How does counteracting tighten up a turn?

[Noodler]

The skier or the observer?

Got to say if I'm trying to get good angles in a wide carving turns I'm too freak'n busy to pay much attention to where poles held across hips are pointing.

Drills using the hip-o-meter aren't just about the improved visual reference. You can/should also use your outside hand/arm to push back on the hip-o-meter to reinforce the proper pelvis position. The hip-o-meter should be "installed" tight on your hips!

 

[JESinstr]

I would say that the kind of counteracting I am talking about doesn't look like an upper body movement at all. Rather it is a resistance to movement - you are resisting the natural tendency for the pelvis to point the same way as the skis are pointing. Effectively your are rotating your pelvis towards the outside of the turn, against where the skis want to take it, but an observer looking up the hill towards you would see you with a still (or stable) upper body.

Again as stated in my initial post to you, we need to know what kind of turn you are trying to do. If you are talking about a short radius turn where rotary redirection is the dominant activity then I hear ya. If you are talking about a larger radius turn where your objective is to get the ski to turn you, then I don't. As others have opined, when I head down the fall line doing short radius, rotary based turns, I focus on keeping my shoulders facing intended direction of travel and let the legs do the work. For those who have it, pole plant discipline is a big help. The fact that considerable amount of of resistance from counter take place is the least of my concerns.

So as long as we are talking rotary based turns, we are in the same church but maybe not the same pew in regards to cause and effect.

 

[Noodler]

Again as stated in my initial post to you, we need to know what kind of turn you are trying to do. If you are talking about a short radius turn where rotary redirection is the dominant activity then I hear ya. If you are talking about a larger radius turn where your objective is to get the ski to turn you, then I don't. As others have opined, when I head down the fall line doing short radius, rotary based turns, I focus on keeping my shoulders facing intended direction of travel and let the legs do the work. For those who have it, pole plant discipline is a big help. The fact that considerable amount of of resistance from counter take place is the least of my concerns.

So as long as we are talking rotary based turns, we are in the same church but maybe not the same pew in regards to cause and effect.

I need a definition of a "rotary based turn". What exactly does that mean (sorry I don't speak PSIA ).

 

[Rod9301]

It is not true that all short turns are rotary based.

Look at harb

 

[4ster]

I haven’t read beyond the first half of the first page of this thread but…

A carved turn only gets tighter if you bend the ski more

 

[JESinstr]

I need a definition of a "rotary based turn". What exactly does that mean (sorry I don't speak PSIA ).

Sure, this is not PSIA speak it is just my way of parsing what the ski is doing. It is based on the belief that a ski is either sliding (moving in a straight line) or it is carving (traveling in a circular path). Skidding is a combination of the two.

IMO rotary is involved, to some extent, in pretty much all turns. The question is, how much and to what end. If you are attempting to create circular travel that the ski design supports, rotary provides the "on ramp" to that achievable carving state. Therefore, rotary decreases as the carving state develops. If you are trying to create a radius smaller than the ski supports then rotary will play a key role start to finish, including but not limited to, a checking action at turn completion.

So when I write rotary based turn, it is a turn where (due to intent and/or insufficient ski design) rotary plays the dominant role. Experts will usually employ rotary with the intent to get to a carving state at some point and a host of variables will determine their success rate. Many intermediates on the other hand, will employ rotary (albeit through improper movement patterns) with the sole purpose of getting their skis rotated broadside to the pull of gravity, but I digress.

 

[razie]

@JESinstr

Whenever we see the skis having turned like 100 degrees from transition but the hips still face to the outside, remember that there is nothing to keep the hips from rotating with the skis other than the skier's effort. That is counteraction, plain and simple. Or whatever other names, but the point is that the skier strongly resisted the rotation of the hips, by effectively rotating them the other way (in the skis' plane of reference).

And this is most visible perhaps in GS, where the skier glides across the slope without unwinding for more than 6m and blocking pole plants are non-existent, really. Watch the direction of the hips below versus the direction of the skis, throughout the turn. Offset is what, 7m?

There is nothing to stop her hips from rotating strongly with the skis, other than her own effort to create the separation and keep the hips "stable". That's the counteraction of the hips, counteracting the rotation coming from the skis.

The reason most skiers out there rotate like there is no tomorrow, with zero separation, is because they do not oppose the rotation coming from the skis at all - the do not counteract it. And again, this is perhaps most visible in longer carved turns, where inertia and blocking pole plants are removed from the equation.

 

[Noodler]

Sure, this is not PSIA speak it is just my way of parsing what the ski is doing. It is based on the belief that a ski is either sliding (moving in a straight line) or it is carving (traveling in a circular path). Skidding is a combination of the two.

IMO rotary is involved, to some extent, in pretty much all turns. The question is, how much and to what end. If you are attempting to create circular travel that the ski design supports, rotary provides the "on ramp" to that achievable carving state. Therefore, rotary decreases as the carving state develops. If you are trying to create a radius smaller than the ski supports then rotary will play a key role start to finish, including but not limited to, a checking action at turn completion.

So when I write rotary based turn, it is a turn where (due to intent and/or insufficient ski design) rotary plays the dominant role. Experts will usually employ rotary with the intent to get to a carving state at some point and a host of variables will determine their success rate. Many intermediates on the other hand, will employ rotary (albeit through improper movement patterns) with the sole purpose of getting their skis rotated broadside to the pull of gravity, but I digress.

Now define "rotary" please.

 

[geepers]

It is not true that all short turns are rotary based.

Look at harb

Reilly McGlashan has some interesting comments related to this in the new Legacy vids. He talks about short turns by the tracks they leave. One type of track is two thin lines indicative of no (or absolutely minimal) rotary. The comment is that this type of turn is only suitable for intermediate terrain.

Now that's McGlashan commenting. If that's what he feels with his abilities then perhaps we should take note.

 

[geepers]

@JESinstr

Whenever we see the skis having turned like 100 degrees from transition but the hips still face to the outside, remember that there is nothing to keep the hips from rotating with the skis other than the skier's effort. That is counteraction, plain and simple. Or whatever other names, but the point is that the skier strongly resisted the rotation of the hips, by effectively rotating them the other way (in the skis' plane of reference).

And this is most visible perhaps in GS, where the skier glides across the slope without unwinding for more than 6m and blocking pole plants are non-existent, really. Watch the direction of the hips below versus the direction of the skis, throughout the turn. Offset is what, 7m?

There is nothing to stop her hips from rotating strongly with the skis, other than her own effort to create the separation and keep the hips "stable". That's the counteraction of the hips, counteracting the rotation coming from the skis.

The reason most skiers out there rotate like there is no tomorrow, with zero separation, is because they do not oppose the rotation coming from the skis at all - the do not counteract it. And again, this is perhaps most visible in longer carved turns, where inertia and blocking pole plants are removed from the equation.

Well, there is the inside foot and the coupling moment between it and the outside foot.

Interested in how much you consciously think about and actively make a move to keep your inside hip forward. What mechanism do you use?

 

[razie]

Well, there is the inside foot and the coupling moment between it and the outside foot.

Interested in how much you consciously think about and actively make a move to keep your inside hip forward. What mechanism do you use?

Very interesting observation. I had just removed an inside/outside discussion before just posting, didin't want to over-complicate... some create a "fake" counter by allowing the inside foot to shuffle forward excessively throughout the turn, dragging the inside hip with it. If you focus on controlling the shuffle, that makes counteracting much more interesting... but we're digressing...

In either case, the rotation force is coming from the outside ski, so, to oppose it, one does basically the AF movement that @Magi described well. It often seems like we're talking over eachother - and likely that's also why I think many pros don't see the difference - because we discuss the same rotation of the same joint (femur/hip) - but the segment that is "manually" rotated differs - as Magi described well.

Back to Reilly's comments. I don't think he was referring to manual or forceful pivoting or steering. Do you have the clip? - oh, nevermind, it's not public. got it. What exactly is he saying?

 

[Rod9301]

Reilly McGlashan has some interesting comments related to this in the new Legacy vids. He talks about short turns by the tracks they leave. One type of track is two thin lines indicative of no (or absolutely minimal) rotary. The comment is that this type of turn is only suitable for intermediate terrain.

Now that's McGlashan commenting. If that's what he feels with his abilities then perhaps we should take note.

A brushed turn will not leave edge wide tracks, but there is no rotation, you just have to reduce the edge angle of the outside ski and you skis slightly, but do not rotate the skis.

 

[James]

Now define "rotary" please.

What is this 2007 epic trolling?

 

[Noodler]

What is this 2007 epic trolling?

I am serious in my ask. After the "inclination vs. banking" debacle, I want to be sure that our definitions for terminology are aligned before I "go out on a limb" in any further discussion.

 

[JESinstr]

Now define "rotary" please.

My Def: A redirection of the ski using a pivoting force.
We can leave a discussion of proper mechanics for another thread

 

[Noodler]

My Def: A redirection of the ski using a pivoting force.
We can leave a discussion of proper mechanics for another thread

Can you complete the definition with a description of the movement(s) and muscles involved? How do you "redirect"? Where does the "pivoting force" come from?

And for @James, no this is not a troll response.

 

[James]

I am serious in my ask. After the "inclination vs. banking" debacle, I want to be sure that our definitions for terminology are aligned before I "go out on a limb" in any further discussion.

Let’s hope we don’t have to saw the limb off to save the tree.

One Mike was right, and one not so right. Aka, wrong.
Nothing in the definition precludes shortening of the inside leg when using the term “banking”. It would be a pretty narrow definition and almost always negative.

“Inclination without angulation” as the other Mike pointed out.

 

[JESinstr]

Can you complete the definition with a description of the movement(s) and muscles involved? How do you "redirect"? Where does the "pivoting force" come from?

If you want to begin a thread on the Kinesiology of ski redirection be my guest.
I will only reiterate that I teach skiing from the bottom up.

 

[razie]

Well... did we settle counteraction? Any comments to my absolutely fantastic discussion above?

I think we only touched on the basics of how it tightens the turn, but any issues with the AF vs FA description so far? At least in (quasi) carved turns?

 

[James]

Well... did we settle counteraction? Any comments to my absolutely fantastic discussion above?

I don’t see your example here of Lindsey as making your point. She’s in a very anticipated position just before floating. Her pelvis basically stays in position, but her whole body is moving in towards the inside of the coming arc. I don’t see how that would rotate the pelvis even more unless she brings the outside arm way in.

There’s some counter at the image before the gate, then reall st the gate. By the gate her inside thigh is do pushed up that it has to rotate the pelvis out. So, I see it making @geepers ’s point.

If anything, she has negative counter in the first part of the turn there.