The Canadian approach, "Tuck it all the way!"
Admittedly more effective in DH than SL.
Admittedly more effective in DH than SL.-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
Extend vs Flex (taken from video thread)
- Thread starter Skitechniek
- Start date
Overall, as usually a lot of talking past each other, which is not unexpected... for me it's interesting this is still a disputed subject, in this day and age? Can articulate what the "dispute" actually is, if any? Usually, it's some that react to a specific sequence of words like "flex to release" and not so much to others like "compact transition"... although when a long leg becomes short, it's scientifically called "flexion" and when the leg from long at apex becomes short in transition, some call that "flex to release" and yes, there can be many sub-variations, some interesting (@jimtransition showed a quick juicing followed by flex) and some not so much...
My 2c
+1 that's exactly it.
On flats, many racers will skate and push if too slow and can make speed. The problem is that it tends to disconnect you from the snow and you likely end up pivoting into the next turn, so if they can help it, they won't do it in the first place...
Those that try to show racers extend, generally end up using Odermatt or Brignone and not the other hundred... That should tell them and us something... Maybe this Reilly guy does understand biomechanics... (hint: I'm sure he does). And technique. He has some uncommonly good tech insight in other MAs.
Nah, that dude is flexing 100% - that's what I see, mate.
Yup.
The point is do you own it? Do you really own it? Or do you have some big gaps in technique?
My 2c
+1 that's exactly it.
On flats, many racers will skate and push if too slow and can make speed. The problem is that it tends to disconnect you from the snow and you likely end up pivoting into the next turn, so if they can help it, they won't do it in the first place...
Those that try to show racers extend, generally end up using Odermatt or Brignone and not the other hundred... That should tell them and us something... Maybe this Reilly guy does understand biomechanics... (hint: I'm sure he does). And technique. He has some uncommonly good tech insight in other MAs.
Nah, that dude is flexing 100% - that's what I see, mate.
Yup.
The point is do you own it? Do you really own it? Or do you have some big gaps in technique?
Last edited:
Nah, only 92.7% of the time. There were 1.567 turns when he didn't set up for the tiny change in fall line. However, he was wearing a puffy.
Last edited:
So, what does it matter? What does it mean? For me personally, it means that if I still have high edge angles at the end of the turn my com will still be inside fairly far and the only way to release is a push. The push isn't to change the direction of my ski so much as changing the direction / path of my com. Some turns demand this sort of intent (which can involve current imbalances in preperation of future balancing, terrain changes, etc - think steep bumps). On a slope like Gross was skiing, with that ski / setup / training and intent, why would you push? (Edit: to me those last few turns in the flats he tried to bend the ski to get some action, but the turns up top were more about allowing the ski to work)
The goal was to ski clean arcs. The slope was not very steep, nor icy, nor soft. Let the skis work and balance on them largely by getting out of their way with anticipation. Ski the ski.
The goal was to ski clean arcs. The slope was not very steep, nor icy, nor soft. Let the skis work and balance on them largely by getting out of their way with anticipation. Ski the ski.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2018
- Posts
- 62
You are joking about 2 seconds not being a big deal in racing and also about tucking the same line not being significantly faster than not tucking,at the speed where the kv2 matters?
In case that was serious, then definitely we know it's a joke when you say Reilly knows less about racing then you do...
Although, I guess in case that was all non-jokingly serious and we believe it in all its non-jokicity, then we now know with absolute certainty all those racers that try to tuck are jokers... like all of them. Hmm
P.s. yeah, good non-joker racers will likely be faster not tucking than any jokers tucking... but that doesn't mean any jokers not tucking will be faster than good racers tucking. I think I sprained some brain cells, with so much tucking and joking...
Here's a quick experiment of interchangeability: extend off the next roller, the one you used to flex over...
... Words have a way of meaning werid things right after you write them... I don't think you meant exactly what those words can be construed to have said...
You are correct - neither did I say what you misquoted me as having said, nor were they meant to be construed that way. Not sure where you got all that stuff about tucking from, are you sure you were reading my posts?
In simple terms:
NEVER, did I claim that tucking made no effect or wasn't generally faster. NEVER, did I claim the 2 seconds was not a big deal in racing. NEVER did I claim to be more knowledgeable than Reilly. I invite you to re-read my previous posts to determine the validity of these statements.
I will do you a favor and summarize my posts, and my opinion/point.
- The discussion was about whether you'd realize significant time savings when extending for a fraction of a second between turns, vice remaining compact.
We were talking through a basic thought experiment, by no means a rigorous, peer reviewed study. Just internet conjecture from people who ski, and are interested in figuring more out about it, and all things alpine skiing.
Thusly, to frame the discussion regarding the impact of aerodynamics on a race run (specifically in reference to Odermatt's winning run) I used the typical (anecdotal) difference between wearing a speed suit vs not wearing a speed suit. (You can typically save 2-3 seconds on a 1 minute GS Run when wearing a speed suit, which was generally agreed upon). That amounts to a 5% savings in time. Of course, in normal racing, and certainly world cup racing, when races are won by hundreds of seconds, a couple seconds is absolutely significant, dominant, (insert hyperbolic term here).
EXTENSION VS FLEXION (Understand that we were talking about it in the context of compressed vs extended transitions in a race course - further understand that we were not discussing the merits of tucking a line vs not tucking a line - just compressed vs extended transitions. That's it
) - now you are wearing a speed suit, so you are in the realm of already having saved that 2-3 seconds. You are choosing the extend more than remain compact during transitions, the difference now is that you are less compact for fractions of seconds over the course of say a 60-70 gate world cup giant slalom. Likely the impact on the over all race time is likely less than 5%, considering our extreme example of comparing the effect of aerodynamics on time is wearing a race suit vs typical jacket is 5% (There are likely better ways to determine compressed vs extended skiing positions extreme savings, ie testing a tuck down the hill vs standing up and determining the total time savings, so who knows, maybe that extreme savings is more like 10%, but this thought experiment is low on funding 
). So why would you do this? (Our topic of discussion) The supposition/hypothesis - The trade off to get a better line - if your compromised aerodynamics would only reduce your time by 2-3%, but the faster line saves you 4%+, clearly the net time savings sacrificing some aerodynamics for that better line is in your favor to extend to make those big moves, or progressive moves to run that faster line.
That's the jist of the discussion right there. Not sure where you get the 'tucking isn't faster, 2-3 seconds isn't a big deal' stuff. Not sure why you want me to extend over a roller, or what you think that will prove etc? You think I think that generally being compressed isn't a good/faster way to be?
Reilly - Bottom line up front: My opinion of Reilly's race analysis is that it isn't the best (as I said previously). (Not his forte etc, hence why I wonder if he truly understands racing or if he ever raced etc. Perhaps I'm not his intended audience, but I just don't find his analysis of transitions or why you'd do one over the other completely ringing true
. I've found his other race analysis videos also not the best resource for breaking down racing technique). I'm not saying I know more, or less, I just find his analysis seems to miss in areas which I've learned from coach courses, coaching, my own racing experience, other more experienced racers/coaches' opinions etc that we'd be focusing on - enter this whole discussion over compressed/extended transitions, and this stuff about 'newschool' vs 'oldschool' technique.I'm just a guy who has skied/ski raced his whole life and got back into coaching a few years ago and is actively trying to increase my understanding of the sport so I can ski better, and coach better, and maybe help contribute to other people's learning as well.
I also don't take what youtube stars and self-professed experts say at face value. (I think it's called critical thinking
. I also enjoy talking through different concepts on internet forums, kinda the point of these places don't you think? But hey friend, if you know it all, then good for you! Hopefully one day I too can share that omniscience
??.Think about your situation and what will happen if you lift the old downhill ski.
Ok, here's me with fairly pathetic angles lecturing some-one who probably puts carving snow boarders to shame....
But why wouldn't you "Use The Centrifugal Force, Luke" to get you out of the turn?
@SlapChop yeah - you don't really try to trade-off, right? You won't ski a different slower line because the suit saves you x seconds already - you try to be fast at everything and add up the savings into a win.
The way I think about tucking is how @4ster thinks: you don't sacrifice a turn for a tuck. That's it. Otherwise, we tuck as much as we can... it's faster.
Anyways - the tuck was a distraction. The reason the "compact transition" is used a lot everywhere it's because it works. Agree, not really because it's more aerodynamic, although that's theoretically correct - and that wasn't Reilly's main reason either - it was biomechanics, which is the right angle to look at it, but few I think would understand the reasoning behind that.
Going beyond the simple physics that @geepers was getting at or of the energy expenditure and time waste involved in hopping up and down for no reason, one biomechanical aspect for instance is rolling the ankles - hopefully you race coaches still teach that: try to roll your ankles fully extended and then say fully flexed. Which was more conducive to allowing the boot to tip quicker? Now ramp that up to the fabled 0.8sec SL turn and you'd know why it's more interesting to be at max angles early than to hop up and then twiddle one's thumbs while "falling with gravity" to establish inclination, hopefully in time to meet the gate head-on... just scour the web and try to produce "evidence" of good SL skiers going down the course with extension.
In GS, of course you *can* get away with some of that, although here's the first 4 turns of a random race of Odermatt's, with the presumed "non-flexion" and I don't see an extension, I see an almost deep flexion at skis flat, although I would agree he skis taller on average - thereby prompting Reilly's MA:
Similar with Brignone - posted that many times, too lazy to go looking for it. And skiers pumping the flats - that's a different thing, specific flats thing - which if you didn't screw up the pitch, is also not normally needed - a good glide on the right line is preferable. Yes, tucked.
Like I said, imho, some simply take exception to the phrase "flex to release" and try the darndest of explanations of why that could be wrong... but, although style etc are big points of agreeable disagreement over beers, physics and biomechanics is not really arguable. Biomechanics simply is - some understand it well and some don't. The relationship of biomechanics to tactics can be argued to some extent, sure, i.e. when x is more or less efficient, whatever.
Of course, yet others are of the "sour grapes" variety and pooh-pooh on what they can't do - human nature I guess.
When's the last time a pro told you to ski in a wide hip-width stance and proceeded to ski away in the narrowest stance you've ever seen?
Take top racers, for example. You'd think they understand skiing the best. If they did, Ted and Bode would have created gazillions of little Teds and Bodes skiing at their level and would have written or co-authored tens of books on detailed biomechanics and technique, etc. Not happening, really. Why? Imho, they don't really understand what their bodies figured out. Yes, we all understand the basics, but they got good in spite of their coaching, not because of it (some of their less-known coaches I specifically exclude from this inferred deduction). Again, if the coaching made them great, we'd have a lot more like them on the WC - there's plenty of athletes around, to pick from. The Austrians seemingly have a factory somewhere, hidden in plain sight.
No doubt, they have plenty of awesome secret tactics insight and some understanding of technique and they must have had great coaches at some points, but detailed knowledge of biomechanics? Likely not - because it's not really taught around here.
On the contrary, a lot of these threads (on and off forums) are case studies in people’s understanding of skiing being limited by their skiing... but going to your point - you're right to not take everything you hear from a good skier at face value, without doing your own critical thinking. Just make sure that your parameters for analysis have a good, detailed biomechanical foundation... and you're not just comparing what you hear now with what you heard when you were coached. With the same critical thinking, do realize that it is possible that you, like many others, were just told some things by some coaches who repeated what they were told when they were coached but without an actual deep understanding or technical foundation to rely on. I know I was, times N and, like you said, applied my own critical thinking, did my research, reading, etc, expanded my horizons until I ended up understanding a lot more than if I drank from that one and single diluted fountain specifically tailored for the average "coach"...
The way I think about tucking is how @4ster thinks: you don't sacrifice a turn for a tuck. That's it. Otherwise, we tuck as much as we can... it's faster.
Anyways - the tuck was a distraction. The reason the "compact transition" is used a lot everywhere it's because it works. Agree, not really because it's more aerodynamic, although that's theoretically correct - and that wasn't Reilly's main reason either - it was biomechanics, which is the right angle to look at it, but few I think would understand the reasoning behind that.
Going beyond the simple physics that @geepers was getting at or of the energy expenditure and time waste involved in hopping up and down for no reason, one biomechanical aspect for instance is rolling the ankles - hopefully you race coaches still teach that: try to roll your ankles fully extended and then say fully flexed. Which was more conducive to allowing the boot to tip quicker? Now ramp that up to the fabled 0.8sec SL turn and you'd know why it's more interesting to be at max angles early than to hop up and then twiddle one's thumbs while "falling with gravity" to establish inclination, hopefully in time to meet the gate head-on... just scour the web and try to produce "evidence" of good SL skiers going down the course with extension.
In GS, of course you *can* get away with some of that, although here's the first 4 turns of a random race of Odermatt's, with the presumed "non-flexion" and I don't see an extension, I see an almost deep flexion at skis flat, although I would agree he skis taller on average - thereby prompting Reilly's MA:
Similar with Brignone - posted that many times, too lazy to go looking for it. And skiers pumping the flats - that's a different thing, specific flats thing - which if you didn't screw up the pitch, is also not normally needed - a good glide on the right line is preferable. Yes, tucked.
Like I said, imho, some simply take exception to the phrase "flex to release" and try the darndest of explanations of why that could be wrong... but, although style etc are big points of agreeable disagreement over beers, physics and biomechanics is not really arguable. Biomechanics simply is - some understand it well and some don't. The relationship of biomechanics to tactics can be argued to some extent, sure, i.e. when x is more or less efficient, whatever.
Of course, yet others are of the "sour grapes" variety and pooh-pooh on what they can't do - human nature I guess.
When's the last time a pro told you to ski in a wide hip-width stance and proceeded to ski away in the narrowest stance you've ever seen?
Take top racers, for example. You'd think they understand skiing the best. If they did, Ted and Bode would have created gazillions of little Teds and Bodes skiing at their level and would have written or co-authored tens of books on detailed biomechanics and technique, etc. Not happening, really. Why? Imho, they don't really understand what their bodies figured out. Yes, we all understand the basics, but they got good in spite of their coaching, not because of it (some of their less-known coaches I specifically exclude from this inferred deduction). Again, if the coaching made them great, we'd have a lot more like them on the WC - there's plenty of athletes around, to pick from. The Austrians seemingly have a factory somewhere, hidden in plain sight.
No doubt, they have plenty of awesome secret tactics insight and some understanding of technique and they must have had great coaches at some points, but detailed knowledge of biomechanics? Likely not - because it's not really taught around here.
On the contrary, a lot of these threads (on and off forums) are case studies in people’s understanding of skiing being limited by their skiing... but going to your point - you're right to not take everything you hear from a good skier at face value, without doing your own critical thinking. Just make sure that your parameters for analysis have a good, detailed biomechanical foundation... and you're not just comparing what you hear now with what you heard when you were coached. With the same critical thinking, do realize that it is possible that you, like many others, were just told some things by some coaches who repeated what they were told when they were coached but without an actual deep understanding or technical foundation to rely on. I know I was, times N and, like you said, applied my own critical thinking, did my research, reading, etc, expanded my horizons until I ended up understanding a lot more than if I drank from that one and single diluted fountain specifically tailored for the average "coach"...
Last edited:
Can you see how people thought that 'not a huge difference' could be equal to 'not a big deal' ?
Also perhaps you never explicitly said you know more than Reilly, but the inference of you saying that he doesn't understand ski racing, is that you understand it better.
Looking at things differently and being skeptical is fine, if you approached this as 'I have a differing opinion' rather than 'he doesn't understand', I don't think you would have found any resistance.
No need to push anything. Remember the centrifugal "force" will make your hips move - you just remove the centripetal force by relaxing the long leg at the right time and the hips will move into the next turn.
In fact, pushing is not even a release, imho. A release is releasing the edge from the snow, not pushing yourself off of that edge by adding more pressure into the edge.
There are needs to push, for instance when there isn't enough energy generated in the turn itself and you need to add something, but when you're "at high edge angles", you'd have enough energy. Just remember that the slope keeps falling away from you, the faster the steeper it is and that makes pushing up redundant... the simple geometry of the situation is that after the fall line, the feet are below the hips. The more you resist and the skis turn across the fall line, the more the hips are leveraged up. Learn to resist just enough and then give in... oh boy, I'll get an earful for that one...
If you end up hip to snow without CP force (not turning anymore) or without the feet lower than the hips (flats?) then yeah, I can see how you'd have to add something to get out of that situation, sure.
Last edited:
Its when Im late and didnt eat enough fiber. Either way its just a hemorrhoid waiting to happen. HahaThe only way to release is a push? Come on, man...
Good points. Its more with the hip to snow but on the wrong arc for where i need to setup for the next. I could continue that old arc and release properly (loose more time), but a small impulse on the ski and then flex to release at the same time is what i meant. Its a recovery move for sure.
Yes, course corrections get an exemption for almost everything. Warning! Do not use a pole touch/push at high speed for course correction, or you may find that exemption comes with a broken wrist.
Warning! Do not use a pole touch/push at high speed for course correction, or you may find that exemption comes with a broken wrist. 
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
- Posts
- 6,357
I'm sort of conflicted about posting in this thread. To each his own I say, but I just don't see how this is so seemingly controversial. And why the VS. in flex vs. extend? It just seems everyone sees it so black and white / good and bad. I mean honestly, I teach these things to people that need them when they need them, but overall, it's really not a thing I think about.
I get it and usually thats my goal, however, I was talking about my bad turns, not the good ones.
On a side note - I made a joking comment above about Reilly's Hirscher analysis. Flexing the old outside doesnt have to mean "lifting" the ski. I can flex my old outside leg and keep the ski on the snow. Per the video and my "joke". Hirscher many times lifts the old inside ski. The long outside leg flexs and keep contact with the snow, and given it is below the old inside ski there is no choice, at times, but for the old inside ski to rise. Thus my humor about the fact he is Austrian (Austrian turns) and the Maher brothers (whitepass turns). I found this myself a few years back skiing the Aspen WC course during and after the races. That conection to the snow was critical on bomb proof ice. It allowed an initiation without a significant rise in my COM and allowed a fast initiation with confidence that I had at least one ski tracking. Finding pressure before apex on the outside ski, again, provided confidence as I knew I was stacked. A longtime ski instructor from Austria asked what I was doing to make those turns. I had to think for a second and I said " Its the inside ski". Haha
Last edited:
Which transition is 'better' depends on the terrain IMO. Talking about each in a vacuum without terrain is a bit too abstract for me - I need context. I have no racing background and just a recreational skiing schlub that concentrates on skiing moguls. So I will speak to what I ski the most... For bumps, both transitions are useful. Being able to perform a compact transition will make you more versatile in the bumps. But its not the only transition that is effective.
Is this a flexed/compact or extension release (time 2:55 in video)? It looks like extension to me.
He is still flexing to absorb a 'virtual bump' and you can see the flexion and extended release when he actually starts skiing the moguls. A compact transition would result in higher speed in the moguls, which may be fine if you can handle that level of performance, but if you want to ski all day at that speed may be too much wear and tear for skiing recreationally.
I find this very useful in moguls for controlling speed. You can see this type of extension release in the 'outside bank line' where he skies the bumps pretty tall throughout.
Traversing in extended position is useful in bumps -- if you want to shift lines in the moguls at turn completion, you have flexion available to do so. Since you are already extended, it is easy to cruise over a bump and have flexion available to absorb the neighboring bump.
For bumps that suit this method, this type of skiing can be really low impact, low effort, and fun way to ski bumps.
You can see the other lines through the bumps, the "inside wall line" and "rut line" could be skied faster with a compact/flexed transition. But do you really want to ski them fast? Is the run a marathon or a sprint? If the pitch is consistent or flattening, you have the energy, sure, shred them up. If the run is getting progressively steeper and bumps larger, you are tired, and have a long way to go yet, maybe not. May be time to change the approach.
PS - Video 1 of the series is below and emphasizes the importance of the compact transition for bumps:
Is this a flexed/compact or extension release (time 2:55 in video)? It looks like extension to me.
He is still flexing to absorb a 'virtual bump' and you can see the flexion and extended release when he actually starts skiing the moguls. A compact transition would result in higher speed in the moguls, which may be fine if you can handle that level of performance, but if you want to ski all day at that speed may be too much wear and tear for skiing recreationally.
I find this very useful in moguls for controlling speed. You can see this type of extension release in the 'outside bank line' where he skies the bumps pretty tall throughout.
Traversing in extended position is useful in bumps -- if you want to shift lines in the moguls at turn completion, you have flexion available to do so. Since you are already extended, it is easy to cruise over a bump and have flexion available to absorb the neighboring bump.
For bumps that suit this method, this type of skiing can be really low impact, low effort, and fun way to ski bumps.
You can see the other lines through the bumps, the "inside wall line" and "rut line" could be skied faster with a compact/flexed transition. But do you really want to ski them fast? Is the run a marathon or a sprint? If the pitch is consistent or flattening, you have the energy, sure, shred them up. If the run is getting progressively steeper and bumps larger, you are tired, and have a long way to go yet, maybe not. May be time to change the approach.
PS - Video 1 of the series is below and emphasizes the importance of the compact transition for bumps:
That's usually when you can tell them apart - not just the men from the boys but good technique from bad, as well. There is simply no way, for normall people, to make those turns stick on that surface, without patience, connection and good engagement... all technique can be derived back from those needs... (rotate and you're in the net, hop up and you're in the net, lean in and you're in the net, don't roll your ankles and you're in the net etc)
Yes, there's a lot of shallow slopes and hero-like snow conditions and wide runs where almost anything goes, many generating these debates as to "nah, we don't need that *##$##", but you can't have that argument there...
...unless that was the DH track, where you basically need good VOx numbers and steel
implants to survive...
Last edited:
I agreed and liked that but then had the entire blue bird hero snow day to think - the reality is that extension and pushing are the easy ones - they're natural: we get up from bed, we walk, we run, everything else we do relies on us pushing ourselves around... Skiing is the weird one out as there's gravity helping us.
Flexing is the abnormal movement pattern and like 4ster noted, the hard one to teach - maybe that's why you see some of us so focused on it - not because we disagree with you, but because it's the hard one to teach.
Average coaching doesnt help either, the damage done by "up and forward" cannot be compensated by eons spent on a dark place, but measured in thousands of lost possible would have been WC winners...
Last edited:
Sponsor
Members online
- Prosper
- MOMENTinTime
- Powder and Corn
- Hot.Tamale
- Nathanvg
- breakaway01
- John O
- Jerez
- raytseng
- PupManS
- Daves not here
- TahoeRover
- Bozzenhagen
- FrequentFlyer
- Spoorosew
- meff
- Jwrags
- TomPietrowski
- Dwight
- Larry
- Nancy Hummel
- Mendieta
- Kman999
- socalgal
- zircon
- pud
- Don't Skip Leg Day
- Popeye Cahn
- Drahtguy Kevin
- Flo
- jd4326
- VickiK
- Don in Morrison
- hrandersonn
- BMC
- ScottB
- COSkier87
- Andy Mink
- Hoss
- Ivan
- David Edwards
- Philpug
- Matt Merritt
- chris_the_wrench
- JohnL
- RedbarnPD
- tromano
- Powder High
- Methrensah
- tch