|
Post by JimRatliff on Dec 30, 2013 14:50:47 GMT -7
I've been wanting to ask this question for a long time, but haven't had the nerve, and certainly would never post it on the PMTS forum. You know, it's just like in school where no one wants the ask a question because they don't want to seem stupid in front of their classmates. The question is: What does counter acting and counter balance gain us? In the picture below their are two skiers of equal mass and skiing at equal velocity. I have tried to depict that, in spite of the angulation of the skier on the right, the center of mass for both skiers is in exactly the same place. In fact, I traced the left skier in making the right skier because looking at the picture is deceptive. CoM is the Center of Mass of the skier. f g is the force of gravity (the weight of the skier) f c is the centripetal force (momentum) created by te skiers speed f T is the resulting force of the skier and the skis on the snow. It has always seemed to me that the main advantage of "counter" is that it increases the angle of the lower legs to the snow, and therefore creating a shorter turn. Is there more than this that I am missing? Please be gentle in your answers -- I have a fragile male ego. I understand that in the upper part of the C, angulation is the only way of getting early engagement of the edges because you can't get to the needed angles to the snow using inclination.
|
|
|
Post by HighAngles on Dec 31, 2013 10:54:35 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by JimRatliff on Dec 31, 2013 14:34:25 GMT -7
HA: Well, thanks for not telling me that I should familiarize myself with ACBAES1, ACBAES2, and the Essentials book (or that I should tip more). The video doesn't really address what I was curious about. I do a reasonably good job of tipping (quiet, Midwif) to initiate the turn and can have a smooth set of railroad tracks starting in the hi-C part of the turn, and I can release the edges in the turn to get a brushed turn or tip more to decrease the radius of the turn (I have good feet, but the rest of my body often sucks). What I have trouble getting (or maintaining) is good angles in counter acting and counter balance. That is what I'm working on. So, in video I'm inclining but I'm not getting there by pushing my feet out or extending. The question really is whether there are other advantages to angulation, or is it mostly a step towards shorter turns because of the greater angle of edges to the snow for a given speed and turn radius? In the video, Harald mentions improved balance associated with angulation (which to me includes counter balance and counter acting). Even though I'm inclining, much of the time I can lift my inside heel off the snow at will during the turn. Jim
|
|
|
Post by ToddW on Jan 1, 2014 5:25:05 GMT -7
Jim,
On my way out the door to ski. Here are the benefits in two words.
1 grip. On ice, porcelain, etc.
2 time. Time to go unhurriedly through transition on steep, icy terrain without twisting your feet, jamming your heels out, or rotating your upper body in a panic to get the skis around.
And it will make you a stylish skier in Lynn's eyes :-)
|
|
|
Post by HighAngles on Jan 1, 2014 9:20:35 GMT -7
Jim - I think Harald does address your point in the dialogue he presents in the middle of the video. If you consider for a moment more extreme edge angles (as in my avatar) and think about just how inclined your upper body would have to be to achieve those angles without using angulation, it should be fairly apparent that you would not be balanced "over" your skis, but only against the forces in the turn. If those forces should "disappear" (for whatever reason; a slip, terrain change, loss of speed) then you would struggle to maintain balance.
The danger in using inclination for even "lazy" shallow edge angle turns is that it becomes your default movement. Your default movements are what come out when you are challenged; that's when it's even more important to have practiced the skills that will let you handle the more difficult skiing situations (like steeps, crud, etc.).
Oh, and BTW - Happy New Year!
|
|
|
Post by JimRatliff on Jan 1, 2014 10:12:57 GMT -7
Two good answers. Thanks. And happy new year.
|
|
|
Post by livingproof on Jan 2, 2014 7:12:04 GMT -7
Jim,
First, I've never been a proponent of using diagrams of static positions to explain the forces encountered in a ski turn. When looking at High Angles avatar, in a static situation, he would be falling to his inside, and so would you in your avatar. Both CG's are clearly outside of a stable base. So, clearly, there are other forces at work pulling your center of mass down the hill to provide balance.
Back to your original question, Harald, from his earliest books, championed moving the hips laterally as the movement to create higher edge angles. Our bodies just can't get high edge angles without pushing into positions that are very strange to experience. Harald has a whole progression of indoor tipping drills on youtube where we can practice these movements and, my experience is that we need to flex and counterbalance at lot to gain a little movement. We need to wake up our feet. It's far more difficult to achieve the High Angles positions; plus the movements activate muscles we seldom use. I think PMTS understates the difficulty required to obtain this proficiency. There is a lot going on to make linked turns every few seconds. This year, I spend time, each day, just doing simple traverses across the hill, trying for as much counter balance as I can get, then, checking my tracks to see if 2 nice clean arcs are left behind. My aging body is not making it any easier, much cleanup still needed.
I find counteracting as far less intuitive to understand and implement, but, much very empowering to get grip in a turn. I don't claim to understand why counteracting is effective, and, when I try to explain it to my ski buds, they look at me as if were insane (well that may partially true).
Learning to flex and extend the legs, counter balance at the hips and counteract in the upper body is a long, strange trip.
|
|
|
Post by perry on Jan 2, 2014 8:16:52 GMT -7
Because it works?
|
|
|
Post by JimRatliff on Jan 2, 2014 8:53:03 GMT -7
Perry/Gary: Playing "Devil's Advocate" a bit, but John C. doesn't teach very much counter (of either kind) in his progression does he? LivingProof: I agree about the "counter acting". At the gross level, it gets more of your upper body weight (the zipper of your jacket) out over the front of the outside ski, but I too have the feeling that it does more.
|
|
|
Post by perry on Jan 2, 2014 11:54:05 GMT -7
What JC does that is brilliant is helping people like me tune into graduated edge engagement of the uphill ski and how that can be used to control speed. He is all about tuning into feelings that are imparted to the feet and lower legs as they are contacted by the boots. Thats his gig and it works. He doesn't tell folks at camp to stop CB/CA. He wants you to feel both skis on the snow and feel the transition of edges and not rush to a big toe edge as a security blanket.
I have found that when in powder, on bumps, paying attention to the pressure on my feet and particularly balance of the uphill edge has been very helpful.
If you want to ski dynamically in any snow, you are going to use CB/CA because that is what works biomechanically.
|
|