or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Where does it all begin??? - Page 3

post #61 of 72
Philosophical, yes, but nightmare, Rick? I think this discussion is just starting to get good! There is obviously a lot more than "meets the eye" to defining turns! I think it is VERY reasonable to have a philosophical discussion about "where turns begin."

On the simplest level, yes, of course, a new turn begins the moment the ")" turns into a "(". And that moment, as many have stated, coincides with the skis flattening and thus releasing the edge(s) that kept them in the previous turn. This is the "neutral" moment that I've referred to. This is true, and probably obvious. But how useful is it?

If turns are to be linked, then this flat, neutral moment can have no duration. There is no "straight," no traverse, no pause while the skis remain flat on the snow between the arcs. The moment is, of course, both the end of one linked turn, and the beginning of the next.

In smoothly linked turns, the skis roll continuously from varying degrees of left edge angle to varying degrees of right edge angle, and back, passing without a "hitch" through neutral (flat) in a single, smooth motion. The MOVEMENT that "ends" with skis flat obviously begins well before that point--the movement begins the moment that the edge angle begins to decrease. So it is quite reasonable to think of the beginning of the turn being the beginning of the new edge roll, which happens before the old turn is ended! Looked at this way, the transition becomes more a zone than a point.

If I wait instead until I want to begin a new turn to make some sort of "releasing movement," it is too late! It takes time to go from "edged" to "flat," so the turns will not be linked--they'll have a "dead zone,"--a traverse--between them.

Turns, or at least the movements of linked turns, are smoothly cyclical, as I noted before. With a little "out of the box" thinking, it is easy--and instructive--to make any point in that cycle the arbitrary starting/ending/transition point. Why not?

As I sit here at my desk, I am rolling my hand from side to side, like a ski, in smooth, continuous motions. If I were to break that particular motion into two parts--a right and a left "roll," it seems to me that the most obvious place to divide it is the moment I stop the "clockwise" rotation and begin the counter-clockwise rotation, and vice-versa. That moment of "flat" doesn't seem particularly significant when I look at it this way. Try it, and observe how smoothly your hand passes through that flat, neutral "doorway."

Now try this: put your hand flat on the table. Now tip it to the right and back to flat. Now tip it to the left and back to flat. Doesn't this very thought produce a "hitch" in the smooth motion, a hesitation, at least, at "flat"? The same things tend to happen on skis.

So I'm not trying to change the definition of "turn," or to deny the common definition of one turn as one "C" and the next turn as a reversed "C." I'm only suggesting that interesting things can happen when we allow ourselves to play around with other, less conventional, thoughts!

One of my favorite exercises involves finding a snowmobile track, or even a snowcat track, that goes straight down the slope. I begin in a straight run down one side of the track, then make a "turn" to get to the other side of the track. I'm just skiing straight downhill on first one side of the track, then the other, and the turn is the movement that changes my direction and gets me to the other side. There's nothing particularly "out there" or confusing about this way of thinking, is there? The turn here is the "S" that links the downhill/fall line segments.

It's an exercise, not an edict about skiing. It's pretty simple, but it's amazing how differently--and generally better--it causes many people to ski! Gone is the braking tail push to "start" a turn. Tracks are clean, skidding is minimal, movements become smooth, well-directed, and continuous, especially through "neutral." And all these technical changes come about with virtually no technical instruction!

There's nothing wrong with a little challenge to "conventional wisdom." A new perspective can produce RESULTS!

Best regards,
Bob Barnes

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ October 24, 2001 12:26 AM: Message edited 1 time, by Bob Barnes/Colorado ]</font>
post #62 of 72
thanks for the answer Pierre.
That's what I was trying to say!

Another thought
Skis speed up and slow down and the CM flows downhill smoothly.
Like falling over the skis then skis catch up just enough to slow the fall and start the next one.
In other words...
The CM is downhill of the feet (platform for balance) before the fall line. The CM is directly over in the fall line and uphill after the fall line.
I like to think interms of CM...
post #63 of 72
I'm with you on that zeek. [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #64 of 72
I have always thought of the turn ending/ beginning when my skis are across the hill. As Rick H said 90 degrees to the fall line. If I continue my turn I will stop. If I want to continue skiing, I must start a new turn. This is the transition period. Like BobB states it isn’t a defined by a point. To me the “belly” or body of the turn is when my skis are in the fall line. I’m still edging and steering my skis in the same direction as when I started the turn.

I'm not too sure if this will work. The breaks in continuity indicate the completion/ initiation of the turn.

Then I stop!


edit: tried to fix the "turns"

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ October 25, 2001 12:45 PM: Message edited 1 time, by Jim O'D ]</font>
post #65 of 72
by Ott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Then the discussion turned to LINKED turns and again I argued that it begins with a pole swing, but after reading everyones ideas, I now think it ends when you come to a stop at the bottom of the slope. Everything inbetween are turns without a beginning or an end.


I like this description best.
post #66 of 72
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Roto:

I tend to strive for a consistent feeling of weight or pressure on my boards. The more consistent pressure is throughout turns the more powerful and efficient the skier is(can be).

I'm not a professional. I agree that IN the turns a varying degree of pressure and weight is a must, but I transition into my next turn by releasing this pressure, and letting the ski run, with as little input/pressure as possible...
weight, un-weight, weight, unweight, unweight. This to me is the most efficient way to combine the skis energy and my own;
to start and finish a turn.....

And the dead horse takes another thump.....
post #67 of 72
Rick H,

For me a turn starts either conscienciously or subconscienciously in my mind with some type of mental activity that tells my body, "Ok, we are changing direction now !"

The physical action of beginning that "new turn," is what ever my mind told my body to do first, whether correctly or not. That first physical movement, regardless if it is the relaxing of a muscle, or a pole plant, or the beginning of a similtaneous edge change,or some other body movement, but the mental command is clear; "Time to change direction, since this present turn is NOW over!"
post #68 of 72
One important point, it seems to me, is to remember that in linked turns--S-shaped, C-shaped, whatever--we are CONSTANTLY changing direction. So it's not a question of going straight, then deciding to change direction and go straight in a new direction. Perhaps it's within this fact of constant direction change that the root of any disagreements here hides....

Still, the laws of physics are quite clear in stating that, when a net force acts from my left, it will push me to the right, and vice-versa. The obvious "conventional" definition of the start of a new turn recognizes the point at which the net force pushing me changes sides and starts pushing me the other way.

But my arguments above are simply that arbitrarily playing with a different thought can create real technical changes--often for the better. Again, I'm not suggesting we rewrite the dictionary!

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #69 of 72
When I think about my own turns I find that my turns start with “feedback” from the terrain. I.e. Feel the ski loading, Feel the gravity pushing, Feel the terrain shaping, Feel feedback being processed, Feel the mechanics being applied, Feel the skis turn.

Feedback is from terrain, sight, sound, obstacles, gravity, inner rhythm, weather.

Process is thought, muscles, bones, senses, balance, movement, fear.

The learned mechanics are applied subconsciously.

Turning is the end result.

Oz. [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #70 of 72
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Exit 154:

I transition into my next turn by releasing this pressure, and letting the ski run.

Actually, that is pretty close to my point, but edge change can happen without active/significant unweighting.

weight, un-weight, weight, unweight, unweight. This to me is the most efficient way to combine the skis energy and my own;
to start and finish a turn.....

The second part however is something quite different. Not wrong, but best applied situationally, not across the board. Unweighting can be done in a variety of ways. The traditional application invloves some movements of CM that are not flowing into turns, which is why the unweighting was/is used, to lighten the ski so it can be turned with muscles as ski design wasn't/isn't being utilized. Unweighted skis aren't interacting with the snow.

Don't get me wrong. I love unweighting in all sorts of ways and situations, sometimes a LOT of it. It is fun and can be efficient. I just don't use it as my primary movement pattern for making turns.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ October 28, 2001 09:56 AM: Message edited 1 time, by Roto ]</font>
post #71 of 72
The turn, the turn, the turn! What kind of turn??? There are a lot of good things in this thread, but after reading all the posts, there seems to be something missing. Unless I missed something, there wasn't anything said about different sized turns, and if different movement patterns are required to make different sized turns.

I saw some talking about a short radius turn, but didn't say it was a short radius turn. It was just the turn. I saw some talking about a large radius turn, but didn't say it was a large radius turn. It was just the turn.

So I'm going to leave it at that and see what happens. :

BTW, good to see you back, Bob B.----------------Wigs
post #72 of 72
...and you, Wigs!

You're right--lots of assumptions going on in this thread. Turns may or may not be linked. They can be almost any shape. And they can arise from various intents. All these variables affect the type and timing of movements.

I've long said that one of the biggest problems we've had as instructors and skiers arises from the assumption that "a turn is a turn." We use the word "turn" amazingly loosely in skiing, usually without realizing it. When a car skids and loses its line, we usually say we "missed" the turn. On skis, most people think that it IS the turn!

I look forward to seeing you here again, Wigs, and I hope to see you on the slopes this season as well!

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching