Gloersen

@OB, certainly concur, too often trying to hug that RHGB that I have to hold back, sometimes the ski hooks up generating angle that appears will go wide right and then have to give up the lean. Considering aiming for the middle during the winter month practice and building upon the velocity. What AM states in the clip during the 5:00 to ~8:30 segment definitely hits the mark imho. Most Ballers probably have it (if not, it's worth purchase just for the didactics); recommend it for review. Slalom_With_Andy_Mapple_Video

@BruceButterfield among the best articles in the archives.... most of all.... "if you execute proper handle control, the edge change will happen automatically". words to ski by. any land drills to help ingrain this into muscle memory???

Salient point Trent is making. Always have considered “speed” as desirable; “fast” as undesirable. There is a difference (semantically). Visualize a great, smooth pass; in total control, staying stacked, skiing from the handle at the core, good outbound direction, effortless reaches & turns, no crushing loads, just super wide & early with plenty of space. Drop at the end & ask why they can’t be all that way (maybe for some of you they are :) ). Now consider the ugly pass; just hanging on to squeak by each ball, feeling out of control at times, separated from the core, super fast at times, slamming turns, & just connecting the dots. Both “successful” passes in the same period of time, but the “easy” one covered a greater distance and therefore on average; greater speed. The crappy “fast” pass covered less distance and thus less speed. “Speed” (positive velocity) is an ally. Insofar as achieving that velocity past the 2nd wake; grasping what TW states below about it; seems it should be so easy. Just wish I could do it consistently instead of a random incident. “Here’s how it should be done. Through the wakes, and even past the wakes, maintain some of the upper body and lean away from the boat. Instead of letting the outside shoulder lift back in toward the wakes, keep the shoulders level. Do whatever it takes to keep the shoulders and the rest of the upper body in the same position that they were in behind the boat. The elbows should stay right where they were during the cut, right on the sides of the vest. The chest should remain upright, the elbows stay tucked in to the body, and the hips should stay up close to the handle. Instead of letting the upper body get pulled back in, keep it leaning away from the boat and moving across the course. Allow the ski to swing through beyond the upper body and on to the new turning edge by softening up the legs and letting the ski release from the load it built up during the acceleration. From the boat, the skier should look quiet and still from the waist up. It’s the ski, the knees and hips that should be doing most of the movement. This will result in more direction across the course through the edge-change transition, and allow the turns to be set up earlier and from a wider point.”

TW Article He sums it up quite well, see page 20

Fully ascribing to the notion of “loading the line late”, “light on the line”, “hide from ZO”, “ski spray to spray”, etc., etc.; however the data suggests we max load a lot sooner than what we perceive as optimal. How the load is initiated; with optimal velocity (speed & direction), how it is sustained (not getting high-sided, not giving it up prior to the 2nd wake), is critical. Crushing the turn, coming off the buoy in some attempt to generate massive angle acutely (or during a direction change for the gates) is not the way to create sustainable load; optimal velocity is killed. Naturally speed & direction (angle), the components of velocity, are inextricably linked, but the perception of speed creating angle merits focus. Attempting to use angle to create speed leads to unsustainable load, on the other hand, shifting the COM in the desired direction of travel efficiently generates speed yielding the sustainable angle sought. Ramping up less acutely probably permits greater ability to sustain productive load through the 2nd wake, but suspect the upper stratum have mastered the technique of using speed through the direction change significantly more intensely while continuing to optimally load with proper handle control through the 2nd wake.

@Horton No, you can't have my Bud Light!

@Sethski Excellent feedback as well as what @Bruce Butterfield posted. Try his model but use a pencil to draw the path of travel for the assumed minimal amplitude (e.g, 65’ to scale). Now shorten the “rope” (lessen the radius), yes the circumference decreases but one is now traveling a greater portion of that circle when the line shortens (as you adroitly stated). Measure the actual lengths of the paths scribed as the “rope” shortens; the distance along the arc traveled INCREASES as the “rope” shortens. Assuming a similar intercept point at width on each side relative to buoy position; there is NO way this minimal geometrically (Euclidean @ThanBogan) determined length can be lessened. However, the actual path of the handle can be increased dependent on technique; those who ski very wide & early at longer line lengths will move that intercept point (with the minimal amplitude line) further in front of the buoy (up course) and the handle will travel further than those skiing “coordinates” (hesitated to use that term). In these instances a longer path will be skied than minimally required and as they shorten the line the increases in distance & speed may not be as perceptible (assuming they mastered the technique of moving their intercept point further down course without detriment when shortening the line). Of course it’s a basic tenet that the “path” at ultra short-line becomes highly defined; who was it that stated it’s like skiing a path as wide as a garden hose? Nonetheless, assuming the same “intercept point” at full, minimal amplitude (referring to handle path); as the line shortens the minimal distance of required handle travel INCREASES. Below some basic trig review: Arc length = Ropelength x arc angle in Radians. Assume the following (along the lines Seth described getting further up on the boat): 35 off arc angle = 120 deg 38 off arc angle = 138 deg 39.5 off arc angle = 152 deg 41 off arc angle = 180 deg There are 2π (approximately 6.2832) radians in a complete circle, So: 2π radians = 360 deg, 1 radian = 360/2π = 180/π. Therefore: 180 deg = π Radians or 3.1416 Radians 35 off arc length = Ropelength(40) x 120/180 x π = 84 feet 38 off arc length = Ropelength(37) x 138/180 x π = 89 feet 39.5 off arc length = Ropelength(35.5) x 152/180 x π = 94 feet 41 off arc length = Ropelength(34) x 180/180 x π = 107 feet It’s all interesting stuff, although not helpful to me in skiing shorter lines other than providing a tangible explanation of why I find it so much more difficult.

@ThanBogan will do when time permits. You probably plan inundation with a bunch of Cartesian equations.

Garn is correct. Minimal geometrical distances achieved for a given line length and constant minimum amplitude of handle travel (say 65') CANNOT be lessened despite any forward movement of the pylon at any velocity (assuming a taught line along this amplitude of travel). That is of course UNLESS you have 6 of these on your course, arranged in the right locations. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/LorentzianWormhole.jpg/624px-LorentzianWormhole.jpg Do these exist in Utah or Colorado? Scott where can I get some? :)

have never seen KN on the A1. ACE sure knows how to ski on it though & among the best to emulate when trying to "ski like a girl".

May not be much for didactics but some good video footage & decent music for young people; to each their own. ....oh yes, & should stir those considering adding tip rise...intentionally, really???

"Evolve" Slalom Quite good.

Great thread, all the favorite topics. Tip rise: technique vs result, ZO vs PP ZO: load early vs. load late vs. minimize load. New Ski Design: need more tip down to turn and efficiently create speed & direction across course vs. riding the tail to so “that the ski will accelerate faster on the tail, and is fastest on its tail, with less load and drag cross course” (which of course brings into play perception vs. reality). Fin settings: not yet broached, but to accomplish any of the above “differences” Finally, women: complex vs. simple. In either event, under suitable circumstances; there is always tip rise.

We are not on the same page; there is virtually no tip rise of ill effect in JB's entire set. After re-reading the 1st paragraph of your 1st post; based on that definition, yes perhaps "tip rise" exists. However the tip rise that might be considered a "flaw" in technique is stomping on the brakes and a loss of direction as described above (Butterfield). JB in this set does an incredible performance of using & maintaining speed throughout the pre-turn, turn, (the whole pass) to create sustainable angle and maintaining direction as pointed out by TB. @Than Bogan if I could do what JB does it would be one set when I didn't feel that "turned it too hard to hold on" feeling; a sensation all too familiar from trying to stop the boat to create angle too often. JB's set epitomizes avoiding excessive load off the ball but rather the use of speed, direction, center of mass momentum, not to mention balance, strength, athleticism. Looking forward to rippin tomorrow & having the driver state: "you had tip rise on that pass, looked like JB." I'll take that every time at any line. You started a good thread, it's all fun stuff!

Perhaps a no "tip rise" video of JB for perspective; especially that 41off 1B!

H2O2 if used with good judgement is a great liquid debriding agent. Some ENT docs recommend following up with an application of 50/50 white vinegar/isopropyl alcohol (assuming no perforations) for pH adjustment and further bactericidal effect.

H2O2 if used with good judgement is a great liquid debriding agent. Some ENT docs recommend following up with an application of 50/50 white vinegar/isopropyl alcohol (assuming no perforations) for pH adjustment and further bactericidal effect.

Excellent screw & plate placement, good spinal fixation system, looks like Zimmer. Nice work! Also looks like your C-spine has plenty of wear & tear remaining in it!

Excellent screw & plate placement, good spinal fixation system, looks like Zimmer. Nice work! Also looks like your C-spine has plenty of wear & tear remaining in it!

Some of the best advice I've ever received regarding slalom: "ski in the moment"; such applies to life in general. Live in the moment amigo and focus on the task at hand; skiing will come when it does. Skål!

Some of the best advice I've ever received regarding slalom: "ski in the moment"; such applies to life in general. Live in the moment amigo and focus on the task at hand; skiing will come when it does. Skål!

Sorry to hear of your injury. Pursue all options (including non-surgical if viable!), multiple opinions, if I recall you have an ortho doc in the family to tap for detailed insight. Keep in mind clinical studies have reported increased rates of disc degeneration in levels adjacent to fusion. It is believed that eliminating motion through fusion shifts the load to the adjacent levels thus causing earlier disc degeneration. It’s been shown cervical spine fusion causes intradiscal pressures to significantly increase during normal flexion motion, less during extension as adjacent level intradiscal pressures is reduced since the facet joints play a more active role, thus relieving some of the force transferred to the discs in extension. Overall though, increased intradiscal pressures may partially explain the accelerated breakdown of adjacent level discs following fusion. If you run the risk of permanent neuropathy without stabilization/fusion, obviously options are limited. Either way it can only lead to better practice, improved technique and running the 12m line…next season! Godspeed.

Sorry to hear of your injury. Pursue all options (including non-surgical if viable!), multiple opinions, if I recall you have an ortho doc in the family to tap for detailed insight. Keep in mind clinical studies have reported increased rates of disc degeneration in levels adjacent to fusion. It is believed that eliminating motion through fusion shifts the load to the adjacent levels thus causing earlier disc degeneration. It’s been shown cervical spine fusion causes intradiscal pressures to significantly increase during normal flexion motion, less during extension as adjacent level intradiscal pressures is reduced since the facet joints play a more active role, thus relieving some of the force transferred to the discs in extension. Overall though, increased intradiscal pressures may partially explain the accelerated breakdown of adjacent level discs following fusion. If you run the risk of permanent neuropathy without stabilization/fusion, obviously options are limited. Either way it can only lead to better practice, improved technique and running the 12m line…next season! Godspeed.

I wish I had an answer to that because I'm tired of answering that question. yb

I wish I had an answer to that because I'm tired of answering that question. yb