Tele vs parallel.

This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web. We have fun here, come on in and be a part of it.
User avatar
lowangle al
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:36 pm

Re: Tele vs parallel.

Postby lowangle al » Sun May 07, 2017 12:46 pm

I have to disagree that T turns aren't good on the low angle. Peoples personal preference of what type turn they like in certain situations is one thing, but to insinuate that T turns aren't appropriate or can't be learned on low angle is wrong. I wouldn't recommend that a beginner learn on steep slopes and I wouldn't want to discourage XCD skiers from doing T turns on slopes less than 25 degrees.

It's good to know different kinds of turns, but in most situations the turn that will work best is the turn that the skier is most proficient at.

teledance
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:48 pm

Re: Tele vs parallel.

Postby teledance » Mon May 08, 2017 8:55 am

Not saying it's not worth the effort for learning or improving, but it does take more energy to make a Tele turn versus a P- turn, and if you've been pounding the Mtn well it's not worth it to genuflect the low angle on the way to the lift.

Rodbelan
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:53 am

Re: Tele vs parallel.

Postby Rodbelan » Mon May 08, 2017 10:17 am

...but it is also a good exercise. My teacher use to make us tele on very, very low angle slope to force us to adjust edge set, pressure and turn radius very precisely, in a very subtle way... It is not that easy, surprisingly...

STG
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 3:16 pm

Re: Tele vs parallel.

Postby STG » Mon May 08, 2017 10:35 am

I like to mix up my turns as a free-heel skier. I prefer parallel turns in terrain over 30 degrees and telemark turns in lower-angle terrain. I notice that I can do parallel turns better with a soft flexing ski (e.g., Guide/Annum). My parallel turns on my skis with camber and half (Madshus Eon/Asnes Kongsvold) feel rough and forced. I think this is because those skis have a stiffer mid-section. Any suggestions of how to adapt my parallel technique to those skis; especially in powder or soft slab (conditions I ski)?

User avatar
lowangle al
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:36 pm

Re: Tele vs parallel.

Postby lowangle al » Mon May 08, 2017 12:40 pm

teledance wrote:Not saying it's not worth the effort for learning or improving, but it does take more energy to make a Tele turn versus a P- turn, and if you've been pounding the Mtn well it's not worth it to genuflect the low angle on the way to the lift.
I agree, everything is relative. If your goal is to ski the steep stuff why waste energy elsewhere. Many people hardly make a turn after the steep part of their run is over, prefering to straightline it back to the up track or lift.

Rodbelan wrote:...but it is also a good exercise. My teacher use to make us tele on very, very low angle slope to force us to adjust edge set, pressure and turn radius very precisely, in a very subtle way... It is not that easy, surprisingly...
I figured that out myself and I agree. I learned all three of those things at speeds slow enough to feel what is happening and to make the necessary adjustments. I think it is a good idea to practice on slopes that you don't need to control your speed. If you can learn to steer and turn first it will be easy to add the speed control portion of the turn later.

STG wrote:I like to mix up my turns as a free-heel skier. I prefer parallel turns in terrain over 30 degrees and telemark turns in lower-angle terrain. I notice that I can do parallel turns better with a soft flexing ski (e.g., Guide/Annum). My parallel turns on my skis with camber and half (Madshus Eon/Asnes Kongsvold) feel rough and forced. I think this is because those skis have a stiffer mid-section. Any suggestions of how to adapt my parallel technique to those skis; especially in powder or soft slab (conditions I ski)?
What I noticed with stiffly cambered skis is that it can be hard to get a good underfoot carve because the edges don't fully engage. I'm not an expert at p-turns but my suggestion other than gaining some weight would be to ski faster and more aggressively.

User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 1187
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:20 pm
Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada

Re: Tele vs parallel.

Postby lilcliffy » Tue May 09, 2017 2:10 pm

STG wrote:I like to mix up my turns as a free-heel skier. I prefer parallel turns in terrain over 30 degrees and telemark turns in lower-angle terrain. I notice that I can do parallel turns better with a soft flexing ski (e.g., Guide/Annum). My parallel turns on my skis with camber and half (Madshus Eon/Asnes Kongsvold) feel rough and forced. I think this is because those skis have a stiffer mid-section. Any suggestions of how to adapt my parallel technique to those skis; especially in powder or soft slab (conditions I ski)?


Hey STG-

I think that you hit the mark with the snow context- powder/deep soft snow- with regards to downhill skiing with a true Nordic camber underfoot (e.g. Eon/E-109/Ingstad/BC-90 etc.).

I find that I can make very effective Alpine parallel turns on true Nordic skis as long as the base is consolidated (I find that I can even make decent parallel turns with my fully double-cambered 210cm E-99s on a consolidated base).

HOWEVER- when the snow is deep and soft, I find I need to use my Nordic downhill techniques (i.e. telemark, step turns, jump turns, and striding turns, etc.) with skis with true Nordic camber. The ideal turn with these skis in powder is obviously the telemark- with its incredible stability in powder snow. The problem in this context is that these Nordic touring skis have very a wide turning radius in a classic telemark turn. If I need to a ski a tight line- in deep soft snow- and with a Nordic-cambered ski- I find I need to use step/jump/striding turns- otherwise I HIT THE TREE!!
The pursuit of XCD balance: cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry

STG
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 3:16 pm

Re: Tele vs parallel.

Postby STG » Thu May 11, 2017 9:55 am

lowangle al and lilcliffy:

Thanks for the feedback. I think picking up some speed when initiating a parallel turn on my camber and half skis(Eon/Asnes) will improve the parallel turn. I am also going to experiment with not forcing the turn and allowing the skis to find the fall line and their natural turn radius. That is the strategy I have used when turning skis with a double camber. I do short radius telemark turns in the powder on the Eons and Asnes and I really enjoy their performance; especially my Asnes (wider/softer tip). Most of the time, I will probably be doing telemark turns on these skis and if my focus is parallel turns, I will ski on the Madshus Annum (even/soft flexing skis). I don't think I will ever find a ski that doesn't have trade-offs.

Harris
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: Tele vs parallel.

Postby Harris » Thu May 18, 2017 1:10 am

The problem for beginners doing low angle tele is that the either have to run super long balance turns whereby the skis eventually and incidentally arc. Better skiers can do fakie "for the chair lift" tele. But as for beginners, either they are stabbing at the snow trying to do long radius turns while not poking an eye out or they most likely are stabbing snow trying to do tele-christie, and hopefully not poking an eye out. But like learning alpine via stem christie, it is almost a wasted, counter-productive step in the learning curve. It really doesn't get you to point "B" because it isn't exactly applicable knowledge beyond it. Telemark is all about the functional change-up lead swap and the edging. That is the critical thing to master that opens up the majority of slopes. It would be much better and applicable to teach a newbie the telemark hockey stop. And then to teach them to link hockey stops. That is where one can feel the real power of the telemark. At least that is what I think. As far as tele turning low angle, if low angle runs is your thing then I can see it. But if you are an all mountain skier, or an aspiring all mountain skier, it is a huge waste of gas. It takes a lot more burn to maintain a lunge position trying to tele flats than it does to parallel. Enough burn that it can quickly waste you for the rest of the day. So, why?
Last edited by Harris on Thu May 18, 2017 2:02 am, edited 4 times in total.

Harris
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: Tele vs parallel.

Postby Harris » Thu May 18, 2017 1:19 am

I would also say that the tele is a miserable carving turn. Think about the science of it. You carve an alpine turn by weighting the single downhill ski hard. This very technically tricky weighting gets it to bow. The bow is what creates the rail carve. With tele you use two skis, meaning you can't actually weight the skis significantly enough to bow them to camber limit to do a ski's rail turn. You can carve a tele, kinda but you really aren't doing anything much with it besides balancing it through as it makes it's lethargic turn. Back when when tele racing was on skinny skis some of us used to actually lift the downhill ski to finish our turns into the lead swap; so we could get a better edge arc without drawing a parallel penalty. It looked pretty silly but worked. You can however use the weightless part of a transition to sling and then edge the shit out of a tele turn. This is where tele becomes a great, hyper stable weapon. It can handle some sick terrain really well.
Last edited by Harris on Thu May 18, 2017 2:03 am, edited 3 times in total.

Harris
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: Tele vs parallel.

Postby Harris » Thu May 18, 2017 1:39 am

I also thoroughly agree with iBjorn. The m-turn or as I call it the waterski turn is an essential tool that should be in every telelmarker's quiver. It is especially useful in moguls wherein the line goes to shit or use it really technical terrain where one needs to shut down speed like right now but you don't have the room to do a full transition. You can edge-pop an m-turn stupid fast.


Return to “Telemark Talk Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests