If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Toe pressure is crap | foot2foot | Alpine Skiing | 60 | April 26th 05 07:03 PM |