or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

4 Questions - Page 4

post #91 of 509
You have defined the term using the difference in tangents at midski (underboots more precisely) and ski tip, but your definition and mine do differ.   So do a lot of other peoples's definition of steering angle (or perhaps skidding angle, or slip angle) who would agree with me that this angle is zero in an arced turn, and is changed in a non-arced turn by "steering".  Nevertheless if that is your definition, we can go on from there.

Just curious, why ski tip and not half way between the tips and the bindings?
If I'm in the same arc in an edge-locked turn with skis a foot longer, is my steering angle greater?

What if the ski is not carving a pure edge-locked arc, do you define the steering angle based on the direction the tip of the ski is pointing or on that of the middle of the ski?
post #92 of 509
Thread Starter 
Actually, the tip was chosen out of convenience, just to establish a point to go by, Ghost.  You're right, a longer ski would change the angle.  Same thing would happen at the half way point also though.  A longer ski would have a longer half way point.  What to do, what to do. 

It's why I don't actually use the Steering Angle term myself.  I use Radius and Skid Angle, and that covers it.  They're all I need to explain the entire ball of wax, and KISS in the process. Skid angle and radius are quite simple.  . 
post #93 of 509
Ok. Skid angle then.  Just to be sure, skid angle = angle between skis edge and relative motion of a grain of snow passing past said edge?
post #94 of 509
Thread Starter 
uhhhhhh ??????   I think so.  By that you mean the grain of snow is actually stationary on the surface of the slope, and the ski edge is passing by IT as you ski by, right?  If so, yep, you got it!   

Skid angle is simply the angular difference between the direction the skis are pointing compared to the direction you're actually traveling.  In terms of skid angle, a carving ski's is zero.  A sideslip down the falline is approx 90.  Any radius turn can be traveled at any skid angle.  Skid angle does not dictate turn shape. 
post #95 of 509
Excellent!

Now let's see if we can get another Term nailed down so that we may proceed to build an argument.

Steering is adjusting the skid angle?
post #96 of 509
Thread Starter 

Steering is HOW you adjust the skid angle.  But it's also a way of shaping the turn.  At a low edge angle I can produce any radius turn I want by simply varying the amount of steering power I use.  The radius and shape of the turn is independant of the skid angle, though both are managed via steering. 

Examples; 

I can steer a very small skid angle, medium radius turn, and maintain that small skid angle for the entirity of the turn.  See the video below between 2:03 and 2:10.  

www.youtube.com/watch

Though it almost looks like carving, those are actually steered turns you see in that segment of the video.  It's done with a very small skid angle.  I call it Narrow Track Steering You can also Narrow Track Steer in long and short radius. 

Conversely, you can make any radius turn in a large skid angle. 
See same video above between 1:42 and 1:54.      

It's done by lightening the edge engagement enough to steer into a bigger skid angle, without altering the radius and shape of the turn.  I call it Wide Track Steering

The ability to alter skid angle and radius independant of each other via stering provides us with many options as we ski.  I can maintain a constant skid angle, while changing the radius of the turn mid stream through the turn.  I can maintain the radius of my turn while changing the skid angle of my turn mid stream.  I can change both mid stream, independantly or at the same time. 

There really are few limitations to the options I have when steering.  Steering used to it's ful capacity gives me total control over line and speed.  As I said before, its a claim to fame carving can't make. 

post #97 of 509
I can increase the tipping angle to decrease the turn radius.
I can increase the skid angle to decrease the radius. (up to a point)
I'm guessing that you would refer to both as steering.
Some people would not include the second method as steering.
post #98 of 509
Thread Starter 
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

I can increase the tipping angle to decrease the turn radius.

Yep, sure can.  I don't consider it steering though.  It's using edge angle and sidecut to produce a direction change.  I consider steering the supplementation force you use to shorten the radius beyond what edge angle and  sidecut will provide.  The more you tip the less you have to supplement, but at the same time it makes it harder to steer so you're less able to. 

I can increase the skid angle to decrease the radius. (up to a point)

Yep, true again.  Be aware though, Ghost, that this too is not written in stone.  We can use skid angle to decrease radius, by strongly engaging the edges and letting that skid angle pull us around the turn.  We can also lightent the engagement and simply use that skid angle for it's speed management benefits, without letting it shorten the radius.  It's very possible to ski a very long radius turn while WIDE TRACK STEERING in a large skid angle.   

 
post #99 of 509
 To my view, steering angle is simpler still because of the exceptions of skid angle and the confusion about the direction of travel.  One confusing thing is enough.
post #100 of 509
Thread Starter 
By all mean, BigE, you need to go with what works best for you. 

Skid angle works for me because the variables are the very thing that provide so much benefit to my students.  On snow the learning of the full spectrum of the possible skid angle applications comes very quickly and easily, and the rewards are immediate.  Suddenly difficult terrain is not so scary.  Arcing cleany into a turn on that terrain no longer seems a suicidal act, it actually becomes fun and empowering. 

I've had student's who have taken many prior lessons ask me why others are not teaching this.  I've had students thank me for giving them license and method to control their speed on any terrain, when before they'd always had it beat into their head that carving was always the golden objective.  Suddenly their terror of steep terrain is gone, and with that absense of fear their speeds all over the mountain leap.  They have less reservatoin about using a small skid angle because they know the have the ability to employ a larger skid angle with absolute precision at any moment they feel the need.  Knowledge and ability is power. 
post #101 of 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post

By all mean, BigE, you need to go with what works best for you. 

Skid angle works for me because the variables are the very thing that provide so much benefit to my students.  On snow the learning of the full spectrum of the possible skid angle applications comes very quickly and easily, and the rewards are immediate.  Suddenly difficult terrain is not so scary.  Arcing cleany into a turn on that terrain no longer seems a suicidal act, it actually becomes fun and empowering. 

I've had student's who have taken many prior lessons ask me why others are not teaching this.  I've had students thank me for giving them license and method to control their speed on any terrain, when before they'd always had it beat into their head that carving was always the golden objective.  Suddenly their terror of steep terrain is gone, and with that absense of fear their speeds all over the mountain leap.  They have less reservatoin about using a small skid angle because they know the have the ability to employ a larger skid angle with absolute precision at any moment they feel the need.  Knowledge and ability is power. 

Just for clarity....nothing is new here....you took an old concept, and gave it a new name.  You are simply talking about an aspect of steering angle.  Again for clarity steering angle does not imply or relate to "steering"....although it can.  That is what Big E was talking about....as have others above.

As for others not teaching this????????????  I can only assume this is a great example of why people should take lessons from certified pros....this is fundamental and basic, I have no doubt you and your students have had success with it.  I havent read the whole thread, but as a tip you might want to also investigate the importance of fore/aft balance and timing , even for intermediates, when executing these manevours.  Often simple adjustments in these areas can take this basic concept to even higher levels of effectivness quickly and easily.
post #102 of 509
Thread Starter 
Skidude, glad to hear you're teaching this stuff too.  

To the very vast majority of students I've worked with this basic skid angle skill development has come as a complete revelation, even those who have had a considerable number of lessons in the past.  

And to the contrary, it had nothing to do with any lacking of certification in the people they've worked with prior.  You might be surprised if you knew the details, but that's not the point here.  I'm really just trying to spread the word of the importance of this area of skill training to those who may not be aware.  As you seem to agree, I hope you'll join me in that effort.  

As far as the importance of Fore/Aft balance in this equation, I very much concur.  I've been preaching that here on Epic for years, and have produced two 90 min.DVDs on the subject.  Thanks for mentioning it.  
post #103 of 509
Well I have myself never really contemplated the teaching concept of distinguishing a difference between skid angle and steering angle.  But it makes sense to me that they are different angles and I want to think on that a bit to determine the practical relevance.

bear with me for a minute....

One thing that some people confuse on is the difference between the radius the skis are traveling across the snow and its overall round shape.....verus....the direction the skis are pointing.  In other words, A turn can be thought of as an attempt to get the skis pointing from one side of the hill to the other side, regardless of the path they travel to do it.  They basically "turned around" the skis.  Or it can be thought of as attempting to navigate the skis on an S shaped path to cover the ground on this path through a series of linked C shapes across the snow.

Here in this forum we are often discussing the merits of linked C shaped turns.  

I would argue in fact that an awful lot of skiers are oblivious to the overall path they are taking.  They are much more focused on getting the skis turned around.

If they do a big tail swing turn, then this may be a very fast event, a quick "turn".  But is that truly a small radius "turn"?  I say no its not because they did not even follow any kind of C shaped path across the snow that would have a radius to it.  All they did was to redirect the skis from one direction to the other, probably with a lot of skidding and braking, and smaller Z shapes to the path they are traveling.

So where am I going with this?

Just to point out that redirecting the skis does not neccessarily equate to a smaller turn radius.  And in fact I would argue that in reality is probably creating a LARGER radius path, not smaller, though it may get the skis turned back around the other way more quickly.

Establishing a skid angle is what happens when they redirect the skis away from the direction they are sliding across the snow(regardless of skid or arc) but not acheive the same amount of change to the direction they are sliding.  In other words, if the angle of redirection increases without decreasing their travel radius by equal amount, then they have introduced skid angle.

Now I need to think a bit more about steering angle and the implications of it.
post #104 of 509
Y'know if it was a car it would be called the thrust angle. Not to add any terms here but instead of worrying so much about what it's called I see the important idea is to differentiate between where the skis face and where were actually going. As the tip bends this may or may not be the best point of reference but it's certainly is the part of the ski most obvious to the skier. Unless of course they are staring at their feet.
SD please expand on the strong inside half and it's affect on Fore Aft, since it's back in the discussion.
post #105 of 509
 Perhaps a definition of "Strong inside half" could start the discussion?
post #106 of 509
Should be pretty self evident, where is your inside half when you're in a countered stance. How does that affect fore aft balance?
post #107 of 509
Skid angle sounds to me like  the reason for understanding steering angle. A too sharp steering angle will be either a skid or a fall. My understanding is that steering angle is  of use to determine what edging , pressure and rotation would be optimal to continue using an edged , tracking ski or understand it won't be longer possible unless you consider it. It's a intent to outcome tool .
Isn't skid angle a portion of the equation of the steering angle application ?  Or is it just the glass half full and both are a measure of the same equation  which is how this angle affects our abilities to hold an edge or lose an edge predictably ?
post #108 of 509
Thread Starter 

PERHAPS THIS WILL HELP

Skid angle and steering angle are in a way the same, but they differ in a significant way too.  Many people go by LeMaster's definition of steering angle, so I will compare skid angle to that. 

LeMaster explains steering angle by stating that as you twist your skis to an angle to the direction of travel the ski will actually pull you into a sharper turn in that direction.  The bigger the steering angle the sharper you will turn.  Much like if you put your hand out of the window of your car and turn it sideways to the wind.  The more you turn your hand the more the wind pushes it sideways. 

Skid angle also refers to the angle you place your skis in relation to the direction of travel.  But the similarity stops there.  The skid angle is not related to the sharpness of the turn.  It does not control radius.  You can ski any radius turn with any skid angle. 

The reason for the difference is that in his explanation of steering angle LeMaster treated the sharper radius outcome of a larger steering angle as a given.  It's not.  Because it's not, and to avoid confusion as to the manner in which I use skid angle to affect turning performance, I've choosen to use another term that better reflects the concept I'm teaching. 

Below is  a link to a diagram we've created to show different skid angles being employed along a set turn radius, and the differing tracks they leave in the snow. 

www.yourskicoach.com/YourSkiCoach/skid_angles.html

 

post #109 of 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post

PERHAPS THIS WILL HELP

Skid angle and steering angle are in a way the same, but they differ in a significant way too.  Many people go by LeMaster's definition of steering angle, so I will compare skid angle to that. 

LeMaster explains steering angle by stating that as you twist your skis to an angle to the direction of travel the ski will actually pull you into a sharper turn in that direction.  The bigger the steering angle the sharper you will turn.  Much like if you put your hand out of the window of your car and turn it sideways to the wind.  The more you turn your hand the more the wind pushes it sideways. 

Skid angle also refers to the angle you place your skis in relation to the direction of travel.  But the similarity stops there.  The skid angle is not related to the sharpness of the turn.  It does not control radius.  You can ski any radius turn with any skid angle. 

The reason for the difference is that in his explanation of steering angle LeMaster treated the sharper radius outcome of a larger steering angle as a given.  It's not.  Because it's not, and to avoid confusion as to the manner in which I use skid angle to affect turning performance, I've choosen to use another term that better reflects the concept I'm teaching. 

Below is  a link to a diagram we've created to show different skid angles being employed along a set turn radius, and the differing tracks they leave in the snow. 

www.yourskicoach.com/YourSkiCoach/skid_angles.html

 


Richard,

Please stop.  The misrepresntation of the work by famous ski authors by "Epic Regulars" to suit their own purposes is becoming the new fad on Epic.  Please dont.  Not only do this discredit yourself, but also this entire board.  I do not have the time to run around and fix all of this, but this time I will.

From Skiers Edge

PAGE 22:

SECOND PARAGRAPH (in its entirety):

" A small steering angle results in a broad turn.  A large steering angle, up to a point, produces a sharper turn. Beyond that point, increases in the steering angle cause more slowing, but less turning."


Last week it was Vagners, this week Lemaster.

Please learn what these guys have to say first.  If you have questions, there are many knowledgable people here who can answer questions to help you.
post #110 of 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
I can increase the skid angle to decrease the radius. (up to a point)
Obviously, that the master fellow knows a thing or two.
But here's the thing.   We haven't defined steering angle to my satisfaction.

We have defined skid angle and agree they differ.  We must clearly define the terms before we can build even the simplest argument; the premises must be understood before reaching any valid conclusion.

A typical ski in a typical turn is decambered and thus curved.  Skid angle can vary along the edge of a ski, an over-all averaged (integrated if your mathematically inclined) skid angle can be used.  Steering angle as you folks have described it, would depend on how long my skis are for any given arc, and "the direction I would end up going" depends on how long I keep turning just as much as it depends on how hard I happen to be turning at the moment.  What's more, though related, the direction the skis are pointing in is not the direction that the forces acting on the ski are trying to push me in; there is a significant sideways component.   For a non-engineering student, I suppose tip-pointing direction it is a convenient reference.  That is all I can see in it.

Is steering angle the direction of the net force acting on the ski-skier free body, like thrust angle?

Here's the interesting thing.  I can do things to change the compass direction my skis are pointing and thereby increase my steering angle.  I can do things to decrease my skid angle.  Often the things I do have an effect on both.  A simple example: tipping my skis more lessens skid angle by making them bite into the snow, tipping my skis changes the compass direction of my skis.  A more complex example tipping and moving force to the front, increases compass direction and lessens skid angle at the tips while increasing skid angle at the tail, or I can tip and shift weight to the rear, I can be close to that point where compass direction is changing faster than skid angle is reducing, and can movements be blended as to increase overall skid angle or decrease it depending on the "blend".  I can do it in definite stages, get a changed compass direction and then increase skid angle once I've set the compass direction, or I can do it almost at once or I can do things simultaneously.
Edited by Ghost - 11/6/09 at 3:40am
post #111 of 509
Thread Starter 

Thanks, skidude, you came in as though on cue, and turned me into a prophet. 

A friend PM'd me to thank me for posting the drawing, and suggest it should clear things up about skid angle.  I responded that I hoped so, but that I expected skidude would come charging in to proclaim "that's not what LeMaster said" (knowing how much you enjoy doing that)  So thanks again, and welcome back to the party,,, I had a place set and waiting for you! 

Yes, I was very aware of the second part of LeMaster's definition; that beyond a certain point the turn sharpening effect of increasing the steering angle comes to an end, and speed control begins.  I simply focused on his concept of what happens before that point because it was a KISS way to explain how the concept and usage of skid angle differs, without mucking up the explanation with unnecessary complexity.  

But as long as you've now brought it up I'll take a moment to explain that even beyond that point Ron speaks of, where increasing steering angle goes from a turn shapening devise to a speed control devise, contrasts to skid angle still remain.  As I've said many times now, skid angle and turn radius are completely detached.  Any skid angle can be combined with any turn radius.  LeMasters loss of turning sharpening effects after that "certain point" do not apply.  It's very possible when using a large skid angle to sharpen your turn as much as you want, when ever you want. 

Skid angle refers to just what it says, how much skidding is happening as you go through the turn,  (Refer back to here: www.yourskicoach.com/YourSkiCoach/skid_angles.html )
It's all about speed management, and has nothing to do with turn shape.  Shaping the turn is a separate skill package to be developed and blended back in with skid angle.  Using the two together you can produce any shape turn you want, at any speed.  

It's interesting, when I teach this on snow to students who are not encumbered with a head full of technical knowledge they master the skills readily, and come to realize the benefits quickly.  It's quite amazing the transformations they bring.  Compared to that I must admit it's rather baffled me that understanding has been so hard coming here.  I can only speculate that its the preconceptions of lessons past that make the absorption of these concepts in this forum setting more complex.  I think we're finally making good headway though.   

post #112 of 509
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post



 A simple example: tipping my skis more lessens skid angle by making them bite into the snow, tipping my skis changes the compass direction of my skis.  A more complex example tipping and moving force to the front, increases compass direction and lessens skid angle at the tips while increasing skid angle at the tail, or I can tip and shift weight to the rear, I can be close to that point where compass direction is changing faster than skid angle is reducing, and can movements be blended as to increase overall skid angle or decrease it depending on the "blend".  I can do it in definite stages, get a changed compass direction and then increase skid angle once I've set the compass direction, or I can do it almost at once or I can do things simultaneously.
 

By George (er, I mean ghost), I think you've got it!

These are the "other" edging skills I was talking about.  Edge angle manipulation is an important one.  It allows us to magage our turn shape and/or our skid angle as we proceed through the turn.  Fore/aft is too, but as you say it's a more complex tool to use so it comes later in the learning curve. 

It's interesting that when actually teaching these edging skills in real life you don't normally have to get to detailed in your explanations of how to do it.  Just provide the turn shape and skid angle tasks, and the body often just quickly figures out how to accomplish it on its own.  Execution pointers can be provided when needed of course, but it's often not required. 
post #113 of 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post

Thanks, skidude, you came in as though on cue, and turned me into a prophet. 

A friend PM'd me to thank me for posting the drawing, and suggest it should clear things up about skid angle.  I responded that I hoped so, but that I expected skidude would come charging in to proclaim "that's not what LeMaster said" (knowing how much you enjoy doing that)  So thanks again, and welcome back to the party,,, I had a place set and waiting for you! 

 



Well I find it hard to beleive you deliberatley misquoted LeMaster to simply bait me...and quiet frankly do not really care.  I am just glad you admit what you wrote was wrong...either through ignorance or deliberate lying, I guess only you will know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post

Yes, I was very aware of the second part of LeMaster's definition; that beyond a certain point the turn sharpening effect of increasing the steering angle comes to an end, and speed control begins.  I simply focused on his concept of what happens before that point because it was a KISS way to explain how the concept and usage of skid angle differs, without mucking up the explanation with unnecessary complexity.  


 


I find it hilarious that you knew of the "second part" and conviently chose to leave it out...when it is the part the completly negates your entire arugment.  Keep on truckin Rick!
post #114 of 509
SkiDude aren't you just being a little divisive here?  Rick was trying to point out that he believes there to be a separation in concept between what he calls steering angle and skid angle.  This is a topic I'd like to ponder and explore and I'm looking forward to what more can be said about it.  

It appears that LeMaster also draws this distinction, though a bit more ambigously then Rick has:

  Quote:

 "A large steering angle, up to a point, produces a sharper turn"

It appears that LeMaster also draws this distinction, though a bit more ambigously then Rick has:
 
  Quote:
 "Beyond that point, increases in the steering angle cause more slowing, but less turning"

So LeMaster does denote this difference, albeit somewhat ambiguously.  He only states that applying more steering angle can create a sharper turn, to some undefined point, after which it not longer produces more steering, but simply produces more skidding.
 
I'm still not sure I agree with Rick's following assertion:
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post

Any skid angle can be combined with any turn radius.  LeMasters loss of turning sharpening effects after that "certain point" do not apply.  It's very possible when using a large skid angle to sharpen your turn as much as you want, when ever you want.

 
But I freely admit that I have not thought too deeply on the details here, so I'm looking forward to the rest of what I might hear as this is discussed.

 
post #115 of 509
Nice drawing Rick it confirms my understanding of it's relevance to ability to gauge necessary edging and other considerations that apply to what  is available for a chosen line. It helps you understand the good and bad of your choices. If I apply a large steering angle then I better expect skidding depending also on all the considerations  . If I choose a less drastic angle then I have the option to carve if I apply proper support for the angles I have chosen. There are lots of variables and the steering angle determines what options I can use at a given moment.

The skidding angle is a measure of the same consideration if I'm looking at the practical application of these terms.
post #116 of 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

You have defined the term using the difference in tangents at midski (underboots more precisely) and ski tip, but your definition and mine do differ.   So do a lot of other peoples's definition of steering angle (or perhaps skidding angle, or slip angle) who would agree with me that this angle is zero in an arced turn, and is changed in a non-arced turn by "steering".  Nevertheless if that is your definition, we can go on from there.

Just curious, why ski tip and not half way between the tips and the bindings?
If I'm in the same arc in an edge-locked turn with skis a foot longer, is my steering angle greater?

What if the ski is not carving a pure edge-locked arc, do you define the steering angle based on the direction the tip of the ski is pointing or on that of the middle of the ski?
 
Ghost,

I'll try to explain steering angle.

First it is important to understand that steering angle is not so much of a term as it is an entire concept.

By having the skis act at some direction across our line of travel, they will either slow us, or turn us, or some combination of the two.  The amount the skis are acting across our direction of travel is known as the "steering angle".

In a pure skidded turn the steering angle is rather obvious and intuitive, it is simply the difference between where our skis are pointing and the direction we are moving at any given instant in time.

In a pure carved turn the steering angle is still there, but perhaps not as obvious.  The steering angle in a pure carved turn is the difference between where our ski tips are pointing and where the ski under foot is pointing.  Why the ski tip?  Because in a pure carved turn the tip is leading the turn, the ski underfoot will follow. 

Ski lenght is not a factor because while the ski tip on a shorter ski will not be bent as much as the tip on a longer ski for a given turn shape it is also closer to the foot...hence the angle is the same.  If you draw this you will see what I mean...the longer ski tip is further along...but the curve is the same.


In fairness thou that above is not really the point.  The point of the steering angle concept is:
 
By changing the amount of steering angle we generate, and by manipulating how we achieve it (ie pivot vs ski bend) we can alter the amount and ratio of turning forces to slowing forces that act on us.

One could argue then that ultimatley just about everything we do when skiing is about managing steering angle.  Well yes that is true, ...which is why it is such a core and important concept to understand and why it is usually discussed/expained so early on in most texts about skiing.

If you want to read more it is explained well in LeMaster, as well as CSIA manuals (going back as far as I can remember), CSCF manuals etc.
post #117 of 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post

 

I dont beleive I am being divisive at all.  Just adding clarity.  Lemaster is not ambiguous at all, he is infact very very clear.  Steering angle  causes slowing, and/or turning....we should aim to develop skills so that we can manipulate things such that we can turn with as much slowing component as needed, or as little...the whole point of Lemaster's chapter on it is to stress the importance of being able to uncouple turning from slowing!  The exact opposite of what Rick represented. 

Lemaster definatly does not split skid angle from steering angle as you suggested.


Taking incomplete quotes out of context is not acceptable.  It was somthing that Max used to do in the bad old days, and rightfully so he got nailed for it.  Those same standards should apply to all.

No one likes to be misrepresented.
post #118 of 509
Thanks skidude,
I think I figured it out last night, but I just wanted to be sure.  The steering angle is an indication of how much the skis are diverted from our current direction of travel.  The fact that (to use an extreme example to illustrate the point, more reasonable skis and turns just wouldn't have such a big difference) a ski with 3.14 m in front of the binding in a 2 m radius turn would be pointing 90 degrees from our direction of travel and a ski with half that length in front of the binding would be pointing at 45 degrees from our direction of travel in a 2 m radius turn is mute.  If skis didn't bend it would be simpler, but the gist of the thing is the same whether they bend or not.

Good insight on the tips leading the rest of the ski. (especially with minimal skid angle)
post #119 of 509
That fact that you say steering angle induces slowing and/or turning is exactly the ambiguity to which I refer.  Its not neccessarily wrong for him to do that by the way, you don't need to take such an attack dog stance on what I'm saying, as if LeMaster needs defending, which he does not.  I'm a fan also.  He is not, however, likely to be the last word on skiing, so can't we humor ourselves here to discuss these concepts openly? 

What you quoted from LeMaster is, however, more ambiguous than what Rick has attempted to define.  I'm not even sure I agree yet completely with the reduced ambiguity by Rick, but Rick's definition is definitely less so, that's my only point.

But clearly LeMaster has pointed out that beyond a certain point his steering angle concept does change from being a steering (and possibly braking) effect to being only a braking effect.  No Lemaster has not created two seperate concepts and isolated them with different names like "steering angle" and "skid angle", but those very statements have exposed that there are two concepts worth discussing.
post #120 of 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

Taking incomplete quotes out of context is not acceptable.  It was somthing that Max used to do in the bad old days, and rightfully so he got nailed for it.  Those same standards should apply to all.
 

If he did, perhaps you can provide several examples.  I don't recall Max_501 doing that.  In fact, I was always impressed by the precision with which he attempted to understand and represent other skiers' views.  I'm surprised to see you challenge his intellectual integrity,  especially considering how carefully and thoughtfully he responded to your challenges to him. 

Either way, what's the point of slinging mud at him over a year after his departure from Epic?  Mud slinging season ended for a while with Tuesday's elections 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching