Right, COM would not be so far back with closed ankles so a candidate for the list.
Candidate... Hmmmm. It's essential. Any thoughts about boomerangs yet?
Right, COM would not be so far back with closed ankles so a candidate for the list.
Any thoughts about boomerangs yet?
Show me tracks in the snow, and we'll see if you're in the back seat or not.
Show me tracks in the snow, and we'll see if you're in the back seat or not.
I'll get back to you.
Would this also be what @Bob Barnes illustrates in the Medicine ball?The boomerang.... Can an object's center of mass be outside of the body?
This has been discussed like a million times. It's being discussed at some length, in slightly different ways, in the lateral thread right now. People are tired, it's April. Plus, the thread title is bizarre.Your post is right in line with subject matter dealt with regularly. It's no more complicated or analytical than lots of other posts that are supported, just it doesn't fit into the social framework.
...
Topic: Are there two types of back seat? (That can be defined.) Can a back seat in some cases be acceptable and distinct from a classic back seat? (If that is possible.)
...
Good backseat and bad backseat are all about intent. And, not everyone would agree about when it's best to intend what. Since great skiers across different disciplines wouldn’t agree, I don't know how you can call it simple. People have been arguing about this in forums for more than a decade. It's about time there's a dedicated thread for it if there hasn't been one already. In truth, it's so complicated that a full commitment to the subject by a variety of forum members would be sure to end with the thread locked.
Trouts, the excessive analytical nature on Pugski seems to invite posts like yours, but once you delve down deep here, you'll find it's largely a group of folks that have been chatting together online for a long time with their own rules. They aren't broadly analytical, only specifically analytical within the social framework that they've developed. With heavy PSIA influence, L3s and some L2s are encouraged to reiterate PSIA bullet points with that analytical nature that attracts you, while the rest are generally consigned to asking for MA. So, don't let them gaslight you. Your post is right in line with subject matter dealt with regularly. It's no more complicated or analytical than lots of other posts that are supported, just it doesn't fit into the social framework.
Where are you directing pressure? The tail of the ski or the tip? Why and when do you want to do either?
To say another way - when is it GOOD to have your hips behind your heels when skiing? When do you want to pressure the tails of the skis instead of the tip?
I think the 'good back seat' position has more to do with flexion/absorption than trying to pressure the tail of the ski specifically. You still may end up pressuring the tail while you are there, but it's not really why you went there. You went there to absorb/flex between turns - either in moguls or on a groomer.
Flexing in turn transition on both groomers and in moguls may make it look like you are back seat at full flexion. However, you can use the momentum of the upper body to get back in front of the skis as you transition to the next turn.
@Seldomski I think your questions may be rhetorical versus asking me
I just heard a podcast with Jurij Franko, developer of the shape ski for Elan. In discussing skis, he talked about how you give young kids skis, they will always balance back. His reason was it's the easiest way to turn the ski. Get it to pivot.
Good point. Yes, he does. So you've got braking present. They wouldn't be able to bslance close yet.Jurij clarifies this bit about kids leaning back to create instability in a wedge.
At my local mountain there is a group of us that are into the technical side. We ski there often, see each other ski, critique each other and suggest pointers. The call out of a back seat at times is fuzzy.