BadBrad Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 I've been playing around a bit this year with stance width and cants. I don't ride very many days a year, and I've been riding old Burton stuff from the 90's at their reference stance widths, which are quite narrow (16" on the 156 UP and 17" on the 156 Alp). I am 5'7", 165 lbs., with long legs and short torso. (I was maybe 140 lbs when I bought the Alp and UP.) This year I bought a new 4WD 164 and the center stance width is 19.5". People on BOL recommended that I use a width in the 19-20" range, so I set it at 19.2". I had the Burton bindings set flat (no cant) with a thin spacer under the front toe block and two thin spacers on the rear heel block for a bit of front toe and rear heel lift, which is how I had been riding the UP and Alp. When I clipped in and stood in a relaxed stance I felt a lot pressure on the inside of the rear boot cuff. So I installed a 7-degree cant/lift at the rear and removed the heel block spacers. It felt a lot more comfortable. On the UP I installed a 3-degree rear cant/lift and widened the stance from 16" to about 17". When I rode this setup on the 4WD it felt pretty good, but I didn't feel totally comfortable initiating heelside turns for some reason. I switched to the UP and felt great, very confident and stable. My next experiment was to go back toward my old setup with no cant and some front toe lift and rear heel lift and a narrower stance, mainly because some on BOL said that any canting reduces your range of motion. I narrowed the stance on the 4WD to 18.2". When I tried that setup today my toeside turns were okay, but my heelside turns were not smooth arcs -- they were wavy. I could feel it and also see in in my tracks. I figured I was twisting the board somehow. I tried tucking my rear knee behind my front knee and also tried moving it the opposite way, but I still got those wavy heelsides. Any idea what was going on here? (Other than "Dude, you suck.") I think my next experiment will be to install the 3-degree cant/lift on the rear binding of the 4WD, keeping the stance width around 18.2". Any other suggestions? Thanks, Brad B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdea Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 does the cant cure the wavy heelsides? if so run with it. most people use cants here... usually less is more, I gotta agree with that but that said I can not ride flat unless I have real low angles but at that point I want a softboot anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petrol Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 :dunno I'm 5'-10" 200 w/32" inseam and ride 16.5" flat 57* frt 51* back on all my boards, 170, 160 & 157 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdea Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 16.5 inches? friggin narrow, that's old school mang! with a 30.5 inch inseam(measured) I ride 18.75 I got that from the formula that John Gilmour uses and it's perrrfect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadBrad Posted January 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 does the cant cure the wavy heelsides?if so run with it. most people use cants here... usually less is more, I gotta agree with that but that said I can not ride flat unless I have real low angles but at that point I want a softboot anyway. Yes, I don't remember having the wavy heelsides with the rear cant. However, I also don't remember having the wavy heelsides with no cant and narrow stance on the old Burton boards. It just seems to be an issue on the Prior 4WD. The stance angles are a little more relaxed on the Prior since it is wider (21.4cm vs. 19cm UP). Do you use both front and rear cants or just rear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trikerdad Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Cant and lift are hard to compute. The older style lifts (the ones that couldn't be rotated on the board like the old Bombers) gave you inward cant. Inward cant on the front foot makes it easier to lever the board up on the heel side but more difficult on the toe side. Inward cant on the back foot makes it easier to initiate the toe side than the heel side. They force you into a knock kneed possition. I call this heel side and toe side bias and the more lift the more bias. You do lose range of motion but, only in one direction. The newer bindings, like the Bomber TD2 and the Catek, allow you to get straight toe and heel lift without any bias and without any loss of rom. I believe this is why people who learned to ride before the newer bindings came on the scene found it was easier to ride flat or with very little lift and say that lift causes loss of rom. I set my bindings (TD2's and OS2's) up so that with my boots on and standing on the carpet, I can rock my board up on edge an equal amount in each direction with one boot locked in at a time. I ride with 10 degrees of straight toe lift (The Big Gas Pedal) and 0 cant on my front foot. I use a 6 degree heel lift on the back foot turned to give me about 4 degrees of actual heel lift and 2 degrees of heel side bias. 19.5 stance width. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boardman73 Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 hey brad i ride flat with quite a narrow stance on all my boards simply cuz thats what feels right to me. everyones different so give the new board some time and try not to get frustrated or overwelmed with all the opinions and advice here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadBrad Posted January 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 trikerdad, I have Burton race plates with the old style cant/lifts. They angle toward the long axis of the board. At my binding angles they provide a little more heel lift than cant. I have both 3* and 7* lifts to choose from. I also have some spacers that can go under the heel or toe blocks to provide only lift. That's a bunch of toe lift you use. I might have to try that and see how it feels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trikerdad Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 With what you have to work with, I'd try the 3 degree in front and heel spacers in back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueB Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 I would start by duplicating the exact setup that you rode on UP before, as everything seemed to work then. And I mean exact - stance width, cant/lift, angles. Do not worry about underhang it would give you on wider board, for now. See how it works. Then, change ONE component at the time and see how it works. Every time it doesn't feel right, take a step back. I would probably start by flattening the angles first, then widening the stance. At 5'7", even with long legs, I doubted that your stance would be more then 19". Try your inseCant/lift is the very last thing I would try to change, and do one foot at the time. Have fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdea Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 the thing is about a narrow stance is it does make it easier to go cantless but it screws the rest of your riding up so much that it's not worth it http://www.alpinecarving.com/binding_setup.html#width Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boardman73 Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 the thing is about a narrow stance is it does make it easier to go cantless but it screws the rest of your riding up so much that it's not worth it http://www.alpinecarving.com/binding_setup.html#width works for me:Dguess im:smashfrea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaida Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 I agree that a wider stance will help. I'm 5'8" with a 30 inch inseam, and used to ride an FP167 at the reference stance width of 17". I then switched to a Donek FCII 167 and used the center inserts which put me at 19.25" or so. My riding saw an immediate improvement with a wider stance. It was more stable and I felt more planted when getting low because it was easier to achieve a lower center of gravity. It could have been partly because of the board, but it was a breakthrough day -- everything seemed to click. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadBrad Posted January 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 the thing is about a narrow stance is it does make it easier to go cantless but it screws the rest of your riding up so much that it's not worth it http://www.alpinecarving.com/binding_setup.html#width That stance width guidance covers a wide range of stances. My shoulder width = about 17.5" Floor to center of kneecap = 20" .607 X inseam = 19.4" What feels pretty good to me is a width that allows the rear knee to tuck in just behind the front knee when crouched. Not so narrow that the knees lock together or get crowded, but close to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pow Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 what are your binding angles? every oldschool setup ive seen has a crazy shallow rear foot, then a 50 + degree front foot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petrol Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 16.5 inches?friggin narrow, that's old school mang! with a 30.5 inch inseam(measured) I ride 18.75 I got that from the formula that John Gilmour uses and it's perrrfect I don't jib, I ride and it just 'feels' better for me... and I 'm not just old school, I'm old Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdea Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 hey now, I was not saying to ride 24 inches or anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdea Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 That stance width guidance covers a wide range of stances.My shoulder width = about 17.5" Floor to center of kneecap = 20" .607 X inseam = 19.4" What feels pretty good to me is a width that allows the rear knee to tuck in just behind the front knee when crouched. Not so narrow that the knees lock together or get crowded, but close to it. is that the inseam you wear or the actual length? big difference you calculations are for 32, I wear a 32 but my actual measurement is 30.5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueB Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 That stance width guidance covers a wide range of stances.My shoulder width = about 17.5" Floor to center of kneecap = 20" .607 X inseam = 19.4" Median should be right then! 17.5 + 20 + 19.4 = ~19 ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaida Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Median should be right then! 17.5 + 20 + 19.4 = ~19 ;) That's the mean, not median. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueB Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadBrad Posted January 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 what are your binding angles? every oldschool setup ive seen has a crazy shallow rear foot, then a 50 + degree front foot On the 19cm board, stance angles are 60f/57r. On the 21.4cm board they are 54/51. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.