or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Park and Ride: Your Description
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Park and Ride: Your Description - Page 3

post #61 of 91
Thread Starter 
There is a big difference between static and rigid.  We can't go on until we can agree on that point.  Please correct me if I have misunderstood, but you seem to feel that unless a skier is constantly moving between one body pose to another and never really stopping in any particular "pose" if you will, then they are somehow too rigid.  I completely disagree with that.  Constantly changing body poses are not necessary in order to be supple, even supple enough to handle ruts, etc.

Being too rigid is a separate issue and should be addressed, i agree, but it seems to me that people are labeling certain things as park and ride, even though the skier is supple enough to handle ruts, etc, arcing beautiful arcs, but their only flaw is that they hold a pose through the belly of the turn.  I'm not so sure that should be considered a flaw.
post #62 of 91
BTS park and ride is describing a skier who lacks that fluidity because they are too static and lack the absorbing and balancing skills you are assuming they own. 
Maybe I should go back to the root word PARK. If I ask you to park my car, what am I asking you to do. The car is stopped when it's parked, period. Not moving. When it's moving it's not parked now is it. So adding wiggle room to that term is where we part company. Another more accurate term would be more appropriate IMO. 

I'm trying to remember what I originally wrote, I think it was a skier who is too static. That phrase is self explanatory IMO. Too static suggests a lack of the appropriate amount of movement to perform the intended outcome. Not enough movement is not enough, it's just that simple. The rest of this is just splitting hairs.
post #63 of 91
Thread Starter 
ok I just want to make sure I understand you definition:

Your opinion is that if a skier is not constantly moving from one pose to another then they will be too rigid to ski well.  Do I have that right?

Your definition of the word "park" is that a skier is too rigid because they are not constantly flowing from one pose to another.  I use the word "pose" a bit loosely here.  If the skier is constantly flowing from one pose to another then they never really are in any poses.  But there are certain checkpoint poses we are all familiar with, what a skier would optimally look like at the apex, at transition neutral, etc.  In your view the skier should always be smoothly moving between those poses and at no time should they linger in one of those poses for any length of time, they would move through it on towards the next "pose", etc.  If they do linger in a particular pose, then that would be "parking" by your definition.  

Do I have that right?
post #64 of 91
Originally Posted by simplyfast View Post

Let's assume you are used to the speed and participate in one of the downhills. I would say you are probably 15 sec slower than the last of the top 15 racers. And you can blame that to your park and ride style, not to your ski.
In high speed and long turn you cannot see the movement very much, but they are far from park and ride, they use every little bump to absorb, every bit of a turn to make speed.

Irony is difficult on teh interwebs?
post #65 of 91
Take a P&R skier out into very diffucult conditions including flatlight and see if they fall apart. Only a dynamic fluid skier will make it look easy. 
post #66 of 91
Slider, let's first agree on a definition.

Besides, Jämt said it perfectly in the other thread:
Originally Posted by Jamt View Post

...to use the same turn all over the mountain sounds really boring, and also a weird strategy. Would you use the same kind of turns in DH, WC slalom, bumps,  big-mountain freeride powder turn, tight tree-skiing. 50 degree+ survival skiing, childrens green etc? I would not.
post #67 of 91
Yes he did(Jamt) and JASP is on the mark. The difference is hard to see sometimes like the little girl. She is P&R. A sure way to tell if it is P&R is taking a skier beyond their comfort zone. Deifnition-Your not interacting with the skis enough.
post #68 of 91
BTS you're ignoring the underlined phrase in my last post. What part of too static is unclear? A lack of movement (yes a rigid/ stiff stance), or an insufficient amount of movement (too static) in any of the skills pools is just that, insufficient to create the desired outcome. Which leads to the question, If you can't create that desired outcome why in the world would you use that tactic / technique? The double speak about sort of's and almost's is silly.  
Park and ride is an oxymoron, a carefully crafted phrase that implies a conflict in objectives. The idea being that somewhere in the skiers understanding they mis understand the basic of all premises, skiing is a moving experience. Not a sedentary one.
post #69 of 91
Thread Starter 
I'm not meaning to ignore anything JASP, just trying to understand your view on P&R which I still don't.  Oh well.
post #70 of 91
According to what I understand the term means, from hearing it used by others, the little skier shown is almost park and ride, but not there yet.  She's like pulling over and barely moving, but as soon as the cop looks away and parks his cruiser, she floors it and the chase is on!
post #71 of 91
 BTS - what is your view?
post #72 of 91
Too funny Ghost!
post #73 of 91
Thread Starter 
I am not 100% settled on what I think right now.  I am actually trying not to express my own view too much because I really want to hear what other people have to say, though I do not promise to agree with or be impressed by what everyone has to say.  I'm mostly trying to just get people to dig deeper and think more about whatever it is they are saying, and yes that includes pointing out argument fallacies as I perceive them or asking for more clarification and definition.

If you want me to take a stab at what my view is AT THE MOMENT (and it might change by the end of this thread literally), my view is that the term is overrused way too much to mean different things and often in a negative way when there is no call for it.  I think a lot of people condemn a certain "look" without even knowing why it may or may not matter.  And its obvious from this thread already that people are basing their perception of the term on different aspects of skiing, which makes the concept even less useful.

I do think there are times for when P&R could correctly be identified as less than optimal, but I have not yet heard or thought of an acceptable and accurate definition that will identify those times without wrongly bad mouthing other certain situations that are perfectly acceptable.

I think Rick cleanly pointed out the easily identifiable case, where there is a skier making lazy super long radius turns on a low edge angle.  The skier may or may not be capable of doing more, but I'd still call it park and ride, though perfectly acceptable if that is all the skier wants to do.  They basically aren't working the ski.

Some of the other cases, where the skier is clearly transitioning their CoM well across into the inside of the next turn and bending the ski into tighter turns, well, I'm not sure I want to call it P&R because of the negative connotations. 

In longer turns, I think there can clearly be a period of time around the apex where the skier is not adding any edge angle or really doing anything to work the ski other than just standing on it and carving until they are ready to start releasing.  We can see that in downhill and super-G all the time.  I think possibly might see it occasionally in GS as well, though the period of time around the apex would become shorter and shorter as turn radius and tempo gets smaller and quicker, to the point that eventually we would not actually see any pause around the apex in terms of the skier extending/flexing their outside leg or increasing/decreasing their edge angles.

I do not think that its a requirement to constantly be making large body movements in order to be supple.  I do not think the term P&R should be used in reference to absorbing the terrain or remaining supple.  I think it has more to do with whether the skier is working the ski beyond a very simple lazy cruise or not.

I think P&R can and should be referred to specific situations where the skier might be better off being more gradual in developing their edge angles then what they presently are doing, or perhaps where they need to tighten their arcing turn radius quite a bit, requiring progressive edge angle development all the way to the apex; or perhaps they need to get out of edge locked carves into some steering; but that can be a very subjective thing. 

In particular I would use the term for a skier who I thought was being lazy and capable of bending the ski more, or for a low level skier who is skiing too fast for their ability.  My goal would be to get them to start steering or arcing tighter turns through one means or another. 

I may feel differently by the end of the thread.
Edited by borntoski683 - 3/4/10 at 11:10pm
post #74 of 91
Originally Posted by slider View Post

Yes he did(Jamt) and JASP is on the mark. The difference is hard to see sometimes like the little girl. She is P&R. A sure way to tell if it is P&R is taking a skier beyond their comfort zone. Deifnition-Your not interacting with the skis enough.

Oh, but you missed the point. Say that you think the girl is P&R. Now if you put her in a race course, or in a mogul field, she might choose another kind of turn. You don't know.

For your statement to hold, the skier should always use the same kind of turn. But that is way unfair, because nobody is using the same kind of term in all terrain.
This means that your indeterminant definition does not hold. The girl is obviously interacting with the skis enough for the current situation. She's completing her turns and she is in control.
Also, when you are saying "interacting enough", is that for your viewing pleasure or to fulfull some other yet undefined criteria?

You cant define something based on what you think it would look line in another situation.
post #75 of 91
BTSThe basic premise of intermittent movements, or an overall lack of movement having a negative effect upon what the skis are doing is the only way I've ever used that phrase. I think it's important to point out that it's nothing more than a phrase and needs to be seen through the context of that coach's specific advice. No universal definition exists, nor is one needed if we make sure to communicate without jargon. 
post #76 of 91

Thats a good point! A good skier should be able to adobt to differnt terrains and conditions. The style will most likely change as the need is. For the kid I checked some more videos of her. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSpsEM_D2Ps 0:55 and 1:37 is with short turns ...must be still at same age as she hase the fur ears :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtqDTZ2wZvI in a race! 

post #77 of 91
To me, parking and riding is the idea of setting an edge and riding it without increasing the edge angle through the turn. Obviously when carving this leads to fairly undynamic, long radius turns and stops you really bending the ski and getting any impulse from it.
post #78 of 91
Sparky, in your MA thread, I posted a pretty detailed description of how the effective edge angle changes as a function of the direction we're facing, relative to the fall line. That is why the whole idea of setting an edge angle and riding it without increasing, or decreasing the edge angle through the turn is a bit incongruent with the park and ride (static stance) idea.
post #79 of 91
Is there really such a thing as a truly static skier making a turn on a sloped pitch, considering that the gravity force always points in one direction, but the turn forces will change direction as the turn progresses.  Seems to me there really is no such thing as a true Park and Ride skier; it's just a relative description of how dynamic the skiing is. 

Just curious, do you measure how static the position is by ski and body to slope angle (that's the way I think of it), or body to vertical? 
post #80 of 91

Good point Ghost. At best it's a relative phrase. Which is why I've been describing park and ride as "too static to produce the intended results."
A lack of RoM, or high levels of muscle tension produce a very static stance which in turn severely limits how smoothly the skis can track across the snow. A tell tale sign of this is if the skis are unintentionally losing contact with the snow as a result of the small terrain variations. Insufficient absorbtion and the resulting loss of contact with the snow due to a too rigid stance is really what I've been trying to describe as one sign of an ineffective park and ride tactic.  
Another would be the body to stay in a "position" too long and creating a need for a strong recentering move subsequent to the "parked" phase. Do you remember the guy who was thrusting himself so strongly into the new turn that he couldn't keep the outside ski engaged? That was a very good example of parking in a position then having to move very quickly to get the body moving across the skis and into the new turn. That rapid movement was causing the guy to over shoot his intended stance and he was losing outside ski contact as a consequence of getting too far inside the new turn.

 I realize some here want to suggest downhillers adopt a static position but like SE pointed out that tactical choice to freeze up is a heck of a lot slower than trying to actively manage pressure, edge and rotary (or lack of) on a continuous basis. That being said I think it would be safe to say we've all crossed that threshhold and used a rigid stance on occasion. Which IMO is totally different from skiers who use one all the time. Park and ride in this narrow context is again the only way I've ever heard that phrase used. Which if you read the title of this thread is what BTS asked us to share.

I even shared an insight into how the phrse itself contains a contradiction in objectives as it relates to skiing. Moving without moving and all of that. I also have done a little research into PSIA's manuals and Bob's encyclopedia. Guess what? It's not in either.

I suspect it's origins are actually unrelated to skiing and somewhere along the line we just borrowed that well know phrase. The Denver bus company (RTD) has been using that catch phrase for a very long time to describe their outlying bus terminals where you can park your car and ride their buses and trains into the city. Like all good consumers who get bombarded with media it was only a matter of time before we came up with a skiing related meaning for that phrase.

post #81 of 91

Ghost: [b]Just curious, do you measure how static the position is by ski and body to slope angle (that's the way I think of it), or body to vertical? [/b]

Neither of the above. It is body to ski that is somewhat static in park and ride skiers.

post #82 of 91
Thanks TomB, that makes sense.
post #83 of 91
 If you would like to see what I think you guys are explaining...here's a video.  I know the quality is not that good...taken with camera phone.  I just started skiing this season.  My legs and upper body are pretty much static.  I just let the skis take me on their arc instead of working the skis.  I've taken probably 3 hours of  private lessons and I'm slowly starting to correct this.  
post #84 of 91
As an addition go to the hips pover feet thread and read BB's post. Notice the animation, notice the continuously changing relationship between the CoM and BoS. Notice the comments about recentering moves. If you park you need recentering moves, if  you allow your body and feet to move like he suggests, they're not necessary. It's really that simple.
post #85 of 91
Keduco, you don't have the fast transition that is described earlier in the thread as a requirement for P&R, and your turns are not constant radius and you are changeing your edge angle during the turn.
Sorry, no park and ride.

Actually I don't think you are arcing either but rather steering your skis, whether you feel it or not.

I don't think you should pay any attention to this thread really. It's confusing and it's all about a degoratory term for skiers performing perfectly good arcs on blue slopes that just needs minor adjustments for leveling up.
post #86 of 91
Originally Posted by simplyfast View Post

Park and ride for me is simply a passive style in which the skier does not use the terrain and forces to his/her advances.  The turn looks simply 'dead" and the skier is very static. Nothing wrong with it since that kind of skiing can still be enjoyed as well, but in my opinion uses up more energy.
I think this sounds very reasonable and scientific. Just like looking up a dictionary. What about P&R vs static? Same thing? Hope this is not too far off-topic. :)
post #87 of 91
The key here is that we control the skis with movements. If we fail to move enough to create the intended outcome, it simply won't happen. That's where the term too static becomes important. It's a thresh hold thing, too much, or too little movement will not create the outcome you are trying to create. Performing accurate movements does.
 That's where park and ride comes into the picture, it includes a too static phase that produces exactly what I just described, and in some higher end cases too much movement to compensate for the earlier lack of movement. I guess the question is do you want to actively balance on a continual basis, or is intermittent balancing enough. I say stay active and your accuracy will improve since you aren't taking time off during a turn. Save the time off for the lift ride.
Edited by justanotherskipro - 3/12/10 at 7:40am
post #88 of 91
I ll try to think it that way. static means reacting to forces while dynamic is more like shaping the forces(not just moving the skis, we don't need to move the skis to change forces, eg shifting weight between legs, taping rebound etc). When relating to P&R as simplyfast stated its like P&R is a subset of static skiing. One application I can imaging is to get of static skiing and naturally out of P&R. How to do that probably worth another thread. :)
post #89 of 91

You can be skiing in a very pedestrian way (low dynamics) without becoming immobile. When you become immobile, you are entering a parked state. The rest is wordplay. Stationary, static, intermittent, and parked are not words I would offer as positive qualities when it comes to skiing.

Edited by justanotherskipro - 3/12/10 at 8:12am
post #90 of 91
Rusty throws the park and ride epithet in this thread:
According to some posts here he's correct, but she's hardly immobile is she? And doesn't she deal with the terrain shifts?
Finally the transitions aren't short and abrupt either.

Sooo... is it park and ride in your eyes?

And jasp, hows that video coming along?
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 › Park and Ride: Your Description