 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Perhaps the topic really should be "how do you make your skiing look - to a skiing instructor - like your skis are parallel all the time and leave what that skiing instructor thinks are parallel tracks?
Once again - well played FtS 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Wow, finally read the whole thing!!! 
I have a simple exercise for all you top dogs, to do. Go to the Kindergarten play area, where hopefully you'll find one of the those roundabout ski tow things. It needs to be on a flat area, with no slope in any direction, to eliminate any unwanted variables. Strap yourself in and carve round a few laps. Keep the distance between your feet constant at all times, and then tell us what happens. Please remember to carve, not skid. Tell us if you could do it and how.
I'll tell you the physics - the lines made by the skis are concentric circles (parallel if you like), with a common centre (you're actually strapped to the centre, so no crap here about centres not being common please) - and yes the inner one has a smaller radius - yes it does, yes yes it does (try making the outer ski take the tighter radius on this one  ). Obviously the lines are not identical, because one circle is smaller than the other.
I know what I think happens - but do you? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Martin Bell wrote: |
| So the logical conclusion, is that divergence and convergence are a frequent and necessary part of top-level skiing. |
No no no and thrice no 
Divergence and Convergence of ski tracks are a frequent outcome of clean arc to arc park and ride skiing, but, going all the way back to page 2
Divergence and Convergence of skis are not a feature required to produce said tracks!!!!!!
All you 2D paper drawing experts produced lines of identical curves/arcs much earlier in this thread showing that this occurs! You didn't have to manually diverge the arcs at the apex and converge them at the transition!
Listen very carefully - I shall say this only once more  . A skier, with parallel shins, who edges both skis simultaneously, by the same amount, at the same time, will produce ski tracks that diverge and converge without the need to scissor/diverge/converge their skis.
Diverging skis - aka Scissoring - symptom of something else (most frequently a hip out of position (dropped) and/or inside ski loading), and certainly not a situation/condition that is trained in modern ski racing, and certainly not something to be comitted to muscle memory!!! There is no race coach I have yet met who will actively promote this and encourage this.
| Quote: |
| So the next question is: why are instructors and coaches not talking about divergence and convergence? |
Because it is never intent. Only outcome. This is not something to be comitting to muscle memory.
Diverging and Converging skis are an outcome, definitely not intent. Once again, I will highlight the dangers of using photo montages to back up situation, as I can just as easily find just as many where the skis are not diverging nor converging.
Are we to assume that if I post pics like these below, we should assume that these positions are intent and we should all be training to ski like this? 
What I will say is the devergence and convergence of skis are a frequent outcome - not intent - (but not necessary component) of high level skiing where the objective is to get down the hill in the fastest time, where balance over the dominant outside ski is all important (and therefore you don't really care to much about the inside ski in Phase 1 and 2) and you are merely guiding the inside ski along for the ride, and are not bothered about clean arc to arc skiing. All 3 pics above are prime examples of established balance over the outside ski, and getting the inside ski out of the way, primarily to facilitate balance and power over the outside ski, but also to encourage increased inclination/angulation.
As I said on page 6 (and countless people on Epic) - If people really want to use WC Racers as a model for technique we probably should be looking primarily at their practice runs rather than when they're going for broke in a real race. There's efficient skiing and then there's winning. Sometimes the 2 meet.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Sun 9-11-08 17:26; edited 9 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
beeryletcher, maybe so , but absolutlely irrelevant to the practice of skiing on a mountain with skis flexing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spyderman, I should give up mate. 23 pages and there are still people who cling to the belief that the inner ski prescribes a smaller radius.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
I reiterate, the argument from our side has never been that one can't ski parallel, or identical, but that a) one can't do both simultaneously and b) if they're parallel (i.e. making railroad tracks) then the skis are not being treated identically. And for the umpteenth time, there has been no argument that if you relax the requirement to be parallel then radii of inside track can be greater than that of outside for some part of the turn - but it is true that the overall radius of the inside track is tighter than that of the outside, and the tracks diverge/converge.
|
I think, if the truth be told, there has never been a consistent "our side" stance, as many bullets have been fired, each bullet trying to disagree with a vastly different point from the last, point scoring, trying to pick holes in the noise where the big picture has been lost, much haste spent in reloading, that I've lost count of how many flip flops there have been.
To attempt to give you some light on my view, I need to know where you stand on (clean arc to arc park and ride skiing) ski tracks. Do you come down on the side of identical tracks, or parallel tracks (with a common centre and therefore inside ski smaller radius)? I thought you understood it with the two snowboarders descending side by side down a pitch, doing the same turns at the same time example earlier in this thread.
BTW. I notice from your excellent photo that you are not deliberately trying to diverge your skis?
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Sun 9-11-08 15:36; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spyderman, imagine perching on the edge of a normal roundabout in the snow with your feet (and skis) off the ground and go for a spin or two. Your hips, along with all the rest of your body, are all describing concentric circles, with the common centre being the axle of the roundabout. Now put your feet and skis on the ground, everything is still describing those concentric circles. The fact that your skis are attached to your hips does not mean that those hips are the centre of rotation. And before V8 gets all hung up about circles again, exactly the same would apply with ellipses or any other curve shape you mention, it just harder to come up with a common illustration for those cases.
The one case where you could consider paths as identical and being separated by the hips is if you do that drill keeping your hips perpendicular to the fall line at all times. This does restrict the angle throught which you can turn though, requires outside tip lead to start with, and is certainly not a skiing style recommended by any performance coach I've had. Here's an example I gave back on page 8 - the tracks on the right are the relevant example.
| GrahamN wrote: |
... you can ski parallel fine, or in certain circumstances identical, but not both. ...All 4 lines are identical, random curves drawn in Paint, and no fixed centres of curvature. The pair on the left show them starting at identical times (the offset is -approximately - perpendicular to the track at its start), i.e. with no inner or outer tip lead. The problem with carving these tracks should be obvious. The pair on the right are the same tracks, but with the offset chosen to not cause the tracks to cross. They are identical, but clearly not parallel (look at the separation at the apices and the transitions). And the inner ski starts its first turn way before the outer.
 |
Note these tracks are also similar to the "bad stuff" cited in Gurshman's article (oh and BTW getting his name wrong is clearly NOT a typo by V8 - he's cited Gurshman three times on this site, and misspelled his name identically each time, and not once spelled it correctly).
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
jimmjimm, Not at all irrelevant. I happen to believe the main contenders here, are each fixated on an individual aspect of a particular turn.
Personally, I can find times when either inner or outer ski will be turning a tighter radius, the same radius, skidding, tracking parallel etc etc etc. Some turns having all of this happening at different points within it.
All I was trying to show in the 'clothes line' model above, is that you definately can have parallel tracks on a turn, with the inside ski in a tighter radius - in fact I suspect this situation is the most common of all, if a particular turn shape is locked onto, and not immediatley rolled back the other way. However, I supect 99% of people trying it will have some % of the inside skis turn being steered or skidded, not carved, and I wanted to show that.
In fact, I am quite sure this whole thread has nothing to do with anything, apart from a handful of egos acting up .
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| (oh and BTW getting his name wrong is clearly NOT a typo by V8 - he's cited Gurshman three times on this site, and misspelled his name identically each time, and not once spelled it correctly). |
This makes you feel better now, yes? 
Have the point +1.
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Sun 9-11-08 15:35; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| veeeight wrote: |
david@mediacopy, it isn't (describing a smaller radius). Thus there is no mechanism which the skier is using (unless he wants to produce a diverging inner ski).
It amazes me that some people still cling onto this concept. |
I don't think it is either. I've asked the question 2 or 3 times in this thread as to the mechanism the skier is using to enable the inner ski to describe a smaller radius (in a carved "rail road" tracks example) and no one has yet come up with a plausible answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
david@mediacopy, I want to know this too. This is why I brought up the idea of going round and round on one of the whirly machines. I don't believe it can be done as a pure carve, I believe one ski or other will have to be part steered/skidded and part carved to achieve this. The tighter turn the more steer will have to be used. For most people, who will be more 'outside ski dominant' it will be the inside ski being partly steered/skidded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| veeeight wrote: |
| I think, if the truth be told, there has never been a consistent "our side" stance, as many bullets have been fired, each bullet trying to disagree with a vastly different point from the last, much haste spent in reloading, that I've lost count of how many flip flops there have been. |
Absolute cr@p. The line has been very consistent - and different arguments have only arises with trying to keep up with the twists and turns you hve continually injected into the discussion as each of your "proofs" has come crashing down.
What you quoted is exactly what I have been saying all through this discussion - attempting to rebut absolutist stances from you. I actually think that tracks should be neither parallel nor identical, as both are absolutist patterns that have very little relevance to real skiing. What is important is what achieves the best performance. This will involve skis having different angles and pressures at various times throughout the turn (as described in that Gurshman article). I think that getting the most parallel tracks you can is a useful exercise in edge angle control and balance, and good for sorting A-frame tendencies - and when doing so the inner ski does describe an arc of smaller radius.
As I demonstrated using PhysicsMan's calculator further up this thread, the required differences in angles are small but real, as are the convergences and divergences of the skis. In a non-circular path the angles are also changing all the time, and there will be times when the outer ski has a tighter radius than the inner (most typically at the apex). In that photo, it looks to me as if my inner ski is angled maybe 5 degrees more than the outer (I don't have a protractor so I'm just eyeballing that), and I have no idea how close to parallel the skis are - I'd very much doubt they are better than a couple of degrees out. When skiing it I had no idea what relative angles my skis were, it's just that was what was required to keep them both carving in pretty much the same directions. And if I couldn't keep it carving (through lack of grip, or speed, or whatever) there would need to be a bit of foot rotation too - and then work on improving the technique to do it better next time around. I have asked you several times what tolerances your measurements have been made to, to which I got no reply other than "perfect". I'm pretty bad at keeping a constant stance width, so I doubt I'd manage to be more consistent than 5cm variation in a high power turn, I'd guess you should be able to do <2cm, but there is no such thing as perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
david@mediacopy, beeryletcher, this has been answered several times in the early pages of the thread - and these points were covered in a previous post by FastMan on Epic that was linked to by Sideshow_Bob. In a pure carve on hard ground, higher edge angle on the inside ski - and even a relative novice like me can do it (see above). On softer ground, the tip of the inside ski can be driven more into the snow and so get a tighter bend on the ski. If you're considering linked smaller angle turns (and you remove the requirement for the tracks to be parallel) there is also the cheat that you can start the new inner ski turning prior to the outer (going a bit bow legged around the transition, or make a small foot rotation) so it gets a bit of a head start into the new turn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
|
|
|
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?
|
brian, with this cast on my hand there's not a lot else I can do  . But it won't be long before I again lose the will to live.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
GrahamN, if you truly believe all that you have written, I truly wish you well in your skiing. I notice that you are now waffling out the line that skiing has little relevance to paper drawn absolute identical or parallel curves.
For those who wish to try and reproduce clean lines with zero foot rotation, I would suggest an extremely stiff pair of GS skis with a base bevel of 0.3 degrees, on hardpack or boilerplate ice. In these conditions you will be extremely unlikely to produce any form of rotation/pivoting, and will only be able to edge and carve the ski. I 100% guarantee you that you will produce clean tracks in the snow.
And you will tell instantly when you have
1. a higher inside ski angle than the outside
2. attempted to bend the inside ski more than the outside ski
3. lost the outside dominant ski
all 3 conditions that various people will try to "get a smaller radius" of the inside ski - it will go horribly wrong.
More than likely you won't feel much difference on recreational race skis or normal skis, as there are pretty forgiving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
| On softer ground, the tip of the inside ski can be driven more into the snow and so get a tighter bend on the ski. |
I would like to see you do this in reality with any significant outcome, given that the inside ski is ahead due to tip lead occuring.
Find me a photo montage where both skis are bent along the arc, but the inner ski is bent more than the outer ski (not one where the inner ski is bent and the outer ski is straight).
For those who so desperately want to cling to the notion that the inside ski must prescribe a smaller radius than the outside ski, please go and read both articles aforementioned before. In two seperate articles, Gurshman repeatedly states the inside ski prescribes a larger radius than the outside ski. Real life measurements and experiments (results posted earlier in this thread) also demonstrate this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| veeeight wrote: |
| Listen very carefully - I shall say this only once more . A skier, with parallel shins, who edges both skis simultaneously, by the same amount, at the same time, will produce ski tracks that diverge and converge without the need to scissor/diverge/converge their skis. |
Can you explain how the tracks can diverge or converge without the skis doing so!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
veeeight, as we've said time and again, the inner ski must prescribe a smaller radius if the feet are to be kept a set width apart with no diverging and converging of the skis and no skidding, which is I think your claim of how perfect carving should be done. I have already stated that often the inside ski does carve a larger radius of turn but it results in some divergence and convergence. I even posted photos to support the fact.
So what is it, Gurshman states that the inside skis a larger radius but you state they should track the same radius.
If you agree with Gurshman and the inside ski tracks a larger radius, do you think the feet/skis stay a set width apart or is there divergence/convergence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| veeeight wrote: |
| As I said on page 6 (and countless people on Epic) - If people really want to use WC Racers as a model for technique we probably should be looking primarily at their practice runs rather than when they're going for broke in a real race. There's efficient skiing and then there's winning. Sometimes the 2 meet. |
V8, my friend, we're going to have to "agree to differ" on this one as well!
This is where a ski-racer like myself and and a ski instructor like yourself (and most of the Epic contributors) have different perspectives on skiing.
I would rather watch a racer going 100%, and winning a World Cup against all of the best skiers in the world, than performing some sort of "pretty" skiing exercise for their coaches.
Winning skiing, is by definition the most efficient and effective skiing. (That doesn't mean the most energy efficient, but consisting of the purest carved turns, with the least possible amount of kinetic energy lost to skidding.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Martin Bell, What do you know about 'Winning skiing'????
Sorry dude, couldn't resist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Martin Bell wrote: |
I would rather watch a racer going 100%, and winning a World Cup against all of the best skiers in the world, than performing some sort of "pretty" skiing exercise for their coaches.
Winning skiing, is by definition the most efficient and effective skiing. (That doesn't mean the most energy efficient, but consisting of the purest carved turns, with the least possible amount of kinetic energy lost to skidding.) |
Thats all fine, however, we train athletes to ingrain muscle memory with the movement patterns that are efficient and effective, and this results in countless hours/days/weeks of "pretty" skiing. This is when the focus in on stance & balance etc., and when we ramp the speed up for the "balls to the wall" run, most things should stay in place, and of course, you have to do anything to stay in balance.
However, not doing hours/days/weeks of "pretty" skiing and just going for broke on every single run - that is recovery training - which also works if you are particularly athletic and gifted (eg: Bode) - but is also a strategy with higher risk.
I am reminded of this video (the music is ironic given the troller..... ) - when the balls are to the wall, all that matters is establishing good early balance and steering angle on the outside ski - and hang whatever happens to the inside ski (in Phase 1 & 2) - and watch carefully - and there results your divergence and convergence of the skis (due to many factors) !
http://uk.youtube.com/v/JGQ9egMTW9s
and the second video is hours/days/weeks/ of "pretty" skiing to train muscle memory
http://uk.youtube.com/v/TTboYL8CjaU
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
veeeight, are you a better skier than those in your vids and the pics a few posts up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
veeeight, nice. You have just posted two more vids that prove you are wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PJSki wrote: |
| veeeight, nice. You have just posted two more vids that prove you are wrong. |
A statement like that shows
1. You have an extremely closed mind
2. You have nothing more to contribute to furthering this discussion
3. You are merely in this for the point scoring
The videos are not new to this thread, and certainly not new to this forum. I've posted them repeatedly time and time again.
What might have been more useful would be a statement following your initial useless sentence.
Last edited by 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  on Sun 9-11-08 20:03; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
beeryletcher,
What would your response be if I said yes or no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
veeeight, eeerrrrrrmmmmm...If you profess to be better...then I say, you talk BS but your skiing is fabomundo 
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Sun 9-11-08 20:27; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Martin Bell wrote: |
| veeeight wrote: |
| Listen very carefully - I shall say this only once more . A skier, with parallel shins, who edges both skis simultaneously, by the same amount, at the same time, will produce ski tracks that diverge and converge without the need to scissor/diverge/converge their skis. |
Can you explain how the tracks can diverge or converge without the skis doing so! |
Sideshow_Bob already handled that one, back on p11. It would be possible with parallel skis with huge fore/aft separation, but with anything close to equally positioned legs you need converging/diverging skis.
| Sideshow_Bob wrote: |
Now for the interesting ones. What if we did keep the skis parallel and pointing in the same direction yet the two tracks could be overlaid atop each other? Well, here's a curve demonstrating some turns where the inside and outside tracks would exactly overlap each other. I've drawn some 'boots' representing where both boots would be at varying times throughout the turns. I've also drawn a line through the boots, highlighting where they're pointing and to show the skis/boots are parallel everywhere - pointing in the same direction. This line is not the ski - the ski would be bent onto the curve. It's rather an arrow pointing where the boot is pointing.
Look what happens. The tracks definitely converge and diverge. They're getting closer and then further apart. There's also a lot of tip lead, outside tip lead at the start of the curve and inside tip at the end. The feet can only be parallel if they're in a line directly across the fall line at all times. This would make it very difficult when we make turns at greater angles across the fall line, and as demonstrated above, impossible if we want to turn up the hill.
Hey, I thought we wanted our feet to be close together and have no tip lead? That's one of the ideas we want, right? What happens if we take the same curves and draw it so our inside and outside boots are level as our hips rotate through the turns:
But what's happening now? The feet are no longer parallel. They're scissoring at the start of the turn, and then coming back together at the end of the turn. Does this make the skier fall over? No - the left and right tracks are identical. How can that be when the feet are pointing apart? Simple, the feet are at different points along each track.
I think we'll all agree neither of these pictures mirror skiing reality, so it's pretty clear that the curves cannot overlap for anything other than really shallow short turns. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| veeeight wrote: |
| GrahamN wrote: |
| On softer ground, the tip of the inside ski can be driven more into the snow and so get a tighter bend on the ski. |
I would like to see you do this in reality with any significant outcome, given that the inside ski is ahead due to tip lead occuring. |
Well, I actually did it when playing with fore/aft positioning the inside foot while last December. Amazing as it seems, this now brings us back to the title of the thread, as it's a natural consequence of reducing inside tip lead. I overdid it, over-bent the front of my inside ski, it started turning like crazy and the inevitable yard-sale resulted. And, no I'm not going to waste any more time scouring the internet for such montages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
(re youtube clips)
I wondered when they would reappear, as they're obviously a couple of your favourites.
First thing to notice about the Wengen one, with reference to this discussion, is that not a single one of those turns is anything close to a pure carve. Each one is essentially a pivot entry, with then excellent balance and edge control to carve out of the turn. The bulk of the direction change is done in the air or during the slip. So has nothing to do with any of the last 20 pages of discussion.
In the second clip, the "pretty instructor-style" skiing, look at their transitions. At each transition Cuche lifts the new inside leg completely off the ground. So any turn during that phase is foot rotataion, which could easily account for the "fudge" - actually that initial divergence is very clear in his second and fourth turns as he turns towards the camera. Grandi does the same for every right turn lifting his left foot - not sure that he does the same for the right leg, the camera angle is not so clear. And again the tracks will not be perfectly narrow - look at the snow plumes off the tails of Grandi and Nyberg's skis. That only happens when the ski is pushing the snow sideways. And look at the pictures in Gurshman's article. Again, almost all the pictures of Maier and Schoenfelder, particularly those where we're looking at more bent outside skis, are not pure carved turns: follow the line of the ski from one frame to the next and you require a lateral displacement to the outside of the turn to get to the later frame, i.e. we're looking at a steered slide. So again, it's not the situation you keep on going on about. Maybe it would be better to look at the last dozen or so gates on the flat section from the GS in Soelden (where Chemmy was so fast), which were pretty much pure carved.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Sun 9-11-08 20:53; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| veeeight wrote: |
I am reminded of this video (the music is ironic given the troller..... ) - when the balls are to the wall, all that matters is establishing good early balance and steering angle on the outside ski - and hang whatever happens to the inside ski (in Phase 1 & 2) - and watch carefully - and there results your divergence and convergence of the skis (due to many factors) !
http://uk.youtube.com/v/JGQ9egMTW9s
and the second video is hours/days/weeks/ of "pretty" skiing to train muscle memory
http://uk.youtube.com/v/TTboYL8CjaU |
Yes, thanks for those again. I have actually raced on the slalom hill in Wengen (1986, for the combined) so I know all about "balls to the wall" - or in my case survival - on that particular hill.
Even in the second video, slight divergence and convergence is noticeable. Of course you don't need to tell me that ski-racers spend hours training to make turns with their skis and shins parallel and their feet equidistant. Because that is what their coaches are constantly telling them to do.
However, I am afraid that many coaches just parrot the latest catchphrases that they have been told, and many of them do not have a sufficient grasp of Euclidean geometry to realise that two curves cannot be simultaneously parallel and identical. The result: the racers have to perform little "fudging" moves here and there - if you watch carefully with a trained eye, those are clearly visible.
EDIT: cross post with GrahamN - he made the same point about the second video - in far superior detail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote: |
| Martin Bell, What do you know about 'Winning skiing'???? |
I watched a lot of other skiers doing it for 14 years! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Bell, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
GrahamN, the reason why I cited the Wengen race is to illustrate that when the going gets tough, your inside ski is actually all over the shop, which it demonstrates nicely, and if you take a freeze frame, one could actually extrapolate a theory that skiers ski'd with converging or diverging skis as intent. Also, your eye and analysis needs a little refinement: at the risk of Groundhog Day, this has already been posted way back on page 6.
There is ski divergence, yes, but remember please, this is an outcome, not intent. Especially with Grandi, you'll find that it is NOT inside ski divergence, which is what everyone here is fixated on - it is very easy to mistake the ski divergence as inside ski divergence, but if you look at the freeze frames below, you will see this is not the case.
The same applies when you are doing assessment and development - never just look at the symptom, look well before that instant to find the root cause.
The lifting of the tail is intent - to ensure good fore-aft balance on the outside ski. Not to facilitate any foot rotation. I can find plenty of examples where both skis remain planted in clean arc to arc turns.
| veeeight wrote: |
freeze frame it and you'll see that it's the outside ski running wide as a result of of them moving to the inside a little too quickly
Here's one such turn from Grandi in that video that shows an apparent ski divergence (in this case it's the outside ski running wide)
Grandi starts his turn totally on his inside ski (ala White Pass). Outside ski diverging, pointing to the outside.
Grandi gets more inclined, and is pretty well rotated into the turn. Still balancing predominantly on his inside ski.
Starting to engage the outside ski and build pressure in the fall line. So at this stage if you take this snapshot alone, it looks like the inside ski is diverging into the turn, but as we have the pictures above, we know that actually, it was the outside ski running wide.
At last! Both skis hooked up and carving well.
|
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Sun 9-11-08 23:23; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
