You turn the skis - vs - The skis turn you

[karlo]

And there may be long-term skiers who have never experienced the shift

I like that. When I bought my first shaped skis, I didn’t cheat. I experienced a shift!

 

[Josh Matta]

Four, not two, for those new to teaching, and for those with miles under the belt, breaking bad habits is highly problematic.

Perhaps the question is unresolvable because in truly good skiing, we and our skis are one. Do our feet turn us, or do we turn our feet? I forget. Maybe it’s ankles. Or is it hips? Or the inner ear?

either or both is absolutely true depending on the turn/maneuver we are trying make. It really isnt a philosophical question and doesn't deserve such a answer "we and our skis are one"

I will say this in most offensive 'slow line fast" skiing, I try to let the skis do as much rotation as possible, whether that is all done by the sidecut IE in a Mediumish carve, I add my own counter rotation for tighter carve, or in really tight slow turns i use a softer edge angles and tons more input on rotary axis of the skis.

In most pivots, and hop turns we ARE turning the skis against what they actually want to do. We do by both rotary input and manipulating balance along the length of the ski.

Overall from carving, to brushing, to pivoting less is always more, always do just enough, and never anything more.

 

[karlo]

hop turn

At my age, I generally minimize effort and do what the skis can do, or tire out and fall even farther behind my kids. That said, I seek out the maximum a ski can do.

 

[Goose]

intersting topic and many intersting posts. But forgive me for not reading every post through 10 pages. To answer the orignal question IMO we turn our skis. or Ill use the term we drive our skis. Our skis are not in control of us. if they are the ultimate driver then the skier is likely in trouble. The skis turn us but thats only because of our intial inputs. We are allowing the skis to turn us the way we want to turn and therfore we are the initiator and the determining factor as to how often we turn, how sharply, and how quickly. Imo allowing the skis to turn us shouldnt be confused with anything meaning that the skis are the boss. The skis dont use us to turn them but we use them to turn us.

When our input is faulty they will take the oportator where they wish and that of course is a bad combination. So no matter how much we understad the skis do carry us around the turns its still us in the end ultimately in the drivers seat and responsible to create the inputs required to initiate that task and hopefully we input it correctly. And so with that I say "we turn the skis" and not the other way around.

As for understanding the physics involved. I agree many people dont need it at all. I happen to like that kind of stuff and im also a beleiver that better understanding the why and how things work (although no garantee) at least has the potential to help make you better at doing those things. I feel one can apply the knowledge and knowing the "why" and "how" is always something beneficial. At least "to me" it is. If nothing else its at very least just knowledge and that should never hurt especially if its something that one finds interesting.

 

[Doby Man]

At my age, I generally minimize effort and do what the skis can do, or tire out and fall even farther behind my kids. That said, I seek out the maximum a ski can do.

Imo allowing the skis to turn us shouldnt be confused with anything meaning that the skis are the boss. The skis dont use us to turn them but we use them to turn us.

I think you are right but except for when the skier is very dumb. In that case, the ski is going to recognize the gaping opportunity to take control and force the skier into another skier, a tree or off a cliff … for fun. What do you think they talk about when leaning up next to each other on the rack?: “Hey, Dude! How's it slidin? So, my skier thinks he can get by with weighting the inside ski while in the back seat. I give him just enough grip to make him think it is working until I pull myself right out from under him, eject his butt and toss him for a good one. As soon as I build his confidence back up with a little positive feedback, I do it to him again. Eventually, he is either maimed, killed or gives up and posts me on craigslist to my next victim as the fun continues. My nickname is the “Craigslist Killer”. So, you come here often?”

 

[Goose]

I think you are right but except for when the skier is very dumb. In that case, the ski is going to recognize the gaping opportunity to take control and force the skier into another skier, a tree or off a cliff … for fun. What do you think they talk about when leaning up next to each other on the rack?: “Hey, Dude! How's it slidin? So, my skier thinks he can get by with weighting the inside ski while in the back seat. I give him just enough grip to make him think it is working until I pull myself right out from under him, eject his butt and toss him for a good one. As soon as I build his confidence back up with a little positive feedback, I do it to him again. Eventually, he is either maimed, killed or gives up and posts me on craigslist to my next victim as the fun continues. My nickname is the “Craigslist Killer”. So, you come here often?”

You have quite the imagination there. perhaps you should be writing children's books or perhaps psychopathic screen plays for movies.

 

[karlo]

You have quite the imagination there. perhaps you should be writing children's books or perhaps psychopathic screen plays for movies.

I think he and I would be good collaborators

 

[James]

Logically, this phrase is silly. Of course the skis turn us. What else does, the pants? No skis, no turn, no skiing.

I've heard the phrase said as "Do you ride the skis or do the skis take you for a ride?"

That makes more sense at least. Sort of. Really the first part is the same as the second. So it's just as silly.

It's always presented as getting taken for a ride is obviously bad.

Must we propagate these phrases that really don't mean much?

 

[LiquidFeet]

Actually, in some circles where that phrase is used intentionally, it's considered better to work the skis in such a way that they turn you, but it is frowned upon to rotate the skis across the snow surface (you turn the skis).

Clearly, this phrase can be interpreted in totally opposite ways.

Thus my reason for starting this thread. I wanted to know how people interpreted it.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

Logically, this phrase is silly. Of course the skis turn us. What else does, the pants? No skis, no turn, no skiing.

I've heard the phrase said as "Do you ride the skis or do the skis take you for a ride?"

That makes more sense at least. Sort of. Really the first part is the same as the second. So it's just as silly.

It's always presented as getting taken for a ride is obviously bad.

Must we propagate these phrases that really don't mean much?

I don't think it's meaningless. When I use it with students they get my meaning - or at least they say they do. And they act like they do.

 

[JESinstr]

Actually, in some circles where that phrase is often used, it's considered better to work the skis in such a way that they turn you, while rotating the skis across the snow surface (you turn the skis) is frowned upon.

That phrase can be interpreted in totally different ways. Thus my reason for posting; I wanted to know how people interpreted it.

LOL!!! Boy LF you are good!

What is at the heart of one's response to the original question is simply what definition/context you are applying to the word TURN

In the context of ski redirection, it can be done two ways. Via rotary induced movements or invoking the circle creating design of the ski. So the answer to the question is: IT DEPENDS. And that answer gets to those of us that have a bias for answers in black and white.

BTW, redirection of the skis does not necessarily imply redirection of the COM.

 

[LiquidFeet]

My conclusion from the varied responses in this thread is that if I ever use the phrase, my listeners may hear me delivering a multitude of meanings.
Many of those meanings will be categorically opposed to what I thought I was communicating.

So I'm ditching the phrase, unless it is preceded by a ton of other stuff that directs the listener to "get" exactly what I meant to say.

 

[James]

So I'm ditching the phrase, unless it is preceded by a ton of other stuff that directs the listener to "get" exactly what I meant to say.

Exactly. It takes way more talking to get what you want across. Even if one steers the skis the skis still redirect your path. So they turn you. It's really just playing with the word "turn". I wonder if other languages have different ways of phrasing it.

 

[Uke]

It's easy, just don't use the word 'turn' in your lessons.

uke

 

[karlo]

This past weekend was my first of the season. I can now report that, for a carved turn, absolutely, as for the turn finish, the ski turns. I have a left hip injury which amongst other things has affected my left hip rotators. Right footed left turns, they finish on their own, I’m accordance to where the ski wants to go. Left footed right turns, where there is restricted hip rotation, I have to engage muscles to actively rotate to accomplish the finish of the turn, despite it being a carved turn. I’m talking about a carved turn with a very complete finish to purposefully ski slowly.

 

[Josh Matta]

@karlo if you feel you are turning your feet in the direction of the carve to keep them going, my guess preexisting injury or not is the turn is not carved. If anything in carved turn you are actually turning your feet against the ski rotation.

 

[karlo]

@karlo if you feel you are turning your feet in the direction of the carve to keep them going, my guess preexisting injury or not is the turn is not carved. If anything in carved turn you are actually turning your feet against the ski rotation.

Feet, hip, whatever, but on account of the injury, it’s the hip I feel. I need to actively rotate the left hip for turn finish. The right side, the rotation is passive and just goes where the ski will go