What if we talked about skiing is a totally different way?

[Horton]

I have had this idea in my head for a couple of years….

What if when we talked about stuff like “opening your hips at the wakes” or anything else only referenced the following:

 

Center of mass

Handle position

Attitude of the ski in the water – pitch, yaw and roll

 

As an example:

The only conversation about opening your hips extra that made any sense to me was with “skier x” who said that Mapple and Smith do something to get the ski flatter in the water on the way out to the ball line. With the ski flatter sooner it has less drag and they get to the ball line faster and earlier.

 

Understanding the goal means a lot more to me than wondering if I need to move my big toe to the left

 

 

[MarcusBrown]

-COM

-Force Vector from Boat(Rope Tension, AKA Handle Position)

-Force Vectors on Ski (Lift/Drag - which pitch, yaw and roll affect greatly)

-Color Coordination (degree to which your ski gear matches)

 

If this is the kinda clear thinking and reasoning that comes with days on end of staring at an empty ski lake....I think you're on to something @Horton !

 

 

[ForrestGump]

Makes sense to me, @OB. The higher the roll angle, the more you're telling the ski to make it's arc back inbound. Too much roll too soon and you cut off the top of the potential arc.

[Stevie Boy]

I have another question, when trying to get a point over or try to explain ourselves, do we over complicate what we are saying, so many people already have different interpretations, when it comes to skiing terminology, I have known a quite a few skiers, who think they understand whats going on, only to find out at a later date they got it all wrong.

[Zman]

@ShaneH and @OB If I got what you are saying, by staying a little flatter or delaying the roll onto the inside edge, you allow the ski to advance more up on the boat - at the same time getting wider "at the top of the potential arc". I def go onto the inside edge too soon and need to work on this.

[MattP]

When this topic comes to mind I always think of Nate's control of the ski coming into the turn and how little on edge his ski really is until he is ready to turn almost after the buoy at the short lines. Down course direction after the second wake then initiation of the turn is what I see here even after his hand comes off the handle and Smith goes into his "posting" move.

 

[Wish]

@MattP those are great pics and really looks the part of what's being discussed here. What I found interesting is skiing with Andy and having him explain that roll element as it related to his ski vs my S2. He said his was designed to ride that higher rolling edge and mine was designed to have a more flat attitude. Interesting if flatter was what he was after, why build a ski that rides higher on edge. Oh and by no means am I questioning him. Just found it interesting when applied to this thread. I did ride both back to back and with my bindings. The difference on roll edge or how steep vs flat the ski gets in the pre-turn and turn was staggering. Bazar actually. Not bad or good just WAY different in. To what @Horton is saying, I think this sport has done nothing but evolve in in terminology and thought analysis of the what where when and how. Old school, new school, hybrid, bringing in physics and philosophy.. on and on. Love learning new stuff. @Horton, your title does read weird though.

[thager]

Can't we just stick with English?

[ForrestGump]

I think this is where Roll and Pitch can come in to describe skis. It's entirely possible to have a ski that rolls higher, but rides to the buoy with a flatter pitch.

[A_B]

Absent binding location or fin adjustment, wouldn't pitch be a function of tail width in relation to forebody width? Roll is dependent on concave bottom shape?

 

You can adjust pitch or roll with binding and fin settings, so how do you distinguish?

[wtrskior]

how about leaning and turning? how much easier does it get than that? :+)

[gator1]

Need one more variable for Marcus' equation to balance: force vector of rope, force vector from ski, and force vector from momentum effect on COM. Then draw a control volume around the skier and you can analyze what is going on. Oh, and the color coordination vector is indeed the fourth variable of considerable importance. I dropped 3 buoys since I had to start skiing on this off-pink disaster.

[Klundell]

I get really frustrated with terminology in skiing. I find that most people use the waterskiing buzz words like "handle control" or "light on the line" or "back are pressure" and they have no idea what they are talking about. Maybe @MarcusBrown can do a shop talk on workable definitions for those terms he mentioned in this comment above. I think that would help all of us get on the same page.

[Horton]

An example of how this can work:

I was talking to @ShaneH this weekend about getting his ski flatter in the water / less pitch from the wakes out to the ball. He wanted me to tell him how. Fact is we all experience or think about this stuff a little differently. I told him to not over think it and to not change much. Just move his COM forward after the center line.

So the instruction was get his ski flatter by moving COM forward. The words knees, ankles, handle, head, or hips were deliberately not used. I assume that once he understood the goal he may have applied it in a way that works for him with words like knees, ankles, handle, head, or hips.

 

[A_B]

Plane or pitch? A flatter plane makes more sense to the boating crowd. Pitch is for props.

At least for me.

[Horton]

@gator1 the point is to make things simpler not more complex

[ForrestGump]

@AB pitch, roll and yaw are universal names for rotation around a central axis, even in boating/sailing. Whereas plane refers to a two dimensional surface and not rotation. So I get where Horton is going with this.

[ForrestGump]

Yes, in @Horton's example, he explained what he wanted me to try, which was to get the ski to ride out to the buoy line with less pitch relative to the water's surface or plane by moving my COM forward over the centerline.

 

I had to figure out the mechanic that worked for me. Which in this case was to squeeze my butt cheeks together which moves the pelvis forward and flattens the skis trajectory outbound. What I found was that much like the photos @MattP posted of Nate, I found the ski getting to the buoy line with my COM more over the top of it. So effectively, I got to the same width without having to get the ski as far out away from me and rolled up on edge as far. This was the concept that Horton brought up initially. I wasn't sure how it would work out, but the first time I did this I immediately knew there was something to it. Think about this. If you get to the same width and you're more over the top of the ski, the geometry dictates that the boat is not as far away from you. Which is exactly what we see with Nate and @Mapple, I believe.

[gator1]

I'm with you on that. Skier, ski, water, boat, air all interact in what is a highly complex system that would be almost impossible to model.

 

Unlike golf, another complex system to model, we don't have 300 yrs of history that has winnowed the extraneous non-critical actions from the critical moves that are common to the top performers. Looking back to the 20's, golf had many of the same debates we're having today, about, for example, if a specific player's "twiddle" at the top of his backswing was adding yardage or just a personal aberration that didn't happen to get in the way.

 

For example, my view on trying to determine where a certain skier has his eyes focused 6 feet in front of the ball is analogous to a twiddle at the top of the backswing. But that's only my view.

 

As we evolve, (if the sport does survive all the threats we face), I expect we'll pare the description of the perfect pass down to the basics, the must do's. But we're partially dependent upon feelings to use as an input to separate good from bad.

 

That is my favorite part of the sport. A bunch of feelings that roll up into a hardcore performance measured from 0 to 6. Analog to digital.

 

So, I think the simplest way to get from people's description of how it felt ("flowy"?) to actionable coaching is to go to the basic physics. COM, momentum, and two opposing force vectors. Everything that happens is governed by those variables. The words to describe what a skier does to balance and control those can then evolve as they are most easily understood.

 

 

[A_B]

I would have a hard time coming up with pitch and yaw, and I have been boating for 40 years. But anything that makes it universal would be good.

[SkiJay]

I fly and totally understand pitch, yaw, and roll; race car chassis tuning is also all about pitch, yaw, and roll. I'm just not seeing how using these concepts simplifies discussions about skiing technique?

 

At any given time, the ski is pitching, yawning and rolling all at the same time, while the skier's COM may be pitching, yawing, and rolling in other directions. And this is all happening relative to which axis, the water's surface, the ski's centerline, or the skier's spine? It seems more complicated, not less.

 

Maybe we use the terms we use because after decades of study, they are the terms professional coaches have settled on as being the most helpful.

[The_MS]

This is why Chet Raley is such a great coach, he speaks to you in language that you can understand.

[ForrestGump]

Chet is such a great guy to be around. Unfortunately, I find myself not understanding what he tries to say.

[A_B]

Couldn't we just say need more tip or need less tip, need more angle, need less angle for the ski, and then weight back or forward? I think we all get rolling the ski on edge vs. flat skiing, and the attitude of the ski in the water is tip up or tip down.

 

I am not an engineer, but the KISS approach is understood.

[SkiJay]

I find my bindings getting too tight by the time Chet's finished saying it =)

[Horton]

@SkiJay we alway talk about what we think we should do with our bodies but we do no often talk about the why. I think sometimes the how is easier of I really understand the why

[SkiJay]

So true @Horton. I think you're onto something with simplifying. It would be nice if we could treat it more like ping pong where the thought process is rarely more complicated than "hit the ball over there with some top spin." We're not thinking of the pitch yaw and roll rate of the paddle along its axis to get it done. It works out just fine focusing simply on the desired outcome.

[ToddF]

I think @DrewRoss is great at explaining the why/how. When I went there years ago he talked about the concept of skiing the course, which helped me more than focusing on a particular body position.

 

I am thinking his input would be valuable on this topic.

 

Until then, I will be focusing on decreasing pitch, increasing roll and inducing slight yaw at the exit of the apex of the rotation, unless told otherwise.

[Horton]

@SkiJay I bet @eddie_roberts_jr cold tell you the just how technical table tennis is.

[ToddL]

I'm still trying to just get stacked... Y'all figure the rest out and write it down so I can read it after being stacked is completely on autopilot.

[Horton]

@ToddL a wise man keeps his mind on the foundations. Odd to hear if from you

[ToddL]

@Horton - thanks, I think... ;-)

 

I love to talk theory, but when it comes to advancing my own skiing, I keep coming back to the boring reality that fundamentals will get me their farther than the latest theory at the top of the BOS forum.

[ToddF]

This video is on the mapple web site. A very cool example of pitch and roll.

Like watching the blue angels fly