• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Toppling and balance.

François Pugh

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
7,684
Location
Great White North (Eastern side currently)
In my opinion, No No and No. In none of those cases are the "hips moving in". They are simply moving out less than the legs are. You hips are a rough approximation of your center of mass. As humans, we tend to be "me"-centric. You are thinking about your body in terms of your own reference point. Me. Wrong. You are moving through space. Your hips NEVER fall in. They move out less then your legs. In a frame of reference that is centered on you, they seem to be falling in...but that is the wrong frame of reference. You are moving through space. The frame of reference is space... the mountain...earth.
There seems to be different points of view here.
From the point of view of the cameraman filming the whole thing as a skier skis down the hill, from the side of the trail: the skis continue briefly in the old turn as the body (most of it anyways) continues down the hill. The skis get farther away from the body and the body gets farther away from the skis. You may notice one and not the other, but both are happening.

Depending on where the skier lets go of the old turn (while keeping the skis turning), the effect is more or less pronounced. Let go of the old turn at the apex, and the body flies down the hill with some speed, as the skis turn across the hill. Had he let go of the old turn only once he were going across the hill and allowed a bit of a traverse, he would only have gravity to help him incline more and tighten the turn, but since he let go with his velocity pointing down the hill he has sped up his movement into a more inclined position. How hard he is turning when he let go determines how quickly he can now incline. It's a short cut to high tipping angles, and makes achieving them easier, because he reaches them before the new centripetal reaction force can retard his motion into the new turn.
 
Last edited:

geepers

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
May 12, 2018
Posts
4,298
Location
Wanaka, New Zealand
Gggg….geeeee…ppeerrrs! Help!…
Just spinning in the galaxy here.

View attachment 191677
They’re not leaning in, their hips just move out less than the wheels?

Ok. You are standing sideways on a piece of carpet on a train moving at a steady speed along a track. And some-one closer to the front of the train pulls the carpet so your feet n legs shoot out to the sides. Did you fall? From some-one looking from trackside, apparently not ( :huh: ) - your feet just moved more than your hips. But to you it probably felt like a fall.

Dressed as Luke Skywalker you are on a pair of skis at transition. Just slightly earlier, using The Force from the previous turn, you projected your body on a path further down the hill than the one your feet/skis are taking. As you proceed the feet do indeed move out further than the hips but, low as you could get in the transition, the hips went from a higher to a lower position wrt snow and it sure felt a bit sorta, kinda like falling and unless your skis come around underneath you it's going to certainly be exactly like it.
 

razie

Sir Shiftsalot
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Posts
1,619
Location
Ontario
Well this is completely bonkers now. So let me get this straight.

@geepers posts three examples, a fridge tipped over with a hammer or such, a truck rolling over one side and a motorcycle tripping over its own front wheel.

I point out that all those have in common is rotation of that body over an anchor point... and nothing to do with good skiing!

Then geepers posts a frame by frame weird analysis of a cool turn by some good skier as proof that that turn wasn't [a rotation over an anchor point].

And I am in the weeds? Good comprehension marks!!

I don't understand since when did posting here become an exercise in randomness??
 
Last edited:

razie

Sir Shiftsalot
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Posts
1,619
Location
Ontario
Randomness part 2.

Same @geepers saying that edge angles are created with angulation.

I point out that is simply bad skiing... as known, angulation, in its common acceptance and opposite to inclination, means hip angulation. Creating edge angles from the hip == bad. Generally referred to as "hip dumping".

Geepers comes back with examples of good skiers with some angulation or inclination at some points in their turns, restating that as proof that

"Skiers get edge angle with a combination of inclination and angulation"

What? No. Edge angles can only be created by putting the skis on edge. What the upper body does, is a different thing.

Us skiers can get large angles fully inclined or angulated or in-between. That's just basics.

Edging creates edge angles!

Entropy has finally taken over, it's the only logical conclusion! I am definitely in the weeds for even entertaining these posts.
 
Last edited:

François Pugh

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
7,684
Location
Great White North (Eastern side currently)
I must be missing something. My feet are going up or along the hill; my body is going down the hill. To me, my body is rotating down the hill, and from the point of view of the snow under my skis (which is fixed to the hill and not being sprayed downhill), my body IS rotating about the anchor point (the skis which are not moving down the hill).
 

Crank

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 19, 2015
Posts
2,647
Toppling is just a bad term when it comes to skiing. Isn't this basically the same thing as that infinity move thing?
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,977
Reference frame attached to skier and above the head. (Gopro on a pole coming out of backpack)


Skis are moving side to side.

Reference frame fixed to earth, oriented along a line that goes to the center of the earth. I.e., plumb. (Maybe)
A9A52763-2E7F-4FCA-8DA7-51B221C2407E.jpeg

In danger of “toppling”, a stabilization project started in the late 90’s.

What? No. Edge angles can only be created by putting the skis on edge. What the upper body does, is a different thing.

Us skiers can get large angles fully inclined or angulated or in-between. That's just basics.

Edging creates edge angles!
Well, ok, you could incline into the turn, and keep your ankle’s loose, or actively try to flatten the skis while doing so. So you’re not edging. Is this your point?

More Ligety, with often large initial inclination. Somehow, he’s edging despite all. :ogcool:

 
Last edited:

razie

Sir Shiftsalot
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Posts
1,619
Location
Ontario
I must be missing something. My feet are going up or along the hill; my body is going down the hill. To me, my body is rotating down the hill, and from the point of view of the snow under my skis (which is fixed to the hill and not being sprayed downhill), my body IS rotating about the anchor point (the skis which are not moving down the hill).
Correct - you've captured kind'a the whole point, Francois. Are they really anchored? The anchor refers to the role it plays, not some inherent attribute. A nail is not an anchor if not anchoring anything... it's just a potential anchor, if anything.

When you finish the turn with a hard hit, vaulting the body down the hill over the "stiff" legs, the skis are an anchor point or whatever better name we can give that... and you'd be rightly considering that your body is rotating over that point, in that whichever plane, due to the anchor... just like the fridge.

But, when you flex or retract the legs, whether the skis stay engaged or not, they do not serve as an anchor to trip the body over... no vaulting, no anchor. The body simply continues moving down the hill, not tripping over the feet. It moves fairly linearly into the new turn too, not rotating really around the skis, if there is nothing to connect them (legs retracting so not pushing). To have the top of a thing rotate over the base of a thing, you generally need them connected, by a wire, a force like gravity etc.

Also, when you flex - the body continues down the hill mostly linearly, not rotating over anything. There is a slight up/down if you managed hip on snow, to get it back above the knees and then down again, but it's far from getting tripped over the feet.

No need to get into what's good, what's bad in whom's opinion, what's preferred etc - they are simply two pretty different ways to end the turn. That's how you get off the merry-go-round: you let go!

Well, ok, you could incline into the turn, and keep your ankle’s loose, or actively try to flatten the skis while doing so. So you’re not edging. Is this your point?

More Ligety, with often large initial inclination. Somehow, he’s edging despite all. :ogcool:
Almost the point, sort of. But we're getting closer, yes.
Ted - is exactly whom I had in mind :thumb:
 
Last edited:

JESinstr

Lvl 3 1973
Skier
Joined
May 4, 2017
Posts
1,142
Correct - you've captured kind'a the whole point, Francois. Are they really anchored? The anchor refers to the role it plays, not some inherent attribute. A nail is not an anchor if not anchoring anything... it's just a potential anchor, if anything.
The BOS is not anchored in the retraction transition but is in the "get over it" Transition for example. That is why I was trying to get some "weigh in" on the different transitions. Ironically the "Get Over It" transition is a topple IMO. I agree with Razie that without an "Anchor" there is no toppling just alignment with the forces to come.
When you finish the turn with a hard hit, vaulting the body down the hill over the "stiff" legs, the skis are an anchor point or whatever better name we can give that... and you'd be rightly considering that your body is rotating over that point, in that whichever plane, due to the anchor... just like the fridge.
Or, as JF Likes to say, a compression and a blockage.
But, when you flex or retract the legs, whether the skis stay engaged or not, they do not serve as an anchor to trip the body over... no vaulting, no anchor. The body simply continues moving down the hill, not tripping over the feet. It moves fairly linearly into the new turn too, not rotating really around the skis, if there is nothing to connect them (legs retracting so not pushing). To have the top of a thing rotate over the base of a thing, you generally need them connected, by a wire, a force like gravity etc.
Also, when you flex - the body continues down the hill mostly linearly, not rotating over anything. There is a slight up/down if you managed hip on snow, to get it back above the knees and then down again, but it's far from getting tripped over the feet.
YEP, Well said
No need to get into what's good, what's bad in whom's opinion, what's preferred etc - they are simply two pretty different ways to end the turn. That's how you get off the merry-go-round: you let go!
And that is why we are talking transitions not initiation here
Almost the point, sort of. But we're getting closer, yes.
Ted - is exactly whom I had in mind :thumb:
One other thing regarding the discussion on inclination vs angulation. A lot has to do with velocity. It is also the conundrum we face in teaching using the Wedge Vs. Parallel. In the Wedge at low velocity, it is all about angulation but in a wedge with high velocity the body wants to incline but then the wedge configuration turns the inclination into a bracing action.
 

François Pugh

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
7,684
Location
Great White North (Eastern side currently)
Correct - you've captured kind'a the whole point, Francois. Are they really anchored? The anchor refers to the role it plays, not some inherent attribute. A nail is not an anchor if not anchoring anything... it's just a potential anchor, if anything.

When you finish the turn with a hard hit, vaulting the body down the hill over the "stiff" legs, the skis are an anchor point or whatever better name we can give that... and you'd be rightly considering that your body is rotating over that point, in that whichever plane, due to the anchor... just like the fridge.

But, when you flex or retract the legs, whether the skis stay engaged or not, they do not serve as an anchor to trip the body over... no vaulting, no anchor. The body simply continues moving down the hill, not tripping over the feet. It moves fairly linearly into the new turn too, not rotating really around the skis, if there is nothing to connect them (legs retracting so not pushing). To have the top of a thing rotate over the base of a thing, you generally need them connected, by a wire, a force like gravity etc.

Also, when you flex - the body continues down the hill mostly linearly, not rotating over anything. There is a slight up/down if you managed hip on snow, to get it back above the knees and then down again, but it's far from getting tripped over the feet.

No need to get into what's good, what's bad in whom's opinion, what's preferred etc - they are simply two pretty different ways to end the turn. That's how you get off the merry-go-round: you let go!


Almost the point, sort of. But we're getting closer, yes.
Ted - is exactly whom I had in mind :thumb:
Ah, I see it's a directional thing.

Take a snap shot, with the skis pointing across the hill, in a retraction transition, but skis still on the snow. Skis do not prevent us from falling into the slope (because we have relaxed the legs in a retraction transition), but they do (at least well tuned carving skis do) prevent feet from moving down-slope (where your body is moving). And you will trip over your skis if you have enough down-slope momentum/velocity and do it wrong. The challenge is to see how quickly and early and at how many Gs you can release the CoM while seeing how far accross (or even up) the slope you can get your skis to continue the old turn without tripping over the skis. Tripping over the skis at high GS speeds hurts. :ogbiggrin:
 

geepers

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
May 12, 2018
Posts
4,298
Location
Wanaka, New Zealand
Razie, miss the old days when you used to unreasonably (MHO) accuse the CSIA of waging war against humanity and I used to unreasonably (YHO) defend them as a bunch of likeable saints on skis who deserved the Nobel prize, simply 'cause I've never had a bad day on skis in a CSIA lesson or workshop. (Even the exam days that didn't end with a pass - it's still a day on skis.)

Well this is completely bonkers now. So let me get this straight.

@geepers posts three examples, a fridge tipped over with a hammer or such, a truck rolling over one side and a motorcycle tripping over its own front wheel.

Was replying to some-one's claim that "To topple something (other than dictators and such) you need a firm base and a lever."

No. You don't need a lever - just an unbalancing of forces. Nor is the BoS necessarily firm. It can be moving and it can be removed or altered to cause an unbalance. This is only peripherally involved with skiing however we need to make the point that it is forces (not levers) that lead to the imbalance.

a frame by frame weird analysis of a cool turn by some good skier as proof that that turn wasn't [a rotation over an anchor point]

Must have made the point too timidly. The skis are very much engaged with snow when the CoM 1st begins to move out of the existing turn. In a retraction turn, at edge change the skis are lightly engaged with (or maybe completely off) the snow. They are again engaged (lightly at 1st but increasingly) as the new turn develops. So except where there's the actual retraction the edges change there's ski to snow contact and a pivot point.

The sequence of photos clearly shows this (MHO).

So repeating the question: When you have your hip on the snow in a turn what's the 1st part of you to begin to move back to the outside?

Could also ask: what is the mechanism you use to start your movement out of the old turn? Paul Lorenz is very clear that he presses on the inside ski to unbalance against the centripetal force and cause the CoM to start its journey across the skis.
1675807177042.png


What? No. Edge angles can only be created by putting the skis on edge. What the upper body does, is a different thing.

Lost me here.

If the whole body inclines the skis are put on edge. The greater the inclination the greater the edge angle.


Note: don't want to see any accusation of promoting skiing like that - it's simply an example of skiing with heaps of inclination and very little angulation.

More typical there's a changing mix. Likely to be inclination earlier in the turn (with some measure of angulation) and then increasing angulation for lateral balance. The secondary effect of that angulation is to increase edge angle.

1675808218341.png

1675808247099.png
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,977
What does that have to do with skiing?
6C5D42A2-5BDE-45CA-9BFB-C646F1C3D40F.jpeg

Lean inside the turn.
Lean is both a verb and a noun.

Whether the riders get there by counter steering is irrelevant. No lean, no fast turn.
You could say no inclining as a synonym.

Btw, how do they get out of these turns? Say it’s an s, how do you go from one side to the other? Know nothing about motorcycle racing.
 

Fuller

Semi Local
Skier
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Posts
1,523
Location
Whitefish or Florida
"New Hybrid Skiing"
I like that you picked an illustration that is sure to enrage at least 90% of it's intended audience! Chapeau! ;)

Remember when Ford Motor Company declared the Mustang II had superior "Road Hugging Weight"?
 

geepers

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
May 12, 2018
Posts
4,298
Location
Wanaka, New Zealand
Btw, how do they get out of these turns? Say it’s an s, how do you go from one side to the other? Know nothing about motorcycle racing.

Counter steering.

To get the bike tipped over counter steer. So now it's tipping. But we don't want it to keep tipping! So we apply torque to the handlebars into the the turn (doesn't need much) and restore lateral balance. Balance through the turn with tiny/tiny movements - really, just applying a torque will do it mostly - and it happens subconsciously. To come out of a turn it's torquing in the direction of the turn which is effectively counter steering for the next turn. Now it's been nearly 40 years since I've hussled a big road bike through a fast S bend but my recollection is that it was a noticeable effort torqueing the handlebars.

Some-one is sure to come back with ways and means using the throttle. On dirt bikes with a rear wheel slide controlled on the throttle then backing off a tad will restore some grip and the bike will want to sit up. The trick is not to back off too much causing a big increase in grip and a high side.

I like that you picked an illustration that is sure to enrage at least 90% of it's intended audience!

Yep - note my note. But watch - I'll still be accused of posting it as some sort of example of ideal skiing.
 

BTWilliams

BTWilliams
Skier
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Posts
102
Location
California
This is all a matter of the frame of reference you choose to view your body motion from. You can select a frame of reference that makes you think in a way that improves your results, of you can select a frame of reference that makes you think in a way that stalls your progression.

If your chosen frame of reference is earth / the mountain / the the snow surface, the hips (effectively your center of mass) NEVER EVER FALL IN towards the inside of the turn. If your hips did "fall in", in absolute motion terms relative to earth, that would mean your center of mass was already moving in the direction that you are trying to turn in. When you make a turn, the whole purpose is to change the direction your center of mass is moving. The reason you are moving your skis out is to STOP YOUR HIPS (your center of mass) from moving out.

Now, if you visualize your frame of reference as your body, and just accept the rest of the world is moving around a coordinate system centered on your person, then you can think of your hips as "falling in". But that is a really poor way to visualize the motion, physics and forces. You are moving through space. Space is not moving around you.

But the far more important reason NOT to think of your hips / center of mass as "falling in" or "falling over into the turn" is psychological. "Falling inward" is SLOW. Go stand next to your pool, and just let your self fall over into the water. It takes FOREVER to get to a highly inclined angle. Falling is just too slow. If you think about "falling" into a turn, that lazy natural sense of acceleration due to gravity as one falls will manifest in your technique in many ways. You will get tall in transition because that gives your somewhere to "fall" from. You will have a slow transition. You will be slow to build edge angles. In fact, if you think about falling in, you will pretty much never be able to build high edge angles. You want to flex/bend through transition and MINIMIZE the rise of your center of mass. If your CoM is already really low, how are you going to "fall in"? You aren't. When your CoM is kept low by flexing through transition, then to start a turn, the only way to get your skis on edge it "reach out" with them. And the lower you stay through transition, the higher edge angles you develop, because you are going to extend your DH leg until it is in that strong position - bent about 20-25 degrees at the knee. Again, the lower you stay through transition by flexing as you come off a turn, the higher your edge angles on your next turn will be, and the quicker your will develop those high angles. The only reason not to stay low in transition is pragmatic. At some point you just get too tired to do it. It is exhausting because you never get a moment to let your leg muscles relax and move blood. Evern WC racers are staying less low at the end of the run than at the start. They just can not do it the whole time. It is HARD.

Watch Ted in this video we have all marveled at:

Ted Ligety GS Slow Motion

Specifically, stop the video right at 1:09. Look how low Ted is. During transition he is not just in the 90 degree "chair" position with his femur square to his tib/fib, he is far beyond that...like 30 degrees past square. Does he fall in? LOL...no. He actually gets TALLER and pushes/extends into the turn. He reaches out with his skis. The kinematics are completely different. This is probably a cherry picking of an extreme example, and it is better to watch the whole video and take in Ted's typical transition, but you will see that he consistently gets SHORTER in transition, and taller into the the turn. There is no way to represent this motion as falling in. It is about staying low, bringing your legs and skis under you with as much leg bend as you are physically capable of doing, and reaching out with them as you get taller into the next turn.

Also, do not confuse taller and higher. When your ski is at 80 degrees, in a turn, you are tall, but not high. With your ski 80+ degrees to the snow, your body axis is probably about 25 degrees to the snow. Say your are normally 6' tall, but in your strong edging position, in a turn, your are 5' tall. Sin(25deg) x 5' tall = your head is 25" off the snow. Now, during transition, you GET shorter, but at the middle, you are 90 degrees to the snow Say you bend your legs to the full 90 degrees textbook low transition...and you are 4' tall. Sin(90Deg) x 4' = 4'. You got shorter, but your head moved up 23" as you went from being radically inclined, to straight up and down. So the CoM, the head, they come up during transition, even though you made your body shorter. But by making your body shorter from flexing, you MINIMIZE how much you come up. Most skiers hold the same strong leg position from turn through transition, so they come up way more during transition. Sin(90Deg)x 5' = 5'. In that case, your head would come up 35", not 23". Do that and you're not going to have high edge angles on the next turn.

Flex/absorb through transition and "reach out" with your skis if you want to crank high performance turns. If you want to continue to struggle with developing real edge angles, keep thinking about leaning into the turn, or falling into the inside of the turn.
 
Last edited:

Sponsor

Staff online

Top