Stance angles

[colintkemp]

I'm thinking about tinkering with my angles (again) this season.

What do you ride at and why?

Thanks,

[b0ardski]

stance angles vary depending on the board.

25-26 cm wide powder & twin tip boards I go with 12 -15 degrees of splay at a minimum of 20R/35F. On a 18cm board I go up to 45r/52f

As the board gets narrower the the angles go up (to keep the toe & heel over the edges w/out drag) and my splay narrows as the angles increase, never less than 7*.

I prefer 3 degrees or less inward cant at any angle. no lift toe or heel.

For me the reason is comfort, my knees do not do duck stance w/out pain.

also I can't do a parallel stance either, it feels constrained with a lack of flex control.

20 years of trying to "dail it in" and all I can say is it varies:confused:

[bumpyride]

Because stance angles are such a personal thing, the best thing to do is pick a day, bring a good screwdriver and change your angles every other run or so. That way you can feel what's best for your style and body type. Don't forget that every 1/2" or so of your binding spread will alter what happens with the results.

Having said all that I ride at 66 front and 45 rear, 17 3/8" center to center, but only because I'm on bumps and off piste all day. I need the 21 degree difference to be able to make quick and radical directional changes. Not the norm for carving.

[mr_roboteye]

Because stance angles are such a personal thing, the best thing to do is pick a day, bring a good screwdriver and change your angles every other run or so. That way you can feel what's best for your style and body type. Don't forget that every 1/2" or so of your binding spread will alter what happens with the results.

Having said all that I ride at 66 front and 45 rear, 17 3/8" center to center, but only because I'm on bumps and off piste all day. I need the 21 degree difference to be able to make quick and radical directional changes. Not the norm for carving.

I quite agree. You'll have to bring a screwdriver and see for yourself. Your body is one of a kind, so your stance angles will have to reflect that as well. A rule of thumb though. The longer the board is, the wider that you should put your stance. I don't do any off piste unless I have to. I most commonly ride 185's with skinny waists' (180mm) so I ride 63 front and 60 rear, 18 1/2 to nineteen inches. I'm about 5'9" BTW, with little 8.5 feet. With this setup I have no bootout whatsoever. I've had guys on this forum tell me I should ride a 21" stance on a board that big, but maybe the guy that's telling me this is 6'3" and all legs.

I have an ultra prime that's a 164, so I have that stance at just under 17".

Here's a few shots of a 185 factory prime. The waist is 178mm. 63 front, 60 rear.

later,

Dave R.

[Bobby Buggs]

when I first started riding and making some progress I was in the 60s on both feet. Made me get my hip around. Last season a bunch of us went down into the 50s, I could not believe the power you had with it but on my 19 cm board I started to get some boot out... Not good:nono:

So I guess it depends on your flexibility and how wide your board is. I would like to be 55 on the front foot but I cant until I get a wider board.

[colintkemp]

I couldn't agree more about personal preference controlling here, but that is why I asked the question.

I ride very steep angles (60+) (but that is partially because I'm on narrow-ish boards (think 18cm with Mondo 28) and partially because it alleviates stress on the medial meniscus in my knees). B. Buggs you did (last season) exactly what I am thinking about doing - lowering my angles. And your power comment really has me thinking. It was obvious to me on my Kessler 185 last year that super steep was not the ticket (but that was my last day of the season last year, so I have been thinking about what to do with angles ever since).

Thanks folks.

Others?

[Rob Stevens]

The lowest angles the board will let me get away with!

If things hang over a few mm, you're ok. Inside the edge and you're underleveraging.

Funny thing is that strapped in, I could never ride a flat front foot. When I ride with no bindings, I look down and I'm at +5 -5. Feels great, but I would never set up soft bindings like that. I've never had my front foot at less than +30.

Yes, angles are a funny thing and, depending on what you're doing, can vary alot in performance.

[mopoet178]

...I have to ride 67/67 front/rear just to keep the feet inbound, any less and it drags

[NateW]

IMO stance with has everything to do with your legs and nothing to do with board length. I might change stance width to accommodate stance angles, but that's about it.

I keep a T-handle hex wrench in my pocket when I ride, mostly to keep everything tight but also to tinker with angles and width, especially when riding a relatively new board or bindings, as I never seem to get it right at home.

I mostly run boards with a 19cm waist and 60+/-3 angles. One board has a 23cm waist and 40/45 angles. Width is 20.5" on all of them, I think. Boots are either Raichle 324s or UPZs, both in size 27.

IMO, stance setback is highly under-rated. It changes the feel of the board a lot. It also helped a lot when I realized that my front leg was burning out faster than my rear leg, and moved my stance forward to even that out. All of my boards have the stance centered now, or very close to it, except my early-/late-season board, which is also my lots-of-fresh-snow board. That one has the stance a couple inches back.

[b0ardski]

+1 on tools for tinkering,

always have a multi-driver with me, always bump the rear binder back a notch or two on deeper days (over 6in), 4 screws & 1 min. later, powder stance.

[Jack M]

...are the angles which place your toes and heels as close to the edge as possible without hanging over. Try this first then fiddle from there.

I actually ride like this regardless of waist width and love it.

[xxguitarist]

Yep, angles that align your toes& heels with the edges of the board. For me on my F2, that's 48/45.

[SEJ]

+ 3 for reference angles, low as possible without boot out. 54* to 60* depending on the board.

[BadBrad]

Reference angles here too.

Madd 158, 18cm waist, this is 63/60, with just a hair front toe lift and a bit more rear heel lift.

Prior 4WD 164, 21.4cm waist, this is 54/51. Burton race plates with the cant plate on the rear binding and a bit of toe lift on the front binding.

Prior WCR metal 173. 19.5cm waist. Angles 60/57 or so. I just got this board and haven't dialed it in yet. I'm initially trying 3 degrees front toe lift with just a bit of canting and 3 degrees rear heel lift with no canting.

When I rode an UltraPrime, my stance width was 16", and on my Alp it was 17". I've now gone wider, up to 18.5-19.5 widths.

[Dave ESPI]

I try to run in the mid 50's and low 60s depending on the board and conditions.

I forund this year that running 69 rear and 58 front was a very comfortable stance and I could ride long trains and carve hard and recover nicely without the strain on the knee of the ack foot despite running a 6 degree cant and 3 degree tilt in boot and plate binding.

Som people ride with boots in "walk mode" but I didn't hav e the power despite comfort. Angling my foot and using a softer "powerstrap" setting on the back boot was what really was nice for me.

[b0ardski]

:eek:11 degrees of toe-in?? holy crap,I'd fallover just standing there with those angles

[Dave ESPI]

yeah, I know, but its an awesome looking stance, and very comfortable with transitions using just your legs swinging underneath a static upper body with shoulders almost squared to the hill as you decend. Plus you can really tuck the back knee and pull very hard turns out of the board...... almost to the point that it scares me when I really get engaged and see the trees rapidly staring me in the face on the narrower slopes!

It doesn't work in all kinds of snow, but on the boilerplate with a bit of soft stuff or fresh groom in the east coast mornings, I love it!

On my wider boards, I run around 51 front and 45 degrees rear (toes and heels to the edges).

[colintkemp]

Dave ESPI, I ride toe-in too. Depending up on the board, I am at about 70 back and 65 front (but it goes down from there for wider boards). Those angles are magic for a bad right knee (I ride regular) and allow for great knee tuck in, hip angulation and shoulder rotation.

Nevertheless, I am wondering if I might be riding too steep to get maximum power, so I'm going to dial it back. I'm thinking Jack's "reference angles" from his article (and his post) will be my starting point for playing with my stance.

Thanks to all who have offered their thoughts.

[Jack M]

I try to run in the mid 50's and low 60s depending on the board and conditions.

I forund this year that running 69 rear and 58 front was a very comfortable stance and I could ride long trains and carve hard and recover nicely without the strain on the knee of the ack foot despite running a 6 degree cant and 3 degree tilt in boot and plate binding.

I wouldn't advise anyone ride like this unless they have some other body alignment issues going on.

[Dave ESPI]

I wouldn't advise anyone ride like this unless they have some other body alignment issues going on.

Mondo 30+.....

yeah I'm BIGFOOT.... LOL.

I just checked, I was mistaken.

I'm running 55(f) and 66® as my beginning of the season setting (end of season was 62 f and 71 r) looking back over my notes scribbled in random pages and cards in my log.

* difference of 9 degrees toe in, but I can angle that up also depending on how I feel.

[Jack M]

I'd say that's entirely the wrong board for you Dave. Too short and too narrow. After getting back on a wider board that allows me angles under 60 last year, I have a whole new outlook on this. That made it feel like snowboarding again.

[Mike T]

I generally agree that "reference stance on your board" is a good starting point, and "lower is better" - to a certain point. I find that when I get my back foot much below 48 then my toeside really suffers. Then again I do has some loss of mobility in my right hip due to some muscular compensation issues (quads wanting to take over hip flexors' jobs...), perhaps if I didn't have said issue I would like to go even lower.

Now having said that, I prefer to use a little bit of what's been called "Gilmour bias" in this forum... front foot is a little closer to heelside edge and back foot is a little closer to toeside edge. This opens up the hips some and is especially good for someone with my hip issues. It also requires going a few degrees higher. However I am sporting size 25 boots so as long as my board is 19.5+ wide I have no problems saying in the mid-50's or lower even with the "Gilmour bias".

[Dr D]

JAck's my hero I ride angles like jack:eplus2:

toes and heels on the edges and different on every board in the quiver. maximum control:biggthump

There's an old fart on Big mtn that rides at least 20 degrees toe in. If I had to guess I'd say 57 in the front and 80 in the back. But hey he's up there ripping it 7 days a week all season long. whatever works for you I guess!

[Dave ESPI]

I'd say that's entirely the wrong board for you Dave. Too short and too narrow. After getting back on a wider board that allows me angles under 60 last year, I have a whole new outlook on this. That made it feel like snowboarding again.

I agree. I have a few more tricks in my quiver yet to come out...... this is just my "toy" carver. Its nice because I'm nimble enough on it to be able to pussyfoot around others on a crowded slope and still stop on a dime and bend over to pick it up ;)

If you think thats small..... you should see me ripping down double blacks on my rossignol THE MINI 121 !

* I had my original mini stolen this year (see another thread), but I replaced it in June. Just too much fun!

I'm getting a 167 of that same board from Jon Dahl... the added length should be very much appreciated by myself at "speed", because when I hit 44 on this 157, I really have to be "on-point" with my riding or else I can load the nose a bot toomuch and then have to rock back to the tail and play the "slow down before ya bust all yer nuts up" game....

Definately looking forward to ripping on the 190 for sure ;)