Advanced technique videos

[john petersen]

cool - although it gets into some pretty complex differential equations there... and applying that to the kinetic chain - holy moly I wouldn't want to break this down per each individual joint etc. But certainly interesting.

Me neither, Razie!....I liked it on a basic level as it was a nice transition from Newton's inanimate object as the object, and Euler's sentient being as the object. that kinda stuff is (geeky) COOL.

...and yeah, vis-a-vis Newton, it's quite common to see the general 7 biomechanical principles used in sports (this is a nice presentation of the 7 https://prezi.com/sewhgcqyehfp/seven-principles-of-biomechanical-analysis/) adapted to skiing... however, I find that these are sometimes mis-used when applied to skiing. Specifically, even as it relates to Euler's models, skiing is a little different from most other sports because of gravity and the way we use it. So for instance, while in most of the sports I need to push against the ground to change direction, get impulse, swing the club etc and the harder I push, the faster I go... while in skiing, I just need to use the ski to create deflection. And the more I try and fuss and spend energy, the slower I go - in fact, we go fastest when doing nothing (kind'a explains why I like this sport, heh).


Ill have to check out the 7bp analysis...looking forward to that. I guess with regard to skiing, its really more about managing as opposed to generating...though we CAN do that, it seems to be more efficient when we are managers.

do you have a model of Euler's applied to the kinetic chain with a skiing focus? that'd be interesting to look at -where's-that-nerd-emoji?

The link to Juris Vagners Copper Mountain Talk is all I have seen so far, and do not have more on the subject......yet....I plan to research Euler's work to see if there is any more juicy stuff there!....

In need of the nerd emoji too!

thanks for the dialogue, Razie

JP

 

[François Pugh]

Last night, I downloaded Project Kitz from Vimeo OnDemand and watched it. I was going to watch the next installment, Project Hintertux tonight. But, after @PTskier posted the page, which has since been edited out, where videos and books can be purchased, I decided I should check out at least one of those videos. I did and this is my review of it. I want to preface this by saying that I have recently, through PM, been given some background; there has been quite a lot, at least in other forums, very heated and unhealthy arguments over teaching systems. I hope that this post does not trigger negative discourse. The objective here is not to judge any teaching system, it is only to review one instructional video. I selected a video entitled Anyone Can Be An Expert Skier 2. I chose it because the Kitz-Hintertux-Zillertal series is about advanced skiing, so I figure I should stay in that same vein.

The opening statement sets the bar. The purpose of the video is to instruct skiers "to become expert skiers". (I personally hate the way "expert" is used, though it is used throughout the sport and I just have to accept it.) The focus is the development of the short turn using a "clear and thorough approach"; it is both clear and thorough. The areas addressed are balance transfer to the outside ski (referred to as the stance ski), upper & lower body coordination, maintaining skis at the same angles, and inside foot (referred to as free foot) management. Exercises to work on these elements are given with detailed instructions supported by video demonstration. Quite a number of them are the same or equivalent to those viewed in Project Kitz, for example hip rotation and angulation, except that Harb does it leaning against a wall, McGlashan does it sitting at the edge of a chair.

One had better be ready and focused to watch this video. I made my first try late this afternoon, at a coffee shop, before dinner. I could not stay awake. I gave it another try after dinner. Much better. Project Kitz was about what the pros think and feel when they ski and drill. Expert Skier 2 is all about detailed instructions for one to follow. Almost like following a recipe, like watching a Martha Stewart video; no detail will be overlooked. At the end, the video sums up by describing the turn, to quote,

1. Begin by tipping the free (inside) foot to an edge.
2. Use the counter-acting movements of the hip and upper body to prepare your balance.
3. Let the tipping of the free foot drop your body and hips into the turn - make sure your free foot stays light.
4. Increase the flex of the inside leg so the ski can clear out of the way (of the body).
5. When the turn comes close to completion, flex the outside leg quickly and aggressively.
6. As the skis come flat to the snow...

I don't want to let out the spoiler , you'll have to watch the video. Before that summation, every exercise and movement is described in fine detail, along with reasons of the exercise and what to focus on; and, there's a lot to focus on. If one follows every instruction and masters every element, one will be a very good skier. But, one has to be the type of learner that can consume and digest instruction given in this way. I would hazard to say, most folks are not that type; I know I am not. However, having gotten to where I am as a skier, my way, watching this video I am nodding my head - 'yeah, I do that, I get this'.

The video is not expensive, $8. But, it is 45 minutes long. Should you watch it? Yes, if you can absorb and benefit from highly detailed instructions and demonstrations. Hoping to get to Project Hintertux tomorrow

@karlo , with regard to your "expert" video:
Several years ago I became intrigued and read a series of books, 1,2,3, and essentials something or other. Each book also came with illustrative videos on a disk. While I was impressed with the simplicity and accuracy and pretty much agreed with the physics, I did notice that some things were left out or not fully explained.

Researching further I discovered a web page and discussion forum, from which I gather that it is necessary to purchase the "instructor's manual" (maybe more than one level of same - I really don't remember) to get the whole story. At the time I was fairly exclusively into the clean carve turn model of skiing, and could see some missing bits in the explanation. The tip only the inside ski for example makes the assumption that the learner isn't OCD and will allow naturally induced movements of the other leg to follow, which is not always the case. Still the system and explanations correlated pretty well with my understanding of skiing, and what good skiing was (not that I'm pretending to be an authority on that, just my opinion). I'm big on the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and there are a few, what I would call, tricks included in this methodology. Granted, if someone put enough detail in there to satisfy an engineer with multiple graduate degrees, nobody else would be interested in reading the book/seeing the video.

Several years later, after expanding my world to include short radius turns that involve a lot of unweighted pivoting of flat skis about an axis perpendicular to their surface, I also see a lack of detail in how some of the movements affect the rotational aspects of the turn (e.g. pulling the inside ski back). I see, now due to a better understanding of the short radius non-carved turn, that it may also applicable in to short radius turns (again in a round-about undisclosed sort of way), but I read nothing at the time that would suggest so.

Perhaps the instructor's manual(s) explain more. Perhaps taking several ski camp courses and spending a few grand would explain more. I wouldn't know; I'm not one to spend a lot of money on learning how to do something I've been doing well enough for four or five decades.

I have to say that of all the ski instruction approaches I've seen, this one comes closest to the my model. If you liked that video, you should read the books and look at their included videos.

 

[François Pugh]

That's a great question.
I have not met a higher level coach that does not agree on the fundamentals and it simply is (big secret of high level racing revealed... not, I think) around carving as cleanly as possible and especially at the top of the turn.

Quoted for truth. Some things are classic; they remain despite the passage of much time.

 

[François Pugh]

Hi Folks. Sorry to get off the main point here but does anyone know where I can get some instructional video on the Pedal Turn? Appreciate your posts and knowledgeofx skiing. Sorry for the interruption and I would join in the conversation but am just a 75 yr old skier who is trying to stay Advanced. Thanks Petel

Most of the stuff I was able to google up (and I've looked occasionally for the last few years) are more jump turns than pedal turns, but here's one that comes closer than most.
I have a fairly good old memory of these turns, even though I have not used them all that much (and not at all the last few decades).

I recall visiting my uncle (deceased quite a while now) shortly after discovering steep runs when I flew out west. My uncle who was an avid skier, said to me (conversation was in french and long ago, so paraphrasing), "So you were making pedal turns?" No, I wasn't, and didn't even know what they were, so I asked. He explained it to me, "Just start sideways to the fall line on a hill and move your feet like your were pedaling a bicycle, and you will be making pedal turns down the hill." A few days later I was skiing at Tremblant and found the steepest bit of that hill, which was not all that steep, but it was steep enough. After several unsuccessful attempts (hey - give me a break; I was on fairlystraight 208 SG skis not rockered fat skis) to get my skis to turn by pedaling my feet in the snow on this semi-steep hill, I hit on the right combination. Looking back now I can explain to myself why it works. Starting with the downhill ski/foot at the bottom pedal position and the top ski/foot at the top pedal position, you pull the bottom (inside) ski back and unweight it, while weighting and pushing the top (outside) ski forward. This powers rotation, add a bit of push to the outside with the top (outside) ski and it comes around. Perhaps it helped that I was I also strongly intending to turn. Keep pedaling and you go around the other way. If the hill is steep enough the push down get's you off the slope too and the turn can easily merge into a (one-legged?) jump turn. After learning this turn I found it very useful for a few years, scouting out steep lines, that I would later charge down. Then I had kids, expenses, and didn't get to travel anywhere that the turns would be of any use. Still remember them though.

Several years later I saw a TV show with a Frenchman explaining how he had invented this pedal turn because jump turns were too exhausting for his long descents. Can't recall his name, but he was some famous "extreme" skier. I still can't figure out how my uncle knew all about these turns years before they were invented, but the turns I saw on that TV show were the same ones my uncle had me doing.

 

[Rod9301]

Good explantation. They are still exhausting.

 

[Muleski]

Several years later I saw a TV show with a Frenchman explaining how he had invented this pedal turn because jump turns were too exhausting for his long descents. Can't recall his name

The late Patrick Vallencant.
Great skier.
Also the founder of Degre 7.
Died rock climbing.

 

[razie]

The link to Juris Vagners Copper Mountain Talk is all I have seen so far, and do not have more on the subject......yet....I plan to research Euler's work to see if there is any more juicy stuff there!....

In need of the nerd emoji too!

thanks for the dialogue, Razie

JP

He does slice and dice and understands physics, has put some thought into it and then shows his bias, going into systems theory, which i can understand - would be interesting to see how far he got with that, I'm also of a mind to encode skiing. But he's read a lot: brain function etc. Interesting, thanks for that - very interesting guy, no doubt.

... and, interestingly, he's got an entire slide on just that aspect we touched, on managing the forces vs pushing, where he shows the ways to transition, contrasting the "passive" relaxation (what is generally meant by "flexing to release") vs pushing:

"If you extend the legs (either one) while the edges holding you in the current turn are engaged, your body will only move uphill NOT in the direction forward and downhill."​

Although some also talk about pushing ourselves down the hill, which is another thing I don't like (well, maybe outside of skating on the flats, of course)... I'm known to get into arguments on that topic on the hill

I totally enjoy talking technique, especially challenging my understanding, as a way to evolve it.

cheers

 

[john petersen]

Although some also talk about pushing ourselves down the hill, which is another thing I don't like (well, maybe outside of skating on the flats, of course)... I'm known to get into arguments on that topic on the hill .

Expand on this beautiful statement

I totally enjoy talking technique, especially challenging my understanding, as a way to evolve it.

ditto, man, ditto!

cheers

JP

 

[razie]

I think it comes from a misunderstanding on how the physics of circular motion apply to make one fast on the course... but it's more to it than that.

If you look at an ideal C arc, a semi-circle, and let's take a simplified model of centripetal force and impulse. It becomes a matter of where you want the impulse from, in what direction. Some think they want impulse downwards, to be faster, but there's a problem with that.

For starters, if we push against a ski when it is not engaged well, on ice especially, it will give way and never engage properly, this would lead to a chopped up turn, no impulse downwards and in the end, not a round arc, etc.

But, beyond that, there is a contradiction between pushing on an edge and increasing the edge angle: pushing tends to flatten the ski, at the same time you're trying to tip it on edge - I created this visual sometime ago (the underlying photo is from one of the great guys featured in the OP):

When we push, the force is applied in the middle of the ski, where the red arrow is, and effectively torques the ski back to flat as the edge engages and reduces the result of the green tipping effort to increase edge angles, so then we're stuck with a smaller edge angle, just when we really want it the most.

I guess I should have said "pushing" instead of "extending" there, to be more clear...?

There's a bunch more biomechanics (closes the kinetic chain) and tactics at play (when you put this on a course) as well, but that's the crux of it.

Sometimes it pays to think of pressure like a 100$ bill, and we try to spend it where it matters... and here's another view, which is really helpful when teaching: if you avoid using it where it doesn't matter, then you will have it all exactly where it should be! So one could focus on where to spend it or on where not to spend it - if that makes sense.

cheers

 

[HardDaysNight]

The late Patrick Vallencant.
Great skier.
Also the founder of Degre 7.
Died rock climbing.

Mais non! It was Sylvain Saudan; these entered skiing lore as the famous “windshield wiper” turns.

 

[Muleski]

Mais non! It was Sylvain Saudan; these entered skiing lore as the famous “windshield wiper” turns.

Mais Oui.
On both counts, I believe.
Agree on SS, but I think the pedal turn with that terminology is Patrick.
Actually just checked the Google machine, which of course is never wrong!

 

[François Pugh]

Thanks @Muleski
That explains the timing too. I may have seen that TV show mid 90s, but it must have been a rerun. My uncle "explained" the turn to me in 1983. As Patrick said, everybody develops their own way. My uncles way was to start with the pedaling (including strong pullback of lower ski and forwards motion of upper ski) and add in the jump if/as needed.

 

[Doby Man]

Either extension or pushing doesn’t flatten the ski and is a common theory that does not apply to advanced skiing. That’s why we have ski boots. The skier is not extending off the base of the ski but rather from the inside BTE edge that is in contact with the surface. Any half decent skier (wearing a ski boot) can push directly off a tipped ski at any vector they choose. An extension vector balanced equitably over the tipped edge will not produce tipping forces in either direction. Good skiers blend pressure from tipping forces of the ski with pressure from extension forces from the leg to produce the desired turn results they seek. When we allow tipping to create flexion in our bodies and then resist that flexion towards the end of the turn with extension forces, we then get the an acceleration of the ski that we may be looking for at the end of the turn. While it is best to create as much turn pressure on the ski from tipping as we can, the power to extend over the tipping ski to have more control over where, when and how much pressure we may need to complete the turn we want is tipping and extension skill blending.

 

[oldschoolskier]

I think the turn may have been named this way and the name stuck in the 80’s, but it has been around at lot longer than that.

How do I know, I was being taught this by my dad in the mid 70’s because it was simple part of the skill set that he felt was needed (obviously he learned it a lot earlier). No name was given, just be able to do this because it will get you down, followed by see...this is why your poles are longer than all your friends (in a more curt Germanic tone and manner). It explains my love (need) of longer poles, that I can’t shake currently.

The ability to be able to reach out plant/anchor on a steep requires long poles, short ones just can’t make the plant. This drilled in hinter brain obsession is the reason I still ski 135cm poles (and likely always will).

“What is old and forgotten, when found is new and amazing again”.

 

[Rod9301]

Mais non! It was Sylvain Saudan; these entered skiing lore as the famous “windshield wiper” turns.

Sylvain's turn was different than the pedal saute.

It was valencant and anselme baude who came up with the pedal saute turn in the late 60s, which is still used today by the top steep skiers.

 

[razie]

...no wonder we got "Le Tour De France" now eh?

 

[Rod9301]

I think the turn may have been named this way and the name stuck in the 80’s, but it has been around at lot longer than that.

How do I know, I was being taught this by my dad in the mid 70’s because it was simple part of the skill set that he felt was needed (obviously he learned it a lot earlier). No name was given, just be able to do this because it will get you down, followed by see...this is why your poles are longer than all your friends (in a more curt Germanic tone and manner). It explains my love (need) of longer poles, that I can’t shake currently.

The ability to be able to reach out plant/anchor on a steep requires long poles, short ones just can’t make the plant. This drilled in hinter brain obsession is the reason I still ski 135cm poles (and likely always will).

“What is old and forgotten, when found is new and amazing again”.

No question you need slightly longer poles, I am using 127 and 5'8".

This seems ok even in the steepest stuff I've skied, which is just under 55 degrees.

I think if the poles are too long, it prevents you from totally committing the upper body eat down the hill, and putting 100 percent of the weight on the down hill ski.

 

[HardDaysNight]

Mais Oui.
On both counts, I believe.
Agree on SS, but I think the pedal turn with that terminology is Patrick.
Actually just checked the Google machine, which of course is never wrong!

View attachment 33286 View attachment 33287

Tu as raison! Ils etaient fous, tous les deux.

 

[BornToSki683]

... and, interestingly, he's got an entire slide on just that aspect we touched, on managing the forces vs pushing, where he shows the ways to transition, contrasting the "passive" relaxation (what is generally meant by "flexing to release") vs pushing:

"If you extend the legs (either one) while the edges holding you in the current turn are engaged, your body will only move uphill NOT in the direction forward and downhill."​

Although some also talk about pushing ourselves down the hill, which is another thing I don't like

You bring up an interesting point about the effects of pushing before edge change and after....

Before edge change I think Juris makes a very interesting point that pushing your CoM "will move" uphill. Away from the skis. Note that he points out that the CoM will "move" when its pushed. I'll get back to that in a minute, but the point to note that is the CoM will actually be impeded from crossing over or releasing out of the turn. What also happens is that balance is interrupted this way, and the CoM can catapult up and over to get out of the turn. As the skier's edges approach flat, their ongoing extension/push will be moving the CoM even more up. This results ultimately in unweighting. That may or may not be desirable. Following the unweighting, CoM will eventually settle back down onto weighted skis. Sometime after flat, the process of developing edge angles begins. More on that also in a minute.

Now lets see what happens with extension after the edge change...

Just like the above scenario, pushing against an engaged or semi-engaged ski after edge change will cause the CoM to "move" away from the skis. If the skis are mostly flat it will move up. If the skis are already engaged into the new turn then it will cause the CoM to be moved downhill toward gravity and away from the skis. In some ways this seems more desirable then the scenario above, since at least the skier is pushing their CoM in the direction they want to go. The problem, however is that they are also pushing their CoM away from their skis and the only thing that is going to save them from falling horribly out of balance is some other force coming along to push the CoM and BoS back together again. In the above scenario of pushing before edge change, the skier unweights through flat skis, and gravity is the new force that pushes the CoM and BoS back together again.

In the case of pushing the CoM down the hill, gravity is actually not going to help this time, in fact its actually contributing to pulling the CoM and BoS apart from each other. This can cause subtle or not so subtle loss of pressure during the apex of the turn due to loss of balance. These skiers have essentially unweighted themselves, just like the first scenario a skier can unweight themselves through skis flat, in this scenario the skier is unweighting themselves through the apex and the only thing that will rescue them to bring the CoM and BoS back together again will be eventually way later in the turn if and when the skis turn back across the fall line and provide a place for the CoM to "land" before the skier falls down. A great many skiers are skiing this way, tossing their CoM out of balance, experiencing reduced pressure through the apex and then "landing" on their feet as the skis come back across.

In my view, extension to "create" pressure at both transition and turn init is destructive....and this is why...ultimately it involves pushing your CoM away from your skis and that motion will continue until you either fall down out of balance or some other new force comes along to push it back towards your skis. That period while you wait for some other new force to come rescue you is when edging opportunities are lost.

Regarding what you and Doby said in your next posts...

I think there is some truth to the idea that extension with pushing will likely result in pushing the ski flat, as you noted in your next post Razie. The skier can angulate and do things to line up the resultant force vector down to the inside edge, but the force created with leg pushing is not likely to be going to the inside edge. There is a lot of complex stuff that can happen there in terms of pronation that can get it closer to the inside edge, as Doby described.

However....

Extending instead of flexing has other things its doing that get in the way of developing edge angles. Flexing is a relaxation activity, which greatly facilities rolling onto (or off of) edge angles from the feet up. Extension involves contraction of certain leg muscles which gets in the way of using the ankles and legs to help facilitate tipping of the edges into greater angles. Just stand on the flats with fully extended legs and try to tip your feet from side to side, now flex your legs even a little bit and try to do it.

Much easier.

The simple truth is the act of extending the leg will do just exactly that...straighten out the entire kinetic chain, including the ankles...and result in less bio-mechanically induced edge angle development, so to speak. And consequently in addition to this, this straightening out of the kinetic chain while push-extending, will probably contribute to forces towards the center of the boot..which means....as Razie pointed out...attempts to push the ski off edge.

I also find it fundamentally very difficult to push-extend and dorsiflex at the same time. Most people that actually "push" with their legs will be plantar flexing...and...that is not good for fore-aft balance. If you hear anyone say something about pressing on their big toe...guess what they are endorsing? Plantar flexion! Nobody actually says, at least that I ever heard, "push with your heels". But guess what, that is the only way to push-extend and dorsiflex at the same time.

Folks that use a lot of extension in their transition, moving their CoM around with it, will tend to need to develop their edge angles entirely by dropping their CoM into the turn....aka...hip angulation... Their feet and lower legs will be "dead" in comparison to those using flexion to transition, and contributing almost nothing to edge angle development. In terms of dorsi-flexion, you will also see fairly straight ankles and they won't be able to really get them dorsiflexed very well until they are done with all the plantar-flexion pushing.

That's enough for now...

 

[oldschoolskier]

No question you need slightly longer poles, I am using 127 and 5'8".

This seems ok even in the steepest stuff I've skied, which is just under 55 degrees.

I think if the poles are too long, it prevents you from totally committing the upper body eat down the hill, and putting 100 percent of the weight on the down hill ski.

I got about 4” (less now since I’m old) on you but that does reflect the difference.