Should I get Carv

[Slim]

Carv, I meant, not car. (MOD EDIT: Title corrected) Luckily I already have one of those

Now that Carv has been out a few years, and people have a wide variety of experiences on them, do you suggest I get a set?

As mentioned in another thread, I am (unlikely) to get instruction.

I am a ~low intermediate~ skier. Struggle to angulate and edge. So, I am not worried that generic advice will harm my ski technique. I am sure the standard drill and advice will help me.

Most of my use for this will be at home in Duluth, where you only get a few turns per run on the moderate steepness slope that works best for learning and the app.

I’ve heard people say it keeps critiquing them when they are going slow or in the lift line? This would be annoying, because that is 95% of the time here. Has that been updated, so it only activates once you are up to speed?

Do you suggest it as useful even without an instructor to provide critique and drills?

 

[graham418]

Short answer..Yes get it
You can turn off the audio feedback if you that annoying

 

[François Pugh]

I guess it hinges on what you do with the data. More knowledge is good, but sometimes a little more is detrimental. If you just do whatever you need to do to get a higher carve score, it can hurt your skiing. If you use the data it gives you in context of what you were trying to do and compare to what you think you were actually doing then it can inform you. Just my opinion. I never used one and feel no need to get one.

 

[raytseng]

I'd say it depends what you want to do with your ski days.
If you are already looking up drills and YouTubes for skills to practice online then worth itou are better off getting a semi-curated paid for lesson plan if you're already spending the time and energy trying to practice by yourself.

If the thought to practice skiing is "not fun" and you don't ever look back but live in the moment, maybe it won't be as useful to you.

That being said you already went this far to ask, just try it?

 

[Henry]

I agree with the comments, especially Francois'. Whether you use CARV, instructional videos, coaches, or whatever means, understand what you're doing (videos of yourself), what you want to do, and the SMIM...single most important movement...you need to work on at that time. One thing at a time, then add one more, then when the time is right add one more, etc. Challenge yourself on either terrain or technique, not both at the same time--neither will go well.

 

[Chris V.]

Carv, I meant, not car. Luckily I already have one of those

You got our attention...well played.

 

[SwissSki]

I’ve heard people say it keeps critiquing them when they are going slow or in the lift line? This would be annoying, because that is 95% of the time here. Has that been updated, so it only activates once you are up to speed?

I used Carv extensively for 2 years and never had this problem. Note that Carv as different modes, and people making such a comment seem not to know how to use the App.

Carv has basically 2 different kind of operations, training modes and monitoring modes.

Training modes give you feedback after you stopped or on the lift and give some acoustic hints while skiing.
Monitoring reads out metrics at every turn.

So if you do a training mode and Carv tells you a specific metric is not good then of course you want to switch to the monitor mode to monitor this metric so you can improve. Just keeping it in training mode and getting frustrated is more a user issue.

You basically use a training mode where you level up until you are stuck because one metric is not good (edge angle, balance etc). Then you switch to monitor mode and try different things (in combination with some drills, videos) to improve this metric. After you improved the metric you switch back to training mode.

 

[Wade]

As others have said, it depends on what you want to use it for and how you digest information.

For me, I’m most interested in using Carv to provide feedback on the things instructors have identified as needing work. To start this year, that’s getting to the new outside ski early, and Carv has a couple of monitor modes that help me measure progress towards that.

The information it provides is really useful to me and the drill and training modes are great for keeping me engaged in those times I’m skiing by myself on nondescript groomers.

The skiIQ and freezing modes are the least useful part of the system to me. SkiIQ is probably useful as a blunt tool to broadly sort skiers into ability levels, but I don’t really get the idea of SkiIQ as a goal.

In summary, if you have an idea of what you want to improve, or the focus areas Carv identifies resonate with you, it can be an excellent tool to provide feedback on your progress, and in that regard, if you’re willing to put the work in, it can help make you a better skier.

It was worth the money to me and I’m happy to continue to subscribe, both for my own enjoyment of the product, and because I think what the company is doing is cool and I like to support people / companies who’s work I value.

 

[Brian Finch]

Hard pass. Tried it for 2 years. Only works when the snow is nice & went thru 1/2 doz insoles.

Hire an instructor.

 

[charlier]

Hard pass. Tried it for 2 years. Only works when the snow is nice & went thru 1/2 doz insoles.

Hire an instructor.

My only experience with Carv was fitting modifying a lightly used.ski boot ands fitting a new pair. I had to modify his custom insoles and grind the zeppa/boot board to accommodate carv - in general not a good idea. For new boots, we had to size up, similar to a "comfort fit", agains't my advice. I suggested a three day race/technique workshop might be more effective, but the customer was convinced that the carv would be more helpful.

 

[Jersey Skier]

My only experience with Carv was fitting modifying a lightly used.ski boot ands fitting a new pair. I had to modify his custom insoles and grind the zeppa/boot board to accommodate carv - in general not a good idea. For new boots, we had to size up, similar to a "comfort fit", agains't my advice. I suggested a three day race/technique workshop might be more effective, but the customer was convinced that the carv would be more helpful.

I would think a 3 day race/technique workshop would be substantially more money than Carv.

 

[TheApprentice]

Carv isn't worth it imo. You sacrifice bootfeel and space for a system that gives you random numbers (which from second hand experience, are usually wrong). It's much more worth the money and time to just get an instructor or better to analyze your skiing. Better yet, get a camera and a skiing buddy to film some runs for you. There is absolutely nothing that a carv system can tell you that you can't see on video. And many things that video can tell you that a carv system can't.

 

[AlexisLD]

Carv isn't worth it imo. You sacrifice bootfeel and space for a system that gives you random numbers (which from second hand experience, are usually wrong). It's much more worth the money and time to just get an instructor or better to analyze your skiing. Better yet, get a camera and a skiing buddy to film some runs for you. There is absolutely nothing that a carv system can tell you that you can't see on video. And many things that video can tell you that a carv system can't.

Can you elaborate on what numbers are wrong?

 

[Brian Finch]

Can you elaborate on what numbers are wrong?

Often it just scored erratically for myself.

 

[Wade]

Carv isn't worth it imo. You sacrifice bootfeel and space for a system that gives you random numbers (which from second hand experience, are usually wrong). It's much more worth the money and time to just get an instructor or better to analyze your skiing. Better yet, get a camera and a skiing buddy to film some runs for you. There is absolutely nothing that a carv system can tell you that you can't see on video. And many things that video can tell you that a carv system can't.

This is pretty much completely wrong. Or at least it assumes a bunch of stuff that is wrong in my experience.

1. It assumes the fallacy that Carv is an either / or proposition vs. traditional ski instruction. I don’t see, and haven’t used, Carv as an alternative to traditional ski instruction. I use Carv to help me monitor my improvement in the areas of my skiing identified by instructors as needing improvement. I wouldn’t recommend anyone blow off professional ski instruction and just use Carv as an alternative, but these types of posts always seem to assume it’s one or the other.

2. I guess if 100% of the time you have someone to follow you around and film you skiing, that’s a better solution than Carv. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that having someone follow you around the resort taking video isn’t a reality for most people. Again, that’s useful when it’s available, and I don’t think Carv is a substitute for video analysis, but can be useful when no video analysis is available. For me, I really only use Carv when I’m skiing for an hour or two by myself and I find it useful in those circumstances.

If you can only see Carv’s value relative to professional instruction, I can see why you may find it to be disappointing. If you can’t see how it could augment professional instruction and deliver value to users, you may lack imagination.

 

[Noodler]

This is pretty much completely wrong. Or at least it assumes a bunch of stuff that is wrong in my experience.

1. It assumes the fallacy that Carv is an either / or proposition vs. traditional ski instruction. I don’t see, and haven’t used, Carv as an alternative to traditional ski instruction. I use Carv to help me monitor my improvement in the areas of my skiing identified by instructors as needing improvement. I wouldn’t recommend anyone blow off professional ski instruction and just use Carv as an alternative, but these types of posts always seem to assume it’s one or the other.

2. I guess if 100% of the time you have someone to follow you around and film you skiing, that’s a better solution than Carv. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that having someone follow you around the resort taking video isn’t a reality for most people. Again, that’s useful when it’s available, and I don’t think Carv is a substitute for video analysis, but can be useful when no video analysis is available. For me, I really only use Carv when I’m skiing for an hour or two by myself and I find it useful in those circumstances.

If you can only see Carv’s value relative to professional instruction, I can see why you may find it to be disappointing. If you can’t see how it could augment professional instruction and deliver value to users, you may lack imagination.

The problem is that CARV is missing the "whole picture". Since there aren't enough sensors, what data they do get is easily misinterpreted. What's happening at the soles of our feet isn't the full story and I can see a few scenarios where poor skiing can't be deciphered from good skiing. We have pointed out often that strong plantar flexing is what happens when a lot of skiers are skiing out of the back seat. I don't see how carve can differentiate what truly being "forward" is based only on pressure data from our soles. Skiing isn't like how we motor about on our feet on dry land. Until they add at least cuff sensors, I will completely dismiss this product as the toy that it is.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

Slim I was working with a student today that is kinda in your position, Intermediate trying to carve. He showed me his app and the exercises he is doing and his scores. I have to agree that without some feedback from a coach or video or something, Carv alone is barking up the wrong tree. He wasn't even close to doing the drills right, and continuing to do them as he was would have done nothing to progress his skiing.

 

[AlexisLD]

The problem is that CARV is missing the "whole picture". Since there aren't enough sensors, what data they do get is easily misinterpreted. What's happening at the soles of our feet isn't the full story and I can see a few scenarios where poor skiing can't be deciphered from good skiing. We have pointed out often that strong plantar flexing is what happens when a lot of skiers are skiing out of the back seat. I don't see how carve can differentiate what truly being "forward" is based only on pressure data from our soles. Skiing isn't like how we motor about on our feet on dry land. Until they add at least cuff sensors, I will completely dismiss this product as the toy that it is.

Isn't fore-back pressure just one of 10+ metrics they use? Do you think the other metrics are useless too?

We are accustomed with providing feedback from what we see (in real life or in video), but this is not necessarily the best way to do it. We can't see forces, we don't really see acceleration, we have just one point of view, and we can't really provide real-time feedback. The sensors in Carv don't see the same thing as we do. It is different, it will do some things better and some other things worse.

 

[Noodler]

Isn't fore-back pressure just one of 10+ metrics they use? Do you think the other metrics are useless too?

We are accustomed with providing feedback from what we see (in real life or in video), but this is not necessarily the best way to do it. We can't see forces, we don't really see acceleration, we have just one point of view, and we can't really provide real-time feedback. The sensors in Carv don't see the same thing as we do. It is different, it will do some things better and some other things worse.

Yes, most likely useless. In the absence of the other critical data regarding cuff pressure, hip position, shoulder position, etc. there's no telling exactly the WHY of the pressure seen at the bottom of the foot. I could be doing every turn using hard banking (all upper body inclination) and CARV will be oblivious. That's just one example of many that show that this tool cannot be effective for understanding your own skiing without a coach and hopefully, some great video to complete the biofeedback loop.

Add in some pressure sensors in the cuffs, and some kind of gyros and accelerometers on the hips and shoulders, and then it might be able to form a better sense of what's actually happening in the ski turn.

 

[AlexisLD]

I could be doing every turn using hard banking (all upper body inclination) and CARV will be oblivious.

What do you get extra by not doing hard banking? What is the outcome on the turn? Do you turn tighter? Do you maintain more speed through the turn? Do you make the same turn faster?

My own experience with coaches is that it would take them about 30 seconds to diagnose the 'why'. Recommending a 'how' is just pulling a few exercises from an exercise bank. Then, it could take me hours/days of practice to figure out the how. I don't need a coach with me during all that time, but being able to monitor my progress, through the outcomes on the turn, seems helpful.