or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Angulation vs Inclination

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
I worry about starting a new topic when there are some hot ones going on but here goes. I think it best to start with a definition but not having a manual or Bob's book this is my interpration.

Inclination: the tipping/leaning of the whole body to balance against effects centrifugal force.

Angulation: Latteral movements of Knee/hip/spine which forms an angle with another part of the body.

That said I find it hard to absolute seperate them but we can have inclination with out angulation.

The question I have is; Do we need to use as much angulation with the new technology? I have felt over the last few years much less need for angulation and counter and greater ability to just incline and align. I see this in racing and feel in my own free skiing

As I type this I relize my bigger concern is with the amount of counter people are using with hip angulation and not as much the angulation itself.

Try this(static I know but give it a shot): Stand in an open doorway facing the side so you have something to hold onto. (door jam) tip your body away using full body (feel what your ankle does) not add some ankle/hip angulation (feel what your ankles does) Now from here turn your upperbody so you show counter (feel what your ankle does). Before anyone attacks me on the fact that we develop counter from turning the legs against a stable upperbody and not as I described I believe in the result at the ankle the result is the same. Did you you feel the ankle try to flatten and the femurs twist? Not desirable in a carved turn. However very desirable in very short turns were the need to release and twist the legs outweighs the need to hold the edge. This is one of the observation I made on the large turns posted of the skier in the lingo clarification thread. Has anyone else felt or observered especially at the world cup level more use of full body tipping? less counter? Thoughts?
post #2 of 16

Yes, I was thrown out of Cheaps boat.

But I do not need no stinkin life jacket. Remember, this is SCSA we're talking about. I swim like a fish - faster than 97% of 'em.

Now don't forget it.
post #3 of 16
For us Gang Members and techno goobs out here, I feel I should clarify that inclination is simply the geometrical term describing the body's attitude inside the turn. Inclination can be Angulation... or it can be Banking. Angulation has already been defined by Todo, but I believe it can be better qualified by stating that it is actually a FORM of inclination. Banking on the other hand could best be described as inclination with no angulation... or LEANING. (Yeah, I know. BLABBITY BLABBITY BLAH.)

I'm not exactly sure how to go in on this, some others may be a little more versed than I, but I think our little term "kinetic chain" comes into play. With the shapes, we CAN in fact get away with banking into the turns more than before, but it's not necessarily the most efficient. The racers aren't really banking, but staying in alignment... I believe the term here is "stacking". referring to how the skeleton stacks up on top of the ankle to form a strong, yet mobile stance. Were any of these guys to make a mistake and bank at their speeds, they end up on the inside ski and spend the next few turns recovering... shedding precious time. They instead opt to work the ankle/knee/hip chain and let the natural tendencies of their bones to decide how much edge angle is fastest and most direct. Tree trunks for legs don't hurt either.

As for us mortals, angulation can be decided in much the same manner. As we feel forces and pressure building up on us in any given turn, we can resist them by tipping, turning, or flexing/extending, or all three. Example: As I make a medium radius turn (parallel)on a groomed blue run, I will feel heavier and heavier as the turn progresses to the fall line and into the belly of my turn. The edge angle that I had at the top of my turn is no longer sufficient, so I must increase it or begin skidding sideways. I'll begin that tip at the ankles and let alignment take over from there. Keep in mind that toward the end of my turn, one foot will be higher up the hill than the other. Skeletally, that will tend to push the uphill ski ahead of the other and the hip will react accordingly. I just let it happen because it is here that I find all the counter I will ever need! As long as my upper body stays in line and not twisted against the lever of the skis, I'll be able to edge and rotate and extend effectively. (running out of words here!)

If I just tip, though, my skis will want to take a straighter line and I may just fall inside my turn (this happens very easily when you bank), so now I must also begin rotating the columns of both legs to keep the skis "underneath" me and my upper body going along with the rest of me. This rotation should be pretty powerful as long as I'm not staight-legged and the flex in my legs will allow for some pretty strong and appropriate angulation.

Now I have pressure to deal with. I'll defy it by lengthening the legs (deliberately). The lengthening will be accompanied by decreasing edge angles, and hopefully decreasing pressure. My body should also be returning to a more neutral skeletal state, so that I can have a solid position from which to move. By this time I had better almost be done with this turn or I'm hamburger. it certainly takes longer to explain than it does to execute!!! Anyway, if my timing is good and I reach full extension at the end of my turn I will be aligned and ready for the next turn. Full Extension does not mean "maxed out". It just means that you have lengthened as far as you are willing to. It's different for everyone I think.

Whoa. Waaaay too long. I guess if I was to sum it all up, I just try to think of angulation, pressure, and face-plants as things that happen to us... not as things we contrive or exert upon ourselves. I'll be availabel for tearing apart at your liesure.

2 cents (more like 8 cents),

<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by Notorious Spag (edited September 05, 2001).]</FONT>
post #4 of 16
Todo, What is it called when the body is tipped/leaned down the hill going with gravity and, to some degree, centrifugal force? Isn't this also inclination?
post #5 of 16
Scott USA Racing poles. Dynastar Course SL's? (huge orange bases) and Technica TNT's? Just checking my equipment eye. I know that has nothing to do with the question. I'm just bored at home this weekend and have nothing better to do... and I'm too lazy to come up with anything good.

Freakin' in SD,
post #6 of 16
Matteo. Like I said. I was really bored, so it was worth a shot. I was way off on the poles, but that orange ski base suggested to me either Dynastar, Hart, or K2... so I took a 33% shot at it. I think Dachstein was the only other boot that was that particular orange, but they sucked so hardly anyone had them. Elementary my dear Watson! Any way it was fun to try.

post #7 of 16
Im asking so many questions that I'm probably making you guys dizzy! Sorry!
I'm trying to finish up a fitness article for TPS, and every time I think I'm done, an important issue gets raised.

How much does lateral stability of a specific skier factor into the angulation/inclination issue?

My thoughts, from reading this thread, that it is still required, but not in as greater range of motion. I am asking this because most people are lacking in the area of lateral stability. This is demonstrated by an inability to hold postural alignment while doing side bends over a stability ball.

My original plan for my skiready workshop was to have anyone who was on a college ski racing team perform the exercises on a smaller stability ball, which would increase the range of motion and challenge stability to a greater degree. But in observing photos of college ski racing teams {Jonathan's MIT} I'm am not seeing the degree of inclination that would make that necessary.

Thoughts? Thanks!

Be Braver in your body, or your luck will leave you. DH Lawrence
post #8 of 16
Ah! If you had asked that question last year, I may have answered strength. But one lesson with Todd plus many, many threads on this board have caused me to change my tune.

While, as you say, the strength factor should not be completely ignored, when designing programs that are SKI SPECIFIC, I usually look for how much strength a student can execute within a given range of motion, and still maintain stability and alignment.

So while the strength element protects the joints from injury, the stability and alignment training asures that the body maintains a functional position, so that the muscles will not only perform their tasks, but will keep them from overworking.

So I guess I am asking if there would be any reason to increase the range of motion, even though in most cases, it seems that range is not needed.
post #9 of 16
FWIW, I just posted a message in the thread, "Why is Banking Bad" that relates to this "Inclination vs Angulation" thread.

My msg covers some of the same material in this thread but also goes into things like "local, instantaneous vertical", the difference between "critical edge angle" and "normal edge angle" and how angulation impacts that.

There are just too many posts to keep up with and I hadn't seen this thread b4 I wrote the other message. At least we all appear to be in reasonable agreement on this.

Tom / PM

<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by PhysicsMan (edited September 10, 2001).]</FONT>
post #10 of 16

The new skis are capable of pulling more Gs, so you inherently need more inclination to move the center of gravity inward.  Less angulation (more lean) helps you to do this, as we're seeing today.  You still need some angulation to act as a shock absorber as your legs are maxed out in the turn.

post #11 of 16
Originally Posted by FlyDutch View Post

The new skis are capable of pulling more Gs, so you inherently need more inclination to move the center of gravity inward.  Less angulation (more lean) helps you to do this, as we're seeing today.  You still need some angulation to act as a shock absorber as your legs are maxed out in the turn.

Welcome to Epic FlyDutch-


When you say new skis, do you mean the 2001 models that the OP may have been referring to or are you talking about the current models?  


Way to use the search function...I`ve seen some old threads bumped before, but don`t recall seeing anything bumped over a decade old (that last saw a post when the WTC Towers were still standing)  Lot`s more interesting stuff here if you keep searching!

post #12 of 16

Todo, A simpler relationship between inclination and angulation might go something like this.


Angualtion is just one form of inclination. While it uses lateral displacement of a joint, or combination of joints, what it provides is the ability to develop higher edge angles without moving the torso as far inside the turn.

To speak about the counter rotary, Pelvic counter rotary without abducting the inside knee (in effect knee rotary into the turn) would indeed produce a flattening of the inside ski. If the sacro-lumbar joint is the predomint joint used to create counter rotary, the inside knee and hip will not displace (forward) as much and little changes down at the feet. Of course, out on the hill the boots restrict the ankle RoM and this needs to be considered since in the doorway the feet don't move and the ankles can flex freely. It's interesting to consider the work around for that restricted RoM in the ankle is to allow the inside foot to displace forward as the femur gets more horizontal. So some pelvis counter rotation is natural and the abducting of the knee to keep the tibias (and edge angles) parallel becomes necessary. Even if leg steering isn't the primary way to create a countered stance, keeping the tibias parallel in the saggital plane would involve the inside foot sliding forward and the pelvis would move accordingly. In conclusion, I would say angulation involves more counter rotary in the pelvis nowdays and if you develop it by turning the sacro-lumbar joint, then the inside half more than likely would result in the inside half lagging behind that inside foot (aft stance). Not exactly something I would want. It's also a reason to avoid inclinating once the inside foot moves forward enough to demand the hip follws it to maintain fore aft balance in that lateral hemisphere. I suppose you could counter as you inclinate but wouldn't that move have a limited RoM in both the saggital and lateral planes?

post #13 of 16

^^^  You do realize this thread was started over ten years ago and Todo hasn't posted at Epic in a year or so, right?  Man, this thing was drug up from the archives....

post #14 of 16

Yup, saw that but thought a few words here might stir some debate about this often misunderstood subject.

post #15 of 16

From my understanding which could be wrong


 For rapid fire straight down the fall brushed carved type turns angulation will result in higher edge angles with less travel of the body or skis out to the sides. (most likely cross unders) Quicker sharper turns will result. ( inside hip is same hieght as out side hip as with inside & outside shoulders same hieght as each other, knees forward & tiped into the turn with body facing downfall line)


 Larger carved turns inclination is kinda fun to use now & then for the feeling of the body traveling a greater distance back & forth to counter act the G forces. (can be dangerous on ice). To keep in control angulation must often be used with the inclination.


When a lightening quick turn is needed using just inclination does not seam to work as well for me as well I dont think I have as much control.

post #16 of 16

The hard fast rules tend to be blurred nowdays. Reaching Slalom turns feature inclination early, releasing the body into the new turn does as well but the body position prior to the release is angulated. So in today's world we are seeing a combination of both during th esame turn.

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