Angulation? Or centripetal force management?

[SWriverstone]

So I've read and heard TONS for a few years now about angulation. Whole threads and entire websites have been devoted to proper body/board angle, location of CG, etc.

But after several years of observation, I'm ready to call BS on a lot of this—not because I think it's wrong...but because when I routinely see people doing EC-style carves—practically laid flat-out on the snow—there's little angulation involved at all.

Instead, what I see is people who have been carving long enough that they've become very good at working with centripetal force. In other words, I think many carvers just get good over time at knowing how fast they need to go (or how tight a circle they must carve) in order to allow them to go flat out on the snow and still get back up again.

This strikes me as something that only comes with a LOT of time on the board, and not through some enlightened understanding of angulation. I do recognize that some angulation is required to hold an edge so one can get laid-out-flat...but at some point, the whole equation changes from angulation to "centripetal force vs. speed vs. radius management."

Now I say all this as an acknowledged intermediate (at best), and I welcome anyone more knowledgeable to explain why I'm totally wrong. :) But in my defense, I'd say look at any photo of someone mid-turn flat out against the snow. At that point, the only thing holding them there (and allowing them to get back up again) is centripetal force, not the angle (or lack thereof) of their bodies.

My comments stem from the fact that there have been times when totally by accident (and without knowing what I was doing) I had either enough speed, or tightened my radius enough (or both) that I was literally flat-out on the snow mid-carve. At that moment, I thought "No way I'm getting back up from this," but I did! I came zipping right back up (and felt like a superstud! LOL).

When that happened, it had nothing to do with angulation...and everything to do with speed vs. radius. vs. centripetal force.

Comments?

Scott

[Shred Gruumer]

See post on centrafugitavaginal force... not this again.... ohh lord help us..

Jack take deep breaths and stay away from the keyboard.... ..

;););););););)

[SWriverstone]

LOL - Well hey, I've been gone for over a year...so I'm a little out-of-the-loop! :)

Scott

[Steve Dold]

I don't see anything wrong with his post. It's more interesting than most of the stuff on here. Hey Scott, you should have mentioned centrifugal force, then we could argue about whether or not it really exists :-)

[SWriverstone]

I don't see anything wrong with his post. It's more interesting than most of the stuff on here. Hey Scott, you should have mentioned centrifugal force, then we could argue about whether or not it really exists :-)

LOL, yeah...I had to think hard for a second before writing *centripetal.* :)

But seriously, much as I'd like to flatter myself...I really think my angulation is still somewhat lame (though I'm working on it). So how, then, to explain my "get-down-on-the-snow-and-get-back-up-again" carves? They've happened many times by accident...so it seems feasible to reach a point where you can do it at will...

Scott

[D-Sub]

so it seems feasible to reach a point where you can do it at will..

I'd say that's pretty obvious since the top level EC guys do.

some people are gonna over this, but the proof is in the pudding. Top level EC riders like Fivat don't angulate.

two different styles though, and I still suspect that "race" style ie "bomber" style works better in variable terrain.

[timinor]

Scott, to follow your question of a body position that ranges from totally laid out to an angulated position...I think you can also think in terms of what you can get away with and what is the most efficient. And what you can get away with and what is most efficient will be affected by the texture of the snow (icy, hard pack or soft), the steepness of the hill, the speed of the rider, the lay of the land (fall away vs banked turn) and etc.

And most importantly all of this is determined by what puts the biggest smile on your face. :D:D:D

[timinor]

Whether you ride totally laid out or angulated...just don't have your knees together...:lol::lol::lol:

[D-Sub]

Whether you ride totally laid out or angulated...just don't have your knees together...:lol::lol::lol:

boy we've had some good times here, eh?

[Rob Stevens]

For me, it's more about flexion and extension.

You're right that it has nothing to do with angulating. It also has little to do with inclining, though the mid-turn position is about as inclined as you can get.

I start in a carved traverse, in a very low position. It's all in the legs, so my torso isn't bent any more than it would be if I was standing normally. I'm really sqatting on my heels.

As I roll to the toes (or heels) I will let the edge hook up and as it does I will gradually extend to full height, with my back hand (or front) gliding over the snow.

Full extension is reached at the apex.

The sidecut is doing all the turning, so the board will begin to come out of the fall line on its own. As it does, I begin to compress back to the board to the same, fully-flexed position I started in, back in a traverse.

All this is done in a vertical fashion, relative to the topsheet of the board, so once again, I find it to be more about that than anything else.

Speed plays a role in that if you do it slowly, you'll be lying on the snow during the middle third. If you do it at high speed, you can do the whole thing with your body just off the snow, though your forearm will be skimming along the surface.

My favourite thing in all snowsliding (next to the Noboard) is a toeside euro in softboots (25 and -3), standing up into a big backside 180 off a drop. A little of the freestyle and alpine in one go.

[Thumper]

centrifugal

adjective

1. tending to move away from a center; "centrifugal force" [ant: centripetal]

[Thumper]

I'm confused

[SWriverstone]

Well...I'm honestly not striving to be an EC "lay on the snow" carver...and I know we've discussed this ad nauseum here before...but...there's no question that when you get a bunch of carvers together (especially good ones) the general tendency is for everything to gravitate to "ECism" as people try to outdo one another by getting lower and lower in turns. :) (Otherwise, why the popularity of limbo contests?)

I do want to have good technique...so to that end, I'm definitely better off trying to master the more slalom-oriented style (gotta keep working on those cross-unders!) But the bottom line is that EC-style is the carving world's "bomb"---our "secret weapon," 'cause it's when carvers lay on the snow that the spectators on the lift gasp and ooh and aah the most!

I totally missed the "knees together or apart" thread...gotta go read that one, LOL.

Scott

[Rob Stevens]

Ya... Flat turns are cool.

They're hard to learn in the other sports where it's possible, like surfing, mountain biking and MX, so that's probably why they get the reactions they do from the onlooker and the respect they do from the rippers.

[big mario]

Welcome back Mr. Blake, I do appreciate your insight.

mario

[Mike T]

Vaaaaaddy interesting!!!!

Ever notice how difficult it is for many ‘freecarvers” to “lay out” on steeps? The pitch has at least as much to do with the this as does the velocity… This is why accomplished freecarvers perform their layouts on flats at the base of pitched piste: Both speed (as you cited) and pitch (which you omitted) counteract one another and the manifold forces that the athlete must bring to bear.

I have a bear of a time laying out on flatter runs but it comes easily on steeper pitches... I find that my lower body is naturally close to the snow and my upper body winds up there as well unless I put a lot of effort into keep it it away from the snow?!?!?!?!?!? Am I just strange?

[Zone]

Great post WB!

[eaglez]

I would kill for a two hour coaching session with someone as elloquent and descriptive as WilliamBlake!! Thankyou for the taking the time to craft that wonderful instructional post.

And DrZone, I noticed that you are going to Osler on Friday, hopefully we all can put some of WB's thoughts to good use.

D.

[MUD]

Good to have you back WB.

[ecnalubma]

Welcome back! And a plus 1 on the quality coaching! I need to get back east for an "Air Attack" refresher. ("lemur on crank" - You made me giggle)

[Thumper]

I am no longer confused. In fact, I think I now need a larger helmet.

[boardman73]

lookin forward to riding in the pressence of:ices_angeair attack:ices_ange

[Zone]

I would kill for a two hour coaching session with someone as elloquent and descriptive as WilliamBlake!! Thankyou for the taking the time to craft that wonderful instructional post.

And DrZone, I noticed that you are going to Osler on Friday, hopefully we all can put some of WB's thoughts to good use.

D.

I'd love that too. I'm one of those (learned the hard way) that if I start thinking about what I'm doing and breaking it down, I suck. Whereas if I just do it by feel (and a few crashes) it works much better in the end. Nice to see such detailed breakdown that is not black and white.

Same analogy as WB mentioned, learning the piano one hand at a time, then putting it together, but it would all sounds very mechanical. It comes together when you start to feel into it.

I'll pay attention for sure to those things at Osler Friday.

[Shred Gruumer]

Vaaaaaddy interesting!!!!

I have a bear of a time laying out on flatter runs but it comes easily on steeper pitches... I find that my lower body is naturally close to the snow and my upper body winds up there as well unless I put a lot of effort into keep it it away from the snow?!?!?!?!?!? Am I just strange?

They Call the Cleveland Flats for nothing!

Dunno.. I think laying them out on flats is easy...just takes speed..and of course how to do it... Here in the midwest flatoshere we only get one or two chances to get a low sustained carve out...one about midpoint of the run.. the second is right into the lift line..practically..

Don't worry it not dangerous, and plus Most are from Pittsburg..

See thread on newer jackets and comprehesive Chart! you'll see..

Its all we had to learn of for 20 years. some spots are as steep but only last 50 yards.. but that means more practice...up down,,up down up down up down...

Right Said Shred

[Rob Stevens]

WB:

Good read... It does raise a question for me.

Do you consider angulation as being used when it is not employed to, at least in part, generate edge angle?

It is true that I will alter the angles of my joints in the lower extremities relative to one another, in order to achieve the highly-compressed position I'm looking for to enter or exit a laid turn. This "Angulation" is not generating any edge angle whatsoever... It's simply there to lower me into a position where inclining as one (albeit compressed) unit will not result in a fall due to an imbalance (particularly at low speeds). This was my reasoning behind using the phrase: "It has nothing to do with angulation, and little (but not nothing) to do with inclining. In this style of turn, particularly the slower one, the highlighted movement would seem to be vertical.

This discussion does get me thinking that clarity is needed when getting into "Angulation". Are we angulating for edge? Are we "angulating" for a raised / lowered centre of mass?

To create a proper, stand-up "Angulated" turn, we should see both as occuring. In the fully laid turn, it seems as though edge angle is NOT generated whatsoever by the bending of the lower joints. There is a large degree of pressure control being exerted to control the opposing forces you speak of, but NO alteration of edge angle. My center of mass never moves from directly perpendicular from 90 degrees to my topsheet, when I do it right.

If a change occurs in the relationship between the lower joints, with no change to edge angle, I would call this "Flexion". If I did the same thing while moving my COM to the inside and forward in the direction of the new turn, while observing an upright torso, I would call this "Angulation".

By that definition, the way I'll lay one out is through flexion (and alot of it) / inclination (but not in the bolt-upright sense), finished off with inclination / extension.

This also calls into question the use of the word "Inclination", as for most it seems that it means standing there like a stick and banking into the turn, with no flexion in the legs. There is still alot of control that can be derived from an "Inclined" turn with flexion. The only joint not angulated would be the hips. This is pretty important when discussing racing technique, as you are in a much more balanced position when you are using hip angulation, but there are certain cases in racing where allowing yourself to become inlined at the hips creates a shorter route through the corner for your COM, but the course had better be cherry.

I guess this whole rant comes from a defense of absolutes. Avoiding the use of the word "Never" (especially if your income is derived from the sale of real estate) is always a safe route. I will, however, in certain cases, use it when it is clear that the thing in question is not happening. I would also say that the laid turn is tke only one I use where I would not consider myself to be "Angulating"... All the rest have it in there somewhere. Once again, this whole thing is predicated on my avoidance of the word when it is not used to describe a force generating some amount of edge angle.