or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Old school turns seem to be getting short schrift these days - grumble.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Old school turns seem to be getting short schrift these days - grumble.

post #1 of 55
Thread Starter 
I have been discussing the pro's and con's of carving vs. skidding for some time with a friend. At high speeds, both he and I have carved turns on old pencil skis for practically as long as we can remember, simply blending more skidding into carved turns ("skarving") as the need for speed control increases.

I have completely switched to shaped skis, and started to recite their benefits to him, particularly, carving at much lower speeds, increased stability on crud, powder, carving doesn't scrape all the snow off a trail and generate misshapen moguls, etc..

My friend, on the other hand, he has stayed on his long-boards, and always plays devil's advocate to my pro-carving arguments. He makes some good points, so I thought I'd summarize his arguments to this group and see what the consensus here is. His main points are:

1) Carving is obviously more desirable than skidding for people like racers who need to go as fast as possible. This is clearly not what the vast majority of recreational skiers want - they simply want to get down the hill safely.

2) To keep one's speed in the slow to moderate recreational range, on normal groomed surfaces, a ski in a pure carve MUST be made to take a much longer path (compared to a skidded ski), possibly even going back up the hill a bit (aka, "ski the long path quickly") to control one's speed.

3) The very low coefficient of friction of a carving ski will send the skier across the slope at essentially the same velocity as when he was pointing straight down the slope, in the middle of his previous turn. If the slope is wide and uncrowded, this may be an acceptable practice. The carving skier on such a hill then has the option of descending the trail in a series of long traverses, slowly slowing down on them, but then regaining all the lost speed during the carved turn after each traverse.

4) However, if the trail is narrow or crowded, the only realistic option to a skier that is truly carving will be to make the traverses much shorter, perhaps even eliminating them altogether. This means that the skier has to make a lot of turns in a short period of time, and this requires lots of energy from the skier. Even assuming that energy saving measures like "falling into the turn" and reducing up-down motions are implemented on the shaped skis, all these turns may simply be too much work to be enjoyable to a recreational skier.

5) OTOH, old-school skiers simply blend the right proportion of skidding into their carving in order to dissipate exactly the correct amount of energy to keep their speed almost constant during the run.

6) If the trail gets narrow or crowded, old-school skiers can make their descent in a series of edgesets and/or sideslips / skids with almost no velocity across the hill, thereby allowing them to stay in a very narrow lane if needed.

7) Using the technique in #6, the skier is not forced to make a turn every second or two as he would be if carving. He can continue to skid to one side for long periods, and then switch to the other side. This conserves his energy and lets him ski more hours. (For the sake of this argument, and because lower level recreational skiers don't tend to ski crud, lets temporarily ignore the many difficulties of attempting skidded turns on cut up crud).

8) On extreme terrain, (i.e., very steep slopes or very narrow passages), even the best skiers must resort to a series of edgesets with no carving whatsoever to get themselves safely down the mountain. To a never-ever, because of the increased slope, and because they are now out in traffic, the top of the novice hill looks just as extreme as a headwall might look to a pro. To a novice, their first view of an intermediate slope is equally intimidating, etc. etc.. Accordingly, progressing skiers of all levels need methods for immediate speed control and staying in a narrow lane. This is clearly not the function of carving.

9) Because of the above reasons, my friend's opinion is that recreational skiers should first learn conventional skidded turns, and then as they progress and can accept higher speeds, then introduce them to the many delights and uses of carving.

Comments anyone,

PM

PS - I did a search in epicski.com, and found many messages & threads on carving, but none that seemed to put it all together like the argument of my friend, hence I started this new thread. If I'm going over well covered ground, please excuse me. There were too many threads on this subject to look at each in detail.

<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by PhysicsMan (edited June 20, 2001).]</FONT>
post #2 of 55
I'm the first to reply to your post and definately not the best to reply, but the shaped ski isn't just for carving. Your friend makes some interesting points, but all of this can be done on the sahped ski and easier. One of the common misconceptions of shaped skis is that they are for recreational skiers only, not serious skiers.
You might want to look at a Todd Murchison article on shaped skis. He used to be a die-hard anti-shape ski enthusiest. Used to be! This is at www.snotech.com
Also, point out that racers have gone to shaped skis of varying sidecuts. The shaped ski saves about 66% of expended energy. F=MA, right?
Others here will have more pertinent info.
BTW- Good to see you here.

------------------
Life's a pain... then you nap. Cat philosphy
<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by jyarddog (edited June 21, 2001).]</FONT>
post #3 of 55
Neat!

The art of the scarve is still very important, and effective. A flatter ski that skids a little works well with the shapers too. A little adjustment in technique. Speeeeed Control. Hey I like my bump skiing smooooth, OK?

But, after skiing on some of the newer radical shorty slaloms and carving toys, you can get TONS of control. Yea, we're talking 165cm. or so.

A 7-12 meter "natural" radius carving ski has lotsa control. That "ski the long path quickly" method is easy with that much shape. You CAN carve (mostly) in the bumps with a ski like that, with plenty of control. It is... different, but fun.

And, at least to me, a narrow ski with a lot of shape is a bit trickier to "get flat" for a skid, or a good old fashioned pivot-slip!

That's what that technique #6 is, and it's a tool I use instead of a wedge a LOT. There are some "new school" mods that work the same, and are MUCH easier to teach than the traditional active rotary pivot slip.

Think about looping the skis uphill a bit longer, don't release into the new turn so soon. Release softly, tipping and rolling into the new turn, no hard edge-set and bounce at the end of the turn.

It's so darn easy to make turns this way, that the fact that you might need to turn more often is no big deal.

It's a different focus on technique. The skills of your friend are valid, especially with the non-shapers. But things are different now, and evolving.

It is quite disconcerting to get into the shape skis for a lot of strong "old-school" skiers. I've helped a lot of them, and have not had anybody revert back to straights. Not yet, anyway... LOL!

I have taken a few folks out on skiboards... long snowblades. Then jump on the shapers.

I take out my one pair of 208cm straights, once in a while. It's too darn much work. and the biggest deal is, it's not as much FUN!

Well, I dunno, I kind of see the attraction of those folks that restore and drive Model A's, play with old muskets, steam engines. No, really. I do!




------------------
¯¯¯/__ SnoKarver snokarver@excite.com
post #4 of 55
PhysicsMan,

What you/your friend says is perfectly acceptable.

Another, more common, misconception of the newer shaped skis, is that you can only carve, and your turn size is dictated by the turn radius of the ski. This is a bunch of hooey (did I spell thet right?). A shaped ski is just a lot more versitile than a conventional straight ski because it can carve better, tighter turns at slower speeds, yet it still can skid as much as you want it to.

What you/your friend is referrng to is more "tactics" to get down the hill safely and confidently.

And really... what IS a carved turn. To me, (and I may be the only one who thinks this way), a carved turn is a purely carved, pecil line turn. ANYTHING else is a skidded turn. Even if you are moving more forward than sideways, it's still skidded. Although some like to use the "skarved" term that you mentioned. Afterall, the definition of skidding, according to PSIA, means to be moving forward and sideways at the same time. Do we start to call a turn carved once we start moving forward slightly more than we are moving sideways? If so, then who is to judge whether we are carving a turn or not? That's why I only like to call purely carved turns, with no sideways travel, carved turns, and anything else is a skidded turn with varying degrees of edge angle to control whether the skis travel more forward or more sideways.
post #5 of 55
Very interesting thread. I'm a veteran of one season on 'shaped' skis (after many many years on traditional equipment), and I'm certainly never going back. They're better - and more fun - at every old and new technique I've tried with them except for one thing: going straight!

------------------
BE the skis!
post #6 of 55
PhysicsMan, thanks for your post - both very well thought-out & thought-provoking.

Carving and "pure carving" are one and the same - anything else is akin to the old "half-pregnant" moniker. BUT, the same turn can have *portions* that are carved, and other portions that are not. In that sense I think your "skarving" term is helpful.

For an example of this, at almost all levels of racing, only a portion of each slalom turn is typically carved. Here is one coach's view: http://www.shapeski.com/pages/qtme1slalomdiff.html

In a similar vein, when I watch "old" (i.e., 1980s) coaching videos, the heart of each gs turn is carved, but the rest typically is not. (Only on the flat straight sections of the courses are the racers going arc-to-arc.)

Another example is that when we're trying to warm up for a gs race on weekends, often carving is simply not safe (or at least, not allowed in the eyes of the ski patrol), and we therefore have to employ the tactics you mention to avoid plowing into the general public (and/or getting our passes pulled).

But although I generally agree with most of your points, I still don't see how this necessitates "teaching" skidding, which is a method that skiers naturally revert to. Once a skier can master the balancing required to make a turn on parallel skis with corresponding edges, then onto carving skills!

As a sidepoint, none if this is any reason to stick with "non-shaped" skis. With the exception of some of the ridiculously extreme sidecuts (e.g., Elan SCX), the old musical line of "anything you can do I can do better" applies to shaped skis. Just what type of ski is your friend still using?
post #7 of 55
Thread Starter 
Thank you for your three thoughtful replies and welcoming me to this forum. Glad to be here!

With all the recent emphasis on carving and shaped skis, I thought there was likely to be a large negative reaction to observations and comments like these, and that was clearly not the case for these first three replies.


Jyardog:

You are absolutely correct that when I typed up these comments, I didn't distinguish clearly between the tool (shaped skis) and the technique (skarving). I don't think my friend is against shaped skis, per se, but rather, is against what he sees as a major overemphasis on carving, especially when done early in the student's skiing career.

SnoKarver:

I liked your positive comments on short skis. In fact, my first and only other posting to epicski.com was a question to the gear forum about picking up a pair of short twintips for myself.

You mentioned that "a narrow ski with lots of shape is a bit trickier to skid". I certainly have also noticed, especially with the earliest shaped skis, but have also noticed that the present popular midfats overcome much of this problem, particularly those with reduced sidecut in their tails (eg, Dyna ATV, Volkl p40 Platinum, etc.). In fact, I have often felt that the *real* reason for the popularity of the midfats with recreational skiers is *this* effect, and not their increased all-mountain capabilities (that only a fraction of rec skiers ever use).

Your comment about it "being so damn easy to make turns this way" (ie, a combo of new equipment and new/modified technique) is interesting and is something I have experienced myself. You are essentially saying that shaped skis are not just for carving - they even make skarves easier. This is a very persuasive argument.

Finally, with respect to taking out your old skis for a spin once in a while, I do the same thing, and it is like taking an old restored car out. I love to watch the reactions of people. I have had ALL the instructors in the pre-lineup minutes come over and start talking about my 1980 vintage 207 Volkl Zebra's and what great shape they are in. The best reactions are often from teen aged snowboarders who you know are thinking, "whoa, this dude must have been skiing when dinosaurs roamed the earth".

JohnH:

I couldn't agree more with your definition of a carved turn. If you don't see either one or two thin lines in the snow, its got some skid mixed in, and hence is a skarve, which, now that I think of it this way, is precisely what 99% of people do, even those on shaped skis. So, maybe there really is no argument at all - there is a lot of discussion of carving, but few people actually do all their skiing with truly carved turns.

BTW - To me, FWIW, if the outside ski leaves a line, but the inside one doesn't (because it is light and/or brushing the snow), I still consider it to be an overall carved turn.


Again, thanks for your comments.

PM
post #8 of 55
Thread Starter 
A couple of new replies (Tominator and Jonathan Sheffitz) came in while I was typing my previous response, so let me respond to these as well.

I think what everybody is saying is that there is essentially no downside to using shaped skis. I liked the "anything you can do, I can do better" song analogy - LOL.

Jonathan:

You obviously know what you are talking about since you described exactly my 1980-style GS turns before I went to shaped skis: Unless I was making extremely long radius cruising turns, the initiations were a bit skidded, while the later phases were carved. The difference that shaped skis made was they allowed me to reduce the fraction of the turn that was skidded, especially at slower speeds.

My friend is advocating teaching skidding before carving because he perceives the fear factor to be dominating the minds and the entire learning process for weak recreational skiers. Skids and jump turns and abrupt edgesets (hockey stops) give them something they can always fall back on if things are falling apart, so this allows them to experiment with higher and higher speeds, get the skis further away from the body (which appears to be a very precarious position to most beginners, etc.)

Final comment, then gotta run - thanks for the link - it was very appropriate.

Cheers,

PM
post #9 of 55
Tominator,
Good point about straight ski to shaped ski move. everything can be the same except that the shaped ski turns easier, tighter arcs at slower speeds. Fun.
post #10 of 55
Speaking of going straight, I know that shorter shaped skis have supplanted older designs in World Cup Slalom and Giant Slalom and even Super G competition, but what about the Downhill? What kinds of skis do Downhill specialists use these days, and how long are they? Jonathan?
post #11 of 55
If you haven't yet, read my post about tech definitions. I got a response from "The Establishment". It appears that in ATS revision 3, 1996, they did define carving, and not to my liking. Jonathan S and the others that agree with my definition will have as hard a time with their definition as I do.
post #12 of 55
PhysicsMan,

I don't think your friend needs to advocate teaching skidding before carving. As has been said, the natural progression of learning, moves from skidding to carving, not vice-versa. When anyone first learns to ski, they learn to make a skidded turn. Except for PMTS, which does try to stand you up on a rail and get yu to turn. Oh... Maybe that's what your friend is against. Although I think direct to parallel has some merits, I don't think direct to pure carve would float too many boats.

That said, I have been traind, and taught some lesson using the "Quick Carve" method of teaching snowboarding. This method teaches people who already know how to ski, how to snowboard on an alpine (carving/race) board. The lesson basically starts out with the student just tipping the board up on edge, locking the edge in, and standing on it as the sidecut turns the board. It's weird, and only works with very well balanced people. When we taught my Assistant ski school director to snowboard this way, it didn't even work very well for him. He learned much more easily by taking a standard snowboard, learning to skid turns with it, then getting on the alpine board, skidding it, then learning to carve on it.

Ohhh - red Lamborghini Diablo just drove by!! *drool*

FYI - AASI (PSIA's snowboard side), I believe, defines carving as a single thin line in the snow, and skidding as any turn where the tail of the board does not follow the line that the tip of the board makes.

If that is true, it seems odd that PSIA and AASI would have such different definitions of the same term.<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by JohnH (edited June 21, 2001).]</FONT>
post #13 of 55
Tominator: Being a college coach, I have very little speed event exposure (DH was taken out of NCAA racing back in the 70s), but my understanding is that change in sg/dh has been more more subtle & evolutionary, rather than the radical & revolutionary changes in sl & gs.

To illustrate this, here are the latest FIS recommended regs. (The story at skiracing.com did not specify whether this is a proposal that may becoming a binding rule, or rather just a suggestion for racers to follow.)

Minimum ski turning radius (in meters) Downhill 40 m Super G 33 m Giant Slalom 21 m (No minimum for slalom)

Minimum lengths are 155 men/150 women, which obviously is relevant only for sl. The pro forms options though convey a sense of what racers are using:

204 Atomic SG
212 or 217 Atomic DH
198, 203, or 208 K2 SG
213 or 218 K2 DH

John H: I have a hard time with much of PSIA, ugh. But while we're on the subject, do you have any idea why Sue Spencer and PSIA-E parted ways?
post #14 of 55
Jonathan

The information on FIS mins are recomendations. Last year the FIS min in SL was 155. The turn radius for GS was 21M. Neither were enforced. My FIS level daughter skied a 142 for slalom. It is not yet clear what will actually be inforced. Typically they give a one year warning. If this is true all will be in effect except womens slalom. I have requested a clarification from USSA. I doubt they've considered it yet.

Incidentally, a friend of mine, a personal coach to Kilian Albrecht, was in Norway observing the Norwegian Ski Team. The men were on on 155's. At the beginning of the season at Loveland they were on 174's.<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by edgreen (edited June 21, 2001).]</FONT><FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by edgreen (edited June 21, 2001).]</FONT>
post #15 of 55
155!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, I've calmed down a bit now. This is making the transition to shorter gs skis seem like the speed of plate tectonics by comparison.

Is anyone enforcing the boot limit? I've heard about ski+plate+binding enforcement, but read about only one boot check, and that was at the WC level. Based on some measurements, seems like the 45mm for w and 50mm for m can be exceeded just by taking a stock boot and adding a heel lift, w/o intending to get extra leverage. And I still see some guys who have extra lifts on their boot soles.
post #16 of 55
In RMD early in the year, we had to be careful. Some TD's were checking the winners. One was disqualified. Women on Atomic boots went to a special heel toe set. The height is without the liner at the heel with the boot board in. Since many boots are overly rampped, you can still put alot of lift/stack under the toe and still have tons of forward lean.
post #17 of 55
This thread reminds me of when I was at Cannon Mt in NH this winter. I'd gone there to do a race (my second). Afterwards, I'm freeskiing and at the top of a run I start talking to these two older gentlemen. They're talking about skis and straight vs shaped. One of them has tried shaped skis once the other no. (I'm suddenly caught in a time warp thinking "wait, isn't it 2001? I thought we had these conversations a few years ago...")

Anyway they're going through all the reasons that shaped skis aren't as good. unstable etc...I'm saying "well...I've had these skis for 2 and a half years..." The guy who's tried shaped skis start's talking about how unpredictable they are and they're....squirelly!"
So I look down at my skis and say "Hear that! You're squirelly!"

Straight skis require so much force applied forward to really get them to bend and sing. It's too much work. Plus they're just not as versatile. There's no problem with shaped skis skidding, just look around at how people ski. This year was really the year where people went down the 20cm proposed when shapes came out. Originally most people said "yeah right" and went down 10cm. Now we're down for short slaloms 40cm + !

ed, saw a guy there on k2 mach g's next year's race stock. he loved them. real even flex, fairly soft.
post #18 of 55
Ed,

I want to start running gates. Can you email me details about your program? I live in Denver.

FYI, I'm a PMTSian. I'm not about the man, but I love his system -- for lack of a better term. So, if your coaching goes against his system...Well, lets just say I'm there to race, not discuss religion.

Send email to snokarver@excite.com

Thanks!<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by SCSA (edited June 22, 2001).]</FONT>
post #19 of 55
Ah, I see, w/o liner & footbed, but w/ bootboard -- as the little old lady on SNL would say, "that's different, never mind!"
post #20 of 55
I think I concur with Johnathen.

Bob Beattie (sp?) was lamenting that these new super short skis have turned slalom racing into skating, not skiing.

Normally, I don't pay too much attention to Bob, but when I heard it, then thought about it, I agreed with him.
post #21 of 55
Jonathan,

I didn't know Sue Spencer left PSIA. I did know that she had changed positions last year. What have you heard?

All I know is she was a GREAT even organizer. Maybe she didn't take well to the new position????<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by JohnH (edited June 22, 2001).]</FONT>
post #22 of 55
SCSA check the skiloveland.com site under racing. That will give you a pretty good overview.

Actually I love the little skis. The technique is very similar to GS. You can actually carve many of the turns. The sets now require them. In reality as everybody gets used to them they aren't too bad in ruts. Late in the season I tried to ski my 186's that are 3 years old. It was too funny, they were slow jamming pigs. I couldn't ski them.

Anything Beattie says, take it with a grain of salt.

The skis I have been using for SL racing are 157's. The dimensions I think are 110,62, 97. I want more side cut.
post #23 of 55
Thread Starter 
Tog: re your comment that this thread is essentially rehashing the shaped - straight debate, which has been definitively settled in favor of shaped skis several years ago.

I agree totally. I'm on shapes myself, and I have a closet full of straights that don't see the light of day unless its vintage ski day.

My intent in starting this thread was to discuss carving vs skidding, but the shaped vs straight thing got mixed in. The first sentence of the first msg in this thread (ie, my message) opens with, "...pros and cons of skidding vs carving...".

I then inserted two sentences just to let people know what equipment we are on, and then the entire rest of my post goes back to the carve-skid debate with not a single further mention of ski shape.

Unfortunately, many people (my older friend included) think straight = skid, and shaped = carve, and then start debating based on this assumption.

I intended my second sentence ("...he and I have carved turns on old pencil skis for years...") to help keep the discussion away from the linkage to equipment, but I obviously made my hint way too subtle.

OTOH, equipment clearly is a fun topic for lots of people, and there is interaction between equipment and technique, so if some of the gang wants to chat about these issues, I'm ok with it.

My friend was really impressed with the high quality discussion on these topics. He is an older guy and hasn't used computers very much for recreation, but I suspect we may soon have a new participant in the epicski.com forums <G>.


Cheers,

PM


<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by PhysicsMan (edited June 22, 2001).]</FONT>
post #24 of 55
JohnH: I don't want to spread rumors here (although I guess I'm doing exactly that), but I heard she was fired (although I don't know why). A race coach I know is worrying that the Stratton race clinic event may disappear b/c PSIA-E race coordinator (or whatever his title is) Jim Cardinelli (sp?!?) is a good friend of Sue's and may part ways w/ PSIA b/c of this. But again, all this is second-hand (at best), so note the many caveats.

Bob Beattie: Yeah, at best take him with a grain of salt. Lamenting the development that now maybe 90% of a sl is turned, as compared to 10% in days of yore? Typical Bob B, sacrificing analytical integrity for the sake of publicity.

PM: I think this thread is *not* a mere rehashing of straight v. shape, b/c along the way it makes some very valuable observations on the limits of carving. For example:

We generally train off a 1200' high-speed quad at Loon that serves only intermed. through lower- expert terrain. Sometimes in the afternoon we'll go up to the North Peak summit and ski a solid sustained-expert pitch ("upper walking boss"). Inevitably everyone tries to make the same pure arc- to-arc turns they can do on the lower mountain, but up here they start hitting dh speed immediately. I explain to them that their two option are to:
- instantly drop their points to around 50 so that they can make tigher radius carves and keep their speed under control; or (more realistically)
- reduce the carved portion of the turn and introduce more pivoting-type movements in the transitions to accomplish the necessary directional change so that they're not hitting mach 5 by the second turn.
post #25 of 55
Thread Starter 
Since the topic of discussion has shifted somewhat towards equipment, I have a few questions for the people (edgreen, etc.) who are now skiing really short skis:

1) Aren't they squirrelly? (grin - just kidding - see story by Tog about when he was up at Cannon Mtn.)

2) Now, the serious questions. I presume that on skis this short, you stay fore-aft centered or else you do a face plant. If that's the case, and you don't have to pressure either the tips or tails, shouldn't people be able to ski these shorties with a boot that is very soft in flex? I bet that would be a big draw to lots of newbies. (Personally, I miss the mark of distinction of having the hair on your shins abraded off 2 weeks into the season <G>.)

3) Final question: There seem to be several sub-species of shorties, and I'm not sure exactly what all the differences are. In particular, I've been thinking about getting a TT that can double as mogul ski. I presume that skis of this type have generally softer flex, and probably are wider-waisted than very short hypercarvers.

Recognizing this, if I get such a ski, but buy it on the short side (155-165), will it also give me at least some of the benefits of the super-short slaloms / hypercarvers? The sidecuts of some of these TT's are not all that different from the shortie super slaloms.

Conversely, could I use a hypercarver for lower level (ie, not straight lining) mogul work? do any of them have a turned up tail so I could do simple tricks, or are they so narrow waisted that you couldn't even do on-the-ground rotations, etc.

TIA,

PM
post #26 of 55
Thread Starter 
To: Jonathan Shefftz

Point well taken.

Question - I've never been a racer, so I didn't understand your sentence, "...drop their points to about 50...". Help!

PM
post #27 of 55
PM, I feel I am a safer skier on shaped skis because I can carve and control my skis better at slower speeds. Sometimes, on the straight skis (210 GS) it was let them rip and then get control because they worked better at speed. On shaped skis I have better control at lower speeds and they still work great when you turn the wick up. More fun and easier.<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by Lucky (edited June 22, 2001).]</FONT>
post #28 of 55
Re fore/aft pressure, check out this coach's opinion: http://www.rossignolracing.com/index.php3?XSession=3ca5cec26729ab9f39ff4598293965 3f&te mplate=waxroom/larsson_how01.html

some pertinent excerpts:
"A forward body position entering the turn is of utmost importance. Bakke's forward body position makes the outside ski's front half bend more than the tail. This forward pressure will lead the ski into quick and tight radius carves. This forward body position exerts great pressure on the tibia against the tongue of the boot, which in turn bends the front of the ski. The skier must be able to bend the ankle in the ski boot. However, at a certain point the ski boot must stop bending forward. It is at this time maximum pressure is transferred to the front of the ski. Her pelvis is forward and noticeably ahead of her outside foot. To acquire a forward position the racer must hold the inside foot back. Both tibias are bent forward to almost the same degree."

"The benefit of this action is to produce pressure on the front of the ski by quickly (in 2-3/10's of a second) getting a forward body position with relatively little muscular effort. When the fore and aft body position is ideal the skier can carve turns in a relaxed way. When it is not, the skis must be forced around causing undesirable body stiffness loss of rhythm and decreased ability to absorb changes in the terrain"

Re twintips, sounds like a good idea to me, although I don't have any first-hand experience with these skis. I have found the shortie sl skis to be pretty decent in bumps, but I'm not a freedogger coach!

Re points, sorry for the inside reference, but 50 points on the U.S. Ski Association or FIS (int'l ski fed) competitor classification system basically corresponds to the ability level of the best skiers in our race league. A complete explanation is available at: http://www.usskiteam.com/alpine/AlpineCgCh3.pdf
post #29 of 55
Ed,

It looks like I need previous experience, which I don't, to join the Masters team.

Do I?
post #30 of 55
SCSA
Absolutely not! Our masters skiers range from people who still need basic technique instruction to athletes who carry FIS licenses. Unlike most race programs, we don't segregate masters skiers from our junior racers. Adults typically train with the older ability racers and are treated as such. So, you need to park your adult ego in you car and ski with the kids and take your licks. But, you'll be amazed how much better you'll get.
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 › Old school turns seem to be getting short schrift these days - grumble.