Inside Leg Extension - Pro's and Con's

[RadRab]

Bs"D
Hey Rick,
As great as it was to bask in the unique style of SC... I mean Heeeyoooka (he arrived just in time to lighten up this discussion which could turn anybody's CG around in circles), you probably won't get the correct radius from him. But don't do the math either, because the 120/65/105 is only for the 160cm which is (10.7m). @ 165cm it is 121/66/106 = (11.4). I don't know the dimensions of the 170cm.
BTW, I commend you for coming here with sincere, honest (not to mention intelligent) dialog. That's worth responding to.
I can't comment on what the honorable John M or Si might have heard verbally from HH or other PMTS instructors, but, according to the official explainations, the Super Phantom is not the same thing as the ILE. (For example, Anyone Can Be An Expert Video 2 - segment 19:42-20:35).
And, John M has quoted HH, and HH has subsequently written here explicitely that he does not recommend the ILE.
The Super Phantom is really just a more accurate (super) understanding and execution of the Phantom Move. It still advocates (at least a beginning of) a relaxing and flexing of the stance leg before any engagement of the uphill free foot - all the more so before any extention of it. Even after a transfer of balance has been achieved onto the uphill edge of the uphill ski, you continue to hold a traverse in the same direction with the same path of momentum (in essence still the end of the same turn and not yet the beginning of the new turn) as you continue a full release of the stance leg, and then the tipping of it to its LTE which only then pulls your CG downhill, rolls you onto the BTE of the new stance leg and begins the new turn. Note: ILE-xtention is not the same thing as ILE-ngagement
You can do this very early and very quickly, reducing the time/effects of the float, but, in PMTS, it must be achieved by the Phantom and not by a push of the inside leg.
However, to consider which is better, I have asked myself why? I have come to trust HH and PMTS, but perhaps could take a stab at explaination anyway.
It seems to me that the float is not just more "relaxing" or a "cool feeling" at the expense of "weakness", but that the transfer of balance to the uphill ski before the shift of the CG sets the new turn on a more solid foundation. It certainly affords a smoother transition, and this itself lends to the retention of reliable balance with a sustainable rhythm.
Perhaps ILE would have a useful application in steep and very narrow spots, for example, where a very quick reversal is demanded and the abruptness which would ordinarily be a disadvantage would be the order of the moment. A carving technician's hop turn without losing snow contact.

[RadRab]

Bs"D
Hey yo, ka, whazup bro? I came out of retirement slightly before you, so I don't suffer from those nasty withdrawal symptoms like how you now mumble to yourself: "...up, up, up, tip, tip, tip...".
Ah forget it, I can't try and keep up with your style. Good to see you at the bar, but we really should return to AA of post-aholics.
Seriously, that was a good clarification: "When you pull your inside leg up, the outside leg gets longer -- au natural." Like everything else in PMTS, things are different (sometimes opposite) from the way they appear on the surface. Make your outside leg longer is really the Phantom make your inside leg shorter. The make your inside leg shorter is probably really the very esoteric Phantom make your inside of the inside leg more inside. Am I ODing here?
Ok, just answer my man Max's as usual to the point question. On the other hand, what do you care how much SC...uhmm Heyoka weighs or what length he skis. That dude talks to himself.

[jbotti]

I think I remember Heyoka telling me that he/she it skis the IM 88's in a 175.
As for the current theme of this thread I love the concept of retracting or flexing the inside leg as a means of extending the stance leg. Very nicely put Heyoka.
I spent the last hour looking at video that my friend Thor Kallerud gave me. It's 3 dvd's of last seasons best runs that the US Ski team use as instructional video. The dvd I just finished watching is all slalom and GS. Using slow mo and the pause button, I was shocked to see how much agressive (and I mean agressive!!) flexing of the old stance leg occurs. It has been a great lesson for me to watch this because I have had some ridiculous idea that this is a progressive (vs. Agressive) move. It is most dramatic watching the slalom (where they have less time and space to initiate a turn) but it is equally evident in GS.
My takeaway, the faster and more agressive I flex, the faster I can initiate the next turn. Now if I add Heyoka's concept of inside leg retraction and I tip like hell at the same time, I might have something!!

And for all of you that are already skiing (while I wait for cold weather and snow in Tahoe) It just doesn't seem fair. But the again life rarely is. Enjoy!!

[John Mason]

I used to just remove pressure from the downhill leg while tipping it to create the release. A progressive collapse would have been an apt description. At the race camp, though, HH got me sometimes to do turns that were much more aggressive and quick and with more angle and it was caused by pulling the leg up faster than I would have believed.

My own reasoning for HH's advice to be very active about pulling up the old outside ski to end the turn and why it works better than the mental cue of collapsing it is that collapsing isn't fast enough. Your still in your own way of getting over and into the next turn. The forces you're trying to use to move over your skis are faster than what simply falling from gravity will produce. If you get that old downhill leg up and out of the way it will still actually stay on the snow, but you'll allow the full energy of the last turn to move you over.

I was very surprised at the videos I saw of myself in June. My goal this year it to make those types of angles accesible whenever I desire them with consistency.

Looks like Slava and Jbotti and I have been on the fitness kick. This will be fun. Slava down 15 pounds, I'm down 21 pounds, all of us biking like crazy. Hopefully this will help my consistency and ability to master technique at this next level. 3rd season starts 2 weeks and 3 days from now and the increase forum activity is just like holding a thick juicy steak in front of a man who hasn't had food in a week. drool!

[Heyoka]

Hey now,

"He's a real nowhere man. Sitting in his nowhere land. Nowhere Man can you see me at all".

What I'm figuring out -- because of course, I observe a lot by watching -- is that all these moves; flexing the outside leg, pulling the iniside leg up, inside leg movements = they're racing movements. Racing movements, are how one makes turns and what skis are designed for. Ya know, ski on the $500 part of the ski, not the $50 dollar part. Skis are meant to be skied on the edges. Except of course for when you skid, but we won't go there.

But I don't want to look like a racer, I want to look like me.

Exactly! If you learn how to apply these movements, you can not only look like a racer, you can look like whatever you damn want because you're in control. The mountain is yours.

It's just all about the movements.

Or in our case, "The movement". Hah hah hah. Had to throw that one in. After all, we are cult members, right?

I got the Monster 88 in a 175. I couldn't see anyone owning it any longer than that unless heli skiing @ 50mph plus. The longest it comes in is 185.

I loved the Supershape in a 170. Far as I know I'd be the first one in our click to own it in a 175. I'm not owning any ski shorter than 175.

You he/she/its gotta go to the Gathering in Utah. It's gonna be fun.

day 5. I actually found a little soft snow today @ the Love Land.

RustyUnderScoreGuy says we're all in the Head. Rusty's talkin trash. The Guy is the Fisher King, then rags on "us" for gettin some Head. Hey Rusty. I made turns with dp today. 155's? Why didn't you just sell him a pair of roller skates? One of these days...soon I'm hoping...Rusty is going to figure out where the good skis are. Hey Rusty. If you want to be the Fisher King, that's great. But can you at least sell your customers longer skis?

##########

[RadRab]

Was writing this before I saw the latest posts. I will get back to them later.
Bs"D
John,
Sorry to be so particular, but it seems to me that you gave a mixed bag of reasoning here.
Does the pull up have to do with "The forces you're trying to use to move over your skis..." and "...you'll allow the full energy of the last turn to move you over", or does it have to do with "...turns that were much more aggressive and quick and with more angle..." and "...If you get that old downhill leg up and out of the way..."? Because they are addressing two different dynamics. I believe you were correct with, specifically, the latter ideas.
The intention and effect of the verticle seperation of the feet (the pull up) is indeed to allow greater angles and a "longer" stance leg. By straightening the stance leg you increase the pressure on that ski, bending it into a deeper arc, and tightening the radius of the turn.
The greater forces generated are at this point in the middle and end of the turn and having to do with enhancing the current CG direction, not at initiation and not having to do with initial CG transition.
BTW, I liked your inclusion of the fact that despite the "pull up", the ski still stays on the snow (this move is another possible stumbling block if someone misunderstands), and thought I might offer this additional explaination:
HH has stressed that in PMTS, where we want to maintain a narrower stance [BTW, I think this, and the stress on one legged skiing also has something to do with why the ILE is undesirable to this/our way of skiing] we achieve specifically a verticle seperation of the feet, which, therefore, does not cause a wider seperation of the legs. Nevertheless, I think in the greater reality it is actually more horizontal in relation to the running surface of the slope , and therefore causes no lift off of it. Within the relative space of our own body and its structure - independent of what angle it may be assuming in relation to the planet and its gravitational influence, we are pulling the foot to our "up".
And herein also lies the advantageous paradox that the more we execute the pull "up" while achieving greater angles, the easier it will become to continue the pull as we approach an increasing alignment with gravity as far as the universal direction the foot is pulling in (ever more horizontal in relation to the slope), even as we are as a whole unit increasing the opposition to gravity with the sharper turn.
Dang, now that makes me want to get out there and swing in the loop. I can feel it in my ears. I think I am addicted to that. And I want those Head SuperSwoopers.

[RadRab]

Bs"D
Rick,
Yes, youv'e got it right now about having it wrong.
The Super Phantom is not the same thing as ILE, and again, that is not advocated in PMTS. At least this is the way I understand it. Perhaps HH will arrive on the scene and contribute definative analysis. Perhaps for an advanced skier there is a time and place for ILE. ?
But, for now, I do want to qualify my previous description - and then I will also try to answer your other very educated questions.
First of all, although there is definately first a (beginning of) relaxing of the stance leg, and a transfer of (that proportionate amount of) balance to the uphill edge of the uphill ski, before the turn is ended and the CG is pulled downhill by the subsequent continued relaxing and tipping of the old stance leg to its LTE, this, as you say, uphill transfer of the CM is only for a split second - almost simultaneous, but not.
Additionally, it is not really an uphill relocation of the CM as much as a continuation of the same momentum just on a different foot, even though that foot happens to be higher on the hill. You just finish the last split second of the turn on your inside ski. For this reason excersises are done traversing on your inside ski. Such a traverse is with the same balance, practically the same position of CM - perhaps already with slightly less counter.
This is also the answer to your question: "What mechanism do you use to move the CM uphill and establish balance over the old inside ski so you can prevent that immediate downhill projection of the CM and continue the previous arc/traverse?"
As a first move, the beginning of relaxation of the old stance leg and transfer of same positioned CM to the uphill ski, but without yet having begun to tip the old stance ski to its LTE for that split second, does not allow the external forces to have their way with the CM, and drive it downhill yet. The immediate to follow Phantom tipping will do this.
It is also not a contradiction to early or aggressive edge change to the (very soon to be) downhill edge of the new stance foot, but may take a micro second longer than ILE. So why do it this way?
Also, before proceeding, your final question was already answered in my previous post to John M. The aggressive pulling up of the old stance foot is not to speed transition. A repeat of the main point which I wrote there is at bottom here.*
Well, once we accept that we want to achieve our turn initiation specifically through the Phantom Move, we by force must say that first there has to be the intermediary "step" of/to the uphill ski to take over support (but not quite yet as the stance ski of the new turn) while we are removing it from the old stance leg to facilitate Phantom Tipping. Yes, but why start with the premise that the real relocation of CM downhill, and the birth of the uphill ski as the stance ski of the new turn on its BTE, should be accomplished only through Phantom tipping and not through a IL push off (or any other pushing or rotory)?
I wrote above a possible answer about more solid balance and smoothness. But, I think it should also be said this way.
Setting up calm balance, and then not disturbing it, is best accomplished by using the external forces to the maximum and your own extraneous movements to a minimum. As HH cleverly says, "Use the force".
You might think that ILE is the quickest and, therefore, maximum use of those forces by letting yourself immediately be drawn downhill, but because you had to initiate it with an internally generated push (itself not directly connected to the kinetic chain relating to the old or new turn), you have been inefficient at best, and have actually disturbed your good balance. You balance, the mountain will do the rest. It feels good for a reason. This is skiing! Ride that wave!
BTW, to offer something new, since we also stress one footed skiing, including aggressive verticle retracting of the free foot (but not wide seperation of the legs), then maybe, for us, it is not any quicker to extend that retracted free foot to push off of than the Super Phantom with a quick edge change roll over possible from our narrower stance. And, why we would want to start with the premise of narrower stanced one footedness has been spoken of already. Just one short quote from HH on this same thread:
"A wide stance, two footed skier has fewer options in the release then a skier who has a more narrow stance and balances on the inside edge of the outside ski throughout the turn."
Despite the fact that this very quote implies the use of additional release options, as oppossed to some other intrinsic advantage, those advantages have been addressed at length.
Right here, we spoke of wanting to increase the pressure on the outside ski by the retracting of the free foot. Well, first and foremost, there is more pressure on it just by virtue of there being a free foot, and all of the weight being directed to bending the other one ski.
For much more detail about the advantages to a narrow stance etc., see the following thread, for example (Just ignore Harald's tone if, for you, that will get in the way of the content. Sometimes, like all of us, he can be spicy, but besides being understandable in his position, he's probably a good guy because Heyoka likes him ):
http://www.realskiers.com/pmtsforum/vie ... 14&start=0

*
"The intention and effect of the verticle seperation of the feet (the pull up) is indeed to allow greater angles and a "longer" stance leg. By straightening the stance leg you increase the pressure on that ski, bending it into a deeper arc, and tightening the radius of the turn.
The greater forces generated are at this point in the middle and end of the turn and having to do with enhancing the current CG direction, not at initiation and not having to do with initial CG transition."

[john heath]

this is how i understand the difference (apologies if this has been mentioned already but i don't recall it from reading the posts):

if you relax, pull up or whatever the downhill leg, you are actually standing on the uphill ski. no getting away from that. as i understand it, harald advocates keeping that balance on the LTE of that ski until, through collapse and tipping of the downhill leg, the CM falls over the skis and the edge change of the uphill ski takes place passively. i think he would reject ILE because in the attempt to push the CM up and over the skis there is the very strong possibility that the stance ski will roll over to the BTE prematurely, thus creating a wedge entry that sabotages the whole turn.
those at the hintertux camp were able to see that problem occurring in the free skiing of some of the croatian women's team.

so there is a very fine line between balance transfer and feeling the support of the LTE of the uphill ski and actively extending that leg creating femur rotation at the very entry into the new turn.

that's my two cents worth.

[john heath]

looks like i'm echoing radrab there but i think summarising doesn't do any harm.

[John Mason]

Just to repeat there is not movement of the CM up the hill.

The release of the downhill ski that starts just after the Apex of the turn results instantly in the pressure of the turn being on the inside skis uphill LTE. The CM actually moves down the hill. Yet, balance is established on that uphill LTE which establishes the crisp hinge point for the transistion.

Maxiumum G-forces skiing this way are at the sides of the turn.

The context of my earlier comments were at speed and angles and g-forces that we were doing at the Race camp on Mt Hood.

[RadRab]

Bs"D
Thanks both Johns for the backup (John M for the important reaffirmation of no movement of the CM up the hill).
I am jealous of both your experiences at various on snow PMTS training that I have not yet had the opportunity to participate in (and don't know when I will).
John H., could you please elaborate on exactly what you saw occurring in the free skiing of some of the Croatian women's team members? Did you just mean they were wedging, or did this have something to do with ILE?

[RadRab]

Bs"D
Hey, Heyo, Heyok, Heyokaaaaaa!
(Just tell me please that this is not a pagan mantra or something.)
What gathering in Utah? When?
And, ok, I do want to know the answer to Max's question - how much does a Heyo weigh?
Whatever that thing is in Utah, the way things sound around here with the Supershape/im88 interest, it going to look like the invasion of the HH clones. Picture everyone staring with empty expressions, arms extended straight out, holding a certain two pairs of Heads, muttering something about a spooky Phantom, rocking from leg to leg.
Yeah, maybe I'll just get some Volkls. Oh, now there's a friekin cult! Actually, the Volkl Heyoka, I mean Mantra, looks like a pretty sweet ski - similar to the im88, but I'm sticking with the Head of the class.
Ok, no Beatles' lyrics, just your weight - and no lying.

[Max_501]

I was asking about weight because I'm wondering about what size IM88 would be right for my weight (165lbs). HH skis it in a 175 and he mentions that its a big ski. Heyoka makes a similar observation. Has anyone skied the 164cm? I'm thinking thats probably the right length for me, but I'm holding back because it just seems too short for a real powder ski.

[RadRab]

Bs"D
Max, I know, that's why I was interested in the question also - but as regards the SuperShape, not the im88.
I don't want to jack this thread with too much gear stuff. But, briefly:
I think it is clear that you need the 175cm (I definately will choose that - me = 170lbs).
If there were in between sizes, then perhaps it would be more of a question for you. But, for powder, 164 vs 175? Its a no brainer.
My qestion on the SuperShape is because I want to use it for all around use. If it was for Slalom racing, I would use a 160cm. (legal for nonFIS me).
But, as an everyday all mountain ski for everything except within two days of a good storm (according to reports here, maybe 1 day), I should be longer. The question is:
165cm - better/easier short radius, but is it stable enough at speed, and do a good enough comfortable enough long radius turn for all mountain use. OR,
170cm - clearly will address those concerns, but how much will be lost in quickness.
I lean heavily towards the 170cm because the sidecut is anyway so deep that even at 170cm it should turn as well as many dedicated slalom's @ 160cm. Then you also get the versatility.
I was hoping that HH would update his "eguipment we use - skis" page, so we could all see what length he uses for what and why.
Meanwhile, to calm the nerves, I figured that Heykydeky was a fix.