Upper/Lower Body Coordination -- Countering Actions

[SkierSynergy]

I'm good up to here, so long as I am thinking that the LTE is the hinge point.

Actually, a counter balance movement is independent of weight transfer or which edge is being used.

I think the priciples and the movement applies whether your weight is totally transfered to the stance ski and you are on the BTE of that ski or if your weight is totally transfered to the inside leg and you are on the LTE of the inside leg (as in a one footed weighted release), or in some intermediate state of transfer and on both edges.

are you suggesting that whole body leaning pushes the ski out too much? I think the latter.

Yes, I am assuming that this position does something nonoptimal to the force vector on the ski: moves the intesection point of the of the force vector on the ski away from the edge, changes (flattens?) the angle of the force vector, etc. I am also assuming that counter balancing does the opposite. This could be totally wrong, but Ths is what I am assuming right now.

I am undecided between a strong and a weak version of how countering actions affect edge hold.

The weak version is that these actions simply allow deeper edge angles in an easier, more balanced position. If you can get deeper edges you get better hold. In this version, for a particular edge angle, there will be an optimum amount of these movements that will result in an optimum amount of edge hold ; and so the goal is to find that optimum position for that turn and quietly hold it.

The stronger version is that for a particular edge angle these actions add grip. The more thay are done, the better the grip without necessarily increasing the angle. In other words, keeping the edge angle constant, where and how the resultant forces are applied to the skis change in relation to these movements. In this view more is better. Use counter actions as aggressively as possible. Most of what I have been saying assumes this more aggressive notion.

Yes, leg steering continuously moves the hinge point.

I also think that the kinesiology of leg steering/ inward knee rotation (knee angulation, knee driving, etc) adds force to the outside (high side of the foot/ski) usually at the heel. This force is consistent with the restoring force of the ski and tends to flatten it as the rotational force is applied (result = tail skid). This starts a chain of self suppporting (or should I say self defeating) actions.

Steering => skid => more knee/leg steering in an attempt to get more edge =>more skidding => etc.

If this cycle really produced good carving people would just steer hard, as much as they could, right from the start of the turn. But of course that doesn't work at all. That would just produce a strong skidding rotation that would be hard to control.

Because everyone knows this would result, the common recipes for adding leg steering or extra knee rotation is to try to give it in little doses throughout the turn (blending) or in a big dose at the end of the turn just before big counter measures are applied to start the new turn in the opposite direction. this way the negative effects don't infect the rest of the turn.

What is true in big doses is also true in little doses

My position is that if this is what you are trying to do and you are willing to live with the trade-offs in other aspects, go for it, but I think what should be clear is that any over driving of the knee or blending in of steering, in an attempt to get more edge, cannot produce more edge hold. By their nature they are attempts to introduce/replace edging with rotational skidding.

Ooops I started with an explanation of how steering etc affects the forces on the ski, etc and then went off a little . . . reigned back in now . . . oh well.

[SkierSynergy]

I am undecided between a strong and a weak version of how countering actions affect edge hold.

The weak version is that these actions simply allow deeper edge angles in an easier, more balanced position. If you can get deeper edges you get better hold. In this version, for a particular edge angle, there will be an optimum amount of these movements that will result in an optimum amount of edge hold ; and so the goal is to find that optimum position for that turn and quietly hold it.

The stronger version is that for a particular edge angle these actions add grip. The more thay are done, the better the grip without necessarily increasing the angle. In other words, keeping the edge angle constant, where and how the resultant forces are applied to the skis change in relation to these movements. In this view more is better. Use counter actions as aggressively as possible. Most of what I have been saying assumes this more aggressive notion.

Sorry to quote myself, but I just had this sticking in my head.

Probably both versions are true.

Countering actions (such as counter balance) probably do affect the way force is applied to the ski/edge independent of just allowing deeper angles -- otherwise one wouldn't notice an increased sense of bite when using them with a constant edge angle.

However:
there probably is an optimal amount of countering actions for a given edge angle more than which would get in the way of the lower body tipping actions and less than which would lose edge bite.

However again:
the aggressiveness of these actions for any real egdging (edging where you could begin to read something off the bottom of the ski) is probably so much more aggressive than most of us are used to that, as a practical matter, you probably can't ever get too much.

Sorry for the conversation with myself.

[piggyslayer]

I may have a better illustration of Jay?s point (if I understand it).
Think of your "trap/lever door" which opens on one set on hinges which are on one side of it. Now think of the hinges being loose and moving a bit left and right.
Picture opening up and closing down the door, I think you will find that it will be hard to do it without moving the hinges much.

Now picture a redesigned door which folds in the middle and is half the size of the original door when folded (still fixed with loose set of hinges on one end) and you are lifting it up so it ?unfolds?. I think it is clear that it is much easier to lift the door up and move the door down without moving much the hinges. Well you will have half of the door opening not covered this way, but that is not the point.

Another words the second door makes the balancing on loose hinges more stable.

Do I get more or less where the argument is going?
In this analogy (which is a big simplification) the milesb problem is simply ignored. The skier is the door and the ski is the hinge. In real life the hinge is to one side of the door, but the overall point is still valid it just has nothing to do with milesb point.

I think the idea of hinge is introduces so people think and conceptualize of clear lateral movement with current holding edge being the fulcrum point. This gets rid not only of any visual misinterpretations involving rotary movements, but also lets us conceptualize the turn placing the pivoting point (I know loaded word) in the optimal place (skis flip from edge to edge around current holding edge and not around, say groove point on the ski). I like the hinging analogy even if it is simply an analogy. Improves how I conceptualize the turn.

PS. I never ever skied on fat skis, I own mid-fats, but this probably does not come even close to forces required to tip fats. Would narrowing stance help a bit?

[Hobbit]

I like the hinge analogy and I think that it helps explaining some other topics of the turn and transition.
I think that some PMTS skiers (including myself ) have a tendency of too much one ? footed skiing.
This was probably caused by simulating the classic phantom move turns from the book one video.
In the one-footed turn the balancing skills are paramount. Hinging analogy explains why it is so.
The beginner skier would transfer balance and apply the weight to the middle of the ski (laterally).
This would make tipping to the higher edge harder. Over-counter (which I tend to do as well) will do the same ? your balance is more stable, but don?t expect to get a high edge either. In essence, if the balancing skills are not good enough we tend to balance with the weight applied more over the hinge since it offers some resistance.
I believe that getting a good angle is a transient process and hinge explains why for skiers who can balance on the edge itself it is effortless process of ?using the force? while others will struggle and never get it.

[milesb]

Mr. piggy, not to get too off topic, but as Jay pointed out, in soft snow the edge skinks into the snow so the edging is not really difficult. And normally on hard snow I would have very little pressure on the inside ski, so again it is not hard to tip (same idea as it sinking into the soft snow, only above it.). It's the keeping the edge in one place and moving the rest of the ski that makes it hard to tip.

[BigE]

are you suggesting that whole body leaning pushes the ski out too much? I think the latter.

Yes, I am assuming that this position does something nonoptimal to the force vector on the ski: moves the intesection point of the of the force vector on the ski away from the edge, changes (flattens?) the angle of the force vector, etc. I am also assuming that counter balancing does the opposite. This could be totally wrong, but Ths is what I am assuming right now.

I am undecided between a strong and a weak version of how countering actions affect edge hold.

The weak version is that these actions simply allow deeper edge angles in an easier, more balanced position. If you can get deeper edges you get better hold. In this version, for a particular edge angle, there will be an optimum amount of these movements that will result in an optimum amount of edge hold ; and so the goal is to find that optimum position for that turn and quietly hold it.

The stronger version is that for a particular edge angle these actions add grip. The more thay are done, the better the grip without necessarily increasing the angle. In other words, keeping the edge angle constant, where and how the resultant forces are applied to the skis change in relation to these movements. In this view more is better. Use counter actions as aggressively as possible. Most of what I have been saying assumes this more aggressive notion.

I disagree. The force vector will not move just because I alter where my belly points. To move the vector, I have to move the upper body in relation to the ski... Moving the upper body more inside will increase the edge angle, thus more grip, right until you shear the snow off the hill.

IMO, using only inclination makes it harder to absorb changes in terrain and keep the edge engaged. The countering movements allow you be much more dynamic, and hence you can better handle to same changes in terrain.

What is perceived as more grip is actually a greater ability to absorb shocks, and avoid slippage.

That's my 2 cents.

[piggyslayer]

milesb, I agree, I assumed hard snow based on your post.
My point is that the door analogy as I described it (and maybe I misunderstood what Skier Synergy wanted to convey) is not relevant to your post, and your post forumulated a separate issue which I am not attempting to answer.

Robert

[SkierSynergy]

I disagree. The force vector will not move just because I alter where my belly points. To move the vector, I have to move the upper body in relation to the ski...

I totally agree that counter movement alone will not affect the force vector on the skis.

However, I think counter balance does is changing the relationship of CM to the ski(s).

I have seen 3 different eplanations of why counter balance seems to increase edge hold.

1. Over on epic right now there is a new thread that touches on this topic and the most commonly held idea there is that counter balancing (over there they think of this as leaning the upper body to the outside of the turn) transfers more weight to the outside (stance) foot.

I think this totally confuses transfer movements with counter balancing. As I pointed out in an earlier post, I can counter balance and it has an effect even when the inside foot is totally light and all of my weight has already been transfered to the stance foot. I can also do it when I am doing a weighted release.

2. The weak version I presented above. BigE seems to hold to a version of this. It goes something like: counter balancing allows you to get more edge angle in a more balanced position. The deeper edge angle accounts for the greater grip. In addition, BigE feels that it allows more continuous and smoother edge contact with the snow (somthing like the effect of as good suspension) and you don'tb get this with leaning.

I can understand the first part of this position. I also agree that counter balance keeps one in contact with the ski and leaninmg detaches the skier from the ski. In other words, leaning doesn't keep pressure on the ski in the way that counter balancing does. However, I'm not sure that this is simply a suspension effect with no effect on how the forces are put to the ski.

3. Counter balancing changes the relationship of the CM to the ski(s) and therefore changes how the forces are transmitted through the ski.

Let me think out loud about this possibility a little more.

In most of my discussion of the hinge analogy, I have thought of the effect on the stance ski. Consider just the stance ski (imagine that the inside ski is totally unweighted). The BTE of the stance ski is the hinge line. In hard snow, because the edge is offset from the center line of the ski, the ski experiences a restoring force that makes it "want" to go flat to the slope. You have to apply force on the ski to raise the outside edge that is at least greater than the restoring force. The forces making the ski want to go flat increase somewhat with the foces of the turn. In reality, the forces across the width of the ski are do not straight forwardly intersect with the ski base. They form a pressure gradient across the width of the ski. In order to be most efficient in edging on hard snow, the pressuring of the ski has to be most concentrated on along the hinge line (the BTE of the ski). So, in general people want a position that keeps the general force line of the turn right on (or just inside) the carving edge of the ski.

The other issue is the general angle of the force on the edge. If it drops inside too much, there is too much sheer and the edge releases. if the ski flattens there is to much sheer and the edge releases.

This game of give and take is adjusted through the relationship of edge angle versus counter balance.

I am assuming that in the situation I descibed that there is probably an optimium amount of counter balance for a given set-up (ski, skier, snow, edge angle, etc.) that will maximize the forces involved and hence the grip for that edge angle. However, in large edge angles the amount of counter balance needed is very great and it must be maintained against the other forces of the turn. So that while in principle, one should just find that optimum possition and quietly hold it. In practical terms this requires constant and very aggressive effort.

Part of the reason that counter movement is used is that it alloows one to do counter balancing with a sit-up like motion rather than just to the side. We have more flexibility to do it this way and use better muscles for resisting the large forces involved.


I certainly think position 1 above is wrong.

Position 2 I agree with, but I also think that it is probably a bit simple. There is probably something to position 3.

Anyone else wantb to weigh in.

I'll leave this line of thinking in the next post and offer some exercises and thoughts on "unwinding" or "following" of the upper body in the turn to avoid park-n-ride.

[John Mason]

Trying to be a simple as possible - here is what I got from the carver camp and the instructor camp.

counter balance is when the body is in a "c" shape

bring the skis in edge without knee pointing just standing in one place will create this shape. You'll have to go to a "c" shape to keep balancing.

counter is having the hip rotated to the outside of the turn. This increases the edge angle. You can try both of this standing in a doorway.

Why does counter and counter balance increase edge hold? Both actions, as opposed to simple body inclination, bring the CM closer to the skis. You have two vectors of force your playing with here. Straight Down vs the centripidal force that is a Sideways force. You are increasing your down vector and lessoning your sideways vector by using any movement that brings your CM closer to a vertical line straight up from your skis.

At the camp we spent a lot of time on the notion of bringing actual counter (as opposed to counter balance) to the very beginning of the turn. Most people ski with counter as it naturally occurs only in the bottom of their turns. This was very different for most of the people there. We worked on this same thing at the carver camp.

Look at that rather famous pic of Bode on Epic where people were thinking he wasn't countered. He is actually about 30 degrees countered. (just see where the hips are pointed vs the skis, ignore the head,hands etc)

If you follow the tipping of the skis and their angle, you'll see Bode's body is way more vertical than what an inclination line would produce at right angles to the ski tops. Whatever brings your cm closer to your skis will change the vector ratio and affect edge hold.

The extreme example of this is a railroad turn start. Your balanced on tipped skis with no turn forces. The total force vector is straight down. Obviously your skis will not skid sideways when the force if vertical vs sideways. Thus your edge hold is at theoritical max in that situation. Likeways modifying your vectors to more vertical in a dynamic turn by using counter and counter balance to bring your CM closer to your skis has a like effect. Less sideways force than if you were relying on simple inclination for your turn. (orders of magnitude less sideways force in fact)

[SkierSynergy]

Why does counter and counter balance increase edge hold? Both actions, as opposed to simple body inclination, bring the CM closer to the skis.

This is what I understood.

counter is having the hip rotated to the outside of the turn. This increases the edge angle. You can try both of this standing in a doorway.

I take it you meant to say rotated to face the outside of the turn.


I actually think that counter balance and counter movement have distinct functions and that they are hierarchical in their contribution. I think counter balance brings the CM closer to the skis and increases grip.

Counter movement places the body in a more efficient position to both tip and counter balance -- and, of course, it also helps eliminate rotation and steering. I would say that, alone, counter balance does the most to facilitate the movements of the lower body and that, in a positive sense, counter movement is next.

I am saying this as a general statement. Of course, in context of a particular person's skiing, which one would be most important to work on would depend on an identification of the the person's SMIM (single most important movement).

As long as I said this I'll throw out an idea that I have in a new thread.

[BigE]

3. Counter balancing changes the relationship of the CM to the ski(s) and therefore changes how the forces are transmitted through the ski.

Let me think out loud about this possibility a little more.

In most of my discussion of the hinge analogy, I have thought of the effect on the stance ski. Consider just the stance ski (imagine that the inside ski is totally unweighted). The BTE of the stance ski is the hinge line. In hard snow, because the edge is offset from the center line of the ski, the ski experiences a restoring force that makes it "want" to go flat to the slope. You have to apply force on the ski to raise the outside edge that is at least greater than the restoring force. The forces making the ski want to go flat increase somewhat with the foces of the turn. In reality, the forces across the width of the ski are do not straight forwardly intersect with the ski base. They form a pressure gradient across the width of the ski. In order to be most efficient in edging on hard snow, the pressuring of the ski has to be most concentrated on along the hinge line (the BTE of the ski). So, in general people want a position that keeps the general force line of the turn right on (or just inside) the carving edge of the ski.

There is no pressure gradient created by the force line. If the force line is on the outside, you will rise and topple over. If the force line is directly on the ski, your stable. If the force line is inside, you are either just initiating a turn, lowering or simply falling down on the inside of the turn.

IIRC, others use the term "ground vector" for this force line. It's the vector with tail at your CM that points to the balance point on the snow.

One reason that, the ski wants to flatten when on LTE is because the weight is on the outside part of the foot. Support is weak, the ankle wants to roll. If you are thinking that you can move the balance point over the BTE side, all you are really doing is altering the edge angle, as the angle will follow the position of the CM.

The other issue is the general angle of the force on the edge. If it drops inside too much, there is too much sheer and the edge releases. if the ski flattens there is to much sheer and the edge releases.

You are using sheer is two different ways.

The only way sliding happens is that the "critical angle" of the edge is not met; the latter "sheer" you refer to is just poor grip from low edge angle.

My understanding is that sheer refers to the snow itself. The result is that snow is pushed downhill; think sweeping loose snow off harpack, like a snowboarder on their heels on a too steep hill, scraping straight down the fall line.

This game of give and take is adjusted through the relationship of edge angle versus counter balance.

You will lose this game all the time. The conditions are changing far more quickly than you'll be able to respond with counterbalance. The upper body can't move that fast. How long does it take you to do a sit-up/crunch? Say 1/2 second? At 30 mph, you'll already have moved 44 feet.

I'm not suggesting that you can't use counter balance, just that you can't use it very quickly in the event the terrain changes very rapidly. You must anticipate your line and ensure that the CM is in the right place at the right time through smooth counter balance and counter movement.

I am assuming that in the situation I descibed that there is probably an optimium amount of counter balance for a given set-up (ski, skier, snow, edge angle, etc.) that will maximize the forces involved and hence the grip for that edge angle. However, in large edge angles the amount of counter balance needed is very great and it must be maintained against the other forces of the turn. So that while in principle, one should just find that optimum possition and quietly hold it. In practical terms this requires constant and very aggressive effort.

Part of the reason that counter movement is used is that it alloows one to do counter balancing with a sit-up like motion rather than just to the side. We have more flexibility to do it this way and use better muscles for resisting the large forces involved.

Very true. And in doing so, the alignment of the suspension under the CM and edge angles are altered to behave according to the demands of the terrain, and the intent of the skier.

Which is position 2.

IMO, the notion of "hinge" is useful in two ways: to highlight the relationship between the CM and the feet. Cross-over has a hinge point. EWS turns have hinges. The belly of the turn has a hinge -- how low do you have to go to resist the forces? Oops, I mean, how big and edge angle do you need? You must be that trap door and allow the CM to be raised lowered on the hinge as it resists the inertial force.

In my use of the trap door analogy, the door is the skier. When the door is fully open and lying on the floor, the skier is lying on the ground. As the door is closed, the door rises. The hinge is the edge of the ski.

Countering movements are used to control the height of the door, and therefore the edge angle. Moving CM towards the skis, means the door does not need to swing as far to change the angle; it's a smaller door, so it is easier to control by virtue of having less inertia.

The other part of the analogy of hinge is that edge is actually engaged; it is fixed in place and does not slide out...

That's my whole line of thinking.

[SkierSynergy]

Thanks for the thoughtful response BigE.

[SkierSynergy]

In my use of the trap door analogy, the door is the skier. When the door is fully open and lying on the floor, the skier is lying on the ground. As the door is closed, the door rises. The hinge is the edge of the ski.

Countering movements are used to control the height of the door, and therefore the edge angle. Moving CM towards the skis, means the door does not need to swing as far to change the angle; it's a smaller door, so it is easier to control by virtue of having less inertia.

I see how you are using the analogy. This is similar to how piggyslayer was using it. However, I am considering the ski as the door that is hinged. It tips one edge up or down. Let me think about your other use. They are analogies after all built to highlight certain aspects of the phenomena. Maybe I'll let it drop, lest we get into dueling interpretations of the analogy.

There is no pressure gradient created by the force line. If the force line is on the outside, you will rise and topple over. If the force line is directly on the ski, your stable. If the force line is inside, you are either just initiating a turn, lowering or simply falling down on the inside of the turn.

IIRC, others use the term "ground vector" for this force line. It's the vector with tail at your CM that points to the balance point on the snow.

Makes sense. I understand this as an analysis. I was thinking that in the real world pressure or force is not put on the ski as an ideal mathematical point or line.

One reason that, the ski wants to flatten when on LTE is because the weight is on the outside part of the foot. Support is weak, the ankle wants to roll. If you are thinking that you can move the balance point over the BTE side, all you are really doing is altering the edge angle, as the angle will follow the position of the CM.

I don't really follow your logic here. It isn't something about the articulation or strength of the ankle. The stance ski has the same restoring force on it's BTE. This would be true even with a completely rigid ankle joint.

You will lose this game all the time. The conditions are changing far more quickly than you'll be able to respond with counterbalance. The upper body can't move that fast. How long does it take you to do a sit-up/crunch? Say 1/2 second? At 30 mph, you'll already have moved 44 feet.

Point taken. the statement about the gives and takes of counter balance where meant to be just a general statement. I was not advocating that the countering moves be used for fine control. In my belief that is the job of the feet -- they are equipped for fast and fine control.

Which is position 2.

I meant the second view I presented in the post you quoted (earlier I refered to it as the "weaker view" of how countering actions affect grip). Sorry.

I think you believe that counter actions mainly allow deeper edge angles in an easier, more balanced position. If you can get deeper edges you get better hold.

. . . BigE seems to hold to a version of this. It goes something like: counter balancing allows you to get more edge angle in a more balanced position. The deeper edge angle accounts for the greater grip. In addition, BigE feels that it allows more continuous and smoother edge contact with the snow (somthing like the effect of as good suspension) and you don'tb get this with leaning.

I was holding a stronger version that:

. . . for a particular edge angle these actions add grip. The more thay are done, the better the grip without necessarily increasing the angle. In other words, keeping the edge angle constant, where and how the resultant forces are applied to the skis change in relation to these movements. In this view more is better. Use counter actions as aggressively as possible.

Well it sounds like everyone here believes countering actions are effective, though there is some disagreement on exactly how they are effective. So be it.

Next post will definitely be about some exercises.

[SkierSynergy]

I had a good talk with Harald about this issue.

He generally disagreed with me, and agreed with BiGE's thoughts about grip being the result of bigger edge angles, but he had some interesting twists in why.

He thinks that pure counter balance probably does change how the force is applied to the ski, but very little. Further, when compared to the effects of just getting more edge angle and being more stacked as a result of counter movement, the extra grip you get from counter balance is, in a practical sense, insignificant.

If you want the fasted, tightest arc, the real goal is to get to as high an edge angle as possible as soon as possible in the turn. High in the turn, pure counter balance does very little because there are relatively small forces to resist. Counter movement is what most facilitates getting a deep edge high in the C. And it best sets you up to work the forces at the end of the turn.

Counter balance is just that: balance. At slow speeds the body needs to balance against gravity. Pure counter balance is very important here if you want to be able to start your turns in a carve. It's the only way to get the force on your edges without using either steering or skidding to start the turn.

At faster speeds, the balance is related to momentum and the centrifugal force of the turn. What is most important here is the edge angle and how skeletally stacked you can be. These are mostly issues of counter movement. By rotating to the outside of the turn, the waist and hip are given more flexibility and a stronger position with which to drop the skis into a deeper angle. Further, by rotating the body against the turn, the stance leg is able to take the load of the turn in a skeletally stronger position.

All this is only possible past a certain speed and once enough cornering forces are generated. As the turn progresses and the angles become greater, counter balance is there for both balance and positioning the body for more efficient movements from one set of edges to the next.


So, what does this say about my experience of extra grip through counter balance?

I guess the view is that at the point when the forces of the turn are highest and I need that extra grip, and so I raise that inside arm hard and pinch the outside obliques, this crunch move is grunting out an extra surge of edge angle as a counter reaction.

Harald's expanation also suggests that, at low speeds, counter balance is most important in the hierarchy and at faster speeds, counter movement is more important.

That's the general idea of his comments. I still have some questions about the other possible functions of counter balancing on grip, but I'll leave them in the back of my head for now.

Sorry, I wrote a post on a counter balance exercise and then lost it. I'l try to do it again tomorrow.