ObSki: another run with flatboarding

"lal_truckee" wrote in message
news:jqp3i.29358
Skiing without poles has always been a teaching tool, same as skiing
with boots unbuckled. Doesn't mean poles are discarded r boots never
buckled; there are innumerable situations with poles are necessary
even if your never have to self-arrest (a situation where poles are
mandatory for survival.)

This is something that bothers me when I snowboard.

Bob

"taichiskiing" wrote in message
As VtSkier said, "because of the laws of physics and the geometry
built into skis," there's no real "advanced things" in
skis/equipments
anymore. The more efficient skiing only comes with reducing the
unnecessary movements. And next "advanced things" in skiing will be
the no-pole skiing, which is "easier, faster and more fun," I
predict.

I'd say that that prediction is worth every penny we paid for it.

Bob

In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:

The skis don't bow unless the skis are edged and weighted. (on a hard
flat surface) How can this happen with "flat skis"?

Bob, were you here the last time this chucklehead showed up claiming to
"ti chi flatboard" to the exasperation of almost everybody?

I don't know if you read the beginning of the thread, but he seemed
pretty disappointed no one was bothering to disagree with him.

Sometimes when I'm going to lunch at a ski resort, I ride my snowboard
to the lodge almost flat and only make tiny little shifts in weight to
edge every now and again. It's fun and I think it looks cool. Do you
think I should give that technique a goofy name and claim appreciating
it requires enlightenment? I'm thinking about calling it "lunch run
boarding."

Dave

"Dave Cartman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:

The skis don't bow unless the skis are edged and weighted. (on a
hard
flat surface) How can this happen with "flat skis"?

Bob, were you here the last time this chucklehead showed up claiming
to
"ti chi flatboard" to the exasperation of almost everybody?

Yes, I've tried to communicate with him before, with little success.


I don't know if you read the beginning of the thread, but he seemed
pretty disappointed no one was bothering to disagree with him.

Sometimes when I'm going to lunch at a ski resort, I ride my
snowboard
to the lodge almost flat and only make tiny little shifts in weight
to
edge every now and again. It's fun and I think it looks cool. Do
you
think I should give that technique a goofy name and claim
appreciating
it requires enlightenment? I'm thinking about calling it "lunch run
boarding."

I guess that depends on whether you want respect. You'd better be able
to clearly explain and demonstrate the superiority of your technique
to the satisfaction of others if you do.

VtSkier has skied with this guy, and says he skis well. He also said
that he still couldn't tell what "flatboarding" is, even after skiing
with him. This suggests the lack of any ability to quantify the
technique well enough to teach it. I try to ask the right questions to
try to understand what the heck he is talking about, but so far have
had no success. I suppose I should give up, but I'm always ready to
learn something new if it really exists.

Bob

On May 18, 1:26 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article . com,
taichiskiing wrote:
On May 17, 12:31 pm, VtSkier wrote:
taichiskiing wrote:

(snip)
......
Well, flatboarding does a little bit differently. First, let's do it
with poles. With poles, a parallel turn begin with (1) pole-plant,

Correct/

then (2) up-unweighting,

Incorrect.

Why?


while unweighed (3) change the edges, then

Sort of correct, except for the "while unweighted" part.

Why not? A weighed edge cannot be de-edged.


(4) set the edges and traverse, and in that sequence/order, and the

Incorrect. There is no traverse.

To my understanding, the portion from where you set the edges to go
different direction from the previous one to the next pole-plant is
called "traverse" in a turn.


skis turn quite nicely, but the sequence of turning is quite
cumbersome. However, now with no poles, first, the pole-plant is no
longer needed; second, unweighting is no longer restricted on "up"
only, but sideways and downward as well; and third, down-unweighting

It isn't restricted to "up" with poles.

Yes, it is; you cannot go downward with pole-plant.


flows with gravity, and flat board/ski gives better support to glide,
edging become optional; and fourth, the full traverse is slow and
cumbersome (to traverse at 60deg off the fall-line, the skier needs to
turn 120deg, while the following method turns less than 90deg), so the
turn begins with the coming stance ski points straight down the fall-
line, and weight on it and turn [off the fall-line], so the skis slow
down. Flatboarding turns from fall-line to fall-line.

However much the skis turn from the fall line is however much they turn,
conventional or "flatboarding". But there's still no traverse in a
conventional turn.

See above answer on traverse.


If flatboarding turns from "fall-line to fall-line", then you'd just be
going straight.

You forgot the "turn out of fall-line" part.


Good luck with that.

No luck is needed, it has already been done.


IS

On May 18, 3:05 pm, lal_truckee wrote:
taichiskiing wrote:
First, let's do it
with poles. With poles, a parallel turn begin with (1) pole-plant,
then (2) up-unweighting, while unweighed (3) change the edges, then
(4) set the edges and traverse, and in that sequence/order, and the
skis turn quite nicely, but the sequence of turning is quite
cumbersome.

I don't know where you get your information, but you ought to whap him
upside the head for having you on.

Well, that's how I've skied for years before I out grew the use of
poles.


Here's what you do if you happen to be fond of 200cm old school skis:
you roll your ankles into the turn, weight the edges and let the skis
make the turn then repeat on the other side as desired. You never
"steer" skis - the ski steers itself based on its construction. Works
like a charm.

Without pole-plants? That pretty much like I ski without poles, except
I move the hips/CM into the turn first, and I don't set edges.

In the kind of conditions that show on your videos you
almost never have need for unweighting - save that for bicycle turns or
wiper turns, or even just for the hell of it - it's a sport after all.

I do spins and inside ski turns for the hell of it,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCA00bN3kdw


You can use or not use your poles for timing, since here we are talking
about pretty easy terrain as shown in your videos. Poles become
important in more difficult conditions.

You mean walking on the flats?


BTW, pretty much you are taking commonplace efficient technique and
claiming to have invented it at the same time you are disparaging all
other skiing by trying to paint it with technique from out of the 40s
and 50s when hordes of Austrian ski instructors where trying to teach
skiing to hordes of new beginner skiers all on pre-war surplus equipment.

Those 40s and 50s technique related to flatboarding must be now the
"lost arts of skiing," haven't heard any body talk about it over the
'net. And my skiing is coming from my martial art background, given
the partition nature of the English language, I might have to invent
the whole skiing. Nevertheless, given the Austrian's skiing culture,
the only thing we have in common in skiing is probably we slide on
gravity.


Skiing without poles has always been a teaching tool, same as skiing
with boots unbuckled. Doesn't mean poles are discarded r boots never
buckled; there are innumerable situations with poles are necessary even
if your never have to self-arrest (a situation where poles are mandatory
for survival.)

Self-arrest on ordinary ski poles? I'd like to see that. Methinks it's
better off use the heels of the ski boots.

And no need to practice it either; with advent of new short fat shaped
skis, poles are simply not needed for turning/skiing; it's time to ski/
develop a real no-poles skiing.


IS

In article .com,
taichiskiing wrote:

On May 18, 1:26 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article . com,
taichiskiing wrote:
On May 17, 12:31 pm, VtSkier wrote:
taichiskiing wrote:

(snip)
.....
Well, flatboarding does a little bit differently. First, let's do it
with poles. With poles, a parallel turn begin with (1) pole-plant,

Correct/

then (2) up-unweighting,

Incorrect.

Why?

Because you don't have to up-unweight. You can up-unweight,
down-unweight, or not unweight at all.



while unweighed (3) change the edges, then

Sort of correct, except for the "while unweighted" part.

Why not? A weighed edge cannot be de-edged.

Yes it can. You can't easily *pivot* a ski that is weight and on edge,
but you can change edges without any kind of unweighting.



(4) set the edges and traverse, and in that sequence/order, and the

Incorrect. There is no traverse.

To my understanding, the portion from where you set the edges to go
different direction from the previous one to the next pole-plant is
called "traverse" in a turn.

As in so many things, your understanding is incorrect.



skis turn quite nicely, but the sequence of turning is quite
cumbersome. However, now with no poles, first, the pole-plant is no
longer needed; second, unweighting is no longer restricted on "up"
only, but sideways and downward as well; and third, down-unweighting

It isn't restricted to "up" with poles.

Yes, it is; you cannot go downward with pole-plant.

Yes, you can.



flows with gravity, and flat board/ski gives better support to glide,
edging become optional; and fourth, the full traverse is slow and
cumbersome (to traverse at 60deg off the fall-line, the skier needs to
turn 120deg, while the following method turns less than 90deg), so the
turn begins with the coming stance ski points straight down the fall-
line, and weight on it and turn [off the fall-line], so the skis slow
down. Flatboarding turns from fall-line to fall-line.

However much the skis turn from the fall line is however much they turn,
conventional or "flatboarding". But there's still no traverse in a
conventional turn.

See above answer on traverse.


If flatboarding turns from "fall-line to fall-line", then you'd just be
going straight.

You forgot the "turn out of fall-line" part.


Good luck with that.

No luck is needed, it has already been done.

On easy enough terrain, anyway.



IS
--
"I always read what is posted, as I don't share your habits." -- "Upon
rereading your original post, I see that I have been mistaken in what I wrote.
I apologize for my mistaken accuastions and insults." -- Edwin

On May 18, 3:58 pm, "Bob F" wrote:
"taichiskiing" wrote in message
How can you carve without edging the ski? I just can't
comprehend what you are doing.

The "bow" of the skis and gravity will carve for you if you
can maintain the balance over the curved path; without you
to move the skis sideways, you'd have carved.

The first part of this seems to be describing a conventional
carved turn. I can't make sense of the second half.

Without you to move the skis sideways, [which causes skidding and
slipping,] the ski moves tail following tip inferenced by the only
turning force--balanced angular acceleration.


The skis don't bow unless the skis are edged and weighted. (on
a hard flat surface) How can this happen with "flat skis"?

The skis "bow" simply by you stand on them; see my reply to VtSkier in
the same regard.

'later,
IS


Bob

taichiskiing wrote:
On May 18, 3:58 pm, "Bob F" wrote:
"taichiskiing" wrote in message
How can you carve without edging the ski? I just can't
comprehend what you are doing.
The "bow" of the skis and gravity will carve for you if you
can maintain the balance over the curved path; without you
to move the skis sideways, you'd have carved.
The first part of this seems to be describing a conventional
carved turn. I can't make sense of the second half.

Without you to move the skis sideways, [which causes skidding and
slipping,] the ski moves tail following tip inferenced by the only
turning force--balanced angular acceleration.

Yes, and they must be turned up on edge for this to happen.

The skis don't bow unless the skis are edged and weighted. (on
a hard flat surface) How can this happen with "flat skis"?

The skis "bow" simply by you stand on them; see my reply to VtSkier in
the same regard.

I respectfully disagree with you. Standing on the skis will cause
them to try to attain the shape of the ground below your feet.
I say "try" because simply standing on a really stiff ski, you may
be being supported by tip and tail. If the ground (snow) is flat,
the skis will no more than flatten. if you stand between two bumps
they will surely "bow" but so what?

When skiing with the skis flat the skis will not "bow" or attain
reverse camber to induce a turn. You must be up on edge (and
moving) for the geometry of the skis to "bow" in response to
the fact that they are wider at the tip and tail and they
have weight being applied near the center.

On May 16, 10:03 pm, VtSkier wrote:
Evojeesus wrote:

What?? English is probably one of the simplest languages grammatically
in the world.

Yeah, but...
The vocabulary is a bitch. It's huge, it isn't spelled the way
it's pronounced,

It's huge because English is the language of science, that creates a
lot of specialized vocabulary. I guess the big changes that the
English language has gone through the ages bloats it's vocabulary.
Anyway, in common usage it's not more "wordy" than any other language,
AFAIK. Spelling can be problematic, that's true.

many words have multiple meanings and not to
mention idiomatic English that doesn't even make sense in standard
English.

Heyyy, wass happenin' bro?
Translation. Hello, how are you, I hope you are well since
the last time I saw you.

Open a dictionary of any natural language and you'll notice that words
have multiple meanings. Slang also exists everywhere. The grammar of
English is fantastically simple.