Wednesday, March 31, 2021

Cool tuck vs. true tuck

Lately, I have been focusing on ways to increase my dwindling speed while I’m stuck on flat level cat-tracks during spring mid-afternoons, so the study of tucks has taken a priority in my observations and interest about ski technique. 

After revisiting my countryman and former neighbor Jean Vuarnet’s contribution to the modern tuck position, I also pondered about a form of tuck that I’ve observed on American ski runs for the past 25 years. 

That apparently nameless, streamlined position consists of bringing one’s hands on one’s ass and letting the poles extend behind so they follow the turbulence. While it provides a short-lived boost of speed as the skier’s center of mass is brought to the back, it’s not as aerodynamic as it might look and can’t measure with a high or normal tuck position.

Trust me, I’ve tried and measured it. In order to locate a name for that gliding position, I’ve attempted to ask Alpine ski experts on both side of the Atlantic, but few had an immediate answer and this was Park City’s Thomas Cook who recognized it as the “Jerry Tuck”. 

Some like Konrad Barteski, former British DH skier who placed 2nd in Val Gardena, Italy, in 1981, commented something like this: “That is a dumb position. Having spent some time in a wind-tunnel, only a dumb would use it". 

Sandy Liman, another ski expert posited that it was a “cold fingers” tuck, “most commonly seen on north facing cat tracks in December”, a vivid illustration, but necessitating an extremely warm rear-end to be effective. 

Over the years, I’ve been guilty of using that position on many occasions too, in an effort to experiment it, blend-in or to extract some aerodynamic miracle out of it, but most of all, because I found it cool. 

More recently, I’ve compared it to high-tuck position and found out that this alternative doesn’t even come close! The only good outcome of that analysis has been to find its name, the “Jerry Tuck”. 

Seth Masia, an established ski journalist proposed "Tailfeather's Tuck". As for me, I like "tail-tuck" or "fake-tuck". Then in looking for a French name, I was attracted by “Comet” because of the trailing light behind that celestial body. 

Of course, if you have a better idea, do chime in, please!

1 comment:

Seth Masia said...

Ski instructors are not allowed to tuck in uniform. We do, however, need to stay out in front of the group. Occasionally we need to overtake a student who has escaped downhill. How to do it?

Base and wax quality aside, there's a way to minimize drag without tucking, at least up to about 25 or 30mph. It works on principles familiar to any bicycle racer. The reason biplanes are obsolete is that every object you drag through the air leaves its own turbulent wake. Monoplanes drag only one set of wings through the air, while biplanes drag two sets plus all the braces and truss wires. As a skier you can become a monoplane: knees together turns the legs from two draggy columns into one (yes, it's a bigger column but its single wake is still less draggy than two separate columns). Same for arms -- hold them close to the body. Poles too create drag, so get them into the slipstream behind your legs. Zip up to keep your parka from ballooning.

When speed becomes serious, of course, you need to break into a normal balanced position that enables a stable carved turn. And -- the right wax is still important, especially this time of year.

Skitrax tells me that my terminal velocity in uniform, without tucking, is about 50mph. It takes a tailwind to go faster. I do believe we were faster when the uniform included stretch pants, but of course I was just younger then.