EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Down-unweighted turns: good or bad in general skiing?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Down-unweighted turns: good or bad in general skiing? - Page 5

post #121 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

Nice post MR.
CT you still havn't answered my question. Why the evasiveness? What are you hiding? Why are you hiding it?

No evasion, I responded with two substantive posts focused on actual skiing movements.

You're chest-thumping after getting called out on a number of substantive assertions over the course of this thread.

As to why I'm not answering, it's the web.  You may not cyber-stalk me or try to blacklist me, for instance, but someone else might.  You may or may not be aware that there are a lot of people within PSIA who don't agree with the current PC views on technique, for instance, but who rightly don't want to rock the boat because of likely repercussions if they do so.  Your interest in who I am suggests that I in fact have reason to be concerned.

I thought this was a technical discussion forum?  You've told me to go back to junior high and a bunch of other stuff, some of which you edited back out, and then accused me of being provocative.  I'm not the one who tried to back away from saying downhillers steered all the time while in a tuck.  You were, you got called on it, it is what it is.
post #122 of 130

OMG, how silly! You can't answer a simple question because you're afraid of the repercussions. No problem pal. Stay anonomous and snipe from the safety of your keyboard. Just don't expect anyone to give your opinions much consideration until you can take responsibility for your actions.

post #123 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

OMG, how silly! You can't answer a simple question because you're afraid of the repercussions. No problem pal. Stay anonomous and snipe from the safety of your keyboard. Just don't expect anyone to give your opinions much consideration until you can take responsibility for your actions.


I'm more than willing to discuss skiing on a technical level, and again have made several substantive posts, just today, while you're crying about credentials.

I think you're showing why it's wise for some posters to stay anonymous.  Not to mention showing that you're seemingly unwilling to actually have to deal with pushback on a technical level. 
post #124 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

OMG, how silly! You can't answer a simple question because you're afraid of the repercussions. No problem pal. Stay anonomous and snipe from the safety of your keyboard. Just don't expect anyone to give your opinions much consideration until you can take responsibility for your actions.

post #125 of 130
 Anticipation powered pivot.
post #126 of 130

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3TEWs0BG3U&feature=PlayList&p=93F164044DD7F237&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=77

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ5rJ40ju0Y

 

Some very good skiers I'd say with rotary movements as an outgrowth of mistakes (which everyone makes) and the outcomes.  I'm off to surf, which at a high level has a lot more use of active rotary than skiing but where to be a standout you still have to be able to bury a rail.  Which actually isn't geeked out on that much.

post #127 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post




Was rotational input added by pelvis, waist, or upper body, or taken away?  Did the hips counter rotational input or add to it?

I think that the body was fairly steady, it hasn't moved much through frames 4 and 5. The skis moved away from the CoM because they were pushed (extension), not because they were rotated. The rotating of the femurs is simply necessary to keep the skis parallel to the snow.

The fact that there's  a ball and socket joint doesn't address whether you're using rotary forces to steer a turn.

Agreeed. The rotation of the femurs isn't to create a turn, but to avoid the skis edging prematurely.

Let's say hips had stayed square or even "waist-steered," inside arm and hand had been back -- how do you think that would've ended up?

Huh? Which hand?

Anticipation, then counter, are the desired positions as demonstrated by the nice control phase of the left footed turn.

Also, re: your inferred skivot/stivot vs my infered skid, you need to stretch the visual plane back out from the montage (the montage shortens the amount of ground actually covered) so as a technical point I don't think the change in direction of skis was as abrupt as you may.  Taking your view though, active rotary would've blown the turn and possibly led to a high-side.

The depth of field is poor and the distance between the gates is unknown. I'm not suggesting her tranisition it was abrupt, just quick. Given that her skis were still pointing outside at the red gate, she probably had a quick move to make to get back on line.


 




Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

Or, how bout using a little torque to try to add pressure along the sidewall to those shovels for that turn?  Just a little twist of the hips into the turn, utilizing the "torque shifter" so your lower body doesn't experience the torque, so that the boots pivot the front of the sidewall into the snow? 

I know the smell of bait and was avoiding the torqueing without affecting the knees 'discussion' from earlier in the post.

I doubt that any leg rotation was being applied to the skis during the turn other than to control the section between release and engagement; while the ski was basically unweighted and to permit the skis to drift/skid/stivot. Once the ski was engaged, there was sufficient gravitational pressure and centrigual forces to get the 4 - 6 degree side bevel to engage the snow without needing to torque the edge into the snow.

Swimming away slowly to watch the feeding frenzy.
post #128 of 130
Yes he does seem to have a "crude understanding"of the body motions required to obtain a desired body action!!!!
Hey VSP  any chance you might grace up in Utah for a day or 2? I know ya gotta make hay when the sun shines ,but all work and no play makes VSP a dull boy!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ster View Post

Nice definitions VP .

Thanks,
JF
post #129 of 130
Quote from Masters Racer:I think that the body was fairly steady, it hasn't moved much through frames 4 and 5. The skis moved away from the CoM because they were pushed (extension), not because they were rotated. The rotating of the femurs is simply necessary to keep the skis parallel to the snow.

I don't disagree with any of that.  To expand on the part I just snipped, while the body was "fairly steady," the right side does come forward somewhat...so you have a movement of the body to counter rotational forces, not add to them. 

Now I really like your use of the term "athleticism" to describe this turn.  While some people on the internet try to focus on the fact that some (many) turns in a race aren't perfectly carved and then pitch "pivots," or "branded" steering or whatever the new flavor is, as a key to modern advanced skiing, the hard part for racers is learning to use the sidecut of the ski to control things as much as possible -- and if they can do that, they as athletes pretty much already can skid, drift, skivot or stivot a turn where needed.  http://www.nastar.com/community/index.php?showtopic=2534  Steve Nyman in the linked thread:  "To be frank. DONT STIVOT unless you have to. Being able to carve and go direct is way faster. We never practice the stivot and it isnt fast. Like Bode said is is a method to control speed. You carve to gain speed and you stivot to slow down. We never train it it is just something that happens. You learn it when you learning how to wedge as a beginner skier."

Obviously some recent races have been pretty well known for being stivot-fests, due to a combo of the way the course was set and lots of chemicals, to the extent that in some cases there've been course-specific skis used, which doesn't really help anyone.  The majority of racers haven't been enthused by that, and it's made for some ugly skiing that's boring to watch.  It's  a phase, not something that changes the basics of their technique or has them all of a sudden incorporating "active rotary"  as a mainstay of their skiing.
post #130 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by vail snopro View Post




WOW! I sure hope your knowledge is more in depth than what you wrote here! If you truly believe that its all about name differences, you obviously have no idea the true function and mechanics of the down unweighting turn, the retraction turn, and the flexion turn! I mean, c'mon- this is basic stuff! About as fundamental as it gets!

To define these turns, you need to ascertain the energy source (internal vs external), whether the movement is active vs passive, and the direction of the energy and movement...

In a down unweighting movement, the source is INTERNAL, ACTIVELY using MUSCLES to abruptly move the CORE TOWARD THE FEET. This results in a very short duration reduction of pressure between the skis and snow, as the effectis only as long as the duration of the rnage of movement. Timing of this movement is critical, due to its short effective duration

In a retraction turn, again the source is INTERNAL,ACTIVELY using MUSCLES to aggressively pull the FEET TOWARD THE CORE. Though the duration of the effect can be a little longer than down unweighting, it still is of relatively short duration. A significant difference between a retraction turn and down unweighting is that a retraction movement can be done effectively just about any time and in most environments, whereas a down unweighting movement has more limited effective use. A retraction turn also offers greater control than down unweighting, but not even close to the degree of precision offered by a flexion turn.

In a flexion turn, the source of energy is EXTERNAL, using the energy developing in the skis (ANGULAR MOMENTUM and GRAVITY) as they arc/carve through a turn. The skier then PASSIVELY allows the legs to flex (FEET TOWARD CORE) as much as necessary to manage the external energy at a degree which is functional. This allows the skier to very precisely determine how much energy is desired to affect the turn and the ensuing transition. Conversely, the skier is then capable of extending the legs (FEET AWAY FROM CORE) with a degree of precision necessary to maintain the desired pressure between the ski and snow in the top half of the turn.

 

I respectfully do not agree with your explanation. You make a distinction between the pulling the core toward the feet and pulling the feet toward the core. There is no way your muscles can actively move the core toward the feet, unless your feet are stuck to the ground. The issue is inertia. Inertia is a function of mass. Presumably your feet are less massive than your core. Gravity is the only force pulling the core toward the feet. Both the retraction turn and down unweighted movement contract and relax muscles pulling the the feet toward the core.

Try to pull your feet off the ground without first creating a little upward momentum. It seems that up unweighting and down unweighting are just a matter of degree and technique.
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 › Down-unweighted turns: good or bad in general skiing?