Some thoughts on ski technique from a Yank

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Have I stumbled on to TGR? Confused

You need to Login to know who's really who.

No, Epic. They'd be calling JONG by now on TGR.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

If anybody is reading this and thinking Puzzled

The rules of the EPIC ski technique discussion game are easy.
All you have to do is just talk more and more technical until nobody understands you (or gets fed of you). The last one to make a post with technical content wins.

Every Person Is Confused

You'll need to Register first of course.

summary so far:

Expert skiiers use the direction of the turn rather than the turn itself to slow down. This is energy efficient and aesthetically pleasing if you carve the turn. Right?

Some non-expert skiiers will use the turn itself to slow down whereby the turn includes a lot of skidding and sliding, to scrub off speed, which is messy looking and energy INefficient as you need to tense the leg muscles in order to maintain balance.

Is the above correct?

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

After all it is free

mike_m, I'm surprised that you think people are reacting with anger - I don't see any evidence of that at all. We just don't agree with you! Many have said some positive things about your post (including myself), but having asked to feedback, that's what you're getting. Shocked

Rusty Guy, Nice to see you back whatever!

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

offpisteskiing, exactly.

One thing people forget when discussing "energy efficiency" is that muscles are active components and, unlike springs, take energy both to extend and flex or even hold their own position against an external force. As such they are working hard even when no "work" in the technical, physics, sense is being done. This can be minimised by the "stacked" stance that's frequently propounded, using the skeleton rather than muscles to hold us upright. But the only way this can completely remove that additional muscle load is to maintain a ramrod straight stance throughout all turns - whereas this is exactly where we have to be flexing and extending ankles, knees and hips. I take it no-one is advocating ramrod straight stance (apart from anything else it'll be incredibly uncomfortable as you'll then get jolted about by every miniscule bump and divot).

The other thing no-one has picked up on is comprex's point that the only reason we move down the hill is the friction of snow dragging on skis and air resistance as our body moves through it. The "turning uphill" technique will by itself only get you back to the height you started at. Gravity allows you to exchange speed for height and vice versa, nothing more - it's only the friction that allows you to drop down the hill at a constant (average) speed.

Now carving is a technique of which the whole point is to minimise the skis/snow friction and so achieve the maximum possible speed in the direction your skis are pointing. So if we want to get down a slope we will have to travel a much longer distance (and make more turns, as we're taking two steps down and one up for each turn) to lose the same amount of energy through friction, i.e. height, compared to us skidding/scraping/slipping (in the same partially "stacked" stance). As our muscles are having to work hard to support all these additional turns, is this really the most efficient way to descend the hill? Seems unlikely. There is a bit of a logical inconsistency here that we're putting in energy through our muscles to minimise the amount of energy lost through the skis. It may be fun and exhilarating, but don't confuse it with necessarily being efficient.

The other logical inconsistency here, similar to that addressed earlier by Fastman, is the "turning only to change direction" idea. As in my earlier example, you're stood at the top of a piste looking down it. Where are you intending to go? Down the piste. So why are you heading for the neighbouring trees or turning back uphill? It is to slow down. But what are we told? To go in the direction we want to go. But that's not uphill - we're intending to go down the hill. The irony here is that the most direct way to go in the direction we want to go at the speed we want - is actually to skid/scrape/sideslip.

I.e. if we're to take the technical premise of the OP, following the mantra

snow reports

Yep. "Turning to go to a destination" is why you see little children doing 'death wedges' straight down the hill...
The logic is irreproachable (is that a word?)...I want to go down there (the bottom of the slope) so I'll point my skis where I want to go...can't fault it from a 'base logic' point of view!!!!!!!

You know it makes sense.

On the 'energy efficiency' thing I think we have to bear in mind that it is relative to what we are trying to achieve...

Take a turn of radius X.
My outcome might be to carry as much speed as possible round the turn (carve), or it might be to cruise round the turn at a lower speed.
Both of these options can be done efficiently or inefficiently, however, for a certain level of efficiency (at both), there will be an energy differential (ie the carved turn will take more energy than the skidded turn (generally) for a given performance level. (Why? because we are resisting higher forces.). I certainly know which one would make my legs burn more..!!

Oh well skiing again on Tuesday Very Happy

...

While I'm here I'll plug my new ski movie again...go and see it at EMFF on Friday Oct 19th...it's great!! (well I would say that...)

http://youtube.com/v/aG0YUDV8zMU

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

offpisteskiing, GrahamN, hee hee - so true - that'll explain why my legs rarely hurt except when really playing with full on SL skis (which really don't want to slip at all).

A snowHead

A snowHead

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

I think Rusty's buttocks must be stinging as much as after a day of snowploughing down the dendrix.
OWWWWW!

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Steve, I'm not going to put footnotes on an informal list of ski tips I distribute to my students. The concept of offensive skiing is, indeed, advocated by Bob...as well as all my NZ coaches and virtually every other clinician I have trained with for the past 10 years or so. It's not copyrighted. All the concepts I mentioned are simply things I have tested and found to be useful for developing skiers who use only defensive tactics, which are holding them back. I never claimed these ideas were proprietary. I never claimed in any way, shape or form that I invented them. I'm not publishing these ideas in a book, giving them my own label, or claiming to own them. It seems that much of the premise I posted here is not commonly accepted in Europe (as evidenced by some of the responses I got from posting it) but I thought it might be useful to mention. The idea of using gravity as a friend in the turn (in addition to utilizing many of the other, very valid, alternatives mentioned throughout this thread by others) often helps skiers develop confidence and widen their quiver of tactics. Now, the jet fighter and stairstep analogies I used are NOT ones I have heard from others, so perhaps I invented them. I don't really care! Guys, skiing should be fun. It's getting way too intense in here.

You'll need to Register first of course.

mike_m,

Don't get put off by any negative responses - most people who post on BZK are at least reasonably experienced skiers (certainly not the same as expert!) so bring with them their own personal bag of prejudices. Add to that the British sense of stubbornness and resistance to being patronised and this probably is why you don't have a general reaction of "those are awesome tips".

My favourite ski book is this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Allen-Mikes-Really-Cool-Telemark/dp/1560448512?tag=amz07b-21

Full of good, simple analogies and most importantly fun. Now if anyone could produce a similar work for alpine skiing (and it might mean pricking the pomposity bubble and acknowledging that skiing is actually pretty simple, if infinitely refinable) I reckon it could clean up.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

mike_m, "It seems that much of the premise I posted here is not commonly accepted in Europe (as evidenced by some of the responses I got from posting it) but I thought it might be useful to mention. The idea of using gravity as a friend in the turn (in addition to utilizing many of the other, very valid, alternatives mentioned throughout this thread by others) often helps skiers develop confidence and widen their quiver of tactics."

I refer you to my comment way back about this. (I can't look it up as my dial up is so slow here) The point is that using gravity etc and the shape of the ski is normal and commonplace here among ski teachers. Anyone who skis as you described has been disgracefully taught (or maybe not at all). Most of us take issue with the premise that expert skiers do not turn to slow down - that's the sticking point. We are saying that if the end result of the turn is that you slow down (ie: by going back up the hill at the end of it) then by default, you are turning to slow down. You seem to be insisting that turning to slow down ONLY means rotating whatever and sliding.

After all it is free

Whatever. I've already acknowledged several times that "Experts never turn to slow down" is probably an overly broad generalization. Suppose I rephrase it to "Experts, and other reasonably accomplished skiers, do not turn to slow down if they are on a slope where they are comfortable and maintaining the speed they choose without doing so." Perhaps now we can address the other 99% of my original post.

Of course when you turn uphill, you slow your speed. The key is that simply slowing your speed in the sense of constant upper-body twisting away from the fallline, accompanied by twisting and skidding the skis, should not be a skier's default technique in every turn in all terrain. My objective, as I've said repeatedly, is to help get defensive skiers who are not aware that turning does not NECESSARILY require braking in every turn to look at skiing in a different way. Look at any green, blue or red slope and it is obvious that many, if not most, people on it are NOT aware of this technique. In my experience, what keeps many learning skiers or terminal intermediates stuck is this very thing. It's the mindset, their INTENT in turning, that is key. My premise, and what I suggest to my students, is that the intent of accomplished skiers is usually to choose a speed and maintain it, even as the slope gets steeper, without the necessity of hitting the brakes interminably. If this is their intent, their technique will be very different than that of someone whose intent is NOT to go down the hill once they begin to pick up some speed.

mike_m, Who would disagree with that. The trouble is - that ain't what your original post said. And if everyone else understood it in a different way from what you were trying to communicate, you really do need to look at your communication skills or stay away from the written word?

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Who would disagree with that? Perhaps no-one who has been exposed to the concept or uses it in his/her own skiing. In my experience, many, if not most, intermediate skiers are NOT aware of the concept. This is why I bring it to the attention of my students and why I thought it might be worth posting here. Some respondents have said this concept is obvious; others dismiss it entirely. As it is a subject of some dispute, it seems worth discussing. As for the quality of my communications skills or my choices of words, I have thanked people several times in the course of this thread who have shown me aspects of my original post that could be improved with editing and rephrasing, particularly that one offending sentence. The point has been made and accepted. Now that the concept has been distilled and clarified, perhaps we can now focus on what is being suggested in the rest of the post (if any further constructive discussion is warranted or desired).

"That ain't what your original post said." Actually, I just re-read the original post and I believe that's exactly what I said.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

mike_m, honest curiosity with no ulterior motive, where next?

snow reports

Rusty Guy, I've heard "intent" used a lot by many different people. Offensive/defensive seems to me a Barnes-ism, tho, even if it is used by others.

You know it makes sense.

mike_m, Ok - I would say most of what I have seen so far is someone being rather defensive when challenged on dubious assertions. Why not restate your hypothesis for us in less than 100 words, with no more than one subordinate clause per sentence so we can judge that?

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

Stoatsbrother: I believe the hypothesis has been stated and clarified throughout this thread sufficiently for anyone without another agenda. I suggest you refer to Rustyguy's new thread if you wish to discuss the subject further.

A snowHead

mike_m, I have no agenda at all. I may be about the only person on this thread who doesn't. I am not an instructor or an author, but someone who has ski lessons in North America, but who is not wedded to any particular school of teaching.

Your reaction to the criticism you asked for is bizarre. You bought the subject here for discussion. Now we have got rid of the silly "experts...." statement, I was rather hoping we could move beyond it and have a simple exposition of what your view is, in the way that ssh, easiski and fastman have explained theirs. Apparently not... rolling eyes

A snowHead

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

FastMan, Spot on with the last post. Very Happy

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

It's particularly relevant when teaching people how to conduct MA, is it intent, or outcome? wink

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Sometimes we don't know for sure, intent or outcome.

Sometimes we do.

http://youtube.com/v/f1V4CQxFTgo

Expansion of comfort zones. Now that's what I'm talkin about.

After all it is free

When speaking about intent, I'm often referring to an actually stated one. I will often ask a student (before we start a lesson), "Why do you turn?". Nine out of ten say, "To slow down." The tenth says, "To change direction." I find these answers revealing. When they make their first turns, these different intents are usually reflected in their skiing. Those turning to slow down tend to be the tail-toss skiers whose turn shape resembles a windshield wiper (Z turns). As soon as they start to head down the fall line and pick up speed, especially in slightly steeper terrain, they hit the brakes, twisting the skis into a skid and often rotate and pull their upper bodies back up the hill--pretty much eliminating the ability to steer. They are actually using the correct technique to achieve their stated intent. The other skier tends to ski a rounder, smoother line with less need for abrupt braking, again achieving the desired intent. I have found that clarifying or changing the basic intent of why a skier makes turns on moderate terrain can often result in a willingness to try a different technique: one which may lead the skier toward the type of turns (smoother, rounder, more control with less effort) he/she usually says are ultimately desired. A useful tool, at least.

mike_m, any tools that help you take skiers from tail tossing to well executed steers and/or carves are valuable tools.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

mike_m, this is interesting, but I can't quite see how they can be 'using the correct technique to achieve their stated intent'. If they wish to slow down, then they are not actually using correct technique to brake. If they wish to turn (don't any of them ever say, because it's fun?) then they're not using correct technique. In any case they are exhibiting major basic faults in their skiing. They need to be aware of this, or how can they fix it? If you find what you say helps, then great, but why are they heading down the fall line in the first place???? Surely the fall line is just a place you cross during your turn? IMO only poor skiers go straight (except for paths etc).

Help!!

Some thoughts on ski technique from a Yank

snowHeads Forum Index >>> Bend ze Knees