 Poster: A snowHead
|
Chasseur, I agree with easiski, that I don't think biomechanix (as I understand the term) has much to do with it - I would add in dynamic efficiency to the other "good" things I mentioned too; less effort, more reward - and more grace too? I think. Maybe.
uktrailmonster, OK, I see what you mean, yes, I'd agree that finer and more subtle control over transitions will give a lighter impression - but simply having weight on one or both skis won't necessarily change perception. I have been told that I am quite light on my feet (I'm quite physically light too...) but my weight is almost invariably somewhere between 80:20 and 95:5 and moves fore and aft as required. I don't think I'd look any lighter if I centred my weight more. So I don't think load distribution is changing the appearance of light/heavy. P.S. my first degree was in theoretical physics, although I have forgotten most of it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
under a new name, I can't answer whether or not you'd "look" lighter with a more even weight distribution. But I can say that the actual load on the outer ski would be lower. Looking at it the other way I think it would be impossible for a more even weight distribution to make you look "heavier". Or skiing in powder you would sink more with a less even weight distrubution. That would make you appear heavier for sure.
I'm certainly not saying managing you weight distribution is the only factor, but it has to be an important parameter. Smooth transitions are probably just as important, which when you break it down is just a term to describe how you manage the load build up on each ski through the turn.
what is "dynamic efficiency"? That could mean lots of things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
uktrailmonster, It's a question of the mix of weight, pressure and edge angles. I knew a guy who could carve on a flat ski (yes that sounds odd - but think of a track the width of a ski without any skid), If you get the mix of the above right, thus requiring less pressure you ski lighter, but it's very subtle. Physical wieight is nothing to do with skiing light but pressure on the ski is - so if you can make the same turn with less pressure you're light - but you have to have the right edge angle ... now I'm confusing myself. BTW - why does it have to be quantified???
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
easiski, I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, just adding some objective physics to what some of the terms might mean eg. "making the same turn with less pressure" has to mean a change in your weight distribution in order to reduce the pressure on the ski. Pressure = Force/Area
It was the OP looking to quantify it. I just think it's mildly interesting
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| Chasseur, I agree with easiski, that I don't think biomechanix (as I understand the term) has much to do with it - I would add in dynamic efficiency to the other "good" things I mentioned too; less effort, more reward - and more grace too? I think. Maybe. |
OK, I may have to accept that Biomechanics could be the wrong technical name for what I was (poorly) attempting to get at/understand.
Therefore, could it not be a skeletal issue? That's to say, how one's frame prefers or is able to enagage with skis/boots/slope combination determining to some degree how that translates to light or heavy skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
uktrailmonster, No - you can produce the same turn without changing your weight distribution - it's a question of subtlety on the edges - I hardly ever use weight on the inside ski, but everyone will tell you that I can ski light. Skiing is an art - not a science!!! (That should pu the cat among the pigeons.
Chasseur, I still think you're looking for explanations where there are none really. You cannot quantify it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some days (when I'm doing well) I ski light, but other days (when my timing is off) I ski heavy. It's a fairly fine distinction between the two scenarios, more a state of mind than anything else I'd guess, but it makes a big difference to how effortless or laboured my skiing is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
easiski, subtlety on the edges? Subjectively I can understand this, but it doesn't explain anything about the loading and pressure. In fairly simple terms, you have to generate a cornering acceleration in order to complete the turn. This involves loads which MUST be reacted, even if skiing is an art. How you react these loads will make you appear to ski light or heavy. For me this boils down to managing the load and pressure distribution on your edges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| easiski wrote: |
| Chasseur, I still think you're looking for explanations where there are none really. You cannot quantify it. |
You may well be right and I may have to bow to your extensive knowledge. However, is it really beyond quantification?
For example, were a sports scientist (?) to examine the relationship between skeletal ability/natural inclination and skis/snow/slope in a sample of similar standard skiers (lets use FIS downhill skiers as the sample) in the same conditions would they be able to demonstrate differences in how technique translates to the way in which they ski?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| How you react these loads will make you appear to ski light or heavy. For me this boils down to managing the load and pressure distribution on your edges. |
Rate as well as range of pressure change might go some way to quantifying it, but I don't think that you need to have major differences in these factor to distinguish between 'light' and 'heavy' skiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
I still don't think biomech or physics comes into it. am I wrong in understanding that "light" or "heavy" refers to the observer's perception? in which case, I submit a more technically adept skier will tend to ski "lighter" - more efficiently, more economically no matter their skeletal situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| easiski, I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, just adding some objective physics to what some of the terms might mean eg. "making the same turn with less pressure" has to mean a change in your weight distribution in order to reduce the pressure on the ski. Pressure = Force/Area |
Wouldn't reducing the edging also decrease the pressure, as a greater area of the ski would be in contact with the snow?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Murdoch wrote: |
| I still don't think biomech or physics comes into it. am I wrong in understanding that "light" or "heavy" refers to the observer's perception? in which case, I submit a more technically adept skier will tend to ski "lighter" - more efficiently, more economically no matter their skeletal situation. |
OK, I'm going to try and stretch my admitedly inexperienced view a point or two further.
Other than preference, is there a reason why some skiers opt to specialise in speed events and others technical? Watching Super Combined, for example, it's often obvious who the speedsters are when they do the slalom.
Is it purely because they are less technically proficient that they opt for speed events? Naturally, preference may come into it. But are we saying that from a skeletal perspective there is no quantative reason for opting for one discipline over another.
I'm quite prepared to concede the point owing to the lack of any suggestion from anyone here that there is an arguement worth pursueing. But I do find a lack of any correlation between light or heavy skiing and one's natural skeletal ability/inclination/make-up hard to understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| sloop wrote: |
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| easiski, I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, just adding some objective physics to what some of the terms might mean eg. "making the same turn with less pressure" has to mean a change in your weight distribution in order to reduce the pressure on the ski. Pressure = Force/Area |
Wouldn't reducing the edging also decrease the pressure, as a greater area of the ski would be in contact with the snow? |
Yes, but it would also reduce the cornering force generated i.e. it would affect the turn radius.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
uktrailmonster, I should've read your post more carefully, the 'making the same turn' bit obviously didn't fully register with me 
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Wed 21-01-09 20:47; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Chasseur, You can't ignore the physical size and weight of the skier. A physically lighter skier (lighter mass) is more likely to do well in slalom events, where rapid change of direction is important. A heavier skier is more likely to be suited to downhill where strength and stability are more important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Chasseur, Speed skiers vs tech skiers is often a question of fast twitch muscle and not so fast twitch! Agility is a big factor in slalom and the ability to move really quickly which is often absent in the DH and SG skiers ... Look at Pearson's lack of slalom form since she started doing a lot of speed stuff - she's really quite heavy and slow compared to what she was like 3/4 years ago.
uktrailmonster, But I don't get any of this science stuff - look you practise and practise traversing, edging and making turns until you can do it with less effort - you can't think about how you do something while you do it or you're a little skiing robot. It has to be natural - and it can be learnt but it takes a lot of time and effort. I kind of get the feeling that you (and Chasseur, ) want some sort of scientific formula when none exists.
uktrailmonster, "Yes, but it would also reduce the cornering force generated i.e. it would affect the turn radius" but that's the point it wouldn't necessarily affect the turn radius! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
chasseur, I'm definitely confused. are we (or not) discussing the fact that some skiers appear to ski lighter than others (which, IMHO is not a function of physique), that some have physiques naturally or developed to lend themselves to some disciplines (A. Tomba being an obvious exception) or that some skiers have eaten all the pies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
David Murdoch, I suspect this comes from watching eurosport. and as you know some skiers are heavier on their edges than others. This doesn't necessarily change their line in the race course but does mean that they lose speed against the 'light' skiers who can ski the same line with less pressure on the edges and therefore the skis moves forward faster and with less friction. It also relates of course to being able to not break through in crust.
however I don't see how one can quantify it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
easiski, But if you don't add the "science stuff" when trying to accurately describe what is happening (this is a forum discussion, not a ski lesson where I agree it doesn't matter) then you end up making vague statements that don't actually explain anything. For example, analysing your last sentence:-
"This doesn't necessarily change their line in the race course but does mean that they lose speed against the 'light' skiers who can ski the same line with less pressure on the edges and therefore the skis moves forward faster and with less friction. It also relates of course to being able to not break through in crust."
So how are you going to ski the same line with less pressure on the edges? Well, less edge pressure HAS to mean that the load must be more evenly distributed between the 2 skis and/or along the skis length. Despite any disagreement, weight distribution on the skis will have to be different however subtle the changes might be perceived. Otherwise it is physically impossible to have less edge pressure and still ski the exact same line.
Without thinking about the science for a second, you could simply state (as you have done in fact) that a "light" skier can use less edge pressure on both skis simultaneously while skiing an identical line to a "heavy" skier of the same weight. Now that would be an amazing trick as it contravenes the most basic laws of physics. So it needs more explanation to make any real sense or provide more insight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
uktrailmonster, this is a danger of turning this into another Inner Tip Lead thread!  Perhaps the line that is followed by a 'heavy' skier and a 'light' skier is not exactly the same to the nearest millimetre, but approximately the same to the casual observer: i.e. the racing line. The 'light' skier could have finessed his edge change, employing a different rate of pressure change compared to the 'heavy' skier who could have banged onto the new edges without much finesse. Probably not much difference between the two approaches but when podium places can be decided by 100ths of a second the consistently 'light' skier might well gain a few 100ths of a second here and there and therefore be generally quicker over the course of a season.
I know when I'm skiing heavy and when I'm skiing light, and it has a small but noticeable difference on the quality of my skiing. But I don't think I could describe it in scientific/biomechanical terms, it's just a "feeling".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, I was thinking that too!!! It wasn't intentional honestly. I agree with your sentiments about rate of change of pressure, afterall the loads are very dynamic. Same goes when absorbing bumps while skiing moguls. A supple "light" skier can manage the sudden changes in pressure far better than a rigid "heavy" skier. Just like a spring/damper unit (shock absorber) on a car/bike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uktrailmonster, I had a breakthrough moment with my skiing last season when I realised that rate of movement was just as, if not more, important than range. For me that's the biggest factor in determining 'light' or 'heavy', effortless or laboured, stilted or flowing, etc. So timing is everything, and the best skiers will have a great feel for the snow and adjust their timing in ever finer increments, perfectly in tune with the feedback they get from their feet. That's difficult to measure scientifically, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| Chasseur, You can't ignore the physical size and weight of the skier. A physically lighter skier (lighter mass) is more likely to do well in slalom events, where rapid change of direction is important. A heavier skier is more likely to be suited to downhill where strength and stability are more important. |
I'm not ignoring physical size and weight. In fact, physical size is also often related to skeletal size. And whilst I agree that size is an influential factor in a skiers choice of discipline, it doesn't necessarily follow that large skiers are heavy on their skis - a point agreed earlier in the discussion.
| easiski wrote: |
| Chasseur[/b, Speed skiers vs tech skiers is often a question of fast twitch muscle and not so fast twitch! Agility is a big factor in slalom and the ability to move really quickly which is often absent in the DH and SG skiers |
I totally see that, but you suggest that the ability is down to being able to move quickly through being agile. Therefore smaller/lighter skiers are naturally inclined towards slalom. That doesn't explain how some physically heavier skiers with larger frames are also highly competetive.
| Quote: |
| [b]uktrailmonster, But I don't get any of this science stuff - look you practise and practise traversing, edging and making turns until you can do it with less effort - you can't think about how you do something while you do it or you're a little skiing robot. It has to be natural - and it can be learnt but it takes a lot of time and effort. I kind of get the feeling that you (and Chasseur, ) want some sort of scientific formula when none exists |
Not so much a formula, more an idea that skeletal (and I suppose muscular) set-up must play a part to some degree in how one skis. As I asked earlier:
"You may well be right and I may have to bow to your extensive knowledge. However, is it really beyond quantification?
For example, were a sports scientist (?) to examine the relationship between skeletal ability/natural inclination and skis/snow/slope in a sample of similar standard skiers (lets use FIS downhill skiers as the sample) in the same conditions would they be able to demonstrate differences in how technique translates to the way in which they ski?"
| David Murdoch wrote: |
| chasseur, I'm definitely confused. are we (or not) discussing the fact that some skiers appear to ski lighter than others (which, IMHO is not a function of physique), that some have physiques naturally or developed to lend themselves to some disciplines (A. Tomba being an obvious exception) or that some skiers have eaten all the pies? |
Well some do look as though they've eaten all the pies. And I can sympathise....large skeletal frame that I've padded out really quite well However one sees and hears examples of heavy skiers being light on their skis.
| easiski wrote: |
David Murdoch, I suspect this comes from watching eurosport. and as you know some skiers are heavier on their edges than others. This doesn't necessarily change their line in the race course but does mean that they lose speed against the 'light' skiers who can ski the same line with less pressure on the edges and therefore the skis moves forward faster and with less friction. It also relates of course to being able to not break through in crust.
however I don't see how one can quantify it. |
Well, yes I do watch Eurosport, and many skiers on the mountain - a useful source of understanding what goes into the process of skiing. People learn in different ways. Without the benefit of skiing week in, week out I find watching good, technical skiers can help interpret what one does. I understand or "get" the technical process of skiing (angulation, counter, flex, position over skis, weight distribution etc) and how that translates to the input on modern carving skis. Being a relative newcomer to skiing (7 years, 16 weeks) I've only had to contend with "modern" skis. Whilst technique is undoubtedly improved through a constant process of practise to develop a natural "art", learning, for me is probably more a "robotic" approach initially to learn the component parts before becoming kinetic. Much like learning to drive a car. I don't think about every action when driving, I do it "automatically" now. Much of my skiing is now like this - but certainly not all, obviously. Anyway I seem to digress 
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| So how are you going to ski the same line with less pressure on the edges? Well, less edge pressure HAS to mean that the load must be more evenly distributed between the 2 skis and/or along the skis length. Despite any disagreement, weight distribution on the skis will have to be different however subtle the changes might be perceived. Otherwise it is physically impossible to have less edge pressure and still ski the exact same line. |
Interesting point. And getting back to the thrust of the discussion, is it possible that skeletal make-up enables some skiers to ski lightly or heavily irrespective of their size? The percieved differences may be subtle but surely some people will find that their bodies produce a better outcome in one manner over another and not just because of their physical size.
A point in case. Bode Miller. How many times does one hear people exclaiming surprise at how he achieves what he does? Notwithstanding his physical strength to steer his skis at speed in his rather backseat style, perhaps sports science can help with the understanding about how his skeletal make-up may play a part in what is still a pretty unique style.
Anyway, I sense we're going round and round with this. I don't have any qualification to debate about sports science so can't really take the debate further forward. Thanks to those that have contributed.....hopefully get the chance to ski with one or two of you at some point 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Chasseur wrote: |
That doesn't explain how some physically heavier skiers with larger frames are also highly competetive.
|
You can explain this because there are many other factors that are also influencing their overall performance. Physical weight is just a single factor. With professional ski racers, strength will tend to go hand in hand with weight (as they're not just fat) so there is some compensation. Then there's technique, training, sense of balance, muscle types. We haven't even mentioned mental conditioning!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
rob@rar, yes rate... that is one thing very hard for me to manage - as my movements are inherently stop/start all or nothing... (quite understandably)...
I was well pleased when a forum member on aussie forum saw my video and commented that my feel for snow had improved markedly since he last saw me ski... He said himself he felt this was odd knowing my problem he did not expect that from me....
but I agree with you - rate is the thing....
Chasseur, nah I think it is more difficult to define than you would like it to be... My uncle was a microsurgeon... and I can assure you getting your eye poked and prodded by him was waaaaaaayyyy dfferent to having some other numpty (even if an eye specialist) poke at it.... One of our friends had the bruises to prove it after seeing someone else for a procedure he regularly saw my uncle for (uncle away overseas)... He always assumed it was pretty simple and minor until that visit - then he discovered why my uncle was a top eye surgeon! I think it is this sort of "touch" factor you are trying to quantify.... but I don't like your chances...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
uktrailmonster, of course and I wasn't denying anthing from your above post. Merely examining whether other factors may also be at play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| uktrailmonster, I had a breakthrough moment with my skiing last season when I realised that rate of movement was just as, if not more, important than range. For me that's the biggest factor in determining 'light' or 'heavy', effortless or laboured, stilted or flowing, etc. So timing is everything, and the best skiers will have a great feel for the snow and adjust their timing in ever finer increments, perfectly in tune with the feedback they get from their feet. That's difficult to measure scientifically, I think. |
Nicely put and I agree that measuring scientifically what you're suggesting would be rather challenging.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Accurate measurement would be extremely difficult, but it can be understood on a broad conceptual level beyond extremely vague terms like "touch" or "subtlety".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
easyski.....I was knowing it was that the problem........I don't want persuade you.......you are wright......but you know also that it is not possible go strait without lean back........just a litlle bit.....me I feel better....or more confident......but also damien prefere central......so surely you are right.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
It's like the old tale...
Finesse falls to the new broadsword
By Harry Eyres
Published: October 30 2004 03:00 | Last updated: October 30 2004 03:00
I learnt a lot of history, and other things, from the admirable 1960s Ladybird series of slim hard-bound children's books with bright painted illustrations. One of my favourite pictures showed the chainmail-clad English King Richard I (the Lionheart) hacking at an iron bar with his broadsword while his somewhat effete Arab adversary in the Third Crusade, Salah-ed-din Yusuf-ibn-Ayyub, popularly known as Saladin, sliced through a silk scarf with his curved and cunningly inlaid scimitar.
On the one hand this seemed to illustrate a clash of cultures with different emphases but equal validity, one reliant more on force, the other on finesse; after all, the broadsword would have made no impression on the silk scarf, while the scimitar would have been shattered by the iron bar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
uktrailmonster,Chasseur, I don't know any science (except the obvious), so I can't explain it and keep away from discussions that contain it. I am a ski teacher and that is my job, but I can't explain light skiing any more - I have tried and it's clearly not good enough. It's a feeling, feeling is developed (in most cases) through skiing a lot, and practising a lot, so I'm afraid I can't help you.
rob@rar, timing yes - but I couldn't tell you in quantifiable terms how to adjust your timing because it's infinitely variable according to an infinite number of variables! Only you can feel your timing. Good skiers don't think about it as they go along - they just do, and sometimes it works!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| easiski wrote: |
| rob@rar, timing yes - but I couldn't tell you in quantifiable terms how to adjust your timing because it's infinitely variable according to an infinite number of variables! Only you can feel your timing. Good skiers don't think about it as they go along - they just do, and sometimes it works! |
That's right. The breakthrough for my skiing wasn't that I was taught "better timing" but I was encouraged to tune into the feedback I was getting and respond accordingly. It's not an instinctive process as yet, and I need to deliberately "feel for" the right timing. When I do that right my skiing flows, when I fail it feels hesitant and stilted. It's like a whole new world for me to discover!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
easiski, To my (very inexperienced) eyes... the light aproach is one of delicacy... feeling and adapting to every nuance of the snow underfoot so as to glide over the surface with minimal interaction for the desired result. Sking heavy is powering though the conditions and using your skills to impose your line on the snow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
[quote="rob@rar"]
| easiski wrote: |
| rob@rar, deliberately "feel for" the right timing. When I do that right my skiing flows, when I fail it feels hesitant and stilted. It's like a whole new world for me to discover! |
I have a hell of a lot to do... YAY!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
