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 3

post #61 of 126
Sorry - was in a PM....

He is very into alignment (he has issues with it - surprise surprise) he also teaches a lot of disabled stuff over here.... or used to....
Some race kids have booked him for every day of the season next year already..... I don't think he'll have much spare time left once the other clients book
post #62 of 126
Thread Starter 
Thanks to everyone who took the time to offer tips, visuals and moral support!

I skied this weekend, spent a fair amount of time on greens practicing. Have no idea how I was doing, need to take Rusty and Ski&Golf up on thier offers of help.

Most importantly I did have fun. Thanks again all, you are an amazing group of people!
post #63 of 126
Kima,

My daughter and I worked on this today. She reminded me that I just have to bend sideways until my fat pinches. [img]redface.gif[/img]
post #64 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Kima:
I just completed a 2-day clinic. The first day was great. The 2nd day we worked on angulation. I could not, did not get it. I spent most of the day in tears or near tears, I could not tell when I was getting it wrong, The one or two times I was close I could not tell. The message I took away was, unless I get this I will never see improvement in my skiing.

I am very frustrated.
Oh my, what a sad post! Maybe I can help. I'm a 30 year veteran skier, Level 3, PSIA-NW. First off, "if you're smiling you're doin it right". Secondly, to understand the difference between angulation and inclination try this. Stand 2-3 feet away from a wall. Then, lean over (like the leaning tower of Pisa) against the wall (you can use your hand to support yourself). That leaning, or "banking" in which the long axis of your body is tilted is called inclination and it isn't a very efficient movement. Now try leaning against the wall with your legs and hips, but from the waist up stay vertical. Now, the long axis of your body has an angle, right about your midsection (like a boomerang). Now, you are angulated. Playing with different degrees of angulation can be helpful when exploring it's effect on edge control movements. Finally, remember there is no static pose in skiing, but a continuos series of movements. Does this help at all? it's easier to demo or draw than explain.
post #65 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by mpatmas:
Oh my, what a sad post! Maybe I can help. I'm a 30 year veteran skier, Level 3, PSIA-NW. First off, "if you're smiling you're doin it right". Secondly, to understand the difference between angulation and inclination try this. Stand 2-3 feet away from a wall. Then, lean over (like the leaning tower of Pisa) against the wall (you can use your hand to support yourself). That leaning, or "banking" in which the long axis of your body is tilted is called inclination and it isn't a very efficient movement. Now try leaning against the wall with your legs and hips, but from the waist up stay vertical. Now, the long axis of your body has an angle, right about your midsection (like a boomerang). Now, you are angulated. Playing with different degrees of angulation can be helpful when exploring it's effect on edge control movements. Finally, remember there is no static pose in skiing, but a continuos series of movements. Does this help at all? it's easier to demo or draw than explain.[/QB]
Mpatmas,

Why do you think that having inclination in your stance is not very efficient? IMHO, being angulated is a weaker stance than being stacked up over the skis. : Your thoughts? ----------Wigs
post #66 of 126
post #67 of 126
Thread Starter 
Thanks mpatmas. It does help and yes I am smiling again!
post #68 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Wigs:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mpatmas:
Oh my, what a sad post! Maybe I can help. I'm a 30 year veteran skier, Level 3, PSIA-NW. First off, "if you're smiling you're doin it right". Secondly, to understand the difference between angulation and inclination try this. Stand 2-3 feet away from a wall. Then, lean over (like the leaning tower of Pisa) against the wall (you can use your hand to support yourself). That leaning, or "banking" in which the long axis of your body is tilted is called inclination and it isn't a very efficient movement. Now try leaning against the wall with your legs and hips, but from the waist up stay vertical. Now, the long axis of your body has an angle, right about your midsection (like a boomerang). Now, you are angulated. Playing with different degrees of angulation can be helpful when exploring it's effect on edge control movements. Finally, remember there is no static pose in skiing, but a continuos series of movements. Does this help at all? it's easier to demo or draw than explain.
Mpatmas,

Why do you think that having inclination in your stance is not very efficient? IMHO, being angulated is a weaker stance than being stacked up over the skis. : Your thoughts? ----------Wigs[/QB]</font>[/quote]Hi Wigs
The problem with inclination (banking) is that even though you'll be tipping the skis on edge, you run the risk of falling too far inside the turn and experiencing a small pocket of intense gravitational pull. further, your center of mass will have that much further to travel to make the next turn and you'll run the risk of becoming a human metronome. being "stacked" over your skis doesn't mean banking like the leaning tower of pisa.
Michael E=mski2
post #69 of 126
Mpatmas - Just to make sure I understand your terminology, do you consider inclination to be completely synonymous with banking (ie, a lateral movement of your CM without any angulation)?

If so:

a) Why have two separate words that mean exactly the same thing. Why not just call it "banking"; and,

b) What do you call the usual racer's position which combines a lateral movement of the CM PLUS angulation?

Tom / PM

PS - Sorry, but the devil made me do it (ie, ask the above question). People that have been around Epic for over 6 months or so will probably pick up on the reference to a very lengthy passionate thread on this topic.

PS#2 - Attn AC - When I first tried to post this message, the forum SW removed all of my text in the body of the message. When I tried to edit the previous message (to add the missing text) or to delete the (previous) blank message, the forum SW informed me that only administrators could perform this function. OTOH, the SW quite happily let me post it a second time. This time all the text went through properly.

[ January 20, 2004, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]
post #70 of 126
The article I posted on Inclination explains the difference.
I asked Ari about it and he said it is from The Professional Skier and that he states that on the page of the website. That explains why Greg has the exact article on his site.
post #71 of 126
As described below is the picture showing angulation and leg rotation which can cause a skidded turn rather than a carve ?

"Forces (centrifugal and gravity) accumulate while making the turn, leaving the skier incapable of form a higher edge angle because the knee is already inclined to the maximum possible position. As a result, the skier is powerless to shift the center of gravity and simultaneously edge both skis, which results skidding of the ski tails in the second part of the arc."


And is this second picture and as described show the correct way to carve a turn and not skid ?

"The changes of technique that have taken place during last several years are superbly visible in the picture below. The modern style of skiing is exhibited by the young Canadian sportsman Zhul'en Kuzino. In his performance, both skis are on the snow, conducted widely, allowing to achieve stable balance through the turn much easier, even when the centre of gravity of the sportsman is much farther from his ankles. Longitudinal position of the skis is practically absent. Thus, the edge angle of both skis can change through a very wide range. It allows the sportsman to carve out a round, completed turn, at high speeds. I am certain that the sensation of control much stronger with this turning technique than with turns of the older type."



From :

http://www.youcanski.com./english/in...mic_edging.htm

[ January 20, 2004, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Viper ]
post #72 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by SLATZ:
The article I posted on Inclination explains the difference.
I asked Ari about it and he said it is from The Professional Skier and that he states that on the page of the website. That explains why Greg has the exact article on his site.
Thanks, Slatz. My questions were actually directed to Mpatmas. I know the difference, but I wasn't so sure that Mpatmas did since in two earlier posts it sure looks like he thinks inclination, leaning, and banking are all entirely synonymous:

1) "...That leaning, or "banking" in which the long axis of your body is tilted is called inclination and it isn't a very efficient movement..."

2) "...The problem with inclination (banking) is that even though you'll be tipping the skis on edge, you run the risk of falling too far inside the turn and experiencing a small pocket of intense gravitational pull..."

I felt that I had to comment on this since he presented himself as an authority on the subject to Kima, Wigs and everyone else on Epic. I'm also not very happy about having astrophysical-like "pockets of intense gravity" floating around ski hills, but decided to let that one pass.

Slatz - Thanks also for clearing up the origin of that article. I immediately noticed that Arild's page seemed to be identical to GregG's page, and was really thrown off because Arild has "Copyright © 2003 Geir & Arild" at the bottom of his page, so I thought he was claiming credit for it.

I never saw the acknowledgment to GregG just above the copyright line, and since you made the effort to talk to Arild about this, it sounds like you didn't notice it either, so I'm assuming that he recently added or moved the acknowledgment line to its currently prominent position. Then again, I could easily have missed it the first time around since I was in a hurry to get out the door when I first looked at his page.

FWIW, I have several technical reservations about Greg's article, and you might want to pass along to Arild a comment that Greg's article should not be taken as Gospel. For example, Greg's "picture #2" purports to compare two different approaches to getting edge angle. Unfortunately, Greg is "comparing apples and oranges". Specifically, the angles from the ski edge up to the CM in the two parts of the illustration are different (note - I am not talking about his "alpha" angle, but about an angle he does not specifically point out). The only way this can happen is if the two skiers are pulling different G-forces because of different turn radii or speeds, and this completely undermines his next paragraph which is based on having Rb > Ra. In addition, it appears that he simply has concocted out of thin air the formula, (E) = M x R that he presents in this paragraph. From his explanation, this formula doesn't seem to be based on any physics that I know. He also makes up physics-sounding terms (eg, "inertia moment") that he does not define and which have no commonly accepted definition in physics. On the good side, Greg's pictures and the non-technical descriptive text in his article are quite nice.

Cheers,

Tom / PM

[ January 22, 2004, 03:50 AM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]
post #73 of 126
/short thread hijack

"pockets of intense gravity" - now that sounds like something from 'Roadside Picnic'. Possibly the best SF novel I've read, no matter that it was written by two Russians. Anyone here knows about it?

/end short thread hijack

As for angulation, I really hope I get the knack of it at the Academy. I know I can do it when I'm not on skis, but as soon as I'm on skis and my stance narrows from habit, I feel that most of my inclination is just banking. Or else a weird contrived position which I'm sure cannot be right.
post #74 of 126
What a great demonstration of "INSIDE LEG EXTENSION" the above montage represents. When I presented that thread last year I didn't have a good picture of the technique to include in my written description, so for those interested I will now describe the technique as seen in the above montage. Sorry to interject this into this thread, but I will blend my comments on how the technique enhances the ability to angulate.

FRAME 1:
Skier is in the completion phase of the arc. Turning forces are at there greatest and the outside leg is straight and resisting the bulk of those forces. Hip is at it's fullest countered position.

FRAME 2:
Skier begins to extend the inside leg. This begins the process of removing pressure from the outside ski and starts the movement of the center of mass back over the top of the skis. Hip counter begins to dissipate.

FRAME 3:
Leg extension complete. Lateral, fore/aft, and hip rotational neutral has been achieved. Good new outside leg (uphill leg) pressure has been established and a new arc is about to begin

FRAME 4:
The lateral pendulum movement pattern of the hip/CM that was initiated with the start of inside leg extension continues and brings the hip into the interior of the new arc. This rolls the skis up on edge and begins the new arc. The inside aspect of the hip and the inside knee are driven forward. This opens the kinetic gate which allows for efficient hip angulation and though biomechanic principle loads the big toe edge of the outside ski.

FRAMES 5&6:
The skier continues to drive the inside of the hip and the inside knee forward and further inside which increases edge angle and reduces the turn radius. Hip angulation is at it's most severe.

FRAME 7:
The turn is complete and extension of the inside leg begins again.
post #75 of 126
A picture is worth 1000 (or more) words.
post #76 of 126
Tom, I agree, but try angulating on a horizontal surface not standing in the doorframe.

On the slope, you either angulate or bend the knee of the upper leg to balance against the reaction force from the slope acting on the skis - or, rather, against a torque formed by that force with reference to your CM. In a turn, you simply have the centrifugal force enter the equation and so you have to angulate more.

Anyway, my $0.02
post #77 of 126
Kima, you've certainly stirred up a lot of interest from your original post. And I haven't had the time to read every single one of them, so I hope I'm not just rehashing what someone else has already said. Angulation is something that happens as a result of a lot of other things coming together at once. In other words, it's a biproduct of relatively minor movements that start at your feet and produce corresponding reactions through the rest of your body, as opposed to trying to achieve this by purposely moving your larger upper body mass in one direction or the other. It's like trying to teach someone to ski moguls without having a solid grasp of basic fundementals. Once you have the basics down, you'll find that angulation is something that just happens as a countering effect. The faster and more agressively you ski, the more angulation will come into play. It's disheartening to hear your story, but there are some good instructors out there if you take the time to seek them out. I think a private lesson is the way for you to go. A day spent with a good instuctor is going to drain your wallet, but the satisfaction that comes from it will be well worth it.

[ January 27, 2004, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Mac ]
post #78 of 126
My 2-cents as a capable physasist but not too capable skier.

I see angulation as more of a affect than a cause. Sure you can angulate while stationary, but if you are not moving the edge angle is irrelevant. Therefor anulation while standing still is a special case. As soon as you start to move the situation changes because, the edge angle will cause a turn which will give rise to centrapetal force. This removes one degree of freedom from the system in a pure carved turn. Once we have chosen the edge angle we want, the degree of angulation required is then FIXED by the angle of the lower leg and the displacement of CM required to balance the turn.

For some reason skiers always need to angulate their bodies towards the vertical whereas motorcycle racer generally do the reverse. I wonder if we will ever reach a stage where skis sidecuts are so radical that skiers will need to reverse angulate like bike racers?
post #79 of 126
Thread Starter 
Again, thanks all for the help and support. Viper thanks for the photos. I skied Sunday with a friend that had just completed the 5 day Maher Clinic. She has angulation down pat! She shared with me one of the exercises called the "cowboy turn” I hope someone that is fluent in tech speak will explain, I am sure I will loss something in the translation if I try. That exercise combined with all the helpful infor here has helped. I can almost do it correctly when I go left, right turns not so much. My instructor also said I need a better boot, that mine does not have a cuff adjustment. Any thoughts?
post #80 of 126
This thread devolved quickly and I stopped reading after page 2, so forgive me if this is a repeat...

Angulation CANNOT be achieved if your inside half is firmed up.

Relax the inside leg, shorten it (draw the knee toward the torso), and voila! you are angulating.

I agree with those who said angulation is an effect, and not a cause.

It's also not a "pose" or position, but rather is a dynamic process. Angulation varies throughout the turn.

Try this set of excercises.
post #81 of 126
Great to finally meet you in Snowbird, Gonz! I too am surprised at the confusion this thread has created about something that really isn't that complicated.

First, a few simple definitions:

1) Inclination: "deviation of the skier's body from its vertical axis." This is the definition from the Ottersen article linked to previously in this thread, and I agree with it (although I might suggest that "deviation of the body's long axis from vertical" actually expresses it more accurately). Inclination is simply the tipping of the body (center of mass) that I do to balance against the forces of a turn which, as PhysicsMan suggests, can (and must) occur whether I am flexed or extended, bent sideways or not.

2) Angulation: the creation of lateral angles in various joints, particularly the ankles, knees, hips, and spine. Angulation implies a more-or-less sideways bending in joints, although it may be more complicated than it first appears (knees don't bend sideways much, at least not more than once). Again as PhysicsMan describes, I can angulate regardless of my degree of inclination--I can angulate while standing still and vertical, or while tipped strongly into a turn.

3) Banking: tipping of the entire body into a turn--inclination without angulation. Banking should not be, but often is, confused with simple "inclination." Inclination and angulation are independent movements--one referring to movements of the center of mass, the other to relative positions of various body parts. Banking is simply the special case of inclination not accompanied by angulation--whether intentional or not. Sometimes it's functional; sometimes it's a mistake.

From these definitions, it is clear that inclination is a balancing move, and angulation is an edge-controlling move. We incline (lean in, "deviate from vertical") in turns on a bicycle, a unicycle, and while standing on a turning bus without holding on. We incline for balance in turns while walking, running, water-skiing, and inline skating. While it would not be inappropriate to refer to inclining specific body parts--i.e. "incline the lower leg"--the general, unqualified term "inclination" refers to the tipping of the center of mass into a turn.

It is important to note that, while inclination may play a big role in both creating edge angles and releasing them (when we return to vertical), it is not something we can use to CONTROL edge angles. At any given moment in a given turn, there is only one degree of inclination that results in balance. We can't incline more or less without losing balance, so inclination is not something we can adjust at will.

Angulation, on the other hand, has nothing to do with balance, so it IS something I can adjust for edge control. If I bank my entire body into a turn (inclination without angulation), and find that I don't have sufficient edge angle, I can't bank farther, but I CAN tip my lower body into the turn more while tipping my upper body toward the OUTSIDE of the turn. This is angulation, and clearly it serves no purpose other than to increase my edge angle.

Which brings me to my final point. There has been considerable debate, here and elsewhere, about whether it is preferable to incline or to angulate. First, by my definitions above, I believe that most people who pose this question really mean BANK or angulate. Angulation and banking are mutually exclusive; angulation and inclination are not. Second, the answer will depend on whether you need more or less edge angle at any given moment. It is not a choice to make in advance of a turn, not a question of "new vs. old technique," and not a question of individual preference, style, or free will. If you're in balance and you need more edge angle, angulate more--you can't incline more without losing your balance. If you don't, don't! If at any point you need LESS edge angle, reduce your angulation--because again, you can't reduce your inclination without losing your balance.

We can discuss the pros and cons of angulation in ankles, knees, hips, or spine, and we can discuss the various reasons why you might want more--or less--edge angle. But it makes no sense whatsoever to argue about the merits of banking vs. angulating as a general technique. One is not "better" than the other--they serve entirely different purposes. The two are not interchangeable. We don't have a choice!

For what it's worth, I will add that I think many skiers and instructors often do try to angulate too much. Beyond a certain point, more edge angle does not necessarily make skis hold better. More edge angle is not, in itself, always preferable to less edge angle, and surprisingly, it can actually make skis hold WORSE and carve LESS-cleanly. Especially with today's very deep-sidecut skis, more edge angle may make them want to carve a turn tighter than the turn I'm trying to make. In that case, reducing the edge angle to the minimum needed to hold will actually allow the skis to carve better, cleaner, and faster. This is why we see so much banking so much more often in racing today than before. It isn't a "new technique"--just a new opportunity sometimes afforded by our modern equipment.

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #82 of 126
Thankyou BB

I was asked by a new instructor last season why I used so little hip movement on the way back to ski school - a very FLAT run out - I automatically answered him that I was under the impression I should only provide what angulation was suitable for the terrain I was skiing & I didn't feel the need (I was edge-rolling as I needed the speed & the trail is below natural snowline & always slushy - so I wanted a fairly straight line)

He looked at me oddly & I spent weeks afterwards trying to work out why I had answered as I did & if it was right.
post #83 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by James Powrie:

For some reason skiers always need to angulate their bodies towards the vertical whereas motorcycle racer generally do the reverse. I wonder if we will ever reach a stage where skis sidecuts are so radical that skiers will need to reverse angulate like bike racers?
They angulate to make their body as efectively large counterbalance as possible and still reach the controls. They want the tyre flat on the track for more grip, I can never see a ski racer wanting more friction like that : Or, the knees being able to for that matter!

The bike is more upright, the body is used as a counterbalance.
Mechanics in biking are not at all similar to skiing. No gyroscopic effects for one.

typo

[ February 03, 2004, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: Nettie ]
post #84 of 126
Thanks, Bob! Great to meet you too. Thanks also for the comprehensive answer. :
post #85 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado:
Banking is simply the special case of inclination not accompanied by angulation--whether intentional or not.
Just to make sure I have this right:

banking = inclination minus (ie, without) angulation

and

inclination = banking plus angulation?

Or will the second statement somehow confuse or offend people (particularly racers and coaches)??? I seem to remember a long thread on this stuff last summer and recall that lots of people didn't like the second statement.

Thanks.

J
post #86 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Nettie:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by James Powrie:

For some reason skiers always need to angulate their bodies towards the vertical whereas motorcycle racer generally do the reverse. I wonder if we will ever reach a stage where skis sidecuts are so radical that skiers will need to reverse angulate like bike racers?
They angulate to make their body as efectively large counterbalance as possible and still reach the controls. They want the tyre flat on the track for more grip, I can never see a ski racer wanting more friction like that : Or, the knees being able to for that matter!

The bike is more upright, the body is used as a counterbalance.
Mechanics in biking are not at all similar to skiing. No gyroscopic effects for one.

typo
</font>[/quote]I agree the mechanics are different (although I have heard ski instructors saying the opposite).

Nevertheless, my question still stands. If the ski's ability to turn (and grip) was geared up (i.e. more turn for less edge) could we reach a position where the counterbalance required to match the centrapetal force would require the CM to be balanced outside the line of the lower leg (i.e. reverse angulation).
post #87 of 126
James P,

If skis would get even more turn for less edge then you need even less angulation to turn! Angluation increases edge angle after all.

But I still don't think you understand the motorcycle example. The gyroscopic effects are HUGE! A rotating object (such as a wheel) is hard to get into an incline because of the enormous centripetal forces. Try holding a bicycle wheel at the axis and ask a friend to rotate it fast. You will have trouble tilting it left or right. Imagine the forces of a bigger and heavier motorcycle wheel.

So motorcycle racers move to the inside to counteract the forces produced by the fast rotating wheels. But if you look carefully they still have a somewhat angulated body (hip and knee to the inside, shoulders more level with the ground).
post #88 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by James Powrie:
...we reach a position where the counterbalance required to match the centrapetal force would require the CM to be balanced outside the line of the lower leg (i.e. reverse angulation).
No. Angulation does not change the position of one's CM. Take a look at BobB's recent post and the drawings I posted January 13, 2004 12:10 PM early in this thread. In my drawings, the CM is always directly above the ski, whether angulated or not. It does not move when you just add angulation. You may be either confusing angulation with inclination, or may have the definitions of the various angles interchanged.

Specifically, to react to centrifugal force, you change the angle of the line that goes from your active edge up to your CM (assuming one-footed skiing or snowboarding). This angle has nothing to do with how much your body is bent into a 'banana' or 'C' shape around that line. As BobB and I both pointed out, this "CM angle" is independent of changing the amount of angulation you dial in.

As D-S said, there was indeed a very long and very contentious thread on these definitions last summer. I don't especially want to re-open this discussion, but I hope Bob's recent post clarified these definitions once and for all.

Tom / PM

[ February 03, 2004, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]
post #89 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by James Powrie:
Nevertheless, my question still stands. If the ski's ability to turn (and grip) was geared up (i.e. more turn for less edge) could we reach a position where the counterbalance required to match the centrapetal force would require the CM to be balanced outside the line of the lower leg (i.e. reverse angulation).
Now I can picture the question.

Rail your skis and try it [img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img] You may have to pay for two base grinds though!
And can I see your face after you hook up at speed?

You can't have negative edges in skiing.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tom B:
So motorcycle racers move to the inside to counteract the forces produced by the fast rotating wheels. But if you look carefully they still have a somewhat angulated body (hip and knee to the inside, shoulders more level with the ground).
Motorcyclists do as James suggested if you consider the person to be the 'upper body' and the bike to be the 'lower body' of a skier. Then you could think that motorcyclists angulate to the inside as their aim is to reduce the 'edge' angle of the tyre instead of increase the edge angle of the ski.
If you grind the pegs (bank) you are doing it wrong! Not wnough tyre on the road.
They are angulated in the way you stated, Tom, only to hold onto the handlebars whilst providing maximum counterbalance.

Motorcyclists do lengthen the outside leg (over the inside) to keep pressure (and hence a feedback link) on the outside peg to minimize the chances of the rear tyre breaking away.

BUT they are not good analogies.

For a full treatise on the physics of motorcycling see Keith Cord's 'A Twist of the Wrist' books 1 and 2.

[ February 03, 2004, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Nettie ]
post #90 of 126
you folks who say mtn biking angulation is different from skiing angulation obviously are not very accomplished mtn bike riders.

I get more upper-level skiing cross-training value from mtn biking than any other sport. Comfort with steep terrain and learning to trust the bike translate very nicely to skiing steep terrain. Anyone who disagrees simply isn't a highly skilled mtn bike rider, or perhaps is highly skilled mtn biking but not in alpine skiing.
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.