Benefits of thinking of turns as starting at the apex

[Chris V.]

You can explain that to a beginner, show them how it is done many times and still they try to actively turn the skis instead of get them on edge and let the sidecut turn them.

So, if you are so fortunate as to have a student who's never been on skis before, make sure to instill good movements from the very start, never practice anything that leads to "actively turning the skis." Bad habits can become ingrained in about five minutes if you're not careful. IMHO, it's best to get a student to the point of making excellent straight runs before even thinking about turning.

 

[JESinstr]

You’re going to have to explain that one.
Confucius didn’t ski!

Could have done a better job. When one turns the steering wheel of a car, the intent is to change direction and the design function of tires and suspension accomplishes the intended task. When a skier rotates the skis they may be intending to change direction but are actually defeating the design (carving) function of the ski in favor of a skidding (straight line) function.

 

[Tony Storaro]

So, if you are so fortunate as to have a student who's never been on skis before, make sure to instill good movements from the very start, never practice anything that leads to "actively turning the skis." Bad habits can become ingrained in about five minutes if you're not careful. IMHO, it's best to get a student to the point of making excellent straight runs before even thinking about turning.

Tell you the truth, I’d be fortunate if I never have to deal with beginners again but given my younger kid is 2 and some change, that’s highly unrealistic.

 

[David Chaus]

This is possibly the best title for a mystery novel I've ever read. Not to mention its general applicability in this forum. Nobel prize in title writing. Now I'll go back and actually read all these new posts

Spoken like a Foodie.

 

[Chris V.]

I'm wondering if we can have a discussion about differences in these two conceptualizations, the intents that accompany the two concepts, and the differing actions a skier takes as a result of each. And why we sometimes choose to use one concept rather than the other.

Sorry for what will be considerable overlap with what others have said.

Of course technically it makes no difference to the movements the skier should make. But I can imagine that introducing the concept of skiing apex to apex could beneficially alter the mindset of many skiers.

Alpine skiing is at the core about moving downhill. Yet many novices have a horror of the fall line. If one describes the goal, the end point of turning action, as getting to moving straight downhill, it could help overcome that. (Sure, we know there's actually no end point.) If that's too scary, back off to gentler terrain. The purpose of turning is to create the amount of offset needed to move from going downhill in one place to moving downhill in another place. No more offset than needed, no less. (Racers would agree.)

Many skiers, some well past the novice stage, approach turning as something you do to get from one traverse to another. But traversing isn't real skiing. A focus on getting to the traverse leads to hurrying the turn with pivoting moves. More insidiously, as a skier advances, it leads an interruption of downhill flow, between "turns." It's difficult to start a good turn from a traverse. What I see many developing skiers failing to embrace is the importance of allowing the COM to move continuously downhill, separated from the more across-the-slope path of the skis. If there's a static point in the turn cycle, the skier will have to start all over with moves to reestablish that downhill flow of the COM, and then it will take a turn or two to be able to get more dynamic.

So if it can be drilled into a skier's mind that getting sideways across the slope is not an end point, but merely one point along a sinuous path, perhaps it would help overcome these negative movement patterns.

 

[markojp]

You can explain that to a beginner, show them how it is done many times and still they try to actively turn the skis instead of get them on edge and let the sidecut turn them.

Show them how and where to stand in their feet with clear, palpable cues and resultant sensations, simplify the explanation, simply the task, and it's actually incredibly easy to get a better outcome.

 

[DebbieSue]

To start from a stop, many people will pole across the hill to start the top of the ‘C’. Advanced skiers point them down and go. Some actually pole aggressively straight down the fall line, even into moguls. (like Dan Egan)

Personally, if stopped standing across the fall line, to start again: I like people on side slippable snow, (odd term to prevent the “what about…powder…corn…”), to release in place and drift the tips into the fall line.

That would be me! Especially on unfamiliar terrain. Now I know, I must drift (or point) down and go . . . even into moguls. It is a frame shift similar to abandoning the "C" for the "S." Thinking about this will also help me "drop in" when there is a lip. Who says you can't learn anything from all these typing instructors?! Thanks @LiquidFeet and @James for your points ands counterpoints.

 

[Tony S]

Now I know, I must drift (or point) down and go . . . even into moguls. ... Thinking about this will also help me "drop in" when there is a lip.

Edit: I just need to make this observation: When you start following the instruction threads, you are truly lost. In the best possible way, of course.

 

[LiquidFeet]

So here's a way of thinking of this that no one has brought up.

When skiing down a steep narrow couloir (which admittedly I've never done), do you make edge-set to edge-set turns, focusing on getting good edge-sets within a very narrow corridor?

I'm not speaking from experience so I'm asking. If that's what you do, I expect you'd be thinking of turns as edge-set to edge-set, not apex-to-apex. In other words, the "target" for each turn won't be the next apex.

If I'm right about that, are there other situations where one might think about your turns in a similar fashion?

 

[cantunamunch]

are there other situations where one might think about your turns in a similar fashion?

Flat runouts, when you're trying to push for speed - the apex is where you stop pushing.

(Also easy to practice on inlines)

 

[LiquidFeet]

Flat runouts, when you're trying to push for speed - the apex is where you stop pushing.

(Also easy to practice on inlines)

Yes!

 

[Tony S]

When skiing down a steep narrow couloir (which admittedly I haven't done yet)

fixed it for you

 

[Tony S]

When skiing down a steep narrow couloir (which admittedly I've never done), do you make edge-set to edge-set turns, focusing on getting good edge-sets within a very narrow corridor?

My amateur answer: Physically, that may be what you are doing, if it's REALLY narrow. Mentally, no. Mentally you still need a "flow down the hill" mindset because otherwise you will not end up with the hands-front-and-center keep-ahead-of-your-skis movement pattern that is required to facilitate those edge-sets.

You used the term "edge-set." Observe that we use the phrase "that sets my teeth on edge" to mean something really annoying and unpleasant. I think if a skier comes to a couloir thinking about edge-sets s/he has already lost the mind game. I think I might even propose that this is one situation where thinking of turns as apex-to-apex might be MOST valuable, because it's here that you're MOST likely to rush through the apex in counter-productive ways.

As a New Englander you know that "full belly" fried clams are the only fried clams worth eating. Certainly if the couloir is not CRAZY narrow, you want to keep your turns "full belly." The last thing you want is to turn them into "Z"s. Reach waaay down the hill and let the deep-fat swoosh of a perfect brushed turn send you to heaven. The Headwater Chutes at Big Sky come to mind here, or lines like Gunsight at Alta.

 

[Rod9301]

My amateur answer: Physically, that may be what you are doing, if it's REALLY narrow. Mentally, no. Mentally you still need a "flow down the hill" mindset because otherwise you will not end up with the hands-front-and-center keep-ahead-of-your-skis movement pattern that is required to facilitate those edge-sets.

You used the term "edge-set." Observe that we use the phrase "that sets my teeth on edge" to mean something really annoying and unpleasant. I think if a skier comes to a couloir thinking about edge-sets s/he has already lost the mind game. I think I might even propose that this is one situation where thinking of turns as apex-to-apex might be MOST valuable, because it's here that you're MOST likely to rush through the apex in counter-productive ways.

As a New Englander you know that "full belly" fried clams are the only fried clams worth eating. Certainly if the couloir is not CRAZY narrow, you want to keep your turns "full belly." The last thing you want is to turn them into "Z"s. Reach waaay down the hill and let the deep-fat swoosh of a perfect brushed turn send you to heaven. The Headwater Chutes at Big Sky come to mind here, or lines like Gunsight at Alta.

This depends on how steep it is. Many times you want to minimize the time spent in the fall line, otherwise you pick up a lot of speed.
Some skiers can handle the speed in a steep narrow couloir, not me, and probably not many at all in this forum

 

[slow-line-fast]

So here's a way of thinking of this that no one has brought up.

When skiing down a steep narrow couloir (which admittedly I've never done), do you make edge-set to edge-set turns, focusing on getting good edge-sets within a very narrow corridor?

I'm not speaking from experience so I'm asking. If that's what you do, I expect you'd be thinking of turns as edge-set to edge-set, not apex-to-apex. In other words, the "target" for each turn won't be the next apex.

If I'm right about that, are there other situations where one might think about your turns in a similar fashion?

Yes. A constrast to much of the discussion above about spending time with skis in the fall line. Edge sets should be definitive, crisp, and brief, while the upper body points down and flows down the hill. Skis swing quickly through the fall line in the air (hop turns). Or if in the fall line, they will stay there, you are railing the whole couloir and have some plan for speed control below on the apron.

 

[Tony S]

This depends on how steep it is. Many times you want to minimize the time spent in the fall line, otherwise you pick up a lot of speed.
Some skiers can handle the speed in a steep narrow couloir, not me, and probably not many at all in this forum

Agree that lots of actual time in the fall line is bad here. Not advocating for speed on steeps. What I was trying to get at was the question of "What mentality leads to the actual result of being in control on steeps?" I am arguing that if you go into it with a "minimize time in the fall line" mentality, then the actual result may be the opposite of what you want, because it leads to unproductive defensive movements. An "edge-set" can be one of these movements if it's not part of a flow that moves seamlessly past the edge set to the next turn.

Let me put this a different way. Most steep lines with left and right constraints that we encounter in-resort here in NA are not actually THAT narrow. In fact they are no narrower than the corridor a proficient expert often skis on any steep run. So, it's a two-part game:
1) Make sure you can ski a very narrow corridor fluidly on steeps that are NOT constrained like a chute may be.
2) Do exactly the same thing in the chute. You can do this; don't let mind games mess you up.

 

[Seldomski]

You can actually get a lot of speed control in/near the fall line in moguls... if you are forward enough, the tip does a lot of braking for you. Can't really speak to the benefit of thinking of turns edge set to edge set. This is how I think about skiing now, but after my recent experiment on inline skates, I think this mentality has been a handicap.

 

[James]

When skiing down a steep narrow couloir (which admittedly I've never done), do you make edge-set to edge-set turns, focusing on getting good edge-sets within a very narrow corridor?

That’s right, in some of those situations you wan’t little to no energy left over for the next turn. Also as little time in the fall line as possible. More important not to fall than to flow.

You hardly want to ski it like a gs course. Though if it’s short enough with a runout, some straight line it.
From 3:30-
A bunch if very squished c’s welded together.
You can see both, because they get to a much more open, less steep spot. How about that kick turn?? Yikes.

 

[slow-line-fast]

Agree that lots of actual time in the fall line is bad here. Not advocating for speed on steeps. What I was trying to get at was the question of "What mentality leads to the actual result of being in control on steeps?" I am arguing that if you go into it with a "minimize time in the fall line" mentality, then the actual result may be the opposite of what you want, because it leads to unproductive defensive movements. An "edge-set" can be one of these movements if it's not part of a flow that moves seamlessly past the edge set to the next turn.

Let me put this a different way. Most steep lines with left and right constraints that we encounter in-resort here in NA are not actually THAT narrow. In fact they are no narrower than the corridor a proficient expert often skis on any steep run. So, it's a two-part game:
1) Make sure you can ski a very narrow corridor fluidly on steeps that are NOT constrained like a chute may be.
2) Do exactly the same thing in the chute. You can do this; don't let mind games mess you up.

Good only if narrow is not very narrow

 

[cantunamunch]

Yes!

That's as far as you want to take that?