or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Angulation, I cannot get it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Angulation, I cannot get it. - Page 2

post #31 of 126
SLATZ, I'm honestly not trying to belabor this, but I still don't get it. If I flex my joints forward/backward to drop my CoM closer to the snow, am I getting out of balance and compensating? This is a fore/aft version of the angulation drill that I am suggesting (which is a lateral drill).

I believe that I can stay in perfect balance from a completely upright position to a fully angulated position with my uphill boot buckles (nearly!) touching the snow without once being the least bit out of balance. I see the angulation as a mechanism for staying in balance and creating extreme tipping/edge angles, not as a way for compensating for being out-of-balance.
post #32 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Max Capacity:
Can this help.

I'm sitting here in my desk chair. The chair swivels, sit up straight with both feet flat on the floor. Now try to tip both your feet up on there left side while keeping your upper body faceing to computer.

I believe that is the feeling we are tring to attain ???
I think I can do it with just my ankles. Unless I don't understand your point (which is entirely possible). My vision of angulation includes the entire body (head, shoulders, arms/hands, spine, hips, knees, ankles/feet), so I don't think I can do it seated.
post #33 of 126
If you are standing across the hill--notice that your skis,boots,knees, hips, shoulders are at the same angle as the pitch of the hill. You have moved your CM to hold your position on the hill. In effect all is inclined with cm to the inside.
If you are moving the G forces are increased and you will have to angulate to keep your balance and to increase your inclination without falling on your butt to the inside. To me , angulation is a combination of inclination and angulation (body angles). Try,without poles traversing the hill, hands extended to the side, like a phone pole, shoulder high and reaching down the hill to hold your line. Based on the G forces involved you should be angulating (the C position). At turn initiation bring your arms up to a shoulder level--(neutral position) unengaged edges, gravity is your friend and doing what it is supposed to do. Start your turn and repeat. A demo is easy, while standing across the hill, if you have a friend who will stand below you and act like gravity and pull your extended arm downhill and away from your body while you resist. Your skis, boots , knees hips shoulders will tilt to angulate --your edges will occur in relationship to the am`t of tilt. I have said more than is necessary---Just go do it--- [img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img]

[ January 13, 2004, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Larry C ]
post #34 of 126
ssh
If you lower your CM by bending you knees you have to flex your ankles forward and bend forward at the waist to stay balanced. In this position you have put your center of mass outside you body and over the center of your feet(Ron LeMaster, The Skier's Edge). Again you have created angles to keep from tipping over.
Try pressing your uphill buckles into the snow without angulating. You'll tip over(I did).
post #35 of 126
I agree with PM and ssh here. I wonder if people don't understand the difference between banking and angulation. It seems that josseph and SLATZ are talking about banking.

Banking is a lateral movement that the entire rigid body goes through to create an edge angle necessary to stay in the turn.

Angulation is the bending at the waist (laterally) that allows you to change (increase) the edge angle. Definitely on optional move, as proven by many who bank their turns with little or no angulation.

Angulation is an effective way to increase edge angle without increasing speed during the turn. Why? Because angulation raise your CM (meaning that the angle created by the line between ground and CM is increased).
post #36 of 126
Another thought
In a static, extremely angulated position, your CM is outside your body and over your base of support (feet).
A boomerang in flight is an example of an object with it's CM outside of itself. (Looks like angulation doesn't it?)
post #37 of 126
In a static position, the only way one can maintain a stance is to have one's CM directly over the point of support (e.g. feet/edges/wheels/whatever). If CM is not directly over the point of support, one topples over. There are many ways one can configure one's body appendages and torso to achieve this balanced condition. Creation of a "soft c", for example. Is that angulation that you all speak of? It's rather uncomfortable (and unnatural position), bent over in a C shape while standing still. Not very "athletic".

In a moving situation, CM needs to be displaced laterally in order to counteract the centripedal forces generated by turning. Again, one can achieve this in different ways. One can bank the entire body. Or one can angulate so that while the base and edges of the skis are in better position to push against the surface, the upper body remained more upright. Angulation while there is centripedal force seems much more natural and more athletic of a position.

There is a close similiarity between athletic movements on skis and athletic movements on a mountain bike.

In mountain biking, quick sharp turns also require good angulation. While the bicycle leans over, the body remains relatively upright with the major support being supplied to the outside pedal and the outside hand on the handlebar. There is nothing wrong with banking the entire body with the bike, of course, but doing quick successive turns (as required in riding single tracks fast) will require the entire banking body to be righted and then leaned the other way. Moreover, very rapid maneuvering on a bicycle will look a lot like the cross-under in skiing where the rider's torso remains relatively stationery laterally whilst the bicyle goes from one side to the other side laterally.

You can draw whatever you wish of this exmple to skiing any way you wish.
post #38 of 126
Tom
If the top of the turn is inclined (not banked) the CM is farther down the hill and inside the turn than if you use angulation. There is no one "correct" position for the whole turn. In the top of the turn the skier tries to move down the hill into the turn. As the turn develops, angulation develops and increases to counteract the forces drawing them to the outside of the turn. In the bottom of the turn where gravity and forces to the outside "stack up", angulation is at it's greatest.
post #39 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by ssh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Max Capacity:
Can this help.

I'm sitting here in my desk chair. The chair swivels, sit up straight with both feet flat on the floor. Now try to tip both your feet up on there left side while keeping your upper body faceing to computer.

I believe that is the feeling we are tring to attain ???
I think I can do it with just my ankles. Unless I don't understand your point (which is entirely possible). My vision of angulation includes the entire body (head, shoulders, arms/hands, spine, hips, knees, ankles/feet), so I don't think I can do it seated.</font>[/quote]Think of it as keeping your upper body facing down the hill/screen, rotate at the waist, drive the knees into the hill/or to the left in this case, your feet/skis go up on edge. If you now extent your right arm out to your side... you can kind of feel the C forming.

May be this will help Kima begin to get the feel of driving the knees into the hill.

I'm not a insturctor just a person who is tring to put some of this in laymans terms.
post #40 of 126
What comes to mind for me here is Ric Reiter's encouragement to balance on the edge, not against it. If I angulate during a traverse (or while standing still), I am balanced on the edge. If I bank during a turn, I am balanced against the edge. So, during a turn, I endeavor to balance on the edge in a similar position to the angulation that I produce artificially with the "touch your buckles" drill, based on speed and the summed force against which I balance.
post #41 of 126
The discussion seems to have drifted away from my original criticism of this statement:

Quote:
Originally posted by SLATZ:
...A coach who coached several athletes to the USST defined it this way (20 years ago):"Angulation is what you do to balance yourself against the forces of the turn". In other words, angulation is the effect, not the cause, of the turn...
Below are two images. The first is a schematic depiction of an unangulated skier or boarder standing still on flat ground. The second is a depiction of an angulated skier or boarder (again standing still, flat). In both cases the center of mass of the skier is directly over his support point on the snow, so neither rider will fall over. Thus, it should be obvious that the presence or absence of angulation is completely independent of balance in a static situation.



The situation is exactly the same in the case of a turn. A skilled skier can decide to use no angulation (ie, pure banking) or use angulation. Angulation can be done in a turn, in part of a turn, standing still, or going straight. It can be done pointed across the hill or pointed down the hill. When and if it is done is under the complete control of the driver.

If angulation was something that had to be done "to balance against the forces of the turn", then there would be a lot of low level skidders on boards and skis that should be falling over since they don't angulate at all.

Because angulation is completely volitional (as described above), I simply can't fathom how anyone can possibly say angulation is something you have to do "to balance yourself against the forces of the turn", or that it is an effect, and not an input under the control of the skier, as I am arguing.

This is a completely different situation from lateral motion of the CM. This absolutely MUST be adjusted on a board or narrow stance width skiing in response to centrifugal and other forces, or else the person *will* topple over. This is why I think that the person that made the original statement misspoke and interchanged terms.

Tom / PM

[ January 13, 2004, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]
post #42 of 126
Tom/PM, thanks for the pictures! I was hoping someone could produce one!
post #43 of 126
Thanks Tom/PM. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

If we take Tom/PM's drawings and incline (bank) both by the same degree we get 2 different edge angles. That is the general idea of angulation. To increase edge angle without changing the centrifugal forces required to keep you in the turn. Clearly angulation is not required!
post #44 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by ssh:
What comes to mind for me here is Ric Reiter's encouragement to balance on the edge, not against it. If I angulate during a traverse (or while standing still), I am balanced on the edge. If I bank during a turn, I am balanced against the edge. So, during a turn, I endeavor to balance on the edge in a similar position to the angulation that I produce artificially with the "touch your buckles" drill, based on speed and the summed force against which I balance.
Same here ssh...

The person I suggested Kima contact was the person who showed me how to stop doing the pushing bit & stay stacked up OVER that edge.... trouble was NONE of that was at all intuitive for me... I had to work at learning how to make each piece move as desired... & it was HARD .... I still struggle with parts of it from time to time - although less so....
post #45 of 126
Kima - If it makes you feel any better, on Sunday, theRusty was trying to get me to angulate more, and I *still* always wound up about 10 feet downhill from him on our "lets see who can carve back up the hill the most" exercises.

IMHO, here's an easy way to get the feel of an angulated position while moving. In a traverse, try to raise your uphill shoulder as much as possible by making your body go into a "C" or bananna shape (open side downhill).

Tom / PM

PS - theRusty: It was great hooking up with you. Thanks for your words of wisdom.

[ January 13, 2004, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]
post #46 of 126
I always find it easier to "angulate" at higher speeds.
post #47 of 126
Incorrect weight transfer?

How much pressure are you putting on inside and outside skis?

A total transfer of pressure to the outside ski = loss of angulation.

[ January 13, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: michaelHunt ]
post #48 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by michaelHunt:
...A total transfer of pressure to the outside ski = loss of angulation.
No. Weight transfer has nothing to do with angulation. Take a look at the diagrams I posted earlier today in this thread. The second one clearly shows how one can angulate with just one ski, for example, your outside ski. When you are skiing on one ski, clearly, angulation is still quite possible, and certainly does not go away for some mysterious reason.

Quote:
Originally posted by michaelHunt:
...I always find it easier to "angulate" at higher speeds...
Are you sure you aren't talking about a lateral movement of your CM? The statement most people would probably make in a discussion like this is that it's easier to bank your turns at higher speeds, not that its easier to angulate through them.

FWIW, I actually find it more difficult to angulate at high speeds (ie, high-G's), because my skeleton is not stacked as well (hence, not a strong) when bent, as compared to straight (ie, non-angulated).

Tom / PM
post #49 of 126
Quote,(I actually find it more difficult to angulate at high speeds (ie, high-G's), because my skeleton is not stacked as well)

Is this where "Hips over the Feet" comes in ?

I tried this last Sunday and was amazed with how easy it was to angulate.

I posted the thread on it in this forum.
post #50 of 126
post #51 of 126
I've got to run off to teach, so I don't have time for technical comments, but I will say that I immediately noticed that the page Slatz linked to ( http://www.ottersen.us/inclination1.htm ) is virtually identical to Gregory Gurshman's page on GS technique ( http://www.youcanski.com./english/co...ique_of_gs.htm ).

On a quick read, I didn't see any acknowledgment on either page referring to the other, and I see a copyright statement at the bottom of the first link, so I hope GregG is friends with these guys.

Tom / PM
post #52 of 126
This discussion sure sounds familiar, don't you think PM!! Terminology getting in the way of understanding. I see much correct thinking from all sides of the debate only clouded by perspective and nomenclature.

Here's my spin on the topic. Anytime we put our skis on edge with the goal of creating a turn the change of direction results in centrifugal/momentum forces we must contend with. To remain in balance and not fall on our keesters we must move our center of mass correspondingly. Angulation is nothing more than the means we use to move our CM to the required location to ensure balance, while maintaining the desired edge angle.

The process kind of goes like this:
1) Decide where we want to go.
2) Decide what edge angle we must use to get us there.
3) Locate our CM to the point necessary to achieve balance while executing that arc.

There are many factors that influence how far inside the CM must be moved to achieve balance.
1) Edge angle
2) Sidecut.
3) Speed.
4) Snow texture
5) Turn type. (steered, carved, pivoted)

The important point to understand is that because of the above influences no single edge angle will require the same CM location or type of angulation to achieve balance. For gross example; in the days of minimal sidecut skis a 45 degree edge angle produced a very long radius carved arc compared to arc produced with today's mega sidecut skis on the same edge angle. The larger the turn radius the lower the resultant forces, and thus the less the CM needs to be moved inside to remain in balance. Where Stenmark utilizing a 45 degree edge angle had to angulate severely at the knee (the first joint above the ski available for lateral angulation) to keep his CM close to the vertical plane of his feet and achieve balance because of the minimal forces his straight skis were producing for him, Bodie riding that same edge angle on the new skis must move his CM much further inside and angulate more with the hip. If Bodie on his skis were to apply the edge angle necessary to create the same turn shape Stenmark created on his skis at a 45 degree edge their CM's would be in the exact same place, the only difference being in the amount and type of angulation.

Angulation is really nothing more than the trick we use to remain in balance while we ride the edge angle we desire.
post #53 of 126
Isn't that what I said in the first place?
post #54 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by SLATZ:
Isn't that what I said in the first place?
Ditto, Slatz. I said as much in the first place as well.
post #55 of 126
Actually, I believe you said it first.
post #56 of 126
Hi Fastman - It's great to see you posting on Epic again, and yup, for some reason, this discussion does seem strangely familiar.

Your posts have always been superbly clear, and your last one is no exception. I think I understand what’s really going on in this discussion about whether angulation helps one stay in balance. I think an analogy to a simpler situation will be useful.

Imagine you are driving a sports car with a manual transmission. You have two totally independent, separately adjustable controls available to set the speed of the car: (1) How much gas you give it; and, (2) What gear you are in. If I want to go 30 mph, I could do it in 1st gear with the engine at a fairly high RPM. I could also go 30 mph in 2nd at a more moderate RPM, or I could let the engine loaf along at low RPM in 3rd gear and still be going 30 mph. I don’t think anyone would ever argue that the gear shift lever is linked to the gas pedal.

On a flat road, fundamentally, it doesn’t really matter all that much which gear you pick. All three gears will let you roll along at 30 mph, so you might decide between them on the basis of something not related to speed. For example, if minimizing engine wear is a consideration, you would favor higher gears. If you are a sports car buff and like the sound of the engine/exhaust, you would probably keep it in a lower gear. If you just learning to drive a stick shift and don't know how to shift out of 1st, you can still drive, albeit in a more limited way. The gear and gas are still separately adjustable.

However, lets imagine you now are on a really hilly road, and you must maintain 30 to keep up with traffic. As you go up and down the hills, you will be forced to simultaneously adjust both the gas and gear because you won’t be able to go up steep hills in 3rd. Suddenly, the gas pedal and gear shift lever *must* be used in concert, and to an outside observer, it might seem like they aren’t independent. Well, they still are mechanically totally independent, but when you put a constraint on the problem (ie, "maintain 30 mph on a hilly road"), they have to be used together to achieve the desired goal.

I think that the usage of the two controls in the automotive example is quite analogous to usage of two controls in skiing: CM angle and degree of angulation. A speed constraint on the car is analogous to the speed and turn shape constraint on a ski racer.

Specifically, recreational skiers, like drivers without speed constraints, can go as fast or slow as they want, can make turns wherever and whenever they want, and they can randomly decide to skid or carve a particular turn. A lot of novice skiers don't know how to angulate, just like people learning to drive a stick shift don't yet know how to shift out of first gear. The novice skiers are always at zero angulation, and accept that all of their turns will be skidded. For the rec skiers described above, angulation remains an adjustment (ie, change in body shape) that can be manipulated (or kept constant at zero) totally independently of the things they need to do to keep their CM in the right place to remain in balance.

On the other hand, skiers who ski with an intent to go to specific places on the hill using a specific path (eg, more advanced recreational skiers, racers) do not as much freedom. For example, racers are solving a very tightly constrained problem, namely, maximizing their speed while following a preset line. As Fastman described, they have to simultaneously adjust their CM angle and degree of angulation together to meet their constraints, just like the driver on the hilly road has to simultaneously adjust the gas and gear to meet the constraint of keeping his speed constant.

The fact that racers (and other skiers with specific intent) have to adjust angulation simultaneously with CM moves does not mean that angulation adjustments are fundamental to staying in balance. It only means that angulation adjustments are needed to stay in balance when your line and speed are constrained. It’s still a physically separate movement from CM angle adjustments.

I hope that the above discussion has answered whether or not angulation is a balancing move. Another question that could be asked is if angulation is a "cause" or "effect"? I wouldn’t put the question that way. It's certainly not an "effect". Skiing doesn't force anyone to angulate. Maybe a better question would be "cause" (ie, input under the user's volitional control) versus "reaction", and I think this has been answered as well.

To summarize the discussion of whether angulation can be adjusted at will, in the case of unconstrained (ie, free skiing), I think its pretty obvious (see my arguments in the previous posts) that it can be adjusted independently and one can still stay in balance. Of course, the side effect of doing this is that you will wind up making different shaped turns. OTOH, constrain the turn shape and speed (eg, racing), and as Fastman pointed out, you *must* constrain angulation to follow the course AND stay in balance.

Clear as mud, eh?

Tom / PM

[ January 16, 2004, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]
post #57 of 126
kima,

sorry if this is really obvious but try a really wide stance

any time I feel that I'm not getting enough edge angle I move my legs apart - just gets easier to tip

J
post #58 of 126
So far I haven't seen anyone address the issue of alignment. If Kima has a bowlegged stance and needs cants, won't she find herself overedging as she angulates? I had trouble for years with my left hand turn until I read an article in Snow Country Magazine based on "The Athletic SkierZ" by Witherall and Evrard. I realized I needed a cant on the outside of my right ski. When I fixed it I improved overnight on my left turn. Lew Black
post #59 of 126
Actually I sort of did..... I referred her to a race coach who is very good with alignment issues....

The biggest problem is getting hold of him....
post #60 of 126
Excellent! I scanned the 3 pages of postsand must have missed you bringing it up.

Both of my sons had big problems when they got their first stiff boots. I used the article from Snow Country to cant their bindings and they were skiing confidently again. One of them suffered through most of a season and was ready to quit. He had a great spring after I solved the problem! Lew
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 › Angulation, I cannot get it.