or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# WC coach's perspective - Page 2

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh Where is your CoM in those two turns? For which turn does it take the shorter line? The path of your CoM is the key to the fastest run.
If the hip distance from the snow and the edge angles are identical how do you figure one will end up faster than the other?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 If the hip distance from the snow and the edge angles are identical how do you figure one will end up faster than the other?
Where is your center of mass in the two turns? It is not just the line that your skis take (which I think is the focus and the cause of your questions). It is the path that your CoM takes. And it's a shorter path when you are inclined than when you are angulated (agreed?).
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 I'm still not getting it. Assume that my hips are 24" off of the snow at the end of phase 1. In one case I'm using pure inclination, in the other I'm using inclination plus angulation. Edge angle is the same in both cases. How is inclination going to result in a faster turn?
If the speed, path and edge angles are the same, and one skier is angulating and in the other is banking, then one or the other will be out of balance. Angulating moves your center of mass to the outsided of the turn, all else equal. One of those skiers in your example will fall down, either by getting too far inside because he is banking, or getting too far outside because he is angulating.
The only reason we see banking at the top of some turns in WC is that those guys are fast enough that they need to bank to be inside enough to be in balance. Another way to look at is that shorter radius skis need less edge angle for a particular arc, so by banking they can get inside enough with enough edge that they don't need to increase their edging by angulating. That's why it looks different than in the past, but in reality they are still using the same skills, it's just that the new equipment requires some adjustment in the movement pattern.
Coaches who tell you to bank at the top of the turn- before you learn to ski fast enough- just because the WC guys do it are misunderstanding what is
really happening. The fastest skiers have good feel for their edges, and good balance skills. They will automatically bank whenever it is required for good balance.

BK
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ssh Where is your center of mass in the two turns? It is not just the line that your skis take (which I think is the focus and the cause of your questions). It is the path that your CoM takes. And it's a shorter path when you are inclined than when you are angulated (agreed?).
If the skis take the same line how is one going to be faster than the other regardless of the CoM location?
This is a great thread, I enjoyed the article.
Thanks,
JF
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 If the skis take the same line how is one going to be faster than the other regardless of the CoM location?
In reality the skis aren't on the same line. They may start on the same line but by the end of the turn they will be on a different line. The further the CM is inside the turn, the greater the edge angle that can be created and ultimately the tighter the radius of the arc.

Think of it this way, the racers goal is to basically go as straight as they can down the hill with out blowing out of the course. By inclining and moving their CM inside the turn, they are able to A) keep their CM moving in a more direct/straight path down the hill building momentum and B) tip the ski onto a higher edge faster/sooner in the turn, thereby allowing them to create a tighter turn. The tighter the turn the more time they are spending in the fall line building speed. A racer's goal is to not only maintain speed but to actually increase it through out the run.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick And all this is why the White Pass Lean, inside ski skiing, and inside ski to outside edge are such valuable drills.
Rick,

Skiing on the inside ski is a drill I work on often. I noticed on your new web site that there is a picture of you performing that drill in a heavily inclined position. Doing that drill properly is much harder than most people think. Another drill is making the turn on solely the outside ski by inclining and having the inside ski completely off the snow. Both are best tried on moderate, groomed terrain. I think they are great benchmark tests. Once you can link these types of turns then you know you are on the right path...
Quote:
 Originally Posted by jbm13 In reality the skis aren't on the same line. They may start on the same line but by the end of the turn they will be on a different line. The further the CM is inside the turn, the greater the edge angle that can be created and ultimately the tighter the radius of the arc.
Again, in my example the distance from the hips to the snow is the same so the edge angle is also the same and so is the resulting arc (if anything the example with earlier counter balance would create a tighter arc).

I just can't figure out how adding counter balance would block movement of the CM. I'm sure I'm just missing something.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick Justin,,, also in your explanations remember that if you can speed the process of getting to a high edge angle, you can tighten your turn shape, and thus straighten your line. Angulation fights that process. Early inclination promotes it. But like Whygimf says,,, this is high skill level sking. At it's highest forms it's very much "DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME" kind of stuff for most rec skiers at their current skill level. Can't ski on your inside ski? Best stay clear till you can.
Your last sentence says it all...

I think I just wrote basically the same thing in a recent post. Inclination allows the athlete to create a higher edge angle faster than angulation. So....

1) The faster they can achieve a high edge angle, the faster they can tighten the turn radius.
2) The faster they can tighten the radius, the more time they can spend going straight down the hill
3) The more time they spend going straight down the hill, the more momentum they build.
4) The more momentum they build, the sooner they reach the finish line.

Skiing on the inside ski promotes early inclination. You don't see it being taught outside of a very high level race program because the majority of instructors and coaches simply can't do it. The part that irks me is that many coaches think that they are inclining enough when they aren't even close. In reality they end up angulating too much in an effort to compensate for insufficient balance skills.
What you are missing is some speed.

Make turns down the fall line. The shortest distance traveled by the cm, all other things being equal will result in the faster time. For a given path of the skis and a given angle of the skis to achieve that path, faster speed will require less angulation.

Or thought of another way, achieving a given edge angle via angulation does not move your cm as far inside the turn as banking does.

The more speed you carry through a given radius turn with a given tipping angle, the closer you come to banking.

I'm assuming you realize the shortest path between two points is the one closest to a straight line, and moving the cm inside the turn shortens its path.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by jbm13 Inclination allows the athlete to create a higher edge angle faster than angulation. So.... 1) The faster they can achieve a high edge angle, the faster they can tighten the turn radius. 2) The faster they can tighten the radius, the more time they can spend going straight down the hill 3) The more time they spend going straight down the hill, the more momentum they build. 4) The more momentum they build, the sooner they reach the finish line. Skiing on the inside ski promotes early inclination. You don't see it being taught outside of a very high level race program because the majority of instructors and coaches simply can't do it. The part that irks me is that many coaches think that they are inclining enough when they aren't even close. In reality they end up angulating too much in an effort to compensate for insufficient balance skills.
This is just about opposite of what really happens. I can always increase my edge angle by angulating, no matter how much, or how little, I am inclining. When you see a skier inclining without angulating, he is minimizing the edge angle. Racers always try to minimize their edge angles because edging increases friction. They need high angles because that's what the course requires, not because higher angles are faster.
BK
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ghost What you are missing is some speed. Make turns down the fall line. The shortest distance traveled by the cm, all other things being equal will result in the faster time. For a given path of the skis and a given angle of the skis to achieve that path, faster speed will require less angulation. Or thought of another way, achieving a given edge angle via angulation does not move your cm as far inside the turn as banking does. The more speed you carry through a given radius turn with a given tipping angle, the closer you come to banking. I'm assuming you realize the shortest path between two points is the one closest to a straight line, and moving the cm inside the turn shortens its path.
That's the right answer, but it would be true even if the center of mass did not follow a shorter path. On the same arc, at higher speeds you need to be more inside to maintain balance. Less angulation puts you more inside, but if you are not going fast enough, you will fall onto your inside foot. That's all there is to it.
Straight skis needed much higher edge angles than shape skis, and everybody had to angulate all the time to balance on the high edge angle. With shape skis, we angulate much less, and the fastest skiers sometimes don't need to angulate at all. It looks noticably different, but the skills are the same. As others have noted, you can find still pictures of skiers angulating at the top of the turn, and probably pictures of the same skier in the same race banking at the top of a different turn. The only difference is where the center of mass needs to be for any particular speed and arc.
Telling recreational skiers to bank at the top of all their turns is the equivalent of telling weekend golfers to try the same shots the pros use. It's not gonna work.

BK
Quote:
 Originally Posted by whygimf We are talking very high performance skiing here, right? Inclining deeper into phase 1 vs. counter-balancing will allow a skier to get to higher edge angles prior to fall line entry. It is dynamic and takes the path of the cm on a shorter arc. It is a real balancing act (no pun intended) when / how to focus on the timing of engaging the needed counter-balance at fall line exit when beginning a turn with inclination. Most skiers are not sufficiently body aware to start the turn inclined and adjust their body to finish counter balanced - more specifically, not being countered enough in phase 3 results in a terrible turn exit as demontrated here by Mr. Ligety. To inclinate effectively is also a problem. Most who begin turns with inclination do it by projecting some part of their body like shoulders, hips or ears - throwing off timing and balance and most often compromising ski control - defeating the reason to inclinate in the first place. Something fun - If you go back to Greg's article, notice the difference in the orientation of Greg's head to his shoulders in his phase 3 discussion of his turns. Compare it to the WC GS boys. Greg's head tilt (or lack of level ears) moves his skiing from inclination to leaning in. Again, this is leaning in, not inclinating. It compromises his snow-ski pressure.
Leaning in is caused by too much weight on the inside ski and loss of pressure on the outside ski and the racers usually falls to the inside of the turn. I don't really give a hoot where his ears are:. it is where his balance is that counts. Leaning in puts his balance point too far inside the turn. Banking is not leaning in until it causes the balance point to be too far inside. In my book leaning in always causes a fall.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Atomicman Leaning in is cuased by too much weight on the inside ski and loss of pressure on the outside ski and the racers usually falls to the inside of the turn. I don't really give a hoot where his ears are:. it is where his balance is that counts. Leaning in puts his balance point too far inside the turn. Banking is not leaning in until it causes the balance point to be too far inside. In my book leaning in always causes a fall.
Exactly.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bode Klammer where the center of mass needs to be for any particular speed and arc
Indeed.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Atomicman Leaning in is cuased by too much weight on the inside ski and loss of pressure on the outside ski and the racers usually falls to the inside of the turn. I don't really give a hoot where his ears are:. it is where his balance is that counts. Leaning in puts his balance point too far inside the turn. Banking is not leaning in until it causes the balance point to be too far inside. In my book leaning in always causes a fall.
No, leaning in doesn't always result in a fall. Loss of outside ski pressure will disrupt the dynamics of the turn, i.e loss of carving or ski direction - hence, loss of speed. Otherwise we agree here.

What I was pointing out (re: Gurshman's head orientation) was the difference of the inclination of the WC skiers vs. Gurshman - the WC guys are inclinating and "on" it, whereas Gurshman is leaning in and does not have the same outside ski accuracy in phase 3 of his turns.

Next time you go ski, be aware of the orientation of where your ears are aligned. You may be surprised. Try it while you are seated reading this. More often than not, those who "lean in" tip their head to the inside of the turn.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 Again, in my example the distance from the hips to the snow is the same so the edge angle is also the same and so is the resulting arc (if anything the example with earlier counter balance would create a tighter arc). I just can't figure out how adding counter balance would block movement of the CM. I'm sure I'm just missing something.
Max,

For a ski to turn it needs to be both edged and pressured. To understand this theory you must make a clear delineation between these 2 concepts. Inclination moves the CM towards the inside of the turn, where as angulation is moving the CM towards the outside of the turn.
For the purpose of developing edge angle, inclination allows the ski to be tipped faster and to a greater edge angle because the CM is being tipped down the hill (the same direction gravity is naturally pulling us) as opposed to away from it (CB/Angulation). With inclination the CM is not resisting (counteracting) gravity, rather it moves with it.

Okay so now we have a highly edged ski, but its useless if there is no pressure on it. That's where CB comes into play--CB/Angulation is not about creating edge angles but rather maintaining them by resisting the forces that develop as a result of the edge angle. CB/Angulation moves the CM toward the outside of the arc to promote pressure on the outside ski, thus maintaining ski/snow contact.

If you had 2 separate skiers who both had equally pressured outside skis, but one created a 35 degree angle and the other created a 70 degree angle the physics dictate that the latter would carve a tighter turn. Since inclination and angulation are opposites, the trick is to use them during the appropriate time and to the appropriate degree. Too much of either one, or applied at the wrong time and the equation is out of balance.

Most people end up using too much angulation because it provides a greater sensation of control; it feels safe. At the highest level, inclination is not about feeling safe and in control, rather its about pushing the limits in an effort to achieve the most direct descent down the hill.

To sum it up, the ski racer's challenge is to get the ski up on a high edge angle and then maintain pressure on the edge. Ideally they want to use just enough resistance/counteraction against gravity in an effort to maintain maximum momentum. Consequently, the technical elements must take place in a specific order to achieve optimal efficiency.

Regards,

Justin
Quote:
 Originally Posted by whygimf No, leaning in doesn't always result in a fall. Loss of outside ski pressure will disrupt the dynamics of the turn, i.e loss of carving or ski direction - hence, loss of speed. Otherwise we agree here. What I was pointing out (re: Gurshman's head orientation) was the difference of the inclination of the WC skiers vs. Gurshman - the WC guys are inclinating and "on" it, whereas Gurshman is leaning in and does not have the same outside ski accuracy in phase 3 of his turns. Next time you go ski, be aware of the orientation of where your ears are aligned. You may be surprised. Try it while you are seated reading this. More often than not, those who "lean in" tip their head to the inside of the turn.
I don't consider it leaning in unless you fall.. I would also have to say that leaning in happens in the 2nd half of the 1st phase of the turn into the most or all of the 2nd phase. if you lean in, you never make to the 3rd phase. You are already on your ass! I just never ever saw racers lean in in the 3rd phase. this is where you are recentering with level shoulders. Like I said if you leaned in your gone far before you get to this point!
Great article and great thread so far. Thanks for sharing.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Atomicman I don't consider it leaning in unless you fall.. I would also have to say that leaning in happens in the 2nd half of the 1st phase of the turn into the most or all of the 2nd phase. if you lean in, you never make to the 3rd phase. You are already on your ass! I just never ever saw racers lean in in the 3rd phase. this is where you are recentering with level shoulders. Like I said if you leaned in your gone far before you get to this point!
Well, if you aren't able to level in time by fall line exit you end up looking like Ligety here (again) - http://levakhsanov.net/p306554683/?p...3606#361313798.

Actually A-man you probably see leaning in the 3rd phase more that you think - how about level in the fall line until the athlete preps to 'clear' a SL gate and (not just rotating) - ski slips, line goes low, pole touch is late...

For a coach, it is necessary to have a more refined undertstanding of leaning in - only because the loss of ski control can be so subtle - like Gurshman's turns. Clear as a bell. Almost a good demo. Incidious it is!
Quote:
 Originally Posted by jbm13 For a ski to turn it needs to be both edged and pressured.
OK

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jbm13 To understand this theory you must make a clear delineation between these 2 concepts. Inclination moves the CM towards the inside of the turn, where as angulation is moving the CM towards the outside of the turn.
OK

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jbm13 For the purpose of developing edge angle, inclination allows the ski to be tipped faster and to a greater edge angle because the CM is being tipped down the hill (the same direction gravity is naturally pulling us) as opposed to away from it (CB/Angulation). With inclination the CM is not resisting (counteracting) gravity, rather it moves with it.
Yes, but...when you use inclination plus CB/Angulation gravity is sill naturally pulling you downhill at the same rate. Adding CB doesn't do anything to block angle development from what I can see. Either way, if you allow inclination to occur you end up at the same edge angles with either method. The only difference I can see is that when CB/Angulation is added you have more edge grip earlier which results in a tighter turn. This could be good or bad depending on the turn you have to make.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jbm13 If you had 2 separate skiers who both had equally pressured outside skis, but one created a 35 degree angle and the other created a 70 degree angle the physics dictate that the latter would carve a tighter turn. Since inclination and angulation are opposites, the trick is to use them during the appropriate time and to the appropriate degree. Too much of either one, or applied at the wrong time and the equation is out of balance.
Are they really opposites? Only if you focus solely on the upper body which would be a mistake I think. CB/Angulation supplements inclination (with balance and edge pressure) rather that cancels it out.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jbm13 Most people end up using too much angulation because it provides a greater sensation of control; it feels safe.
The slopes are littered with skiers that only use inclination (banking). Very few add in the appropriate amount of CB/Angulation and almost none that I've seen add in too much.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jbm13 To sum it up, the ski racer's challenge is to get the ski up on a high edge angle and then maintain pressure on the edge.
Well in that case it would seem to make sense to supplement inclination with CB/Angulation earlier than phase 3.

FWIW, I just finished watching video of some of my favorite racers. It seems to me that on average Rhalves and Rocca both used earlier CB/Angulation than Bode and Ligety. Different racers definitely seem to have different approaches to this.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ghost I'm assuming you realize the shortest path between two points is the one closest to a straight line, and moving the cm inside the turn shortens its path.
Ghost it sounds like you are suggesting that the removal of CB/Angulation (becuase it results in the CM being farther inside the turn) will result in a tighter line. Don't we need to consider the radius of the arc? For example, lets say the tightest arc you can carve on the skis you are on is 16M. If you are using CB/Angulation and already cleanly carving the 16M arc how is removing CB/Angulation going to result in a tighter line?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bode Klammer This is just about opposite of what really happens. I can always increase my edge angle by angulating, no matter how much, or how little, I am inclining. When you see a skier inclining without angulating, he is minimizing the edge angle. Racers always try to minimize their edge angles because edging increases friction. They need high angles because that's what the course requires, not because higher angles are faster. BK
Ofcourse a flat ski has the least friction, but flat skis don't make tight turns, edged skis do. The deeper the racer can take it (straighter line) the faster they will go. To ski a straighter line requires a tighter turn and that requires a highly edged ski with sufficient pressure. Inclination is the catalyst that sets the initial high edge angle, while angulation compliments inclination by helping to resist the forces developed later in the turn and maintain pressure on the outside ski. The racer seeks to maintain just enough pressure on the outside ski to get the job done.

A skier inclining with out angulating is not minimizing the edge angle, rather at worst they are not pressuring the outside ski sufficiently. This photo of Ligety shows an extremely high edge angle with minimal if any angulation: http://www.levakhsanov.net/p30655468...CC57#495897687
You want a sample of racer with no angulation...here you go:

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 FWIW, I just finished watching video of some of my favorite racers. It seems to me that on average Rhalves and Rocca both used earlier CB/Angulation than Bode and Ligety. Different racers definitely seem to have different approaches to this.
I would also venture you see much earlier CB in the ladies at this level. Schilds / Costazza / Zahrobska come to mind.

I too share your observation of the slopes being littered with banking skiers. As well, most races(!) are littered with athletes who don't counter balance effectively.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by whygimf Well, if you aren't able to level in time by fall line exit you end up looking like Ligety here (again) - http://levakhsanov.net/p306554683/?p...3606#361313798. Actually A-man you probably see leaning in the 3rd phase more that you think - how about level in the fall line until the athlete preps to 'clear' a SL gate and (not just rotating) - ski slips, line goes low, pole touch is late... For a coach, it is necessary to have a more refined undertstanding of leaning in - only because the loss of ski control can be so subtle - like Gurshman's turns. Clear as a bell. Almost a good demo. Incidious it is!
Forget the technique discussion, great WC shots on that site, thnaks!
Just wondering if anyone can find a photo of a WC racer who's countered and angulated at transitional neutral, or just beyond? I just went through Ron Lemaster's site,,,, all his several recent years of montages, and unless I missed one, I could find none/nilch/nada. But I could probably post 30 here and point out the anticipated down the falline positions at neutral,,, the complete antithesis of counter.

It's even more pronounced in slalom, which you would expect with the extra pivoting that goes on in that event.

http://ronlemaster.com/images/2004-2005/slides/ROCCA-BC-2004-SL-1.html

There's a reason these guys and gals are not early countering and angulating. What they're doing is faster, smoother, more movement efficient, and gets the CM into the new turn quicker. If it wasn't/didn't, surely one person would have stumbled on the world's lack of early counter mistake by now, and cleaned their clocks.

Early counter is fine for learning carvers. It allows them to turn slowly, and remain comfortably balanced on their outside ski (the safer place to be for skiers who are still developing their base balance skills). But it does not represent the ultimate in high level skiing performance. It's just a stepping stone point. These WC guys are clearly displaying a higher level of skiing. Gurshman has it right.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 OK OK Yes, but...when you use inclination plus CB/Angulation gravity is sill naturally pulling you downhill at the same rate. Adding CB doesn't do anything to block angle development from what I can see. Either way, if you allow inclination to occur you end up at the same edge angles with either method. The only difference I can see is that when CB/Angulation is added you have more edge grip earlier which results in a tighter turn. This could be good or bad depending on the turn you have to make. Are they really opposites? Only if you focus solely on the upper body which would be a mistake I think. CB/Angulation supplements inclination (with balance and edge pressure) rather that cancels it out. The slopes are littered with skiers that only use inclination (banking). Very few add in the appropriate amount of CB/Angulation and almost none that I've seen add in too much. Well in that case it would seem to make sense to supplement inclination with CB/Angulation earlier than phase 3. FWIW, I just finished watching video of some of my favorite racers. It seems to me that on average Rhalves and Rocca both used earlier CB/Angulation than Bode and Ligety. Different racers definitely seem to have different approaches to this.
Remeber that CB/Angulation is about resisting the forces. Does it make sense that if the racer can put off "resisting the forces" until phase III, they can be more dynamic in nature? The less we are resisting gravity (CB/angulation), then the more we are moving with it (dynamic).

No they are not opposites entirely and for sure angulation supplements inclination. But ask yourself this: if angulation and inclination arrive at the same angle and angulation provides counterbalance, what is the need for inclination at all?

Remember inclination is not banking. Inclination=pressure on the outside ski, banking=loss/lack of pressure on the outside ski. Regarding the slopes, this is more subjective in nature. I see a lot of young racers who have level shoulders through out the entire turn, resulting in a static park and ride. When it comes to the general public, well that's just a mess all the way around

With out a doubt there are differences in the styles, but they all use the basic template described in the article. I would say that the difference between say Darron Rhalves and Hermann Maier would be more subtle than blatant.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by jbm13 Remeber that CB/Angulation is about resisting the forces.
I would not that say. I'd say CB is about being balanced over the outside ski.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jbm13 Does it make sense that if the racer can put off "resisting the forces" until phase III, they can be more dynamic in nature? The less we are resisting gravity (CB/angulation), then the more we are moving with it (dynamic).
Certainly there are skiers that block momentum from turn to turn and kill their angle development. But I don't think CB is the culprit there. CB is about balance.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jbm13 No they are not opposites entirely and for sure angulation supplements inclination. But ask yourself this: if angulation and inclination arrive at the same angle and angulation provides counterbalance, what is the need for inclination at all?
Inclination is the bit that gets the hip close to the snow and creates the angles. CB is the bit that keeps us balanced over the outside ski.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jbm13 Remember inclination is not banking. Inclination=pressure on the outside ski, banking=loss/lack of pressure on the outside ski.
I have my doubts about that as Gurshman's demo show, inclination is likely to move pressure to the inside ski. Hard to get around that except at warp speeds and even then its going to be tough to keep the pressure on the outside ski with 100% inclination.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jbm13 With out a doubt there are differences in the styles, but they all use the basic template described in the article.
After watching video in slomo I'm not so sure I agree. Some of the racers seem to incorporate much earlier CB/Angulation then Gurshman states. Others seem to mirror the template.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by whygimf I would also venture you see much earlier CB in the ladies at this level. Schilds / Costazza / Zahrobska come to mind. I too share your observation of the slopes being littered with banking skiers. As well, most races(!) are littered with athletes who don't counter balance effectively.
Angulation moves the mass of your upper body to the outside of the turn. Since women have lighter upper bodies, maybe they need to angulate more to move their center of mass the same distance. Maybe that's why the women adopted shape skis(which require less angulation) before the men.

The fact that you see so many people skiing ineffectively when they bank supports my point that it is balance but not necessarily banking that separates WC athletes from the rest of us.

BK
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching