 Poster: A snowHead
|
rob@rar,
Load it earlier and keep things as quiet as poss ..easier said than done in gates...!!!! Another reason for coming into the gate high
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
elbrus, There are purists out there of a different school where a carved turn is only a carved turn if it's railed or arc'd........ 
This is one of those debates that runs and runs and runs (or should that be railed and railed and railed).
Here's what I wrote recently at the other place:
| Quote: |
It seems to me that you can produce clean RR tracks by
1. Park and Ride
2. Ride the sidecut
3. Tip/Incline, hang on, go for the ride
And yet all those 3 definitions above would fit *everybodys* definition of "carving" (because clean RR tracks in an arc would be produced).
And yet *none* of those 3 definitions would fall into the category of "high level skiing, getting good levels of performance out of the ski".
High Level or High Peformance Carving is not about producing arcs or clean RR tracks. That's called park and ride, or riding the sidecut.
Carving is about getting performance out of the ski, getting the ski to bend and yes, it is entirely possible to do this AND get the tail to follow the tip.
Carving is about the skill of the skier, not about tipping the ski onto it's side and getting it to draw a pretty line in the snow. |
I'm all in favour of ending that "what is carving" debate, by asking instead "is there ski performance evident - yes or no".
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Thu 13-09-07 20:15; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
veeeight, thanks, that makes a lot of sense. The 'chattering' of the ski I assume is the edge just breaking the grip slightly then biting again? When I was able to get better angles into my turns it magically disappeared (although I was dumped out the side of the skis on a couple of occasions when I didn't manage the pressure build up so well  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| JT wrote: |
| Another reason for coming into the gate high |
Yup, that's my big weakness! I know the theory, just can't get my body to do it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
The 'chattering' of the ski I assume is the edge just breaking the grip slightly then biting again?
|
Yes, it's an indicator of poor pressure control, I'm aftraid...... Without having seen the occasion, but at a guess, you were "bracing" with your outside leg in an effort to try and find more grip
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
veeeight, No such thing as "skier applied" pressure at the top of an arc? I would agree that as the feet pass away from the direction of flow the ground pushes at the ski (er). To the skier can tilt to gain a greater amount of the force and bend ( or stretch) the legs to modulate that force.
At the top of an arc the feet have passed back under the CM and the skier can stretch the leg to apply some force and remain in contact?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| veeeight wrote: |
| at a guess, you were "bracing" with your outside leg in an effort to try and find more grip |
Spot on. Desperately trying to cling on to the mountain! I now try to be softer on my skis and increase my angulation to tighten the turn. I'm better at it, but still drop the whole thing on one or two turns on most runs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar,
Yes, I agree, you can try too hard here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
elbrus, As a personal view, this is where I think artificial slopes and dry slope racers have a disadvantage. Because the forces present on the mountain simply aren't there, many have to resort to artificially amplifying this force, and thus the term "apply pressure early" is conjured up.
On the mountain, where sufficient forces and speeds are present, as the skis come back under you and out the other side, I like to encourage increasing edge angles (which in turn builds up pressure rapidly), with an appropriate amount of extending (or stretch as you've described it above) to build the pressue rapidly *in conjuction and as a result* with the increasing edge angles.
Doing just the stretch or extend in most cases will lead to the ski breaking away, if not accompanied by the increase in edge angles.
It sounds like the same thing, but the difference in nuance is the difference between the tail wagging the dog, or vice versa. The focus should be on increasing the edge angles, and leg extension (resist) to maximise the forces, not just "pushing" to "apply pressure".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would agree with elbrus. The word ”carving” merely makes a statement about what the ski is doing. It says nothing about the skier above those skis – who could be static or dynamic, perhaps increasing the edge angle or “working the ski” by moving the pressure from tip to tail - or not. Personally, I don’t really see how the words “arcing” and “railing” can describe the ski’s behaviour any differently to the word “carving”. Perhaps various instructors are using those words to signify different drills, but these are not universally understood around the world like the concept “carving”.
”Park and ride” is to me, simply a way of saying that someone is carving, but in a somewhat static fashion. However, it should not be totally derided, because for many people who are just beginning to learn to carve, it is a necessary and useful stage along the journey.
I'm pretty sure that 95% of racers and race coaches would agree with the basic definition of carving as the tail following the tip. Our livelihoods depended on applying that "version" of carving as often as possible, every race. I'm also sure that very few of them would categorise what competitive mogul skiers do as "carving" in any way. Although we would all admit that pro bumpers are outstanding skiers and athletes.
Since 1997 (when the new skis made carving accessible at lower speeds and with lesser forces), I have seen quite a lot of people suddenly "get" carving. No doubt it has happened to many on this forum. It is usually like a light bulb going on; the sensation is often described as "gliding", "accelerating instead of braking", or "riding on a rail". To dismiss carving as merely a gradual continuum seems to devalue that breakthrough.
All the technique talk on these internet forums is just semantics. A picture paints a thousand words, and no words are a substitute for actually skiing with someone and demonstrating various techniques. No-one ever learned to ski from a book, magazine, video/DVD or via the internet!
In the end, there are as many ways of teaching and describing skiing as there are instructors/coaches/clients/competitors. This will always be the case, despite the attempts of the alphabet soup of organisations to standardise ski technique, because people are humans not robots.
So this is not a case of "right or wrong" - everyone is entitled to their opinion. All we’re talking about is sliding down a hill on a pair of planks, after all. The only test of expert skiing is “you know it when you see it”. Once you try to describe it in words, you limit yourself to a sterile “final form”.
The only other possible test is the clock. No doubt Bode could ski “pretty” if he wanted to, but he chooses to push the envelope because he is faster that way. However, other factors can affect race results (weight, strength, age, equipment, external weather conditions) so even the clock is not a truly pure test of skiing ability. It might be the nearest thing we have, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Martin Bell, What a wonderful post, thank you - if thanks from an intermediate-ish piste skier (who hasn't had that lightbulb moment - yet!) are worth anything on this thread. However, without wishing to draw you back into the semantics which you so eloquently downplay, how can the tails of the skis NOT follow the tips? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hurtle,
Imagine an arc.... which is your line the tips follow...but the tails cannot hold that line. They wash at the tails or skid. It is like a car going round a corner when the back breaks off line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
rob@rar, JT, Gottit. Thanks. (And I am fairly certain that that is precisely what I do, and no doubt will continue to do, until that lightbulb moment illuminates my whole skiing experience.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| rob@rar, JT, Gottit. Thanks. (And I am fairly certain that that is precisely what I do, and no doubt will continue to do, until that lightbulb moment illuminates my whole skiing experience.) |
Every skier skids their skis at least a little, and probably most of the time. A series of linked pure carved turns without any skidding doesn't really have much application around the mountain unless you only ski on gentle slopes at stupid speeds 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
rob@rar, I see what you're saying but, equally, I don't think I am taking sufficient advantage of the design of modern skis. (IIRC easiski made that point further up.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| rob@rar, I see what you're saying but, equally, I don't think I am taking sufficient advantage of the design of modern skis. (IIRC easiski made that point further up.) |
Yes, if carving isn't one of the tools in your skiing toolbox you are missing out on something that modern kit does well (and should be fairly easy if you use modern technique).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
rob@rar,
| Quote: |
if carving isn't one of the tools in your skiing toolbox
|
Let's say I'm working on it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
rob@rar, Thank you, kind sir! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
elbrus, seems to me that early turning pressure is a concept which has been considered, reconsidered, turned this way and that and accepted by most skiers, instructors and schools, old and new, people clever and simple. It's a fundamental axiom of the teaching of lots of ski systems. Getting a platform then extension to pressure is a reality of physics most important at slower speeds. At higher speeds other forces may supervene but even then I don't think extension to pressure just becomes a useless semantic. I pressure the ski at the beginning of the turn then manage the pressure of the hill pressing me back through the turn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Bell, yup, park and ride to me describes being static through the turn, and railing/carving/arcing should all mean the same thing, but in the UK I've often heard a distinction made between railing (rolling onto edges and riding sidecut on gentle slope with no pushing) and "proper carving" (where the ski is progressively pressed on through the turn but still travelling tip to tail). How do you distinguish between these for students in the US?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slikedges,
Railing for me is when you really pile in at speed and the edges hold. I use the term to describe how well an edge holds in a swift carving turn, as in "this ski really rails on hardpack" and a car corners like it is on rails.
Park and ride...is a steady position and just doing soft sweeping turns at a leisurely speed
They are my interpretations anyway..
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
To me, railing is just putting the skis onto an edge and letting them dictate the turn shape, where as carving is actively pressuring the ski and getting a lot more acceleration out of it. I never use the term arcing - I don't see the need for a third.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow - some big worms crawled out of their cans here  . So, one at a time.
I agree completely with Martin Bell; carving is a statement of what the ski is doing - tail following in the track of the tip. To me this is an absolute that is one end of a continuum, with a pure pivot at the other end. Most turns are a combination of the two (even if that's 99% carve), so what's wrong with keeping the definitions of the end-points clear and being honest about where abouts in that continuum we're skiing? Apart from anything else I think that a ">50% component = carving" definition impedes honest evaluation of what we're actually doing, and where the possible areas of development lie. I've really had to bite my tongue sometimes when colleagues have talked about "ooh I really got the carve on those later turns" when there was still probably 30-40% of the turn being done by rotation (ok better than his usual 70%) - as that would have wrecked his self-confidence. I would also agree that there's a difference between an active, dynamic carving and being a passive passenger: the definition of railing given by iblair is also what our coach uses, but that given by JT is I guess the more common in generic, non-technical discussions.
I also agree that there's the light-bulb moment. When you get it the ski feels totally different - that "gliding" comment certainly rings true, and somehow the ski feels a load lighter. While I agree that there are some disadvantages in doing it on a dryslope (as you're going slower and have less grip - certainly compared to a normal piste, although I guess not necessarily a race prepared piste - you sometimes need pretty fine control to stop the ski skidding out), you do get very good immediate feedback from the ski when you get it right: the sound of the ski on the matting is very different (almost silent), and you feel much less vibration. On snow, if there's a plume of snow coming off your ski then you are not purely carving.
I think the problem is that the term "carving" has become too much of a value judgement - probably as it was previously a technique of prime relevance to to racers and only available to truly expert skiers (see, this is on topic really  ). When I joined the forum nearly three years ago, almost every discussion was centred around deriding skidding and twisting and concentrating on how to carve: twisting=bad, carving=good (much to my irritation). I find it interesting that discussion is now becoming much more balanced and other steering methods are now getting a look in - odd, given that racing now has a much higher profile here than it did then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
GrahamN,
| Quote: |
a plume of snow coming off your ski
|
Ah, but I do find that highly aesthetic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
JT,  guess that hits home what Martin Bell's saying about lack of uniformity of terms!
iblair, isn't that the same as mine?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slikedges, yes - I was agreeing with your UK definition
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
iblair, just checking Actually, do you know where this definition comes from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Not really - I guess it was from coaches that I originally learnt from. I can't remember if it popped up in the Snowsport England APC course, but it may have done. To me they are just terms that I've known ever since I started race training and it would confuse me if I had to start using other definitions for them 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| veeeight wrote: |
rob@rar, The two elements, edging, and pressure control, are tightly linked. So to tighten an arc in a clean carve, you can do one or both of those things (more pressure, more edge).
However, you can't "apply" more pressure (pressure is a resultant force), you can resist more to *build* more pressure, but under many circumstances this increase in pressure will cause the ski to break away. So the other viable alternative is to increase the edge angle, which in turn will increase the pressure, which in turn will bend the ski more, resulting in a tighter arc 
|
Agreed that there's a lot of slack talk about this, but if you're going to take it on, then I think you need to have the physics straight - and it doesn't seem to me that you do.
First off, pressure and force are different things, so pressure cannot be 'a resultant force'. You can change the pressure on something without changing the force (and vice versa), by changing the area over which that force is applied - so two mechanisms are 1) lifting one ski off the ground (force on the snow unchanged, pressure doubled) or 2) putting the ski on edge (huge reduction in surface area in contact with the snow, and pressure increased dramatically).
Force, not pressure, is what gets your body to change speed/direction. In the above examples, the force on your body, or the snow, is unchanged so there won't be any change the motion. Force on the snow is exerted through 1) your weight, 2) acceleration of your centre of mass and skis, and 3) acceleration of your CoM relative to your skis. There's nothing you can do about 1, 2 is a result of your trajectory over the mountain, but 3 is a result of stuff you can do.
But pressure, not force, is what gets the ski to bite into the snow, and break sideways when the sideways pressure is too great for the snow to withstand.
It certainly is possible to "apply pressure [force]" early in a turn, by extending the legs, so projecting the CoM away from the skis (mechanism 3). As it's a purely relative motion though, you have to pay back later with reduced pressure when you shorten the legs - as your legs are not infinitely extensible. However this can also be beneficial, if timed correctly. I the second half of the turn, force arising from the weight/gravity (mechanism 1) and that causing acceleration of your body towards the centre of the turn (mechanism 2) act in the same direction so the force is at its maximum. Applying the leg shortening (mechanism 3) then reduces the pressure and minimises the chances of the ski breaking away. Getting the pressure early has the added benefit that the motion of the CoM it causes is more down the hill - the overall direction you're trying to go in a race.
In a pure carve, on hard snow, once the ski is on edge though, I don't see that increasing the edge angle in itself change the pressure on the snow. It does though allow the ski to bend more, because of the geometry of the sidecut. It is the existing forces of weight (mechanism 1) and turn (mechanism 2) working on that geometry change causing the ski to bend, rather than increased pressure, that tightens the turn. As the turn radius has reduced the pressure then increases (mechanism 2), as a result not a cause, and keeps the ski bent and engaged in the carve. This is sort of what you said earlier - but I think you got causes and effects a bit @rse-about face in the chain of events.
I agree that in sweeping turns in soft snow it's pressure on the ski, displacing the snow under the ski, that causes the bend and tightens the turn. I am unclear though (as this is the weakest part of my own skiing) quite how the pressure changes are generated and managed in this type of turn.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Fri 14-09-07 12:41; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
iblair, yep, I'm sure most anyone who's taught me uses the terms in the same way, and I've needed teaching enough to have had a lot of teachers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
GrahamN,
As Martin Bell wrote
| Quote: |
All we’re talking about is sliding down a hill on a pair of planks, after all. The only test of expert skiing is “you know it when you see it”. Once you try to describe it in words, you limit yourself to a sterile “final form”.
|
That really resonated with me, particularly since he was a racer and I am, relatively, hardly more than a beginner.
Your post also reminds me of why I abandoned a music form and analysis course a few years ago: we were analysing one of my favourite Haydn String Quartets and I began to realise that not only was no light being shed on the element of magic that made this quartet great, the magic was, for me, in danger of being eroded by the purely academic exercise. Nevertheless, I can quite see that if you are skiing competitively, you need to know exactly what it is that's going to help you to win, and why. So perhaps the answer, or at least my answer, to the original question is: I don't think I'll bother even trying to apply the race techniques I read about here to my own general (very general ) skiing, although I appreciate that race techniques are important for racers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| Your post also reminds me of why I abandoned a music form and analysis course a few years ago: |
Isn't that just a difference in preferred learning style? Some people like to break it down into biomechanical movements, others prefer a more holistic approach. Just horses for courses (if you excuse the pun)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
rob@rar,
| Quote: |
Isn't that just a difference in preferred learning style?
|
No, not quite, it's more a question of why you are learning something and, therefore, in how much depth you need or want to learn it. Isn't there a saying, 'Too much knowledge is a dangerous thing?' (I'm aware that my argument can easily be pushed beyond its boundaries, this is more of a gut feeling than strict logic.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
GrahamN, In my book, P = F/A therefore P is a result(ant) product of a Force over area, so change one of those two things and yes, you change the pressure. As the units are N/m2 I think that points towards the product (or result) of a Force being applied. Hence resultant.
| Quote: |
Force, not pressure, is what gets your body to change speed/direction.
|
You can extend, or apply a Force in powder, but unless a platfrom is built then no change in speed/direction occurs. So in bottomless Utah powder, you can go on applying all the force you want, but until you get pressure built from a platfrom nothing will happen. So no, Force is not what gets your body to change speed/direction.
| Quote: |
It certainly is possible to "apply pressure [force]" early in a turn, by extending the legs, so projecting the CoM away from the skis
|
If accompanied by nothing else then all that happens is that the skis are likely to break away. In reality and hopefully, you are using you ankles, knees, hips in that order so in reality you are getting some increase in edge angle as you extend. As I've said before, I can live with applying force, but as pressure is a resultant, it is technically incorrect to "apply pressure". If you want to apply force early in the turn this should be in conjuction with increasing edge angle so that the skis aren't tempted to break away. I can also live with the phrase building the pressure early in the turn.
| Quote: |
| I don't see that increasing the edge angle in itself change the pressure on the snow. |
That's a pretty fundemental CSIA L1 question, what is the relationship between edging and pressure, yes it does.
I don't think we disagree on much, apart from your comment about me not getting my physics straight, and what makes a ski bend 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
rob@rar,
| Quote: |
Isn't that just a difference in preferred learning style?
|
No, not quite, it's more a question of why you are learning something and, therefore, in how much depth you need or want to learn it. Isn't there a saying, 'Too much knowledge is a dangerous thing?' (I'm aware that my argument can easily be pushed beyond its boundaries, this is more of a gut feeling than strict logic.) |
Not sure I agree. Even when I started skiing as a kid I wanted to know in close details what I needed to do, why it was important and what effect it had on the skis. Other kids were happy to be told to put the tips of their skis together and swoop like a bird (or whatever nonsense the instructor mumbled on about).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrahamN, well said, thanks for putting in the effort to write that. Agree with most of it, except that extension doesn't just take place at the start of a turn but should be progressive and may continue to its apex (or further if you so choose) so that pressure can continue to be applied, before progressive flexion to manage the now rapidly increasing forces back. Adjustments to edge angle are required to stop the edge breaking away but the ski will further decamber into a tighter turning radius in response to the applied pressure from extension.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
slikedges, OK, agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hurtle, sorry (I assume you're referring to my previous post), I agree that that was approaching 'Epic' levels of anality. But as veeeight says, there's a lot of half-baked ideas in this pressure business (and I'm not entirely sure mine are fully baked), so I think it's important to really be clear about stuff when trying to explain it to someone else. As a scientist/engineer I spend my life analysing stuff in fine detail - and find that short-cuts there normally come back to bite you in the bum later. Having an artistic side though, I agree that it's also vitally important to do the synthesis bit as well before you get the final, beautiful product (ever read up about Sibelius' compositional method?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
