 Poster: A snowHead
|
| meh wrote: |
| I don't get how having your feet closer together makes weight transfer quicker? |
A narrower Base of Support means a shorter distance for your Centre of Mass to travel when you need to move from one side to the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Right but you can stand fully on the new ski as soon as your CoM is over it which would happen earlier with a wider stance and it even develops a larger moment until you are balanced in the turn. Technically you can stand on the inside ski whenever you like during a turn as long as you can stay balanced.
The distance being shorter is pretty immaterial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@meh, agreed, I don't think it is a major factor. However, I don't think many skiers are fully balanced on their (new) outside ski as soon as their CoM moves over it (or the ski moves under it). They usually balance on both their skis (in varying proportions) so lateral distance of CoM across BoS becomes more than getting your CoM stacked above your outside ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Isn't the key thing here have the ability to vary your stance depending on what terrain you are skiing, big, fast, carved turns down the piste wider stance. Straight lining moguls, narrower stance? As with most sports disciplines you vary the technique depending on the event. Having the tools in the bag to do this is surely the key for high performance, variable terrain skiing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@rob@rar, yeah definitely but I don't think the width of the stance makes people faster or slower at moving their weight from one ski to the other. In either case you want to be getting onto the new ski ASAP even if a wider stance might give you more time before your CoM is outside your potential base of support again.
My feeling having been a clamped together skier is that the narrower stance was about making pivoting easier and nicer to look at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@ansta1, I think moguls and skiing off-piste on narrow skis are about the only times you actually need to worry these days. Modern skis mean you can pretty much ski off-piste as you would on-piste with some concessions to weight distribution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| meh wrote: |
| .My feeling having been a clamped together skier is that the narrower stance was about making pivoting easier and nicer to look at. |
I agree, when skis needed more pivoting that today's skis require to make a round turn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ansta1 wrote: |
| Isn't the key thing here have the ability to vary your stance depending on what terrain you are skiing, |
Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Skiing with feet together, IMO, has always been about adopting a particular style or fashion rather than trying to achieve the best out of your skis. |
Ah, you see I would argue that skiing with your skis wide apart is also a particular style or fashion, it just happens to be the current one. I don't think what is taught is actually efficient. I see instructors in Italy demonstrating the wide stance to their students in their classes and getting them to copy, and then I see the same guys skiing by themselves or with other instructors in the afternoon and that's not how they ski at all then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| meh wrote: |
| I don't get how having your feet closer together makes weight transfer quicker? |
A narrower Base of Support means a shorter distance for your Centre of Mass to travel when you need to move from one side to the other. |
I don't think this is true. Often, your base can be well to the side of the C of M - as in many of the photos posted. a wider stance gives a wider base and therefore a greater range of lateral distance on the snow to exert a force on the skier.
Also the god skiers tend to and keep their C of M fairly constant (Still upper body) and move their legs fr
Also weight transfer is slower with the skis closer together as the inside ski is close to the outside edge meaning it has further to travel to get back to the opposite side of the fall line to allow weight transfer to happen and transfer weight to this new outside ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
You put your left foot in,
You put your left foot out,
You put your left foot in,
And you shake it all about.
You do the hokey pokey
And turn yourself around.
That's what it's all about.
Now you put your right foot in,
You put your right foot out,
You put your right foot in
Then you shake it all about.
You do the Hokey Pokey
And you turn yourself around,
That's what it's all about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| equinoxranch wrote: |
You put your left foot in,
You put your left foot out,
You put your left foot in,
And you shake it all about.
You do the hokey pokey
And turn yourself around.
That's what it's all about.
Now you put your right foot in,
You put your right foot out,
You put your right foot in
Then you shake it all about.
You do the Hokey Pokey
And you turn yourself around,
That's what it's all about. |
Isn't it the left leg in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
and isn't it the Hokey Cokey? Too many supposed 'experts' on the forums..... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@cameronphillips2000, I have this argument all the time. It's clearly cokey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
The other problem with skiing with the skis too close together is the potential injury of trapping the todger between the knees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
i always find the cold weather eliminates any chance of this becoming a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| olderscot wrote: |
| i always find the cold weather eliminates any chance of this becoming a problem. |
I guess skiing in kilts has advantages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| ansta1 wrote: |
| Isn't the key thing here have the ability to vary your stance depending on what terrain you are skiing, big, fast, carved turns down the piste wider stance. Straight lining moguls, narrower stance? |
Why would you do this if you don't have to, though? I learned a bunch of stuff some years ago from 'Ski The Whole Mountain' by the Deslauriers brothers, which may be old but is still, I would argue, valid today, and one of the basic things they teach is a stance and an all-mountain turn which will work all over the mountain, in all snow conditions, with relatively minor modifications. This works for me - I'd rather have one less thing to worry about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
The best advice I had was to engage my core. It works for just about any sport I do and for my work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| cameronphillips2000 wrote: |
| Also weight transfer is slower with the skis closer together as the inside ski is close to the outside edge meaning it has further to travel to get back to the opposite side of the fall line to allow weight transfer to happen and transfer weight to this new outside ski. |
I don't really understand what you mean by this. But I would suggest as a simple experiment, stand (in normal civvies, without skis and ski boots) with your feet 3-4 inches apart and see how quickly you can transfer the weight between one foot and another. Then repeat the experiement with your feet much further apart, say shoulder width. You have to move your centre of mass further, and it inevitably takes longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| henzerani wrote: |
| The best advice I had was to engage my core. It works for just about any sport I do and for my work. |
Absolutely! Engage your core, and eat plenty of fruit and vegetables. What could possibly then go wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| J2R wrote: |
| cameronphillips2000 wrote: |
| Also weight transfer is slower with the skis closer together as the inside ski is close to the outside edge meaning it has further to travel to get back to the opposite side of the fall line to allow weight transfer to happen and transfer weight to this new outside ski. |
I don't really understand what you mean by this. But I would suggest as a simple experiment, stand (in normal civvies, without skis and ski boots) with your feet 3-4 inches apart and see how quickly you can transfer the weight between one foot and another. Then repeat the experiement with your feet much further apart, say shoulder width. You have to move your centre of mass further, and it inevitably takes longer. |
When standing still you need to move your C of M over your standing foot or you will topple. However when you're skiing and turning, you do not need to get your C of M over your ski to stay balanced (Motorcycle going around a corner) You don't need to move your C Of M to turn. You only need an edge on the other side of your C of M from teh direction you want to turn. In this respect, having a wider base when upright makes it easier to turn in either direction you want very quickly. You only have to look at tennis players in service reception...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| cameronphillips2000 wrote: |
| When standing still you need to move your C of M over your standing foot or you will topple. However when you're skiing and turning, you do not need to get your C of M over your ski to stay balanced (Motorcycle going around a corner) You don't need to move your C Of M to turn. You only need an edge on the other side of your C of M from teh direction you want to turn. In this respect, having a wider base when upright makes it easier to turn in either direction you want very quickly. You only have to look at tennis players in service reception... |
Er....Tennis players in service reception ARE standing stilll! As regards the speed of moving your C of M, for turning in skiing the quicker you can get onto your opposite set of edges the better, and in that respect having to move your C of M a shorter distance helps.
It's an interesting discussion, but I think we've kind of sidetracked the thread a little with it, so I think I'll stop there...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Mine was DON'T SKI ..........................SNOWBOARD  I'LL get my coat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Be more aggressive!!!!
I always remember this especially on steeper slopes or at the end of the day and I'm getting tired, it spurs me on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| cameronphillips2000 wrote: |
| J2R wrote: |
| cameronphillips2000 wrote: |
| Also weight transfer is slower with the skis closer together as the inside ski is close to the outside edge meaning it has further to travel to get back to the opposite side of the fall line to allow weight transfer to happen and transfer weight to this new outside ski. |
I don't really understand what you mean by this. But I would suggest as a simple experiment, stand (in normal civvies, without skis and ski boots) with your feet 3-4 inches apart and see how quickly you can transfer the weight between one foot and another. Then repeat the experiement with your feet much further apart, say shoulder width. You have to move your centre of mass further, and it inevitably takes longer. |
When standing still you need to move your C of M over your standing foot or you will topple. However when you're skiing and turning, you do not need to get your C of M over your ski to stay balanced (Motorcycle going around a corner) You don't need to move your C Of M to turn. You only need an edge on the other side of your C of M from teh direction you want to turn. In this respect, having a wider base when upright makes it easier to turn in either direction you want very quickly. You only have to look at tennis players in service reception... |
A wide stance gives lateral stability but surely lateral movement is what good skiing is all about. Imagine a bike with stabilisers, fine for beginners but you need to take 'em off if you want to really go round corners. I honestly don't recall a good skier with a wide stance, even the three ex downhillers I know ski with their legs close together. I'm not saying a wide stance is wrong but it doesn't feel particularly right either. To me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@Kenny, lateral acceleration is helped with a wide stance because there is a greater moment and it's easier to apply force in the direction you want to go. You have greater stability if your weight is evenly distributed, if not then you are more unstable than with a narrower base of support. If you collapse one leg you'll go over more quickly. None of this is particularly impactful to a dynamic sport like skiing where thanks to the forces involved you can change the amount of effort each leg is contributing to suit.
Assuming the goal is a high level of performance and we're talking about mostly carved turns you want to move your weight onto the new outside ski as early as possible. In an ideal situation I'd argue that this earliest point in a lot of turns is when the CoM is over the new outside ski. This point will be reached earlier with a wider stance.
I think some people are assuming the weight is transferred as the CoM travels over the base of support in a linear fashion that begins when the CoM is over the new ski and ends when the CoM is over the old ski. In my experience at least weight is transferred much more quickly and sometimes if you're skiing very dynamically you'll be putting no force through either ski as they cross under you thanks to the forces involved. In actuality I think it's more complex than that again and the way weight is transferred can be very different for different turns.
In terms of stance obviously there is a point where it is so wide it hurts other parts of skiing just as being too narrow can do the same. I actually think most people are vigorously agreeing that their stance should be pretty neutral. At best we're arguing over a few inches and there are probably more important factors for people to worry about.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Sun 18-01-15 22:38; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I think we need to specify shoulder width or skis locked together.
There's then a very wide question on what is a 'good' skier. If you want go quickly then racing technique is obviously good. I've always found it slightly strange that skiers are often guided towards the technique of racers when instructed. It may be because skiing and instruction have, over the years, been male dominated and men tend to have a more macho approach to things.
Many skiers don't want to go quickly or accelerate quickly etc. It's a bit like learning to drive and holding up Lewis Hamilton as the final example. Racing is an extreme type of skiing, generating large forces on specific kit using highly tuned technique and toned muscles. Even in racing there is a big difference between the technique and kit between downhill and slalom. Clearly racers have amazing technique, strength and stamina but the way they ski is not compatible with your average middle aged, post lunch potterer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| meh wrote: |
@Kenny, lateral acceleration is helped with a wide stance because there is a greater moment and it's easier to apply force in the direction you want to go. You have greater stability if your weight is evenly distributed, if not then you are more unstable than with a narrower base of support. If you collapse one leg you'll go over more quickly. None of this is particularly impactful to a dynamic sport like skiing where thanks to the forces involved you can change the amount of effort each leg is contributing to suit.
Assuming the goal is a high level of performance and we're talking about mostly carved turns you want to move your weight onto the new outside ski as early as possible. In an ideal situation I'd argue that this earliest point in a lot of turns is when the CoM is over the new outside ski. This point will be reached earlier with a wider stance.
I think some people are assuming the weight is transferred as the CoM travels over the base of support in a linear fashion that begins when the CoM is over the new ski and ends when the CoM is over the old ski. In my experience at least weight is transferred much more quickly and sometimes if you're skiing very dynamically you'll be putting no force through either ski as they cross under you thanks to the forces involved. In actuality I think it's more complex than that again and the way weight is transferred can be very different for different turns.
|
The goalkeeper or tennis receiver wide stance analogy I often hear works if skiing is about pushing off from one leg onto the other. This is not my vision of skiing. I believe quickness from edge to edge is all about harnessing the forces caused by the release of the old turning ski to move them through to the other side. I think you alluded to this. A wider stance gives you nothing here and is arguably a hindrance. Having said that I am no ski god and am always playing with things like stance width.
| meh wrote: |
@Kenny
In terms of stance obviously there is a point where it is so wide it hurts other parts of skiing just as being too narrow can do the same. I actually think most people are vigorously agreeing that their stance should be pretty neutral. At best we're arguing over a few inches and there are probably more important factors for people to worry about. |
For sure. Hip width is often stated as a good neutral starting point. The problem is most instructors seem to think hip width is the same as pelvis width. Hip width is actually narrower and is what we naturally adopt when walking or running. Pelvis width is too wide. Again, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
"Lean forward - like you are trying to jump out of your boots and plant your face on your tips"
I took a private lesson. He was a quiet guy. He said "let's ski a while". We skied for half a day and then he spoke the above advice. Best $$ I ever spent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Kenny wrote: |
The goalkeeper or tennis receiver wide stance analogy I often hear works if skiing is about pushing off from one leg onto the other. This is not my vision of skiing. I believe quickness from edge to edge is all about harnessing the forces caused by the release of the old turning ski to move them through to the other side. I think you alluded to this. A wider stance gives you nothing here and is arguably a hindrance. Having said that I am no ski god and am always playing with things like stance width. |
I don't actually allude to it I state it specifically then go on to explain why I think a wider stance could be beneficial anyway.
| Kenny wrote: |
For sure. Hip width is often stated as a good neutral starting point. The problem is most instructors seem to think hip width is the same as pelvis width. Hip width is actually narrower and is what we naturally adopt when walking or running. Pelvis width is too wide. Again, IMHO. |
I don't think anyone here is arguing for pelvis or shoulder width this originated from talking about skiing with feet clamped together and why that was a poor technique with modern skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I think that I need to narrow my stance a bit, I seem to have drifted to a slightly too wide a stance for piste skis (but it works fine with the fats). With fast sharp turns though I sometimes find that the rebound from the skis gets a little air under them as they cross under you, as mentioned above. That seems to flick you straight over to a wide stance on the opposite side.
I have plans to do some skiing with an ex racer and instructor soon, I am going to take whatever hints he throws my way 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| J2R wrote: |
| It's an interesting discussion, but I think we've kind of sidetracked the thread a little with it, so I think I'll stop there... |
Well, the discussion's carried on anyway, so I can't resist...
I'm absolutely with Kenny on this, and I think the images he posted are dynamite. No-one skiing slalom at a high level has their skis far apart (e.g., shoulder width). It simply wouldn't work. And slalom is probably the closest kind of competition skiing to recreational skiing, in terms of number of turns over a given distance (albeit obviously done at much higher speeds). Look at what Marcel Hirscher is doing in terms of distance between skis - that's probably right. And for those who say that what applies at top levels doesn't apply at recreational level, I would say that if, indeed, having your skis further apart were a benefit for performance skiing, surely Hirscher and the like would be more, rather than less, likely to adopt it?
So I would say that feet clamped together is too close, shoulder width too far apart, but hip width (as in running width, as Kenny points out) probably about right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@J2R, as I said earlier we're all in violent agreement. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
GS is much closer to recreational skiing. Slalom is way more technical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| meh wrote: |
I don't think anyone here is arguing for pelvis or shoulder width this originated from talking about skiing with feet clamped together and why that was a poor technique with modern skis. |
Ah but clamped together was poor technique with old skis as well. The ideal stance hasn't changed. Good skiing hasn't changed. @cameronphillips2000 thought he would have to relearn but he just has to carry on improving his 'old' technique. The advice he was given was not helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
