Angulation? Or centripetal force management?

[SWriverstone]

I'm here—just trying to absorb everything I've read. :) I'm sure I'll have some sort of exegesis in a while. LOL

Scott

[Rob Stevens]

"A" question? why do I have trouble with that statement?:D

ME-Because I have more than one?

That being your statement, try riding with both legs in full-casts, so as not to allow angulation, and let me know how your carves lay out.

Teaser hint: they won't.

ME-Unless we're talking about pow, then the full base of support takes away that point loaded edge force that's bound to blow. I love full base of support... It makes Noboard shredding come true.

You need to subtly employ angulation to get to that apex that allows you to straightehn up and lay out.

remember that, unlike skier angulation, snowboarder angulation involves both the natural flexion of the knees along with the mediallateral flexion that defines skier angulation, due to our diagonal board stance and single plane locomotor.

ME-In the laid turn, I'm using the "flexion of the knees" part, but not the "mediallateral flexion that defines skier angulation". My back does not "arch" on the toes, nor does my butt move inside to initiate on the heels.

I won't pretend to know what the single-plane locomotor part meant!

Yep- and for many other applied forces and reactive applications, as well. What you're requesting is less clarity and more tabulation.

ME-YES! Tabulations!

OK. If you say so.

But you're omitting the initiation to that turn, without which the turn would never occur.

ME-There is no lateral movement with the hips. I would concede that the hips do wind up inside, but this is from me having inclined in my little ball and extending vertically in relation to the topsheet.

You're obsessing on a snapshot of the apex and refusing acknowledgement of the angulation and extension that it takes to get the rider to that photo-op point.

ME-Well... That part does look pretty rad...

Like I say- try riding with an immobilizer on each leg, and let me know how well you do in getting to that apex.

ME-I'd better armour up.

I'm not sure I follow:

Isn't "90 degrees from perpendicular to (your) topsheet" simply parallel?

ME-When I re-read that, I got dizzy. You should have heard some of the other Yogi Berra'esque comments I've made over the years.

Your CM needn't move, (and this is something I see too many riders confusing), but your deck should, out from under your CM.

ME-I get you, but in this type of turn, my board is not being displaced from side to side, while my COM remains in a constant place (cross through / down-unweighted turns). My COM is always in a direct line with resultant forces (the 'fugal / 'pedal combo). I guess this is why I refer to it as "vertical" when it isn't straight up to the sky, but rather vertical to the direction of force. Is this a mistake? It seems to work when explaining it in a session on laid turning.

OK...but you'd be misapplying the terms.

Flexion relates to the vertical axis, angulation to the horizontal.

ME-OK... Here is our disconnect. I am stuck in a alternate reality where I'm moving vertically to the direction of force and not the natural direction of gravity at a standstill. As for the horizontal part, my hips don't go that way in a laid turn. They wind up inside, but not via a toeside "arch" in the back, or a heelside break at the waist.

On a snowboard, given our diagonal stance, there is considerable latitude for overlap, but one won't readily replace the other.

ME-In this turn, I'm thinking I replaced horizontal hip angulation to the inside with severe compression through flexion and inclination. My hip doesn't cross the centreline of the board on my toes and it doesn't go past my heels on the frontside turn.

Ok...Indeed, by a flawed definition anything is possible.

ME-My ears doth bleed!!! You have wounded me with your words, good Sir! I demand satisfaction! (sound of glove across skin of WB's cheek).

Why would the use of one technique/force preclude the employment of another?

Because of this bizzare turn, the arch / butt drop used in every other turn I make is not felt here.

technically, angulation and extension foster stronger incination....think about rising out from the deck as you execute your turn. you're employing extension, in your rising motion, and angulation of the knees and ankles both to drive the board forward...

ME-I'm not advancing the board forward to align my COM over my back foot like I would in a stand up turn. I'm squatting between my feet.

...and to set the edge angle.

ME-My knees and ankles aren't putting the board on edge in this type of turn. They're just getting me low enough so I can incline without falling over.

Really? Why is that? Hip angulation is key in SG and DH, and anytime one needs to drive the board fwd. in long-radius turning.

ME-Hip "Angulation" is still key here (I am flexing it), but not angulation to the inside.

Actually, given the choice between hip angulation and laid out inclination, hip angulation will be the optimal technique for most race conditions...especially those that are sub-cherry.

ME-10-4.

Hip angulation allows a much stronger, SINGULAR joint (unlike the paired knees and ankles) to drive the board forward and from which to extend and, to a degree, rotate. The ability to employ hip-rotation in a GS-DH heelside separates the DH specialist from the dual-event gate-basher.

ME-I can't talk about rotation now. My brain is at its maximum processing speed already.

OK. you're right: Please take some runs without any (inside hip) angulation whatsoever, and have them videotaped.

I would really like to see this footage.

ME-OK. I'll need some time though as my clients know I just got back from Mexico and they won't take kindly to me ****ing off to the mountains for a few more days of relaxo. I could explain to them that it's for work, I guess...

So, if you don't like a word being correctly utilized to describe a situation that's not to your liking, you choose to simply redefine it?

ME-No no... Just tabulate it.

When you drive a board forward, from below your knees, FLAT, you're angulating your knees to do this.

try it: stand sideways, on a skateboard:

Roll the deck fore and aft beneath you while standing in place.

Notice how your right foot is on the right side of your right knee when the board is to your right, and on the left side of this same right knee when the deck is rolled to your left?

At what axis is your attitude breaking to execute this maneuver? Try it, even from your desk chair. You're using knee angulation without edging.

ME-To keep angulation out of it (because it's not an edging move) I would call this "Core flexion", to "Advance" the board to a pivot and pressure point located under the back foot and "Regress" the board to a pivot and pressure point under the front foot. Yeah, tabulation!

For me, I find it helpful to separate out the types of angulation you'll use in riding and perhaps use a different word if it's suitable. I like to keep the "Angulation" word for when the hip moves inside the arc, while the torso remains upright. If the lower joints were used to create the edge angle in concert with the above than the above is aided and supported by this movement and the whole thing can be called an "Angulated" turn with flexion. Admittedly, this happens in every other turn I can think of, with the exception of the eurocarve.

If angulation occurs, but edging does not take place, I probably have another word for it. Does this create confusion? It depends on the presentation.

I'm sure you can blow a bunch of holes in this respose WB... To that end I want to pay you to come and give a clinic to our senior evaluator types (and me) in CASI. I would have to get the Board and the TD to approve this, but if I can't make things happen as president, what good is this power I chuck around without consideration?

[rocketman]

Angulation is your steering wheel. If you try to keep your body straight over the board, you have chosen one angle to appose your centrifugal force. If its not right you skid or fall.

Your board has a fixed flex, length and side cut radius. At the moment of each turn, your speed and slope angle are become fixed. The only variable you have left to control is the board's angle.

By creating a variable angle at your hips (feeling your ribs touch your hips) you can adjust your angle as you enter, apex and leave the turn. If you took too much board angle (too tight a radius for the speed and slope angle), you can instantly reduce it and visa versa.

[Rob Stevens]

Rocketman... Yeah... Thats it... I think the boards shape can be varied more with input, though.

WB and S.o... Exactly. EC style turning is no more of an advanced body position than what we in CASI would call a "novice" one. The COM never has to move over the centreline on the toes or away from it much on the heels. Very basic stuff when you consider all the other positions a body needs to be in to pin it on a racecourse.

What makes it hard is to go beyond the one or two "turns-to-stall at the lift"? The "card trick" is the "sleight of hand" used to link them over and over down steeps through the timing of those basic moves. The greater than normal vertical movement used without having the COM get displaced, blocking the upper body from getting to the snow also takes some getting used to.

The simplicity of the best "Extremecarving" action is juxtaposed against the amount of practice it takes to run it like Jaques, Patrice and the other "G's" of laid turns. If you ran gates as much as these guys lie down would you be fast? Likely. You'd just spend your time learning to get good in alot of positions, instead of amazing in a few positions.

I'm good at eurocarves and blow out of racecourses. Why? Because I don't have the strength to be positioned properly at that speed, doing it where the course tells me to. I need full body stacking to hold my G's... Not to mention that the half-speed body drag doesn't freak me out the way a WFO race run does.

[Rob Stevens]

I disagree. What speed is "that" speed? A good rider can dictate her/his speed through any course; in fact, slow race turns take skill.

For sure they do, but they won't podium. That's why I stopped. I can go fast, but when I'd shadow a course at a WC going as fast as I was willing to go, with the WC'er passing me, taking the longer, rounder way down the mountain, I realized that there was another gear I was too scared (and undertrained) to grab.

I liken it to racing DH mountainbikes. Lots of speed is easy when it's straight and smooth. Throw some savagery into the mix and maintaining that "off the brakes" speed is for the fast boys only. Yeah Sam Hill.

Race runs needn't be WFO.

The winning ones are (a calculated WFO, at least) and if I couldn't do that, I was out.

Try riding in 3-d race-style (as opposed to 2-d freecarver) at speeds half that with which you freecarve; it's doable.

Yeah it is, but it's slow. I like to go fast in that 3D position. Freecarving let's me do that with my present fitness / balls because I can pick the location and radius of the turns. To do the speeds I'd want to run in a racecourse, the kind that would make the waiting around at the start all day worthwhile, I'd need to train. If I got stronger (you've got to be hitting the weight pile and riding a ****load) I might get the balls to go faster. I'd need the physical strength to have the mental strength. I'd also have to agree to pivot and break a pure carve. When I ride hardboots, I see it as a failure when I slide! Damn I hate pivoting an alpine board! The best thing it's for is carving!

That's just purely personal, though and has no bearing on how fast guys get down a course.

You've created an excuse equally novel and self-credible so as to limit yourself from further development.

That's for real! I don't have the time to develop more, personally, but I would like to be as good as I can be in getting others there.

The people who introduced me to high foot angle riding were Kevin Delaney, Serge Vitelli and Bertrand Denervaud. This was the late 80's in Whistler. Kevin at the old OP Pros and Serge and Berti filming. Racing was pretty slow and you wouldn't come out of a carve much. The courses were all set so we wouldn't have to. Freecarving and Racing techniques were the same to me. Only a short time later the speeds jumped up and pivoting became a requirement. That's when I went back to soft boots and bindings. Now it's just the soft boots... What happened to those bindings..?

[boardman73]

yup Sam is not human:eek:

[Zone]

Rocketman... Yeah... Thats it... I think the boards shape can be varied more with input, though.

WB and S.o... Exactly. EC style turning is no more of an advanced body position than what we in CASI would call a "novice" one. The COM never has to move over the centreline on the toes or away from it much on the heels. Very basic stuff when you consider all the other positions a body needs to be in to pin it on a racecourse.

What makes it hard is to go beyond the one or two "turns-to-stall at the lift"? The "card trick" is the "sleight of hand" used to link them over and over down steeps through the timing of those basic moves. The greater than normal vertical movement used without having the COM get displaced, blocking the upper body from getting to the snow also takes some getting used to.

The simplicity of the best "Extremecarving" action is juxtaposed against the amount of practice it takes to run it like Jaques, Patrice and the other "G's" of laid turns.

Nice discussion guys. Learned a lot, and a lot I'm not sure I understand, my head is pounding.

Just a thought on a point that does not get much attention, here or on the EC forum for that matter. One of the thing I like about EC is the 'simplicity' and esthetic of it, or at least the way it seems on their video. On most other videos you don't see that.

What I mean is just not laying it down and linking the turns, seems like many people are able to do it now. However to do it in a visually beautiful manner on the steep...smooth, no arm flailing, nice body and limb position at any time during the turn and transitions, time after time.

Sort of like comparing the same piece as played in an elevator vs. Oscar Peterson, or a creme brule made by your girlfriend vs. a nice French restaurant. PC vs Mac.

[SWriverstone]

Fascinating thread! And WilliamBlake, I appreciate your renaissance approach. You were certainly correct in rebuffing me for my black-or-white choice of words. And I don't really believe in those extremes (hyperbole is the curse of a hyper-enthusiastic character). I've always believed there are only a million shades of gray. :)

In my other post in which I lamented the crowds at Mid-Atlantic resorts, it was because I find it too difficult to focus on bringing the whole orchestra to bear in my riding when I'm constantly distracted and worried by close calls. It's not an environment conducive to learning. Though it's possible to improve under such conditions, I'd suggest that for significant, rapid improvement, a more isolated learning slope is needed!

I experienced this back in the late 80s when I was a competitive whitewater slalom C-1 racer. I trained on a virtually private site on the Potomac River with members of the U.S. team...and the fact I was even able to train with those guys was because the sport—back then—was still in the woods and such things as a noob training with world champions was actually possible! (Today whitewater slalom is of course a regular Olympic sport.)

So I've been through the whole process of: observation, study, drill, analysis, drill, revelation—then repeat 1000 times! :) So I believe it when you see hardbooters using only a fraction of the possible techniques. I see the same thing when so-called "expert" whitewater kayakers basically float through a rapid unscathed and believe they're accomplished...when I could easily set a course for them to follow on a class 2 rapid which would result in their embarrassment. LOL

Anyway, your points are all well-taken. One day I'll invest in an entire day or week's worth of coaching (with plenty of videotaping, since there's no medicine like seeing ourselves as others see us!). Until then, I'll just have to keep my mind open as I ride...and try some of those varying drills!

Scott

[SWriverstone]

Anytime you'd like to either drive or take a cheap commuter hop up here (Southern NYS), you've got a complete day of coaching, gratis, on me...on VERY uncrowded, open piste.

PS- When are you Prague-bound? I used to keep a flat there (Dual-resident), and can steer you toward some great riding in the nearby Krkonose Mountains (my second home).

Most of my gear is up there in the Krkonose, as well.

You're welcome to my "Snoloose" GS board...If you don't speak any, yet, learn some Czech. I can send you a tape or two, or some phrase books. fascinating and beautiful language...much like their women and beer.

Thanks! I may take you up on that. If by "NYS" you mean New York state, that's no big deal---I can get up there easily.

I'm headed to Prague on March 21st and (sadly) will only be there a week. My sister lives there (teaching English). I'm looking forward to it and have never been there. Snowboarding in CZ? Wow, that sounds interesting! :) If you think of it, send me an email so I know how to reach you! (I think you can do that through my forum profile.)

Scott

[BadBrad]

williamblake,

Which resort in Southern NYS are you talking about?

[Rob Stevens]

the ensuing and bizarre whimperings both of repressed web-community-xenophobia and penis envy from a few rabidly desocialized gadflies did little to further either the spirit or the core of that otherwise thoughtful discussion.

Woah.

My first use of a smilie, but I have been saving it for a special occasion.

[BlueB]

Yup, this wasn't needed. I thougth we were over the fiasco of that tread, why reviving it now? Let's stick to good technical stuff...

[Buell]

the ensuing and bizarre whimperings both of repressed web-community-xenophobia and penis envy from a few rabidly desocialized gadflies did little to further either the spirit or the core of that otherwise thoughtful discussion.

Wow, now that is an impressive quote. :rolleyes:

[Rob Stevens]

Hey Buell... Thanks for the primer on using the quote function.

[tpalka]

Snowboarding in CZ? Wow, that sounds interesting! :)

Hey Scott, thanks for starting a cool thread -- very interesting reading!

If you go to CZ, you might also look up Zajda. Lisa and I looked into bringing carving boards last time we went to Poland, but ended up just skiing for a day with the family.

tom.

[eaglez]

the ensuing and bizarre whimperings both of repressed web-community-xenophobia and penis envy from a few rabidly desocialized gadflies did little to further either the spirit or the core of that otherwise thoughtful discussion.

Did someone delete a flame inducing post???

D.

[Rob Stevens]

When I watched the EC footage from Opus 4 on their site, as well as some film that James Ong posted from Mt Rose in the video section of this site, something crystallized for me.

Angulation is an impediment to laid turns.

This is not to say that some riders aren't employing angulation when they do their version of the turn, but you should look for the differences between what you see in James' video and Patrice and Jaques.

I'll say that the toeside turns off the heels are quite clean with everyone. There is some rotation vs. counter-rotation points that could be made, but for the purposes of this discussion, we won't get into them.

It is in the heelside turn where I see angulation as problematic.

You only have a certain amount of time in a turn to get laid out. Delays in getting to this point through the top half of the turn results in a loss of fluidity. Mostly because it took the rider too long to get there and they wound up flat on the snow too far into the traverse to recover.

Why did it take so long? Angulation.

As the rider approaches the edge transfer from the toes, the first thing to "drop" is the hips inside and towards the snow. The hip / ass only reaches the snow at about mid turn, at which time the rider then begins to lower their shoulders towards the snow. Once the whole body is laid out, the rider is already well and truly into the traverse. By this point, they should be on their way to recovering to a flat base, instead of still lying there.

The segmented nature of having the hips dropping befor the shoulders created two moves instead of one.

The obvious problem in doing this "as one" is falling over when you bank like that. So, how do we get the whole thing to happen as one, resulting in the laid part of the turn occuring in the fall line without falling? Deep flexion and an incredibly keen sense of resultant force (This is the original posters question... Do you have angulation or a very dialled sense of resultant force... The combination of the mountain pushing you and you pushing back?

The first thing you can do to set yourself up for this is to flex into a tuck position in your traverse between turns. Early edge change is key here as you should allow the resultant force you're using from you last turn to pull your torso down and forward (towards the apex), inclining you to the inside. This is all done with the tucked body as one solid unit.

**Here is where you would normally use angulation at the hips, in concert with knee and ankle flexion to find the edge. Substitute this with a tucked "bank" to get on the heel edge.**

Once the edge has started to do its thing and you are still in the first 3rd of the top of the turn you can begin to extend yourself. This extension of the flexed joints back to their lengthened state is harmonized with the inclining of your whole body so that your hips and shoulders reach the snow AT THE SAME TIME. Your front hand is an "outrigger" throughout. A tactile device used to give your self feedback during the turn. A constant light pressure should be felt.

Again, Proper use of resultant force will allow you to extend and bank simultaneously without falling over.

In your fully laid out position it will be the deformation / sidecut of your board that will begin to pull you out of the fall line. Using the resultant force of the board gradually positioning itself below you, moving across the hill, as your COM tries to go downhill will allow you to reverse the steps and regain your feet. It will pick you up so long as you are flexing back to that tucked position, looking at and directing your Centre of Mass towards where it will be lying next, just inside the apex of the new turn.

This should make it clear that the transition between turns is tucked. It is a cross-through turn, but the pressure will feel greater at the switch. You'll be crouched with your full weight on the board, rather than having the board forced into your abdomen when it crosses below you, as it would in a stand-up, cross-through turn (down-unweighted turn for you CASI folks).

I'll say that even the masters of EC in their Opus videos botch it once in awhile. Never on the toes, but every other heelside, they'll start extended, rather than flexed, hip angulate going in and slow the whole process down. If they weren't on such a steep pitch, they wouldn't get away with it. If they were to pay as much attention to the tucked position going to their heels as they employ going to the toes, there would be a consistent absence of hip angulation.

Yes, I'm beating this thread to death and likely no one cares at this point, but I felt the need to do it anyways. This whole thing has helped me to tighten up my thoughts on the subject.

[nils]

interesting thread, thnx scott for starting this

my head hurts now, but i've learned things :)

as for why we do EC turns: its because its fun i guess....and as stated in one of the last posts, its a quest to gesture purity...when we will reach the point where not a single inch of the arm moves unwillingly, when the timing and position is perfect etc is what we are trying to reach... i guess its more a martial art approach to one perfect kind of movements.... its not about our stuff is better than yours...

Jacques and Patrice are concentrating into that quest for perfect movement, in order to feel good, and also because its always room for improving...and if it looks like waterskiing..so? its still snowboarding and its fun!

Nils

[Steve Prokopiw]

Well put Nils.Agreed.

[Rob Stevens]

I hope that penis envy - zenophobia **** didn't wind up looking like MY quote. It sure looks like it from Eaglez post.

Thats not my style. I was quoting something that was deleted by another poster.

I should really just shut up anyway.

[nils]

why cant we just have fun doing EC the way we want..for the reasons we want?

It seems there is always downsides but fortunately enough we just have so much fun doing it that it does not matter...As for is it styler etc... i don't care really: i feel its more stylish, but i'm just a human beeing and my neighbour might think the opposite...classic dancers might dislike hip hop dance, but its still dance...i am not into FS but i recon its still snowboarding...

My statement was not hypocrital or trying to make a point, its really genuine: we do it because we like it...nothing to add, nothing to prove... is it bad?

N

[Ladia]

Thanks! I may take you up on that. If by "NYS" you mean New York state, that's no big deal---I can get up there easily.

I'm headed to Prague on March 21st and (sadly) will only be there a week. My sister lives there (teaching English). I'm looking forward to it and have never been there. Snowboarding in CZ? Wow, that sounds interesting! :) If you think of it, send me an email so I know how to reach you! (I think you can do that through my forum profile.)

Scott

End of the March? I would not waste the time going to the mountains. Stay in Prague drink beer have fun with girls and be happy.

[eaglez]

I fixed my post to only quote the deleted text, not your name tagged to it. I was just wondering who posted that and what happened to make him delete it so quickly.

Moving on..... I am sure there are other noteworthy threads, but this one gets my mind racing at the possibilities described so well by many of the contributors. I just want to get out riding and try them all!!! :D

D.

[Rob Stevens]

I respectfully disagree. "maximum force" ( from which? momentum, gravity, inertia or rider input?) needn't occur after the apex of the turn.

Most of the time, in fact, force being applied after the apex includes lost energy.

Bola: Yeah, you WANT it to happen (generally speaking) at the apex, but for most, it tends to happen in the latter third.

Why? It seems to come down to the riders ability to establish an early edge platform in the top quarter of the turn. If you edge change too slowly, everything else, including the place where' you'll feel the maximum force, will move later into the turn.

The ****ty thing about this is that maximum edge and pressure is best suited to the middle, because there is a reduction in fall line gravity force. If things get held up, not only are you dealing with the forces you're applying late, you also now have to deal with the forces the mountain wants to give you late as well. Bad combo.

When I feel like I've really nailed the middle of the apex to the fall line, is when I have done a little cross through at the switch, effectively moving the board up the hill under me and onto its new edge, rather than rolling my body over the board (S L O W) onto the new edge.

[Rob Stevens]

I identify and reinforce an inverse overlap of rider input X inertia that occurs before the apex.

I'll try...

If I hit my apex right, I'll begin to exit the turn with cross fall line inertia, stored through gravitys pull in the fall line and opposing centripedal force, which are both reducing as I come out of the fall line and approach the switch.

With sufficient momentum across the fall line, I should be able to perform a rider induced moment of movement where edge and pressure are increased through flexion.

At this moment, I will allow an increasing force of fall line gravity to allow my upper body to cross slightly down and forward and inertia combined with my centripedal force to spring my board up to a higher line. (squat value?)

Having made this early switch, there should be little external force acting on me, allowing me to more easily and with less resistance (more easily than this having occurred late with a slow edge change), to increase edge and pressure towards the apex. An increase in gravitational force will be experienced as I max out my edge and angulation, to be balanced by my centripetal actions. Hopefully, this gravitational force will be reduced as it is being most centiripetally opposed with the board in the fall line, rather than across it, if I got late.

With most of the rider induced pressure now decreasing at I exit the fall line, I should be less "taxed" in my centripetal actions as I move into where gravitys pull would be strongest, crossing the fall line.

Having observed these tactics, I should be well centred and ready for my cross through move to the next turn.

Jesus, that made my head hurt... Am I using the terminology correctly?

What other mistakes do you see here?