Retraction Turns - how do you use this phrase?

[Tim Hodgson]

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).

Noodler You are not alone. I agree with you. And is is not "semantics." If we use words in instruction, the words must be precisely defined or the student is being disserved. To me "extension turns" and "retraction turns" are from the same era of straight sidecut narrow skis and describe an active method of taking the skis off edge and twisting/rotating/steering to a new direction where the skier wants to go.

There is also "down unweighting" which is of the same era but describes a method of rapidly lowering the core to flatten the ski and thereby to rotate it to a new direction.

You cannot rotate an edged ski and keep carving. Only a flat ski can be rotated.

Rollerblades and ice skates are always on edge. Skis can be on edge or flat.

Retraction turns have nothing to do with the relatively passive old downhill/outside ski short leg collapse with resulting long leg extension which employs the sidecut of the modern parabolic ski to initiate a more edge-dominant turn.

I am sure that retraction can be used to move from one set of edges on a modern parabolic ski to the other edges while keeping the skis pointed in their current direction -- i.e., without rotation/steering them to to a new direction after the retraction.

But why? If you are carving your turns, just roll the skis onto their new edges and go. I.e., the classic PSIA railroad track turn demonstrated by Ms. Shiffrin in the last turn of the above video.

Skkitechniek and JESInstr I thought about the expression that the skier is in a state of "imbalance" between turns and I disagree with it.

Dynamic balance is balance which can only be maintained through movement.

Take away the movement and the object loses balance.

Like a spinning top which falls when it stops.

Like the whitewater kayaker surfing a wave, facing upstream in which the force of gravity is pulling his or her kayak down the face of the wave into the trough but is equalized by the river's current which attempts to push the kayak downstream.

In carved turns, even with toppling as the form of edge release, the skier is never really in a state of imbalance.

He or she is merely replacing the edge resistance necessary to keep in balance from one turn to the other.

There is no "imbalance" between turns.

The opposing turns are the movement which creates the balance. Which result in what we call "Dynamic Balance."

 

[S.H.]

Only a flat ski can be rotated.

Define flat

 

[Tim Hodgson]

Fair enough.

"A ski which the base is so oriented that it may be rotated or steered by the skier."

Our sport is a continuum. From locked into a pure tip-to-tail carve, to brushed turns, to skidding, to flat on the snow pivot slips.

I am sure that a strong racer can break an edged ski loose from a purely carved trench or retract the edges from that trench to redirect the ski.

But not me and not the level of students whom I teach.

You are a USSA Coach. You likely ski better than me. I am sure that you ski better than me. You certainly coach at a higher level than me.

I am a Alpine Level II ski instructor who skis at that level and who teaches beginners and intermediates to advanced intermediates.

So you probably have a better definition than me.

But am I correct to assume that you also distinguish between a flat or flatter ski in which the skier rotates or turns the ski and an edged ski where the ski turns the skier?

And I am correct to assume that you agree that it is appropriate and necessary to show the student that turns may be accomplished in these two different ways and that the movements to do so are different?

 

[mdf]

In carved turns, even with toppling as the form of edge release, the skier is never really in a state of imbalance.

This appears to be another physics-vs-everyday-english issue.
There always are unbalanced forces when you turn (except for extreme park-and-ride, maybe). When the mismatch in forces is under control, I think that is what you call "dynamic balance."

 

[razie]

If I'm moving in the direction I mean to move, I'm in dynamic balance.

Wikipedia: "Dynamic balance is the ability of an object to balance while in motion or switching between positions."

The definition is almost circular, but the difference is clearly "motion".

Balance is a static notion. Usually when I see someone talk "balance" and "BOS over COM" it's either low-level skiing without energy, or park it and ride it... both unpleasant...

A great analogy is not quite running, although good, but descending a flight of stairs, as gravity is always there and we're moving in its direction... so no pushing needed the difference between skiing and descending is the ability to be stacked at the point of force application...

Since in skiing, I normally mean to move in an S-like trajectory, I'm concerned with creating the proper impulses to move me from apex to apex - so re-organizing my body while gliding/unweighted, to setup enough centripetal force at the next apex, to get impulse across the hill towards my next apex.

The isometric force application at the apex, allowing centripetal force to appear and redirect us, is short and hopefully when stacked, so using mostly skeleton - which is why I can keep skiing a 2400ft vertical, top to bottom with reasonable high-performance all day (maybe that explains my fetish with the outside ski... if you use the inside leg to support even 30% when it's short, it's basically 1g, so one-legged squats all the way down and that's not fun). the application of this force is short because my body segments keep changing shape normally, legs especially get long-short-long, so for the most part I'm never really static. Even in a 30m turn, we keep moving in and out (here's mini-me trying to figure out that the point of the game is bending it as much as possible as quickly as possible, not standing on it all day trying to get half a turn out of it):


So on a realistic day to day basis, we don't ski a 30m, but a 15-20m so there is a lot more movement.

I honestly really dislike participating in BOS/COM discussions... it's like someone with a grade 6 physics knowledge is trying to explain performance skiing "oh, yeah, so they stay on top of the boots"... as if... seriously?? How can you analyze motion without derivatives, i.e... well, movement?

... so for me it's always again about movement so really, movements: what/where/when/why and how...

p.s. in slalom turns on steep, the "impulse phase", the "resisting phase" is even shorter, much shorter as a percentage of the turn time - this is one of the steepest runs in ON ("Avalanche"):

 

[Mike King]

Interesting point of view. Can you elaborate? Maybe worthy of a new topic.

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. Skiing is a sport of static balance, research has shown that. The tension in the muscles on the outside ski is isometric tension. Only the inside leg shows low loads of eccentric and concentric tension, but this is not the leg we are balanced on. You have to keep in mind that we are not moving ourselves, gravity is moving us and all we have to do is balance against it in a very static way.

Why do you believe in imbalance? And do you think skiing is a sport of dynamic balance?

From a physics point of view, if the forces are balanced, then there is no change in motion. To have a change in motion requires an imbalance in forces. So, movement is, by definition, unbalanced...

That's the easy way out, but let's put it into work on this specific topic. To link two turns together, we have to move the CoM from the inside of one turn to inside the other. This requires some sort of lateral movement -- that is, a rotation of the CoM on the frontal plane. How much imbalance in the forces there is affects the speed of rotation or lateral movement. If we make very slow movements, the degree of instability may be small and may contribute to your feeling of "balance." Fast movements lead to greater instability and a faster speed of rotation, but requires a greater set of skills to manage the forces.

Mike

 

[Loki1]

You should all read this:

https://eliteskiing.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/PSIA-AASI_32Degrees_W17_A-Tale-of-4-Turns.pdf

It says a lot from a great mind in skiing. One who has a lot more knowledge than the majority of us.

 

[Tim Hodgson]

Loki1: Thank you for linking that PSIA 32 Degrees magazine article. I remember reading it when it came out and it confused me.

Figure 3. Retraction Turns.

It is easy to see that the carve is making the turn in photo a and above.

But how do the skis go from photo b to photo c?

It is not explained in the text. So some technique/movement should have been described.
The skis are not carving, so the ski didn't make that 45 degree turn in their orientation to the skier's left.
The description that is missing is the term "rotation." Where the skier rotates the skis either in the air or flat (or flatter) across the snow to point them to their new direction left.
Then the skier resets/engages the edges again at point d.

What is funny is that PSIA has always had the descripters: Pressure, Edge, Rotation.
But Ron LeMaster didn't use that term in his article.

I also bought and read Ron LeMaster's book the Skier's Edge when it first came out in 1998.

It set me on an overly edged-focused trajectory, which I am only now trying to redirect by developing my rotary/steering skills.

The Retraction Turn is exactly the turn which Ms. Shiffrin is using in the video below, until her last turn which is a pure carved turn:

 

[razie]

Seems like my preferred transition is also Sasha's preferred transition:

PERFORMANCE TURN Performance turns tend to be Sasha Rearick’s preference in most situations. Trough transition, the racer is in a compact stance that is stable and conserves energy. From this stance, the skier can control his or her extension against the edged, outside ski at turn initiation. In this way, the racer can pressure and bend the outside ski into a carved arc, maintaining suction-like contact with the snow. For recreational skiing, the performance transition is usually the target transition when skiing round-shaped turns because it allows skiers to distribute pressure more uniformly throughout the turn; pressure doesn’t build greatly at one point in the turn.

Nice article, good to note that 3 of 4 transitions are flexing... and there are some misunderstandings in there: the tactics of the extension are off, some flexing/extending sequences are off etc...

 

[Mike King]

You should all watch this.

Ski transitions and toppling - jun 2019

Ski transitions and toppling - jun 2019

bigpictureskiing.com

 

[Scruffy]

Loki1: Thank you for linking that PSIA 32 Degrees magazine article. I remember reading it when it came out and it confused me.

Figure 3. Retraction Turns.

View attachment 99271

It is easy to see that the carve is making the turn in photo a and above.

But how do the skis go from photo b to photo c?

It is not explained in the text. So some technique/movement should have been described.
The skis are not carving, so the ski didn't make that 45 degree turn in their orientation to the skier's left.
The description that is missing is the term "rotation." Where the skier rotates the skis either in the air or flat (or flatter) across the snow to point them to their new direction left.
Then the skier resets/engages the edges again at point d.

What is funny is that PSIA has always had the descripters: Pressure, Edge, Rotation.
But Ron LeMaster didn't use that term in his article.

I also bought and read Ron LeMaster's book the Skier's Edge when it first came out in 1998.

View attachment 99270

It set me on an overly edged-focused trajectory, which I am only now trying to redirect by developing my rotary/steering skills.

The Retraction Turn is exactly the turn which Ms. Shiffrin is using in the video below, until her last turn which is a pure carved turn:

The skiers edges are reset at C not D, Tim.

It's well written article overall--awkward subject pronouns notwithstanding.

 

[Tim Hodgson]

You are correct. Edges are reset at C not D. I wrote from mistaken memory of that photo before I snipped and inserted that photo.
You will have to trust me (or not) that that I meant to say C.

But that begs the question Scruffy, what happened between B and C?

What is the missing movement between B and C?

It is supplied by Ms. Shiffrin's video where the missing movement is clearly shown to be Rotation.

Retraction turns are "retract to release edges" and then "redirect skis by rotation to where you want to go, and then set the edges."

Don't you agree?

The article is "well-written" for you. I don't dispute that.
But I was confused by it. Please don't underestimate my ability to be confused.
As instructors we well know that students learn in different ways. So, we have multiple ways of saying the same thing so that the student gets the point.
So, for PSIA members like me, sometimes things outside of PSIA such as Tom Gellie's excellent (to my mind) video series are quite helpful to fill in the missing movements.

 

[Scruffy]

You are correct. Edges are reset at C not D. I wrote from mistaken memory of that photo before I snipped and inserted that photo.
You will have to trust me (or not) that that is what I meant.

But that begs the question Scruffy, what happened between B and C?

What is the missing movement between B and C?

It is supplied by Ms. Shiffrin's video where the missing movement is clearly shown to be Rotation.

Retraction turns are "retract to release edges" and then "redirect skis by rotation to where you want to go, and then set the edges."

Don't you agree?

The article is well-written for you. I don't dispute that.
But I was confused by it. So, for PSIA members like me, sometimes things outside of PSIA such as Tom Gellie's excellent (to my mind) video series are quite helpful to fill in the missing movements.

Rotation during any phase of any of the turns discussed in that article is always optional and can vary greatly; it totally depends on circumstances, so no I don't agree that retraction turns absolutely need rotation to redirect the skis.

What's happening between B and C is spelled out in the article.

both the old and new outside legs flex ( g. 3.b). the skier continues to move the upper body forward and down the hill as his or her knees come closer to the chest. Although the skier flexes both legs to release edge and pressure, he or she flexes the old outside leg at a faster rate than the inside leg. In this way, the skier transfers weight to the new outside ski immediately. As the skier weights the new outside ski, he or she begins to tip it onto edge. As the skier extends the outside leg, he or she continues to move toward the inside of the turn ( g. 3c).

What you're not seeing explicitly in the photos frames is the skier moving down hill and to the inside of the turn between B and C.

 

[Tim Hodgson]

True, I am not seeing what you are also not seeing because neither of us are seeing it because LeMaster's photos are still photos not a video. Fair enough.

OK, then do you see Rotation of the skis in Ms. Shiffrin's retraction turns video?

 

[François Pugh]

This thread is educational. Just to clarify, should the term retraction turn be reserved for pulling up the feet to the extent that the edges are pulled up, is is it enough that the momentum (or centrifugal force if you prefer) of the legs be reduced.

BTW photos are a poor medium because it is hard to discern how much centrifugal force is acting. At least with video we have a better idea of the speed in the turn, although steepness and true direction of gravity are not well shown.

 

[Scruffy]

True, I am not seeing what you are also not seeing because neither of us are seeing it because LeMaster's photos are still photos not a video. Fair enough.

OK, then do you see Rotation of the skis in Ms. Shiffrin's retraction turns video?

These turns were discussed in post #51 ( and a few after ) of this thread.

 

[Tim Hodgson]

Hah hah hah hah!!! I love you Scruffy! Good way to avoid answering my question because post # 51 does not mention the word "rotation." But IMHO, I clearly see a redirection of her skis by rotation/steering in Shiffrin's turns in that video except for the last turn which is a purely carved turn.

Can the fact that skiing has been so carving based for the last 30 years mean that it has affected eyesight? If you don't mind, I will continue to trust my eyes. But I love you Scruffy!

Francis: I knew that would come up. Yes, you recognize that a movement requires force of some kind. The force may be supplied by the skier's muscles (i.e., retraction) and the skier's muscles which rotate the skis allot or ever so slightly or by the centrifugal force of the turn which may add force to help the skier swing the skis into rotation steering.

If rotation of the skis is present. It is there regardless of how the rotational/steering forces are created or managed.

Phenomenal skiers manage rather the than just create forces.

That is what JESInstr and SkiSailor have been advocating here for years.

That is what Nancy Hummel advocates for teaching beginners how to turn (i.e., shorten the downhill/outside new to be inside leg. Don't push off the uphill ski to initiate the turn. Don't squish the cuff and twist the ski to initiate the turn...)

I often teach a non-approved exaggerated active muscle force to initiate a new movement so that the student can experience the effect of the movement, then dial it back to be efficient to manage rather than create the movement force.

That is the efficiency that I am working toward in my personal skiing now with a focus on rotation/steering with less emphasis on edging

 

[François Pugh]

Can the fact that skiing has been so carving based for the last 30 years mean that it has affected eyesight? If you don't mind, I will continue to trust my eyes. But I love you Scruffy! .....

Francis: I knew that would come up. Yes, you recognize that a movement requires force of some kind. The force may be supplied by the skier's muscles (i.e., retraction) and the skier's muscles which rotate the skis allot or ever so slightly or by the centrifugal force of the turn which may add force to help the skier swing the skis into rotation steering.

If rotation of the skis is present. It is there regardless of how the rotational/steering forces are created or managed......

Where have you been skiing the last 30 years? All this time up here in Canada, I felt like an outcast trying to perfect my pure-carved turns while almost everybody else was smearing turns and keeping their speed down with traditional short radius turns. Even some very good skiers I patrol with don't make good clean carved turns. Typically, other than a few racers, I'm the only one leaving clean tracks (almost) everywhere I ski.

BTW, I understand rotation (deliberate applied torque through the boot to the ski to directly change the way the ski is pointing) and use it when needed, but I'm just asking about retraction, not rotation. They are two separate things in my mind. Although I will admit that retraction is a go-to move when quick rotation is required.

 

[Tim Hodgson]

Kirkwood was one of the first, if not the first Ski School to, in 1997, adopt the blue and white Elan SCX short super sidecut soft ski in its rental and teaching fleet.

Back then snowboarding was all the rage, so we instructors got to free ski allot. We would take out the SCX's and go as fast as we could on a steep groomed blue run and see if we could scribe a purely carved circle down and around and back up and through the apex of the circle and back own, entirely on edge. I did it a handful of times, but many times I would stall just before the circle's apex and have to cheat with an uphill push off to make it up and over. It was a hoot to try back then.

I think I mentioned elsewhere that a couple of years ago my trainer said that I will not progress further until I stop skiing edge to edge and add more rotation.


Edit: I will say it again. The title of this thread is "Retraction Turns" and

There is only one way (that I know) to turn a ski that is retracted. And that is Rotation.

 

[François Pugh]

I stopped carving circles years ago when I almost had a head-on collision with a skier who had been following me down the hill.

I'm sure you would continue to progress in your skiing without rotation, just not in PSIA skiing, and not in situations that would require a "stivot". And definitely not in bump skiing.