PSIA wide stance dead end

PMTS Forum

Postby Harald » Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:57 pm

NCN, I didn?t want to take on your reference to "Physics of Skiing: The Ideal?Carving Equation and Its Applications" U. D. Jentschura and F. Fahrbach; Universit?at Freiburg, Physikalisches Institut. As I had not seen it and because I needed a reason to discuss it. Here is what occurs to me when I think about the delay factor, which is not the same as the Carving physics, necessarily.

During the edge change the body can and has to make changes (that take time) to prepare for the delay of the edges change. This doesn?t make the delay factor of the edge change significant as the body changes require time to complete. The timing of the two compliment each other. If the edges could change without delay then we would have to find a new way to ski, as we would be out of balance.


A race car does not change it?s C-mass relative to it?s set direction or how that mass is attached to the car, when the car turns. And the CG doesn't move, in high G corners as linear momentum changes, the car's c-mass remains near the same place even in quick direction changes left to right, as in a chicane. But how and where mass lies will not change unless you move something on the car physically. In a human, c-mass can change position, as when you move an arm , upper body etc..

It becomes very interesting when teaching women compared to men. Most men have wider shoulders and more upper body size and therefore more upper-body mass then most women. For counter balance to have its greatest influence and benefit, you have to move your upper body to the opposite side, (conserving angular momentum) as the skis, boots and legs move to the new angles. If you have less mass near the top of the body, you have less counter balancing influence, less benefit (less ability to conserve angular momentum).

Skiers with smaller upper bodies have to move sooner, and farther to achieve the same edge engaging effect as the skiers with more upper body mass (especially if that mass is advantageously located). As we joked about with the PSIman, which has no upper body mass, in its case it?s hard to compare the toy to our skiing, or to the way we need to ski, therefore it has no relevance to how humans move on skis.
Last edited by Harald on Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"Maximum Skiing information, Minimum BS
Harald
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:36 pm
Location: Dumont

Interesting

Postby Sidecut » Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:17 pm

The Ski MAg is out and there is a big instructional section "Ski Better Now".

On page 138, Mike Rogan is demonstarting technique for Groomed Snow. In the first frame which must be just after "flat" you can clearly see that he is only tipping the outsdie ski on edge, the inside remains flat. This is a 1,2 move, hardly modern skiing.

The article is also intersting because the wide track he is using looks so forced and in fact goes away depending on teh situation and terrain. On the groomed he is very wide and yet in "Deep Bumps" his legs are locked. "Steep and NAsty" you can also see his stance is much narrower especially in frame 1 as it also is in "Steep and Deep".

In their regular instructional section on page 192-193 they have an article entitled "Transition To Perfection" where they initiate with up-unweighting: "as you rise up and forward.." "Pivot Flat skis"...."guide your skis, steering them..."

There is also anotehr picture of Rogan just tipping the outside ski

Yikes, what's up with Ski?
User avatar
Sidecut
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:44 am

Ski Mag

Postby Hobbit » Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:26 pm

Sidecut,

Ski Mag is free with many ski areas season passes.
They are mostly selling the time shares and publishing the ski reviews paid by the manufacturers.
You've got exactly what you paid for.

The only thing I've got from the Ski Mag in all these years is a beautiful insert poster saying "Vail -- there is no comparison" with the stunning view of the Back Bowls. :)
User avatar
Hobbit
Site Admin
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 6:45 am

Re: Interesting

Postby onyxjl » Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:23 pm

Sidecut wrote:In their regular instructional section on page 192-193 they have an article entitled "Transition To Perfection" where they initiate with up-unweighting: "as you rise up and forward.." "Pivot Flat skis"...."guide your skis, steering them..."


I noticed this too and was wondering but it is only listed for the beginner section. The intermediate and then expert progress to a flex to release type of movement for transition.

This suggests that, in the opinion of ski magazine, beginners are not ready for the flexing and tipping release movements. I wonder if that is an acknowledgement that many beginners do not have adequate balance on skis.

Harald, how common is it for you to run across a student that cannot balance adequately enough on skis to perform the phantom move even after alignment work? In these situations how do you proceed?
onyxjl
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 12:06 am

Postby Mac » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:30 pm

Sounds very similar to last year's mogul instruction addition with Mike Rogan and Stu Cambell. I remember reading a lot of advice on how to twist, pivot, steer and skid your skis through the bumps. I found this somewhat confusing, as I have read articles by some pretty decent mogul skiers such as Harald, John Clendenen, and Nelson Carmicheal stating that good mogul technique is really no different than good skiing technique that you would use on groomed slopes, if you feel the need to ski differently in the bumps than you do on the groomed, then your fundamentals are probably not sound. I assume that Mike Rogan or Stu Campbell would not advocate the same advice that was contained in their mogul article to someone that was trying to improve their overall skiing, but maybe their advice was just aimed at lower intermediate skiers just trying to survive in the bumps. I was kind of surprised though, how the gang over on Epic rallied around this format, calling this advice "spot on" was one of the terms that I remember. I have also taken lessons where one technique is taught on the groomed, and another totally different approach is taught for the bumps, and both by the same instructor. Very confusing.
Mac
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:47 pm

Postby NoCleverName » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:53 pm

I missed the last few posts to this thread, so I didn't know most of you were already aware of the Ski Mag articles ... I started a new topic about them. Oh, well.

HH, first, about the "Carving" paper; while they've got a lot of pretty math there, I'm not sure they that they didn't miss the fact a ski decambers thru the turn. I've forgotten too much math to follow if they have properly transformed the ski geometry. So, some of the results might be suspect. However, I think they understand the energy budget and how speed changes as a turn tightens. I think they also provide a convincing case that watching WC skiers to get pointers for recreational skiing is a waste of time as WC courses overwhelm the design of skis.

About the car analogy, let's not forget about the suspension system, which a good driver uses to change the forces on the car (mainly body roll and loading up one set of wheels or the other). There is definitely "delay" introduced into steering by the suspension. But, if anything, it shows the need to use "counterbalance" even when driving a car! In fact, I think you could make a case that in a chicane there are truly "stance" wheels and "free" wheels.
User avatar
NoCleverName
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 am
Location: Massachusetts

Postby Harald » Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:54 pm

Harald, how common is it for you to run across a student that cannot balance adequately enough on skis to perform the phantom move even after alignment work? In these situations how do you proceed?


After alignment I don't think unless it is a very extreme case, with physical problems and even then; we have had tremendous success. Very rarely are skiers not able to balance in a little toe edge traverse, even in our green camps. Although some have had to practice for more than a few days. They do improve and get maybe not comfortable, but functional. I'm sighting the really difficult cases, but most people can balance after a few days, some immediately.

If we keep in mind, to make a parallel turn, even a Super Phantom, you only need to be on the little toe edge for a fraction of a second to make the transition. You don?t have to hold it for the whole traverse, but that is one of the training methods .
"Maximum Skiing information, Minimum BS
Harald
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:36 pm
Location: Dumont

Postby Harald » Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:13 pm

Yet, competitive bump skiing is all about rotation and skidding


Although it appears that Pro Mogul skiing is about rotation and skidding, I look at it a little differently. To me it?s about pushing to full extension and absorbing using the deflection of the mogul to change ski tail direction. Remember they do not make an arc, they twist and their feet almost follow a straight line down the moguls. We make the skis describe an arc and we to some extend travel with the skis through the arc.

If it were as simple as skidding and twisting everyone would be just flying through the moguls. What is the most difficult movement to teach skiers? Bending and flexing and that?s without the added burden of an impact. Now take the impact and control fore/aft and speed at that impact. This is all done with the knees. Your feet are traveling almost straight down the falline.

When I skied with pro mogul guys and tried to imitate them, they always told me I was turning too much. I thought my skis were flat on the snow, that?s perception.

In pro mogul skiing not only do you have to counter rotate with tremendous force you have to extend before you hit the bump. What is the second most difficult thing to teach skiers? Counter acting(rotating) movements, the population is very stiff and rigid at the mid body and hip joint, sometimes even to get a few degrees of counter acting, it?s is a real workout for an average skier. I think it would be an interesting realization for people to try the pro mogul skiing approach.

If I were to model my skiing after any of the pro mogul guys it would be, who do you think?
Nelson Carmicheal, he's a great skier, I've skied with him, and I know he can ski anyway he wants to ski and he doesn't teach a weird bump technique, his approach is functional.
"Maximum Skiing information, Minimum BS
Harald
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:36 pm
Location: Dumont

Postby Harald » Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:41 am

Not that he doesn't have any points to make for Pro mogul skiers, but that?s where his advice stops for me. I had the opportunity to ski with some of the top mogul skiers and watch them in action. The way they ski moguls requires tremendous strength and muscle development. Their muscles are developed and used differently from the way racers use and need them. A pro mogul skier?s hips are never to the side of the skis or close to the snow, except when they are behind the boots.

The pro skiers in many cases have to learn to ski with new or different technique for regular slopes and runs with something closer to our technique; if they want to be functional on a day to day bases. If you watch the US Team training and then observe them skiing from the bump training area to the bottom of the mountain, on a blue run, it's pathetic.
"Maximum Skiing information, Minimum BS
Harald
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:36 pm
Location: Dumont

Postby Mac » Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:22 pm

I have a instructional tape made by Nelson Carmichael dating back to the early 1990's called Mogul Mastery, or something like that. This was back in the days of straight skis, and I was amazed how much his approach, even back then, paralleled PMTS principles. Some of the descriptions and terms were different, but the basic fundamentals of one footed balance, early weight transfer, functional stance, pole use, etc, were all very similar to modern PMTS. I didn't see any references to twist, pivot, skid, etc. Just basic fundamentals that can be used for every situation.
Mac
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:47 pm

Postby Harald » Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:42 pm

Mac wrote:
I have a instructional tape made by Nelson Carmichael dating back to the early 1990's called Mogul Mastery, or something like that. This was back in the days of straight skis, and I was amazed how much his approach, even back then, paralleled PMTS principles. Some of the descriptions and terms were different, but the basic fundamentals of one footed balance, early weight transfer, functional stance, pole use, etc, were all very similar to modern PMTS. I didn't see any references to twist, pivot, skid, etc. Just basic fundamentals that can be used for every situation.


Nelson has always been on traget. The bumpers still use straight skis, so nothing "has" changed for them.
"Maximum Skiing information, Minimum BS
Harald
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:36 pm
Location: Dumont

Postby Icanski » Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:36 pm

I also have the Carmichael tape. He not only has a lot of good ideas but his teaching is very good as well, I think. He also has lots of different strategies for going down the bumps, from the zipper line; the low high low; opposite from the troughs, and hopping from one bump to the other, among them. This versatility is really amazing.

One of the things I notice with the competitive mogul skiers is that the course is like a set of steps almost...neatly lined up down the hill. "Real" mogul fields are seldom like that; so evenly rhythmical and roughly the same shape. The moguls on our little hill often look like old concrete tank traps, or roller walls after the snowboarders get in there and grade them (nothing against boarders...ok, dudes).
I wonder how many of todays mogul skiers will have their knees replaced by the time they're thirty?
I also notice that in ski reviews and gear guides, there is rarely any category for "bump skis" and the reviews almost never mention if a ski is "good in bumps". Do they think there aren't bumps anymore at resorts, or that people don't want to know if their boards work in there? You'd think the only thing that matters is terrain park survival, deep extreme powder, or jumping off anything, especially cliffs!
Oh, Oh....I may start ranting...must-stop-now....get-help....watch PMTS tapes...ah...that's better....thanks, I needed that...
Icanski
Icanski
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:58 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Postby Harald » Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:07 pm

Keep in mind that the ski companies have made such a fuss over shaped skis and convincing the shop owners to sell shaped skis took a long time. Now they have switched to promoting wide all mountain boards, which are horrible in bumps, so they expect skiers to just ski bumps with their every day ski choice. The best bump skis are still straighter and narrower, less than 66mm under foot and have a tail around 98mm. More than that and you have to really know how to release and stay centered or the tail will hook up and you?ll be jetted into the next state.
"Maximum Skiing information, Minimum BS
Harald
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:36 pm
Location: Dumont

Postby dewdman42 » Sat Oct 28, 2006 11:40 pm

Yep. As of now, we don't really have a true all-mountain middle of the road ski anymore IMHO. The fatties are good for crud and pow and some of them can do some decent enough carving on groomers to consider pretty close to all-mountain, but they don't handle the bumps well AT ALL. meanwhile, a typically good bump ski is not so hot in the deep stuff. Now they say we have to have a "multi-ski quiver". Ok. Its hard enough to stay on top of the latest technology with one pair of skiis, let alone 3. I certainly don't have $1000 to spend every winter on skiis, let alone $3000.

This year I am officially going fatter. I live in the PNW, I sorta have to. its gonna hurt my bump skiing. I will just stay out of the bumps on those days. On the firm days where I can pull out my 66mm waisted skis...then I can hit the bumps. They aren't even perfectly ideal for bumps as they do have the flaired out tails. But I seem to be ok with that. And they carve decently too. They just don't float well in the nasty crud and deep pow, though if the snow is light enough they do alright there too. That's two pairs. But I also really need to add a pair of race skiis to feel complete.

Myself, I think I was actually a little happier when skiis were longer and skinnier. I can remember having many true all-mountain skiis under my feet that did do pretty much everything reasonably well enough to call a true all-mountain ski and be a one ski quiver. Now all the skiis are more specialized, which is fine..they perform that much better in the extreme ends of the spectrum, but unless you can afford to maintain 2 or 3 pairs of skiis, you have to compromise performance in some area.
dewdman42
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:52 pm

Postby Ken » Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:50 pm

Look at the Head i.XRC line and the i.M72 (does Head still offer the i.M75?). Also look at the Nordica Speedmachine or Hotrod. Harald will have specifics on these skis.


Ken
Rooster today
Feather duster tomorrow

VIDEO OF NOT ME
Ken
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: Washington, the state

PreviousNext

Return to Primary Movements Teaching System

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests