 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Wayne, It doesn't help that people are usually arguing slightly different questions, so they will never be able to agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I started skiing in the 1960s, so skied on long skiis with my feet together. When I returned to skiing after a 15 year absence, I was told to try carvers - much easier I was told. But I had to keep my feet apart - about shoulder width - why ? Last season I tried carvers back to back with my old long narrow GS skis one day. The carvers were a wee bit easier to initiate the turn, but a lot less stable during the turn, no matter whether feet were together or apart. Is this another case of manufacturers finding a way to extract cash from our pockets with new equipment that is little or no better than that which went before (learning from Microsoft) ? Or is there something wrong with my technique - does it have to be significantly different with carvers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
It's definitely your technique. Workmen and tools and all that.... Wide stance is to allow greater edge angles and more independant leg movement - a tight stance stops you tipping your skis on edge easily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
dulcamara, apologies, I haven't quite understood which specific bit you wish me to amplify on.
Either way, perhaps we can start another thread on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
comprex, cherries as in picking... pick the bits that you want and bin the rest. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
DaveC: It's definitely your technique. Workmen and tools and all that..
Thanks DaveC, that's really helpful !!! Is there anyone out there who can explain the different technique required ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wayne, I'm not entirely sure exactly what you're saying, as your grammar appears somewhat idiosyncratic this evening. You do though appear to be denying the usefulness of adequate levels of approximation and modelling in scientific explanations - surely you don't mean this? Is it really necessary to use relativistic concepts of space-time when it's perfectly adequate to to use the Newtonian approximation for describing the motions of the bodies we talk about here? - even Bodie or the Herminator at their best don't require a relativistic model. Is it really less useful to think of a "force of gravity" than "the effect of gravitational potential on a mass", or "the reaction force opposing the acceleration due to gravity"? Insisting on such distinctions really is "mainly just trying to score points". I'm afraid I also consider the attitude that it's only worth bothering to get involved with people to whom those distinctions are important is incredibly patronising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fatbob, result!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| deerman wrote: |
DaveC: It's definitely your technique. Workmen and tools and all that..
Thanks DaveC, that's really helpful !!! Is there anyone out there who can explain the different technique required ? |
Dunno if that was sarcastic or not, but it's pretty hard tell without seeing you ski. I didn't experience the old school particularly either (I think shaped skis took over when I was 10 ish!) so I can't really talk about old technique to new. I'm sure a lesson would really help you utilize newer skis better though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dulcamara, whenever I've heard of "blocking" it's also in the context comprex uses, or more specifically in the context of a body(-part) position that impedes you from making a movement you need to (although I recently had a lovely crash at Hemel doing exactly what you describe). It's a concept clearly beloved of instructors attempting to make a point. The further I go though the less I believe it - at least in the exact way they use it. The classic case is the wide/narrow stance question. Instructors always assert how having a narrow stance blocks development of edge angle - encouraging you to take a wider stance. Race coaches though then take this wider stance and demonstrate how much more solid and better engaged the edges (particularly of the inside ski) are with a narrower stance  .
I do wonder though if this may be a historical hangover, something that's been hung on to beyond it's original relevance. When people learned to ski with their feet essentially bolted together I can imagine that such a narrow stance did impede angling the skis. Hence the "get your feet further apart" instruction made sense and got into the instructors' communal psyche. As the transition to wider skis has progressed though, it's no longer possible even to ski straight with the feet so close together (or the skis ride on top of each other), and what we consider a narrow stance is still wider than the old "bolted together" stance, and we're more used to moving our legs independently. But the mantra remains, forcing feet ever wider, which results in the vast majority of intermediates I see skiing with feet at least shoulder width apart - which may be laterally stable but really gets in the way of a "strong" and efficient stance at higher edge angles. That Rocca picture is a great example of narrow stance (i.e. leg separation) with feet separated by as much as required to keep the majority of the force on the outside ski. As I understand it, though, the Austrians do still go for a wider stance, but that does seem to require much more work on "cowboy" skiing to keep an effective inside ski angle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
deerman,
| Quote: |
Last season I tried carvers back to back with my old long narrow GS skis one day. The carvers were a wee bit easier to initiate the turn, but a lot less stable during the turn, no matter whether feet were together or apart.
|
Where you comparing like for like? ie were you comparing modern shaped GS skis with your old GS skis? If not you can't really make a comparison. I don't have any issue with the stability of modern GS skis during the turn.
| Quote: |
Is this another case of manufacturers finding a way to extract cash from our pockets with new equipment that is little or no better than that which went before (learning from Microsoft) ?
|
No. I've skiied both and carving skis are just so much better, easier, more fun. The change from straight to carving skis was a major move forward in ski equipment and technique.
| Quote: |
Or is there something wrong with my technique - does it have to be significantly different with carvers.
|
Yes and no. Really good skiers were "carving" long before shaped skis came along. And skis were always "shaped" to a degree - carving skis have just exagerrated that shape. When I first used "carving" skis there was no overnight change in the way I was being taught to ski. I'd been taught to keep the skis a bit further apart and to use the edges rather than skid the skis for some years. (this was in the mid 90s). Carving skis just make it easier to carve, so it is now in the realm of recreational skiers, rather than just the top skiers.
So there may or may not be major changes to your skiing needed to ski modern skis well - it all depends on how you skiied before! Suggest you have a lesson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
| I'm not entirely sure exactly what you're saying, as your grammar appears somewhat idiosyncratic this evening. |
Yeah you’re probably right, that's why I taught physics and not English
| GrahamN wrote: |
| You do though appear to be denying the usefulness of adequate levels of approximation and modelling in scientific explanations - surely you don't mean this |
No, but if the basic precept of what is being used to back up a point is wrong then you have to wonder about the point itself.
| GrahamN wrote: |
| Is it really necessary to use relativistic concepts of space-time when it's perfectly adequate to use the Newtonian approximation for describing the motions of the bodies we talk about here? |
I used that example (Gravity) as the results of the effect are generally understood. Everyone understands that if you jump up then quite quickly you’ll drop back down again. All skiers understand that if you point your skis downhill you’ll start to move in that direction. What I was pointing out is that whilst everyone understands “what” will happen they (most people) don’t understand “why” it happens. So, as the “why” is frequently used in the long arguments to back up theories on ski trajectories, it makes me wonder about the validly of the point being made.
| GrahamN wrote: |
| Bodie or the Herminator at their best don't require a relativistic model. Is it really less useful to think of a "force of gravity" than "the effect of gravitational potential on a mass", or "the reaction force opposing the acceleration due to gravity ". |
Bodie and the Herminator are both god-like and so are not affected by any physical constraints when going like some stuff off a shovel. Just a quick note (or should that be, Point  ) on this though – acceleration and gravity are the same thing, so one can't be due to the other.
| GrahamN wrote: |
| I'm afraid I also consider the attitude that it's only worth bothering to get involved with people to whom those distinctions are important is incredibly patronising. |
That wasn’t what I said. My point was that I don’t get involved in the ski technique / physics arguments as they tend to degenerate into point scoring by people using incorrectly applied (or just plain wrong) scientific principals to back up their arguments
Anyway, I haven’t held a piece of chalk for nearly five weeks, so what do I know. It’s all changed since my day
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wayne, wrote
| Quote: |
I don’t get involved in the ski technique / physics arguments as they tend to degenerate into point scoring by people using incorrectly applied (or just plain wrong) scientific principals
|
| Quote: |
acceleration and gravity are the same thing, so one can't be due to the other
|
really?
Edit : I'm just playing don't take me seriously
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| dulcamara wrote: |
Wayne, wrote
| Quote: |
acceleration and gravity are the same thing, so one can't be due to the other
|
really? |
Yep - It has been said that there is absolutely no formula that can be done to prove they are different. So, 3 years ago, me being a malicious barsteward gave some students their summer to come up with something (anything) that could prove them to be (even slightly) different. They all failed. There is no difference; they are one and the same. Bet the new intake are glad I'm not there any more. But I do remember riding up and down the lifts throwing tennis balls at each other to demonstrate the point, that was fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Wayne,
Haha I was unfortunate enough to be a physics student, we got asked to do the 1 + 1 thingy as well, not a chance!! not debating what gravity is etc. though in skiing surely there is a case for seperating gravity and acceleration in other directions in regards to turns etc.. I find it helps.
I also advocate the use of physics in ski discussion as long as it helps and isnt just used to make something (or someone) simple sound more complex. If its the simplest way to explain something perfect, if people make me concentrate to read something I (and I suspect many others) just won't bother, lazy like that
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
dulcamara,
It can be done (to prove that 1 + 1 does not = 2) If you're really nice I tell you the answer. No, on second thoughts you should come up with it ha ha ha (sorry). Give ya a clue. BANG. There you go, you have to get it now. Write 2,500 digits explaining this and hand it in within 4 weeks and don't forget to include references to particle annihilation and lack of causation of post event effects .
Oh yeah may get round one day to amending that wiki-thingy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration) it's using dumbed down "stuff" and confusing (me anyway)
Anyway, enough of this waffle - lets get back to skiing, which still baffles me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I don't think we are cool 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
dulcamara, whenever I've heard of "blocking" it's also in the context comprex uses, or more specifically in the context of a body(-part) position that impedes you from making a movement you need to (although I recently had a lovely crash at Hemel doing exactly what you describe). It's a concept clearly beloved of instructors attempting to make a point. The further I go though the less I believe it - at least in the exact way they use it. The classic case is the wide/narrow stance question. Instructors always assert how having a narrow stance blocks development of edge angle - encouraging you to take a wider stance. Race coaches though then take this wider stance and demonstrate how much more solid and better engaged the edges (particularly of the inside ski) are with a narrower stance .
I do wonder though if this may be a historical hangover, something that's been hung on to beyond it's original relevance. When people learned to ski with their feet essentially bolted together I can imagine that such a narrow stance did impede angling the skis. Hence the "get your feet further apart" instruction made sense and got into the instructors' communal psyche. As the transition to wider skis has progressed though, it's no longer possible even to ski straight with the feet so close together (or the skis ride on top of each other), and what we consider a narrow stance is still wider than the old "bolted together" stance, and we're more used to moving our legs independently. But the mantra remains, forcing feet ever wider, which results in the vast majority of intermediates I see skiing with feet at least shoulder width apart - which may be laterally stable but really gets in the way of a "strong" and efficient stance at higher edge angles. That Rocca picture is a great example of narrow stance (i.e. leg separation) with feet separated by as much as required to keep the majority of the force on the outside ski. As I understand it, though, the Austrians do still go for a wider stance, but that does seem to require much more work on "cowboy" skiing to keep an effective inside ski angle. |
This aligns pretty well with my reaction to the use of "blocking" terminology. I have difficulty separating the possible overuse of the "jargon" as part of the mysticism that makes ski instructors special from actual real problems.
Also semantically I think of a block as something like a roadblock. There will be times when its simpler and easier to drive round it than spend lots of time and energy dismantling it. Obviously some times there won't be a detour option and those are the occasions I'd suggest when "blocking" is a real issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
fatbob, Please could you answer my other thread on this BZK.. no1 is helping me and i have no idea what you're talking about... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
fatbob, can there be mental "blocks" as well that impede learning ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Wayne wrote: |
| acceleration and gravity are the same thing |
Quite clearly not. Consider spinning a ball around your head on a cord (e.g. as in a hammer thrower winding-up). The ball is accelerating towards the centre of rotation (a = v^2/r), and due to it having mass this requires a force to be exterted to constrain it to that path, F=ma. While there is some gravitational attraction between the ball and the hammer thrower, this has virtually nothing to do with the fact that the ball continues in it's circular path. That is all about the tension in the cord. Once you let go of the cord the force disappears and the ball no longer accelerates to the centre of rotation - hence the sport of hammer throwing. Gravitational effects before and after the point of release are identical, but the acceleration is grossly different. Hence acceleration != gravity and your thesis is disproved.
I can think of several other examples in similar vein.
[Tufton Buffton in the Torygraph mode]
Does the fact that no student could come up with this show how much modern education has been dumbed down?
[/Tufton Buffton in the Torygraph mode]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah but the really interesting question is "what is mass" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrahamN,
The statement that gravity is an acceleration, but acceleration doesn't have to be gravity did not need that superb example of over complicating things to try and make something simple more convincing.
Just say there are other forms of acceleration other than gravity, if Wayne, is infact a physics lecturer, im sure he already understands this, and if somehow he didnt, it could easily be explained without a rotating acceleration equation.... but (and im sorry, i dont mean to offend) thanks for proving our points
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wayne, oh dear - sophistry and logic chopping now . If you want to talk about the 3rd law then fine we can talk about the forces the ball exerts on the thrower and the thrower on the ball (mediated by the cord), actions and reactions along the cord, or if you're unhappy about the interaction between the thrower and the ground then we can consider the two body system (thrower + ball) floating in free space and rotations around the centroid of the system, and their respective motions once he lets go of the cord. But none of this makes the remotest difference to the thrust of the argument (i.e. acceleration != gravity). And it's adding to dulcamara's contention of overcomplication. You could also come back I guess saying that everything is different flavours of the same (electrostatic and exchange forces in chemical bonds holding the cord together etc), but that's also utterly irrelevant as we're also nowhere near the energy levels (particularly on a Friday afternoon) required for Grand Unification.
dulcamara, see, I'd put in enough to make an adequate case, but if someone's determined to be obstructive there's little to be done. There are places for challenging macroscopic approximations, but this isn't it.
Oh, I see you've largely rewritten your post now! No, that example wasn't anything to do with a rotational accelerating frame, but acceleration within a "static" (inertial) frame (i.e. that of the earth). I've never been too strong on rotational frames of reference, but even within that frame, say if he lived on the side of the ball he'd experience forces that are very different from gravitational forces (the good old "centrifugal force", et al) trying to fling him off the side, until the string broke. Remember this is very different from the position of us on the Earth orbiting the Sun - we're experiencing the same effect from the Sun as is the Earth, so within the Earth's frame we experience just the gravitational effect from the Earth itself. In the man on the ball case, the man doesn't experience the effect of the string whereas the ball does, hence he sees a force directed away from the centre of rotation.
If people think rotational acceleration is too complicated (more dumbing down), think about standing on too weak a bridge. Just before it breaks, nothing's moving - you're experiencing a downward force due to gravity, and an upward force balancing it from the bridge, resulting in no acceleration. The bridge then breaks and the reaction force disappears, the structure of the bridge no longer being able to sustain it; you then begin to accelerate - gravity is the same but acceleration is definitely not (similar arguments rehearsed in The Bricklayer, G Hoffnug, Oxford Union, 1958).
Agreed, nothing to do with skiing, but relevant to whether Mr Newton can be used in discussions of how skiing works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Thanks Beanie1 - that puts it in context. Yes, they were both Rossignol GS skis - 4g (probably 20+ years old) versus Radical X. I used to do some club racing when a bit younger, so I presume I have a modicum of technique. However, I'm going down to Manchester for a day with Warren Smith Academy in November, so perhaps that will sort me out !
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| deerman wrote: |
| Thanks Beanie1 - that puts it in context. Yes, they were both Rossignol GS skis - 4g (probably 20+ years old) versus Radical X. I used to do some club racing when a bit younger, so I presume I have a modicum of technique. However, I'm going down to Manchester for a day with Warren Smith Academy in November, so perhaps that will sort me out ! |
Prepare to learn that you don't have enough ankle flex. I think if you're doing WS you be well advised not to mess your head up with bad internet advice beforehand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| comprex wrote: |
| david@mediacopy wrote: |
When teaching now I sometimes tell students that skiing is a bit like baking. Lots of recipes and ways of doing things, but you still get cake at the end of it. |
One has to know which cake one wants. |
Indeed, but the student knows there are a few to choose from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Woah, "I don't believe in blocking" got super-physicsy. Isn't blocking easier to explain by saying that all joints have a maximum range of motion, and that your body can be posed in ways that limit the ranges? I really, really can't think of a good worked example (doesn't anyone else really struggle to think in ski terms with six months off snow?), but it's something I've felt and worked on in my own skiing.
Actually, here's a slightly rubbish one - I encourage students to have their arms "open" - as in, elbows out from waist, wrists further out than elbows, knuckles out from wrists - as opposed to all in line with each other. This means that your hands aren't impeded (blocked) by your torso or similar, so you have more range to pole plant.
That's a really bad example as I think of blocking as something that limits actual biomechanical efficiency - but you get the jist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I think I had a blocking problem with side slipping. I couldn't get my skis flat enough to the slope, however hard I tried, so I went nowhere. French instructor grabbed my hips and put them in the right place - problem solved, I could vary my edge angles much better. I still have to occasionally practice the odd side slip to check my hip position. I think hip position being wrong might be a girly thing - women have more range of motion, so it is easier to be in the wrong place - certainly true in my other sport.
Is that blocking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Randomsabreur, you need to learn loosen the knees. That's the key to sideslipping. An aggressive double knee roll downhill disengages the edges grip of the piste and initiates a strong sideslip, even on the flattest of slopes. A subtle double knee roll uphill gently reengages the edges and brings you to a stop.
Moving your hips downhill can work because the hips pull the knees to the right postion, but it doesn't get to the source of the problem, the stiff knees. You can practice this at home; just standing in an athletic stance and rolling your knees left and right while your hips remain locationally stable. Practice increasing the range of how far you roll right and left, and how fast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Randomsabreur wrote: |
| French instructor grabbed my hips and put them in the right place - problem solved |
So every time you are being taught by a dishy French instructor, the problem will recur?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Ok, Randomsabreur, I get the picture now.
I do a lot of emphasizing of the Athletic Stance in my DVDs. Even though it seems more secure in a crunched (hips back, knees over flexed) stance, it's actually counterproductive because it makes steering, edging, and everything else harder to do. And it's just a way more tiring position to ski in. The trigger to overcome it is remembering to extend the knees. That pulls the hips forward. When the hips come forward, the torso automatcally stops bending forward,,, and presto,,, you're in a tall and strong Athletic Stance.
Once you get in an athletic stance do some basic fore/aft balance drills to get comfortable skiing in various states of fore/aft balance, and to learn how to move from state to state, whenever you desire. When you have those basic balance skills the urge to return to the perceived safety of the hunched stance goes away, replaced by confidence in your skills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Did I hear my name? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
I do a lot of emphasizing of the Athletic Stance in my DVDs.
|
BTW, if you haven't already, I'd recommend picking up a copy of Rick's DVDs. Outstanding insight, great drills, and an overall approach to the journey of mastering skiing that anyone can follow. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ssh, hey!, welcome back, great to see you, where have you been?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| ssh, hey!, welcome back, great to see you, where have you been? |
Thanks!
Mostly flying! I've just crossed the United 1K barrier again this year and I've got another trip to Buenos Aires as well as a number of US domestic trips coming up. Glad I've got clients, but it's kept me very busy.
What's going on with you?
I'm looking forward to getting back on snow this year, since last year was such a struggle.
Let's go!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ssh, Nice to see you again. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
. I now recognise the feeling of "can't sideslip" as a cue to get my ass underneath me and tighten my core muscles. I had a similar moment at MK last week trying to do some short radius turns which slow you down (could never do them in lessons last year) - realised half way down the slope that the reason I wasn't getting the braking effect the instructor had wanted me to get was that I wasn't using my edges enough and that my behind was sticking out so I was losing the lateral flexibility to use the edges properly. Once I realised this I suddenly did 3 or 4 that actually seemed more like the instructor had been on at me to do all last year!
