PJSki, GrahamN, I've argued with Veeeight just as much as you guys on this thread (if not more so) and I sympathize with your frustrations but let's keep some perspective here and try not to get too personal. Let people form their own opinions of each of the posters here based on what they have posted - we've already given enough rope etc
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
skimottaret,
Quote:
If you made a mistake on a detailed skiing related debate i wouldnt call into question your abilities or how you go about your day to day job.
Some of the principles contained within this thread relate directly to what skis do. We're not talking about advanced needlepoint, although some needle is creeping in.
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?
Sideshow_Bob, good point re the rope. I'm out of here...for a few days.
Oh dear, I don't think this is a very good idea... veeeight can be deeply annoying, as I've said on previous occasions, but he has posted some incredibly useful stuff on the site and there's really not a lot of point in speculating what he's like on the hill - where he is presumably not giving too many geometry lessons.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Come on everyone - don't forget PJSki has previously posted using a different user name - he was our official troller!
cathy, trolling is when you get a lot of people to bite. A lot of people are agreeing with me here. So you might want to reconsider who is trolling in this thread.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
skimottaret wrote:
He believes he is onto something and trying at least to support his position with tangible examples, they may be wrong but he is keeping it civil. He may have his head in the sand but is at least trying to make a point. I dont agree with his maths but i keep an open mind when he is offering skiing related examples adn try to take something away from the arguement.
I think that's being a bit kind. His examples, particularly the non-skiing analogies, have been pretty dodgy but stated with a fair degree of arrogant authority. It's not that surprising they get slated, particularly when he refuses to make any form of concession. His typical approach when questioned is to simply move the golaposts and state an even more ludicrous analogy in an effort to prove his point. Debating in this style is pretty frustrating and doesn't lead to any useful conclusions.
After all it is free
After all it is free
cathy, why in earth would i know (or care) if someone posted under a different name. I dont track peoples posts and try to figure out if they are using new or assumed names or even "sock puppets".That says even more about someones character that he/she was once a "troller", changed names and now wants to be taken seriously and is surprised when people take offense at offensive language, sorry but very lame.
uktrailmonster, I agree with what you say above, i share your frustrations with regards to his debating "style" but draw the line at getting personal is all. I chip in here in V8's defense as i started the thread and feel a sense of having to be a "facilitator" . I also personally give him some latitude as he is knowledgeable about skiing and has posted many useful things here in the past...
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.
PJSki wrote:
cathy, trolling is when you get a lot of people to bite. A lot of people are agreeing with me here. So you might want to reconsider who is trolling in this thread.
ah! But PJ you and your previous names on here are always in the thick of it
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
boredsurfin, Is this thread turning into the new iphone thread?
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
thefatcontroller, nooo! PJ isn't as bad as the Prof, well maybe.........
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.
thefatcontroller, nooo! PJ isn't as bad as the Prof, well maybe......... I'll just check with the Nanny
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
I'd like to remind everyone of 2 things:
1) a man's gotta know his limitations - I don't pretend to know everything in my professional field and a ski instructor most certainly shouldn't. Teaching something physical does not automatically confer on one understanding of the mechanics of the movements. Dogmatism and didacticism are the giveaway clues as to where the limit of knowledge lies.
2) I haven't read much of this thread but I know it follows the same old storyline we've had many times before here. I don't know whether v8 has been civil or not on this occasion, but if he has that would be a welcome change. As usual, being stubborn, inflexible and overly opinionated is one thing but being arrogant is quite another.
And a third thing - of course it makes him look silly. Pity, as I'd agree with the others on this thread that he's knows a lot about ski teaching and has contributed much to the forum.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Amazing that this is still impacted in a colon, extraordinary that some people are unable to see that (relatively) simple and correctly applied geometry/physics does have a role to play in defining how a moving articulated mass behaves. Even more astounding for an articulate and (I believe) well skilled skier to attempt to use poor mathematical technique to explain bio-metric performance.
This last week I had an opportunity to play on great pistes and be observed by a superb coach/race instructor/epic mogul skier . . . and yes . . . in some conditions I do/did have excessive 'tip lead' . . . mind you, nowhere near as much as the junior race teams training in the slalom stad.
IM(not so)HO, I've come to the following conclusions re "tip-lead"
1: All human beings are different. With 50% delightfully much more differently constructed (bio-metrically of course).
2: We slide on a random and eclectic range of equipment
3: There is no universal problem (see 1&2)
4: There is no universal panacea (see 1&2)
5: A safe, stable and fully engaged carve to completion from parallel traverse to parallel traverse cannot be completed without some tip-lead and with the outside ski following a wider arc and completing further distance than the inside ski. (and if you can't get your head around that, then you're not using the gifts that whatever God(s) you believe in . . . gave you)
6: "Safe and stable" are relative terms (see 1&2)
This whole thread has been kissing the chocolate starfish by taking an individual trait that is inherently subject to Items 1&2 and attempting to apply a fixed and inflexible standard definition. I am deeply disappointed that so many people have become as unpleasant as I can be without achieving a level of discourse that informs rather than obfuscates.
My first post on his thread is justified.
Inside ski "tip- lead" needs to be discussed in general terms that defines its cause, its influence, its effect and how it may be controlled to best purpose for the individual skier.
In some conditions I need (and am restricted by my equipment), significant tip-lead . . . in others, I've been using it to unnecessary excess. There are no "drills" to cure this, just the observation of a skilled trainer plus the application, practice and interest of the trainee.
I'm not a 'rounded' skier, there are huge gaps in my technique quiver but I can carve at very high speed in rough conditions and I have been adjusting my 'tip-lead' to suit my speed, conditions, the pitch and my fatigue level . . . this week I've learned to finesse this to extend my speed, comfort and control zones . . . It's also helped my boarding But my boarding really screws with my short bump turns
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Masque wrote:
But my boarding really screws with my short bump turns
When I did the BASI L1 course at the start of the season there was a snowboard instructor who was looking to pass the ski course as his second discipline to complete the ISIA qualification. He'd only skied for nine days and was using the L1 course more for training than an expectation of passing. His long radius turns were very good and I was amazed when he told me how little ski experience he had, but his short radius work was the worst I have ever seen in a skier trying to make quick turns. It's interesting that you should say boarding messes with with your short radius skiing as well. Do you think that the problem works in the opposite direction: does short radius competency on ski inhibit development of boarding technique?
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Masque, I LMAO when Claude kept telling you off for your inner tip lead.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Frosty the Snowman, Me too when Masque told me it was the first thing Claude said to him!
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, I'd say it did (does) for me. In boarding (basi style) there is not supposed to be any upper lower body separation (the body operates as a single unit), so my tenancy of looking at a fixed point at the bottom of the slope as a reference resulted in rotation in the upper body.
Having worked on it, it does feel better, but I suspect I look like a robot
Frosty the Snowman, rob@rar, So the first thing an instructor says to Masque, is to "tell him off for tip lead" but there isnt a universal problem here and there are no drills to fix it, a trainer just observes you and then you practice something, and, then you are able to magically control tip lead. hmmm...
Masque, Not wanting to pick a fight (this thread has had enough of them ) But I never said excessive tip lead was a really big deal, just a fairly hard one to try to reduce with some people... If you think it isnt a problem at all why did your trainer mention it with regards to your skiing?
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
skimottaret, I'm very happy not to have a fight . . . too *ook'd after last week . Right back at my early posts I said it was a subject for a 1 on 1 with teacher and pupil simply because we are too individualistic. In my case I was leading too far at lower speeds but not extending it as speeds increased. And that was caused because I have a wide basic stance . . . I am a boarder after all . . . As I brought my stance closer the lead diminished.
As for magical control It's more a matter of the pupil understanding what's being asked of them and gaining self awareness of their body's reaction/performance. Most of all is the instruction as to why and how something is caused and the ability to feedback to the pupil in a manner that is clear and understandable. I'm lucky in having a sports coaching background and yes I can now control my lead and vary it at will as I seek to maintain balance and stability in a carve. It's been a good week for me.
Right no fighting then Interesting, as you mainly board perhaps having a too wide stance would make sense. glad to hear you had some good instruction and it worked for you. with a coaching background and what sounds to me as pretty good skiing and boarding ability you may not be a "typical" student in that you can relate to the coach and determine your own fixes through more of a guided discovery process. This seems to me to be the norm for experienced people or those who started as youngsters, they dont have to think about it, it just happens for them more naturally. BUt i wouldnt say that is the norm IME.
Quote:
Most of all is the instruction as to why and how something is caused and the ability to feedback to the pupil in a manner that is clear and understandable
couldnt agree more with that and about your comments/attitude towards coaching. with this thread i (initially) was looking for root causes and how to help people correct this problem in their skiing. I do think excessive tip lead is a problem at times and certainly long in the tooth skiers here see it within themselves. Where we may differ in approach is that i typically just have a just few minutes to diagnose someone, a few more minutes to talk it through and then try some drills (indoors) to help get the student to feel what is going on and get them to understand what is happening and hopefully be more aware. this process with some feedback will soak up an hour quite quickly. time doesnt permit a more thorough coaching approach in a normal 1 hour group session and the clients sometimes will feel short changed if we dont do some drills or exercises to give them something "tangible" to take away.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
One of the nice things about going away coaching and training (I'm now back in the world of the interweb), is that you are reminded:
1. Skiing is fun
2. Never underestimate an athlete's ability to feel and move minute amounts in their lower joints - microscopic amounts of movement and feelings are possible (for those that dispute whether it's possible to self detect pivoting/steering/clean edges)
3. Debating on the internet is pointless
4. Never try to insist that a dynamic, active sport such as skiing must conform to 2D static mathematical models
My colleagues and I am utterly utterly convinced (even more so than before) after our camps, that my original assertions still hold.
We gave our athletes several tasks, drills exercises, all without disclosing the what we wanted to observe:
1. It is entirely possible to ski parallel clean carves (by intent)
2. It is entirely possible to ski diverging clean carves (by intent)
3. It is enturely possible to do all of this without any sort of fudging, inner ski steering, diverging the skis etc. up to fairly high edge angles and speeds. Beyond a certain point, of course, bio-mechanical limitations kick in, and yes, you have to sacrifice the clean line of the inner ski and start to steer it (Both Fastman & I have identical viewpoints on this).
4. Do not attempt to make the inner ski carve a smaller radius (than the outer ski) - your skiing will go to pieces
So:
No deliberate diverging of skis during skiing
Same edge angle on both skis for as much as possible
Parallel shins as much as possible.
Whilst parallel shins is not the holy grail, to pattern this movement is.
Intent/Outcome - Diverging clean ski tracks can be intent, or outcome. Racers will tactically and deliberately narrow their track width at the end of Phase 1, and often deliberately widen the track width at the apex. So is what you are observeing intent, or outcome?
To dispute any of the above during skiing is going against Ali Ross, Warren Smith, Phil Smith et all.
2D mathematical models are a good start to explain what happens, but is only the partial story, and not the end product.
If you want to ski like a mathematician by all means ski according to the models. My cat has 4 legs, ergo, anything with 4 legs etc.
If you want to be a good skier then do not be limited by 2D static maths theories - they don't tell you what happens in reality.
Don't try and ski a tighter radius on your inner ski - you will ski like crap in your quest to be mathematically correct
Don't deliberately ski with diverging skis - you will ski like crap
So I realise this post might well be wasted on those intent on believing that their maths models is the correct model used in dynamic skiing, but I guess there's no winning over those that refuse to listen. So you just ski *however* *you* want to ski, it makes no difference to me!
(and please don't feel obliged to respond to this, I shan't be dissapointed )
After all it is free
After all it is free
veeeight wrote:
Never try to insist that a dynamic, active sport such as skiing must conform to 2D static mathematical models
Same edge angle on both skis for as much as possible
Parallel shins as much as possible.
not the end product.
do not be limited by 2D static maths theories - they don't tell you what happens in reality.
dynamic skiing,
All this talk of "dynamic", "as much as possible", "end product", "in reality", is itself a bit of a fudge.
I stand by my statements here and on Epic that it is, in theory, not mathematically possible to carve purely parallel tracks (i.e. no diverging or converging) whilst maintaining purely parallel shins (i.e. identical ski radii). I am no mathematical genius but I understand the concept that two curves (not necessarily circles) can never be simultaneously both identical and parallel.
I never said that it is impossible, in the real world, to demonstrate something that, to all intents and purposes, looks and feels like "parallel skis, parallel shins". You don't have to be Eric Guay. Any half-decent ski instructor can do the railroad turns drill. The necessary adjustments are small enough to be almost imperceptible. But they exist.
Watching what a bunch of skiers do, and trying to determine their "intent", does not negate the laws of geometry.
Last edited by After all it is free on Wed 4-06-08 6:42; edited 2 times in total
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.
veeeight wrote:
To dispute any of the above during skiing is going against Ali Ross, Warren Smith, Phil Smith et all.
I would be happy to debate this point with any of those three
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Martin Bell, quite & absolutely.
A wee easily performed demonstration of such...
Take 2 dimes (I'adjusting for an "Epic" defined reality if that's OK).
Identical radii? I expect the US Treasury hope so.
Put them on top of each other.
Shift one sideways.
"Parallel"... or not? Q.E.D. ??
Who needs thought experiments anyway?
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
veeeight wrote:
To dispute any of the above during skiing is going against Ali Ross, Warren Smith, Phil Smith et all.
i am sure Euclid, Descartes et al would have had equally batty ideas about ski technique as Messrs Ross, Smith and Smith have about geometry
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.
David Murdoch, that is the best analogy yet and hopefully everyone ,including V8, can agree on that.
Quote:
2. Never underestimate an athlete's ability to feel and move minute amounts in their lower joints - microscopic amounts of movement and feelings are possible (for those that dispute whether it's possible to self detect pivoting/steering/clean edges)
Quote:
The necessary adjustments are small enough to be almost imperceptible. But they exist.
V8 do you agree or disagree with Martins statement above.
You are finally coming around to what I (and most others here) have been arguing. Your 2. and Martins (and others view is the same isnt it?) We all know it is very possible to carve RR track turns and the maths we have had says in order to do this all you have to do is make one shin (edge angle) a few degrees different to the other leg momentarily and presto you can have nearly identical radii, you can bend the shovel of one ski more than the other and presto you can hold similar curves, etc. etc. The changes required to hold this on easy terrain in a 20 metre radius turn are miniscule as you say, no wonder they are hard to detect. The maths cannot be denied but when brought into context of typical skiers and the turns they make those miniscule changes are required to compensate for the absolutes that geometry dictates.
Quote:
3. Debating on the internet is pointless
It is if your aim is to always "win", if you debate with an open mind with the intention of learning it can be quite useful.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Without being an expert skier or physicist /engineer (though not hopeless at either), it seems to me that keeping shins parallel without equal pressure on the skis will result in different arcs of the ski (see previous discussion http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=39666&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40 ). So, the skier is trying to adjust leg angle against pressure to equalise radii. This is a matter of "feel" and may differ between individuals and depending on speed, radius of curve, width of stance, etc..
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Or, actually as the dimes above demonstrate not to equalise radii, because the inner ski needs to have a smaller radius than the outer and (as you do not want to put too much weight on it) it, therefore, has to be at a greater angle from the vertical. Less obvious in long turns than short, as skimottaret, has already pointed out, but there nonetheless.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Martin Bell, skimottaret, exactly.
David Murdoch, the problem with that is that V8 rejectes arguments made on circles - as he can't understand that the same arguments work for non-circular paths (but are just a bit more complicated to analyse and explain).
veeeight wrote:
but I guess there's no winning over those that refuse to listen.
Exactly
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
What amazes me is that the geometry has been explained so clearly that even I, as a complete numpty, can understand it. Why can't veeeight?
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
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?
Hurtle wrote:
What amazes me is that the geometry has been explained so clearly that even I, as a complete numpty, can understand it. Why can't veeeight?
Because no one here has yet explained how a bananna turn with parallel tracks back up the hill can be achieved in reality, but fails the "displaced coin test".
(Razor sharp, clean lines, no fudging, elementary drill which most budding racers can achieve easily. When I mentioned ability to feel and move in microscopic amounts earlier it was in the context that the athletes we gave tasks to were adamant when they were fudging, and when they were not).
Because I know (and all my fellow coaches it seems) what happens on the hill is not explained by the so called simple geometry. Either the "on paper" skiers here are correct, or all my colleagues and several WC coaches are completely wrong.
Because I know that all the geometry presented so far do not come anywhere close to what is happening on skis. It's a good start, but no where near the full story. Some people have got stuck at that point.
Geometry is geometry. Maybe it has something to do with skiing, or it doesn't.
I had totally missed the middle part of the discussion and there's no way I can possibly go through all 18 pages of posts to find where skiing has diverged into geometry.
But the simple fact is, a "parallel" track , which is a fancy way of saying the distance between the two tracks are the same throughout, neccessitate a different radius of the two tracks.
Sliding two identical coins sideways doesn't produce "parallel" edges. But putting a smaller coins on top of a larger one, you'll find the two edges are perfectly "parallel"!
So to ski parallel track, your inside ski is carving a smaller radius than the outer ski. There's no other way around it. FACT of methematic is not open for debate, only to clarify (to those who find it unclear or not obvious at first).
How do you achieve that elusive "parallel track" (of two different radius ) on snow with two planks, with "almost" parallel shine, and without "excessive" tip lead, IS indeed open for debate. And I hope the REAL debate will be more benefitial to us skiers than the reiteration of high school math.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Wed 4-06-08 15:56; edited 1 time in total
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
abc wrote:
So to ski parallel track, your inside ski is carving a smaller radius than the outer ski.
I would be interested to hear how you intend to achive this.
Because no one here has yet explained how a bananna turn with parallel tracks back up the hill can be achieved in reality, but fails the "displaced coin test".
Because in the banana turn they're not equal radius tracks, that's why! That's what I and others have said and shown time and time again.
Stop trying to make out that the maths is all mumbo-jumbo or 'simple and static'. It's not, and it applies just as easily to dynamic situations in 3D as it does to static 2D examples. If you can't grasp the 2D static example, you've no hope of understanding the dynamic 3D case.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
veeeight wrote:
abc wrote:
So to ski parallel track, your inside ski is carving a smaller radius than the outer ski.
I would be interested to hear how you intend to achive this.
We've been through this a dozen times at least. Look further up the thread.
After all it is free
After all it is free
How can you carve your inside ski a smaller radius than the outside?
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.
veeeight wrote:
How can you carve your inside ski a smaller radius than the outside?
This was covered pages ago. Several possibilities:
1. The inside shin has a very slightly greater edge angle than the outside shin - almost too small to be visible with the naked eye.
2. Extra tongue pressure produces greater ski flex at the shovel of the inside ski, creating a tighter radius for a given edge angle.
3. In many cases, the inside ski is NOT carving a smaller radius, because the skis are not truly parallel - they diverge and converge slightly, like the skis of the Japanese guy in the youtube video you linked to.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
veeeight
Quote:
Because I know (and all my fellow coaches it seems) what happens on the hill is not explained by the so called simple geometry.
Get these other coaches in here. Get them to put their reputations where your mouth is.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
I'm out of here...for a few days.
But my boarding really screws with my short bump turns 
