or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tip and Roll...

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
post #2 of 29
To do all that I'd be exhausted after a dozen turns. :

Why not just ski with both skis in the snow? It's much easier,wide track or narrow track.

....Ott
post #3 of 29
Thread Starter 
post #4 of 29
Nice second picture.

That first picture: those skis he is on, the Elan SCX RP's, all you have to do is just tip them over and they leave the carved track you can see the outside ski leaving in that picture. No need for any other energy expendatures.
post #5 of 29
Ryan, I don't know where you get these pictures, but nice as the second one is, us recreational skiers don't need to go to that extreme either. I'd be bushed after doing less than a dozen turns like that [img]smile.gif[/img]

...Ott
post #6 of 29
As much as I appreciate and enjoy reading the detailed descriptions and analysis of skiing in the forum I really enjoyed one of the other Bears comments when we were skiing some of the MtB powder a couple weeks ago:

"Geeze, all that analysis. I usually just turn to the left and then turn to the right...."
post #7 of 29
PJ - most of us spend some time being analytical, and some time mindlessly ripping with a grin on our faces! Both have their own rewards.
post #8 of 29
Thread Starter 
post #9 of 29
YeeeeeeeeOW!

Those boots are too tight/together. Even I can't watch that.

Is this a Harb thing?
post #10 of 29
We can throw out thousands of static action shots such as that last one from Skiing magazine. They are great to look at, they certainly are not good for demonstrating some things though - especially progressive guided movements. Many great skiers often pick up and actively guide a foot that way, and in many turns the same skier may not.

They do what they need to do each turn. In that specific picture the skier may have actually been stepping into a new turn, a completely lateral movement rather than the progressive guiding movement seen in the short clip at the start of this thread. We cannot tell from one photo.

I've got quite literally thousands of still shots from just the last two World Cup seasons on my hard drives. There are hundreds of shots of these great atheletes on just the outside ski, hundreds with them on both skis, hundreds of them just on the inside ski . . . plus: A-framing, diverging, being totally parallel, etc.
post #11 of 29
first clip, HH clip,
Second picture, race somewhere. didn't research.
Third picture. ski magazine cover?

Nice...

By the way, go to the site where Ryan got the first clip, first tracks
and poke around a little and lo and behold there are tips from HH, notes from past years that HH himself would be in their chat room, (so claims that he will not enter a chat/conversation are not totally true) and what suprised also were that there were several of Todd's past articles posted there for viewing. (for those of you who missed when Todd had his on website for many of his old archived articles)
post #12 of 29
yeah, ain't it amazing what you can learn from a simple right click on a photo?
post #13 of 29
After wearing out a pair of SCXs and on my second pair of HCXs, I don't know why anyone would be satisfied with one track like that when they could leave two side by side by opening their stance and weighting both. It's twice the fun.
post #14 of 29
Yep two tracking is fun, but there again - there is not one right way, and if we only do it one way we become static and less athletic. When you equally weight your skis you also only bend each ski 1/2 as deeply - and if you are a G-Force junkie like I am, you like a deeply bent ski. But it depends on the conditions and needs. In the World Cup, again, you'll see the best in the world sometimes weighting both skis, sometimes just the outside ski, and sometimes even just the inside ski. Outside ski dominance is still happening in more turns than not however.

One thing for sure, those World Cup superhumans *don't* consistantly use a contrived movement like we see in that sequence. Though certainly that movement, like all movements, can have a use -- its the trumpeting of that movement as *the* right way which is silly.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ April 08, 2002 09:28 PM: Message edited 1 time, by Todd M. ]</font>
post #15 of 29
Yeah that inside track gets pretty thin when the Gs build up. I like the speed and the G force too. It's easier to build it when both are tracking cleanly.
For sure there's lots of ways to "skin the cat". Some are more fun than others. I did a day of PMTS a couple weeks ago. I understand the reasons for what they say. I agree with most of it within it's context(teaching). But, when I want to go out and get my adrenaline fix, that's not the way I'm going to ski.
post #16 of 29
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Todd M.:
When you equally weight your skis you also only bend each ski 1/2 as deeply - and if you are a G-Force junkie like I am, you like a deeply bent ski. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me jump in line to sign up for the G-Force Junkie Squad. G's produce addrenaline and I do dig it. My one page book on skiing says: "Roll'em, Bend'em, and Grin when it feels good"

But I'd offer some clarification on how we bend'em. Skis will only bend in proportion to the amount of pressure in soft snow conditions where you can displace the middle of the ski deeper into the snow (distorting its arc by the way), not exactly the type of conditions where you would want a very disproportionate weight distribution anyway. Even in soft snow it is pretty efficient to create edge angles and let the skis bring the pressure to you as turn dynamics produce the distribution ratio.

The higher speeds and a shorter turn radii that produce truely big G's prefer snow that is firm enough to support their pressure while balanced on the steel. On firm arc'n conditions the finite amount any ski will bend is geometrically determined primarilly by its edge angle. Not by an increased amount, or 100%/0% distribution, of pressure to the outside ski. In this situation (like racing) efficient managing of excess pressure so as not to disturb the edge grip is a more important goal than creating more (excess) pressure. Once a ski is bent to the extent its edge angle will allow, more pressure on the outside ski, while it may feel mo'fun, won't really bend it any more effectivly. In racing it may slow you down more than a shared distribution when there is enough pressure to bend both skis to their edge angle potential and distribute friction over a larger surface area. This does not imply this should be 50/50, lateral weight distribution is also a function of dynamic lateral balance and is seldom, if ever, any fixed or intended ratio.

This pressure management can be more efficiently accomplished by allowing a dynamic distribution of pressure over two skis as opposed to causing the over powering of the outside one. Just getting a bigger hammer is not always the solution. Edging is really a pretty simple mechanical skill, when compared to pressure control as the "touch" aspect that makes expert skiing an art form. Efficient expert skiing is always done with two feet, regardless of the weight distribution between them.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Todd M.:

One thing for sure, those World Cup superhumans *don't* consistantly use a contrived movement like we see in that sequence. Though certainly that movement, like all movements, can have a use -- its the trumpeting of that movement as *the* right way which is silly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sure agree with that. The best of anything is adapted to the situation at hand, and never contrived.
:
post #17 of 29
Rog- It's been a long time since we've seen each other-.

If I might , I'd like to offer a couple of thoughts-.

I agree with you that pressuring the outside ski exclusively is not always the most efficient way to ski. Soft snow was your perfect example. But to meet the needs of ALL the G-Force junkies out there (I am DEFINITELY one)

Remember that lateral g- forces are the result of speed and radius. Whether you stand on one ski, or distribute your weight in some measure over both, that is purely a function of how the body can deal with those forces.
Even at the World Cup level- when the going gets tough- the tough stand on one ski!

Your point about spreading the pressure over a larger area to reduce friction is a valid one. But only to the point where the ski begins to skid. At that point, either edge angle must be increased, or the radius must lengthen.
What do you think? :
post #18 of 29
I quite agree, effecient skiing is always two footed - in that you are USING both feet - but that means in active use, such as steering and edging, not necessarily in weighting however.

I think your points on why more equal weighting is more effecient are extremely well thought out. But the clear and provable (the joy of video!) reality is that the best skiers in the world are still being 90% outside ski dominate in 90% of their turns -- the physics and biomechanical reason is simple: the forces in a turn pull you to the outside of a turn, and a longer leg is capable of resisting more force than a more bent leg. The inside ski cannot be a long, or therefore maintain as strong of skeletal alignment as the outside leg during a turn . . . unless the inside leg becomes dominant.

Playing dodgeball, you are standing in an athletic position - ready to quickly move right or left and avoid getting hit. The ball flys at you and you decide to take off to the left - you will naturally push off of your right foot. Not your left, and unless you are trying to jump *up*, not both. Natural movements.

Now, it takes more energy to unweight a ski. And clearly there are conditions, needs, desires that are best met through more equal weighting of the skis. So great skiers should be able to unconciously and instantly adapt their weighting to each and every turn as needed. The fact just remains that when you watch the top skiers, they are still on that outside ski *most* of the time, but certainly not all the time.

The new equipment and training has greatly increased the percentage of turns that are best accomplished with more equal weighting. I just am wary of people flipping into another new dogma - saying THIS is the new way!

The great irony here is that some years ago I was having to argue the complete opposite point to folks - because they were coaching not just complete outside ski dominance, but a picking up of the outside ski. And I was talking about how certainly sometimes it was best to pick it up, but it took more energy than leaving it down - and that when you watch the top skiers you often would see them actually weight both skis or even just the inside ski. My observations haven't changed, the dogma has just swapped 180 degrees. I'm still saying "great skiers rip on just the outside ski, just the inside ski, or both skis . . . as needed"

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ April 09, 2002 09:04 PM: Message edited 2 times, by Todd M. ]</font>
post #19 of 29
Speed, turn radius, slope pitch and shape (concave or convex) all influence the energy our skis experience as ‘pressure’. As we evolve to higher end skiing we do less to “create’ it and more to “set up and manage” it, whether on one or two skis.

The evolution of perspective I spend a lot of time exploring with folks is that on the new tech skis we work less ‘across’ the skis to create pressure and more “with the skis’ along their path thru the arc managing the pressure build-up as they arc out around and back under us. Old straight ski skidded turns were 'energy absorbing' so we over worked the process of 'getting more pressure on the outside ski'. The new skis easily carve 'energy producing' arcs so we need to manage more than create pressure. This becomes a fun-tion of setting things up from transition into falline and managing pressure from falline thru the next transition.

I find my self more two footed out of the transition into falline, more outside dominant thru falline, and progressing back to more two footed into next transition. I have found that passing thru a neutral more two-footed point in the transition really re-centers my balance and gives me many options from turn to turn. Quick, total early transfer to strong outside leg or progressive delayed transfer allowed by turn dynamics, or anything in-between.

It is about choosing a style that gives you options to ski in a way you grin the biggest. At our level, we already have a lot of options for how to do that, Our task is teaching in a way that enlightens our students to ski in a perceptual mode that expands their options versus a habitual one that limits them (especially if they are old tech habits).
post #20 of 29
Yes, all expert skiers know - at least unconciously - and act on the knowledge that they are managing pressure most of the time, not creating it.

Detailed symantecs discussions just become more of an ego motivated thing in this type of debate among professionals. The physics and biomechanics of the situation are reality, not opinion. So therefore we must agree! Certainly however, our perceptions and interpretations are likely to vary -- which is part of the great thing about ski teaching and training. Different coaches, different approaches . . . which appeal to different types of learners.
post #21 of 29
Boy, I like this discussion. In the early years of this forum I used to get jumped on for being half this technogeeky, I love it, in the forum that is, gimme simplicity on the slopes.

I, for the most part, agree with points that are being made. I would like to add a bit for some that may not be following this so well. In general, with shaped skis if you enter your turns in a wider stance you will gain higher edge angles earlier in the turn, arc tighter and build higher G forces throughout the turn regardless of which ski is dominant. This is quite consistent with the more two footed approach through transition and more outside ski dominance throught the fall line presented here.
post #22 of 29
Pierre eh!

Yup! Fun eh?
post #23 of 29
Val snopro, welcome to epicski. I am enjoying your posts. Your passion clearly shines through.

You made the this statement that others have made in the past and almost always seems elitist and begs for clarification.

>>>>I have a question. Why do so many people believe that the technique being used today with shaped skis is that much different from the straight skis of 8-10 years ago?
Coaching elite racers from the late 70's through the late 80's- we were doing the same things, talking the same language, encouraging the same sequences, etc as we do today! We talked about inside knee/leg drive, edging prior to guiding, etc.<<<<

We could argue that the techniques have never changed, only the blending of skill sets with different changes in equipment.

Ten years ago you would have passed me for level III if I made a platform at turn transition, touched the pole, extended off the platform into the turn, with grace and ease. Would you pass me today? or would you say "You're techiques are a bit historical, when you learn to extend diagonally into the turn while rolling from edge to edge you will meet the current standards". End of level III pin.

The sport evolves. Are techiques the same or are they changing?. Whats changing, blending of skills? Tactics? Techniques?
post #24 of 29
Representation of the new gear as requiring a complete change in tecnique is a common fallacy in talking about the new skis.

I, like most people with a race background, definately found that shaped skis did not make carving any 'easier', I was already carving on 'traditional' skis.

The increasing sidecuts simply meant that I started being able to carve a wider variety of turn shapes.

Less sidecut simply equals a longer carve radius. More sidecut equals a shorter carve radius - but not an actual change to the fundamental tecniques needed to create a carve.

The skiers who were already excellent at carving on 'straight' skis, immediately loved deeper sidecuts once they gave them a chance. The skiers who were not, well - many of them still are on straight skis, and thats fine.

Certainly the decreased carve radius has brought out changes in intensity, timing and degree of movements. But the primary movements are still clear and simple: put a weighted ski (or skis) on edge . . . it (they) will carve. If you add any rotational input or lateral input to it, you will probably make it (them) skid, otherwise they will carve. Now it used to be that they might carve a 40 (+/-) meter turn, and now its down to 12 meter (+/-) turns.

The increased intensity brought about by this decreased carve radius does demand more accuracy of movements, but the essential movements have changed little. You can look at photo sequences of Stenmark 25 years ago making turns that were virtually identical in movement pattern to turns being made by top atheletes today.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ April 12, 2002 05:30 AM: Message edited 1 time, by Todd M. ]</font>
post #25 of 29
Todd, I will 100% agree with you that the fundamental movements of good skiing have changed little but do fundamental movements equal technique or does the whole ball of wax equal technique. I could argue that there are many different techniques using the same fundamental movements in differing degrees and blends. Unfortunately the word "technique" is not narrowly defined and so we must be a bit more careful in throwing the word "technique" out there to mean fundamental movements. Credibility is at stake.

Would you agree that the PMTS technique uses the same fundamental movements that PSIA has be using for a long time? I'll be that most skiers here in epicski think of PMTS as a different technique.

I am just looking at this from a different perspective.
post #26 of 29
Yep Pierre, I agree - Tecnique should be recognized as broad in options. It is much more rewarding and versatile to explore every possible option, than to dogmatically adhere to just one. It does take more energy however, its much easier to just choose one path and say "this is the ONE" than to explore multiple paths. So we humans, not just in skiing, tend to usually take the easier path.

PSIA, PMTS, CSIA, USSCA, Perfect Turn ... etc - they all share fundamental movements. Because we are all dealing with the same base biomechanics, and are bound by the same laws of physics. The road to these movements can differ, but the destination is pretty identical in result.
post #27 of 29
I have a question. Why do so many people believe that the technique being used today with shaped skis is that much different from the straight skis of 8-10 years ago?

Coaching elite racers from the late 70's through the late 80's- we were doing the same things, talking the same language, encouraging the same sequences, etc as we do today! We talked about inside knee/leg drive, edging prior to guiding, etc.

Of course these skis perform more accurately, quicker, and with a level of precision which the older models couldn't handle, but different technique? I don't think so!

What has changed- how willing skiers are to trust their skis. We all became experts because at some point we learned to believe, to trust our equipment. Now they respond so willingly, so much quicker, that more skiers are making that leap themselves.

Carving is no longer the realm of the few, it is now the joy of the masses! Hurrah!!!
:
post #28 of 29
Pierre, Todd, and others,

I think Todd hit the nail on the head when he said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Todd M.:
The road to these movements can differ, but the destination is pretty identical in result.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In terms of the "road" Todd refers to, I think that PMTS is, from a general CONSUMER's perspective, different than the "typical" approaches they have experienced in ski instruction. I say this based on talking to people, reading what they have had to say, and direct observation from my attendance at the PMTS Fall Instructors camp the past three years. It is my impression that the vast majority of people who go through some type of PMTS lesson or training both feel and look like they have made noticeable progress. I don't think this can be said for the "average" lesson experience.

Sure it's easy to say that PMTS is too narrow and dogmatic in its approach and that it offers nothing new but I don't think that is reality. In practice the PMTS "dogma" is really a simple and effective core around which an effective lesson or training program can be developed. A good lesson via PMTS, ATS, or any other teaching system always requires flexibility and innovation by an instructor to be anywhere near optimal. While the same can be said of other teaching systems my impression is that PMTS is more effective as a "core" than other approaches - maybe it is just because it simplifies the approach.

I have no doubt that an excellent instructor can match PMTS results with their own individual methods. But the point to me seems to be that PMTS provides a framework that seems to be expremely effective - more so than results from average or even good lessons. In my own experience I have met a number of people who were unable to advance appreciable in their skiing in spite of numerous hours of lessons at various resorts. When given an opportunity I (never having formally taught skiing at all) have been able to help a number of people to make significant improvement where hours of lessons have failed. This certainly was not the case before I was exposed to PMTS and so I assume that such knowledge is an important component of these successes.

Now I am not saying that PMTS is the only way to skin this cat. I am sure that if I spent time with top instructors who used other ski instruction variants that I could learn a lot and improve (both in my "teaching" and skiing). However, it is my opinion that the PMTS "package" appears to be much more effective for skier advancement than the "average" experience of skiers taking lessons. I would find it very interesting to further delve into the reasons why this is so but of course to do that one would have to agree it may have these advantages and I don't think most of the people here are ready to grant this possibility.

A lot of what I have stated is based on my own personal impressions that you and many other instructors (especially those who care so much about what they do and sincerely feel they are very effective) do not accept. Furthermore, I don't think that either myself or dedicated instructors such as yourselves are really capable of objectively evaluating the relative effectiveness of the various approaches (certainly we all have our subjective opinions). I do think, however, that it would be to the advantage of the ski industry to study these issues and try to objectively determine the relative merits of various approaches. I have some ideas about how this could be done and have tried to get a ski magazines interested. However, recent editorial staff changes at Skiing Mag have kind of ended any chance of my pursuing this for the time being.

I am spending the time writing this not to try and convince anyone about the correctness of my own impressions but rather because I think the "road" to development of fundamental movements in skiing has appreciable room for improvement and I think it behooves us to further explore these issues and the relative merits of various approaches in an objective manner.
post #29 of 29
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Carving is no longer the realm of the few, it is now the joy of the masses! Hurrah!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So true, and as a result it has changed what we think about, create, and present to the masses who's expectations have changed.

In Warren Witherell's 1972 classic "How The Racers Ski" he stated: "Edge, and Then Turn". Now we would think: DUH!! However maybe it wasn't relative to the masses of that era. Unless you were skiing "way out there" with very skilled, accurate, precise, huge edge angles at high speed to get the old skis to arc (and they would), most skiers would cover zip codes from turn to turn with that approach. So we strove to appropriatly tailor our teaching to our perception of the needs of the masses, and to a certain extent that tailored our thinking and our own skiing (but for the few who explored "way out there").

Some of the expectations and desires of the masses have changed, some have not (safety, fun, freedom). What we explore and discover as valuable to us in our own skiing influences our perceptions of what we can share and teach to others, creating a new vision of what skiing can become in the future. Many (few or most?) people now have the opportunity learn to ski without ever developing the habits I used to win races and pass cert exams with 27 yrs ago. What was good'nuf then wouldn't cut it today.

We always have, and still do, and allways will ski by balancing while edging, pressuring and turning our skis. But I think we have evolved beyond the now unnecessary complexities of days gone by. The movement blends for different tasks have changed, to be simpler and more efficient I think, and I think (hope) they will continue to evolve to the enhancement of everyone's learning and increased enjoyment of our great sport.

Continued learning is the challenge. If it were easy it would be called snowboarding.
(which I also do by the way)

[img]tongue.gif[/img] : [img]smile.gif[/img]

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ April 12, 2002 07:04 PM: Message edited 2 times, by Arcmeister ]</font>
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching