yunlong wrote:
Based on the quality of a turn, a downhill ski turn can be classified
in three categories: carved turn, skidded turn, and slipped turn.

Based on the "quality" of a turn? Foot, help me out here.
Quality supposes "good", "bad", and other subjective
descriptions. I think we need to get back to the mechanics
of skiing.

"A turn can be initiated by skidding, slipping (we are going
to have a discussion on the difference between these two,
but I think I know what you are talking about) or by rolling
the ankles and bending the ski into a 'carve'." Is this what
you want to say?

A carved turn is made by the technique called "carving," where the ski
is made traveling along the curvature of reverse chamber of the ski
without any slippage; i.e. the tail of the ski follows the tip of the
ski along the curved path in a synchronized manner.

A carved turn is made by carving. Yeah, right. I actually think
you can do better than this with the language. It is considered
a mistake to define a word with the same word or a different
form of the word.

But I'm not so sure. "where the ski is made TO TRAVEL along" the
path described by the curve of the ski, either the sidecut radius
or as reduced by bending. The tail of the ski follows the tip of
the ski along the curved path described above. (forget "synchronized
manner".)

A skidded turn
happens when the tail of the ski moves downhill with a slightly faster
rate than the tip of the ski,

That's mechanics, OK.

which causes the ski over-turn.

wrong choice of words. "over-turn" can mean either to turn too
much or tip over. Neither meaning is what you wanted.

You may be thinking of "over-steer" and "under-steer" as
applied to driving a car, it doesn't work for skiing.

The skid can be the entire turn until you set your edges
to stop turning (or initiate a skid in the opposite direction).
Or it can be the beginning of a carved arc where the skid gets
you turning in the direction you want to go, you set your edges
and apply pressure to the outside ski and carve an arc. Very
effective in the days when skis didn't have much sidecut.

And a
slipped turn is when the tip of the ski moves downhill faster than the
tail, which straightens the curved path somewhat, is an under-turn.

I'm not sure about this. If the slip reduces the amount the
ski is turning, isn't it an "ANTI-TURN"? I can't imagine a
situation where allowing the tip to slip out is desirable
EXCEPT in "falling leaf" which is a survival, extreme braking
move when you are deep do do.

What makes the carved turn so special is that, while both skidding and
slipping rob the speed/energy of the ski, carving maintains its turning
ability without losing its speed.

True, the carved turn itself does not cause braking. It will
help to control your speed by causing you to take a longer
path down the mountain which, by definition is a less steep
path down the mountain.

The caveat is, nevertheless, that the
skier must continue to turn to carve, thus reduces the skier's forward
speed.

I'm not even going to try to translate this. You might
be saying that the longer path slows you down.

Most of parallel turns are done with skidding turn, where skidding
serves dual purposes of breaking and turning.

True, especially on steeps.

Though flatboarding employs all three techniques to maintain a
proper/desired line,

Okay...

it generally utilizes flat board and slipping turn
for faster speed and straighter line downhill.

As above, I can't imagine a situation where slipping
the tips is a good thing. Further, for me to slip the
tips of my skis as described, I need to be in the back
seat. Is this what your are proposing?

Five-year-old Andrea asked, why she had to turn when she only wanted to
go there/straight?

Is it time for something a little steeper? But with a
bunny berm at the end.

Interesting,
IS

My question to you is...
Why do you post these word pictures of skiing that may
or may not be accurate, including inaccuracies in the
understanding of the language? This is a newsgroup made
up of skiers who mostly have a decent understanding of
the mechanics and who don't need instruction at this
very elementary level.

Are you trying out explanations for your teaching on us?

If so, you might enlighten us and ask for our input
rather that insult us when we say you are not making
sense.

It is a sure thing that the folks who post here are not
going to adopt your method as an end-all be-all skiing
technique for ourselves. Many of us could do perfectly
what you have shown us in your videos. But why would
we want to?

Foot, OTOH, is suggesting words and methods for teaching
and is trying to convince us to teach without ego (if
indeed any of us are teachers). One of the things you
have shown us here (I said shown, not proven that you
own) is a huge ego. You have also shown us that at best
you have a barely adequate grasp of the mechanics. This
last may well be a failure in language, not actual
knowledge. But the ego is still there. "My way is the
only right way and you are an idiot if you don't agree."
This is what you sound like.

VtSkier