or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Do rebound exist in short turn?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do rebound exist in short turn? - Page 3

post #61 of 104
BTS, it's sort of like a bridge flexing under load. You may not perceive the effect of the additional compression stress but that stress is causing the surface to flex. We don't see it deform as much as the trampoline but the reaction forces are still there and pushing back up through the skis. If they weren't there the snow wouldn't support us and we would sink into the snow just like we do in powder. But even there at some point we will find some buoyancy as the reaction forces stop us from sinking all the way down to the ground. About the only situation I can think of on snow where the snow doesn't support us is when we get into depth hoar which is a lot like quicksand. The more you struggle and push down the deeper into that stuff you sink.
E, walls flex if you push hard enough. Truckers use a device that is similar to a shower rod but they are much longer and can put a lot more stress onto the wall without breaking through it. Can you see how much the wall flexes under that much load? Probably not but if you measured the distance between the two walls you would see that the walls are slightly further apart. What do you suppose would happen if the load lock was suddenly to fail and the forces and energy stored up in the flexed walls were released all at once. Rebound is the result of releasing that stored energy and just like in the skis and boots when the load lock is released, the walls will return to their original shape.
post #62 of 104
 I didn't say its not there.  I'm saying its not a significant factor for those of us trying to ski better.
post #63 of 104
Your exploiting it or trying to absorb it during every turn. In every phase of every turn. If you weren't you would just sink through the snow like you do in water. I'd call that pretty significant. 
post #64 of 104
It's not just stress; strain is important too.  The strain of the compressed snow rebounding is minimal imho.

(edit: for those non-engineers what I'm saying is the snow won't push your ski back far enough for you to need to worry about it.  As far as snow-rebound affecting rebounding of you skis tails, FORGETABOUTIT!)
Edited by Ghost - 10/29/09 at 4:08pm
post #65 of 104

They took away the delete post function from us. I think a mod might still be able to do that though.

To get back to Carver and his original question, reaction forces exist in all turns. The pop you feel is that reaction force pushing back up throught the skis. How fast you push down has a lot to do with how much you feel the snow pushing back. Small turns with a staccatto edge set aren't used much nowdays but if you have a chance to go out and play with some. Just be careful todays skis don't like that maneuver very much. They like to stay on the snow and slither.

post #66 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post

 JASP,

You wrote that ice is more like a wall.  I don't see that a wall flexes.
 
BigE is right.... The rebound that you experiance on an icy pist comes from simple physics. The rebound has nothing to do with how little or how much less or mor or less nothing less than a mm or a couple of more mm the skis cut through the surface of the ice. Even if it does it has just as little rebound effect in comparisson to the huge force created form a ski on edge with its sidecut causing the ski to turn. But even this has no matter if you cannot time your movements to make use of how your CoM suddenly is diverging from its original path. Rebound is relesed energy. First you need to create it, then relese it and then make use of it. Ive done my share of hockey and ice skating, that ice is hard hard hard and it doesent give me any rebound no matter how hard I jump on it. And soft snow gives me also little or no rebound. Snow is a rebound killer. Just like water. Or sand.
post #67 of 104
You guys are so off base here, review the following before responding though. Is the opinion I'm sharing here valid?
"Because there are so many misconceptions about mechanics that enter technical discussions, I though it beneficial to address the most common ones encountered over the years. A major reason for misconception is not clearly understanding the concept of cause and effect. When discussing the mechanics of human motion, this concept is particularly important. You want to control and guide your motion, so you need to understand that you are continuously interacting with the forces that exist between you and the environment. What you have under direct control are the actions you can take with your body not the reaction forces between the equipment and the snow. So snow skiing is really the act manipulating the way the ski/snow and pole/snow reaction forces act on your skis and poles. Of course, ski/snow interactions are a two way street. In addition to providing the means to acheive motion that you desire, these interactions are the major source of disturbances that you must counteract.

Another problem area is in developing a clear understanding of what centrifugal force is, as well as understanding the concept of a centripetal force. In fact, many difficulties in thinking about skiing mechanics can be traced to a confusion about the true nature of forces and the need to seperate external, motive forces from inertial forces. The key is that external motive forces cause changes in motion, inertial forces are the result...
...The principle difficuly with the notion of centripetal force is that one may bring this concept into the discussion in addition to the ski/snow interaction forces as if centripital force were something different from the radial (inward acting) component of the ski/snow interaction force...
...If we consider the example of running into a stationary object we can see how this works. Some motive force was required to get you moving at a high rate of speed to impart large momentum. Now, when you run into the object, to stop you (remove all the momentum) the object must be capable of generating a large force. Your momentum did not create the force...
...what we do sense, whether standing on the bathroom scales or moving on a pair of skis is the reaction force between our bodies and whatever is supporting them...
...When you stand still, the scale reads your weight and we know from Newton's first law this is really the measure of the reaction force in the scale to your weight: The action is your weight and the reaction is the force exerted by the springs in the scales. Then drop suddenly and have a friend observe the reading on the scales. As long as you are dropping (accelerating downward) the scale reads less than your weight. This is as it should be since to accelerate downward, the resultant of the force of gravity acting down must be greater than the force exerted by the springs of the scale acting upward. Put it another way, the scale needs to exert less pressure than your weight because it doesn't have to keep you from moving downward. Unfortunately, this moment is brief indeed as you cannot "fall" very far! When you tense your muscles and stop your body from dropping, the scale will momentarily register a reaction force greater than your weight. The reason is that now the springs in the scale are decelerating you (stopping your body from falling) and this requires force greater than just your weight. The reaction force must equal your weight plus the mass times acceleration part, which is now in the opposite direction. As soon as you have stopped moving, the reading on the scales returns to your weight because the acceleration now is zero. Change the rate at which you perform these movements and observe the changes in the scale reading as part of your experimentation...
...This situation is entirely analogous to the amount of "rebound" you get from your skis on hard snow verses powder."

Comments?
post #68 of 104
Elasticity of ice is in the Gigapascal range.  Far from SINKING INTO IT!!
post #69 of 104
I didn't see much in JASP's post about the elasticity other than the surface is a variable that reacts to our action. Energy (force)applied has to be absorbed by the impacted surface or the vehicle impacting , a measure of both or  the last option is deflection and our ability to withstand higher levels of energy to maintain this energy and use it to energise our movement away from the forces we come up against .Rebound.
The surface we push against has properties of it's own that can support or buckle under the pressure and absorb part of the energy  other wise it's still being carried  by the skier and he pushes through it . Inclination in slush will act this way. Splash ,you're down .

Elasticity has to be a near non issue. Density is what makes the differences.
post #70 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

You guys are so off base here, review the following before responding though. Is the opinion I'm sharing here valid?
"Because there are so many misconceptions about mechanics that enter technical discussions, I though it beneficial to address the most common ones encountered over the years. A major reason for misconception is not clearly understanding the concept of cause and effect. When discussing the mechanics of human motion, this concept is particularly important. You want to control and guide your motion, so you need to understand that you are continuously interacting with the forces that exist between you and the environment. What you have under direct control are the actions you can take with your body not the reaction forces between the equipment and the snow. So snow skiing is really the act manipulating the way the ski/snow and pole/snow reaction forces act on your skis and poles. Of course, ski/snow interactions are a two way street. In addition to providing the means to acheive motion that you desire, these interactions are the major source of disturbances that you must counteract.

Another problem area is in developing a clear understanding of what centrifugal force is, as well as understanding the concept of a centripetal force. In fact, many difficulties in thinking about skiing mechanics can be traced to a confusion about the true nature of forces and the need to seperate external, motive forces from inertial forces. The key is that external motive forces cause changes in motion, inertial forces are the result...
...The principle difficuly with the notion of centripetal force is that one may bring this concept into the discussion in addition to the ski/snow interaction forces as if centripital force were something different from the radial (inward acting) component of the ski/snow interaction force...
...If we consider the example of running into a stationary object we can see how this works. Some motive force was required to get you moving at a high rate of speed to impart large momentum. Now, when you run into the object, to stop you (remove all the momentum) the object must be capable of generating a large force. Your momentum did not create the force...
...what we do sense, whether standing on the bathroom scales or moving on a pair of skis is the reaction force between our bodies and whatever is supporting them...
...When you stand still, the scale reads your weight and we know from Newton's first law this is really the measure of the reaction force in the scale to your weight: The action is your weight and the reaction is the force exerted by the springs in the scales. Then drop suddenly and have a friend observe the reading on the scales. As long as you are dropping (accelerating downward) the scale reads less than your weight. This is as it should be since to accelerate downward, the resultant of the force of gravity acting down must be greater than the force exerted by the springs of the scale acting upward. Put it another way, the scale needs to exert less pressure than your weight because it doesn't have to keep you from moving downward. Unfortunately, this moment is brief indeed as you cannot "fall" very far! When you tense your muscles and stop your body from dropping, the scale will momentarily register a reaction force greater than your weight. The reason is that now the springs in the scale are decelerating you (stopping your body from falling) and this requires force greater than just your weight. The reaction force must equal your weight plus the mass times acceleration part, which is now in the opposite direction. As soon as you have stopped moving, the reading on the scales returns to your weight because the acceleration now is zero. Change the rate at which you perform these movements and observe the changes in the scale reading as part of your experimentation...
...This situation is entirely analogous to the amount of "rebound" you get from your skis on hard snow verses powder."

Comments?

Wow.  Seriously JASP....I know you beleive this rebound idea...truthfully I did too once.  But I did some research and learned pretty quickly I had it wrong.  You still do.

Lots here have explained quiet well what is happening...muscle tension, VB plus catipult effects....is causing what you "percieve". 

Going with your example...go to the bathroom scale, and "fall" at the rate you would flex into a turn....you'll see pretty quickly it dont amount to much at the end of the day.....

PS:  If you want an independent opnion "Skier's Edge" pgs 75-76.
post #71 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

They took away the delete post function from us. I think a mod might still be able to do that though.
 

I deleted the previous post. If you edit a post down to nothing or something that says please delete this, a mod will catch it sooner or later. If you can't edit - just send one of us a PM.

Not all of this stuff is done on purpose. Note - there's still a beta tag on the logo. Also, some of these things are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
post #72 of 104
There is a happy medium here. Rebound does exist. Many of us have felt it. The magnitude of the rebound force does not have to be very large in order to be felt. F=ma. That (a) acceleration guy can be a little sneaky sometimes, Have you ever felt getting pushed around by a strong wind (low mass - high a)? Have you ever seen the strong men tow an impossibly heavy object (high mass - low a)? Most of the rebound energy is coming from the skis You can see that energy at home by bending a ski with your hand and then letting your hand slide suddenly off the ski. If you've seen a skydiver who's chute did not open bounce off the ground, it's not hard to believe that firm snow could add some additional rebound.
post #73 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty View Post

If you've seen a skydiver who's chute did not open bounce off the ground...

I hope this isn't a scene you witness often. If you do... that is a bit disturbing.
post #74 of 104
JASP may be referring not to the elasticity by common definition but the principles of elastic collision. The energy stored by a moving object is projected onto a surface. If that surface has the strength (density,structure)to resist the impact it will either cause the object to be repelled from each other with the same energy that was brought into this collision or in a deflection  energy will be expressed as kinetic energy and that energy will be expressed physically in the deflection as momentum . What you feel.
 When we are taking human tissues into consideration the possibilities of an elastic collision resulting in the body being repelled are small because of all of our soft and connective tissues will use up that energy and we just go splat. however using that stored energy and applying a angle of deflection we can manipulate the amount of usable kinetic energy available (rebound).

Change the words deflection and use rebound , change the amount of useable kinetic energy  by applying the differences of  steering angles, the angle your skis point when you shape your turn as they meet this point of  impact . The angle of deflection will determine how much of this energy you can physically store (stacking, shown by long leg short leg.) and make use of  this kinetic energy available.




edit; I changed "is " to " may be " in my first line  after reading his post below but the article he posted  above is consistent to  the principles of Elastic Collision.
Edited by GarryZ - 10/30/09 at 10:52am
post #75 of 104
Garry indeed density is very important in how much load a surface can resist before failing. I think most of the confusion here starts with the assumption that layers of snow are as dense and solid as rock. It's not that dense or as rigid and brittle in most cases. So yes elasicity from collisions is a big part of what I'm talking about. Although as you will see later in this post when I use the analogy of a bridge sagging and springing back to shape, this includes some bending and springing back into shape like the trampoline mat. But like you explained it's far more related to what you described so well.  
One of the best descriptions of snowpacks I ever heard was from Knox Williams who at the time was over at the CAIC and Bill Hotchkiss of the USDA who was also the National Avalanche Advisor for the NSPS. They both described snow as a semi solid state of water and that it was closer to melting plastic than rock. They went on to explain that snow is alway melting as it changes from individual snow flakes to a cohesive layer of snow and eventually into depth hoar before becoming water. Why is it melting? Well Gravity pulls the snow down the hill and down towards the Earth beneath the snowpack and some of the energy in the snowpack going through this stress and strain (as it creeps down the hill) becomes heat. The melt water migrates between snow crystals and over time the dentrites become ice bridges and the crystals bond into a cohesive layer, or slab of snow. In this state the snowpack sort of resembles a dense scotchbrite pad with all the air in between the bridges and what's left of the snow crystals. It is much more dense and rigid than those thin scrubbies though. Oh I almost forgot to mention water vapor migrating in all the air spaces and condensing on the little bridges. Weather also adds energy to the snowpack and can accelerate the melting process. The sun's uv and infared radiation along with the air tempurature attack the top, while the Earth below adds heat from the bottom through conduction. So it's almost like a heat lamp and a griddle acting upon the snowpack simultaneously. Not nearly as hot but I hope you get the idea that the snow is being slowly "cooked" from both sides. Water is moving around in each layer, in between layers and from layer to layer. So while we do not perceive snow as a viscous semi solid form of water, it is only because we don't watch close enough to see all the changes occuring. Unless of course a slab, or all the slabs fail like we see when an avalanches occurs. This should help explain why snow can flex under load, or flex just like a bridge that will sag under load and spring back to shape when the load lessens. Injected ice caps especially resemble a bridge since they can support so much more weight than the less dense layers beneath them. The skier adds to the weight of the top layer which adds to the stress 

Anyways I've hijacked this thread and I want to oppologize for that. The whole subject of rebound sort of got me started and I shared a lot of nerdy information here because IMO so many people totally misunderstand rebound. BTW Post 67 is almost entirely from chapter six of A SKI INSTRUCTOR'S GUIDE TO THE PHYSICS AND BIOMECHANICS OF SKIING by Juris Vagner PhD, education steering committee, examiner, etc. The first sentence and the word Comments (at the very end) are mine, the rest is his work. 
The elastic nature of snow is from the two Alvalanche books I mentioned earlier. I offer that to explain that it isn't just my unsubstantiated opinion, or perception the information I read in those books. I taught this stuff long before I began teaching in ski schools. That being said, don't accept or reject my opinion based on just what I posted here, go out and read all of these books and draw your own conclusion. I'd love to hear what you all think after you've done that. 

P.S. Thank you SD for sharing the chapter and verse that supports your opinion. I'll re-read it when I find my copy of that book. it's probbly not unpacked from my move a while back but I'm sure it's around here somewhere. 
Edited by justanotherskipro - 10/30/09 at 10:49am
post #76 of 104
The density is the structural integrity of the object being collided with. Differences in structure will produce variables altering the amount of energy being reflected in deflection . Elasticity of structures  to remain cohesive under stress depends on how the force being mitigated is spread. Water in all it's forms has molecular bonds (adhesion)that  formed as ice do create  higher  levels of elasticity but this is not the principle that creates rebound. It can enhance it or reduce it but it does not create the large amounts of energy found in the sensation of rebound. That we carry on our skis.
Edited by GarryZ - 10/30/09 at 10:54am
post #77 of 104
Agreed, I edited my post to reflect that you are correct that most of this return force is related to priciples of elastic collisions and only a small fraction of the return force is happening from the sag and spring phenomenon. 
Edited by justanotherskipro - 10/30/09 at 11:05am
post #78 of 104
Carver I do hope some of this shed light on rebound and how it develops and where it comes from. Again I appologize for the detour through the Bill Nye The Science Guy zone.
post #79 of 104
 The bathroom scale model is somewhat analogous to the snow.  However, neither the bathroom scale nor the snow has stored enough energy to throw you upwards.  In the particular case of the snow, there is some elastic deformation, but it is not perfectly elastic.  If if were perfectly elastic, you'd see no tracks as the snow returns to it's original state.  

From what I understand, the notion of elasticity with respect to the compressive forces that snow can withstand only shows why you don't break through it.  It does not explain where the energy by which the snow should throw you upwards comes from.  Upon release of pressure, as the snow returns to it's pre-stressed state, it will only return a microscopic amount.

Ski dude is exactly right.  The line/VB and the "spring in your legs" is the source of rebound.

There is a jump test called a "drop jump". You jump off a platform and immediately upon landing, you try to jump up as high as you can.  If your body does not leak energy through movement defects, like the knees moving inwards, or the spine rounding, you should be able to jump higher than had you not pre-loaded the legs by jumping off the platform.

It's this pre-loading that puts a spring in your legs.  This is the exact mechanism by which rebound works -- the turn forces pre-load your legs.  Now, if you do not let the body leak energy, the pre-loading together with the virtual bump will create rebound.
 
post #80 of 104
I think E's got the rebound thing tied up here. It's muscle and timing. You use the snow as the platform (use its elastic properties), you use the forces everyone has mentioned (gravity, friction, kinetic, potential, centripetal,) you combine that with your ability, mass and confidence and then you launch. And with the right skis, approach and entry/exit line you can have as much fun as you like or then you convert this to as much downward velocity as you can if your Didier Cuche or Ted Ligerty trying to get down to the finish asap.... err I thinks?
post #81 of 104
Ski dude is right.  Our energy  stored using gravity ,the physics of collision and the use of your body do make the most of rebound.

We time our physical movement in timing with common  occurrences of the  laws of physics. It's called skiing.

Your jump test is pretty silly if you are trying to build a case against collision. The mass of a human and it's structure will not allow much of a bounce and that just considers their energy not that lost through stress energy or the massively unequal masses colliding.  As described in TheRusty's poor parachutist and also Melvin Perkins observation that baby baboons do indeed bounce.Though not very high either. I'd bet the Earth didn't give much either.

Play with that Law with pool balls,equal mass and a level playing surface. Then use unequal mass and observe that . That will more closely resemble our impact against the snow. In order to make use of the energy you need deflection . Which is why we roll when we fall to capture and use  some of that energy so our body doesn't have to . Skateboarders know this intuitively.
post #82 of 104
JASP,

All that information on elasticity <et al> might be turned into a good Wiki entry on the subject, though perhaps not under the context of rebound. 

I'd agree there's a very small bit of rebound force contributed by the elasticity of the given snow surface but think it's probably on the order of 0.001% of the total perceived energy.  Probably not worth considering in that context.

In the context of avalanche conditions and perhaps the creation of 'Rubber Snow' (common in the PNW after wet snow gets compacted by skiers) it might be a pretty good entry.

.ma
post #83 of 104
I think you would need to get permission since the Vagners quotes in particular are his property. Which is the really funny part to me, you guys are arguing with his text and the conclusions he draws. Tweaking his work so it fit your model is certainly your choice but it seems a little odd that you cannot accept his work without trying to modify it. He said what he said and it couldn't be more clear that he has a very strong opinion about how much the physics of rebound gets misunderstood by so many. Why else would he write such a strong opinion about this very subject. When you consider we're talking about a very well respected author and true expert in the field of physics as it applies to skiing, I for one think his opinions about this subject need to be given more consideration. Especially by those that lack his expertise, pedegree, and experience.
Edited by justanotherskipro - 10/30/09 at 7:04pm
post #84 of 104
I was waiting for you to identify the source, JASP. I don't think most understood that you were quoting Vagners. Time to give everyone the bibliography for the quote...  (And, yes, it's in my library...)
post #85 of 104
Who can argue against proof by professorial intimidation?

How far does the snow rebound after it is compressed?

'nuf said.
post #86 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

You guys are so off base here, review the following before responding though. Is the opinion I'm sharing here valid?
"Because there are so many misconceptions about mechanics that enter technical discussions, I though it beneficial to address the most common ones encountered over the years. A major reason for misconception is not clearly understanding the concept of cause and effect. When discussing the mechanics of human motion, this concept is particularly important. You want to control and guide your motion, so you need to understand that you are continuously interacting with the forces that exist between you and the environment. What you have under direct control are the actions you can take with your body not the reaction forces between the equipment and the snow. So snow skiing is really the act manipulating the way the ski/snow and pole/snow reaction forces act on your skis and poles. Of course, ski/snow interactions are a two way street. In addition to providing the means to acheive motion that you desire, these interactions are the major source of disturbances that you must counteract.

Another problem area is in developing a clear understanding of what centrifugal force is, as well as understanding the concept of a centripetal force. In fact, many difficulties in thinking about skiing mechanics can be traced to a confusion about the true nature of forces and the need to seperate external, motive forces from inertial forces. The key is that external motive forces cause changes in motion, inertial forces are the result...
...The principle difficuly with the notion of centripetal force is that one may bring this concept into the discussion in addition to the ski/snow interaction forces as if centripital force were something different from the radial (inward acting) component of the ski/snow interaction force...
...If we consider the example of running into a stationary object we can see how this works. Some motive force was required to get you moving at a high rate of speed to impart large momentum. Now, when you run into the object, to stop you (remove all the momentum) the object must be capable of generating a large force. Your momentum did not create the force...
...what we do sense, whether standing on the bathroom scales or moving on a pair of skis is the reaction force between our bodies and whatever is supporting them...
...When you stand still, the scale reads your weight and we know from Newton's first law this is really the measure of the reaction force in the scale to your weight: The action is your weight and the reaction is the force exerted by the springs in the scales. Then drop suddenly and have a friend observe the reading on the scales. As long as you are dropping (accelerating downward) the scale reads less than your weight. This is as it should be since to accelerate downward, the resultant of the force of gravity acting down must be greater than the force exerted by the springs of the scale acting upward. Put it another way, the scale needs to exert less pressure than your weight because it doesn't have to keep you from moving downward. Unfortunately, this moment is brief indeed as you cannot "fall" very far! When you tense your muscles and stop your body from dropping, the scale will momentarily register a reaction force greater than your weight. The reason is that now the springs in the scale are decelerating you (stopping your body from falling) and this requires force greater than just your weight. The reaction force must equal your weight plus the mass times acceleration part, which is now in the opposite direction. As soon as you have stopped moving, the reading on the scales returns to your weight because the acceleration now is zero. Change the rate at which you perform these movements and observe the changes in the scale reading as part of your experimentation...
...This situation is entirely analogous to the amount of "rebound" you get from your skis on hard snow verses powder."

Comments?




Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

I think you would need to get permission since the Vagners quotes in particular are his property. Which is the really funny part to me, you guys are arguing with his text and the conclusions he drawsTweaking his work so it fit your model is certainly your choice but it seems a little odd that you cannot accept his work without trying to modify it. He said what he said and it couldn't be more clear that he has a very strong opinion about how much the physics of rebound gets misunderstood by so many. Why else would he write such a strong opinion about this very subject. When you consider we're talking about a very well respected author and true expert in the field of physics as it applies to skiing, I for one think his opinions about this subject need to be given more consideration. Especially by those that lack his expertise, pedegree, and experience.

Um.....JASP...

WHAT?  Actually these are conclusions YOU are drawing.  Reaction forces do not equal Rebound.  They are totally different concepts.  The only one tweaking someone else's work to fit their theory is you.  I agree his work is clear...you seem to be reading heaps into it. 

For example the muscle tension portion of rebound is obviously more prevelenat with hard snow then soft....but the key is the muscle tension....another way of looking at it...take a rubber ball and bounce it off a hard concrete floor or a  tile floor, then try a the same experiment with a paper ball....you will see the importance of the rubber ball part...sure the rubber ball needs somtiing to rebound from...but the rebound is in the ball, not the hard floor....you can prove this by then reversing the experiment, take a concrete block and throw it against a rubber floor, the concrete block will rebound back...so it is the conrete block or rubber floor that rebounds?...well then try this, take a concrete block and throw it against a concrete floor....i think you can intuitivley work out the answer........coming back to skiing, take a snow ball or even frozen ice ball and throw it against the ski run....I think you will be most unimpressed by the result.


Oh btw...I responded to your pm....
Edited by Skidude72 - 10/30/09 at 10:13pm
post #87 of 104
post #88 of 104
Good example from CSIA camp.  Maybe someone can dig up some Ligety slalom footage from somewhere?  
post #89 of 104
 Skidude:

nice catch!
post #90 of 104
 
Edited by justanotherskipro - 10/31/09 at 2:35pm
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 › Do rebound exist in short turn?