flat, it seems to me there should be very little or no concern about losing the edge connection. Its the transition through a flat ski and onto the BTE where the loss of edge connectedness could come from pushing too hard. yes?
Yes, LTE is where push down pressure starts, at which point the ski automatically begins to roll, as the body begins to move downhill. If you extend so rapidly and aggressively that the leg becomes fully extended before the new turn has been engaged, and new turn forces can be created, the upward CM momentum created by that rapid extension can disengage the skier/ski from the snow.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick If you extend so rapidly and aggressively that the leg becomes fully extended before the new turn has been engaged, and new turn forces can be created, the upward CM momentum created by that rapid extension can disengage the skier/ski from the snow.
That's what I meant by "pop extension".

Is there any additional concern about just sloppily making the transition from flat to BTE too forcefully, forget about unweighting for this question... can an unwanted tail push happen during that little segment of time by pushing too hard there? Seems to me that you can actually push pretty hard right up until the ski goes flat(providing you don't pop extend yourself weightless). But I am wondering if that transition through a flat ski onto the BTE requires more careful pushing from there through the first phase of the turn.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by BigE FYI: Replace the first bolding with "our CM is released", and remove the second. That's what I'm talking about when I'm saying "release". Any added deflection is an artifact of transition.

Yep, specifically, the old inside leg/foot, which still remains a part of the base of support, and which the CM must pendulum over as it topples.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by borntoski683 That's what I meant by "pop extension". Is there any additional concern about just sloppily making the transition from flat to BTE too forcefully, forget about unweighting for this question... can an unwanted tail push happen during that little segment of time by pushing too hard there? Seems to me that you can actually push pretty hard right up until the ski goes flat(providing you don't pop extend yourself weightless). But I am wondering if that transition through a flat ski onto the BTE requires more careful pushing from there through the first phase of the turn.
Honestly, BTS, I've never felt it or seen it, although I've personally refined all the rotary out of my arc to arc transitions. The push down for me doesn't seem to create any undesired rotary force, regardless how hard I push. The only negative repercussion from pushing to hard I'm familiar with would be the aforementioned loss of connection to the snow. Perhaps if a skier still has a bit of residual rotary left in their arc to arc transitions the evidence of it might elevate with overly aggressive ILE? Not sure, and so far no experience with seeing it happen.

The more common risk from flat to new edge engagement seems to be a loss of lateral balance to the inside. Inside hip driving and angulation are the cures for that. If someone is going to over-do the extension, they usually have maxed out before the new engagement phase.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick Yes, LTE is where push down pressure starts, at which point the ski automatically begins to roll, as the body begins to move downhill.
Rick, I've played with this movement but had a different outcome. When I extend the inside leg I do not release the turn. Its more like I transfer the bos from the outside leg to the inside leg with the edge angle staying the same (or perhaps increasing a bit).

What am I doing that is different?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 Rick, I've played with this movement but had a different outcome. When I extend the inside leg I do not release the turn. Its more like I transfer the bos from the outside leg to the inside leg with the edge angle staying the same (or perhaps increasing a bit). What am I doing that is different?
This is an easy one, Max. You're moving your CM uphill in unison with the extension of your uphill (old inside) leg. Doing that transfers balance to the uphill foot, and the turn just continues on. You need to extend (softly) with your old inside leg, without moving your CM laterally a smidgeon.

You can try right at home. Stand with equal weight on both feet. Tip up on the left sides of your feet, as though making a left turn. Push down on your left foot WITHOUT moving your pelvis to the left at all. You become out of balance, and tip to the right. Now do the same thing, but this time as you push down on your left foot, move your pelvis to the left too. Doing this, you can remain balanced on your left foot, with it still on edge.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick This is an easy one, Max. You're moving your CM uphill in unison with the extension of your uphill (old inside) leg. Doing that tranfers balance to the uphill foot, and the turn just continues on. You need to extend (softly) with your old inside leg, without moving your CM laterally a smidgeon
I suspect this is due to a stance width difference.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching