• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

martyg

Making fresh tracks
Industry Insider
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Posts
2,216
[QUOTE="Your body will naturally adopt the best width.[/QUOTE]

I don't agree with that at all. We each have an optimal place where we can access optimal range of motion. Skiing is inherently counter-intuitive at almost any level.

How much time do you spend with video analysis?
 

martyg

Making fresh tracks
Industry Insider
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Posts
2,216
MartyG, thanks for your comment. I enjoy technical things, so I'll try to check out some of John Seifert's research. It makes sense - the greater the surface area, well, more interaction. I still consider myself relatively "new" to skiing, so I enjoy learning from others with far more experience than me.

Enjoy Dave. PM me with questions.
 

martyg

Making fresh tracks
Industry Insider
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Posts
2,216
His boots are pretty close together in a horizontal plane, they just look far apart because of the vertical separation.

Doubt it. Look at the sequential photos of Ron LaMaster. Look at foot distance at the transition. That distance should remain constant and change when in powder and may deviate a bit with turn radius, bumps, etc. Once you find your best stance to optimize range of motion it is about drilling, drilling, drilling to maintain that and make it as natural as breathing in your sleep. It is your base of support, your constant. The skier who's feet deviate from that is the skier who is not optimally in balance and will not be able to quickly adapt to changes in surface conditions.
 

Rod9301

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Posts
2,446
Doubt it. Look at the sequential photos of Ron LaMaster. Look at foot distance at the transition. That distance should remain constant and change when in powder and may deviate a bit with turn radius, bumps, etc. Once you find your best stance to optimize range of motion it is about drilling, drilling, drilling to maintain that and make it as natural as breathing in your sleep. It is your base of support, your constant. The skier who's feet deviate from that is the skier who is not optimally in balance and will not be able to quickly adapt to changes in surface conditions.
That's exactly the problem: the base of support!
It promotes weighing the inside ski, instead of balancing on the edge of your outside ski.
 

martyg

Making fresh tracks
Industry Insider
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Posts
2,216
That's exactly the problem: the base of support!
It promotes weighing the inside ski, instead of balancing on the edge of your outside ski.

If that is the case you are inclinating instead of angulating.
 

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
16,329
Location
The Bull City
Yes. Not how far one foot is from the other foot, but how far the upper foot is from the other leg.

And how much separation is there when the racer is going straight instead of turning and at various other points during the turn?

I could flip a photo of an A-frame 180 degrees and call it a V-frame hahaha.

Separation occurs differently at different points of the turn and is pretty easy to spot when the skier is riding a flat ski between turns.

Here is zero seperation..

1441bec6ede2372b5f4996eae0c8055a-ski-fashion-ski-wear.jpg


Skier has to separate skis and boots to achieve higher angles but skier will also have that similar separation between turns as well.

image011.jpg


Skis are still separated roughly the same when not turning.

I get what you are saying about the vertical plane but as long as there is distance between the skis on the snow it is still separation otherwise it's this..
93f66e6d596a582b61242b2b0aa2ccc3.jpg


Harb can call it what he wants and change the horizon to justify but separation is separation on the plane we actually ski on..

Just for kicks, lets see an example of a high angle turn where there IS separation by the newer definition? It would seem impossible to turn that tight WITH separation by your definition right??
 
Last edited:

martyg

Making fresh tracks
Industry Insider
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Posts
2,216
And how much separation is there when the racer is going straight instead of turning and at various other points during the turn?

I could flip a photo of an A-frame 180 degrees and call it a V-frame hahaha.

Separation occurs differently at different points of the turn and is pretty easy to spot when the skier is riding a flat ski between turns.

Here is zero seperation..

1441bec6ede2372b5f4996eae0c8055a-ski-fashion-ski-wear.jpg


Skier has to separate skis and boots to achieve higher angles but skier will also have that similar separation between turns as well.

image011.jpg


Skis are still separated roughly the same when not turning.

I get what you are saying about the vertical plane but as long as there is distance between the skis on the snow it is still separation otherwise it's this..
93f66e6d596a582b61242b2b0aa2ccc3.jpg


Harb can call it what he wants and change the horizon to justify but separation is separation on the plane we actually ski on..

Just for kicks, lets see an example of a high angle turn where there IS separation by the newer definition? It would seem impossible to turn that tight WITH separation by your definition right??

To answer your last question.... Watch any video of Mikaela in a slalom course.

Skier #1 and #3.... No stacking. All angulation is coming fro the lumbar, not hips.

Skier #2... Yes. The feet are approximately if not the same width. If width changes in different phases of a turn, I call that an intermediate skier.
 

François Pugh

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
7,618
Location
Great White North (Eastern side currently)
Here's a good example. You can call him an intermediate skier if you want, but regardless of what you call him this video illustrates what we are talking about, and shows separation we want without separation we don't want.




Look at about 58 seconds in. His skis have some distance between them. That's OK because he is not separating his legs. There is "vertical separation", but the vertical is a misnomer; it would be vertical if he were standing on a horizontal surface, but he is standing on two inclined surfaces (his skis).
Look at about 107 seconds, his feet are fairly close together, about as close as his foot was to his other leg mid-turn.

Don't get confused over definitions. The point is that skis farther apart in a direction parallel to the main force vector acting to make the skier turn is not only ok, it's necessary. Too much separation that is not OK is separation in the plane perpendicular to that force, separation that would have his legs wider apart, instead of one foot higher than the other relative to his body, i.e. closer to his hip than the other foot but still close to the other leg.

Also note if you strictly go by measuring the on-snow distance of his tracks, those tracks are wider at the apex than at the point of edge change, and that's OK too.
 

dawgcatching

Snow? What is that?
Industry Insider
Joined
Nov 24, 2015
Posts
172
Location
SMU Cox School of Business
For me, the biggest 2 days of the year were part of the epic storm that blew into Tahoe around the 1st of March. Everything near the Sierra Crest was closed due to wind, and we spent 2 days at Northstar instead, skiing high teens-low 20's powder up to 2 feet deep, mostly off the steeper (for Northstar) pitches on the Martis side.

I had my Stormrider 95's in 183cm on my feet and I weigh 160lbs. The 95's had all of the float I could ask for, and then some. Much of this had to do with length; I would rather be on a longer and slightly narrower ski instead of a shorter/fatter ski. I certainly could have skied a wider ski, as it stayed deep for the entire 2 days, but I didn't find myself wanting a wider ski or even thinking about having one.

If I weighed 190lbs, the situation may have been very different. The 105-width skis have gotten so good and precise (for what they are) that I would have a great time on the right ski in that width as well. Those were the only 2 days I had last season when the terrain didn't get chewed up later in the day.

Much of preference is going to be due to weight, snow density, and ski angle pitch. At Bachelor, there are many more days that call for a wider ski than at a steeper mountain.
 

Tom K.

Skier Ordinaire
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Posts
8,404
Much of preference is going to be due to weight, snow density, and ski angle pitch. At Bachelor, there are many more days that call for a wider ski than at a steeper mountain.

Yup. At 200 pounds, my 118s see a fair bit of action at Mt. Hood Meadows (possibly flatter than Bachelor WTE Heather Canyon) and they never even make the trip to Jackson Hole.
 

Primoz

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 8, 2016
Posts
2,483
Location
Slovenia, Europe
Skier #2... Yes. The feet are approximately if not the same width. If width changes in different phases of a turn, I call that an intermediate skier.
Probably irrelevant, but still... skier in question is Kalle Palander... guy who has 14 WC victories (10 in SL and 4 in GS), 1 overall SL World cup title, and who was slalom World champion. Yeah pretty intermediate skier ;)
 

Crank

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 19, 2015
Posts
2,626
For me, the biggest 2 days of the year were part of the epic storm that blew into Tahoe around the 1st of March. Everything near the Sierra Crest was closed due to wind, and we spent 2 days at Northstar instead, skiing high teens-low 20's powder up to 2 feet deep, mostly off the steeper (for Northstar) pitches on the Martis side.

I had my Stormrider 95's in 183cm on my feet and I weigh 160lbs. The 95's had all of the float I could ask for, and then some. Much of this had to do with length; I would rather be on a longer and slightly narrower ski instead of a shorter/fatter ski. I certainly could have skied a wider ski, as it stayed deep for the entire 2 days, but I didn't find myself wanting a wider ski or even thinking about having one.

If I weighed 190lbs, the situation may have been very different. The 105-width skis have gotten so good and precise (for what they are) that I would have a great time on the right ski in that width as well. Those were the only 2 days I had last season when the terrain didn't get chewed up later in the day.

Much of preference is going to be due to weight, snow density, and ski angle pitch. At Bachelor, there are many more days that call for a wider ski than at a steeper mountain.

I agree with above. I am 6' and weigh anywhere from 200-210. I always found really fat skis, while fun in pow, to just feel awkward on my feet when dong anything else. Ideal for me these days is anything from mid 90's - low 100's and a bit lengthy... I think 188 is about perfect for me. Though I go shorter when skiing near home, meaning in the northeast. Why - because of tighter trees and fewer open powder fields and generally denser snow.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top