Why Horton is wrong about "Smear"

[Drago]

A bunch of smears corrected with a carve on top

 

[bigtex2011]

Is smear the tail moving out wider than the tip somewhere around the apex of the turn. I think so. Maybe that isn't by definition. For me, a ski that carves into the apex is good, but over-carving would typically be crushing out of the turns. I find for me, bindings too far forward does this.

 

I don't set up my ski for smear. I set it up to be a little free on my offside.

 

I think smear is a cool word that means lots of things to lots of people

 

[SkiJay]

Let's look more closely at what's going on through this controversial "smear" zone behind the boat.

I totally agree with @Drago that any notion of making the ski smear behind the boat on purpose is misguided. We are supposed to be building energy here by staying down against the load from the rope with a nice close connection to the handle (beautifully demonstrated by Will below). Forcing the ski to slide sideways at this point would be totally counterproductive.

 

So why did I label the finish of this edge change as an example of smear? To start with, it's not behind the boat; it's out past the second white water. And while there is clearly evidence of a rotating drifting event, it's kind of a special case of smear. There are two kinds of smear. In both cases, the tail swings wider than the tip. But in one case, this rotation is caused by the tip gaining grip and drifting less than the tail. In the other case, the tail is forced to drift wider than the tip regardless of what the tip is doing (e.g. the skier using their back foot to force the tail wide during on-side turns). But since both involve the ski sliding sideways with a rotational component, both events qualify as smear.

 

The case in question is an example of the second form of smear, where an overloaded tail swings wide of the tip despite a lack of tip engagement. However the skier isn't "forcing" the tail here. I think this brief rotating tail slide happens because there's often very little ski in the water during the transition into the pre-turn. This early pre-turn smear is not a goal. It's just how the ski transitions through the edge change off the second wake into the pre-turn for a good skier with lots of cross-course speed. It's centrifugal force briefly overwhelming what little tail there is in the water. And since there is sideways drift with a rotational component, I labeled it smear.

 

This said, there are also lots of skiers who land heavily on the tip at the finish of this transition causing the tip to bite and the tail to briefly over-smear. It's sometimes called double-turning, or a speed check early in the pre-turn. Whatever it's called, the angle created with this brief over-smear cannot be sustained all the way to the ball. So this technique flaw is just an inefficient waste of energy that sends the skier narrower at the ball. It's a bad habit worth avoiding/breaking—not a goal.

 

The following picture shows just how little ski is in the water during this transition:

 

[ALPJr]

@SkiJay thanks for framing this up in a clear way.

[Adam Caldwell]

A ski rotates in 3 dimensions. Racecars rotate more or less in 2D as it would relate to this thread.....maybe 3D if you get into chassis roll and front and rear suspension travel. These are all huge factors in what a car will 'feel like' in a turn that an oversimplified 2D discussion really address. Dynamics of a water-ski turn is more like a airplane moving through a banked turn then a car or motorcycle riding on a track. Smear, slip, carving, etc seems to fail to describe probably one of the most singularly important things about what makes a turn GOOD or BAD.

 

How do we address the rotation of the tail toward the bottom of the lake (or the tip to the sky), or maybe it sinks uniformly and is at a constant attitude as it sinks?? Is that still considered 'smear' in the vertical versus horizontal direction?

 

In reality, the elevation of a water-ski not a constant as they would be on a race-car or snow skis. The 'sinking' of the tail (or the entire ski) is massively influencing the turn of a water ski but the words smear and carve alone do not seem to address it what-so-ever. When I have a conversation about a ski turning it fully encompass the following 'ski rotation in all 3Ds', as well as 'sliding' AND 'sinking'. I think the conversation of smear and slip can grouped under 'sliding'. Elevation or 'sinking' is a direct result of the way in which deceleration is occurring.

 

@Skijay, sure less smear might be more efficient - but is that necessarily a good thing?

 

Not necessarily. We need inefficiency of some kind in order to gain stability throughout the turn. A ski must decelerate and become deeper in the water in order to gain some level of stability. A carve or smear is no good unless the appropriate amount of vertical displacement (sinking) is achieved.

 

My belief is that we want a ski that is more efficient in its ability to produce lift when being pulled by the boat, while at the same time being not efficient when traveling into and through the turn. The more 'efficient the ski is in the turn, the more 'smear'/'slip' I will probably have as it sustains speed riding much higher on the water, and not decelerating quick enough and riding deep enough to make an 'on-time and controlled' turn at the ball. The ski being less efficient in the turn provides stability, control, probably have less overall 'smear' (as its defined), and yet much more displacement as the ski decelerates and its elevation changes moving into the finish(sinking). Certainly too much deceleration or displacement is a bad thing, but still a much needed component for a skis turn.

 

A discussion on a ski's turning dynamics should not be over-simplified. I think anyone would agree that a 'deep/short/boots back' setup will turn with a very different sensation then a 'long/shallow/boots forward'. The rate of deceleration along the arc, the rate of elevation change, rate of ski rotation (in all 3 dimensions) are necessary to explain the inherent differences.

 

I feel that carving and smearing alone oversimplifies and muddies the water of understanding and I think leaves people with a new understanding, but also potential for more miss-understanding. Kind of similar to the 'surface-area vs drag' conversation with fins. There is way more to the story than the way 'surface area' influences drag on a fin and how the fin is interacting with the water and influencing the feel/performance of a ski.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jordan]

It would seem that smear accomplishes a certain amount of rotation to be achieved before the pull. I think that smear not only helps to get the ski pointed across course after the turn, but that it helps it occur sooner after the ball.

 

So, while the most efficient turn may include the least amount of smear, does a reasonable amount of smear make for getting into a better pulling position sooner after the ball and allow for better overall efficiency?

 

[Ed_Johnson]

@Jordon ... I believe it does. However, you have to differentiate between Smear and a Skid. For me Smear off the Apex is the tail coming around while "Accelerating" off the Apex, and a Skid is the tail coming around under "De-celeration, like a hockey stop. That just digs a hole and hinders acceleration while the boats moving away.

 

I Love the feeling of the tail coming around to help set angle, while I am feeling acceleration off the apex at the same time. Kind of like getting a head start.

 

 

 

[SkiJay]

That's an excellent dose of reality right there @adamhcaldwell; nicely written. I most definitely agree on the whole 3D nature of skiing. Two comments if I may.

 

First, race car and bike chassis dynamics most definitely play out in 3D, and are affected by a vastly more complex set of interrelated adjustments and variables than water skis.

 

Second, developing a clear understanding of how all these variables interact when chassis or ski tuning is one thing. Clearly describing these dynamics in writing is an even bigger challenge. And on that front, while a discussion of carving and smearing may be a simplification, I don't think it fair to say it's an oversimplification that muddies the waters of understanding. I'm confident that the only people left reading this thread are keeping up just fine.

 

Yes, there's always the potential for misunderstanding when dissecting complex concepts. But you can only eat an elephant one bite at a time.

[SkiJay]

@Jordan

[Horton]

The funny thing about all this smear talk is I learned the term from a @Chris Rossi article or maybe phone conversation. The context was all about skiing technique and nothing about ski set up.

 

As I recall, the concept was to allow the boat to pull your center of mass forward during and after edge change. The result is more front foot pressure and the tail of the ski is able to ride higher and smear wide of the path of the skier. By allowing the tail of the ski to move wide of the skiers path early the skier has to rotate the ski less at the apex.

 

Sad thing is I learned the idea and them explained it to @ColeGiacopuzzi but I never really integrated it into my personal skiing. Now @ColeGiacopuzzi is running into 41 and I am still doing whatever it is that I do.

[DW]

@adamhcaldwell : Good discussion, when you talk lift, what coordinate system are you referring to, or vertical lift in relation to earth or vertical lift relative to the ski, ie - normal to the ski itself. Might break down your comment in two segments.

[Deep11]

This has been a good discussion and I’m

 

 

Not sure if anyone has the appetite for more “smear” but from this still (28 vs 38) and Andy’s conversation in the video it does seem as though as the line gets shorter we want less smear and more carve with maintenance of momentum/speed through the turn. Smear would be bad because it starts the ski turning too early at shorter lengths.

Would that be a reasonable take home message or i do need to read all this again?

[SkiJay]

@Jordan - You've got it. Theoretically, it would be best if the whole turn was pure carve. But in practice that's hard to achieve. Besides, we're lucky to have some smear. Smear is more adjustable than the carving component of a turn, and we can adjust smear so there's just the right amount to exit the turn with perfect angle—when we're not busy screwing up.

 

@Ed_Johnson - I like how you've differentiated these two examples of smear, but smear is smear regardless of acceleration or deceleration. Smear is just a descriptive term for events where the sideways drift of the ski includes a rotational component—a condition met by both circumstances you've described. FWIW, I usually call hockey-stop hole-digging smear "over-smear," but your terms are better cause they're more descriptive.

 

For those just scanning this thread:

Smear is just a descriptive term for events where the sideways drift of the ski includes a rotational component.

[SkiJay]

There seems to be a belief that it's within the skier's ability to get the ski pre-rotated before reaching the ball. While this is an option on snow ski's, it really isn't on a water ski.

 

I say this having spent months with @Rossi pursuing this specific goal. What we found was that while it's possible to get a tiny amount of extra smear right before the ball, the setup also caused a significant loss of width and space before the ball. Slalom skis simply have too much directional stability to allow any significant pre-rotation before it's time to turn.

 

@Deep11 - The reason a skier can get the ski smearing (and turning) earlier at longer line lengths is because it's possible to start turning earlier when there is more width on the course. As the line gets shorter, any attempt to get the ski sideways before the ball will just make the skier turn narrow into the ball.

 

Smear isn't necessarily bad at shorter line lengths either, so long as it's timed properly to go around the ball. If the ski is a flat stiff ski, this turn may need to turn with a significant amount of smear; and that can be just fine. Smear isn't all bad. Highly smeared turns just tends to scrub off more speed with slightly less consistent finishing angles. They also tend to generate more tail lift with a slightly elevated exposure to blowouts. But skiers capable of taming these characteristics can benefit from the increased acceleration, space and width created by the same flat stiff ski—not all bad.

[Chris Rossi]

It's discussions like this that really help us all work through foreign concepts and to iron out the kinks.

 

A pure carved turn would be described as the tip of the ski and tail of the ski slicing through the same piece of water throughout the turn (nice work @Drago). This is the most efficient turn and one that leads to taking maximum speed into and out of turns. The reality though is that we are quite often not on the ideal line and require adjustments to our line to successfully complete the course. I will go out on a limb and bet that Ted Ligeti (snow ski racer) can carve almost perfect turns down a groomed run without gates but once you place the constraints of the race course on that same groomed run, his pure carved turns would leave him running outside of the course. The same thing happens in waterskiing. When we are skiing on or near the ideal line, the carved turn is amazing and is the goal. Lets look at ways to survive when not on the ideal line...

 

A smeared turn is one in which the tail of the ski is sliding or rotating outward faster than the rotation of the tip of the ski. To me, optimal placement of Smear comes as the skier approaches the buoy line and still has two hands on the handle. In my world, this is the only place the term Smear applies to my skiing. My ultimate goal is to have the ski set for cross course projection as close to the apex of the turn as possible so that I can maximize my acceleration potential. If I can connect to the boat as close to apex as possible (outside hand back on the handle and tight rope to the boat), I can elongate my acceleration zone by accelerating from a wider point on the boat (Think connecting to the a swing from higher up near 90 degrees). Acceleration ends at the centerline behind the boat, so the only way to gain potential is from the start of the zone.

 

A skid turn is one in which little to no rotation of the ski has happened in the preturn (ski tip is still pointing outward) so that at the apex of the turn, the skier must forcefully drive the tail of the ski through the turn to create an acceptable attack angle to the next buoy. This action drives the tail deep into the water, relieving the tip (removing ski surface area in contact with the water), so that the tail of the ski will slide through to the appropriate attack angle. The problem with this technique is that the skier is taking an extreme amount of speed into the apex of the turn and then using skidding to slow down and rotate the ski at the most vulnerable moment in the course. Where do the majority of slalom crashes occur? At the finish of the turn before the skier is connected to the boat. While we all utilize skid as a survival technique, this is not ideal.

 

While writing this, two main differences of Smear and Skid stood out to me. The two main differences are 1) where they happen and 2) that Smear is done with two hands on the handle while Skid is done with only one hand. So one move (Smear) is accomplished in a safe zone of the preturn where falls rarely occur and is accomplished while both hands are connected to the handle and thus the boat. The other move (Skid) is attempted while the skier is fully extended and exposed to falling in the most common crash zone while only connected to the boat by one hand.

 

These are just some morning thoughts while having coffee.

 

[Adam Caldwell]

@Chris Rossi , can you elaborate on the filling items?

 

1. I agree with connecting with the boat from a wider point, but how would connecting higher up toward 90deg be good? Would that not mean your traveling back to centerline with minimal initial support or pull from the boat? Coming inside the buoyline from apex at 90deg to the boat would ultimately diminish and shorten the acceleration zone, and not lengthen it, correct?

 

2. Why would smear be an adjective only used to decribe what happens when you have two vs one hand on the handle? Is it somethingbyou associate with higher bank angle only?

 

I like this thread for two reasons..... it's forcing us all to think, and challenging questions always lead to deeper understanding.

 

 

[eleeski]

I see what @Chris Rossi describes here a lot - especially in good skiers: "A skid turn is one in which little to no rotation of the ski has happened in the preturn (ski tip is still pointing outward) so that at the apex of the turn, the skier must forcefully drive the tail of the ski through the turn to create an acceptable attack angle to the next buoy. This action drives the tail deep into the water, relieving the tip (removing ski surface area in contact with the water), so that the tail of the ski will slide through to the appropriate attack angle." How well a skier does this at short line lengths correlates to how short they will go.

 

"A smeared turn is one in which the tail of the ski is sliding or rotating outward faster than the rotation of the tip of the ski" as Rossi describes it, is toxic to good scores. Anything other than a pure carve interferes with the casting out of the ski, yields hard fought earliness and reduces the stability of the platform to initiate the turn. Whether one handed or two, too much smear leaves you downcourse coming into the buoy. The result might be @rico 's signature score (see the above photos @Deep11 posted).

 

Getting more angle off the buoy is important despite @adamhcaldwell 's concerns. The loads are relatively low and big angles can get you ahead. As the load increases, the ski gets pulled off line anyhow and the skier can't hold so much angle. Most (top) skiers aren't limited by the speed needed to get out to the buoy. Timing is more critical. Anything that gets you earlier in the course is good, even at the expense of shortening the acceleration zone.

 

"Smear is just a descriptive term for events where the sideways drift of the ski includes a rotational component." from @SkiJay . The only time I want anything like this is right at the buoy - so I can crank a sweet Z turn! Over analyzing the preturn is ... just start the preturn early enough for a smooth turn, don't aim the ski at the buoy when you switch edges and stay balanced. Coming off the buoy, get your angle (more than just aiming at the next buoy), be comfortably balanced under the load and convert the load into cross course speed. Make buoys.

 

Let the ski designers fret over whether your ski is carving, smearing or skidding. Oh wait, these guys ARE the premier ski designers. Fun watching their design wheels spin.

 

Eric

[SkiJay]

My primary goal with the whole Fin Whispering project has always been to elevate the craft of ski tuning. An essential component of that pursuit is the establishment of a common language.

 

Regardless of how the term smear has roots in snow skiing's schmear, and schmearing cream cheese onto bagels, and despite who was first using the term in water skiing and what they meant by it at the time, I chose to use the term "smear" in the book to describe a concept that is fundamental to the understanding of how a ski moves through water.

 

With over a thousand books out there, for better or worse, "smear" is now a fairly common term. So in the interest of establishing a common language, we need to remain clear on what smear means. It's not meant to replace great descriptive terms like skidding, drifting, sliding, hole-digging, hockey stops, etc. Rather it's meant to be a catchall phrase for any event where the sideways drift of the ski includes a rotational component, e.g. the ski is smearing so much it's digging holes.

 

In his post above, @Chris Rossi said that "Smear is done with two hands on the handle while Skid is done with only one hand." If the definition of "smear" is to stand up, then a skid turn is an example or subset of "smear." It's still legitimate and descriptive to call it a skid turn; but since it's a sliding rotational event, I'm suggesting that a skid turn is an example of smear.

 

With this in mind, I'd like to respectfully ask @Chris Rossi himself to weigh in on this definition for the sake of future clarity.

 

Chris:

Do you think at this point that it's fair to use the term "smear" as a generic catchall for any sliding rotational ski behavior?

 

[mwetskier]

@SkiJay -perhaps a way to characterize it is to think of ' smear ' as the primary set and the different variations like skidding, drifting, sliding, hole-digging, hockey stops, etc as *sub*sets. in other words every skid, drift, slide, etc is a smear in that its a variation in the overall category we call smear.

[Horton]

@eleeski

http://media.tumblr.com/fe497dd337d9af8479bb6398b9565d16/tumblr_inline_mg6n5ltl6X1rxe4lt.gif

 

[6balls]

There are more technical understandings and explanations out there understood by some really smart people...but I'm only a doctor...some of that stuff is simply over my head.

 

@skijays explanation of the events of ski tuning including the concept of smear, it's necessity and it's management...made it simple enough for even me to understand and be able to use to adjust my ski. I wouldn't discourage anyone from trying to understand ski physics at the deepest level...but I would argue that for most of us reading Fin Whispering and speaking in it's language would help us understand each other better. "Common language" has to be to some degree for the commoner. Too technical and I get lost.

 

The other benefit is that try as I might...old habits are tough. I've worked a long time to make 'em better but I only get so far. Does that sound like any of you? I will continue to try to be better technically, but at some point tuning the ski to my...um...unique and flawed style has to be an improvement.

 

Cool thread...lots of great thinking put into words.

 

[Chris Rossi]

@SkiJay I love your book and appreciate the common terminology that you have given our community. Im fine with smear being the go to term for simplicity standpoint. When I write things, they are straight out of my head and how I think of things.

[AdamCord]

I understand the purpose of using simple language to define complex systems. It can help people to have a better grasp of what’s going on than may otherwise be possible. The problem I have is when we make overarching assumptions about a complex system based on a basic language and understanding of it.

 

The idea of a purely “carved” turn where there is no “smear” or “skid” in water skiing is just silly. It is impossible. Sure, it may be better to carve more than smear, skid, or slide your way around the bouy, but you will always have an element of all of these happening. If you didn’t, there would be no spray and/or you would sink.

 

So while I appreciate that we can define a turn as sliding more or carving more, you can never have only one or the other in water skiing. The sliding is what allows the water to create lift and keep you from sinking. While it can be tempting to compare water skiing to snow skiing, and there are some similarities, the fact that we are gliding over a medium that has a variable amount of lift based on speed, angle of attack, planing angle, surface area, concave, bevels, skier position, etc makes what we are doing incredibly more complicated.

 

If I were to pick a sport to compare water skiing turning to, it would be Air Racing.

[Wish]

seems a fare comparison.

 

[ScottScott]

Smear causes that big spray. Isn't that why we're all here anyway?

[6balls]

@wish

Good video, but as pilot I can tell you he left out some things.

 

Once you bank and the vertical lift breaks down into vertical and horizontal components the vertical lift DOES NOT continue to support the weight of the plane fully. You don't produce more lift so if the vertical and horizontal components are additive, one needs to do something to prevent sinking...need to add elevator which in a steep turn also tightens the turn.

 

Also, the new relative wind against the tail creating a force in his scenario pushing on it to deviate it to the right is not enough. For a coordinated turn (no slip or skid), one needs to add left rudder to allow the tail to follow the nose around the arc.

 

Very shallow turns would minimize the above, steeper turns this becomes progressively more important.

 

I'm not smart enough to apply that to skiing.

[Wish]

@6balls, like Cord said, highly complex turning systems in both air and water. I'm sure that was flight turning 101 cause I understood it and it was relatively easy to insert ski terms where air and airplane part terms were used. Your understanding as a pilot are far far greater then mine. This vid just dummed it down for us land animals to understand. But it's hard to over look the similarities and even verbage used in both scenarios. It does help understand a lot of the terms tossed around like pitch, yaw, role, axis, lift, speed and even skid.

[SkiJay]

 

[AdamCord]

@6balls now you’re thinking in the right terms. The “wing” on the fin is your airplane elevator and the airplane rudder is managed by fin shape/adjustment and foot pressure to manipulate smear.

[eleeski]

OK, now we have smearing, slipping and skidding describing the same thing? I'll accept that smearing is similar to slipping (as a pilot, I'm familiar with slip - although as a parent I've seen messes smeared over everything). But a skid to me evokes squealing rubber and rapid rotation - way different than a mere "rotational component in sideways drift". To be sure, a skid is a subset of smear (like cannibal is a subset of carnivore). But the words convey different meanings.

 

Having the ski turn off the carve line on the way out to the buoy is a guaranteed fail for me. Note that I can't smear MORE angle on the way out (can anyone?). So much of the basics we do (countering, timing, aim, etc) is meant to keep us on the carve line. Skis have rocker, tunnels and fins to keep carving.

 

The abrupt change of direction at the buoy is something I try for when skiing and design into my skis. Soft fins and narrow tails (both ideas from @Horton ) promote a controllable skid. And add to my buoy count.

 

"The idea of a purely “carved” turn where there is no “smear” or “skid” in water skiing is just silly." as quoted from @adamhcaldwell is correct. (I can feel the tradeoffs clearly if my fin is too soft - a sweet turn but I drift a lot more downcourse with the same attack angles). Ski design and skiing styles need to take that into account.

 

A lot of the discussion of smear seems to focus on using it after the second wake. Disagree with me if you like, but I really don't get it. Go slippery slalom on a trick ski (at Rossi and Caldwell's line lengths where the geometry is the same) and see how fast you will fall if you lose the carve on the way to the buoy. You also won't get far if you don't crank a turn once you round the buoy.

 

@ScottScott Big spray happens with a big carve. Water isn't snow (well it is but frozen) so the skidded snow ski turn spray is quite different from the displacement of loaded liquid. When I'm skidding or slipping a trick ski turn (we never describe it as smear tricking), the spray almost disappears. A slashing solid carve throws up the spray.

 

Now I'm not in the same league as @Chris Rossi or @adamhcaldwell but I did hold an area record in slalom and I have designed skis that performed reasonably in Nationals and Worlds. Why is it automatic Panda worthy if I comment on slalom - but I am way ahead in the Panda count competition so why not?

 

Eric

 

PS while I might not appreciate @SkiJay 's use of the word smear, his understanding and illustrations are spot on. The placement of the centers of movement is very insightful. Hmmm.

[ScottScott]

@eleeski I'll have to disagree with you on the carve causing more spray. I contend that a purely carved turn will have little (to no) spray, just "wake" and rollers moving away from displacement. The sliding or smearing gives you spray. A skidding trick ski sits more flat on top of the water so it doesn't spray as much. Yes, the carving aspect getting deep into the water THEN smearing or sliding gives spray. But a pure carve would have no spray.

[SkiJay]

We can probably steer clear of right vs. wrong in this thread by simply acknowledging that we’ve all built models in our heads that help us make sense of these concepts. And the same holds for the terms we individually choose to describe our models. So for what it's worth, it'n not my goal here to imply that anyone is wrong. I'm just sharing my perspective for the consideration of anyone interested.

 

Carving is yet another example where we clearly don’t all share the same definition. From one perspective, the definition of carving would be the tightly held line an ice skate or a downhill racing ski can scribe around a turn. And by this definition, no water ski will ever perform a purely carved turn. Fair enough.

 

But to be clear, this definition is using the magnitude of sideways drift as the qualifying feature of a carve. If we look closer, neither the skate nor the ski is 100% efficient, and both drift sideways to a small degree. So now the question becomes, at what level of sideways drift does a carved turn cease being carved?

 

I believe that so long as the front of the skate, snow ski or water ski is drifting sideways at the same rate as the back while arcing around a turn, then that skate or ski is carving—the magnitude of the sideways drift being irrelevant.

 

And since a water ski is perfectly capable of scribing a big round freeskiing turn using nothing but the ski’s flex and rocker, then water skis can indeed carve turns. The question then becomes, how tightly can a slalom ski be made to carve a turn before smear has to contribute to achieving an even tighter radius.

 

All skis have flex and rocker, so every turn is part carve and part smear. So when I write that it’s my goal to get any given ski design to carve as much as possible, I’m not saying that I think the turn can be achieved 100% through carving. I’m just saying that I’m trying to get as tight a turn as possible with the minimum amount of smear.

 

For clarity, when I’m using the terms “carve” and “smear” in future posts, this is what I mean:

Carve – any turn where the sideways drift of the tip and tail is equal.

Smear – any time the sideways drift of the tail is greater than that of the tip.

And finially, that I believe all slalom course turns are a combination of both carve and smear.

[Adam Caldwell]

Lets simplify this and just call it a "pickle".

 

 

[Wish]

It's kinda funny to read in GREAT detail about something that happens as a result. Can't we just go back to calling it preturn and turn. Can't see anyone telling someone they smeared wrong. Either that or +1 for pickle.

[6balls]

@wish no but you might tell someone that the reason their tip is rising at turn completion is that they are biting off too much angle.

Why? One reason may be they are over-rotating their turn due to excessive tail slide with respect to the tip (smear). This problem creating unsustainable angle and tip rise before a reset which all costs precious time. The adjust to the ski binding/fin may be to limit smear to some degree (granted the overturn is not due to excessive tip in the set-up).

In my case...it's usually due to poor technique :smile:

[Wish]

Hmmm... "Hay Dave, you're biting off to much angle in the turn. You might want to lesson your DFT". Not so sure I'd mention the word smear...but maybe. Don't get me wrong..100% have enjoyed this thread. Informative to say the least and has certainly increased my awareness. That's why this is a great place to learn.

[Drago]

I think I understand what it is supposed to mean, the question to me is, Do you try to create smear at edge switch and/or into buoy either with settings or technique? Seems like a giant No to me, especially at 39 (38?) and deeper.

[Horton]

@Drago to me the term is only interesting to me because it describes an action that I had never before contemplated. The idea expanded my understanding of what is happening from the edge change to the ball.

[Adam Caldwell]

@DW - I will send you a personal email regarding the lift topic soon.

[mwetskier]

@adamhcaldwell -' pickle ' is a euphemism -right?

 

[DW]

@SkiJay : for your carve definition you might also want to add 'and slip or slide is minimized' since a pure side slide would fall under your current definition.

[SkiJay]

@DW

In the definition I described yesterday, a pure sideslide would already disqualified by the reference to "any turn where ...."

 

But your question raises an interesting point, alluding to a possible scale of efficiency in a carve. This "scale of efficiency" could range from 100% efficient for a train where there is zero drift, right down to but not including a pure sideslide, like a hockey stop.

 

Assuming drift at the front and back are equal while turning, skates, snow skis, and snowboards probably grip with somewhere around 95% efficiency. Water skis would drift more and be way less efficient; maybe somewhere in the 50% – 80% range depending on the radius of a fully carvable turn (there's some numbers for debate!)