or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › The Parallel Turn (a discussion about turn phases)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# The Parallel Turn (a discussion about turn phases)

I think it would be very enlightning for many of us, me for one, to discuss the different phases of a turn and what options we have. Lets discuss exclusively skidded turns (steered) and leave carving for annother thread.

Anybody care to open the discussion?
tdk6, should we qualify it as a non-pivoted, steered turn,,, with a fairly consistent skid angle and radius from initiation to completion?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick tdk6, should we qualify it as a non-pivoted, steered turn,,, with a fairly consistent skid angle and radius from initiation to completion?
- consistent skid angle: YES

No pivot? The skid angle or the steering angle as one could say should be consistent but at some point, phase, there needs to be an increase in steering angle from straight forward along the edges (at transition) to desired steering angle (in the turn). Otherwise there would not be any steering or skid. Note that the ski is steering to one side lets say left and after transition it steers right. What drives the change of steering angle from one side to the other?

In what phase of the turn do you want to have it "sans pivot"? Lets start with listing the turn phases and then we sum the different movements and techniques that can be used. Then we speculate on the tactis.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by tdk6 - consistent skid angle: YES - consistent radius: YES No pivot? The skid angle or the steering angle as one could say should be consistent but at some point, phase, there needs to be an increase in steering angle from straight forward along the edges (at transition) to desired steering angle (in the turn). Otherwise there would not be any steering or skid. Note that the ski is steering to one side lets say left and after transition it steers right. What drives the change of steering angle from one side to the other?
By my definitions;

Pivot: a non pressured manual redirection of the skis
Steer: a pressured manual redirection of the skis

The skid angle can be steered into, or pivoted into, and the choice makes a difference in the nature of the turn phases.

The pivot variety has an unweighting,,, followed by a pivot,,, followed by an engagement and feathering period,,, followed by steering through the body of the turn,,, followed by a release and return to transitional neutral.

The steered turn contains pressured steering engagement directly out of transitional neutral. The skid angle begins to be created as soon as the edges tip onto edge, and from that point on is progressively and smoothly built to the skid angle size desired. Then a steered turn body, into a release and return to neutral (commonly called a turn completion).

The two look very different. Most people do the pivoted version. Few can do the refined steered version. The balance and edge control skills just aren't there yet. That's why I'm constantly trying to promote understanding and learning of the more refined steered version, and trying to encourage a shedding of the default pivoting so many skiers have embedded in their skiing.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick By my definitions; Pivot: a non pressured manual redirection of the skis Steer: a pressured manual redirection of the skis The skid angle can be steered into, or pivoted into, and the choice makes a difference in the nature of the turn phases. The pivot variety has an unweighting,,, followed by a pivot,,, followed by an engagement and feathering period,,, followed by steering through the body of the turn,,, followed by a release and return to transitional neutral. The steered turn contains pressured steering engagement directly out of transitional neutral. The skid angle begins to be created as soon as the edges tip onto edge, and from that point on is progressively and smoothly built to the skid angle size desired. Then a steered turn body, into a release and return to neutral (commonly called a turn completion). The two look very different. Most people do the pivoted version. Few can do the refined steered version. The balance and edge control skills just aren't there yet. That's why I'm constantly trying to promote understanding and learning of the more refined steered version, and trying to encourage a shedding of the default pivoting so many skiers have embedded in their skiing.
In other words, the difference between the two, ILS and Unweighting is the way they are initiated. Later on in the body of the turn after the desired steering angle is set, steering is maintained the exact same way. Maybe with one little exception, skiers that heavily up-unweight usually do flex through the whole turn decresing the pressure under their skis. That aside, there is no difference when we talk about the "body of the turn".

Skidded turns can be divided into two main categores:
-Independant Legg Steering ILS
-Unweighted

Turn phase:
1 Turn Initiation
- ILS: pressure change = gradual increased steering angle
- Up-Unweighting: extention and pivot = quickly increased steering angle
2 Turn Body
- ILS: steering
- Up-Unweighting: steering while flexing
3 Turn Completion
- ILS: release
- Up-Unweighting: releace
I always thought that breaking a turn down into 'phases' is an exercise in futility and an unnecessary complication of any discussion of skiing. It can also lead to breaks in the flow of a turn if the skier is to caught up in separating the movements of one phase from those of another. Now having made that disclaimer.

When I ski I am either going to the left, going to the right, going straight, or standing still. Going straight or standing still really don't apply to turning so that leaves me with going right or left.

When I go right or left I employ a set of movements blended into a movement pattern that will take me exactly where I want to go. This leaves me with that moment in time when I stop going in one direction and start going in the other. I have movements/movement patterns to accomplish this. From this I could say that I see two phases in a turn, the turn shaping phase and the turn connecting phase. But...

My turn shaping movement pattern better blend seamlessly into my turn connecting movement pattern or I'm likely to lose the flow of my turns. This brings me back to the question, 'Can I or do I want to break this process into parts?'.

More later,

fom
In psia we divide turns into three phases, initiation, shaping, and finish. What I would like to see discussed is the role of long leg short leg in skidded parallel turns, as well as blended tipping movements of the feet (edging skills) as we initiate a turn. The solid middle ground that lies between up-unweighting and steering to an edge. Where blend in a flexing release (short leg) with a smooth continuous extension of the new outside leg (long leg), and we have accompanied inside foot tipping to help the body utilize the kinetic chain to move across the skis to the new edges. This bring about a smooth pressure transfer as well as nice structural alignment of a long outside leg to the outside ski as the pressure builds through the shaping phase of teh turn. This also allows versatility in how we shape our turn because we can now blend in and manage varying amounts of steering, edging, or pressure as we control our line choice. It also allows versatility in how we finish our turn as we have kept all our options open.

We stay in balance becuse we maintain continuous movement and alignment over our base of support. When we become sequetial in our movement it becomes harder to stay in balance because we are ussually using most of our effort in one direction or skill, leaving the balance adjustments that may come from our other blended movements tempoarilly out of our grasp. Such as popping up early or over flexing early to name two.

So in my book TDK the middle ground between the two you mention is most effective, and what we look for in our certification training and exams. There are more than two basic ways to skin this cat. IMHO
Quote:
 Originally Posted by fatoldman I always thought that breaking a turn down into 'phases' is an exercise in futility and an unnecessary complication of any discussion of skiing. It can also lead to breaks in the flow of a turn if the skier is to caught up in separating the movements of one phase from those of another. Now having made that disclaimer. When I ski I am either going to the left, going to the right, going straight, or standing still. Going straight or standing still really don't apply to turning so that leaves me with going right or left. When I go right or left I employ a set of movements blended into a movement pattern that will take me exactly where I want to go. This leaves me with that moment in time when I stop going in one direction and start going in the other. I have movements/movement patterns to accomplish this. From this I could say that I see two phases in a turn, the turn shaping phase and the turn connecting phase. But... My turn shaping movement pattern better blend seamlessly into my turn connecting movement pattern or I'm likely to lose the flow of my turns. This brings me back to the question, 'Can I or do I want to break this process into parts?'. More later, fom
Well breaking them into parts gives a way to discuss Duration, Intensity, Rate, and Timing of our movement. Like a smooth running car engine we have different parts working at different durations, intensities, rates, and times to effect the outcome of delivering power to the wheels, and we better be able to talk about them if we want to make changes in how they work right? Yeah, we can say that all we do is get in, turn the key, and press the gas to go, but that is certainly not all there is to it.
Ric,

Using duration, intensity, rate, and timing to break a turn into parts and then discussing the parts is not the same as dividing the turn into arbitrary phases and trying to fit things into that framework.

To illustrate this point I'll use the PSIA breakdown. Having a finish phase and an initiation phase often lead to a break in the flow if the skier thinks in terms of movements to finish a turn then movements to initiate a turn. If on the other hand the skier is thinking of that part of skiing where I connect two turns the flow is more likely to be continuous.

A turn can be broken into many parts and benefit can come from addressing the parts as long as we don't lose sight of the fact that no part stands alone separate from the rest of the parts of the turn. In my mind and observation arbitrary phases tends to foster this separation.

fom
tdk6,

The way I understand and use the word I see no effective steering in the demos on the video. Here's what I do see.

The wedge turns are accomplished with a shift of pressure from one ski to another. The greater pressure on one ski causes its directional force to overcome the directional force of the other ski and turn the skier in that direction. No steering is used.

The stem turns start by displacing the tail of one ski out, then an up movement is used to shift pressure from the downhill ski to the stemmed ski which then moves the skier in the new direction, at this point the tail of the other ski is moved down into a parallel relationship with the pressured ski. The skier then rides the pressured ski through the turn into a traverse. I don't really consider the stemming movements to be effective steering so again no steering is involved.

The parallel turns are accomplished by using a up movement to disconnect the skis from the snow (the release), this is followed by a displacement of the tails of the skis to the side while they are in the disconnected state followed by a pressuring of the tail of the outside ski through the rest of the turn into a traverse. Many consider this displacing/pressuring of the tails a form of steering but I don't agree so once again for me there was no effective steering.

fom
I agree they are not the same and didn't mean to imply that if I did. I also agree that all phases are inner-dependent and synergistic, relying on each other for flow and effectiveness. However, at some point we need to be able talk and identify different portions of a turn. Doesn't need to be complicated and certainly should be used appropriately. I don't see it as an exercise in futility nor do I see it as a mental exercise that should occupy most of our thought. It has it's place in my opinion, that's all.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by RicB I agree they are not the same and didn't mean to imply that if I did. I also agree that all phases are inner-dependent and synergistic, relying on each other for flow and effectiveness. However, at some point we need to be able talk and identify different portions of a turn. Doesn't need to be complicated and certainly should be used appropriately. I don't see it as an exercise in futility nor do I see it as a mental exercise that should occupy most of our thought. It has it's place in my opinion, that's all.
Im not english speaking so my language does not reach anywhere near you guys so sorry for that. Maybe the word phase is totally wrong but there is a huge need for pepole that participate in internet ski discussions to talk about the same thing. I have a hard time imagining that fom does not understand what a turn phase is, he is simply of a different opinion. That dividing turns into phases would brake the flow. Sounds like a different discussion in total. Im all for flow, efficiency and smoothness. The word phase is ment to be a tool only to target and map time and movements and outcome.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by tdk6 Im not english speaking so my language does not reach anywhere near you guys so sorry for that. Maybe the word phase is totally wrong but there is a huge need for pepole that participate in internet ski discussions to talk about the same thing. I have a hard time imagining that fom does not understand what a turn phase is, he is simply of a different opinion. That dividing turns into phases would brake the flow. Sounds like a different discussion in total. Im all for flow, efficiency and smoothness. The word phase is ment to be a tool only to target and map time and movements and outcome.
I think you are doing much better than I would with your language, which would be uninteligble. On the point about turn phase terminology being a tool I agree 100%. That is the point I was trying to make, that turn phase allows us to introduce timing and all the other needed influences and talk about them.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by RicB In psia we divide turns into three phases, initiation, shaping, and finish. What I would like to see discussed is the role of long leg short leg in skidded parallel turns, as well as blended tipping movements of the feet (edging skills) as we initiate a turn. The solid middle ground that lies between up-unweighting and steering to an edge. Where blend in a flexing release (short leg) with a smooth continuous extension of the new outside leg (long leg), and we have accompanied inside foot tipping to help the body utilize the kinetic chain to move across the skis to the new edges. This bring about a smooth pressure transfer as well as nice structural alignment of a long outside leg to the outside ski as the pressure builds through the shaping phase of teh turn. This also allows versatility in how we shape our turn because we can now blend in and manage varying amounts of steering, edging, or pressure as we control our line choice. It also allows versatility in how we finish our turn as we have kept all our options open.
Great posting Ric. So lets stick to the PSIA definitions:
1 Initiation
2 Shaping
3 Finish

IMHO there is no solid middle ground between UUW (upunweighing) and ILS (independentlegsteering). If not ILS uses a hint of UUW or ski rebound for creating that initial steering angle. I dont believe simple pressure transfer before I see it and sofar nobody has posted any video. Maybe the unweighing movement is well masked. Maybe its only imagined. We need a video boyz!

You talk about ILE and OLF. Its there but note that when we skidd we do not depend solely on inclination and edge angle for tightening our turn radius. We apply steering which results in less pressure on skis but still same turn radius or tighter. This because we have less speed. Still we need that little something to create that initial steering angle. Simple ILE or OLF will not do. Inside leg gets shorter due to inclination but especially if we have our skis fearly close together, I know I do when I skidd, then the effect is not so dramatic. Also, ILE can be coupled to UUW. This is because it lifts our body up and works from a traverse. OLF again can be coupled to DownUW. This because you can DUW ski rebound when and "if" you link turns.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by RicB We stay in balance becuse we maintain continuous movement and alignment over our base of support. When we become sequetial in our movement it becomes harder to stay in balance because we are ussually using most of our effort in one direction or skill, leaving the balance adjustments that may come from our other blended movements tempoarilly out of our grasp. Such as popping up early or over flexing early to name two.
Usually you dont need to fix a lot of stuff in peoples skiing. Its almost allways a matter of just a few simple things. Elementary things. Stuff that you can work on when you wedge on the bunny hill. We should offcourse not be sequential in our movements, its only a tool for the purpose and benefit of proper MA. And learning.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by RicB So in my book TDK the middle ground between the two you mention is most effective, and what we look for in our certification training and exams. There are more than two basic ways to skin this cat. IMHO
So lets skin the cat in many ways! List all the ones you can think of!
Quote:
 Originally Posted by RicB I think you are doing much better than I would with your language, which would be uninteligble. On the point about turn phase terminology being a tool I agree 100%. That is the point I was trying to make, that turn phase allows us to introduce timing and all the other needed influences and talk about them.
Exactomundo , thanz
Quote:
 Originally Posted by fatoldman tdk6, The way I understand and use the word I see no effective steering in the demos on the video. Here's what I do see. The wedge turns are accomplished with a shift of pressure from one ski to another. The greater pressure on one ski causes its directional force to overcome the directional force of the other ski and turn the skier in that direction. No steering is used. The stem turns start by displacing the tail of one ski out, then an up movement is used to shift pressure from the downhill ski to the stemmed ski which then moves the skier in the new direction, at this point the tail of the other ski is moved down into a parallel relationship with the pressured ski. The skier then rides the pressured ski through the turn into a traverse. I don't really consider the stemming movements to be effective steering so again no steering is involved. The parallel turns are accomplished by using a up movement to disconnect the skis from the snow (the release), this is followed by a displacement of the tails of the skis to the side while they are in the disconnected state followed by a pressuring of the tail of the outside ski through the rest of the turn into a traverse. Many consider this displacing/pressuring of the tails a form of steering but I don't agree so once again for me there was no effective steering. fom
fom, now its your turn .

Thanks a million for your "steering" MA. Its fun to hear because you have not probably seen or hered of it before . My advantage ! Anyway, its funny that you think there is no steering involved. According to Skidudes definitions and my own all 3 turn styles are steered. But you have a very sharp eye. Yes, in the last parallel turn there is UUW and a micro pivot. However, dont you think there are similarities? Turn radius, speed, body movements etc?

BTW, you are using a new term for me and that is "effective steering". To me that translates to some form of good steering, the opposit of crappy steering. So, what is the difference between non effective and crappy steering and good effective steering?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by tdk6 So, what is the difference between non effective and crappy steering and good effective steering?
Tdk6, Mind if I take a stab at your question?

Let's consider a car on an ice covered road traveling at 25 kph . (He's European, so no mph)
This driver wants to make a left turn into the narrow entrance of a ski area parking lot.

This driver considers two clear options to make his turn:

Option 1) He can guess at the best moment to start his turn and rapidly yank the steering wheel to the left. He'll be using

coarse guesswork to determine the amount of steering-wheel adjustment to make hoping it will be about right. He'll fully expect to make more coarse adjustments as the car will veer somewhat randomly to the left. He'll make more coarse guesswork adjustments to manage ongoing direction as the car fish-tails wildly. Eventually, the car will be pointed where he wants it to go.

Option 2) He wont guess at anything and instead will progressively and controllably rotate the steering wheel to the left. Since he'll be using finely controlled motor skills to rotate the steering wheel he'll be able to continuously guide the car in a fully controlled manner to the left. As the turn progresses he'll make more small, fully controlled adjustments as the car increasingly goes exactly where he wants it to go.

I think this is the same idea as gross, largely uncontrolled steering in skiing vs. fine, fully controlled steering.

Coarse steering patterns generally employ large muscle groups that simply overpower the ski and shove its tail somewhere close to where it will do the job. The snow will likely resist this lateral shove and then suddenly "give way" all at once rendering any planned amount of tail displacement nothing more than a hopeful guess.

Fine steering patterns employ both large and small muscle groups to controllably and progressively guide the direction each ski is pointing. (ILS does this quite well.) Steering efforts like this allow the skier to progressively modify each ski's current aim, even independently if they so choose.

Use of steering patterns is independent of Turn Phase (or whatever location classification you prefer). We can shove the ski around (or guide the ski around) just as easily at turn Finish as at turn Entry or turn Apex.

.ma
I've read through these postings and I'm frankly at a loss. The initial question relates to parallel turns and the focus is on skidding. Is that your goal? To skid? My goal is to never skid. I can skid, say to squash some speed before I drop into a steeper section so I don't "lose the arc" at the bottom of the turn, but otherwise I am trying to carve, (that's right, CARVE) my turns every time on every run and every phase of every run. When my buddies stop mid hill, I don't even hockey stop, which to me is the biggest skid ever, to meet up with them. Instead I carve around them and continue the carve across the fall line and commit to the turn until I've come to a gravity stop as gravity tends to slow me down when I'm skiing up hill. RIGHT?
So there are even times I'll commit to my turn to such an extent that I'm able to follow through the 4th phase of the turn, actually coming across my original path, now a 360 degree turn, and continue down the hill again. I can assure you that my skis are on edge, carving a nice parallel, railroad track turn. No skid at all.

I'm skipping the skids and seek to avoid them. Now back to my question. Why all this discussion about steering, skidding and so on? Are you guys not carving but working on your skidding?

Best,
EJ
EJL,
There is a very simple reason the original poster focussed on steering. It's late in August...NO! September Now! We have already exhausted the arcing conversations. We have discussed arc to arc skiing ad nauseum. Do a search.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by tdk6 Ok Rick, give me some steering MA:http://ski.topeverything.com/default...nt&ID=8A968895
Obvious weight shift in the wedge turns. You probably remember from previous discussions that I am not opposed, as some are, to teaching that. Negative schmegative, it plants the movement pattern seed for higher level skiing that will come later.

You are steering thoughout the wedge turns, moderate skid anlge. The only way steering would be absent would be if your outside ski was carving a clean edge. This is not close to carving.

The stem turn is what it is.

The parallel turns are a bit tail pushy at initiation. The first more-so than the second. A quick up-unweighting seems to preceed the tail push into a moderate/large skid angle. The skid angle decreased slightly as you proceed to steer throught the turn. Your body position is kind of hunched. You seem to use enough femur/hip rotation to assume a reasonable amount of functional counter,,, it's not overdone.

If those elements were what you were shooting for in your demo,,, . If you want some suggestions on how to promote a cleaner initiation,,, minus the push,,, let me know. I'm not at all assuming you need them.
As to breaking turns down into parts for learning purposes,,, think of a series of ski turns as a chain. A weak link can affect the entirety of the whole chain. If you focus directly on repairing that link, the chain gets stronger.

Breaking the turn into sections helps provide that type of focus. Many different issues can be present in each turn phase.

The initiation can be loose. There can be an unneeded up move. There can be body rotation. There can be too much anticipation. There can be too harsh an edge engagement. Not subtle enough edge angle development.

The body (shaping) phase of the turn can contain inconsistent/poor edge skills. Sloppy carving. Large default skid angles. There can be balance problems.

The completion phase can have inefficient releases. Edge checks. Lack of turn finishing, and understanding of the speed control that can provide. Inappropriate rotational states to compliment the intended coming initiation.

Breaking it down and focusing on these individual elements can actually serve to enhance the flow of the overall package, because many of those deficiencies are flow breakers in of themselves.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by tdk6 Great posting Ric. So lets stick to the PSIA definitions: 1 Initiation 2 Shaping 3 Finish IMHO there is no solid middle ground between UUW (upunweighing) and ILS (independentlegsteering). If not ILS uses a hint of UUW or ski rebound for creating that initial steering angle. I dont believe simple pressure transfer before I see it and sofar nobody has posted any video. Maybe the unweighing movement is well masked. Maybe its only imagined. We need a video boyz! You talk about ILE and OLF. Its there but note that when we skidd we do not depend solely on inclination and edge angle for tightening our turn radius. We apply steering which results in less pressure on skis but still same turn radius or tighter. This because we have less speed. Still we need that little something to create that initial steering angle. Simple ILE or OLF will not do. Inside leg gets shorter due to inclination but especially if we have our skis fearly close together, I know I do when I skidd, then the effect is not so dramatic. Also, ILE can be coupled to UUW. This is because it lifts our body up and works from a traverse. OLF again can be coupled to DownUW. This because you can DUW ski rebound when and "if" you link turns. Usually you dont need to fix a lot of stuff in peoples skiing. Its almost allways a matter of just a few simple things. Elementary things. Stuff that you can work on when you wedge on the bunny hill. We should offcourse not be sequential in our movements, its only a tool for the purpose and benefit of proper MA. And learning. So lets skin the cat in many ways! List all the ones you can think of!
I just did in my previous post.

Sure we are steering in these skidded turns. We also can have early and appropriate blending in of edging in a slow skidded turn as well. And the difference between a turn that relys primarily on steering and one at the same speed and turn shape done with a decided early blending in of long leg short leg looks different and effectively shows the common movements that we encourage in more dynamic levels of modern skiing.

You can show these differences in wedge turns too. You can accomplish a wedge using a big up move to unweight and pivot, with little or no up move with primarily steering, or with long leg short leg well blended in with steering and subtle edging. The three will all look different. We practice these variations all the time in our training, exploring the variations and evolution of our common movements.
tdk6,

All of the turns in the video are the result of a displacement of the tail of the skis. This displacement creates a steering angle which you then ride around the arc of the turn. Personally, I don't consider riding a skidding ski around an arc to be steering. Perhaps I have a different understanding of steering than how it is used in this forum.

For me steering is an active input to the skis with the intent to create an immediate and ongoing change in the direction of travel of the skis/skier. In the turns on the video I see a displacement of the tail of the ski (tails of the skis in the parallel turns) which result in a change in where the ski is pointed but not a change in the direction of travel of the ski/skier until the ski is pressured. Once pressured the ski, which is pointed across your direction of travel, will function as it is designed and between it and the laws of physics your direction of travel will be affected but you are just standing there allowing the ski to do its thing. No active input from you no steering in my eyes.

Now, I am new on this forum so perhaps my use/understanding of the term steering is way out of line with how it is employed here. If so I'll try to avoid using it in the future. But to my way of thinking the video is an excellent example of turns that are skidded but not steered.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by fatoldman tdk6, The way I understand and use the word I see no effective steering in the demos on the video. Here's what I do see. The wedge turns are accomplished with a shift of pressure from one ski to another. The greater pressure on one ski causes its directional force to overcome the directional force of the other ski and turn the skier in that direction. No steering is used. The stem turns start by displacing the tail of one ski out, then an up movement is used to shift pressure from the downhill ski to the stemmed ski which then moves the skier in the new direction, at this point the tail of the other ski is moved down into a parallel relationship with the pressured ski. The skier then rides the pressured ski through the turn into a traverse. I don't really consider the stemming movements to be effective steering so again no steering is involved. The parallel turns are accomplished by using a up movement to disconnect the skis from the snow (the release), this is followed by a displacement of the tails of the skis to the side while they are in the disconnected state followed by a pressuring of the tail of the outside ski through the rest of the turn into a traverse. Many consider this displacing/pressuring of the tails a form of steering but I don't agree so once again for me there was no effective steering. fom
good observations! I agree with you. stems and pivoting around the ski tips are not steering in my book. Steering is not a braking movement whereas stemming and tip pivots/tail displacements are very defensive.

Upunweighting also seems like an archaic crutch for less skilled movements?

TDK6, do you consider any up movement or extension, up-unweighting?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick By my definitions; Pivot: a non pressured manual redirection of the skis Steer: a pressured manual redirection of the skis

So what are pivot slips? Aren't they pressured pivots?

Wouldn't pivoting be a displacement of the skis with no change in the direction of travel? and steering be a muscular redirection of the skis?
Yep, Bud, I agree. Steering results in a change in the direction of travel of the skier. Pivoting does not.

Quote:
 Steering is not a braking movement
Imagine Bud and Rick going for a run together. Rick carves arc to arc turns, and Bud follows right in his tracks doing steered turns. Who gets to the bottom first, and who's turns are introducing the most breaking?

You don't have to answer, everyone knows the answers. Steering is definitely a breaking turning technique, compared to carving. There's nothing wrong with that, and there's nothing wrong with using steered turns FOR that. All skiers don't always want to go mach schnell all the timeS, or have to deal with the higher forces carving subjects them to.

"Defensive" carries negative connotations. Bleeding some speed on occasion is not an inherently BAD choice,,, it's a choice skiers should not be made to feel guilty and inadequate in making. And they should be made aware that steering is a good way to do it, and how it can be done in different ways to bleed precisely as much speed as they want.

Edge and line control are the two tools a skier has to manage speed. Line is not a MORE legitimate choice, just a different one. They can be used together, or separately, depending on need or preference. Both require skill development to be used most effectively.

It's a message that needs to get out there. Too frequently steering as a speed control tool is villianized. It's beyond silly.
Yep, you are right Rick, I was thinking of steering vs. skidded turns with the pivot point being more forward of the foot or stemmed turns. I should have thought that through a bit before posting, my apologies.
Thanks, Bud. Please don't take my post personally. It was more a rant directed towards a theme I see too much of out there, than directed squarely at you. My passion about the topic got the best of me. Drives me nuts when I see a hint of it, but obviously it was not what you were promoting. Sorry for venting in your direction.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by EJL I've read through these postings and I'm frankly at a loss. The initial question relates to parallel turns and the focus is on skidding. Is that your goal? To skid? My goal is to never skid. I can skid, say to squash some speed before I drop into a steeper section so I don't "lose the arc" at the bottom of the turn, but otherwise I am trying to carve, (that's right, CARVE) my turns every time on every run and every phase of every run. When my buddies stop mid hill, I don't even hockey stop, which to me is the biggest skid ever, to meet up with them. Instead I carve around them and continue the carve across the fall line and commit to the turn until I've come to a gravity stop as gravity tends to slow me down when I'm skiing up hill. RIGHT? So there are even times I'll commit to my turn to such an extent that I'm able to follow through the 4th phase of the turn, actually coming across my original path, now a 360 degree turn, and continue down the hill again. I can assure you that my skis are on edge, carving a nice parallel, railroad track turn. No skid at all. I'm skipping the skids and seek to avoid them. Now back to my question. Why all this discussion about steering, skidding and so on? Are you guys not carving but working on your skidding? Best, EJ
I guess this thread is for your buddies and not for you .
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 › The Parallel Turn (a discussion about turn phases)