Skid, slip, and carved turn

"Baka Dasai" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:21:41 -0800, lal_truckee said (and I quote):
ant wrote re carving:

Every turn I think must involve some actual turning, directing the skis.
The
toes can't do this, it is a function of the feet and legs.

Nope. Toes it is. Just tip em and pressure em and carve a turn. A carved
turn may not be what you really want so other technique may be
preferred, but no rotary is required or desirable for a carved turn on
the cordoroy (real skiing on real terrain requires real technique but
talking carved turns implies either racing or goofing around on the
groomed.) PSIA is full of **** teaching rotary on groomed terrain beyond
intermediate skiers. Rotary is the antithesis to carving.

Woah, lal, I think you actually get it!

I hope both of you are joking.

the only "turn" with no rotary is a rail. With the emerging popularity of
fat skis, an awful lot of trees will need to go to make wide enough runs to
accommodate pure railed "turns" with no rotary on those shallow sidecuts.

ant

"Baka Dasai" wrote in message

You're not passive, because you still have up/down movement and
back/forward movement.

there is no up down movement. In a rail, which evidently is what you are
talking about, you can flip the skis from one set of edges to the other with
zero up down movement; no extension, nothing. They test this in PSIA exams.
It is passive in terms of turning. all you are doing is rolling the feet and
balancing.

You also have to time and coordinate the snap
back from the ski when you unweight it with the shifting of your centre
of gravity from one side to the other. Throughout all these movements
you have to be careful to avoid any rotary movement of the feet/legs.

In the portion of the PSIA exam testing railroad tracks, yes. the body must
be motionless, and the tracks must be pencil thin. No smearing. This is
testing many things, including your ability to turn off all rotary/steering
movement.
This is not carving. This is railing.

Far from being passive, carving can load up the skis so much that your
legs will get a bigger workout than ever before resisting the G-forces
and controlling the snap when you release the pressure.

Carving does indeed involve managment of the build-up of rebound forces.
Carving also involves rotary. Railing, what you are describing in most of
this, does not. Railing is totally passive, involves zero rotary, and
requires only that you balance over the edges while the skis follow their
edge sidecut. You can press harder on one of the skis to shorten the
sidecut, and then I guess you would have to cope with the springback.

ant

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:41:39 -0800, "Scott Abraham"
wrote this crap:

Had a great time, Bob. My problem is that my internet access was from my
friend's house, and as you well know,


You have problems with internet access from Michael Jackson's
Neverland Ranch? You should get that fixed.






My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:17:20 -0800, "Scott Abraham"
wrote this crap:

Make sure you show THIS to Alta too, they should know who Assholepax hangs
out with.


He doesn't hang out with Michael Jackson like your sick friends.





My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

ant wrote:
"Baka Dasai" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:21:41 -0800, lal_truckee said (and I quote):

ant wrote re carving:

Every turn I think must involve some actual turning, directing the skis.
The
toes can't do this, it is a function of the feet and legs.

Nope. Toes it is. Just tip em and pressure em and carve a turn. A carved
turn may not be what you really want so other technique may be
preferred, but no rotary is required or desirable for a carved turn on
the cordoroy (real skiing on real terrain requires real technique but
talking carved turns implies either racing or goofing around on the
groomed.) PSIA is full of **** teaching rotary on groomed terrain beyond
intermediate skiers. Rotary is the antithesis to carving.

Woah, lal, I think you actually get it!


I hope both of you are joking.

the only "turn" with no rotary is a rail. With the emerging popularity of
fat skis, an awful lot of trees will need to go to make wide enough runs to
accommodate pure railed "turns" with no rotary on those shallow sidecuts.

ant


whoa here!!!

a) who said anything about making pure carved (I guess
that's what "railed" turns are) on fat skis.

b) I see what I think you are calling "railed" turns
all the time on folks with special slalom skis, all
mountain carving skis and several other classes of
skis as well as hard-boot carving snowboards.

I even had Peter Kidd, who was the Elan rep at the
time, show me how to do it on a very special pair of
Elan carvers (no, not the ones with a 40mm waist).
I don't do this much any more because my skis aren't
really suited and it takes a huge wide, well groomed
slope with few other people on it to be fun.

I was watching a guy on skis Sunday doing laid out
carving turns with his uphill arm on the snow, just
like the snowboarders. If he wasn't in a perfect
carve, he would have lost it he was banked so far over.

Sven Golly wrote:
AstroPax wrote in
news
//good stuff snipped//

Har!


Hey, don't quit now... let's keep it going:

Woman who fly upside down in airplane have hairy crack up.

Man with hands in pocket feel cocky all day.

..... Next....

lal_truckee wrote:
VtSkier wrote:

very special pair of
Elan carvers (no, not the ones with a 40mm waist).


The ones that needed the widening mount platform so there would be room
to mount a binding? Cool looking skis. I always wanted to try them, but
never got around to it. Maybe someday.

There was a pair for sale at the Ski Club swap
in October. I almost bought them, but passed,
bought the 6stars instead.

I might go up to the ski club and see if they still
have them. They just might be a gas to try out.

VtSkier wrote:
very special pair of
Elan carvers (no, not the ones with a 40mm waist).

The ones that needed the widening mount platform so there would be room
to mount a binding? Cool looking skis. I always wanted to try them, but
never got around to it. Maybe someday.

Baka Dasai wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:05:53 +1100, ant said (and I quote):

This is not carving. This is railing.


Oh god, there's a difference between railing and carving? I give up.
I'm not even a skier anyway.

There's no difference - I imagine the new application of the word
derives from the recent (last twenty years or so is recent to me) use of
"make railroad tracks" when teaching kids. (Aside: I wonder how many
kids today actually get to walk on the railroad tracks, or put pennies
on the rail, or know what the hell the instructor is talking about?)

What I imagine Ant is referring to is that people today are taught to
keep their weight in the sweet spot; they never learn that by pressuring
the shovel, center and then tail of a ski sequentially they can modify
the carved arc tremendously. (These proverbial people should study films
of the Mahre brothers - practitioners extraordinaire of the technique.)
You can also modify the carve arc by adjusting the attack angle and
adding pressure - if you do so in a controlled manner you can maintain a
carved arc at many different radii while skiing from the sweet center
without ever learning the more difficult sequential weight technique.

VtSkier wrote:
yunlong wrote:
VtSkier wrote:
yunlong wrote:

and so on...

(snip)

You said:

My errors are in language, and your errors are on the
principle of skiing; my errors won't affect my skiing
much, not sure about your predicament though.


And I agree fully with this statement of yours. Your
errors have been in language and in your ability to
accurately and consistently convey your thoughts and ideas
about skiing in WORDS.

That is not it; those are only your confusion. My mistake
is in my Chinese English, as Chinese speech/structure
pattern is different from English, and through the
translation the language may be sounded differently from a
native English speaker. Nevertheless, I do believe I've
presented an accurate and consistent idea on what I was saying.

Yes, I can see some other syntax getting into your writing.
Presumably it's Chinese. But I could probably get around that
if you demonstrated a command of vocabulary and idiom, which
you don't.

I used a common language vocabulary, which can be found in an ordinary
dictionary, and you wrangled the meaning on terminology, in your
partitioned thinking, you don't see eye to eye.

We won't even talk about grammar because meaning
can be determined without the writer adhering to strict
grammatical rules, which again you don't.

If you think your grammar is the only way to use English, you are sadly
mistaken. Actually, that is what reflected as little knowledge.

"Professor C. C. Fries, one of our leading 'liberal' English teachers,
once told his students that there was no such rule as 'Never use a
preposition at the end of a sentence.' (Actually, it is an superstition
based on the Latin derivation of the word preposition.) 'Do you mean to
say that the rule has been changed?' a student spoke up. 'Changed? No,'
Professor Fries answered. 'Who would have the authority to make or
change such a rule?' 'Why,' the student stammered, "whoever deals with
these things...the authorities...the experts...the English Teachers
Association...' 'That would be the National Council of Teachers of
English,' said Professor Fries. 'Well, if they issued any rules lately,
I ought to know about it. I am president.'"

"It is well to remember that grammar is common speech formulated. Usage
is the only test. I would prefer a phrase that was easy and unaffected
to a phrase that was grammatical."--W. Somerset Maugham--

Above quotes are quoted from "The Art of Readable Writing" by Rudolf
Flesch.

Words, as well as a grammar, have no means by themselves as they are
only device/structure that we use to carry the meanings of the words;
in other words, words, like finger pointing, are used to point to where
the true meaning can be found. That's to say if you just look at the
finger, you won't find the meaning it pointed.


Both skidding and slipping are defined in the top post.

OK, I'll concede this one. You did define skid and slip in
the beginning of your post. You defined skid as the tails of
the skis moving faster (rotationally) than the tips and you
defined slip as the tips moving faster (rotationally) than
the tails.

I'm not sure "rotationally" is the right word, slipping the tip only
makes the ski/er "turns" less. That's to say when you interject an
unconfirmed idea with your thinking, you'd distort the true picture.

What you didn't do was define specifically "slip"
as used in an aeronautical sense at the outset.

You may know how to use English grammar, but lacked of discipline on
how to make a technical discussion. I have defined/described the "slip"
using a common language that is not aeronautical specify.


What I objected to was that I didn't believe that "slip" as
you defined it was a kind of turn in skiing.

What you "didn't believe" doesn't not make a legitimate argument; you
have to prove that the "slip" as I defined is invalid to make the
argument. You are unable to do that.

You didn't define it that way in 2001

I still carved my turns in 2001.

and I didn't think you should have defined
it that way in this thread. I also didn't think that "slip"
was/is appropriate as you describe it because of what is
necessary to make the ski "slip" as you describe it.

Again, what you "didn't think" doesn't not make a legitimate
argument...

What you unable to do doesn't invalidate a valid theory.


Further:
As a technical
discussion, you would try to duplicate the moves according
the description

What makes you think I haven't made the moves as you describe?
The only way I can make my skis "slip" as you describe is to
be in the back seat. At any kind of speed, this is counterproductive.

"You cannot slip the tips by sitting back seat; you can only do skid
with that posture. Slipping the tips is done by pressing the uphill
edges--the little toe side edge of the inside ski and the big toe side
of the outside ski--downward (away from the hill), which can only be
done with the pressure on the little ball of foot and little toe side
edge of the inside ski, which can only be done by moving your knee so
much forward to press the boot that your heel is actually suspended
inside your boot."--my post, feb 10 2005--

The "slip" by my definition requires you to put your weight forward to
the little ball/toe of the inside ski; we'd talk about your
"counterproductive" when you can do that.


As I pointed out, I can make my skis "slip" from a position
standing across the fall line by flattening my skis and
shifting my weight back toward the tail of my skis.

Yup, that's a passive technique; I'd have slipped tips downhill and got
going already.


I can also do this from a turning maneuver by going back and
flattening my skis if I am carving, they are fairly flat if
my turn is a skidding one. This has the effect of increasing
the radius of my original turn, and giving me a feeling of
loss of control.

"Flat-feeling"? that's the moment of flatboarding;

I will immediately get my weight forward to
regain a feeling of control

I would "hang ten" at that moment;

and if I need to change the radius
of my turn, do something else.

I skid the tails to go/turn uphill and slip the tips to go/turn
downhill.


and produce a result to see if the description is correct
or not, and that is called "independent scientific investigation."

Apparently I did this.

I did say that you lacked of scientific discipline to do it correctly.


Instead, you ranted with your misinterpreted terms, cannot
explain them, and cannot demonstrate them,

I believe I interpreted you terms correctly. Or at best I
understood the words you used, if indeed you really used the
words you wanted to use to have me understand your meaning. I
think in the case of "slip" I do understand what you are/were saying.

You may "understand" it, but apparently, wrong.


but think you have known all? Yup,

I don't really think so.

that's called a "hypocritical little knowledge."

Your words, your accusation.

I don't make accusation, just state the observed facts.

My words and my actions
speak for themselves. Others here have skied with me
and have some judgment of my ability.

No wonder you took so personally, but no, that was not what I was
talking about; I was here talking about a theory in skiing, NOT how you
ski.


As I have said repeatedly, I have no real quarrel
with your ability to ski or even to teach skiing since I
have absolutely no way of knowing what you can do other
than your WORDS.

Cannot cross-reference for your "absolutely no way of knowing,"
eh?

What does this sentence mean in the context of what I wrote?

"Cross-reference" with something other than the WORDS that you couldn't
fathom, like, what kind of skiing you have done in past thirty years in
comparison of the experience I have described to get a sense/know of
what I was talking about?


But nevertheless you rip my skiing as for beginners and no
good for you advanced skiers because "somebody has done it
before" yet cannot do it yourself? Yup, that's called a
"hypocritical small mind."

Rip your skiing, eh? You presented your "Flat Boarding" here
as something new and wonderful. I, and others, pointed out to
you that you hadn't invented a thing.

Yup, it must be, otherwise, you, and others, would not have jumped all
over the places.

And, yes, I can do it myself.

Really? You couldn't even get the definitions straight, but think you
can do it?

Ok, how do you do a flat-spin [on the ground], again?


Begin quoted material: yunlong in Flat-Boarding II
================================================== ==========
Now there's even simpler/easier way to ski:

From "Flat-Boarding" we've learned that "On two skis, when they are
held parallel and equally weighed, they will run straight. If one ski
is weighed more than the other ski, they will turn (changing
direction)
to the weighed-ski side if the turning balance is maintained." To
weigh
on the ski is the "cross-over," one of the most difficult concept and
technique to comprehend and to achieve in high-level downhill skiing,
where the conventional (pole-planting) parallel skiing techniques
employ four distinct steps (1. pole-plant, 2. unweigh, 3. change
direction, and 4. traverse) to achieve it.

The new way? Bleed the speed of the inside ski by slipping the
"outside" edge of the inside ski (which would scrape the snow
downward
a bit thus slow down the ski), and the other ski, now is "outside"
ski,
goes faster, so would push both ski to change the direction, and if
the
same force is maintained, the turning would continue. The
"cross-over"
is now simply to stand/weigh on the inside ski. By maintaining 50/50
balance on both skis, the skis "track" "straight" again.
Fun stuff,
IS
================================================== ==========
End quoted material

Many of us recognized that there was nothing "new" here.

Nothing "new," nevertheless, you still don't know how I ski.

In fact, as I reread it, there are problems with language that
we had discussed earlier that also brought up confusion and
questions about what you were trying to say.

That's because your own biased thinking confused you.


(snip a little more)

The following reply to my statement has absolutely no
meaning in the context of what I said:

For context you have to know the reason behind the text.

I wrote, "Otherwise you are 'preaching to the choir' which
is know to be a waste of time."

And you replied, "You may gold-plate your face, it is not
something I care."

You were speculating that you were so important that I needed to
spend
my energy to "preach" you to get your acceptance?

The context of my statement had to do with why your were
trying to convince us about your skiing technique.

No, you got that backward; I wrote an idea so-called new "way" [we may
get into that later] of skiing, but you tried to "convince"/bash me
that my way is no good.


"Preaching to the choir" is an American idiom which means
that the speaker is talking about something the listener
already believes and so the speaking is a waste of time.

"the listener already believes"? Wow, when did that happen? Or you
don't "understand" how idiom works?


You are speaking to generally accomplished skiers here. You
are describing methods (with some reservations about
appropriateness of method) that is best used to teach
beginners through probably intermediate skiers.

Flatboarding is an advanced technique even to "advanced skiers," try a
skiers X trail sometime.

If you are
not talking to us about teaching, we can already ski, and
most of us quite well, why are you talking to us about it?

To ski better, to reach the perfection, flatboarding is not just about
the skiing techniques but the "Way" of skiing that brings the skier to
a deeper realm of the reality, a state called Unism,
"unified/harmonized mind and body," and to be "one with gravity."


I have described a theory in skiing technique and how I do with it
in a
public discussion forum, you don't like it because you cannot get
a
grip on it, and my explanations become a "preach" to you? You
think
that you own this newsgroup?

You are describing a theory of teaching/learning skiing and
how you do it. In many areas I have no quarrel with you. In a
few areas I do have issues with you. Your choice of words and
not using them in a conventional, common usage way without
first telling us how you are using them is one area. When your
are asked what you mean, and you reply that my understanding
is at fault for needing to ask, and I'm arrogant or stupid for
asking is another area.

If you had asked, you would get your answer; if you whip, you get
whiplash. I did tell you that.

It took a great deal of time to get
you to tell us that you were using "slip" in the aeronautical
sense.

Ok, which of the following words is aeronautical specify? "A skidded
turn happens when the tail of the ski moves downhill with a slightly
faster rate than the tip of the ski, which causes the ski over-turn.
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."

This sense is NOT common usage, or even scientific for
that matter. It is jargon of a specific field.

It is more like that you are using the jargon without knowing the
contents of it, and get confused about.


This is somewhat typical of many of your rebuttals. It has
no contextual meaning. Why did you write this?

To say only an incompetent person needs to gold-plate its
face to glorify itself, to be self-importance, a Chinese proverb.

So clearly you didn't understand the idiom.

Need more gold-color?


(snip some more)

I also think that your writing here is to elevate
yourself in the eyes of someone who might be wanting
to take lessons from someone who can teach them with
some new "magic bullet" technique that will make them
expert skiers overnight.

Not overnight, nevertheless, it will definitely make
them a better skier.


Okay, if this is your aim, AND you want to use WORDS to
convey your thoughts, It is important that you do so in
a coherent and consistent way.

Here you go again to say/imply my WORDS are inferior but
you don't really how or what words I use when I teach.

You are a bull****.

You said your words are inferior, I only said they were
unclear.

Misread and miswrite make up miss matched mind and body, I guess.

And I've been called worse. See what Scooter
says about me.

I don't call name, just state the fact.


(and snip the rest)

My question to you is...
Why do you argument about the "right way" of using English that may or
may not be accurate such extensively in a newsgroup that is for skiers
talk about skiing?


IS


VtSkier