Skid, slip, and carved turn

Sven Golly wrote:
Sven Golly wrote in
:


Using the terms SKID and SLIP as distinct and different actions have no
meaning to the skier. You have contrived a highly artificial meaning for
them. No wonder you confuse people.


Let me clarify. SKID and SLIP in the context of turning the ski have no
different meaning to the skier. However, "sideslipping" is a distinct term
but doesn't apply to turning.

I agree with this poast.

Walt wrote:
Sven Golly wrote:

"yunlong"


No, don't think you can make line adjustment with carving; i.e. carving
only goes one direction--follows the turning track--if you make a line
adjustment to the other direction, you'll be slipping.


Then you aren't a good enough skier. Stop by for a lesson.


This is probably as good a proof as any that Mister flat-mouth doesn't
have the foggiest idea what carving is (well, other than those
embarrassing home videos he's posted, of course.)

Contrary to what he implies, a skier is most definitely *not* locked
into one radius for a carved turn. One can carve short radius turns,
long radius turns, or any radius in between. Or change radius mid turn.


Or, a skier can make minor direction changes, carving, by initiating
the carve and then releasing it, resuming a straight line of travel.

The easiest way to do this is called "toe steering". It's equivalent
to a wedge turn without "wedging" your skis. Simply apply pressure
to what will be the outside ski big toe edge. You will turn in the
opposite direction (or said another way, you will turn in the direction
the pressured big toe is pointing). Release the toe, you will stop
turning. The turn created this way will not skid (or slip).

yunlong wrote:
VtSkier wrote:

yunlong wrote:

Based on the quality of a turn, a downhill ski turn can be

classified

in three categories: carved turn, skidded turn, and slipped turn.

Based on the "quality" of a turn? Foot, help me out here.
Quality supposes "good", "bad", and other subjective
descriptions. I think we need to get back to the mechanics
of skiing.


Fast line, smooth transition, and clean, yes, these are some desired
"quality" of a turn.

True, but not what you were talking about in the original
(your) paragraph.


"A turn can be initiated by skidding, slipping (we are going
to have a discussion on the difference between these two,
but I think I know what you are talking about) or by rolling
the ankles and bending the ski into a 'carve'." Is this what
you want to say?


Not exactly, I was saying there are three kinds of turn in downhill
skiing, and each has its usage and shortfall.

Ok, but later on I argue that slipping, as you described
may not fit into the definition of a turn. And now I understand
why you used "quality".


A carved turn is made by the technique called "carving," where the

ski

is made traveling along the curvature of reverse chamber of the ski
without any slippage; i.e. the tail of the ski follows the tip of

the

ski along the curved path in a synchronized manner.

A carved turn is made by carving.


Exactly, I might have used "like carving a piece of wood" to describe
it, as if you have ever done wood-carving, you'd know what that means;
however, how many of you have ever done wood-carving?

No, you would describe/define "carving a piece of wood" as
cutting the wood in certain ways using a knife. That's defining
"carving a piece of wood". Notice that I DID NOT use the
word "carving" in the definition.

Yeah, right. I actually
think you can do better than this with the language. It is
considered a mistake to define a word with the same word or a
different form of the word.


You do get the meaning, don't you?

Yes, but you are not necessarily talking to me. Aren't
you talking to students or potential students? I'm asking
for clarity in your description.

But I'm not so sure. "where the ski is made TO TRAVEL along"
the path described by the curve of the ski, either the sidecut
radius or as reduced by bending. The tail of the ski follows
the tip of the ski along the curved path described above.
(forget "synchronized manner".)


What are you not so sure about?

I'm not so sure about your use of the language.

A skidded turn
happens when the tail of the ski moves downhill with a
slightly faster rate than the tip of the ski,

That's mechanics, OK.

which causes the ski over-turn.

wrong choice of words. "over-turn" can mean either to turn too
much or tip over. Neither meaning is what you wanted.


"Over-turn," as used to describe in skiing turn, would naturally mean
"turn too much," don't you think? As you used "tip over" what "tip" do
you mean? Wrangling the words.

"Over-turn" implies "too much". What you are looking for
is the sense that the tail is turning MORE THAN the tip.
I know, it might me mincing words here, but it's the sense
that you want to convey.

tip over, turn over, go upside-down, empty the bucket.
No, I'm not "wrangling words."

You may be thinking of "over-steer" and "under-steer" as
applied to driving a car, it doesn't work for skiing.


Yup, we know how your partitioned thinking works; however, skid and
slip are actually physics terms, and the phenomena scientific facts.

Uhm, where do skid and slip enter into into under-steer and
over-steer? And I agree that skid and slip are physics terms.
They are also aerodynamics terms to define somewhat different
phenomena. But in the case you yourself have defined, skidding
and slipping are the same except for the part of the ski which
does it. In your definition, skidding is when the tail is
moving outward faster than the tip of a ski. A slip is where
the tip of a ski is moving outward slower than the tail.

The skid can be the entire turn until you set your edges
to stop turning (or initiate a skid in the opposite direction).
Or it can be the beginning of a carved arc where the skid gets
you turning in the direction you want to go, you set your edges
and apply pressure to the outside ski and carve an arc. Very
effective in the days when skis didn't have much sidecut.


Not sure what you're getting at; wherever you have your ski tail moved
faster than you ski tip during a turn, you are skidding.

I'm saying that a turn can be skidded all the way around or a
carved turn can be initiated by a skid.

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.

I'm not sure about this. If the slip reduces the amount the
ski is turning, isn't it an "ANTI-TURN"?


Yes, as it is an "ANTI-TURN," the "line" would be straighter, thus
faster.

Then it's not a turn, why call it one? It's a "correction".

I can think of one way to make a "turn" by moving the tips.
It's called a step turn. While moving downhill, weight one
ski sufficiently so that you can pick up the other ski, tip
and all. Point the tip of the raised ski in the new direction,
put it down, weight it enough to pick up the other ski and
bring it parallel to the one moving in the new direction.
Step turn. Common in cross country skiing. May be the only
thing which will work at very low speed. Note no "slipping".

I can't imagine a
situation where allowing the tip to slip out is desirable
EXCEPT in "falling leaf" which is a survival, extreme braking
move when you are deep do do.


When you wash-out on skidding, only way to recover is to slip the tip
downhill. And when you slip the tip, the line would be straighter, so
you gain a better "downward"/"forward" speed.

Slipping the tip downhill IS washing out. The reason
it happens is because you are in the back seat.

If you perceive that you are turning or have turned too
much in a skidded turn, the correction is not to allow
the tips to wash out (because this will put you in the
back seat) but to set your edges to stop turning. This
edge set makes a perfect "platform" to initiate a turn
in the opposite direction.

What makes the carved turn so special is that, while both skidding

and

slipping rob the speed/energy of the ski, carving maintains its

turning

ability without losing its speed.

True, the carved turn itself does not cause braking. It will
help to control your speed by causing you to take a longer
path down the mountain which, by definition is a less steep
path down the mountain.


No, the carved turn slows itself down, or balances against gravity by
continuing turning uphill, yes, the longer path.

Say the same thing I did a different way. Doesn't
make either of us wrong.

The caveat is, nevertheless, that the
skier must continue to turn to carve, thus reduces the
skier's forward speed.

I'm not even going to try to translate this. You might
be saying that the longer path slows you down.


That's true, too, as the forward speed goes.

See?

Most of parallel turns are done with skidding turn, where
skidding serves dual purposes of breaking and turning.

True, especially on steeps.

Though flatboarding employs all three techniques to maintain
a proper/desired line,

Okay...


it generally utilizes flat board and slipping turn
for faster speed and straighter line downhill.

As above, I can't imagine a situation where slipping
the tips is a good thing. Further, for me to slip the
tips of my skis as described, I need to be in the back
seat. Is this what your are proposing?


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.

You can ONLY slip the tips from the back seat. If you are
in the back seat, you tips will slip (skid) because there
isn't sufficient weight on them to keep them from skidding.
If you are in a neutral to weight forward position, you
can skid your tails, easily. If you are back you can't.

Five-year-old Andrea asked, why she had to turn when she
only wanted to go there/straight?

Is it time for something a little steeper? But with a
bunny berm at the end.


That little girl, now 6, is actually a black diamond skier at the
Heavenly.

Kewl, now, how much did you bombard her with words?
Or, did you do what other instructors do with kids,
show her what works?

Interesting,
IS


My question to you is...
Why do you post these word pictures of skiing that may
or may not be accurate,


Skid, slip, and carved turn are physics terms and scientific facts;
only thing inaccurate here is your knowledge about it.

Yeah, right.

including inaccuracies in the
understanding of the language?


Spare me your comment on language, your half-baked understanding does
not impress me.

I can see that we agree to disagree. Since you seem unable
to use the language and its word meanings in a consistent
and agreed upon way, don't talk to me about "half-baked
understanding".

This is a newsgroup made
up of skiers who mostly have a decent understanding of
the mechanics and who don't need instruction at this
very elementary level.


Maybe you should go back to the basic so you may actually learn
something new?

I learn something new every day. In skiing and life.

How do you slip the tip again?

By moving my weight back, of course.

Are you trying out explanations for your teaching on us?


I am talking about how I ski, what, feel that you are been taught?

Actually I know how to ski, the impression I got was that you were
trying out your method of explanation on us.

If so, you might enlighten us


Yes, I have provided you information on these scientific facts,

You have not provided a single insight into scientific
fact. You have provided explanations that might be
useful in talking about these scientific facts to
beginners, but I really doubt it.

and ask for our input


you have no input but babbling.

Sheesh.

rather that insult us when we say you are not making
sense.


As I said, you can only be insulted by your own incompetence.


It is a sure thing that the folks who post here are not
going to adopt your method as an end-all be-all skiing
technique for ourselves.


It's your skiing, not something I care.

Then why are you trying to convince me? And the other
good skiers who read and post here?

Many of us could do perfectly
what you have shown us in your videos.


Yeah right.

Actually, you have seen nothing yet.


But why would we want to?


To enjoy the thrill of the ultimate "free" skiing?

Y'know what? I skied today. I did my "job" that I do
on a volunteer basis for the area where I "work". I
ski pretty well, I love the thrill and the freedom
that skiing gives me. I ski pretty well for an old
duffer and I can ski the legs off many people half my
age. Your method may well be of value to skiers just
beginning to get the hang of it. I've been skiing
for many more years than you've been on this earth
and while I haven't "seen it all" I've seen most of it.

Foot, OTOH, is suggesting words and methods for teaching
and is trying to convince us to teach without ego (if
indeed any of us are teachers). One of the things you
have shown us here (I said shown, not proven that you
own) is a huge ego. You have also shown us that at best
you have a barely adequate grasp of the mechanics.


That's what you said, or maybe you just don't know enough?

See above.

This last may well be a failure in language, not actual
knowledge. But the ego is still there.


Ego isn't a problem, we all have one; it is egotism that is the
problem.

Now you are mincing words. You clearly know what I'm saying.

"My way is the
only right way and you are an idiot if you don't agree."


That's your egotism talking.

Is it really?

This is what you sound like.


Egotism is one who boasts beyond one's own ability/knowledge to make
oneself [self-]important.

That's what you sound like.


IS


VtSkier

Bob Lee wrote:

VtSkier wrote:

[...]

My question to you is...
Why do you post these word pictures of skiing that may
or may not be accurate, including inaccuracies in the
understanding of the language? This is a newsgroup made
up of skiers who mostly have a decent understanding of
the mechanics and who don't need instruction at this
very elementary level.

Are you trying out explanations for your teaching on us?

If so, you might enlighten us and ask for our input
rather that insult us when we say you are not making
sense.

It is a sure thing that the folks who post here are not
going to adopt your method as an end-all be-all skiing
technique for ourselves. Many of us could do perfectly
what you have shown us in your videos. But why would
we want to?

[...] One of the things you
have shown us here (I said shown, not proven that you
own) is a huge ego. You have also shown us that at best
you have a barely adequate grasp of the mechanics. This
last may well be a failure in language, not actual
knowledge. But the ego is still there. "My way is the
only right way and you are an idiot if you don't agree."
This is what you sound like.


I agree with this post.

Bob

Ditto

RAC

Sven Golly wrote:
"yunlong" wrote in
oups.com:

No. However, my inclusion of sidecut as a major factor is
more complete and accurate.

Maybe, or you just draw a snake with legs? (unnecessary and
clumsy.)

No, it's not unnecessary. Sidecut is vital to how a ski turns.

What happens to the skis without sidecut, do they still carve?

Of course. But not anywhere near as easily as skis with sidecut.

As long as a ski without sidecut carves, your inclusion of sidecut is
like a leg on a snake, unnecessary and clumsy.



2. Slipping / skidding / sliding / whatever - they're
all the same.
NO ONE in the entire world makes any distinction except
apparently you.

"The entire world" maybe an exaggeration, nevertheless,
to skid the tail to brake and to slip the tip to go do
have a definite distinction and different function.

No they don't.

Yes, they do.

Using the terms SKID and SLIP as distinct and different
actions have no meaning to the skier.

You want to be an ignorant is your business; nevertheless, to skid the
tail to brake the speed and to slip the tip to speed up are functional
skiing techniques.

You have contrived a highly artificial meaning for them.

Thanks for the compliment, no, SKID and SLIP has existed since Newton
time, may be even older than that.

No wonder you confuse people.

Some people just like to confuse themselves.


If the English speakers don't distinguish the difference between
slipping and skidding, why do they create two different words?

Hmm. Because they can?

No, just your ignorance, "skid" and "slip" are physics terms and
scientific facts.

Are you telling me Chinese has absolutely NO words
that mean the same thing? I find that hard to believe. Regardless,
these
two CAN have slightly different meanings but only IN context. In this

case, they do not. Certainly if you tell a beginner or intermediate
to
SLIP your skis don't SKID them, they won't have a clue mechanically
what
the f*** you are talking about.

They don't know because they've never learned it?


That's to say you know little and talk big.

Heh. You're the one redefining English for the rest of us.

Maybe you don't know English well enough? The meaning of the words I
used can be found either in a dictionary or a physics textbook.




The "over turn" here is to describe the ski turns/changing
direction more than the carved/standard turn.

Then pick some better words.

What do you suggest?

It used to be called "steering".

Nevertheless, VtSkier said, "it doesn't work for skiing," and a carved
turn doesn't steer.


Unlike slipping, if you skid, you are turning/changing direction.

Wrong again. You can skid and simply go sideways.

The track of the skis would have already turned. What do you mean by
"turning" in skiing again?


No, don't think you can make line adjustment with carving; i.e.
carving
only goes one direction--follows the turning track--if you make a
line
adjustment to the other direction, you'll be slipping.

Then you aren't a good enough skier.

Or just you, are ignorant of physical facts. Learn some basic physics.

Stop by for a lesson.

No, thanks, I don't turn up and down like a yo-yo just because it is
carved turn; maybe you should learn that there are more skiing than
just carved turn.




I sure hope no beginners or intermediates are paying
attention to you.

They are.

Damn.

Can't stand others making progress?

No, that they are listening to you. Progress must come in
spite of what you teach.

That's good enough.


IS


--
Sven Golly
Trolling as usual
Remove "_" to reply

Walt wrote:
Sven Golly wrote:
"yunlong"

No, don't think you can make line adjustment with carving; i.e.
carving
only goes one direction--follows the turning track--if you make a
line
adjustment to the other direction, you'll be slipping.

Then you aren't a good enough skier. Stop by for a lesson.

This is probably as good a proof as any that Mister flat-mouth
doesn't have the foggiest idea what carving is

Or just you a loud-mouth babbling.

(well, other
than those embarrassing home videos he's posted, of course.)

Sorry that you don't have talents to discern the video clips.


Contrary to what he implies, a skier is most definitely *not*
locked into one radius for a carved turn. One can carve short
radius turns, long radius turns, or any radius in between. Or
change radius mid turn.

That's to say turning is a function of "reverse chamber," not carving;
in the "real" world, all carved turns skid, to some degree, and pure
carve doesn't exist. Or, on the other hand, if no skidding is carving,
flatboarding carves infinite radius turns.


IS

=20
--=20
//-Walt
//
// There is no V=F6lkl Conspiracy

Sven Golly wrote:
Bob Lee wrote in news:rlee-51E63E.21473611022005
@individual.net:

Look, **** and crap mean the same thing, right? And tits
and boobs and breasts and hooters. Mmmm, tits.

So solly to disaglee glasshoppah. **** is firm, brown fecal
matter. Crap is softer with a greenish hue.

Of course, tits, boobs, breast, hooters, melons and gazongas
are all the same.

In the realm of arrogance, verbiage reigns.


IS


--
Sven Golly
Trolling as usual
Remove "_" to reply

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

Based on the quality of a turn, a downhill ski turn can be
classified in three categories: carved turn, skidded turn,
and slipped turn.

Based on the "quality" of a turn? Foot, help me out here.
Quality supposes "good", "bad", and other subjective
descriptions. I think we need to get back to the mechanics
of skiing.

Fast line, smooth transition, and clean, yes, these are some
desired "quality" of a turn.

True, but not what you were talking about in the original
(your) paragraph.

So what do you think I was talking in the original (my) paragraph?


"A turn can be initiated by skidding, slipping (we are going
to have a discussion on the difference between these two,
but I think I know what you are talking about) or by rolling
the ankles and bending the ski into a 'carve'." Is this what
you want to say?

Not exactly, I was saying there are three kinds of turn in
downhill skiing, and each has its usage and shortfall.

Ok, but later on I argue that slipping, as you described
may not fit into the definition of a turn. And now I
understand why you used "quality".

A carved turn is made by the technique called "carving,"
where the ski is made traveling along the curvature of
reverse chamber of the ski without any slippage; i.e. the
tail of the ski follows the tip of the ski along the
curved path in a synchronized manner.

A carved turn is made by carving.

Exactly, I might have used "like carving a piece of wood" to
describe
it, as if you have ever done wood-carving, you'd know what that
means;
however, how many of you have ever done wood-carving?

No, you would describe/define "carving a piece of wood" as
cutting the wood in certain ways using a knife. That's
defining "carving a piece of wood". Notice that I DID NOT use
the word "carving" in the definition.

And it is no longer about skiing either.


Yeah, right. I actually
think you can do better than this with the language. It is
considered a mistake to define a word with the same word or
a different form of the word.

You do get the meaning, don't you?

Yes,

That's to say there's communication;

but you are not necessarily talking to me. Aren't
you talking to students or potential students? I'm asking
for clarity in your description.

"Get the meanings of the words, and forget about
words"--Chuang-Tzu--that's to say when the meaning of the words is
transmitted and received, the correct usage or the structure of
language is no longer important. Move on.


But I'm not so sure. "where the ski is made TO TRAVEL along"
the path described by the curve of the ski, either the
sidecut radius or as reduced by bending. The tail of the
ski follows the tip of the ski along the curved path
described above. (forget "synchronized manner".)

What are you not so sure about?

I'm not so sure about your use of the language.

I'm not here to talk about the use of English.


A skidded turn
happens when the tail of the ski moves downhill with a
slightly faster rate than the tip of the ski,

That's mechanics, OK.

which causes the ski over-turn.

wrong choice of words. "over-turn" can mean either to turn
too much or tip over. Neither meaning is what you wanted.

"Over-turn," as used to describe in skiing turn, would naturally
mean
"turn too much," don't you think? As you used "tip over" what "tip"
do
you mean? Wrangling the words.

"Over-turn" implies "too much".

Where did the meaning of "turn" go?

What you are looking for
is the sense that the tail is turning MORE THAN the tip.
I know, it might me mincing words here, but it's the sense
that you want to convey.

That was the sense I tried to covey,


tip over, turn over, go upside-down, empty the bucket.

it sure takes a long time for you to get the point.

No, I'm not "wrangling words."

Yes, you are "wrangling words."


You may be thinking of "over-steer" and "under-steer" as
applied to driving a car, it doesn't work for skiing.

Yup, we know how your partitioned thinking works; however, skid and
slip are actually physics terms, and the phenomena scientific
facts.

Uhm, where do skid and slip enter into into under-steer and
over-steer? And I agree that skid and slip are physics terms.
They are also aerodynamics terms to define somewhat different
phenomena.

Skid and slip are physics terms used to describe a circular motion, any
circular motion.

But in the case you yourself have defined, skidding
and slipping are the same except for the part of the ski which
does it.

Not true, not that skidding and slipping are not the same, and the
skidding and slipping I defined is consistent and works for any
circular motion.

In your definition, skidding is when the tail is
moving outward faster than the tip of a ski.

Correct.

A slip is where
the tip of a ski is moving outward slower than the tail.

Maybe you should read carefully.

No, a slip is where the tip of a ski is moving outward "faster" than
the tail.


The skid can be the entire turn until you set your edges
to stop turning (or initiate a skid in the opposite direction).
Or it can be the beginning of a carved arc where the skid gets
you turning in the direction you want to go, you set your edges
and apply pressure to the outside ski and carve an arc. Very
effective in the days when skis didn't have much sidecut.

Not sure what you're getting at; wherever you have your ski tail
moved
faster than you ski tip during a turn, you are skidding.

I'm saying that a turn can be skidded all the way around or a
carved turn can be initiated by a skid.
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.

I'm not sure about this. If the slip reduces the amount the
ski is turning, isn't it an "ANTI-TURN"?

Yes, as it is an "ANTI-TURN," the "line" would be
straighter, thus faster.

Then it's not a turn, why call it one? It's a "correction".

No, it is still a turn, as it continues to change direction and
generates a curved line.


I can think of one way to make a "turn" by moving the tips.
It's called a step turn. While moving downhill, weight one
ski sufficiently so that you can pick up the other ski, tip
and all. Point the tip of the raised ski in the new direction,
put it down, weight it enough to pick up the other ski and
bring it parallel to the one moving in the new direction.
Step turn. Common in cross country skiing. May be the only
thing which will work at very low speed. Note no "slipping".

When you "raised" the ski off the snow, the ski is no longer "working,"
yes, it is an inferior technique.


I can't imagine a
situation where allowing the tip to slip out is desirable
EXCEPT in "falling leaf" which is a survival, extreme
braking move when you are deep do do.

When you wash-out on skidding, only way to recover is to slip the
tip
downhill. And when you slip the tip, the line would be straighter,
so
you gain a better "downward"/"forward" speed.

Slipping the tip downhill IS washing out. The reason
it happens is because you are in the back seat.

Yup, you are confused slipping with skidding.


If you perceive that you are turning or have turned too
much in a skidded turn, the correction is not to allow
the tips to wash out (because this will put you in the
back seat) but to set your edges to stop turning.

No, when you skid too much, the tail wash out, and you fall backward.
As you fall backward, you are on the back seat, there's no recovery,
and that's why excess skidding is a bad practice/form.

This edge set makes a perfect "platform" to initiate a turn
in the opposite direction.

Slip the tip makes the turn quicker and more stable.


What makes the carved turn so special is that, while both skidding
and slipping rob the speed/energy of the ski, carving maintains
its turning ability without losing its speed.

True, the carved turn itself does not cause braking. It will
help to control your speed by causing you to take a longer
path down the mountain which, by definition is a less steep
path down the mountain.

No, the carved turn slows itself down, or balances against
gravity by continuing turning uphill, yes, the longer path.

Say the same thing I did a different way. Doesn't
make either of us wrong.

Longer the path, slower the forward speed.


The caveat is, nevertheless, that the
skier must continue to turn to carve, thus reduces the
skier's forward speed.

I'm not even going to try to translate this. You might
be saying that the longer path slows you down.

That's true, too, as the forward speed goes.

See?

Do you?


Most of parallel turns are done with skidding turn, where
skidding serves dual purposes of breaking and turning.

True, especially on steeps.

Though flatboarding employs all three techniques to
maintain a proper/desired line,

Okay...

it generally utilizes flat board and slipping turn
for faster speed and straighter line downhill.

As above, I can't imagine a situation where slipping
the tips is a good thing. Further, for me to slip the
tips of my skis as described, I need to be in the back
seat. Is this what your are proposing?

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.

You can ONLY slip the tips from the back seat. If you are
in the back seat, you tips will slip (skid) because there
isn't sufficient weight on them to keep them from skidding.

You are talking about skid, not slip.

If you are in a neutral to weight forward position, you
can skid your tails, easily. If you are back you can't.

I see what you are saying, I call it "wobble," which is caused by the
ski is not under [good] control, which may produce the skid or slip you
described.

However, skidding and slipping as I described are deliberately
controlled action that directs the ski to perform the function. For
which, to control/manipulate the ski, you need to put your weight on it
to make it effective.


Five-year-old Andrea asked, why she had to turn when she
only wanted to go there/straight?

Is it time for something a little steeper? But with a
bunny berm at the end.


That little girl, now 6, is actually a black diamond skier
at the Heavenly.

Kewl, now, how much did you bombard her with words?
Or, did you do what other instructors do with kids,
show her what works?

No, I didn't teach her, she skied with her parent.


Interesting,
IS


My question to you is...
Why do you post these word pictures of skiing that may
or may not be accurate,

Skid, slip, and carved turn are physics terms and scientific facts;
only thing inaccurate here is your knowledge about it.

Yeah, right.

including inaccuracies in the
understanding of the language?

Spare me your comment on language, your half-baked
understanding does not impress me.

I can see that we agree to disagree. Since you seem unable
to use the language and its word meanings in a consistent
and agreed upon way, don't talk to me about "half-baked
understanding".

So you are saying that because you don't agree with my way of using the
language that I'm unable to use the language? "half-baked
understanding" it is.


This is a newsgroup made
up of skiers who mostly have a decent understanding of
the mechanics and who don't need instruction at this
very elementary level.

Maybe you should go back to the basic so you may actually
learn something new?

I learn something new every day. In skiing and life.

How useful of that something new?


How do you slip the tip again?

By moving my weight back, of course.

That's called "wobbling."


Are you trying out explanations for your teaching on us?

I am talking about how I ski, what, feel that you are been taught?

Actually I know how to ski, the impression I got was that you
were trying out your method of explanation on us.

Not sure how do you get your impression, I'm pretty sure it's not
"method of explanation" but "explanation of method."


If so, you might enlighten us

Yes, I have provided you information on these scientific facts,

You have not provided a single insight into scientific
fact.

That's to say you are ignorant of scientific facts,

You have provided explanations that might be
useful in talking about these scientific facts to
beginners, but I really doubt it.

maybe you have yet begun to be a beginner?


and ask for our input

you have no input but babbling.

Sheesh.

Yes, you keep saying my way is for beginner as your ploy to putdown to
elevate yourself, and you don't even know how did I do it.


rather that insult us when we say you are not making
sense.

As I said, you can only be insulted by your own incompetence.

It is a sure thing that the folks who post here are not
going to adopt your method as an end-all be-all skiing
technique for ourselves.

It's your skiing, not something I care.

Then why are you trying to convince me?

Where do you get this idea? Self-important? No, I just describe how I
ski, and flatboarding is good skiing.

And the other
good skiers who read and post here?

So you think you and "the other good skiers" know everything there is
about skiing?


Many of us could do perfectly
what you have shown us in your videos.

Yeah right.

Actually, you have seen nothing yet.

But why would we want to?

To enjoy the thrill of the ultimate "free" skiing?

Y'know what? I skied today.

A Sierra-at-Tahoe checker scanned my pass couple weeks ago and
surprisingly found out I was there for 39 days for the season already,
but he didn't know I ski Heavenly most the time. I ski everyday,
almost.

I did my "job" that I do
on a volunteer basis for the area where I "work". I
ski pretty well, I love the thrill and the freedom
that skiing gives me. I ski pretty well for an old
duffer and I can ski the legs off many people half my
age.

Never did say that you cannot do that; nevertheless, flatboarding is
another story.

Your method may well be of value to skiers just
beginning to get the hang of it. I've been skiing
for many more years than you've been on this earth
and while I haven't "seen it all" I've seen most of it.

If you have skied for thirty years, you should know where I am; you
don't know/cannot see it only because your egotism.


Foot, OTOH, is suggesting words and methods for teaching
and is trying to convince us to teach without ego (if
indeed any of us are teachers). One of the things you
have shown us here (I said shown, not proven that you
own) is a huge ego. You have also shown us that at best
you have a barely adequate grasp of the mechanics.

That's what you said, or maybe you just don't know enough?

See above.

This last may well be a failure in language, not actual
knowledge. But the ego is still there.

Ego isn't a problem, we all have one; it is egotism that is
the problem.

Now you are mincing words.

No, just to make the meaning of the words more clearly.

You clearly know what I'm saying.

I know what you are trying to say, but don't think it is accurate.


"My way is the
only right way and you are an idiot if you don't agree."

That's your egotism talking.

Is it really?

Yes, you sounded like, "My way is the only right way and you are an
idiot if you don't agree."


IS


This is what you sound like.

Egotism is one who boasts beyond one's own ability/knowledge
to make oneself [self-]important.

That's what you sound like.


IS

VtSkier

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:YXoPd.26093$uc.8706@trnddc09...

This may come as a shock, but I don't care for your tribal squabbles. If
you like, I could create alt.scott.abraham.personal.problems. From that
soapbox you could rant and rave about criminals and pathological liars.

Walt recently recommended the Standard Advice - ignore, killfile, don't
respond. Of course, he was referring to ME, not Scott, but you get the
idea. If you are going to respond to Scott, you are already playing the
same game, so you shouldn't complain about the style of his postings. He
feels he "wins" something when you do that. Instead, consider him free
entertainment, sort of like James Harris on sci.math or Kevin Trudeau on
late-night cable infomercial channels.

A simple guide to reading SA - is he lying about you? Use the answer as a
guide to his comments about anyone (or anything) else.

Richard Henry wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
news:YXoPd.26093$uc.8706@trnddc09...

This may come as a shock, but I don't care for your tribal squabbles. If
you like, I could create alt.scott.abraham.personal.problems. From that
soapbox you could rant and rave about criminals and pathological liars.


Walt recently recommended the Standard Advice - ignore, killfile, don't
respond. Of course, he was referring to ME, not Scott, but you get the
idea. If you are going to respond to Scott, you are already playing the
same game, so you shouldn't complain about the style of his postings. He
feels he "wins" something when you do that. Instead, consider him free
entertainment, sort of like James Harris on sci.math or Kevin Trudeau on
late-night cable infomercial channels.

A simple guide to reading SA - is he lying about you? Use the answer as a
guide to his comments about anyone (or anything) else.




I understand. While I'm new to this group, I'm a seasoned usenet vet. In
all the groups, in all the towns, he has to be the biggest dick I've
ever encountered. I've seen flame wars in computer language groups, in a
woodworking group and all over football groups. In all that time, I've
never met anyone more annoying. In order to be entertaining, he'd need
to acquire at least some wit. Rather he's from the broken record school
of rebuttal. pathological liar! pathological liar! pathological liar!

"I grow old, I grow old, shall I wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled?"

Jeff