Can you lipslide a flat rail? Yea or Nay?

B

bennwithtwons

Active member
What up creatures

Pretty simple here - looking for your input on lipslides.

I've always believed that a lipslide is only a lipslide if you've got to actively pop your tails up and over the rail. Typically this would be on a normal urban style down but obviously there are a million ways you can imagine getting onto a feature this way.

It is my contention, however, that hitting a flat rail (with a takeoff that is essentially level with the height of the rail itself) does not constitute a lipslide, no matter how far over you approach the rail. That being said, if you use the side of the takeoff (like a kook!), I am down with that being called a lipslide.

What do you all reckon?
 
topic:bennwithtwons said:
What up creatures

if you use the side of the takeoff (like a kook!), I am down with that being called a lipslide.
Click to expand...

These are fun as fuck with the right lip
 
What if its a tube or a box and not a flat rail? I think the term you are looking for is "ride on".
 
I think of lipslide more as a description of the approach than a trick. So my answer would be yes you can.
 
I’m using the world rail as a universal. I’m not concerned with the shape of the thing you’re sliding so much as the fact that the jump is level with the front of feature as opposed to a flat/urban takeoff. So yes, a ride on feature falls into this category (although you could also have a gap that would make riding on not really an option)

14611294:Static said:
What if it’s a tube or a box and not a flat rail? I think the term you are looking for is "ride on".
Click to expand...
 
I feel like the term lip slide references the point at which you take off to get onto the rail. with your definition of a lip slide, a regular 2 on would be considered a lip slide which is not true at all. lip slide is how/where you jump to get onto the rail, not how high you have to jump to get your tails over.
 
14611314:hb_laz said:
I feel like the term lip slide references the point at which you take off to get onto the rail. with your definition of a lip slide, a regular 2 on would be considered a lip slide which is not true at all. lip slide is how/where you jump to get onto the rail, not how high you have to jump to get your tails over.
Click to expand...

i don't entirely follow what you mean but i'm not trying to redefine lipslide, just trying to confirm whether or not you guys count it when it isn't a feature that requires actually lifting the tails (or tips if it is a switch lip, for instance) to get on. so my goal is to limit the use of the phrase lipslide to places where it doesn't really count (in my estimation). we all know the difference between a regular 2 onto a down rail and a lip 2 on, for instance.

taken to the extreme, if you had a ride on type of flat bar that had a 20 foot wide takeoff and you came in all the way on one side and somehow managed to land on the rail going tails over, i wouldn't consider that a lipslide. i guess my main point being that i feel that a lipslide should include the fact that you've got to pop up and over to get on. there is increased risk of catching that doesn't exist on a ride-on sort of set up.

a parallel to this is the conversation about calling a front 2 a pretzel. if you just slide a rail and do a front 2 off, yes, you are technically reversing direction, but since it was only 90 degrees in the first place, we (almost) all agree not to use the word pretzel to describe that. just semantics at the end of the day
 
14611322:bennwithtwons said:
i don't entirely follow what you mean but i'm not trying to redefine lipslide, just trying to confirm whether or not you guys count it when it isn't a feature that requires actually lifting the tails (or tips if it is a switch lip, for instance) to get on. so my goal is to limit the use of the phrase lipslide to places where it doesn't really count (in my estimation). we all know the difference between a regular 2 onto a down rail and a lip 2 on, for instance.

taken to the extreme, if you had a ride on type of flat bar that had a 20 foot wide takeoff and you came in all the way on one side and somehow managed to land on the rail going tails over, i wouldn't consider that a lipslide. i guess my main point being that i feel that a lipslide should include the fact that you've got to pop up and over to get on. there is increased risk of catching that doesn't exist on a ride-on sort of set up.

a parallel to this is the conversation about calling a front 2 a pretzel. if you just slide a rail and do a front 2 off, yes, you are technically reversing direction, but since it was only 90 degrees in the first place, we (almost) all agree not to use the word pretzel to describe that. just semantics at the end of the day
Click to expand...

we have different definitions of a lip slide then bc I would count it a lip slide if somebody popped from 10 feet away with their tails over, even if the rail was fluid with the lip. i don't think the increased risk has anything to do with whether it is a lipslide or not bc by your definition if I were to raise a rail by an inch then it would count as a lip slide even If there is no real risk increase. i think you have a valid point, I just think that what you think is the definition, is more of an opinion. in terms of calling a front 2 a pretzel trick, I think that is also opinionated. nobody calls it a pretzel, but by definition, you are stoping your rotation and rotating in a different direction, which is a pretzel
 
Static and hb_laz,

Let's get one thing straight: a true lipslide involves actively popping your tails up and over the rail. This is a fundamental aspect of the trick that defines its difficulty and style. If you’re simply riding onto a flat rail from a level takeoff, you're not performing a lipslide—you're just sliding a rail.

Static, you mentioned that a lipslide is more about the approach than the trick itself. However, by definition, a lipslide requires an element of risk and skill where the skier must lift their tails to clear the rail. The approach alone doesn’t make it a lipslide. If you don’t have to lift your tails, you’re not achieving the key component that differentiates a lipslide from a basic rail slide.

hb_laz, you compared a lipslide to a regular 2 on, but this comparison misses the mark. The essence of a lipslide is the required upward motion to get your tails over the rail, not just the point at which you take off. Saying that popping from 10 feet away onto a level rail constitutes a lipslide dilutes the trick’s integrity. By your logic, any sideways approach to a rail could be labeled a lipslide, which undermines the precision and difficulty that the trick demands.

In conclusion, the definition of a lipslide is clear and specific: it involves popping your tails up and over the rail, typically seen in urban setups. Anything less is just a rail slide. Let's preserve the terminology and respect the skill involved in executing a proper lipslide.
 
14611335:hb_laz said:
we have different definitions of a lip slide then bc I would count it a lip slide if somebody popped from 10 feet away with their tails over, even if the rail was fluid with the lip. i don't think the increased risk has anything to do with whether it is a lipslide or not bc by your definition if I were to raise a rail by an inch then it would count as a lip slide even If there is no real risk increase. i think you have a valid point, I just think that what you think is the definition, is more of an opinion. in terms of calling a front 2 a pretzel trick, I think that is also opinionated. nobody calls it a pretzel, but by definition, you are stoping your rotation and rotating in a different direction, which is a pretzel
Click to expand...

yeah i agree that we all use terms slightly differently. i was just curious how you all felt about the use of lipslide. i'm not trying to qualify the trick based on a risk in terms of getting hurt or not, just trying to make it clear that if you are on a flat rail, you don't need to go tails over at all- you just rotate. whereas if you do that on a down rail with an urban approach, you risk catching your tails if you don't pop over. since that is the case, the operation of doing a lipslide requires the tails over approach. if it is a flat rail with side approach lips, even if the takeoff is only 3" below the rail, i would call it a lipslide if you go tails over. so the threshold for lipslide (in my opinion) is that you have to be approaching essentially from the side of the rail, not just from the front, even if the elevation of the rail above the lip is nominal

it is kinda like how we call call a backflip japan a flat 3, even when totally inverted, which definitionally, means it isn't a 'flat' spin. it is accepted but technically incorrect.
 
14611336:JeffreyConway said:
Static, you mentioned that a lipslide is more about the approach than the trick itself. However, by definition, a lipslide requires an element of risk and skill where the skier must lift their tails to clear the rail. The approach alone doesn’t make it a lipslide. If you don’t have to lift your tails, you’re not achieving the key component that differentiates a lipslide from a basic rail slide
Click to expand...

"However, by definition, a lipslide requires an element of risk and skill" nah dude it's about bringing your tails over the rail first, it just takes less skill and looks lamer when the lip is high.
 
Alright, let's crush this debate.

A true lipslide in skiing means actively popping your tails up and over the rail, especially in urban setups where the rail is higher than the takeoff. This requires skill and introduces a risk factor, which is what makes the trick challenging and respectable. If you’re just coming onto a flat rail from a level takeoff, you’re not lipsliding—you’re just sliding a rail. Watering down the definition to include ride-on features dilutes the trick's integrity. If you're not lifting those tails over something, you're not lipsliding.

One can go along calling lipslides on a ride on feature, but they definitely risk sounding like a kook.

Best,

Jeff
 
14611454:JeffreyConway said:
Alright, let's crush this debate.

A true lipslide in skiing means actively popping your tails up and over the rail, especially in urban setups where the rail is higher than the takeoff. This requires skill and introduces a risk factor, which is what makes the trick challenging and respectable. If you’re just coming onto a flat rail from a level takeoff, you’re not lipsliding—you’re just sliding a rail. Watering down the definition to include ride-on features dilutes the trick's integrity. If you're not lifting those tails over something, you're not lipsliding.

One can go along calling lipslides on a ride on feature, but they definitely risk sounding like a kook.

Best,

Jeff
Click to expand...

u sound offended that I shared my ideas about a ski trick. genuinely I don't think it is that deep. calling me a kook lmao
 
i probably shouldn't have used the word risk cause we went down a bit of a rabbit hole here that i didn't intend. i was using risk as a synonym for might. such as, if you don't pop your tails up and over, you might catch on the rail. in this context, a takeoff of equal height to the beginning of the rail doesn't require the lifting of the tails at all to clear it, whereas it does for an urban-on lip. i was arguing that definitionally, a lipslide requires the tails being navigated up and over the start of the rail.

i also may have made a mistake asking if you can do it on a flat rail. obviously if a flat rail has a side-approach lip instead of a level, ride-on lip, you can 100% lipslide it. i should have been more clear in my initial phrasing

14611499:Static said:
Imagine thinking you can't ollie a shadow because there's no risk.
Click to expand...
 
So if you disaster so far down a tall rail and delay the swinging over of tails that there's no risk of catching that still doesn't count?
 
14611507:Static said:
So if you disaster so far down a tall rail and delay the swinging over of tails that there's no risk of catching that still doesn't count?
Click to expand...

even if you approach a 100-ft high flat rail that has a takeoff level with the beginning of the rail, if you go super fast and go all the way to the end of the rail before landing (and you've come from one very extreme side of that takeoff and rotate tails inwards), i would say no, it was not a lipslide. it was probably gnarly as fuck though!
 
The take off of the lip is below the rail, but you don't need to lift your tails at all because you are airing down the rail far enough there's no risk or might catch.

And what is "level"? Elevation wise from the center of the earth? Or level with the fall line slope? Are you measuring from the tippy top of the lip? Or off the trajectory of the lip where the skier would meet the rail?
 
It’s not that deep boys, if you come onto your unnatural side of the rail or ride opposite onto the normal side and your tails are what comes over the rail first then it’s a lipslide. Doesn’t matter if it’s an urban, disaster or ride on. It’s the action of turning your body in an unnatural way.
 
14611512:Static said:
The take off of the lip is below the rail, but you don't need to lift your tails at all because you are airing down the rail far enough there's no risk or might catch.

And what is "level"? Elevation wise from the center of the earth? Or level with the fall line slope? Are you measuring from the tippy top of the lip? Or off the trajectory of the lip where the skier would meet the rail?
Click to expand...

if you go super fast at an urban-on down rail, for instance, and you land at the end of the rail, it is still a lipslide (assuming you rotated tails in) for sure. it may be a bit of a hack because you don't necessarily have to try to clear the tails but is also dope cause going fast is cool.

when i say level, i don't mean that you're putting a spirit level on the feature- it isn't a measure of degree. i

'm just saying that the height of the rail and the takeoff are the same. it could be a total ride-on, where the lip literally touches the front of the rail, or a gap on. if it was a long gap but the trajectory would smoothly take you onto the rail, i wouldn't be considering it a lipslide either.

the whole point of the lipslide, in my opinion, is that the takeoff is next to (and below, even if just a bit) the rail. i am sure someone has built a feature somewhere that doesn't neatly land in one of these two buckets
 
14611406:hi_vis360 said:
Let’s just not build rails with ride on lips problem solved
Click to expand...

i am always begging the park staff to build them wider haha.

if you're going switch lip and the takeoff is only the width of a snowboard, it gets sketchy real quick. also, it is fun spin on from way over on one side or the other
 
14611543:SofaKingSick said:
bro if i lip 270 in to a rail that has a big lip and you tell me it doesn't count as lip I WILL FUCKING GET YOU
Click to expand...

if you're doing an actual lipslide, i would obviously not say it doesn't count. the size of the lip isn't really in question, just the position of the lip relative to the rail
 
This isn't complicated. If your tails (or tips if going switch) are the first part of your skis over the rail, it's a lipslide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top