new skis require a different skiing style?

Alan Baker wrote:

Except that the whole idea of modern skiing is that there is *no* "free
foot". Harb appears to be advocating edging with only the outside leg
and that's just not what the best in the world are doing.

The "best in the world" never weighted a single ski exclusively, even
before modern exaggerated-shaped skis. They always had weight on both
skis when racing - just look at old films in slo-mo.

But there still is a dominant foot (in Harb-talk - a stance foot) and an
inside "free" foot (maybe "freer" is the proper word?) Equal weighting
is a fun thing on corderoy or a hard GS turn, but not-so-fun in
not-so-nice real conditions like steep junk snow. Corderoy is a
artificial condition that promotes "artificial skiing" IMO.
Over-reliance on technique that works only on corderory restricts a
skier attempting to move his skiing up a notch into real, untamed snow
on real, untamed mountains.

As an aside, the so-called shoulder width stance doesn't show up in top
skiers on the circuit - pictures that seem to illustrated a wide stance
actually do nothing of the sort; print a good picture of a face-on racer
in a GS gate where his skis appear to be widely separated, draw a line
from the skier's CG down to his center of pressure, and notice how far
perpendicularly from that line each ski edge is - it's almost always
considerably less than shoulder width, unless the skier has screwed up
and is in recovery.

Walt wrote:

Personally, I think
shoulder width is too wide, but there are some very good skiers who
adopt a stance that wide.

Either you're hanging out with a whole bunch of ultra-wimps with
extremely narrow shoulders, or you have an odd idea of what a good skier
looks like - I don't think I've ever seen a "good skier" who habitually
skis with "shoulder width" skis (measured relatively to his combined
force vector.) On me that'd be about 20 inches apart, and I consider
myself a narrow-shouldered-mathematician - it'd be absolutely ridiculous
- get a tape and see how far apart that would really be. When I ski my
actively engaged edges seem to be about 10 inches or so apart. Of course
the physical distance from ski to ski increases in a turn, but not the
distance from ski to force vector.

Goldenset wrote:

I was informed that these carvers are best used when
feet are should width apart

Some (semi)final words (by someone else

"Legs Together? Feet Apart?"
http://www.breakthroughonskis.com/Pages/%20ski_instruction/intstruction22.html

and "My Dinner With Harald , a Converstion"
http://www.breakthroughonskis.com/Pages/%20ski_instruction/instruction05.html

Alan Baker wrote in
:

Except that the whole idea of modern skiing is that there is *no*
"free foot". Harb appears to be advocating edging with only the
outside leg and that's just not what the best in the world are doing.


Lito teaches the same thing. He refers to the inside ski as "just along for
the ride" in his latest book.
--
Chuck
Remove "_nospam" to reply by email

lal_truckee wrote:
Walt wrote:

Personally, I think
shoulder width is too wide, but there are some very good skiers who
adopt a stance that wide.

Either you're hanging out with a whole bunch of ultra-wimps with
extremely narrow shoulders, or you have an odd idea of what a good skier
looks like

Could be. I'm picturing those young guys in their spyder suits doing
the wide-stance two-footed carve thing.

When I say "very good skier" I mean someone who's obviously much better
than I am.

--
//-Walt
//
// http://tinyurl.com/3xqyq

"Chuck" wrote in message
...
Alan Baker wrote in
:

Except that the whole idea of modern skiing is that there is *no*
"free foot". Harb appears to be advocating edging with only the
outside leg and that's just not what the best in the world are doing.


Lito teaches the same thing. He refers to the inside ski as "just along
for
the ride" in his latest book.

Okay, yes, one does not always need to have the skis wide in order to ski
like an "expert". Different terrain will require that the width be
variable. But to say that the inside ski is "just along for the ride" is
not true. There are situations, racing being one of them, where anything
but a wider stance will not allow you to get the edge angle that you need to
hold the turn. When a ski racer is in a GS turn, I can see his/her ski
base, which implies a lot of lateral angulation. If the skis were too close
together in this situation (as in Hard distance), the outside ski would hit
the inside ski boot and off the snow it would come. Then, the inside ski
would be very far away from the center of mass and it too would wash out.
Down you go. Same is true for very steep hills. Ever see a skier on the
steeps with their boots together? I mean scary steep, not Vail back bowls
with loads of powder steep. These are expert skier situations. The expert
that Harb is talking about is the "expert advanced" skier. Look at his web
site with the little demo video (http://www.harbskisystems.com/olk1.htm) -
easy stuff, not expert terrain or a situation that would require expert
skills to ski the way he is skiing. Yawn... Still, if I were skiing there,
my skis would not be that close, but I'd be skiing faster too. ;-)
--
Marty

In article ,
Chuck wrote:

Alan Baker wrote in
:

Except that the whole idea of modern skiing is that there is *no*
"free foot". Harb appears to be advocating edging with only the
outside leg and that's just not what the best in the world are doing.


Lito teaches the same thing. He refers to the inside ski as "just along for
the ride" in his latest book.

I can hardly imagine anything more foolish.

On hardpack/groomed you can clearly get more edging and better stability
by using both legs, and the moment the snow gets soft you *must* weight
both in order to keep them responding to the conditions in something
like the same manner.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article ,
lal_truckee wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

Except that the whole idea of modern skiing is that there is *no* "free
foot". Harb appears to be advocating edging with only the outside leg
and that's just not what the best in the world are doing.

The "best in the world" never weighted a single ski exclusively, even
before modern exaggerated-shaped skis. They always had weight on both
skis when racing - just look at old films in slo-mo.

But there still is a dominant foot (in Harb-talk - a stance foot) and an
inside "free" foot (maybe "freer" is the proper word?) Equal weighting
is a fun thing on corderoy or a hard GS turn, but not-so-fun in
not-so-nice real conditions like steep junk snow. Corderoy is a
artificial condition that promotes "artificial skiing" IMO.
Over-reliance on technique that works only on corderory restricts a
skier attempting to move his skiing up a notch into real, untamed snow
on real, untamed mountains.

Nope. Equal weighting is far better in junk. Otherwise you have to keep
recovering the inside ski when it gets pulled of line by the clag (that,
or keep it out of the snow entirely g).

That having been said, you don't want your feet *as far* apart in the
heavy/deep stuff, because it increases the torque should (actually
*when*) the forces between the skis become unbalanced.


As an aside, the so-called shoulder width stance doesn't show up in top
skiers on the circuit - pictures that seem to illustrated a wide stance
actually do nothing of the sort; print a good picture of a face-on racer
in a GS gate where his skis appear to be widely separated, draw a line
from the skier's CG down to his center of pressure, and notice how far
perpendicularly from that line each ski edge is - it's almost always
considerably less than shoulder width, unless the skier has screwed up
and is in recovery.


I know what you're saying. But I think you're missing the physical
aspect in favour of the purely geometric.

Yes, as you angulate, the perpendicular distance between the skis from
the centre of the angulate line becomes less, but if the skis are to
track as you go from turn to turn, they must -- *must* -- stay the same
lateral distance apart *on the snow*. Otherwise, one or the other must
be moving laterally as the gap changes; IOW skidding.

So imagine the skier in the middle of one turn: his skis are perhaps 18"
- 24" apart on the snow. As he begins his transition to the next turn,
he starts to move over the top of his skis. Each ski, staying in its own
track, rolls from one edge, to flat, to the other edge, as he moves into
the angulated stance for the new turn.

This is *precisely* what you'll see if you watch a GS racer as he/she
transitions between the gates.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

So imagine the skier in the middle of one turn: his skis are perhaps 18"
- 24" apart on the snow. As he begins his transition to the next turn,
he starts to move over the top of his skis. Each ski, staying in its own
track, rolls from one edge, to flat, to the other edge, as he moves into
the angulated stance for the new turn.

This is *precisely* what you'll see if you watch a GS racer as he/she
transitions between the gates.

Yes indeed. I'm looking at a sequence shot of Von Gruenigen, Bode Miller,
and Eric Schlopy (the highest form of expert that you can attain) in an
Alpine Masters ski mag from October 2001. That is exactly what I see. The
only difference between Bode and Eric to Von G., is that Von G. uses an "up
un-weighting" technique instead of the "down un-weighting" technique that
Eric and Bode use. The un-weighting comes during the transtion of one turn
to the next. Ski width stays pretty much static all the time. Very cool
sequesnce of photos. Hip almost touching the ground angulation - Harb woud
be toast here, or he'd be lifting the inside ski off the ground to get these
angles. No, looking at Von G., I don't think Harb would be able to pull
these angles off at all - ever.
--
Marty

In article ,
"Marty" wrote:

So imagine the skier in the middle of one turn: his skis are perhaps 18"
- 24" apart on the snow. As he begins his transition to the next turn,
he starts to move over the top of his skis. Each ski, staying in its own
track, rolls from one edge, to flat, to the other edge, as he moves into
the angulated stance for the new turn.

This is *precisely* what you'll see if you watch a GS racer as he/she
transitions between the gates.

Yes indeed. I'm looking at a sequence shot of Von Gruenigen, Bode Miller,
and Eric Schlopy (the highest form of expert that you can attain) in an
Alpine Masters ski mag from October 2001. That is exactly what I see. The
only difference between Bode and Eric to Von G., is that Von G. uses an "up
un-weighting" technique instead of the "down un-weighting" technique that
Eric and Bode use. The un-weighting comes during the transtion of one turn
to the next. Ski width stays pretty much static all the time. Very cool
sequesnce of photos. Hip almost touching the ground angulation - Harb woud
be toast here, or he'd be lifting the inside ski off the ground to get these
angles. No, looking at Von G., I don't think Harb would be able to pull
these angles off at all - ever.
--
Marty



Actually, he almost certainly could.

The problem isn't someone like Harb. The problem is what beginners to
quite high level intermediates take away from the idea that you don't
need your skis somewhat apart.

They start off standing up! And if you start off standing up and then
begin to angulate, one of your skis must move laterally in order to
acheive the correct spacing on the snow. Now if you're an expert such as
Harb, you simply unweight the inside ski for a moment and put it back
down where it belongs (in fact the whole thing happens as a seamless
transition)

But!

If you're a beginner, who is likely to want to maintain stability be
keeping his/her weight on both skis, then you can't move the inside ski
away from the outside one very easily; the pressures of the turn and the
skis design make that difficult. So you do what is easy: you let the
outside ski (which is still the more important ski to keep tracking even
in modern technique) slide away laterally; adding skid to the turn at
its outset.

Contrast this with having a beginner start with his/skis somewhat apart:


With the skis separated laterally at the outset, there's no need to
adjust their position on the snow relative to each other as you start to
angulate. You just roll onto *both* edges and keep each ski tracking
properly. Stability is enhanced, edging is enhanced, skidding is reduced.

IMNSHO, of course. g

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."