Crossover and Crossunder

"yunlong" wrote in message
oups.com...

Not sure where is Norm's post on the same subject; nevertheless, though
they may do the zigzagging/switch back, but I don't think that they do
the "falling leaf." "Falling leaf," which is named after a snowboarding
maneuver, by definition, is slipping back and forth down a steep hill
without [S]-turning--changing the edges.

I did not know that. In fact, I heard of the "falling leaf" maneuver (and
saw ski patrollers practicing it) long before I ever saw a snowboard.

I believe there is an aerobatic maneuver called "falling leaf", also.

VtSkier wrote:

Thanks a lot for the replies Bill. It's a good discussion.

By and large I agree with this stuff. I'll even let you
off the hook when you call centrifugal force a "street
term". It isn't and it's not properly the same as inertia.
But I understand where you are coming from.


Centrifigal force is a subset of inertia. It pertains to a particular effect
caused by inertia.




Then I like to share an observation I've made on a number
of occasions.

Some people think they can ski without instruction -OR-
they maybe think they should get "comfortable" with their
equipment before they take a lesson, or, or...

I'm often at the top at the end of the day. My job is to
try to get the skiers to vacate before patrol does TCP
(trail closing procedure). It happens that occasionally
we get a never-ever who takes the last cabin and expects
to ski a green trail (which has become very blue with
skier traffic by the end of the day) to the bottom and
enjoy the setting sun (setting sun = flat light). Someone
told him/her that by weighting the outside ski, or what
will become the outside ski in a turn, the will turn
opposite to that ski and be able to control speed down
the mountain.

This person will be bent nearly double at the waist, his/
her legs will be as straight as possible and a fairly
decent wedge is being held in this position.

Now, to get your weight on your outside ski from that
position, don't you have to move your body over that
ski? Well, that's what is tried, and much of the time,
they can actually make a turn from that position. CoM
is over, and sometimes beyond over the outside ski so
that they are in fact making a turn with their weight
OUTSIDE of the outside ski. Well some of the time. What
usually happens is that since they are actually riding
the outside edge of the outside ski, and in a very
slow turn on very smooth terrain, it sort of works.

You meant the inside edge, didn't you? Their ankle would have to bent rather
unnaturally, even assuming it would work, which I don't think is possible.
Because the feet, in that position tend to be spread more than shoulder
width apart, it is unlikely they will actually have their body/CoM outside
the edge of the outside ski.. If they did, I think they would fall over.
(yes, I know, they often do, but that is an example of it failing
completely, isn't it?)


But did I mention that the trail is not smooth? So what
usually happens is that a few turns can be made this way
and then some irregularity catches that outside edge
and a tumble results. This completely destroys any
confidence they had to begin with (they had to have
some or they wouldn't have ridden the gondola at 4:00
in the afternoon. It's probably 4:30 or 4:45 by the
time I get to them. They are so crossed up, discouraged
and exhausted that I just call for a ride down for them.

I used to be able to give them a BYD (brighten your day)
card for a lesson the next day. But management has
tightened up on such things. I would think it would be
worth the price of a lesson to try and keep this skier.
He/she will never be back after that experience unless
they have someone prodding them.

So, I've seen someone on skis (I won't say a skier) make
turns without crossover/under and without having their
weight/CoM to the inside of their skis. It can be done,
I don't advocate it and it ain't pretty.

VtSkier

"VtSkier" wrote in message

By and large I agree with this stuff. I'll even let you
off the hook when you call centrifugal force a "street
term". It isn't and it's not properly the same as inertia.

Ah, I think Joe physics will agree with me.
There is no such thing as centrifugal force. There is
only inertia.

But I understand where you are coming from.

Then I like to share an observation I've made on a number
of occasions.

Some people think they can ski without instruction -OR-
they maybe think they should get "comfortable" with their
equipment before they take a lesson, or, or...

I'm often at the top at the end of the day. My job is to
try to get the skiers to vacate before patrol does TCP
(trail closing procedure). It happens that occasionally
we get a never-ever who takes the last cabin and expects
to ski a green trail (which has become very blue with
skier traffic by the end of the day) to the bottom and
enjoy the setting sun (setting sun = flat light). Someone
told him/her that by weighting the outside ski, or what
will become the outside ski in a turn, the will turn
opposite to that ski and be able to control speed down
the mountain.

This person will be bent nearly double at the waist, his/
her legs will be as straight as possible and a fairly
decent wedge is being held in this position.

And even so, they're probably not actually forward on
the skis.

Now, to get your weight on your outside ski from that
position, don't you have to move your body over that
ski?

No. From a good, solid neutral equal weight two footed
wedge position, they need to leave everything where it is,
and simply take the weight *off* the inside ski through a
lift of the tail, and then a placement of that tail next to the
outside ski tail.

Well, that's what is tried, and much of the time,
they can actually make a turn from that position. CoM
is over, and sometimes beyond over the outside ski so
that they are in fact making a turn with their weight
OUTSIDE of the outside ski.

No. Impossible, they would fall to the outside. An illusion
at best.

Well some of the time. What
usually happens is that since they are actually riding
the outside edge of the outside ski, and in a very
slow turn on very smooth terrain, it sort of works.

The pinky edge of the outside ski? They would fall to
the outside. The ski would catch. They'd go over the
handlebars.

But did I mention that the trail is not smooth? So what
usually happens is that a few turns can be made this way
and then some irregularity catches that outside edge
and a tumble results.

Not a suprise.


This completely destroys any confidence they had to begin with (they had
to have
some or they wouldn't have ridden the gondola at 4:00
in the afternoon. It's probably 4:30 or 4:45 by the
time I get to them. They are so crossed up, discouraged
and exhausted that I just call for a ride down for them.

They've never been shown four simple steps to a rough
parallel turn that will work on even advanced terrain.

It takes an hour or two for most people to learn.

Traverse to get moving, initiate the turn with a wedge,
(the same thing you do in the wedge changeups drill)
transfer the weight to the outside ski, then match the
skis with a lifting of the tail and placing it next to the
outside ski tail.

The skier must hold home position the whole time,
especially hands forward.

I used to be able to give them a BYD (brighten your day)
card for a lesson the next day.

At the present state of things, it wouldn't do a whole lot of
good for a fairly long period of time.

Show them home position, and how to make the turn
described above.

But management has
tightened up on such things. I would think it would be
worth the price of a lesson to try and keep this skier.
He/she will never be back after that experience unless
they have someone prodding them.

True enough. They needed a turn that they could learn
and use more quickly.

So, I've seen someone on skis (I won't say a skier) make
turns without crossover/under and without having their
weight/CoM to the inside of their skis. It can be done,
I don't advocate it and it ain't pretty.

Nah, You've seen someone fall unless they were crossed
over. There is no getting around inertia. You either oppose it,
or it takes you where it wants to.

yunlong wrote:

No thanks.

Why? It is easier (less tiring) on long traverse, and the
weight on the uphill ski is already facilitating the "early
weight transfer," thus enables the skier to turn downhill
whenever he/she wants it, and slipping is safer technique
than skidding.

The "slant slipping," is faster, more stable, and more
maneuverable, so it's a much versatile technique than
simple "side slipping" or skidding.

Sounds like "falling leaf" to me. Watch a patroller with
a sled sometime. Also works great without a sled.

"Falling leaf" is a maneuver that a skier zigzags back and
forth down a steep hill without "turning," i.e. the skier
must slip backward sometimes, and to slip backward with a
sled is not just impractical but also a dangerous move, are
you sure that's how patrollers handle the run with a sled?

You bet, see Norm's post on the same subject.

Not sure where is Norm's post on the same subject;

Immediately following yours, Yunlong, look up ^ its still there on my
server.


nevertheless,
though they may do the zigzagging/switch back, but I don't think that
they do the "falling leaf." "Falling leaf," which is named after a
snowboarding maneuver,

Falling leaf was around and named many years before the first snowboard
appeared..
It was named after, um, a falling leaf, which is the action it mimics.


by definition, is slipping back and forth down
a steep hill without [S]-turning--changing the edges.

Slipping backward with a sled in a patroller's back is not just
impractical (the patroller has to turn facing the sled while
skis/slips backward),

Erm, No s/he has no reason to have to turn facing the sled. Upper body faces
downhill at all times, just like skiing normally. I don't know the rules for
flatboarding, YMMV.
Have you ever actually watched a toboggan being run? Falling leaf is not
only quite practical, in some terrain and snow conditions it is essential
for safe transport.

but dangerous (if the patroller's knees get
locked by an unfortunate step, say, they get bounced by a piece of
ice chunk, he is done for it; with 200~300 lbs. average weight of the
sled

A Cascade toboggan weighs about 80lbs plus rescue gear about 20lbs or less.
A Traverse Rescue is about 20 lbs lighter.

Norm wrote:



You meant the inside edge, didn't you? Their ankle would have to bent
rather unnaturally, even assuming it would work, which I don't think
is possible. Because the feet, in that position tend to be spread
more than shoulder width apart, it is unlikely they will actually
have their body/CoM outside the edge of the outside ski.. If they
did, I think they would fall over. (yes, I know, they often do, but
that is an example of it failing completely, isn't it?)

Men often, as beginners, go completely bow-legged as they fight and struggle
and sweat to defeat the skis and the snow. Their ankles roll outwards as
they apply maximum muscle to the task.
That small children and weedy women are zipping past looking relaxed seems
to elude them.

ant

yunlong wrote:
VtSkier wrote:

yunlong wrote:

VtSkier wrote:

yunlong wrote:

VtSkier wrote:

(snip)


Have you done that yourself?

It is a standard practice of flatboarding; we call it
"slant slipping."

No thanks.

Why? It is easier (less tiring) on long traverse, and the
weight on the uphill ski is already facilitating the "early
weight transfer," thus enables the skier to turn downhill
whenever he/she wants it, and slipping is safer technique
than skidding.

The "slant slipping," is faster, more stable, and more
maneuverable, so it's a much versatile technique than
simple "side slipping" or skidding.

Sounds like "falling leaf" to me. Watch a patroller with
a sled sometime. Also works great without a sled.

"Falling leaf" is a maneuver that a skier zigzags back and
forth down a steep hill without "turning," i.e. the skier
must slip backward sometimes, and to slip backward with a
sled is not just impractical but also a dangerous move, are
you sure that's how patrollers handle the run with a sled?

You bet, see Norm's post on the same subject.

Not sure where is Norm's post on the same subject; nevertheless, though
they may do the zigzagging/switch back, but I don't think that they do
the "falling leaf." "Falling leaf," which is named after a snowboarding
maneuver, by definition, is slipping back and forth down a steep hill
without [S]-turning--changing the edges.

Tell you what sonny, falling leaf has been done by skiers
and SKI patrollers since long before there were snowboards. Further
it was NAMED long before there were snowboards.

Slipping backward with a sled in a patroller's back is not just
impractical (the patroller has to turn facing the sled while skis/slips
backward),

Huh? the patroller has to turn facing the sled while he skis/slips
backward? Baloney. You obviously haven't seen it done. A good traverse
position is essential. Skis across the fall line, body turned toward
the fall line, both hands securely holding onto the sled's handle bars
as if they were ski poles with the poles both pointing up the hill (oh
sorry, you don't use poles). Side slip down the hill with a bit of
weight on the tails so that the tips "slip", move weight forward so
that tails "skid". Repeat. One of the advantages of this is that
snow tends not build up downhill to your skis forming a barrier. This
is the preferred method on hills too steep to snowplow. Except for the
most severe slope and conditions, our guys don't even tail rope.

but dangerous (if the patroller's knees get locked by an
unfortunate step, say, they get bounced by a piece of ice chunk, he is
done for it;

Baloney. Skis together, knees bent is the most secure position
anyone can have on the steep. A snowplow with 200 - 300 pounds pushing
you is a lot more apt to get deflected by snow snakes.

with 200~300 lbs. average weight of the sled plus the
person being transported bearing down on him, there's no recovery).

You lack of knowledge is showing again. If a 100# female patroller
can pick up an unloaded sled to carry it to the top of the mountain
on a chair lift, it sure as hell doesn't weigh 200 to 300 pounds.

2-3 hundred pounds is average loaded sled weight. I've seen patrollers
take a sled down the hill with a SEVERELY injured (actually dead)
person. One guy driving the sled, second patroller on the sled with
the victim administering CPR DURING THE RIDE DOWN THE HILL. That's
probably 500 pounds total going down the hill, part of it black
diamond with bumps. Lots of huge showplow (when used like that it
can't be called a wedge), some sideslip with falling leaf to give
relief from snowplow.

I've hefted one around on occasion and it weighs just about what
my canoe weighs, which is 70+/- pounds.

Are you sure you want to be on that sled?

I have been on that sled. Class 4 AC separation, 3 years ago in
February. Called my own code using cell phone.

Norm wrote:
VtSkier wrote:

Thanks a lot for the replies Bill. It's a good discussion.

By and large I agree with this stuff. I'll even let you
off the hook when you call centrifugal force a "street
term". It isn't and it's not properly the same as inertia.
But I understand where you are coming from.

Centrifigal force is a subset of inertia. It pertains to a particular effect
caused by inertia.

Yes, and it's not a "street term"

Then I like to share an observation I've made on a number
of occasions.

Some people think they can ski without instruction -OR-
they maybe think they should get "comfortable" with their
equipment before they take a lesson, or, or...

I'm often at the top at the end of the day. My job is to
try to get the skiers to vacate before patrol does TCP
(trail closing procedure). It happens that occasionally
we get a never-ever who takes the last cabin and expects
to ski a green trail (which has become very blue with
skier traffic by the end of the day) to the bottom and
enjoy the setting sun (setting sun = flat light). Someone
told him/her that by weighting the outside ski, or what
will become the outside ski in a turn, the will turn
opposite to that ski and be able to control speed down
the mountain.

This person will be bent nearly double at the waist, his/
her legs will be as straight as possible and a fairly
decent wedge is being held in this position.

Now, to get your weight on your outside ski from that
position, don't you have to move your body over that
ski? Well, that's what is tried, and much of the time,
they can actually make a turn from that position. CoM
is over, and sometimes beyond over the outside ski so
that they are in fact making a turn with their weight
OUTSIDE of the outside ski. Well some of the time. What
usually happens is that since they are actually riding
the outside edge of the outside ski, and in a very
slow turn on very smooth terrain, it sort of works.


You meant the inside edge, didn't you?

No
Their ankle would have to bent rather
unnaturally,

Yes

even assuming it would work, which I don't think is possible.

Who said it worked?

Because the feet, in that position tend to be spread more than shoulder
width apart,

Yes

it is unlikely they will actually have their body/CoM outside
the edge of the outside ski..

Yes, that's what I said.

If they did, I think they would fall over.
(yes, I know, they often do, but that is an example of it failing
completely, isn't it?)

Yes

But did I mention that the trail is not smooth? So what
usually happens is that a few turns can be made this way
and then some irregularity catches that outside edge
and a tumble results. This completely destroys any
confidence they had to begin with (they had to have
some or they wouldn't have ridden the gondola at 4:00
in the afternoon. It's probably 4:30 or 4:45 by the
time I get to them. They are so crossed up, discouraged
and exhausted that I just call for a ride down for them.

I used to be able to give them a BYD (brighten your day)
card for a lesson the next day. But management has
tightened up on such things. I would think it would be
worth the price of a lesson to try and keep this skier.
He/she will never be back after that experience unless
they have someone prodding them.

So, I've seen someone on skis (I won't say a skier) make
turns without crossover/under and without having their
weight/CoM to the inside of their skis. It can be done,
I don't advocate it and it ain't pretty.

VtSkier

foot2foot wrote:
"VtSkier" wrote in message

By and large I agree with this stuff. I'll even let you
off the hook when you call centrifugal force a "street
term". It isn't and it's not properly the same as inertia.


Ah, I think Joe physics will agree with me.
There is no such thing as centrifugal force. There is
only inertia.


But I understand where you are coming from.

Then I like to share an observation I've made on a number
of occasions.

Some people think they can ski without instruction -OR-
they maybe think they should get "comfortable" with their
equipment before they take a lesson, or, or...

I'm often at the top at the end of the day. My job is to
try to get the skiers to vacate before patrol does TCP
(trail closing procedure). It happens that occasionally
we get a never-ever who takes the last cabin and expects
to ski a green trail (which has become very blue with
skier traffic by the end of the day) to the bottom and
enjoy the setting sun (setting sun = flat light). Someone
told him/her that by weighting the outside ski, or what
will become the outside ski in a turn, the will turn
opposite to that ski and be able to control speed down
the mountain.

This person will be bent nearly double at the waist, his/
her legs will be as straight as possible and a fairly
decent wedge is being held in this position.


And even so, they're probably not actually forward on
the skis.


Now, to get your weight on your outside ski from that
position, don't you have to move your body over that
ski?


No. From a good, solid neutral equal weight two footed
wedge position, they need to leave everything where it is,
and simply take the weight *off* the inside ski through a
lift of the tail, and then a placement of that tail next to the
outside ski tail.


Well, that's what is tried, and much of the time,
they can actually make a turn from that position. CoM
is over, and sometimes beyond over the outside ski so
that they are in fact making a turn with their weight
OUTSIDE of the outside ski.


No. Impossible, they would fall to the outside. An illusion
at best.


Well some of the time. What
usually happens is that since they are actually riding
the outside edge of the outside ski, and in a very
slow turn on very smooth terrain, it sort of works.


The pinky edge of the outside ski? They would fall to
the outside. The ski would catch. They'd go over the
handlebars.


But did I mention that the trail is not smooth? So what
usually happens is that a few turns can be made this way
and then some irregularity catches that outside edge
and a tumble results.


Not a suprise.



This completely destroys any confidence they had to begin with (they had
to have
some or they wouldn't have ridden the gondola at 4:00
in the afternoon. It's probably 4:30 or 4:45 by the
time I get to them. They are so crossed up, discouraged
and exhausted that I just call for a ride down for them.


They've never been shown four simple steps to a rough
parallel turn that will work on even advanced terrain.

It takes an hour or two for most people to learn.

Traverse to get moving, initiate the turn with a wedge,
(the same thing you do in the wedge changeups drill)
transfer the weight to the outside ski, then match the
skis with a lifting of the tail and placing it next to the
outside ski tail.

The skier must hold home position the whole time,
especially hands forward.


I used to be able to give them a BYD (brighten your day)
card for a lesson the next day.


At the present state of things, it wouldn't do a whole lot of
good for a fairly long period of time.

Show them home position, and how to make the turn
described above.

But management has

tightened up on such things. I would think it would be
worth the price of a lesson to try and keep this skier.
He/she will never be back after that experience unless
they have someone prodding them.


True enough. They needed a turn that they could learn
and use more quickly.


So, I've seen someone on skis (I won't say a skier) make
turns without crossover/under and without having their
weight/CoM to the inside of their skis. It can be done,
I don't advocate it and it ain't pretty.


Nah, You've seen someone fall unless they were crossed
over. There is no getting around inertia. You either oppose it,
or it takes you where it wants to.

Swear t'god. What I've described is just what I've observed.
Remember this is an observation, not a teaching drill. None
of it is useful or effective. It's just what I've seen.

Norm wrote:
yunlong wrote:

No thanks.

Why? It is easier (less tiring) on long traverse, and
the weight on the uphill ski is already facilitating the
"early weight transfer," thus enables the skier to turn
downhill whenever he/she wants it, and slipping is safer
technique than skidding.

The "slant slipping," is faster, more stable, and more
maneuverable, so it's a much versatile technique than
simple "side slipping" or skidding.

Sounds like "falling leaf" to me. Watch a patroller with
a sled sometime. Also works great without a sled.

"Falling leaf" is a maneuver that a skier zigzags back and
forth down a steep hill without "turning," i.e. the skier
must slip backward sometimes, and to slip backward with a
sled is not just impractical but also a dangerous move,
are you sure that's how patrollers handle the run with a
sled?

You bet, see Norm's post on the same subject.

Not sure where is Norm's post on the same subject;

Immediately following yours, Yunlong, look up ^ its still
there on my server.

Not sure where your server is, neither.


nevertheless,
though they may do the zigzagging/switch back, but I don't
think that they do the "falling leaf." "Falling leaf," which
is named after a snowboarding maneuver,

Falling leaf was around and named many years before the first
snowboard appeared..

The name was around;

It was named after, um, a falling leaf, which is the action it
mimics.

nevertheless, it was snowboarders who adopted the name for that
particular maneuver, as a part of normal snowboarding.


by definition, is slipping back and forth down
a steep hill without [S]-turning--changing the edges.

Slipping backward with a sled in a patroller's back is not
just impractical (the patroller has to turn facing the sled
while skis/slips backward),

Erm, No s/he has no reason to have to turn facing the sled.
Upper body faces downhill at all times, just like skiing
normally.


No way, ski on just one side of ski (edge) is not "ski normally";
unless s/he switches the edges, s/he cannot traverse the hill with the
upper body facing downhill; and if s/he switches the edges, s/he is no
longer doing "falling leaf."

I don't know the rules for
flatboarding, YMMV.
Have you ever actually watched a toboggan being run? Falling
leaf is not only quite practical, in some terrain and snow
conditions it is essential for safe transport.

Yup, but it's just not practical for a "long" traverse.


but dangerous (if the patroller's knees get
locked by an unfortunate step, say, they get bounced by a
piece of ice chunk, he is done for it; with 200~300 lbs.
average weight of the sled

A Cascade toboggan weighs about 80lbs plus rescue gear about
20lbs or less. A Traverse Rescue is about 20 lbs lighter.

Yup, the "plus" part was a mistake for "and," it was meant the whole
thing, toboggan and the person transported, and the "200~300 lbs." is
to take it on the "light" side, nevertheless, it is still a formidable
weight for a patroller to deal with when s/he is slipping backward.

Talking about reckless, slipping backward with toboggan/sled in a
patroller's back is just not a safe maneuver.


IS

VtSkier wrote:
Norm wrote:
VtSkier wrote:

By and large I agree with this stuff. I'll even let you
off the hook when you call centrifugal force a "street
term". It isn't and it's not properly the same as inertia.
But I understand where you are coming from.

Centrifigal force is a subset of inertia. It pertains to a particular
effect caused by inertia.

Yes, and it's not a "street term"

The term used do describe it in classical physics is "fictitious force",
meaning that it's not a force at all, but an artifact of transforming
the coordinate system into a non-inertial reference frame. To the
observer, it feels like and acts like a force, but it's actually
acceleration of the reference frame.

Modern physics tends to blur the distinction between force and
acceleration (with gravity and the curvature of space thrown in for good
measure) so I'm not going to get too exercised about whether centrifugal
force is "real" or not.


--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Völkl Conspiracy