Angles versus waist width?

[SWriverstone]

I currently run 60F/55R on a board with a 19.5 waist. Over the course of my first 4 seasons carving, I've been wanting steeper angles. I noticed several people at SES (who were NOT riding Skwals) ran pretty steep angles...like 70/60 or 80/70.

I like steep angles...because among other things, it makes it easier to keep my shoulders squared to the front of the board (and my turns are better as a result). And it just feels better!

I'm planning to buy a Donek Axxess Nyberg with a 22.5 waist. In an older thread, it seemed that many people were recommending "the lowest angles you can get without overhang."

Why?

I wear an M28 boot. Is there some reason I don't know or don't understand why running angles of **at least** 60F/55R would be bad on a 22.5cm-wide Axxess?

Is there some unspoken rule that says "Thou shalt always run the lowest angles thou canst achieve without overhang?"

Just trying to find some logic behind the low-angles argument on one side...and other people running high angles. (Do some folks think it's impossible to get a 22.5-wide board on edge with steep angles?)

Frankly, low angles creep me out because it makes me feel like a softbooter...which (no offense) I do NOT want to even remotely feel like! LOL

Scott

[ur13]

High stance angles on a wider all-mountain alpine board like the Axxess will be a touch iffy. Lower angles, respectively between 50 and 60*, will allow you to adapt to many different types of terrain, snow conditions and turn types. Lower angles (around 45*) will be yet more versatile and a good middle ground between forward facing alpine and sideways facing board-sports.

Sure you can skid turns and do jump turns with 70-80 degree angles, but it's not that fun. All mountain alpine boards are meant to be a compromise between aggressiveness of a proper alpine deck and the versatility of a all mountain board.

Not to mention, high angles on a wide board will make the thing feel really slow edge to edge and take away any "feel" you have of the edge, given how far your heel/toe will actually be from the edge. It isn't impossible to get a wide waisted board on edge with high stance angles, but there are more effective ways to do it.

[shawndoggy]

I'm planning to buy a Donek Axxess Nyberg with a 22.5 waist.

Why did you choose this board and that waist width?

[Chubz]

Scott

I have been on HB's for 7 years (27 yrs snowboarding)and during that time, especially the first season on HB, I started low angles and ever increased my angle placement to eventual 71*front and 69* back. Since I got my new Metal Coiler over a month ago, JBS suggested to me to lower my angles to which I did to 66*/64*. this was the lowest I could go on the 20 cm waist without overhang, otherwise I may have dropped to 64/62

BAM!!!!! First set of turns at 66/64 gave instance boot to board response and angulation results. While the board has done wonders, changing my angles has also contributed to my board turn initiation, engagement, release and into the next turn. I ride gunslinger for the most part and the lower angles has not created any challenges with that. It just seemed it took less effrt to get the board to rollover to engage the edge at lower angles and it locked into the turn. I guess its more of the heel toe response rather than left/right side of calf on boot cuff. I have even found when my cuff is not as tight, the board still respsonds very well.

Lastly, I would do yourself a solid and give Bruce a call, when considering a new board. Dont beleive em, cmon up to BMES and I'll let you try my 77T. It would work great for you at 220, I am 215.

Greg

[SWriverstone]

I appreciate the responses from everyone. The whole thing still seems a bit vague and subjective, though.

Why did you choose this board and that waist width?

Good question, for which I don't have a great answer, LOL. I found a good deal on this used board (in great condition). I simply don't have time to take forever choosing a new deck by traveling all over the country trying out boards. I just have to consider the information and make the best choice possible. (And the price for this one is low enough that it's not a big deal and I can resell it if necessary, having gained knowledge from riding it.)

High stance angles on a wider all-mountain alpine board like the Axxess will be a touch iffy.

You may be right...but can you offer anything more concrete? (This is what I meant by saying the whole thing still seems subjective and vague.)

I started low angles and ever increased my angle placement to eventual 71*front and 69* back. Since I got my new Metal Coiler over a month ago, JBS suggested to me to lower my angles to which I did to 66*/64*. this was the lowest I could go on the 20 cm waist without overhang, otherwise I may have dropped to 64/62

BAM!!!!! First set of turns at 66/64 gave instance boot to board response and angulation results.

That's interesting Chubz! But the thing is, the angles you went down to are still steeper than where I am now (which is 60F/55R). And if lowering your angles some had a positive impact...then wouldn't lowering your angles even more have an even bigger positive impact? Perhaps a more general question would be...why aren't we all riding 0-degree angles (or riding duckfoot)? Doesn't that offer the most leverage from front to back, toe-to-heel? (And if 0-degrees is NOT good for carving, then what angles are considered the beginning of "good" for carving?)

I realize this may be a question for which the only answer is..."It depends." But I'm still wondering if there is any hard physics and/or empirical experimentation to prove that a given set of angles offers superior control, better balance, or whatever? *Paging Jack Michaud!*

Though I suppose it's possible in the future, at this point in my hardbooting "career," I have no desire to ride anything other than groomers. There's no powder in the east, and no tree runs at our dinky resorts...so groomers are about my only option. So it doesn't make sense for me to adopt angles (and a riding style) that work well over a wide variety of terrain, 'cause we simply don't have that variety here. And yes, you'd probably be right to ask "If all you ride is groomed, then why are you getting an Axxess?" I dunno, just 'cause! LOL Is the Axxess a bad board for groomers?

I'm not trying to argue anything in particular...just seeking more data (both empirical and anecdotal) about the advantages and disadvantages of both steeper and lower angles.

Scott

[shawndoggy]

Good question, for which I don't have a great answer, LOL. I found a good deal on this used board (in great condition). I simply don't have time to take forever choosing a new deck by traveling all over the country trying out boards. I just have to consider the information and make the best choice possible. (And the price for this one is low enough that it's not a big deal and I can resell it if necessary, having gained knowledge from riding it.)

When I first started I got a lot of great advice... the best being to get boots and a set of TD2s (then the standard) and to bum boards off of people to try. Nonetheless, I went the "cheap" route by getting "great deals." All of which I eventually abandoned and got the good boots and the TD2s. Not that that really has anything to do with your particular issue, but just consider the generality that sometimes a "deal" can be more expensive than doing it right the first time.

IMHO, and in my very limited experience, given the terrain you will be riding most of the time, I'd suggest something more like a Madd 170. It's narrow and requires the angles you are looking for. Renowned for its ice grip.

Might cost a little more, but it sounds like you are buying a pickup truck for autocross. Sure, it will work, but it's not the tool made for the job.

</paging>

[ur13]

High angles in off-piste all mountain riding will force your body forward, in the gunslinger stance (if you will). That stance is super effective for loading the nose or tail on groomers and/or riding (and staying) on edge. However in off-piste the forward facing body position is less than ideal and harder to adapt to conditions you face off-piste.

Riding moderate angles will allow you to move forward to be aggressive, but gives ability to adapt to changing conditions faced in off-piste riding. More traditional heelside/toe-side control will be more versatile here over the right/left calf feel of high angles.

High stance angles on a wide board will feel slow edge to edge (unless you have giant feet) given how far your toe/heel is from the edges. Also you'll loose alot of edge feel.

The bigger problem here is more high stance angles on the wide board. Not high stance angles in off-piste.

[Chubz]

SW

Do you work? you have posted more stuff in the last month on everything and you are keeping me from getting my work done.;)

As far as lowering of the angles, I think it would get to a point (which I cannot emperically give you a number) that then starts to factor out other things that influence being able to ride properly, i.e. body position, pencil pinch, spine torsioning (going gunslingers at 0* would hurt), hip dipping, opening/closing of knee, etc

I think you may have the JP1 disease, too much reading and chatting and just ride, ride ride ride ride ride, rid with others, ride some more, eat, sleep ride ride ride.:D

Good luck to you.

Have you been on a Metal coiler yet???

[pow4ever]

My personal experiment with higher angle.

http://www.bomberonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=23458

With those angles on an SBX board you will have all sorts of problems. I'd suggest going back to your old angles. When you run high angles on wide boards you are at a huge leverage disadvantage.

In my mind it made tons of sense and I went back lower angle and it's much much better.

My guess if your technique is perfect. Then the angle matter less. For newbie like me; every little thing help like training wheel. ie I need the little extra leverage from lower angle as oppse to some one can compensate higher angle with angulation and what have you.

Just my very humble opinion.

--

David

[kjl]

Your stance angles significantly impact the mechanics of your carve in relation to your body position.

At flat angles, (0/0), bending your knees puts your butt over the heelside edge of the board without increasing edge angle, making your heelside carve wash out unless you compensate by either bending way forwards at the waist (sit on the toilet cowboy style) or not bending your knees very much. On the flip side, bending your knees with flat angles makes the toeside carve much stronger.

At very high angles, bending your knees puts your butt over tail instead of over the side, so that bending your knees does not negatively impact your heelside edge. In addition, it makes it so that rotating your hips towards the nose will drive your knees towards the snow and improve the heelside more. On the flip side, it makes it so that bending your knees will not improve your toeside edge angle as much.

In addition, very high angles make me feel less mobile in the hips.

In my opinion, your stance angles should be chosen to maximize and equalize the performance, ease, and comfort of your heelside turn and toeside turn, and then pick board widths based on that.

For me, I've found that angles roughly around 60/55 are perfect, making the heelside very reliable while being low enough that I can make comfortable toeside carves by just bending the knees a bit. For my shell size, that dictates a board around 19 or 19.5 cm wide.

You can ride a wide board with high angles, but you are increasing the leverage the snow has on the board (the snow has a longer lever arm to push the board with), but your body mechanics are the same to make the carve. In practice (for me anyways), this means that I can carve it just as well, except I end up with bruises all over my calves and shins from the extra pressure from the boot cuff, and the less-mobile hips from the high angles means I don't have the dexterity I would like if I take it off-piste.

[SWriverstone]

Thanks guys—this is making more sense. As I said, in the near future, there's almost NO chance I'll be riding off-piste. So the forward-leaning stance isn't an issue (since I'll always be on groomers).

I also have the option to buy a Donek Vlad 175. I'm guessing you guys would probably think that's a much better choice, right? :)

Scott

[SWriverstone]

SW

Do you work? you have posted more stuff in the last month on everything and you are keeping me from getting my work done.;)

LOL—yeah, I work...but only part-time these days (I temporarily have the luxury of being able to afford that!)...all my posting is a cyclical thing. I'll disappear again (temporarily) when the snow melts. :)

I think you may have the JP1 disease, too much reading and chatting and just ride, ride ride ride ride ride, rid with others, ride some more, eat, sleep ride ride ride.:D

Oh don't worry—I'm riding—I was out this morning for two hours! :D

Have you been on a Metal coiler yet???

Nope. Just a metal Prior.

For me, I've found that angles roughly around 60/55 are perfect, making the heelside very reliable while being low enough that I can make comfortable toeside carves by just bending the knees a bit. For my shell size, that dictates a board around 19 or 19.5 cm wide.

You can ride a wide board with high angles, but you are increasing the leverage the snow has on the board (the snow has a longer lever arm to push the board with), but your body mechanics are the same to make the carve. In practice (for me anyways), this means that I can carve it just as well, except I end up with bruises all over my calves and shins from the extra pressure from the boot cuff, and the less-mobile hips from the high angles means I don't have the dexterity I would like if I take it off-piste.

Well that's good then, 'cause I've ridden 60F/55R for five seasons now. And your point about angles being a continuum makes sense.

Scott

[DjulezD]

...

Riding moderate angles will allow you to move forward to be aggressive, but gives ability to adapt to changing conditions faced in off-piste riding. More traditional heelside/toe-side control will be more versatile here over the right/left calf feel of high angles.

...

+1 on this.

Riding with angles as close as possible to 45° allows you to switch from counter-rotation/knees-shoulders driving to push-pull hips-knees driving.

Placing the board on its edge with boots mounted on bindings and rotating the angles with a ruler until there is no overhang is a good technique to assess the minimum angle compatible with the board. You can always move up from there, but you will loose pressure points for your toes/heels on the board.

My guess is this is why there is no rule of thumb for assessing the maximum angles for a given board. Imagine riding a surfboard with 65/60 angles...

[ur13]

Thanks guys—this is making more sense. As I said, in the near future, there's almost NO chance I'll be riding off-piste. So the forward-leaning stance isn't an issue (since I'll always be on groomers).

I also have the option to buy a Donek Vlad 175. I'm guessing you guys would probably think that's a much better choice, right? :)

Scott

Well then you don't want a Donek Axxess. It will do fine on groomers, but as someone said it's a pickup truck for autocross. There are better options out there for dedicated groomer riding, especially if you prefer high stance angles.

I figured, given the all-around board, you were looking for an off-piste hardboot option.

If it's simply "a good deal" but not a good fit board or preference-wise...save your money and spend it on a board that has the correct dimensions for what you want.

[Jack M]

Lower angles = more ankle leverage across the board. It's as simple as that. That lever is one more tool to have in your toolbox to make good carves. At 90 degrees, you lose them entirely. However at some point going too close to zero frigs up the rest of your alignment.

I'm loving coming from an 18cm board and 66 degree angles to a 21cm and 58 degrees. Feels like a snowboard again. Carving technique needed a little adjustment afterwards, but ultimately it's been a lot better for me. I'm smoother and more balanced.

[Call me jack]

You'll have more leverage to get the board from edge to edge faster if you use the lowest angles possible.

[SWriverstone]

Okay...I'm still waiting for two things:

1. (Regarding angles) How low is too low? At what point do the benefits of low angles start to diminish? (And why can some softbooters carve up a storm with duckfoot angles?)

2. I'd love to hear some input in this thread from carvers running steep angles (60+) who are enjoying it! So far, all we've heard from are people who were happier when they lowered their angles. I'm sure someone out there is happy with steep angles—tell us why! (*Paging Norman*)

Scott

[ur13]

Okay...I'm still waiting for two things:

1. (Regarding angles) How low is too low? At what point do the benefits of low angles start to diminish? (And why can some softbooters carve up a storm with duckfoot angles?)

2. I'd love to hear some input in this thread from carvers running steep angles (60+) who are enjoying it! So far, all we've heard from are people who were happier when they lowered their angles. I'm sure someone out there is happy with steep angles—tell us why! (*Paging Norman*)

Scott

1) The old rule of thumb for me was anything under 45* is "too low" (for hardboots and the upper limits for softies unless you had a 3rd strap) in the sense you begin to loose the forward facing stance and any advantage you get from that. I used to ride a Donek incline as a freeride board at 30/20 but trying that this year I'm damned if I can figure out how I used to enjoy that and make it work. But it's also relative to waist width. 70/70 on a 20cm waist board will feel slow and sloppy unless you have giant feet compare to 50/50 on the same board. 50/50 wouldn't work on a 18cm waist width board for most people due to overhang.

2) I rode 60/60 for years (since 2002). But this season I've upped my angles to 70/70 and much prefer it. It helps put me in the forward facing stance and keeps me there. It's hard to get lazy and resort back to riding a alpine board side to side like a normal board (which given all my years riding lower angles in softies and 45/45 in plates on asym boards was easy to do when I got lazy). 60/60 was a half step, albeit a long one, for me it seems. I simply can't imagine going back to the "lower" angles. Then again I like skinny short boards with tight sidecuts.

[DjulezD]

ON n°1, boot overhang is the limit.

[SWriverstone]

Thanks ur13—nice to know you like 70/70.

I suppose you could say I'm a "pure" alpine carver in the sense that unlike a lot of people around here, I wasn't a freeride softbooter before I got into carving. That style of riding (freeride softbooting) holds no interest for me at all. My point being that carvers who spent a lot of time as a softbooter seem to value retaining a certain degree of "softbooter technique" on their carving boards.

I see (correctly or incorrectly) carving as a different animal altogether, with totally different technique. To me, carving is about facing the front of the board, not facing sideways...hence my bias toward steeper angles.

But hey, I can't argue with physics. :)

Scott

[Mike T]

I pretty much see things the same way as Jack describes - although I have smaller feet so subtract 8 - 10 degrees from his angle figures and you have mine.

I used to say "any lower than 50 and it starts to suck". This season I'm saying "any lower than 45 and it starts to suck".

I'm not a coach nor do I play one on TV, but I can tell you this: Listening to the coaches who have coached me, and paying attention to letting the ankles do as much of the work as I can get them to do, has shorted my transitions between carves by quite a bit. The trenches don't lie.

[SWriverstone]

ON n°1, boot overhang is the limit.

True...unless you go with a much wider board. (Right?) Meaning, some guys on wide freeride boards seem to be able to carve great with duckfoot angles. So why don't we do that? (I swear I'm not trying to ask pointless questions for the sake of rhetoric...I just enjoy understanding why things are the way they are, instead of just accepting them or waiting to find out for myself. :))

Scott

[SWriverstone]

I pretty much see things the same way as Jack describes - although I have smaller feet so subtract 8 - 10 degrees from his angle figures and you have mine.

I used to say "any lower than 50 and it starts to suck". This season I'm saying "any lower than 45 and it starts to suck".

I'm not a coach nor do I play one on TV, but I can tell you this: Listening to the coaches who have coached me, and paying attention to letting the ankles do as much of the work as I can get them to do, has shorted my transitions between carves by quite a bit. The trenches don't lie.

An excellent instructor I once took some lessons from (Phil!) emphasized this as well—starting transitions/turns from the bottom up. That definitely makes sense, and I've spent time working on that.

But (sorry, I know—here I go again)...is there something wrong with starting transitions/turns from the top down?

Seems like the steeper your angles, the more you turn top-down (since bottom-up transitions don't work as well as you don't have as much ankle leverage). Just observing better carvers than me, it almost seems (on groomers anyway) that top-down transitions can be (or appear) smoother and less "hair trigger" than bottom-up. (Think of how a slalom water skier turns, as an analogy.)

Scott

[DjulezD]

IMHO, I don't think you can carve as hard and deep with a duck stance as you would with any alpine setup/technique. But anyway, +10/-10 is still more angulated than riding flat, which is the absolute limit for overhang.

But I have never tried these angles on HB.

[Bobby Buggs]

personally I think its good for people to go steep for some time in their carving development. I was in the 60s for more than a couple seasons and started to back down last year. Im now at 55-50 and ride with far more power and versatility than ever before.

For me its about the all mountain experience, I dont want to limit where I go or how I ride by stance angles. Yes there are people that can ride anything at plus 60 but face it, you get more power at slightly lower angles, especially at 20 cm and up waists.