EC: something to think about

[James Ong]

Angulation is king right? This seems to be the crux of all the disputes about EC. To angulate is certainly the most technically correct way to generate edge pressure, for an alpine board or skis.

I remember watching the snowboard races on the tube when they were still running SG and downhill, in the heydays of Melhuse and Masterpool. This was ( and probably still is) the way everyone did it and since there was no other instruction, this is what i pattered my riding after.

In EC there is much INCLINATION performed which is understandably viewed as bad technique. Here is the Crux, since it is in bad form to inclinate so much does this method bear studying just because they accomplish so much with so called "bad technique"? Every time you say touching the snow the or being leaned over that much is bad, you might be making their argument for them.

[kjl]

It's not that the inclination is bad. Good bombero style riders are fully inclinating (knee draggin on toeside, and hip draggin on heelside), but they are highly angulated. The EC riders, when they are laid out, are also fully inclinating but pretty have much no angulation.

Frankly, I don't understand why the EC turn works. Anybody with a freshman class in physics or engineering can draw a simple diagram and show that more angulation should = better edge hold. This completely flies in the face of the fact that I've seen the non-angulated EC turn on hard conditions, and that I can do the frontside non-angulated, laid out turn smoothly and link it with the next turn consistently.

Actually, that picture, linked on that massive flamewar thread, of Bordy rippin a pretty sick, laid toeside here doesn't even have that much angulation, though I think most bomber styler riders would agree that that's good technique, because he is so compressed. The bomber heelsides of course are markedly different than the EC heelside.

But, just for the sake of argument, since both style toesides have relatively little angulation (I poked around a bit on the hardbooter galleries, and almost all the toesides have pretty low angulation), is the question really about whether being compressed or extended is a better technique?

More compressed = center of gravity closer to the edge and more power.

More extended = more travel distance to suck your legs up for the upcoming cross-under turn that seems required for the EC style turn.

I would argue that more compressed allows you do deal with the massive g-force at the end of the turn as all your joints are at the peak of your muscles' power curve. I certainly feel that this is the case when I make compressed turns.

I would also argue that having more travel distance for your cross under can significantly reduce the g-force at the end of the turn. It also certainly feels this way physically when I do these kinds of turns.

What do you guys think? Can we all still be friends? :p

[astrokel]

Me thinks, and I have to emphasize that I am NO expert ... the major difference is in the extension timing between the the two "styles". To use rather archaic ski terminology, I think one is essentially upweighting and the other downweighting (but, again, I think that it is definitely is a bit more complicated than just down or up weighting on the transition).

On the "EC" turn the extension happens in the apex of the turn therefore the extension of the layout during this critical point. The difficulty for me in doing the "EC" is the timing of the extension for all the variables acting on me at the moment of the attempt (hill pitch, speed, snow condition, board design, etc, etc,...).

Why the "bomber" technique seems easier to me is at the apex of the turn the body is compressed and therefore the timing isn't quite as critical. You can be completely compressed (relatively) and still absorb bumps and irregularities. It's definitely a more versatile technique but one that puts heavy emphasis on really good conditioning.

With "EC" you have to be able to time the extension so that you either have enough extension left to absorb those irregularities or if you go for it and end up fully extended the surface just has to be absolutely smooth/regular in order not to get pitched on your butt (a position that I am way too familiar with :) ). But if you have a very good understanding of the timing involved I think the "EC" technique requires less conditioning but it does require a VERY good understanding of your rythym and speed.

Any comments from the REAL experts?

[philfell]

The only comment I would like to make is that I liked how you used quotations around the word "style". Because laying out carves and riding with level shoulders (call them what ever you want EC, bomber, euro, standard, ..........) aren't really styles, they are techniques of riding. Technique and style are very different. Technique is using a set of ideas and trying to apply that to your riding. Style is how your body interpets these ideas and puts them into action.

For example if you watch people who are skilled in the EC technique of riding you will still be able to tell each individual because of their own style (how their body puts ideas into action) even though they are equally skilled and are using the same technique.

Like wise if you watch high level racers you can tell a difference between them because of the style even though they are using the same techniques.

Watch two freestylers do the same grab off a jump. Each rider will have their own style even though they are doing the same trick.

EC isn't a style, it's a technique. Style is how preatty or not so preatty you make it look. Also who started calling out "bomber style" anyway, where did that come from?

I think it is important to realize the difference between style and technique. It's good to know a lot of techniques.

[Jack M]

Originally posted by James Ong

Angulation is king right? This seems to be the crux of all the disputes about EC. To angulate is certainly the most technically correct way to generate edge pressure, for an alpine board or skis.

No. Angulation is simply a way to improve balance, and to increase edge angle beyond that which pure inclination would allow by itself. There is no way to generate <i>sustained</i> magnified pressure on the edge - your mass is fixed.

In EC there is much INCLINATION performed which is understandably viewed as bad technique.

Only when it's icy. When the cord is buff, lay 'em out!!

[Bordy]

There really are not a bunch of Link layed out turns on the Hardbooter site and there is a hugh difference in the "Style" needed to start and finish one then most of the photos. Because all our picture are full action with a turn following the turn pictured. We just go out and ride and snap a few picture. But now since we are going to bring video into the mix it will help! I think these are some better Laid out Photos but I really only throw a few Laid out turn in the mix since they suck up so much speed and just get you covered in snow.here also here and alltough not fully extended this heel side has a little lean.heel side wee are going out to apparently make history and shoot just link layed out turns (since no one but p&j can do them) soon(plus its going to be a way to pick up some free beer and we at hardbooter have a soft spot for beer)

Also I didn't whant to bring up the other thread about the sliders and Ong's comment about getting crap if you showed up with some... but arn't the guys at the EC web site riding with P-tex palms on there gloves? whats the difference?

Also I am not riding any of the angles or cants the guys at EC say you have to and on picture is on a Madd 58 with a much smaller then 13m radius and bomberTD! SD with 3 degrees front foot cant and 6 rear and high angles while the picture with the hard booter tag is on on of Klugs old SG sticks with a 17+m radius and a flat front foot with a 6 degree canted rear. None of my gear is set up per the cats at the EC web sites specs but some how I can still link layed out turns just like 25 other guys I know who dont ride swoards but the EC guys say it cant happen! We are soon about to see!

P.S. this one is the Extreme Nose Ride I spent .7 second in a remote location in Park City perfecting it I am soon going to Branch away from the hard booter site with this brand "new extreme technique" Its much easier to learn then Racing technique but if any racer But me tries it I'm sure they wont be able to and I'll probably just say...is it so hard to admit that no one can ENR like B. (sarcarim)

Billy

hell side ENR

also maybe with video this shot Mystery laid out turn? or what! will make alot more sense see if you can read the snow and the spray and venture a Guess? Some of you at the SES limbo may have an Idea!

[astrokel]

Bordy,

You are clearly skilled and experienced in your riding I think everyone understands this. I wonder why you seem so defensive? and why the sarcasm about P&J being the only ones who can lay out carves? EVEN if there ARE others that may have insinuated that P&J had developed the "style" why harp on that one fact and why not try to develop your arguement by presenting positive evidence as opposed to trying to put down what you think is antithetical to your world veiw? It would just be much more pleasant vewing on this public forum. I might be the only one but the sour tone of these debates (by both sides of the arguement) is getting tiring and doesn't inform those of us that would like to get REAL information like HOW to do something as opposed to WHO did it first...

(if I keep on throwing 2cents into these things I'm going to end up with quite a few pennies :) )

Any comment about the extension/ compression stuff? I was looking at some videos last night and they only confirmed my hypothesis in my mind...

Found this in the tech articles by Jack M.... "Cross-under is the technique of quickly sucking the knees up towards the body to relieve pressure from the carving edge. Strictly speaking, cross-under is the practice of letting the board move back and forth underneath you. For example, when you are making quick fall-line slalom type carves, your upper body stays mostly facing downhill, while your lower body swings back and forth from side to side. Your center of gravity doesn't move much in either the up and down or side to side directions. You are extended at the apex of each carve and compressed in the transitions. "

It sounds like "EC" except for the point about facing the direction the board is going. "EC" seems like it's just a extended

(extreme?! :) ) version of a cross under turn.

[mellowjonny]

Bordy

to bad we don't have the finish picture of that hell side ENR where you ended up going fakie. quite the move.

jeff

[Jack M]

Originally posted by astrokel

Found this in the tech articles by Jack M....

Yes, what they call push-pull is basically the same idea as cross-under or cross-through.

And that ENR pic is one of the funniest carving pics I've seen in a long time.

[James Ong]

Bordy,

I think there is a BIG difference between protecting your gloves and carrying a couple of sliding devices. Although to be fair i haven't tried them , if you have them made and market it yourself it might be a revolution akin to EC eh?:D I might even order one myself.

Lookin forward to seein the videos

[Jack M]

bad bad naughty wicked evil sliders! they teach you to reach for the snow. ALL wrong. they should be outlawed. existing pairs should be rounded up and tossed into a bon-fire.

[sic t 2]

I really don't think that "push-pull" is cross-under that's for sure. Cross under does have the push-pull motion but it does not keep your center of mass in equilibrium. Anotherwords, without another cross under you would high side (or be right on the ragged edge). Its the motion of repetitive, "linked" cross unders that enables the bodies mass to center between two carves (yet not be in equilibrium with either one). Certainly not a factor in the P&F push-pull turns at Zinal.

Also, a key part of P&F style push pull is timing to the board's position on the fall line. The push has to occur in the "free zone" where the board will never blow out. And the pull has to occur in the "payback" zone where the pressures for a blowout reach their maximum. Cross-under can be done anywhere. It creates its own virtual fall line that has nothing to do with the actual slope you are on.

When I ride using push-pull I have to talk myself into "putting the board radically on edge and pushing" when the board is perpendicular to the fall line or better yet, doing a slightly uphill track. and that is not a natural feeling that's for sure. It has to be TAUGHT and I thank the EC website for that instruction.

sic

[gdboytyler]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Bordy

...Also I didn't whant to bring up the other thread about the sliders and Ong's comment about getting crap if you showed up with some... but arn't the guys at the EC web site riding with P-tex palms on there gloves? whats the difference?

Also I am not riding any of the angles or cants the guys at EC say you have to and on picture is on a Madd 58 with a much smaller then 13m radius and bomberTD! ...

From watching the EC videos and trying the EC technique, the snow contact is incidental. From the article I read a long time ago about the sliders, you actually want to put weight on the slider.

I'm pretty sure the EC website is not trying to preach dogma, but rather give recommendations on the easiest way to be able to ride like Patrice and Jacques.

Others have posted videos of linked laid out turns, following the EC technique, but none look as smooth or as fast as Patrice and Jacques.

I like Bordy's competitive comments on EC. He talks smack and then posts photos to back it up and is getting ready to shoot his version of the EC video.

So far the only videos I've seen of linked laid out turns (other than the EC vids) are of ROBCROBAR and PeterVu.

I'd bet that Bordy can link laid out turns. But the big question is, how will it look compared to Patrice and Jacques?

Now my two most anticipated movies of 2005 will be the Bordy EC vid and Star Wars Episode 3.