O.k., I've done a little clipping from the other thread to try and get these things in one spot. These are from the "Wacko how long have you skied?" thread.http://www.epic-ski.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000354-3.html
I'll start with Pierre eh!:
>>In a narrow stance you can get a smooth even non athletic flow from one turn to the next with very little effort. The release requires much less skier ability and far less agressive movements on center of mass. Long/medium radius (Western turns)feel great and light. The disadvantages are that agressive movements are more difficult to control the outcome, the turn size is locked in more (static) and the edge engagment is more restricted.<< - Pierre eh! 5/18,5:54pm
>>Agressive movements can put you too far inside the turn if your judgement is off by the slightest bit, if you are in a wide stance you can adjust angulation to compensate easily. The same is true for changing turn size. By adjusting the angulation in the turn you can increase or reduce edging at will even under g force. This allows you to change the size and shape of your turn quite easily in a carve. These things are all but impossible in a narrow stance. You are mechanically aligned and unable to get leverage to adjust edge angle. Does this make sense.<< -pierre eh! 5/18, 10:00pm
Ott joins the fray:
>> So Pierre, why did you and I and everybody else who have skied forever, skied narrow stance for forty years? It is not that we didn't know how to ski wide stance, EVERY beginner, no matter how they learned, skis in wide stance.
Your 'hip agaist the wall' example only holds true with the recent teaching model where sequential moves have come back in, and made easier with present equipment. Shifting weight back and forth to correct for over or under angulation etc. in wide stance is possible, if not desired, because the turns are not made, as with narrow stance, by unweighting the skis, but via lateral shift.
As you well know, with close stance on the old skis there was no need for tipping release or any other release since everything was done with no weight on the skis, as if they were in the air, and when solid contact with the snow was made again, the weight was on the new outside ski, the lead had changed and the skis were on their new edges.
After that you could tighten or drift the turns by a combination of forward pressure and edge control, and you kept balance by playing the centrifugal force against the speed and movement of the body mass inside the turn. That is easy. If you can make a turn on a bicycle without falling over you can do it on skis in a narrow stance. On a bike you don't have a parallel wide track wheel to push off of, if you leaned in a little too much you just tightened up your turn.<< -Ott Gangl 5/19, 10:11pm
A response from Pierre eh!:
>>This is very true Ott, everything else you said is for the most part true, Is that your point. If your point is " We have always
skied this way" I would say yes but lets take your bicycle idea. If I am ripping with the bike your theory holds true, if I am going real slow the bike balance becomes more dicy, especially as the turn radius is decreased. Your quote above holds the answers. You can do it fine in a narrow stance on old equipment if your turn radius is large enough and your speed is high enough. Ott, you are absolutely correct, modern equipment is precisely the reason for the changes. I'm not sure I would call it sequential though. I like your post
By the way Ott, I have forgotten where I came from. I can't ski that way any more. << Pierre eh! 5/19, 2:01
O.K. and now some from BobB (there is much more there):
>>...A narrow stance allows this weight transfer to happen more smoothly, without the big lateral shift of the body uphill that would be required with a wider stance. Try it: standing up with feet spread wide, balance on one foot, then the other. You had to move sideways, and it was probably pretty awkward. The closer your feet, the less movement the rest of your body must make when you shift from one to the other.
Is this an advantage? Or does it just point to another underlying problem? I argue the latter. I say insisting on an active weight transfer--a distinct "step" to the new ski--is an error, partially compensated for by the narrow stance! Practicing this active transfer--stepping, stemming, skiing on either ski exclusively--is great for balance and versatility. But real performance turns do NOT require an active, complete weight transfer. Like a car, in linked turns the weight will transfer naturally and smoothly to the outside ski (wheels), flowing through an instantaneous moment of "neutral" (equal weight) at the transition.
This weight transfer will occur as the skier moves INTO the new turn--in SPITE of this movement into the turn, even. This flowing, downhill "into the turn" movement stands in stark contrast to the movement UPHILL required to make an active transfer to the uphill ski. << BobB 5/19,9:30pm
Perhaps we could get a quote from Harald's book to give us his big reason for the narrow stance. Alas my book is now far away. But...
Here's a little from SnoKarver:
>>Te she d a little light...
In the world of PMTS, yo get the boots together during the grey zon/transition.
As skiing gets more dynamic (higher level) there is a separation of the skis and the feet, so you can get more edge angel, and, of course, it happens on steeper terrain, due to vertical separation..<< SnoKarver 5/18,10:56
This would indicate what Pierre called "variable width stance".
So there's a little summary.(But by no means the last word eh?)
you say your less inclined to be analytical about skiing. Would it be fair to say that your wife does not fit this description? Is she analytical while skiing or just after?
[This message has been edited by Tog (edited May 21, 2001).]</FONT>