Question ? For the Pros and Experts and also just ski enthusiasts

[dustyfog]

This diagram below with the comment was posted somewhere online by somebody, and the question is - is'nt there something slightly or very 'off' in the direction of the 'line of sight' red arrows as to 'where' the eyes are looking in a turn? Or not ? Are the eyes looking where they should be in general or not ?

Something fishy about this ? Should'nt the line of sight arrows be directly on the 'other' side of the drawn arc of the skiers skis, i.e. reflected from where they are now using the SKIS arc as the theoretical mirror if you get my drift in the following places : the top half of the 1st turn , reflect them, after that phase, the 'line of sight' seems to kind of look right as the 2nd turn initiates looking inside the turn ahead to the 'middle' so to speak; and then again the eyes look askance, looking 'out' as the 2nd turn is completed, arrows should be reflected:Yes/No ? It's a question - that is all . Please correct, comment , or affirm as being right ? Am curious to say the least

QUOTE from somewhere on the Internet:
"Red line is where my eyes are looking

 

[scott43]

I dunno..I look where I'm going..you go where you look..target fixation stylez..

 

[Jilly]

Your way, then you are not counter rotated to your skis. You are square to the hill. Wish I could find a video or multi-shot. I'm sure someone knows of one.

 

[scott43]

Your way, then you are not counter rotated to your skis. You are square to the hill. Wish I could find a video or multi-shot. I'm sure someone knows of one.

Yeah, head rotated..torso, downhill. Still feel like I'm looking where I'm going.

 

[Jilly]

But your feet haven't caught up with you yet. Sorry CSIA says counter rotated. I believe the PSIA uses rotated.

 

[James]

Most absurd thing I've seen in a while! (Heh.. Some hyperbole.) So yes dusty, it's strange. I mean they're just tangent lines. Even robots will ski smarter than that. (once they become ski patrol. But they're too expensive now and for quite sometime considering the low patrol pay)

Good way to hit a tree looking like that.
Even in Big Burn at Snowmass - an extremely wide open area with several trees dispersed throughout. (It's so wide yet still "a trail" it nearly gives me vertigo first time skiing it from east.) Skiing it, you suddenly come near a tree and realize you're going way fast. Even though you see it coming, it's concerning coming upon an Immovable object. Now if one were to look only in places like the diagram a tree would suddenly appear and they come quick at 30+ mph.

Here's Ted skiing slalom with a go pro mount off his back that lets you see his head turn.

 

[markojp]

The diagram shows lines of force, not necessarily line of sight.

 

[cantunamunch]

I would've said 'linear momentum', but, yeah.

 

[dustyfog]

The diagram shows lines of force, not necessarily line of sight.

I would've said 'linear momentum', but, yeah.

Angular momentum makes sense and quite accurate , so humbly concur with the above two observations - but note the quote of the original source , and this I believe could have been a pro, semi-pro, was scratching my head..that was all
"Red line is where my eyes are looking...."

That was the source of my dispassionate question, as James notes, ...>> Emphasis mine

Most absurd thing I've seen in a while! (Heh.. Some hyperbole.) So yes dusty, it's strange. I mean they're just tangent lines. Even robots will ski smarter than that. (once they become ski patrol. But they're too expensive now and for quite sometime considering the low patrol pay)

Good way to hit a tree looking like that.
Even in Big Burn at Snowmass - an extremely wide open area with several trees dispersed throughout. (It's so wide yet still "a trail" it nearly gives me vertigo first time skiing it from east.) Skiing it, you suddenly come near a tree and realize you're going way fast. Even though you see it coming, it's concerning coming upon an Immovable object. Now if one were to look only in places like the diagram a tree would suddenly appear and they come quick at 30+ mph.

Here's Ted skiing slalom with a go pro mount off his back that lets you see his head turn.

Mr. Ligety's Camera-head looking 'inside' the turn pretty much always, as one might expect from a maestro, or are mine eyes playing tricks on me

 

[HeluvaSkier]

This is an old frame by frame I did a few seasons ago... may help.

 

[dustyfog]

This is an old frame by frame I did a few seasons ago... may help.

That is a superb frame-by-frame, and yes, makes it crystal clear, the torso, and the eyes are 'roughly speaking' pointed midway inside the next turn, i.e. inside the arc of the skis, the only time the 'line of sight' coincides with the tangent to the arc, i.e. the angular momentum vector, is at the moment of cross-over/transition/cross-under : you know what I mean. That frame-by-frame is a vivid illustration! That by the way is this intermediate's read and confirmation of what I thought and ties in with the Ligety video.

 

[cantunamunch]

Terminology clarification: the angular momentum vector does not exist in transitions - in a right hand turn it points up off the snow and in a left hand turn it points down into the snow. (assuming, ofc, a right handed coordinate system).

 

[bud heishman]

I believe my eyes look at the path my CoM is taking? not sure? Unless running gates then I look a bit farther ahead.

If you watch the above videos, you will see Ligety's head pivot's independently of his torso and I believe you will find this true of any good skier. I hate it when I hear instructors telling their students to look where they want to go and this invariably causes rotation because they turn their shoulders too.

 

[dustyfog]

Terminology clarification: the angular momentum vector does not exist in transitions - in a right hand turn it points up off the snow and in a left hand turn it points down into the snow. (assuming, ofc, a right handed coordinate system).

Definition of Angular Momentum : A vector (just a courteous FYI for any interested parties) - just the facts ma'am, no argument from me. It was only about where the eyes were looking, seemed fishy and two videos and expert commentary affirms that conjecture.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html

or even better :
Angular Momentum of a Particle

The angular momentum of a particle of mass m with respect to a chosen origin is given by

L = mvr sin θ
or more formally by the vector product

L = r x p
The direction is given by the right hand rule which would give L the direction out of the diagram. For an orbit, angular momentum isconserved, and this leads to one ofKepler's laws. For a circular orbit, L becomes

L = mvr

 

[markojp]

I believe my eyes look at the path my CoM is taking? not sure? Unless running gates then I look a bit farther ahead.

If you watch the above videos, you will see Ligety's head pivot's independently of his torso and I believe you will find this true of any good skier. I hate it when I hear instructors telling their students to look where they want to go and this invariably causes rotation because they turn their shoulders too.

Bud, I agree. It often takes some work to get people to look in any direction other than where their skis are pointed. One drill I sometimes do has the skier looking clearly in the opposite direction of their turn... Yes, we make sure that the terrain and skier traffic are appropriate. Once we start to dial it back to real skiing, I ask people to look into the future, and the future is down. Once people trust that they don't need to look directly where their skis are pointed, great things happen.

 

[scott43]

Once people trust that they don't need to look directly where their skis are pointed, great things happen.

Yeah, this is typically what is taught in motorcycle racing, car racing. You look to where you want to go, not where you are or where you don't want to go. Your body and inputs naturally lead you to where you're looking. When I'm in a haripin turn, I'm looking way out in front of where I am. I'm looking 90 degrees away from where the bike is pointed. I saw a guy hit a telephone pole dead centre on a motorcycle..couldn't have done a better job if he was trying. Stared at it and bam. Look where you want to go.

 

[James]

I saw a guy hit a telephone pole dead centre on a motorcycle..couldn't have done a better job if he was trying. Stared at it and bam. Look where you want to go.

I think there's a term for this propensity of people to stare at the thing they don't want to hit. Anyone know the term?

 

[SkiEssentials]

With all the scientific jargon and fancy information getting thrown around in this thread, and with my own personal experience with where your eyes should be looking, I've created a very accurate graph that should help answer some questions:

 

[Chris Geib]

I think there's a term for this propensity of people to stare at the thing they don't want to hit. Anyone know the term?

Target fixation?

Moth effect?

 

[scott43]

Target fixation?

Moth effect?

We call it target fixation.