 Poster: A snowHead
|
So I was quite pleased with this photo of myself, not least because I thought I was achieving some nice angulation, which was something I had been working on:
then I picked up last month's edition of Powder and saw Eric Hjorliefson's technique described as "old school" because he gets lots of angulation. so... is angulation old school? are all the cool kids going for inclination/stacking? any particular reason why?
(to my eye, Eric Hjorliefson has the prettiest style in ski movies so maybe I shouldn't worry)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
If you're doing short radius turns you'll want to angulate otherwise you have to move your upper body a long way in a very short amount of time. If you're doing high speed, long radius turns inclination is a better option because you have a more stacked stance to work with the very large forces that will be built up (although I think that dropping into a more angulated position at the end of a long radius turn will allow you to get more edge angle in order to tighten the turn - that seems to be the approach to GS training: start inclined then angulate once you're past the fall line).
I'd be cautious of any description of ski technique which used the terms old skool/nu skool. Smacks too much of what is fashionable rather than what is effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Arno, angulation looks good, but it does look a bit like you're dropping your hip into the turn.
OK here's a question. Differences between angulation, inclination and banking. Discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| beanie1 wrote: |
| Differences between angulation, inclination and banking. Discuss. |
Inclination is a relatively straight body position which is leaned into the turn. Angulation is a sideways bend at the waist so the legs are at a more acute angle to the snow than the upper body. Banking is a black art which seems to involve extracting huge quantities of taxpayers money when nobody is looking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Arno, whether old school or not, it's still an essential capability. Anyway, I thought the comment in Powder was complimentary 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I recently switched to leaning my whole body in (inclination) and have found it gives far more power and maneuverability into the turn, I might switch to angulation (breaking at the hip) when i release the ski in order to recenter but I honestly believe inclination is key especially if you are on stiff skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arno, angulation..without a doubt, IMV
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
dulcamara, here's Ted Ligety starting his GS turn with inclination and angulating at the gate to increase edge angle (as well as take a tighter line)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
beanie1, so I want my hips more "horizontal"? presumably so I don't get stuck on my inside ski?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| JT wrote: |
| Arno, angulation..without a doubt, IMV |
The question was: is angulation 'old school'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Arno wrote: |
| beanie1, so I want my hips more "horizontal"? presumably so I don't get stuck on my inside ski? |
I'd say that your hip is rotating to the outside of the turn (i.e. too open), weakening the edge angle and power you can apply to your outside ski as well as running the risk of getting too much on the inside ski. Here's a picture of me doing the same thing.
I'm trying to work on being too open by driving my outside hip and leg forward throughout the turn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hurtle, so what if it is perceived as such by some..
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
rob@rar, aha, I now see what you mean when you said to me the other day, 'Been there, done that.' That's very clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
rob@rar, Yeah pretty sure he learned that from me,
the only reservation I have is promoting breaking at the hip every turn in order to simply generate extra angle, as you can see in the frame by the blue gate, his legs and hips are very locked up reducing maneuverability and the inside ski is understeering quite merkedly requiring re-weighting earlier. This of course is fine as long as nothing goes wrong and he's judged the speed and line right
In my opinion this is a perfect example of a technique that is essential for a great racer but should be taught as a tool after mastering the more stable and regular turn nicely demonstrated at the red gate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| dulcamara wrote: |
| In my opinion this is a perfect example of a technique that is essential for a great racer but should be taught as a tool after mastering the more stable and regular turn nicely demonstrated at the red gate. |
But you wouldn't want to teach somebody to incline in the bumps, or when doing any short radius turns in fact?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
rob@rar, classic! I love that photo! I have several which closely resemble it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
completely different point. I was commenting on the use of Ted Ligety in a GS turn, I find the finer points of skiing technique vary so much between disciplines that it is most effective to assess each of them in relation to the style being used. Theres little point discussing the benifits of angulation and inclination in a mogul field in the same way as a GS turn.
As for slalom to GS in my humble opinion the turns should be based on the same technique and adapted to suit the turn, I am not making a sweeping statement banning angulation but i think it should be used in specific situations as an alternative to the base of inclination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| dulcamara wrote: |
| Theres little point discussing the benifits of angulation and inclination in a mogul field in the same way as a GS turn. |
Yes, I agree, but I thought you were making a general point about teaching the fundamentals rather than context specific. Sorry for mis-understanding what you said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| rob@rar, classic! I love that photo! I have several which closely resemble it. |
All equally bad, I'm sure 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
So how is inclination different from "banking" or simply "leaning in" (both of which are considered a gross technical error)? There is a fine line between the two that really makes a significant difference.
|
http://www.youcanski.com/en/coaching/inclination.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, that is not a bad photo at all, dont mock it!!! My only regret in skiing was i was born too late for the 80's neon, super long planked, spanish waiter style era! It looks far more fun than these over technical, pretentious days!!
Jealous of all the old-school crew out there, lots of respect
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| dulcamara wrote: |
| rob@rar, that is not a bad photo at all, dont mock it!!! My only regret in skiing was i was born too late for the 80's neon, super long planked, spanish waiter style era! It looks far more fun than these over technical, pretentious days!! |
It certainly was fun on blues and gentle reds if the snow was nice. The problem was I couldn't ski like that on anything steeper, faster, deeper or icier and as that was the only way I knew how to ski my level of fun soon diminished when I got out of the very narrow range of terrain I was competent on. I'm a more versatile skier now, and my level of fun is significantly higher 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| I'd be cautious of any description of ski technique which used the terms old skool/nu skool. Smacks too much of what is fashionable rather than what is effective. |
Quite - it may be fun for a bit of rabble rousing but it does little constructive other than provide some general context.
I think what happens with the angulation/inclination thing is really a load simpler than people try to make it. The complication comes in working out what you actually want to do. In essence it's all about balance.
- If we're trying to ski with our weight on the outside ski, then the force resulting from both gravity and centrifugal/petal (let's not go there either for now  ) action on our COM has to pass through our carving edge. If it falls outside the ski edge then we will fall to the outside of the turn, if it fall inside the edge then we will fall to the inside of the turn. Simple Newton.
- the relative contributions of gravity and cetriwhatever vary depending on our turn style; the faster and tighter the turn, the more centriwhatever dominates.
- inclination of the lower legs also increases the ski edge angle, and tightens the turn so increasing centriwhatever forces, but the COM is further inside the turn, so we need more to avoid falling over - and there's a bit of a compromise going on.
(Edit: forgot the most important point in this whole ramble) - if we only incline, for a given radius of turn there is only one speed at which we are stacked over that outside ski; if we want to go faster or slower we have to do something different
- we can alter the position of our COM by changing the amount of angulation we use; the more angulation the further out the COM gets, the more inclination the closer into the centre of the turn the COM gets; hence we can fine tune the balance position using angulation
- the balance state is transient though - we want to change radius and body position throughout the turn, not least so we can link into the next one, so at different parts of the turn we may want to be falling in or out, hence different amounts of inclination and angulation as we go
- actually though, if we're balancing on one edge, we CAN'T move the COM just by angulating - as there's no way of exerting torque on a single edge; what we actually do (if say we want to start a transition) is increase the edge angle by angulating, so the turn tightens, and the current position of the COM allows us to fall slightly to the outside of the turn and the body starts moving over the skis for the next turn. This is just like when riding a bike, a left turn has to start with a brief right hand (counter-)turn, otherwise you just carry on in a straight line (even if you bike turns to the left  ).
- the above is all modified a bit when the second ski is allowed to act - that does provide the second force point that allows a torque to be applied, and allows a second method of refining balance - but with the risk of trying to do too much with it and end up skiing too much on the inside ski  . Stance width can then come into the equation here - the wider the stance the more torque gets applied for a given force on the ski, so you need less inside ski force to achieve the same correction, but at the expense of more different paths and control decisions.
(and this leads onto another geeky topic I've been meaning to post about for months .
I'm really not sure about that Gurshman article, there are so many howlers in the introductory and physics part of it that he uses for justification I find it difficult to take the rest at face value. (For starters: 1) He points to that first photo, then talks about keeping hips and shoulders level - they're nothing close to level; 2) what the hell is "speed of the turn radius"; 3) turns do not produce energy, if anything they consume it). If ski teachers/coaches really want to use physics to support their arguments they ought to make sure they make sense , run it by someone who does know what they're talking about if necessary.
Looks like we could have a fun drink this evening!
(Edited for typos, and insertion of the most important point in the discussion )
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Mon 19-10-09 14:13; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
| If ski teachers/coaches really want to use physics to support their arguments they ought to make sure they make sense , run it by someone who does know what they're talking about if necessary! |
Best not to in my experience. Tends to end up in discussions like the infamous excessive inner tip lead thread, which actually started off as an interesting question, and something which I've talked about when teaching in the last few weeks. Sadly it got diverted into a discussion akin to an A level maths debate, much to the detriment of BzKs generally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 know it makes sense.
|
GrahamN, How long did it take to put all that into words (very poetically i must add) ????? crazy.
I dont think I can argue with any of the extensive above, however I dont feel analyzing the physics of mass falling inwards/outwards etc can helpfully explain use of inclining and angling for skiing doesnt take into account human biomechanics, bits/limbs getting in the way and ski acceleration etc etc... i reckon that aligning masses etc stuff should just be assumed in this case in order to get on with the original point.
what's the modern way of doing it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Rob, can't have been 1987 as you have I think SX92s on and that colour scheme appeared 1990 IIRC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| Rob, can't have been 1987 as you have I think SX92s on and that colour scheme appeared 1990 IIRC. |
...and "industry insiders" say snowheads is a community of excessively geeky keyboard warriors
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| beanie1 wrote: |
| Arno, angulation looks good, but it does look a bit like you're dropping your hip into the turn. |
having read more of this thread, I'm not sure that I am but judging technique on one pic is always difficult. sounds like a good excuse for a lesson early in the season
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
SX 92's in grey that year (1987) I think..??
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
rob@rar, well, you should have seen some of the shockers I have had.... they are burnt into my brain..
It's funny, I can remember exactly when I went, where, upto around 94' and then it all merges into .......err.... Chamonix.. and then a fugg.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
rob@rar, It's a very clever thing! Sadly, Like JT, I reckon I could have identified any bit of kit until around '94 and then it all goes a bit pear shaped. Maybe they changed the beer or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and we're back on equipment.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dulcamara wrote: |
| and we're back on equipment..... |
When I had a semi supervised coaching session at HH this summer one of my feedbacks was that I was sking with my skis too close together to which my response was " well I don't usually ski on skis like this in the real world". I can only conclude that put me on skinny skis and I turn into some bum wiggling eurofag.
Equipment and style are intrinsically linked for us amateurs I think, although people make too much of the OMG my ski is 17m radius and I need a 15m thing. I know the pros can ski anything on a racerroom GS but the biggest leap forward in all round skiing for me was when I first got on a fattish ski off a previous generation 70mm waisted "freeride" ski. Take away the crutch of a nice flattering ski shape and I'd like to see how many modern "blue run heros" would handle things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm full of cold and in no state to think particularly technically, but I've always thought inclination and angulation are things you combine and balance to keep your COM centred over your outside/downhill ski. Inclination with no angulation to countbalance it is what I'd of called banking (ie, / not >, so just leaning to the right rather than inclining to the right and angulating from the hip to bring your COM back over the ski). Never really heard of people aiming specifically to introduce one without the other - perhaps in phases of the turn but doesnt sit right with me conceptually to try and "incline more" or "angulate more"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
.
