or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

do i need to unweight? - Page 5

post #121 of 164
Ott, I guess it's in the way I think about unweighting. I one case, air, jumping or rising quickly/dropping quickly there is less than my full body weight on my skis. When I shift weight from on ski to another, as in more current turns, I still have 185lbs on the skis. It seems like the term unweighting could be confusing to skiers when used for both instances. In skiing does transferring and unweighting mean the same thing?
post #122 of 164
No Lucky, if you read some of the earlier posts in this thread they will explain.

Weight or pressure transfer is what you describe when you just shift from one ski to the other, the preferred method with modern skis. Unweighting in any number of ways takes weight off, either partially or totally, from both skis. That was used with older stiffer skis to facilitate turn initiation.

We rehashed that several times in this very thread.

post #123 of 164
Sorry Ott, I didn't read all of them. Thanks for the explanation, it's very clear.
post #124 of 164
Bob, you really are going to have to show me exactly what you are referring to because I don't see it. If there is a misquote I will apologize. I included plenty of context. All direct quotes from you are in bold. Nothing was taken out of context.

You asked the question, Where did you see anything I wrote suggest that unweighting is "undesirable"? and I provided the example. The example includes enough context so that the reader knows (if the reader actually reads it) that unweighting is not necessary or even desirable for linked carved turns.

I'll check back on this thread to see if I need to apologize to you.

Sincerely Yours

cold water
post #125 of 164
CW, I think that the quote: "that unweighting is not necessary or even desirable for linked carved turns." is different from saying that it is "undesirable".

There is a slight difference. Undesirable means that if you do it, it is wrong. Not even desirable means that you could do it and it wouldn't be wrong but it isn't necessary.

That's how I see it, and that is maybe where the misunderstanding lies.

post #126 of 164

I think you pretty well got what I was getting at. Shaped skis are really the first critical change in ski equipment since Sven first decided that standing on the slats from the broken barrel and sliding would be an easier way to get home from the tavern than walking. The changes in technique have been substantial but we are burdened by a vocabulary that in many instances dates back to wooden skis. This time of change gives us an ideal opportunity to revisit our "language of skiing".

Personally, rather than trying to adapt old (dare I say arcahic) terms to the new paradigm of skiing or creating new terms I like the use of short discriptive phrases for what's happening. This, to me, gives us a more accurate and adaptable language than trying to give complicated definitions to specific words. Seems to me that the phrase "the pressure under my feet" can be used with descriptive modifers to cover things like "unweighting", "weight shift", "Cen-tri-fugal force" etc. While DrGO and I probably would be in basic agreement about what goes on with pressure under our feet during a turn as soon as the term "unweighting" comes up we are in disagreement. Seems silly to me. I know what I mean when I use a particular word but I don't know what that word may mean to my student or another instructor.

I'm trying to prepare an article length post about the changes shaped skis have brought about in our sport and will have more to say about this there.

post #127 of 164
Way to go Ydnar! I'm sure your article will be a good read and fuel the fires of good discussion. I look forward to it.

post #128 of 164
Hi Lucky,
you stated:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> When I shift weight from on ski to another, as in more current turns, I still have 185lbs on the skis.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am wondering if this is really correct. It would seem that you must have more than your full weight on the snow as you're ending one turn. As you transition from that turn to the next, you stop resisting your CM, allowing it to move downhill faster than your skis--crossing over them. This movement of your mass downhill faster than your skis would seem to release any pressure on them and reduce it to something less than your full weight, until centrifugal forces start to build in the new turn, that is.

The reason I mention your quote is that it led me to this train of thought, about if and when a skier loses the pressure buildup in their skis and body. In turn this makes me think that by the time of transition, the skier will always lose all the "reboundable" energy stored up over the course of the prior turn. Any rebound therefore would occur while the CM is still, at least slightly, uphill of their skis and could not possibly help to project the <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> CM down the slope into the next turn<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> which was in the original message posted by Zeek.

The inevitable release of the stored up energy prior to crossover would suggest that the most any rebound could do is project the CM up in the air, or to the side, but not down the hill.

I hope I've used the quote feature correctly, and that this all seems coherent and relevant to this thread..

(Oops, is this just restating Bob Barnes' puck flinging analogy?, Sorry if I've added nothing new.)
post #129 of 164

I would say that when you release the turn as you described really well, with your legs flexing (relaxation release) I would argue that your CM CAN be directed and moving into the new turn as the skis are coming out of the arc or rebounding (decambering). It's because the legs will absorb this directional energy from the skis as they are flattening to the snow surface and the CM is drawn over the skis into the new turn. Remember also, that the CM does not go straight down the hill, it still maintians forward momentum along your flow line. This acutally aids in a quick engagement early in the next turn especially when you're crankin'.

post #130 of 164

Rebound has always been attributed to the ski going from a highly flexed state to its normal resting state and thereby releasing the energy stored in the ski. I always had two questions concerning this. First it seemed to me that the amount of force involved was much more than could be accounted for by the spring action of the ski. Second if the relax to release move is used and is indeed started very shortly after the fall line then the edge angle is gradually reduced which means that the arc of the ski is gradually reduced which menas that the energy of the ski would be gradually released so that there wouldn't be a burst of energy from the ski at the end of the turn.
If this line of thought is accurate then it seems to me that we must look elsewhere to explain the force that we are calling rebound.

What do you think,
post #131 of 164
Jimmy D, I understand what you are saying and it seems that if my cm crosses over the skis and moves forward I would still have my body weight on one or both skis unless I retract my skis as in crossunder. I know I wouldn't have the same pressure on my skis as I would near the end of the turn when gravity and other forces are a factor.
post #132 of 164
I think you are right on. The extreme forces we stand against through our arcs is, in my opion largely respnsible for the burst (resbound) at the end of a turn. It has to be something in additon to just the inherent strength of our decambered skis. Maybe this would be a good illustration (it just popped into my head): Put your skis beween two benches and stand in the middle, then put your hands on the ceiling and push down with your legs. It does not take much energy at all to bend the skis and it does not provied much rebound on its own does it. It must be somewhat similar to this in real skiing...so therefore there must be other forces at work, seems to me, and the only other force is from the arc itself and the G's you generate in each arc by standing against the skis. So how you release these these forces would detemine your "rebound" pattern. What do YOU think? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Always up for discussion!
post #133 of 164
Ydnar, what you describe is not a rebound turn. For a rebound, the edges have to be set hard and dug in by all your weight coming down on the edged skis. Only then can you get a rebound. We called it a check in the olden days.

So if you make a turn as you described, to get rebound, you would have to have a hard edge set just before you start into the next turn, let the rebound push you up just enough to make your body float for the half second it takes to retract you skis and move them UNDER your body to the other side.

In cross-over you would never use rebound. As you correctly desribed, for cross-over turns the energy stored by the ski is gradually dissipated toward the end of the turn.

post #134 of 164
In the beginning – (Not sequential but milliseconds in order)
Weight transfer to the outside ski.
Inside ski lightens and guides the CM (hips) into the new (future) turn
The turn (carve) happens naturally from the early weighted ski
At the apex of the (control phase) of the turn the skier begins to relax the feet (turn) and prepare for
In the beginning.
The turn shape is over at the apex and if you watch a “good” skier it looks effortless. Nothing really amazing is happening after the apex.

In the beginning – (Rebound)
Weight transfer to the out side ski
Inside ski lightens and guides the CM (hips) into the new turn
Skier starts “dropping” as the carve & centrifugal forces build
Forces are stored in the skier’s muscles and de-camber of ski due to modern materials
Through the apex and to the point where the skier choose a direction changes forces are continually stored until
Skier releases up and on to outside ski (rebound & weight transfer to out side foot and or releases both skis off the snow lightly or actively but returns to outside ski) and uses those stored forces to move CM (hips) into (future) the new turn.

In both cases the skier, by moving the CM into the future, will stay ahead of their skis until the apex of the turn where at that point the skis appear to return to a neutral point underneath the skier.

In my mind we should make a weight transfer and let un-weighting happen in the bar over a lot of good brew. We do allow jumping at our area so we could really discuss the pros and cons to our major incidences because of the jumps the area builds.
Maybe that is another thread for the lawyers and insurance persons.

My $.25 for what it is worth.
post #135 of 164
ESki- your experiment, methinks, is missing an element-how much would velocity affect the flexing and rebound??

Centrifugal force-is this really a valid force acting on us while skiing? We need a physics prof to elucidate.

Floyd-if you are thinking about transferring weight to your new outside ski, are you not moving your CM uphill for that milisecond?
Perhaps, thinking of moving the downhill knee into the new turn would move your CM more efficiently in the direction of travel.
I like your image of the turn being essentially completed by the fall line. All that I would add to that, is that early edge change is critical, followed by active steering with both feet. Tilt then twist!!

How do y'all feel about changing our thinking from weighting/unweighting, to pressure control or management?
post #136 of 164
They both exist, use what you need to.. ...Ott
post #137 of 164
Centrifugal force-is this really a valid force acting on us while skiing? We need a physics prof to elucidate.

Floyd-if you are thinking about transferring weight to your new outside ski, are you not moving your CM uphill for that milisecond?
Perhaps, thinking of moving the downhill knee into the new turn would move your CM more efficiently in the direction of travel.
Tilt then twist!!

How do y'all feel about changing our thinking from weighting/unweighting, to pressure control or management? [/QB][/quote]

Centrifugal force really does occur in skiing. People tend to think of it in a more dynamic way but in a turn you really are a weight on a string with the skier balancing against the “force” to avoid skidding out. Obviously a lot depends on the type of turn and the steepness of the terrain.

Actually your CM should always be moving into the “future” to avoid allowing your feet to get ahead of you balance point or I would term a neutral position. If you allow your feet to go by you of course you are now “back seated” and it will be necessary to make a funky move to catch up. Transfer weight from ski to ski is what we may think of as active “inner” movement and usually not what I would call a very active “outer” movement. I hope you can understand what I mean. Possibly we can relate to it as a feel? Some skiers prefer to think of simply relaxing the inside foot which then transfers the weight automatically to the out side ski. Relax, guide (inside foot), and carve (outside ski). Consequently your CM does not move “up hill” even for a millisecond (would be difficult for me to prove a millisecond however) but actually into the future turn. Think of pedaling a bike around a curve. You pressure your outside pedal to continue your curve but you do not move your body to the outside. In fact you may move further inside. Actually there are times on steeps where you may make a very active weight transfer uphill which may move your CM in that direction but normally there is a lot more associated (down stem/ab stem) and I don’t think we want to go there.

I am not found of tilt and twist words. The two words given to a student can conjure up a lot more wrong movements than correct movements. Personally I like to work with words that are fairly definitive when the student “visualizes” what they are about to ski. That is also why demos are very important. I really do not want to get into the phantom movement but I will say one thing. There is more there than lift and tip that is why, before the terminology, I always worked an exercise that kept the shovel of the inside ski pressured on the snow. I hope you can understand my fear of “tilt” (bank or what) and twist (shoulders, hips, legs or what).

Actually in my mine (as small as it may be) it is pressure control management. The problem I sometimes hear is instructors want something that is very defined and supported to the last brew because if we don’t have it we won’t all understand it. The same conversations become really heated when I ask why we don’t simply tell our students to “turn their feet”. From that simple statement you can’t imagine, or possibly can, how many students start making turns they never knew they had in them? From that point we can feed them what they want to know. It is kind of like that first sex talk with your kids. Wait till they ask or you probably will tell them more than they ever needed at the time and confuse them even more. Just keep the communications lines open! I guess you can tell I am a very simplistic type of instructor unless my students wants more. :

Thank you for the reply. I have thought about opening a thread on “turn using both edges”. I bet that would start a roar! After all we do have edges on both sides of our skis. Why not use them? (Man this is probably too long a post. Looks like BB was here. Joke BB joke! )


<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ November 10, 2001 05:09 AM: Message edited 1 time, by Floyd ]</font>
post #138 of 164
In a previous post somebody mentioned (I think it was Bob Barnes) that the rebound at the end of a turn (assuming you don't absorb the energy) is similar to the "rebound" you get from a kicker (or a mogul).

Scientifically, this makes sense and this effect is far more powerful than the reboud built into the ski. The major difference between a kicker and a turn is that the kicker is perpendicular to the snow and the turn is closer to parallel (i.e. they happen in a different plane).

This also explains why the best rebound is attained when you complete your turns properly. The kicker analogy would be that a kicker that ends straight will be less effective than a kicker that is curved.
post #139 of 164

Cen-tri-fugal force is a myth. When you spin a rock on a string the rock in not pulling out on your hand your hand is pulling inward on the rock. When we ski we aren't pushing on the skis the skis are pushing on us. But the sensory system of our bodies has a very hard time distinguishing between a push and a pull under these circumstances so we try to explain the force that we are feeling in terms that we are most familiar with. In the first case it feels just the same as if someone were pulling on the string trying to move our hand. In the second case the pressure under my feet feels just the same as the pressure that I sense from the pull of gravity. The reality in both cases is that we are forcing a mass in motion to follow a curved path. The masses in question want to travel in a straight line. To make them follow a curved path we must apply a constant force to them. The force applied to the spinning stone is called centripetal (toward the center) force. We could also apply this term to the skiing case but I usually don't, I just look at the force generated by the skis as a force that I can use to direct my mass where I want it to go. It is because of this difference between the perceived force (cen-tri-fugal) and the reality of the situation (centripetal force) that prompted me to just start to refer to the force or pressure under my feet rather than using some kind of technical term. Everyone agrees that there is a pressure that a skier experiences under their feet.

post #140 of 164
Oh come on, Ydnar. Centrifugal means away from the center of a turning object and cetripetal means toward the center.

Should you lose your edge during a high speed carved turn and fall, which way are going to slide?

Away from the center or toward the center of your turn radius? So the action on your body is a centrifugal force which you need to resist by digging in your edges.

post #141 of 164

We think very much alike on this I think. As long as I am standing against the arc of the skis then I am using all the force generated by the arcing ski to direct my CM. Once I begin to relax my legs the feet continue to follow the same path as the ski but because some of the force generated by the ski is being absorbed by the flexion that occurs in my leg the CM begins to follow a less arced path and the feet and CM cross and I get a new set of edges and a new dominate ski. The greater the differential of these paths the greater the "rebound". The potential "rebound" will also be greater at higher speeds.

As an interesting aside the subject of rebound seems to most often come up in clinics when one of the participants complains of being "bucked" by the skis at the end of the turn. The clinician then goes into the camber/decamber explanation of ‘rebound" and that the skier needs to learn to learn to direct this force into moving the CM. Thus is perpetuated the view of "rebound" that we hear so often. Personally, I think that being "bucked" happens because of a miss alignment of the feet and the CM and the tendency for most skiers to hold on to the end of the turn too long.
Holding on to the turn too long generates a lot of force that is being directed into the CM and if the CM is not properly aligned with the feet (slightly in front) then the force goes into moving the CM up and to the rear. This also fits in with what Ott was saying because the bucking usually follows an attempt to scrub speed suddenly at the end of the turn and many learning skiers try to do this with an edge set.


See the above post for my view of cen-tri-fugal force.

I always use some form of the term pressure control/management rather than weighting/unweighting/weight shift/etc. Its probably more than ten years since I have used any of those terms in a lesson except to explain why I don't use them.


Transferring pressure first as you describe interrupts the smooth flow of the CM through the turns and tends to produce a "hitch in the get-a-long"(a short traverse between the turns). It is also unnecessary because the change of edges will lead to a natural transfer of pressure from one ski to the other.


I like the way that your definitions of cross-over/cross-under are tied into the rebound idea. This is one of the best ways to differentiate between the two terms that I have ever ran across. Personally I don't use those two terms because they usually lead to confusion and disagreement and just talk about the feet and CM crossing.

Here is one thought on the first situation that you described (the check or rebound turn). If you instantly relax the legs after the edge set then the force that you generate can be used to move your feet under your body rather than using it to move the body up and then having to move your feet with muscular action. Both ways work, your way gives that floating feeling that so many people like and my way is probably a little quicker and efficient, and truly good skiers should be able to use both methods at will.

post #142 of 164

If I lose my edge when skiing then I lose the ability to use the tool on my feet to generate a force that I can use to change the direction of travel of my bodies mass. When this happens my body begins to move in a straight line which is indeed away from the center of the turn I was engaged in. But this isn't because of cen-tri-fugal force its due to Newton's First and Second laws of motion.

If I boot out at the apex of a turn I don't go flying to the side across the hill I end up sliding down the hill in a direction parellel to the tangent of the arc at the moment of loss of the edge.

post #143 of 164
Yd, I just looked at my Webster's dictionary and it says that "centrifugal force is a force away from the center and cetripetal force is a force toward the the center" of a spinning object.

So tell Webster that there is no such thing a centrifugal force, what do I know (or care [img]smile.gif[/img] )

Anyway, we got to lean inward of the curve or Newton will knock us down the hill, no? [img]smile.gif[/img]

post #144 of 164
Oh Ydnar--you had to do it, didn't you?!


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When you spin a rock on a string the rock is not pulling out on your hand your hand is pulling inward on the rock. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Centrifugal force is most definitely NOT a myth. And that rock most definitely IS pulling out on your hand--as a result of centrifugal force! What other direction do you think a string can pull besides the directions in which it is stretched?

The confusion comes when we think of centrifugal force applying to the ROCK. As you said, the force that applies to the rock is CENTRIPETAL force, which is the generic name for ANY force that causes a body to travel in a circular path. In this case the centripetal force is provided by the string.

CentriFUGal force is the force the string applies to your HAND--not to the rock. It is a force equal to and opposite in direction of the centripetal force the string applies to the rock. One force applies to the rock (centripetal), the other to your hand (centrifugal).

To say that centrifugal force applies to the rock (or to a skier) is a misstatement, as you suggest. To the rock, and to a skier, centrifugal force is an INERTIAL FORCE--not an APPLIED FORCE--the result of a turn, not its cause. From the skier's frame of reference (enormous and complex issue here), it represents a real force, pulling to the side, against which the skier inclines ("leans") to create equilibrium. But from a stationary observer's frame of reference, the skier is NOT IN equilibrium and, as you say, the net force acting on him is centriPETAL force, pulling/pushing him into the turn, caused by gravity and the interaction of the skis and the snow.

Centrifugal force EXISTS. It is not a myth. It is absolutely real. But it is so very misunderstood and misrepresented that it would have been best not to even bring it up. Centrifugal force is a fact, not an opinion. It is something you either understand or you don't. It is subject to explanation, but it is not subject to debate!

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #145 of 164
More on Centrifugal/Centripetal Force....

This discussion probably has very little to do with a discussion of skiing, but it seems to raise its ugly head on a regular basis! Understanding the nature of these forces is an interesting quest, but the fact is that our bodies know all they need to know about the phenomena, from a lifetime of experience dealing with gravity, other forces, acceleration, and inertia. So it's an intellectual game only, unless we draw false conclusions of what "should be" based on false notions of what "is"!

Here is a short and fairly clear explanation of Centrifugal and Centripetal forces, from Grolier's Interactive Encyclopedia:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>centrifugal and centripetal forces
{sen-trif'-uh-gul, sen-trip'-uh-tul}

Centripetal ("center-seeking") force is the radial force required to keep an object continually diverted in its path so that it travels in a circle. When a ball on a string is swung in a circle, the string supplies the centripetal force. If the string breaks, the ball will move in a straight line tangential to the original circle. In satellite motion, gravitation between the parent body and the satellite supplies the centripetal force.

When a car goes around a curve, the friction between tires and road must sustain sufficient sideways force to provide the necessary centripetal force for curved motion. Properly constructed roads are banked on curves, so that a small component of the road's reaction to the car's weight is directed horizontally toward the center of the turn, supplying the centripetal force. Passengers in a car going around a curve are not subject to external frictional forces and in their reference frame experience an outward, centrifugal force. Centrifugal ("center-fleeing") force refers to the same phenomenon as centripetal force but is the force experienced by a circling object as observed from the rotating frame of reference.

Some physicists prefer to think of forces that arise because of acceleration of the reference frame as pseudoforces. A consistent description of resulting motion can be obtained in either the moving or stationary reference frame, however, as long as the two are not confused. It is not appropriate, for instance, to think of the centrifugal force as the equal but opposite reaction to the action of the centripetal force.

The magnitudes of the two forces are the same, and equal to mv2 /r where m is the mass of the circling object, v is its speed, and r is the radius of the circular path. Expressed in terms of angular frequency in radians per second, omega, frequency in revolutions per second, f, or period, T, the centripetal force is also equal to momega2r, 4pi2mf2r, and 4pi2mr/T2. Because the radial direction of the force is always perpendicular to the tangential velocity, the force does no work on the object.

The centrifugal force experienced in a rotating system is proportional to mass; therefore, rotating systems can create gravitationlike conditions. In space, for instance, people could live comfortably with normal apparent weight on the inside of rotating structures. For them, "down" would be in the outward radial direction.

C. E. Swartz

Bibliography: Ohanian, H. C., Principles of Physics (1993). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Grolier's description alludes to different "frames of reference," including "stationary" and "moving" frames of reference, as well as the frame of reference of the astronauts in the rotating space station (for them, centrifugal force pulls straight "down"--indeed, it DEFINES "down"--and substitutes for the "real" force of gravity). The discussion of various frames of reference, based on the reality that all motion is relative (things only move or remain stationary relative to other things), can get quite intersting! But to really understand the nature of centrifugal force, it can be an illuminating journey!

Best regards,
Bob Barnes

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ November 10, 2001 11:57 AM: Message edited 1 time, by Bob Barnes/Colorado ]</font>
post #146 of 164
Holy moly!!! I think I'm going to cancel my subscription to both of those forces and just ski without them.

post #147 of 164
Good idea, Ott! Who needs them anyway?

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #148 of 164

I didn't want to do it. Floyd and SkiSwift brought it up. They made me do it.

Seriously, I'm with you and Ott and would be just as happy if no one ever used either term in discussions of skiing. In terms of physics skiing is a very simple matter of linear and angular momentum or in simplier terms a moving body that I apply forces to to move it around the way I want. That's a concept that I can actually communicate to a student (if they want to get that technical).

Anyway, sorry for making the statement that centrifugal force is a myth. I did it for two reasons. First, that is what I learned when I studied physics all those many years ago, then no mention was made of frames of refrence. Second, such a statement is calculated to stir things up a bit but I didn't intend to get you so stirred up that you would be shouting in your posts. (I equate the use of caps with shouting in a verbal exchange)

You do have to admit that I resisted commenting on the term for a long time but the exchange here made me feel like I had to say something,
post #149 of 164
1) I love this discussion of centripetal and (pseudo or otherwise) centrifugal forces. It reminds me of my high school and college physics and the great fun of feeling superior to the mere mortals who did not want to take the time and effort to become enlightened as we were.

2) I have been enticed by the recent discussion between Yd and Eski about "rebound." I think you guys have the right ideas but I'd like to relay an anecdote. When I demo'd my first midfats (Volant Power Carves with Marker Select bindings,) I found them almost perfect skis for me but they did lack "rebound" energy. I like them so much that I bought them anyway but decide to chance adding the Salomon Propulse binding in an effort to regain some of that energy. My impression was that it really worked. They were better (but still not high on rebound energy). This impression, which might have been biased by my need to confirm a good decision, was confirmed when the Propulse mechanism on one ski came loose one day and I skied one ski with and one ski without it. The difference was very noticeable and I think objective.

OK, long story but here's my idea. I can't argue that "rebound" energy comes mostly from the generated and reactive forces of skiing. However, there is a noticeable difference in rebound energy between different skis and/or binding combinations. So, my assumption is that while the majority of "rebound" energy doesn't necessarily come from the ski, the ski rebound does provide feedback (an external input) that can play a major role in initiation or modulation of the movements involved in a turn. Otherwise, how do you explain the reports of skiers in regards to the rebound energy of a ski being such a critical part of their ski performance evaluation?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ November 11, 2001 05:13 AM: Message edited 1 time, by Si ]</font>
post #150 of 164
Si, it has become harder and harder to rebound from today's modern skis, they are as soft as wash rags compared to skis twenty years ago, which, if you layed tips and tails on a few books and you jumped on them they vaulted you to the ceiling.

Rebound now, with skiing finesse, allows you to move the skis underneath you to the other side which is good enough.

Someone mentioned earlier that you don't have to allow rebound to suspend your weight but that you can just move them under you by dropping down quickly, I presume from a relatively upright position.

Actually that is called down unweighting and can be used effectively if you start from a high position, but in that case rebound helps you only in quickly retracting your legs to get them over to the other side before your weight comes back down on the skis again, not always successful if not done with utmost precision.

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