Retraction Turns - how do you use this phrase?

[Noodler]

I feel the toppling on steeps (even though not fully carving) but not when carving on normal pitches. I suppose that means I'm not getting enough performance out of my skis.

Or vice-versa.

As I noted in the "rate the turns 2" thread, toppling can only occur if the "leg of the stool" that is removed (via retraction/flexing) is actually carrying the majority of the weight/pressure in the turn. Typically a lack of toppling means insufficient CB.

 

[Noodler]

I'm late to the party in discussing retraction. I see that this thread is definitely heading in a couple totally different directions now, but excuse me while I try to reel it back in on the subject of retraction turns.

What is the base meaning of the word "retraction"? It means to withdraw. What are we withdrawing? We're withdrawing the pressure/weight on the old stance/outside ski by actively "pulling" the ski up towards the hips.

I think I'm alone in my differentiation between retraction and flexion (at least among the PxTS crowd). Not everyone believes these are referring to different movements, but what I feel is that retraction is "active" pulling of the ski towards my hips whereas flexion is a "passive" relaxation allowing the knee to flex (collapse).

I use retraction to speed up the pace of the turns. The retraction moves do not result in the skis being lifted off the snow, but rather the hips dropping down toward the snow. If I only use passive flexion then my turns do not develop as quickly as what I can accomplish through active retraction of the old stance ski.

Note that in both cases, this release requires balancing on the old inside ski's outside edge (LTE) as the old stance ski is tipped to the new edge.

 

[Noodler]

The Gellie video reminds me of a mantra I've used on and off over the years "Incline to Angulate" meaning that a turn starts with inclination, the angulation develops later in the turn.

Greg Gurshman has an article on this. http://youcanski.com/en/inclined-to-win-ski

Angulate first. Inclination is the "last ditch" measure to continue tipping the skis. If you think incline first, you "over-commit" the upper body into the center of the turn too early in the turn. This movement actually REDUCES the pressure on the ski edges and kills getting early edge engagement in the top half of the turn.

 

[LiquidFeet]

....I think I'm alone in my differentiation between retraction and flexion (at least among the PxTS crowd). Not everyone believes these are referring to different movements, but what I feel is that retraction is "active" pulling of the ski towards my hips whereas flexion is a "passive" relaxation allowing the knee to flex.

I use retraction to speed up the pace of the turns. The retraction moves do not result in the skis being lifted off the snow, but rather the hips dropping down toward the snow. If I only use passive flexion then my turns do not develop as quickly as what I can accomplish through active retraction of the old stance ski....

You are not alone. You must have missed my previous posts about this issue. Here's my model of how turns get started with leg flexion and extension. I originally encountered a version of this model in Rick Schnellman's materials, and have used it for a long time. It separates retraction turns from flexion turns.

1. Extension turn
Extend new outside leg to propel torso over/across the skis. Skis flatten and tip onto new edges. Skier may delay flexing the new inside leg, or flex it at the same time. The extension makes skier tall between turns. (The old term "cross-over" applies.)
2. Flexion turn
Flex new inside leg to allow torso to topple over/across the skis. Skis flatten and tip onto new edges. Skier eventually extends new outside leg to keep that ski on the snow, and maximum pressure comes to it by the fall line. Skier stays short between turns. If the hip was close to the snow with the old turn, skier's head will necessarily rise even though the new outside leg stays flexed. (The seldom used term "cross-through" applies.)
3. Retraction turn
Retract both feet/legs with the intention to bring knees up towards chest. While skis are light move both feet from one side of the body to the other, changing edges. Skier stays low between turns. This release is usually done in quick tempo short radius turns with body facing downhill and skis traveling in a narrow corridor. It's especially useful in direct line bump skiing. Rotation/redirection is not necessary, but it's certainly an option. (The old term "cross-under" technically applies, but this term was also used for flexion turns so it causes confusion.) (People often conflate #2 and #3.)

These three releases can be done with carved arc-to-arc turns, or with turns with intentional skidding.

 

[JESinstr]

@Tim Hodgson
Isn't it weird to call rotary steering? Because if there is something that rotary does not do, it is steering. If you look at how a ski actually turns from a physics perspective it is purely due to edging. Shape and camber make this possible. All rotary does is it causes skidding. But if I ski with rotary without edging you go straight down the mountain, e.g. pivot slips. Some food for thought maybe.

@JESinstr
Very good point!
Yes my definition of dynamic balance includes locomotion. Otherwise it is static balance to me. I look at it from a biomechanical perspective, i.e. what are the muscles doing. Static balance means isometric use of muscles and dynamic balance means eccentric and concentric use of muscles. In skiing we mainly use our muscles in an isometric manner. Imho saying dynamic balance gives a wrong impression on how to train for skiing.

I am not sure whether I fully understand your concept of imbalance from the perspective of the ski. Would you mind explaining?

So first on Dynamic Balance, I like to think of it this way. If you are walking to your plane in an airport and approaching a moving walkway, your brain is fat, dumb and happy that is senses forward travel knowing the autonomic nervous system is running the the locomotion show. Then suddenly the locomotion stops but the brain continues to sense motion and a brief state of imbalance is created between what your brain is sensing and what your body is doing in reaction to the moving belt.
Now, you may say that it is simply adjusting to a static position and that is true. But what about that adjustment activity that was taking place for the brief period of time between walking and standing? In skiing, that period of adjustment goes on all the time and I put that in the category of Dynamic Balance.

As to your second question. If a carving state is the skier's intent (and this is key to the use of "imbalance" from the SKI FOR) then we are talking about the creation and management of Centripetal force. The design of the ski is such that this force can only be generated when the ski is placed on edge, bent in reverse camber and velocity is added.
So there are two potentials for ski imbalance. The first and most obvious is the transition when the ski is intentionally disengaged and releases the centripetal force. The second potential for ski imbalance is when the skier to increase the carving performance but does have the skill set to accomplish it and the ski unintentionally begins to disengage (skidding) and this is where both the ski and the skier become imbalanced.

 

[Skitechniek]

@JESinstr
What you are describing are technical flaws. My concept is based on theoretical perfection, yours on theoretical imperfection. You're not training to achieve those imbalances or to be able to cope better with those imbalances, you're training to get rid of them. So why use it as a concept?

 

[mdf]

I think we are using the word "toppling" differently. To me, it denotes a fairly abrupt change.

As I noted in the "rate the turns 2" thread, toppling can only occur if the "leg of the stool" that is removed (via retraction/flexing) is actually carrying the majority of the weight/pressure in the turn. Typically a lack of toppling means insufficient CB.

I use retraction to speed up the pace of the turns. The retraction moves do not result in the skis being lifted off the snow, but rather the hips dropping down toward the snow. If I only use passive flexion then my turns do not develop as quickly as what I can accomplish through active retraction of the old stance ski.

On a steep, I'm often in a hurry to start the new turn, and do something (I'd have to ski again while paying attention to know what) to speed up the transition.
Carving big turns on a groomer, I go for neutral at transition and wait for the new turn. Edge pressure is gradually turned off. It does not happen fast enough to feel like toppling.
On short turns, it feels like my upper body is moving more-or-less straight down the fall line. It feels like a pretty constant rate -- I realize that may be an illusion. Again, no toppling feeling.

I think to get the toppling feeling on a carved turn in normal terrain, I would have to purposely keep high edging "into the belly of the turn" and then abruptly turn it off.

In line with Noodler's retraction definition, I only use active, emphatic retraction during short turns.

 

[LiquidFeet]

....I don't believe in some position of imbalance in a turn. When I'm skiing I always feel in balance. Apart from that I have heard the phrase dynamic balance being coined here a couple of times. I don't believe in that either. ....

@Skitechniek, people here refer to dynamic balance because there are points in a turn when the skier is not fully "balanced" on either ski, given the normal use of the word "balance." Have you ever heard skiing compared to running? If we assume there are similarities, then these images may help you understand what people mean by dynamic balance.

This runner is in "balance," given the normal use of the word. His CoM is over his foot. Let's call this "neutral." Ski turns have a moment like this. He could stand there in his bedroom like this without falling over. This could be called "static balance."

But wait, he's moving. That changes the function of the balance situation. How is that word "balance" going to apply in the next nano-second, when this runner looks like the image below? Is this guy now "out of balance"? Some people are OK with saying this. It's semantics. If his movement were to freeze, then he'd fall. We could say he's "out of balance." But many people here want to say he's in some new state that applies to a specifically to a person who is moving. The phrase people have come up with is "dynamic balance." They don't like saying "out of balance." Again, semantics. There are moments in a ski turn where the body is ahead of the skis, where these terms apply. It doesn't make any sense to say this guy and a similar skier are in a state of "static balance."

Here's our runner a nano-second later. A ski turn has a moment like this too, because the CoM moves relative to the BoS. If this runner were trying to stand static like this in his house, he'd fall over. We can call this condition "out of balance," or use "dynamic balance." "Static balance" just doesn't apply.

 

[JESinstr]

@JESinstr
What you are describing are technical flaws. My concept is based on theoretical perfection, yours on theoretical imperfection. You're not training to achieve those imbalances or to be able to cope better with those imbalances, you're training to get rid of them. So why use it as a concept?

Who says I am. Theory can be a dicey hook to hang your hat on. After this pandemic is past us, we will have a chance to see how the Theories worked and what were the untended consequences.

 

[Noodler]

You are not alone. You must have missed my previous posts about this issue. Here's my model of how turns get started with leg flexion and extension. I originally encountered a version of this model in Rick Schnellman's materials, and have used it for a long time. It separates retraction turns from flexion turns.

1. Extension turn
Extend new outside leg to propel torso over/across the skis. Skis flatten and tip onto new edges when skier eventually flexes new inside leg. Skier may flex new inside leg at the same time as the extension, or later. Skier gets tall between turns. (The old term "cross-over" applies.)
2. Flexion turn
Flex new inside leg to allow torso to topple over/across the skis. Skis flatten and tip onto new edges. Skier eventually extends new outside leg to keep that ski on the snow, and maximum pressure comes to it by the fall line. Skier stays short between turns. If the hip was close to the snow with the old turn, skier's head will necessarily rise even though the new outside leg stays flexed. (The seldom used term "cross-through" applies.)
3. Retraction turn
Retract both feet/legs with the intention to bring knees up towards chest. While skis are light move both feet from one side of the body to the other, changing edges. Skier stays low between turns. This release is usually done in quick tempo short radius turns with body facing downhill and skis traveling in a narrow corridor. It's especially useful in direct line bump skiing. Rotation/redirection is not necessary, but it's certainly an option. (The old term "cross-under" technically applies, but this term was also used for flexion turns so it causes confusion.) (People often conflate #2 and #3.)

These three releases can be done with carved arc-to-arc turns, or with turns with intentional skidding.

I'm good with most of this except the definition of retraction requiring BOTH feet/legs to retract. Technically the inside leg should already be in a "retracted" state and it is kept in that state while the stance leg is retracted to initiate the new turn. When you tell skiers that retraction is to pull both both up, then I fear some really ugly skiing will result (kind of like that video posted earlier in the thread of skiers hunched over and sucking their knees into their chests).

 

[LiquidFeet]

I'm good with most of this except the definition of retraction requiring BOTH feet/legs to retract. Technically the inside leg should already be in a "retracted" state and it is kept in that state while the stance leg is retracted to initiate the new turn. When you tell skiers that retraction is to pull both both up, then I fear some really ugly skiing will result (kind of like that video posted earlier in the thread of skiers hunched over and sucking their knees into their chests).

I pull both feet up in bumps.

 

[Noodler]

I pull both feet up in bumps.

Me too, but is that considered a classic retraction turn? I guess I have a more carved type turn in my head when someone says "retraction turn" to me. The retraction in the bumps is just part of effective A&E in good mogul skiing.

 

[JESinstr]

I think we are using the word "toppling" differently. To me, it denotes a fairly abrupt change.

On a steep, I'm often in a hurry to start the new turn, and do something (I'd have to ski again while paying attention to know what) to speed up the transition.
Carving big turns on a groomer, I go for neutral at transition and wait for the new turn. Edge pressure is gradually turned off. It does not happen fast enough to feel like toppling.
On short turns, it feels like my upper body is moving more-or-less straight down the fall line. It feels like a pretty constant rate -- I realize that may be an illusion. Again, no toppling feeling.

I think to get the toppling feeling on a carved turn in normal terrain, I would have to purposely keep high edging "into the belly of the turn" and then abruptly turn it off.

In line with Noodler's retraction definition, I only use active, emphatic retraction during short turns.

But the reality is that it is not toppling. Your mass is being released from the effects of centripetal force and begins pursuing a straight line of travel. Now, where you are in relation to the fall line when you release, will have an impact on how your perceive things. It is important that we know what is actually happening vs what we think is happening.

 

[mdf]

@JESinstr so do I understand this correctly? You are making a distinction between when your center of mass flips over your skis' direction of travel in response to gravity and in response to inertia?

 

[Skitechniek]

@Skitechniek, people here refer to dynamic balance because there are points in a turn when the skier is not fully "balanced" on either ski, given the normal use of the word balance. Have you ever heard skiing compared to running? If we assume there are similarities, then these images may help you understand what people mean by dynamic balance.

This runner is in "balance," given the normal use of the word. His CoM is over his foot. Let's call this "neutral." Ski turns have a moment like this. He could stand there in his bedroom like this without falling over. This could be called "static balance."
View attachment 99001
But wait, he's moving. That changes the function of the balance situation. How is that word "balance" going to apply in the next nano-second, when this runner looks like the image below? Is this guy now "out of balance"? Some people are OK with saying this. It's semantics. If his movement were to freeze, then he'd fall. We could say he's "out of balance." But many people here want to say he's in some new state that applies to a specifically to a person who is moving. The phrase people have come up with is "dynamic balance." They don't like saying "out of balance." Again, semantics. There are moments in a ski turn where the body is ahead of the skis, where these terms apply. It doesn't make any sense to say this guy and a similar skier are in a state of "static balance."
View attachment 99002
Here's our runner a nano-second later. A ski turn has a moment like this too, because the CoM moves relative to the BoS. If this runner were trying to stand static like this in his house, he'd fall over. We can call this condition "out of balance," or use "dynamic balance." "Static balance" just doesn't apply.
View attachment 99003

I get your point, but I have a different perspective on this. You have a physics perspective, I have a biomechanical perspective.
The reason someone is balanced is centrifugal or centripetal force in these cases. But that is not the balance itself, it's only an explanation as to why we can stay balanced when skiing with big angles. It does not answer the 'how' we stay balanced. I'm looking at how the person is actually balanced and in skiing it is isometric tension that is causing the balance. So yes, even though centrifugal force is helping us to stay balanced, the force in our body we are applying to stay balanced is isometric, hence static. Centrifugal force is not a form of balancing, isometric muscle tension is. You look at the why, I look at the how in this case.

 

[mdf]

I get your point, but I have a different perspective on this. You have a physics perspective, I have a biomechanical perspective.
The reason someone is balanced is centrifugal or centripetal force in these cases. But that is not the balance itself, it's only an explanation as to why we can stay balanced when skiing with big angles. It does not answer the 'how' we stay balanced. I'm looking at how the person is actually balanced and in skiing it is isometric tension that is causing the balance. So yes, even though centrifugal force is helping us to stay balanced, the force in our body we are applying to stay balanced is isometric, hence static. Centrifugal force is not a form of balancing, isometric muscle tension is. You look at the why, I look at the how in this case.

I would make a distinction between an equilibrium state and other states. For the equilibrium state, you are balanced against the forces (in the body-centered reference frame) , whether they are gravity or centrifugal. In the non-equilibrium state, the forces are "out of balance" and something changes. They can be slightly imbalanced, so your stance or other body states change in a controlled manner, or massively unbalanced, so you fall and go tumbling.

 

[Tony S]

Me too, but is that considered a classic retraction turn? I guess I have a more carved type turn in my head when someone says "retraction turn" to me.

Ditto, and this is part of the confusion. I think @Tim Hodgson , for example, is coming at it from the opposite direction.

 

[Tony S]

To me, "toppling" is no more or less than an evocative way of describing the process where my COM moves from a place a bit behind and above my skis (just before transition) across the skis' path to a place where it is ahead of and below my skis (just after transition). It's what enables the whole "high-C" thing, right?

 

[LiquidFeet]

Me too, but is that considered a classic retraction turn? I guess I have a more carved type turn in my head when someone says "retraction turn" to me. The retraction in the bumps is just part of effective A&E in good mogul skiing.

I think so, yes.

And in the bumps for a direct line, at least the way I ski them (no claims to heroic skiing here, folks, but I have been working on this), I do manually rotate the skis while light so they land appropriately on each shoulder. But they stay pretty much flat on the shoulder of the bumps as those shoulders propel the skis left-right. So ... not carved.

Retraction turns on a groomer, as I ski them, take me straight down the fall line with quick, snappy, athletic movements. I strictly face downhill, and don't manually rotate the skis. I stay super low and snap my knees upward. When I get low enough at the fall line, there is significant rebound. The turns are nowhere near completed, and the skis carve. My body doesn't move much to the left or the right, and I can keep it from all left-right travel if I want. Or I can delay the release and travel laterally a bit. For short radius turns in a wider corridor, there would be no reason to do the retraction as there would be more time and space to make use of. I'd use flexion.

Do either of these turn descriptions sound like something you would call retraction turns?

 

[JESinstr]

@JESinstr so do I understand this correctly? You are making a distinction between when your center of mass flips over your skis' direction of travel in response to gravity and in response to inertia?

IMO If you are generating centripetal force you are, in effect, overcoming inertia. When you release the centripetal force you will return to an inertial path and that vector depends on where the release takes place in relation to the slope.
I think is it important to remember that Gravity plays 2 roles in skiing. One is to allow us to be upright and the other is a source for velocity. If the slope disappears, there would be no source for velocity but you would still be able to stand!