Anyone run their bindings flat?

[zoltan]

I was wondering if anyone else ran their binding flat, with no lift or cant?

I've tried canting them and lifting them, but it always seemed to give me weird leg pains, and finally I ended up with a slightly narrower stance and flat bindings. Ultimately I know it's about whatever works best for you, but I'm still interested if anyone else ended up in the same place I did.

At least it makes setting up bindings easier...

[pokkis]

I'm on wide flat stance.

Flat since mid 90eens and wide since end of it ;)

[MUD]

I run a flat stance..... I really like it.

I don't know if I run a "wide" stance or not, I think that is relative.

I run about a 19.75" (50cm) stance.

I think I need to add, I run relatively low angles (54/51).

[Hans]

Only on my small width Virus Cyborg (14cm) I use a 3 degrees cant disk in the back, all my other boards I ride flat with 50cm/51cm stance width.

[BlueB]

Running flat would be a great way to torture myself... But we are all different. If flat felt good, just go for it.

[Jack M]

A wider stance is generally more stable and more powerful. This is a simple geometric fact. The only time it may not be better is on a very short board where you could end up with more board between your feet than outside your feet.

You <i>should</i> be able to cant/lift your bindings such that it's more comfortable than flat, and thus run a wider stance. It takes some experimentation, but you should be able to get there. Everyone is different, you may prefer toe lift on the front foot and heel lift on the back foot and no cant, or you may end up with that plus some canting, either inward or yes, outward. Or you may end up with one foot flat and the other tilted. Play around and see what works best for you. But ending up with a narrower flat stance is usually a hint that you didn't find your optimum setup.

[MUD]

A wider stance is generally more stable and more powerful. This is a simple geometric fact. The only time it may not be better is on a very short board where you could end up with more board between your feet than outside your feet.

You should be able to cant/lift your bindings such that it's more comfortable than flat, and thus run a wider stance. It takes some experimentation, but you should be able to get there. Everyone is different, you may prefer toe lift on the front foot and heel lift on the back foot and no cant, or you may end up with that plus some canting, either inward or yes, outward. Or you may end up with one foot flat and the other tilted. Play around and see what works best for you. But ending up with a narrower flat stance is usually a hint that you didn't find your optimum setup.

:rolleyes: How wide is wide?????

[kieran]

:rolleyes: How wide is wide?????

hammer-time wide.

[WinterGold]

I have about the same setup as MUD (check my profile). Maybe a bit wider stance, but otherwise the same. It works great for me.

[Buell]

Almost flat. Just a very small front toe lift.

[Jack M]

How wide is wide?????

depends. I run about an inch wider than if I had flat bindings. I have about a 31" inseam and about a 19.75" stance. Sounds like I may want to go a bit wider on a plate.

[davekempmeister]

I always think that a better stance is out there waiting to be discovered and ride totally flat quite often as a baseline from which to work. As compared to stances I've observed others employ, I don't venture too far from flat anyway.

[Buell]

....But ending up with a narrower flat stance is usually a hint that you didn't find your optimum setup.

There are too many equipment factors and too many body types to say this. Even if it does follow that most riders can get a wider stance using cant and lift, I expect a proper use of cant and lift for a comfortable stance outweighs the use of them for a wider stance.

For instance, I have a 31" inseam and run a 21" stance width with about one and a half degrees of front toe lift and a flat rear foot. I have that minor lift to slightly adjust where my weight is on the board when in a neutral position, not to widen my stance.

From personal testing, I am also pretty sure that bindings with more flex give the rider a greater range of effective cant/ lift options. In other words, you do not need to be so precise when on a binding with some give.

[MUD]

There are too many equipment factors and too many body types to say this.

Just be glad it wasn't an equation......;)

[Bobby Buggs]

Running flat would be a great way to torture myself... But we are all different.

Quoted for Troof;)

[Flywalker]

I ran 3* out back and flat up front on Burton race plates and it seemed fine. My angles were quite different to what l have seen being used here... 48B/57F and around a 19" stance.

Plan on experimenting this year.

[caspercarver]

I ride my Ibex bindings flat and super narrow stance. works for me and i have track 700s which to me are are pretty forgiving and flexy. I used to ride with cants and lifts when i rode in ski boots but when i switched to the 700's i felt i no longer needed anything else.

[Jack M]

There are too many equipment factors and too many body types to say this. Even if it does follow that most riders can get a wider stance using cant and lift, I expect a proper use of cant and lift for a comfortable stance outweighs the use of them for a wider stance.

I agree about comfort. All I'm saying is, if you are comfortable with a (for example) 18" stance with flat feet, you should be able to use lift and/or cant to use, say, a 19" stance comfortably, and that will be better.

For instance, I have a 31" inseam and run a 21" stance width with about one and a half degrees of front toe lift and a flat rear foot.

See I would consider that an amply wide stance.

[Buell]

I agree about comfort. All I'm saying is, if you are comfortable with a (for example) 18" stance with flat feet, you should be able to use lift and/or cant to use, say, a 19" stance comfortably, and that will be better.

Yes, and I am saying they might be better off flat at the 18" stance. I expect we agree that each rider should determine what is best through testing different combinations.

Stance width is just one aspect of the stance setup. The trend is definitely wider (obviously I like a wider stance), but there are just too many good riders with all kinds of stance widths to argue that one should adjust their cant/lift just to widen their stance. Particularly if they are comfortable in their setup.

[Ear dragger]

Back in the days of factory prime, I too ran flat with a rear cant. when I changed over to new tech a couple of years ago, My riding vastly improved. I have found the toe/ heel lift corrects leg position for me. I think you can get lower to the snow with the lift, and I don't get fatigued as easily either. of course the stance width improved the power. I'm not into cant anymore, but that is different for everyones body.

I think the toe/heel lift (stance width) is something everyone should give a fair shake.

[Corey]

Not sure if this is a valid test, but it was interesting to me:

While wearing your boots, stand with your feet at whatever stance width you normally run. Then turn them to about the typical angles you ride at. I found that my front toe and rear heel automatically lifted off the ground. I could force my feet flat on the ground, but it was quite uncomfortable. I then tried 6 and 6 cant disks in my Bombers and loved it. Maybe that test will give a primitive indicator of what kind of lift/cant you should try? Then adjust by feel on the snow.

Unrelated: I've noticed most of the racers run huge rear heel lift.

[pokkis]

If you run with step-ins then proper test would include standing on with bindings due typically heel of both boots will be raise several millimeters.

[zoltan]

All I'm saying is, if you are comfortable with a (for example) 18" stance with flat feet, you should be able to use lift and/or cant to use, say, a 19" stance comfortably, and that will be better.

I'm sorry, but have to ask just how much of a difference a 1' wider stance would make.

That said, I'd tried a wider stance with both cant and then lift, and both times it quickly burned my legs out, which is how my stance narrowed back down and my bindings went flat.

[Jack M]

I'm sorry, but have to ask just how much of a difference a 1' wider stance would make.

It's significant, try it and see. The body is sensitive to very small changes.

That said, I'd tried a wider stance with both cant and then lift, and both times it quickly burned my legs out, which is how my stance narrowed back down and my bindings went flat.

Well it may not work for everyone, but it sounds like your cant/lift setup wasn't optimized for you.

If you run with step-ins then proper test would include standing on with bindings due typically heel of both boots will be raise several millimeters.

The toe block of step-in Bombers is taller to compensate for this.

Yes, and I am saying they might be better off flat at the 18" stance.

Can you explain why, mechanically/physiologically?

I expect we agree that each rider should determine what is best through testing different combinations.

yes.

Stance width is just one aspect of the stance setup. The trend is definitely wider (obviously I like a wider stance), but there are just too many good riders with all kinds of stance widths to argue that one should adjust their cant/lift just to widen their stance. Particularly if they are comfortable in their setup.

My biggest argument is that the days of 16" or 17" stance widths are long gone for anyone with a 30"+ inseam.

Canting and lifting should simply enable you move your feet apart along this circle:

[Istvan]

Board width and binding angle also has a lot to do with cants and lifts On a wider board you can have lower angles and hence less or zero cant and lift.

As the board gets narrower and the binding angles get higher the need comes for toe and heel lifts.

Just try it on the carpet by imitating the extremes, i.e. 0 and 90 degrees binding angle and a nice wide stance.

Cheers from Hungary