CSIA Interski Technical Comparison

[karlo]

C'mon. Think about it. Long turns, short radius skis, how much angulation do you need?

Not much? In fact, angulation results in higher edge angle and shorter turns, the opposite of the desired turn?

 

[karlo]

BTW, my understanding is that a short turn is one groomer with, and a medium turn is two groomer widths. What’s a long turn, in the context of PSIA or other standards?

 

[LiquidFeet]

@karlo, yes, according to some materials provided by PSIA, a "short turn" is one groomer width. That's pretty wide, and it's always seemed a little odd to me.

But you'll need to be able to do very short turns, shorter than that, down Superstar (or the like) on an icy day and not skid out on the steep sections for that LIII skiing exam. Get the skis engaged above the fall line and keep them engaged through apex. Find an examiner to follow around on such terrain, if you can. This is the "bread and butter" turn for LIII.

 

[Mike King]

Angulation, along with counter, directs pressure to the outside ski at or about the fall line in turns where one wants the outside ski to bear most of the load.

One can hang onto the counter and angulation that were present at the fall line while bringing the feet back up underneath you ("continue in their arc") in the bottom of the turn. I bet that's what Gellie may is talking about. That technical combination produces a topple.

Wheee!

That's what many PSIA examiners believe. It is possible, however, to angulate, counter, and direct pressure to the inside ski.

Tom Gellie also appears to deemphasize directing pressure to the outside ski. Not saying we should ski on the inside ski, but what role does the inside ski play? Is it unweighted, and where in the turn is it weighted? If you watch WC slalom skiing, it is clear that the inside ski is receiving a not insignificant amount of pressure in the apex of the turn...

As we discussed offline, Gellie's view on toppling and toppling mechanics is not something I've heard before. But it is consistent with some of the things I have heard and been coached about, namely inclination before angulation. But the idea that the purpose of angulation is to release the upper body from the arc of the turn so that you topple (fall) into the next turn is not something I've heard elsewhere.

Mike

 

[LiquidFeet]

Yeah, me neither. I've never heard anyone say one should angulate in order to release. But racers do it.

Racers do sometimes reach their shoulders out downhill across their skis, in effect increasing their angulation, in order to move their CoM across the skis fast at initiation. I'm not sure I'd call this "angulating." Doing this gets the CoM downhill of the skis, which in turn releases them, tilts them, and starts the new turn. It gets the racer upside down on the course extremely fast.

Hirscher reaching his shoulders downhill over the skis, with shoulders staying level:

Ted raising that new outside shoulder and arm to tilt his torso downhill over the skis:

 

[LiquidFeet]

It is possible, however, to angulate, counter, and direct pressure to the inside ski.....

Is this a misfire on the part of the skier? Please say more.

 

[Mike King]

A misfire? depends on intent. In a white pass turn, it is possible, and probably desirable, to be angulated and directing pressure solely to the inside ski.

Here's the real question: does angulation and counter RESULT in directing pressure to the outside ski? I'd say no. They are neither necessary or sufficient conditions -- there also has to be other mechanics involved.

So, what is the purpose of angulation?

In my exploration of that question this past season, I came to the conclusion it was to allow greater edge angle than would accrue with the same amount of inclination. There's also a small amount of angulation that is necessary to establish a sufficient platform angle to allow the ski to grip.

But Tom Gellie has suggested that the purpose of angulation is to release the upper body to topple (fall) into the new turn. Gellie has a video up on his website with dryland exercises to practice toppling -- one component is a compression of the outside ribcage toward the hip to release the upper body and topple.

This is a new insight to me and one I intend to explore next season. Presuming there is one...

Mike

 

[LiquidFeet]

@Mike King, I've played around with angulating to generate each turn, doing nothing else. This has been fun riding the shoulders of banana bumps on a narrowish trail with a fairly flat pitch at my mountain. The necessary turns are barely-there, and the angulation is subtle enough to do the trick. I've also played around with shifting each hip forward in sequence to do this. Also lifting each hip. They all work. Who wuddah thot?

This kind of experimentation is what makes skiing worth it for me and it sounds like you enjoy this sort of trila-and-error thing too. I hope you get your season.

 

[geepers]

A misfire? depends on intent. In a white pass turn, it is possible, and probably desirable, to be angulated and directing pressure solely to the inside ski.

Here's the real question: does angulation and counter RESULT in directing pressure to the outside ski? I'd say no. They are neither necessary or sufficient conditions -- there also has to be other mechanics involved.

So, what is the purpose of angulation?

In my exploration of that question this past season, I came to the conclusion it was to allow greater edge angle than would accrue with the same amount of inclination. There's also a small amount of angulation that is necessary to establish a sufficient platform angle to allow the ski to grip.

But Tom Gellie has suggested that the purpose of angulation is to release the upper body to topple (fall) into the new turn. Gellie has a video up on his website with dryland exercises to practice toppling -- one component is a compression of the outside ribcage toward the hip to release the upper body and topple.

This is a new insight to me and one I intend to explore next season. Presuming there is one...

Mike

My take was Tom Gellie was more nuanced on angulation than just useful for transition. If anything I took it that he underplayed its role in increasing edge angle although even there he made the point that it is used very much for that purpose in short turns. My main take-away was that it was intended for tuning lateral balance after we'd committed to a certain amount of inclination for the purposes of balance as the centripetal forces change through the turn, for greater edge angle in certain situations (slow turns, short turns), for grip and for helping transitions.

Gellie shows via photos that he now uses less angulation in his skiing (wide radius turns) than 5 years ago. He makes a case for more inclination, less angles, and suggests to first learn to balance against the centripetal forces through inclination before stuffing in angulation. There's also multiple joints in the body that can be used to create angles depending on the situation and for best physical outcomes (e.g. spine angulation is entirely possible but not such a great idea). His online lecture "Angulation in Skiing" is an excellent thought provoking review of the topic.

I too am really looking forward to making more use of angulation at the end of the turn to help transition and toppling. Have a tendency to relax separation at the end of the turn. Separation is a related topic well covered by Gellie - his webinar on javelin turns is excellent. Can almost guarantee that an advanced CSIA course will include javelins however there was info in the webinar that was over and above anything I'd heard before. Put a whole different perspective on that drill, why we should do it and most importantly how to do it for most benefit.

 

[François Pugh]

It's all relative to your point of view. More ski tipping for the same centre of mass position or different centre of mass location for the same ski tipping. Same difference.

 

[Slasher]

Let’s get back to basics. Given a desired turn radius and speed, we must incline at a certain angle to remain in balance. But in a carved turn, the turn radius of the “shaped” ski is dictated by edge angle. Except at extremely high (i.e. WC athlete) speeds, the angle of inclination is less than the necessary edge angle for the same turn radius. Skis are deliberately designed this way, such that we MUST use some degree of angulation in order to achieve the necessary edge angle, because if we could do so through inclination only then the ski would self-steer uncontrollably and we’d immediately tip over our outside ski.

 

[geepers]

Let’s get back to basics. Given a desired turn radius and speed, we must incline at a certain angle to remain in balance. But in a carved turn, the turn radius of the “shaped” ski is dictated by edge angle. Except at extremely high (i.e. WC athlete) speeds, the angle of inclination is less than the necessary edge angle for the same turn radius. Skis are deliberately designed this way, such that we MUST use some degree of angulation in order to achieve the necessary edge angle, because if we could do so through inclination only then the ski would self-steer uncontrollably and we’d immediately tip over our outside ski.

That so...?

 

[Mike King]

My take was Tom Gellie was more nuanced on angulation than just useful for transition. If anything I took it that he underplayed its role in increasing edge angle although even there he made the point that it is used very much for that purpose in short turns. My main take-away was that it was intended for tuning lateral balance after we'd committed to a certain amount of inclination for the purposes of balance as the centripetal forces change through the turn, for greater edge angle in certain situations (slow turns, short turns), for grip and for helping transitions.

Gellie shows via photos that he now uses less angulation in his skiing (wide radius turns) than 5 years ago. He makes a case for more inclination, less angles, and suggests to first learn to balance against the centripetal forces through inclination before stuffing in angulation. There's also multiple joints in the body that can be used to create angles depending on the situation and for best physical outcomes (e.g. spine angulation is entirely possible but not such a great idea). His online lecture "Angulation in Skiing" is an excellent thought provoking review of the topic.

I too am really looking forward to making more use of angulation at the end of the turn to help transition and toppling. Have a tendency to relax separation at the end of the turn. Separation is a related topic well covered by Gellie - his webinar on javelin turns is excellent. Can almost guarantee that an advanced CSIA course will include javelins however there was info in the webinar that was over and above anything I'd heard before. Put a whole different perspective on that drill, why we should do it and most importantly how to do it for most benefit.

One other element of angulation that is required is to establish a sufficient platform angle for the ski to grip. It doesn't need to be much, but if there was only angulation, the slop in the connections between the leg, boot, and binding would result in insufficient platform angle for the ski to grip. So there has to be enough angulation to deal with those "losses."

Mike

 

[LiquidFeet]

My concern with this discussion about angulation's role in release and edging is that the discussion sees angulation as a major cause of those two things.

Put another way, it sounds like angulation is being talked about as an action that makes things happen down at the ski-snow level. Do we really want tilting the torso to play a major role in controlling edging and release? Yes, tilting the torso this way and that works to increase and decrease edge angles. But at what cost, if it's conceived of as a fundamental movement to produce these effects?

In PSIA terminology, a skier needs to control the relationship of the CoM to the BoS. To do this, the skier can move the BoS around under CoM ... or move the CoM around over the BoS. Focusing on moving the feet around under the torso allows for much more precise control of the relationship between those two acronyms than moving the heavy torso this way and that over the feet.

I know this is not the normal way most recreational skiers (and most instructors) conceive of controlling the relationship between the CoM and BoS. But it is what Bob Barne's infinity move describes. It's what I do, and probably what some of the participants in this discussion do. So shouldn't this discussion be considering angulation this way, as a necessary enhancement, a fine-tuning movement, adding to the effects produced by moving the feet around beneath the torso?

 

[Dakine]

Angulation allows a skier to adjust edge angle without changing the CoM very much.
Inclination is a large body movement that moves the CoM a great deal.

 

[James]

Do we really want tilting the torso to play a major role in controlling edging and release?

Depends what level you’re talking about. You can’t get high edge angles by standing basically upright and tipping your feet.
Watch racers free ski. They generally incline a lot as an initial move. They’ve essentially committed to a high edge angle turn, but they’ve learned how to handle it.

I don’t get your point about the infinity move- that’s torso movement right there. You seem to say the feet move under a non moving torso. Not true at all. It could be I suppose on a pure cross under turn.

There's just no way around having the com well inside the turn for high energy turns. That involves a wide range of torso movement.
Big energy, big movement. Low energy, small movement.
Same with cars, except you have to reduce the movement so it doesn't roll with lower cog, stiff springs, tires that are stiffer etc.

 

[LiquidFeet]

Depends what level you’re talking about. You can’t get high edge angles by standing basically upright and tipping your feet.
Watch racers free ski. They generally incline a lot as an initial move. They’ve essentially committed to a high edge angle turn, but they’ve learned how to handle it.

I don’t get your point about the infinity move- that’s torso movement right there. You seem to say the feet move under a non moving torso. Not true at all. It could be I suppose on a pure cross under turn.

There's just no way around having the com well inside the turn for high energy turns. That involves a wide range of torso movement.
Big energy, big movement. Low energy, small movement.
Same with cars, except you have to reduce the movement so it doesn't roll with lower cog, stiff springs, tires that are stiffer etc.

Well, I failed to get my point across.

--I didn't mean not to tilt the torso. I meant not use its tilt as the primary movement to flatten the skis and thus to release them, nor to develop edge angle after that.
--I didn't mean the CoM shouldn't move inside the turn. Lowering the hip to move the CoM inside by flexing the inside leg is not angulating.
--I didn't mean the torso is unmoving.

I meant that a skier can think of the torso/CoM as the frame of reference while moving the feet in a sideways figure eight below it (as Bob's infinity video shows). The skier can tilt the torso while doing this in order to control platform angle as those feet do their thing, dependent on the extent to which the skier wants the skis to grip.

I've already posted in this thread that tilting the torso, or lifting one hip, or projecting one hip forward, and/or doing other things above the level of the feet/legs, can be used as primary causes of turn initiation. But I also indicated that these things are fun variations on what we usually do to initiate turns.

And I contributed two images, I think in this thread, one of Hirscher and one of Ted, both angulating their torsos in order to get upside down on the course fast. That's using angulation to release the CoM. I don't think too many recreational skiers will be doing that, but I've messed around with it myself and figure you non-racer guys have too.

Do you non-race-coach instructors teach your skiers to reach their torsos downhill in order to do the Ted or Hirscher move to shorten their turns? You wouldn't coach that move to getting around tight trees, would you? Or to keep up with tight bumps?

I guess to sum my whole point up, I don't like thinking of tilting the torso as a fundamental and useful way to start a turn, release a turn, or increase edge angle. I prefer to ski from the feet up. I am not talking about skiing in the gates where hurry-up gets the prize.

 

[James]

I guess to sum my whole point up, I don't like thinking of tilting the torso as a fundamental and useful way to start a turn, release a turn, or increase edge angle. I prefer to ski from the feet up.

It’s not incompatible. But starting a turn beyond the first one is not divorced from finishing a turn.
There’s only so many types of turns where you keep the torso relatively stable and the feet move laterally underneath. Like moguls.

My point is, the torso has to move quite a lot. You can’t ignore it if you’re going to link high energy turns. Even in low energy turns, you can’t release if the torso is too far uphill. You can flex the downhill ski and tip it all you want, but you’ll still be uphill and on the inside ski.

Look how much it moves.

 

[LiquidFeet]

....There’s only so many types of turns where you keep the torso relatively stable and the feet move laterally underneath.....
Look how much it moves.

I did not say the torso doesn't move, nor that it stays stable. I don't know what else to say to clarify my point. I give up.

--I didn't mean not to tilt the torso. I meant not use its tilt as the primary movement to flatten the skis and thus to release them, nor to develop edge angle after that.
--I didn't mean the CoM shouldn't move inside the turn. Lowering the hip to move the CoM inside by flexing the inside leg is not angulating.
--I didn't mean the torso is unmoving.

 

[Mike King]

@LiquidFeet, this is an example of why I think many in general and you in particular would benefit from watching Gellie's videos -- there's a great deal of content in them and they provoke you thinking about your beliefs in the fundamentals of skiing. That being said, let me try to answer.

I don't think Tom is advocating that the feet are not important, nor that there isn't an inherent ski from the bottom up. But that doesn't mean that the top isn't important. Skiing involves the whole body, and you shouldn't have any part of your body that is just along for the ride.

So, to the issue of toppling and the role of angulation in it, at least as far as I understand what Tom is coaching. I don't think he is coaching an active move of the body into the turn, rather he is coaching a release fo the body from it's arc before the feet are released. So, you aren't so much "sending" the body somewhere as much as releasing the body to travel into the new turn. When you release the body from it's arc, the body travels in a straight line from the tangent to the arc it was on at the point of release. So for the feet to get outside of the body, they have to travel further in the arc so that they are, in effect, uphill of the body. Sounds like the feet are still very much a part of the game.

Further, since you are effectively falling into the new turn, there's a great deal of accuracy that has to be developed for the feet to be placed at a point where they will provide an effective platform to balance against.

Does this help?

What's the reason for this toppling? One reason is as @James stated -- to be able to create high edge angles by allowing the body to incline early in the turn. It's very difficult to get really high edge angles without massive amounts of inclination early in the turn, if it can be achieved at all. Toppling this way also leads to flow where the energy from the bottom of the turn is taken into the top of the next turn.

As to whether this is really something that many of our students can achieve, I have no idea. I haven't mastered it myself. I was only really starting to work on toppling at the end of the season and hadn't seen these videos before the pandemic struck, so do not consider me an expert...

Mike