skiing stacked or with separation

[Goose]

In your opinions is there a right or wrong? Is it dependent on all the varying factors for the given scenario like the slope, the speed the conditions, the skis, the desired turn size and/or with any combo of any of those factors?

 

[TPJ]

Is it one or the other? I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.

 

[David Chaus]

The only way you could be “stacked” (which I interpret as a stance with your center of mass over your base of support) without separation of upper and lower body, is to be standing up without moving.

 

[Tricia]

Is it one or the other? I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.

+1.
I thought the goal was to be skeletally stacked with upper body/lower body separation if you want to ski efficiently.

 

[François Pugh]

Ideal for a high performance turn is to ski with upper-lower body separation and with the outside leg be stacked almost straight at the apex of the turn.

 

[Jilly]

+1.
I thought the goal was to be skeletally stacked with upper body/lower body separation if you want to ski efficiently.

At least that's the CSIA's method as I understand it.

 

[LiquidFeet]

You can be "stacked" while countered and angulated.
"Stacked" does not mean the body inclines as a straight unit like the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

"Not stacked" means you are using muscles that you don't have to use to hold yourself upright. It means the skier does not yet know how to direct most of the pressure to the outside ski so that it holds its grip and bends. The out-of-balance skier (who is not "stacked") often sits back on the tail of the ski, leans into the hill with a lot of weight on the inside ski, and pushes and braces against the outside ski causing it to skid out. That skier has tired quads at the end of the day.

"Stacked" means the skier is aligning body parts with each other so that the skeleton does as much of the work as possible. "Stacked" means the skier is directing pressure/weight to the outside ski, and is staying in good balance fore-aft on that ski, and doing both of those with the least muscular effort possible.

Using counter and angulation to do those things, which I think gets to the heart of the OP, does not use much muscle.

 

[Bogatyr]

OP , if you modify the thread title a little bit , there can be an interesting discussion IMO. The way you ask the question it doesn't make big sense to me. For a carving to happen your lower body will need to separate from (or counterbalance) the upper part and the upper part will remain " stacked " with the imaginary CoM. If you remain ' stacked ' the way I understand your question - you may be possibly able to slide , but not to carve. Again a slightly different title may bring more important points IMO.

 

[Goose]

Ok, seems to be some confusion. Perhaps the term/s are too generalized, not completely correct.
The way I understand the differences...

....Stacked = the body upper and lower and through the hips are aligned in same direction of skis.
Separation = the chest/shoulders/upper body always down the fall line while the legs separate.

Either scenario I suppose technically (if skiing efficiently) is stacked with skeletal weight where it is suppose to be but the picture is different.
You can cruise along carving runs while all body is aligned with the direction of flow of the skis yet then on contrary to that you can (usually on steeper terrain and shorter turns desired) separate the legs from the upper body by keeping all uppers facing down the fall line while only the legs rotate.

Does that make better sense?

 

[François Pugh]

OK, your definition of stacked is not mine, but to answer your question, yes you can ski like that. It's very easy, and relaxing. You can carve like that. You can even ski that way on steeps if you don't mind speed. However, I recommend against skiing like that; if you hit a patch of ice or unseen bump, or something else disturbs your flow, you will most likely take a bad fall if you are skiing that way. Having some angulation and counter rotation gives you a safety margin and room for readjustment to cope with the changing conditions.

 

[nay]

....Stacked = the body upper and lower and through the hips are aligned in same direction of skis.
Separation = the chest/shoulders/upper body always down the fall line while the legs separate

You can be stacked or upper/lower separated without separating your legs. This is pretty much the premise of modern skis to be able to quickly shift between these modes depending on how you want to address the terrain.

These two pics are in sequence on the same run.

A preference for a certain degree of stacked skiing, which in my view means more equally two footed weighting without you leg separation to weight the outside ski, should align with a preference for loose tails (splay, etc.) that can be kicked out quickly from a stacked position, along with generally wider skis.

The question in my mind isn’t really stacked vs. separated, but the extent to which you are looking to create edge angle and turn shape. Some skis are vastly more flexible in working with you here than others and this is a big reason why the ski width debate is always so out of context.

I skied this line more stacked as speed increased, bouncing lightly into and out of the turns. A lot of separation and edge angle would have been too slow for the snow depth, density, and pitch - and not anywhere near as fun. This is the same terrain as the first two pics.

 

[Goose]

You can be stacked or upper/lower separated without separating your legs. This is pretty much the premise of modern skis to be able to quickly shift between these modes depending on how you want to address the terrain.

These two pics are in sequence on the same run.

View attachment 39131 View attachment 39132

A preference for a certain degree of stacked skiing, which in my view means more equally two footed weighting without you leg separation to weight the outside ski, should align with a preference for loose tails (splay, etc.) that can be kicked out quickly from a stacked position, along with generally wider skis.

The question in my mind isn’t really stacked vs. separated, but the extent to which you are looking to create edge angle and turn shape. Some skis are vastly more flexible in working with you here than others and this is a big reason why the ski width debate is always so out of context.

I skied this line more stacked as speed increased, bouncing lightly into and out of the turns. A lot of separation and edge angle would have been too slow for the snow depth, density, and pitch - and not anywhere near as fun. This is the same terrain as the first two pics.

View attachment 39137

Ok one place it seems there is confusion is that when I say separation I don't mean legs separated far apart from each other. I meant legs separation from the upper body as for aligning with the skis legas hips upper body all facing the same direction vs when letting the legs rotate while keeping the upper body down the fall line.

I tend to ski with all aligned on more moderate terrain and at slower speeds and also at turns a bit wider. When on steeper terrain and/or also desiring quicker turning and also controlling speed I then ski more with upper/lower body separation. Where as my upper is facing always down the fall line while the legs rotate under.

As for legs being separated (since it was mentioned) I tend to ski with legs a tad spread from each other. This may vary some but one the things I was told, read up on, and researched when switching from straight skis was that I needed to open the legs a little vs the old method. And fwiw also use more of the uphill ski than before as well. But this is all a different thing than what I referred to when I said stacked vs separation. I referred (as mentioned) more to the fact that upper/lower would align or be separated, not how far apart the legs are from each other.

 

[nay]

I find it’s not easy to generate enough swing at slower speeds to stay separated as you describe and FWIW agree if I’m hearing correctly that it’s more consistent with speed

Higher skill people than me, which is most of the people here, may find it easier to maintain separation at low speeds, but I a) think it’s boring and b) some part of me would fracture.

But I also can’t ski in a wedge, so I’m broken.

 

[Goose]

here is some of what I mean
Stacked here below vid
lower body separation here below vid
And again here separation (with some skidding) and fwiw for this one just forward to 2:20 min mark on the below vid
Here below is stacked again but then a mention of lower body separation near the very end for a different scenario of desired skiing

 

[LiquidFeet]

not stacked against the outside ski; inside & bracing instead:

not stacked against the outside ski; inside and banked instead:

not stacked against the outside ski:

about to be stacked against the outside ski:

stacked against the outside ski:

stacked against the outside ski:

stacked against both skis:

stacked against both skis:

 

[Goose]

separation never meant (form me) where to stack our weight. So perhaps terminology is not quite correct. We need our weight stacked properly on the given ski/s for the scenario. But body alignment where as we ski aligned from top to bottom vs separate the upper from the lower body can both be done. Im calling one stacked and the other a separation. Perhaps not correct terminology when being more specific.

 

[Scruffy]

Yeah, your terminology is messed up. That first vid you posted above ^, the stacked one, that guy has upper and lower body separation in his turns. You never want to ski like this ==> Goose stated: " Stacked = the body upper and lower and through the hips are aligned in same direction of skis."

 

[Goose]

Yeah, your terminology is messed up. That first vid you posted above ^, the stacked one, that guy has upper and lower body separation in his turns. You never want to ski like this ==> Goose stated: " Stacked = the body upper and lower and through the hips are aligned in same direction of skis."

Not sure I get you. That first vid there certainly is little to no separation as for rotation of upper/lower body vs lower. Its all aligned. Its not the upper body remaining facing the fall line while rotating the lower underneath like you can see him doing in the two in the other vids.

 

[Doby Man]

Ok, seems to be some confusion. Perhaps the term/s are too generalized, not completely correct.
The way I understand the differences...

....Stacked = the body upper and lower and through the hips are aligned in same direction of skis.
Separation = the chest/shoulders/upper body always down the fall line while the legs separate.

Goose, your definition of stacking is for being "square". Skiing "square" or "squared up" is when the hips and skis are aligned in the same direction during transition. When we are square, there is no rotary or angulation (separation) happening but there is still vertical separation (flexion/extension). There is also no inclination while being "square" to the ski and "over" the ski when we are rotary and angular neutral in transition.

Separation, rotary and angulation specifically, are the primary movements we facilitate in order to achieve stacking against the returning forces that the ski creates.

 

[at_nyc]

Stack describes alignment on the lateral (side-to-side) plane

Square (and separation) describes rotation from the center line (belly button)

So yes, you can ski stack AND with separation of the upper/lowers body.

But you can’t be square and with upper/lower separation. It’s one or the other.

You need to correct you thread title.