James, for high performance carving, there are fundamentals of timing that are very typically adhered to. Max tipping is very typically reached in the area of the apex/fall line in turn phase two. Max tipping in turn phase one would be considered rushing the process of a fully carved turn and where an element of patience is often suggested to allow the turn to develop w/a bit of inclination. Turn phase two is where the max tipping angle is typically reached, held onto, timed, slowed or delayed for turn shaping, sizing and choosing where to release into the next turn. Much about every turn phase is in preparing for and entering into the next one.
However, tipping (rolling) never stops or slows during transition so as to waste no time for edge change. Because a major goal in modern carving is to spread the forces, there is no longer any straight line travel between turns which means fully rolling the ski through transition. For the performance carver, tipping angle is everything. The duration, intensity, rate and timing of the tipping angle will be the prescription of DIRT that flows up the chain because it is the main direct input that is in control of the movements of the BoS which then is in control of the CoM to BoS relationship. Unfortunately, while there are many ways to say it, there is no one way that everyone will identify with.
Francios, I wouldn’t say that tracks “need” to be wider at apex. I would, instead, refer to this as a non-actionable insight, and a developmental wolf in sheep's clothing. The term “need” suggests a purposeful input. With high equal tipping and outside pressure dominance, an automatic outcome will be more vertical separation between the feet. It is a mechanical output from the geometry of the ski and skeleton. It is the same for long leg/short leg. Just a geometric output of high equal tipping against the hard ground. It is not, however, a directive for anyone to follow. That would be kin to just adding another unnecessary input such as it would be to coach someone to choose a stance width based on a specific measurement and requiring that direct input rather than it being an automated systemic outcome from getting some equitable participation of the inside ski. Imagine having to choose a different stance width for each turn phase. That is a wolf that will bite you in the ass. Equal tipping at the maximum angle, again, typically in turn phase two, requires a skeletal alignment that produces a natural stance width that is typically wider than from the mechanics involved in turn phase one and three.
In regards to your last question. It is the feet. While my chain is pretty quiet, I have very busy feet inside my boots. While the inclination of my entire chain does feed into tipping of the lower shaft, it is more in response to what my feet are doing rather than in support of it. Eversion, inversion, pronation, suppenation, dorsiflexion and plantarflexion from the foot/ankle complex gives me 360 degrees of pressure control of my upper cuff. If I am piloting my CoM in the right direction, I don’t even have to think about what my lower shafts are doing. My main initial turn inputs are at the feet from which just about everything above that becomes an output except for maybe the pole plant. I speak only as a demonstrable function of my technical model. I find it much more difficult to speak to what others are doing without knowing what they are thinking. Please excuse all the technical jargon. I am an insufferable nerd.