or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stance: Narrow or wide? - Page 3

post #61 of 85
I agree. new post.
post #62 of 85
Thread Starter 
Does HH have you flatten the downhill ski first before lifting to avoid this weight shift uphill? Pierre, I know you said it's samey same but would this be a reason to do that sequence?
(this is discussed in "Wacko how long.."pg3)

"Release to Full Turn" - Harb Ski Systems http://www.harbskisystems.com/olb2.htm

>>From a stationary traverse position, with balance on both skis, release by flattening the downhill ski to the snow (roll it toward its little-toe edge). Continue to flatten that ski to the snow, and let the uphill ski follow. This movement of the downhill ski will cause both skis to aim slightly downhill, and they’ll begin to slide. Continue to lead the tipping with the downhill foot, and let the uphill foot lag slightly behind.
As the skis flatten and aim downhill, lighten or pick up the downhill ski - it becomes the free foot. As the skis slide downhill, keep the tail of the free ski lifted slightly, and continue to tip the free ski toward its little-toe edge. It can be helpful to think of pulling up on the arch of the free foot. This creates both the lifting and tipping that are needed. The tipping of the free foot engages the big-toe edge of the stance ski. Be passive with the stance ski - do not attempt to edge or steer it with the stance foot. <<

Paul, you might want to read this:
from "Someone should email HH", lisamarie's post:

>>Back when I was in college, a professor said to us "Freud is not a Freudian, Jung is not a Jungian....etc."
From the email I recieved today, I have discovered that Harb is not a Harbian. He seemed truly perplexed that someone would want to turn his technique into a cult, as opposed to a learning experience. So perhaps we should keep that in mind.<<
post #63 of 85
If PSIA instructors don't teach balance skills, why the heck did Gravity and others make me ski across the slope on one ski?

Be Braver in your body, or your luck will leave you. DH Lawrence
post #64 of 85
Ya know. I read that original post, but I missed this part: "do not attempt to edge or steer it with the stance foot. <<"

Hello???? Don't attempt to edge it either? So lets see here.... flatten the skis, tip them before you get to the fall line, but don't edge, and of course, don't steer.

I hate to say this, but unless you throw your weight way out over the tips of your skis, you have just entered into a traversing side slip! And, if you're really unlucky, you could end up just pointed straight down the fall line. Don't edge. Don't steer.

In teaching, we have this thing called a "patience turn". Which is pretty much the exact same thing, excpet that we use a little bit of rotary, and we ask the student to maintain pressure on the cuff of the boot, because the "heavy end goes downhill first". This creates a long, drawn-out turn entry that is parallel. We use it to get people the feeling of entering a turn without a wedge. But I can't imagine telling people not to steer or edge. I would be intersting to watch the duck shoot, as other skiers come down the hill aiming at this poor soul doing a side slipping traverse across the hill.

**Due to the power shortage, the light at the end of the tunnel will be turned off indefinitely.
post #65 of 85
Thread Starter 
Cheers for going at it with wacko. I think the answer to the above is not that your not edging the stance foot, but that it edges all by itself by only concentrating on tipping the inside foot. This is HH's "tipping of the kinetic chain". One little movement sets it off. As scibill says, "you're fooling yourself" into edging.

I get the picture! hmmm...what to do?...<FONT size="1">
<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by Tog (edited May 23, 2001).]</FONT>
post #66 of 85

I see we are in violent agreement here. Thanks for clearing up the intent of your words.
post #67 of 85
One question for Gonzo: if you tip when you're feeling rusty, what do you do when you're not?

On forces and turns, I've been thinking like Bob I guess:

If you stand in a full travers facing right on a slope, weight balanced between your two skis, you are stable because the only force in play is gravity, which is pointing from your CM toward the center of the earth. This line passes between your two point of support, so you stand up. Lift the left ski, and very temporarily, your weight transfers to your right ski. But the gravity vector now falls outside your remaining base of support, so you must fall over to your left, and of course all the weight leaves your right ski. Same reason they put flying buttresses on cathedrals - to move the force vector so it intersects the base of support. Same reason they put heavy gargoyles on top of those buttresses, too. Smart people back than, huh? Art plus engineering, just like skiing.

Now if you're moving, things change. Now you still tip when you lift your left ski, but this edges your right ski and begins it turning. Now you have a new force, centrifugal force, pointing to the outside of the turn. Add the two force vectors. I think what you want is for the resulting summed vector to pass down through the base of your stance ski, so you neither topple inward nor fly outward. This centrifugal force vector changes constantly because of the slope changes your speed, and the increase in force both flexes the ski and moves your body outward over it more.

To help the force vector from being too far inward, you can move your CM outward by angling your upper body toward the outside of the turn, and other things.

All this will work even without any sidecut on the skis at all, assuming the ski has some flex and the snow isn't infinitely hard. This is because the force you apply on the stance ski is maximum in its middle, and can flex it into the snow more than the tip or tail, thus creating an apparent sidecut. I don't think it would work on 2X4's, because they would have almost no flex over that distance. You would also fall over if your skis were infinitely stiff and had no sidecut.

Now, if you steered.... Bring on the 2X4's.

So, I think most of the angulation and microadjustments, steering, etc that you all probably do instinctively during the progress of the turn results in keeping that resultant force vector pointing right down your lower body and intersecting the base of your stance ski, so you're not falling inward or outward.

This is why the highest-speed, highest-priority information coming into your spinal cord from the body isn't pain sensation. It's the sense of the stretch of your muscles and the positions of your joints in space. And why it takes no conscious input at all for your nervous system to maintain a muscle at constant stretch level and a joint at constant angle against wildly varying forces.
post #68 of 85
Sci Bill, a ski with no sidecut would not perform that way, except in very soft snow, because the center of the ski digs into the snow, and would not bow to the outside of the turn. Take a credit card and press the edge into your self healing desk pad and try to bend it by pressing the on the middle of it. Doesn't work. Now try it on your cordurouy pants. Notice how the cords bend. This is why it would work in veery soft snow.
post #69 of 85
This is why also on older straight skis we had the emphasis on weight forward or into the shovel of the ski to initiate turns instead of weight over the center of the ski. Also where the myth of stiff boots are better came from. We needed super stiff boots in order to apply that much force to the tip of the ski.
post #70 of 85
Thread Starter 
good one. You should have a lool at:
actually, you'd like the book too, it has more detail. http://www.ronlemaster.com/USSCAAcad...iles/frame.htm

In that slide show, he says:

>>From the angle of inclination we can estimate the force on the skier
–Skier’s weight is constant
–Centrifugal force varies
–At 60°, total force is 2 Gs
–At 70°, total force is almost 3 Gs<< -ron lemaster

No wonder those racers have huge quads.
Also interesting: At giant slalom speeds there is angulation like you described-angulating the upper body more vertically while lower body points in towards center. At downhill speeds they incline the whole body into the center.

Is this because:
-it's skeletally stronger ?
-there's no fear of tipping in and falling over because speed so high?
-there's more time between turns so you have more time to move the whole upperbody from one side to the next?

downhill: http://www.ronlemaster.com/downhill.htm
giant slalom: http://www.ronlemaster.com/giantSlalom.htm
post #71 of 85
Well, Ron said it alot better than I with that diagram in the slide show called "Resultant Force". Perfect.
post #72 of 85
Since wackjob knows all this tech stuff, wonder how much weird stuff he can do with emails.
post #73 of 85
Thread Starter 
It's odd how posts are showing up now-the timing is weird. dchan, I pretty sure your post was not there when I wrote.

Anyway, yeah my old lange tii boots were pretty beefy, but i really needed that to bend those volkl p20 slaloms. Those tii's make my new L10's look like slippers with fuzzy frog heads on the front.
post #74 of 85
Ya know, by the time ya wade through all this %@#$^ jargon, insults and name-calling, well, let's just say it wears out the eyes. I'm an 'old school' skier, in fact, I made my 'breakthrough' to advanced skiing in Mr. Berge's ski school at Breckenridge, using a technique of weighting the UPHILL ski which I continued to use up untill the last couple of years! I could in my younger days do a passable wedelyn as well. The inside sides of my boots were always scratched up because, if I was skiing well, they were constantly touching each other, likewise the inside edges of my skis were chipped from banging on each other (the leather safety straps dictated that you had a right and left ski). I remember putting duct tape on the side of my boots to protect them. As Ott said way back at the beginning of this thread, given the equipment, that style and method of skiing was very effective. Wider waisted skis with dramatically increased sidecuts don't like that technique. Speaking from my personal experience, my G31's hate to be skied in a narrow stance. In the last two years, I've updated my boots and skis and, frankly, I think I was skiing better on my old 205 Rossi G7's than I'm skiing today on my G31's. I'm not a shaped ski basher (although I once was), I've just got 30 some years of habits to unlearn and retrain
post #75 of 85
Received a few emails from a woman who is a Physical Therapist, certified in PMTS. Harb had actually fowarded her my email to him. She is rational and logical, so its easier to discuss these things without all the emotional baggage attached to it.
I told her that after Bormio, I really am apprehensive about any program that teaches a narrow stance.
She told me to try this exercise: Stand with your feet shoulder width apart. Now lift one foot. Note the compensating reactions in the upper torso. Now, do the same thing with your feet together.
Okay, here are my thoughts:
Yes, when my feet are together, I will have a more quiet upper torso with my feet together. BUT.... That is STATIC balance. If I try exercises using a similar concept on the stability ball , a more DYNAMIC type of balance, this does not hold true.
In the same way, if I ski across the hill on one ski {as a balance exercise} I will probably keep the lifted leg pretty close to the stance leg. BUT.....
If I keep my feet too close together, and I attempt to edge my skis, I will come close to doing a face plant.

Be Braver in your body, or your luck will leave you. DH Lawrence
post #76 of 85
Thread Starter 
>>If I try exercises using a similar concept on the stability ball , a more DYNAMIC type of balance, this does not hold true.<<-lisamarie

lisamarie, what do you mean by this? Are you standing on the ball?
If you cannot ski with feet very close together (not locked together) perhaps this is an alignment problem?
post #77 of 85
Nuh uh! Not standing on the ball! Don't know if I'll ever be that balanced. Maybe a bit hard to explain here, but any action that will require movement of the ball, lying down with the feet on top, extending the legs at different angles, seated on the ball doing various things, will generally be more balanced at a slightly wider stance.

I do in fact have some alignment problems on snow, which is somewhat ironic, since my general postural alignment is relatively decent. I also suspect, and I can be wrong, that a tendency I have, which Todd picked up on, to edge my skis sequentially, rather than simultanously, may in fact be somehow related to my alignment.
Next season, this stuff needs to be checked out. So much for my ultra comfortable Technicas.

Be Braver in your body, or your luck will leave you. DH Lawrence
post #78 of 85
Thread Starter 
I was kidding about the ball This is interesting. The student comes and says "I'm having a problem with simultaneous edge changes. I tend to change them sequentially." !!
Very few people under very advanced would know such a thing!
post #79 of 85
Well, one private lesson with Gravity can teach you more about your skiing than 10 group lessons with someone else.

And there ARE people who can stand on the ball. I'm not one of them.

Be Braver in your body, or your luck will leave you. DH Lawrence

<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by Lisamarie (edited May 26, 2001).]</FONT>
post #80 of 85
I don't know if you're having a boot problem, but all the alignment stuff can be done with Tecnicas!

~Michelle H.~
( skiandsb@vail.net )
"Tell me I forget, teach me I remember, involve me I learn."
- Ben Franklin
post #81 of 85
hey, Pierre, Thanks for the vote of confidence! While I appreciate the thought, my feelings about my current level of skiing are more geared toward the difference between keeping up and skiing well. I didn't feel like it was a problem keeping up, at least I hope I didn't keep any of you waiting around for me (with the exception of the time I stopped to clear my goggles and didn't see which way the group went). I just don't feel that I skied particulary well that weekend. As I mentioned in the thread about the trip, I felt that I spent too much time behind my skis and the changing conditions and was always playing catch-up. The same feeling carried through to my last trip to Copper as well. It's kinda like getting a bogey in golf. It's not a horrible score, but you know with one or two better shots, par or birdie was easily within reach. Too often this year, I've felt that I'm getting down the mountain, but I'm not 'skiing' down the mountain.
post #82 of 85
Except in a few specific situations (Very Steep, Racing, for ex.)stance width is not something I take issue with. What I see as important is how the legs work together. If the muscles of the legs are exerted in opposition to each other to acheive stance width it doesn't matter how wide or narrow it is, it will not be functional.

The opposite is true. If the legs are both directed in the intended direction of travel and work together the stance will be functional. I have seen skiers of varying stance widths ski with equal power and precision.

The main problem with many narrow stance skiers is that they squeeze or hold their legs together and neither leg can actively guide the skis. Rotary movements move into the upper body creating balance problems. The joints also lose suppleness. This inhibits edge engagement and pressure control movements.

The more I experiment with functional stances of varying widths, the more tools I have at my disposal for surfing the earth.

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro...
post #83 of 85
You guys spend way to much time debating. Try this, first order three new ski videos. Get a big mountain one, like TGR's "Further", Stump's "Fistfull of Moguls", and a World Cup Race tape. Now watch. Bump skiers have a narrower stance, but still use their feet independantly, when they need to. Depending on the event, and the turn at hand racers use a range of stance widths, mostly fairly wide. Big mountain guys on fat skis also use a range, but maybe wider than you might expect in pow. Of course, Moseley's technique in TGR's "the Realm" is very different than in "Fistfull". Shane McConkey is regarded as perhaps the best all around skier in the world. Watch him bump in "Alpine Rapture", and then check out his Alaska turns in Global Storming. Park guys show just how little it takes to get thier midfat shape skis to turn, as long as you are centered. You don't want to have one stance all the time. To be the most versatile skier possible, you need to be comfortable with a variety of stances and techniques. Whatever you do though, don't be the back seat, butt wigglin', boots stuck together, pole flailin' hookie lau. There ought to be a law. If your feet are glued, then you are probably guilty of some exceedingly ugly hip movement, and really weak inside ski technique. Not to mention you don't get as much out of those new fangled shape skis as you had hoped. Throw away your strech pants and rear entry Salomon's, loosen the sphincter, and get with it.
post #84 of 85
HA! I've actually seen that diagram disproving centrifugal force written out on a blackboard. Surprisingly, I understood it too. It actually seemed to diosprove it. Then the guy who wrote it went on to argue quantum physics during his exams and took four tries to pass his level II (associate at the time), I was an impressionable young lad and am thankful for his sacrifice on my behalf.

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro...
post #85 of 85
>>>There ought to be a law. If your feet are glued, then you are probably guilty of some exceedingly ugly hip movement, and really weak inside ski technique.<<<

Not necessrily so. Some of you seem to think that the close stance was/is a cosmetic/esthetic/beauty thing and you couldn't be further off base.

When skis were stiff and long and it was necessary to put ALL the weight on the outside turning ski to bend the shovel sufficiently to make the turn, the inside, totally unweighted ski had to be controlled.

If that ski was several inches away from the weighted ski it could, and mostl likely would, flail around, catching an edge or crossing the tip.

Since the inside ski during a turn had no input into the turn at all, one could put it anywhere out of the way short of slinging it over one's shoulder .

The solution was that the inside ski be laid next to the weighted ski, advanced enough so that it's edge rode along the upturned shovel of the turning ski and thus preventing a tip crossing, and being this close it was not only ready for the next turn by not having to shift the center of mass a whole lot as it would be in a wide stance, but also have the benefit of being on the same corresponding edge thus preventing catching an edge..

I just wanted to correct a misconception as to why skiers in the past skied with a close stance since many thought/think is was some kind of prissy thing, it was not.

With modern equipment and teaching this is a moot point.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching