Bobby Buggs Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 I used to know this, If I lower or increase my rear foot angle how does that affect my stance width, or does it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queequeg Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 (edited) Lift will make your stance "feel" narrower by bringing your knees closer together. Use lift to widen your stance comfortably. It also moves weight away from the foot it is applied to: lift on the rear foot will bias weight forward. Ack - you said angle, not lift. Should have realized - seemed like a pretty basic question for a veteran carver like yourself :p I would imagine the answer to this question would have to factor in the boot geometry of the rear boot (neutral cuff angle + ramp) and the amount of rear lift to be useful. Higher angles will move your ankle back so: wider, but if you have lots of ramp, cuff angle or lift it will also move your knee forward: which will feel narrower. I run higher angles on my beserker and it makes my stance feel a bit narrower. Edited November 30, 2016 by queequeg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slopestar Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 I'm just sitting here waiting for Beckman AG to chime in and confuse me... truth is, I always appreciate the knowledge and expertise(or opinion) offered up by everyone. We all need more snow! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordmetroland Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 This has all the makings of a thread that makes me feel like a dumb****. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big mario Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 2 hours ago, lordmetroland said: This has all the makings of a thread that makes me feel like a dumb****. Trying to bait me aren't you... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLN Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 I guess foot angle means binding angle? I'd say if you increase angle on rear foot - you should narrow your stance. If you incread hell lift or caning - make stance wider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corey Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 I have set up multiple boards with the same stance width - on the narrower boards (higher foot angles) my stance feels narrower than it does on wider boards with lower foot angles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunSurfer Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 Stance distance = distance between centre point of each binding. Changing binding angles changes almost everything APART FROM stance distance. In particular it changes the relationship of your hip joints and feet. Thought or actual experiment: TD3 cant discs at your personal stance distance on snowboard. Now rotate binding plates from 0 degrees to 90 degrees. You've just gone from duckfoot to skwal and everywhere in between. Your stance distance has remained unchanged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west carven Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 howdy Bobby Buggs yeah! that's what I told her... (ha ha) it snowed all day here in town and i'm so happy... 11-30-2016... carpet carve and it will all come back... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corey Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 12 hours ago, SunSurfer said: Changing binding angles changes almost everything APART FROM stance distance. Agreed, but it feels like my stance gets narrower with higher boot angles. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big mario Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 1 hour ago, corey_dyck said: Agreed, but it feels like my stance gets narrower with higher boot angles. perception stand with your feet shoulder width apart, toes forward. Pivot on your heels into your stance angles. like Corey said, it feels a lot narrower, though the distance between your heels has not changed, therefore, neither has your stance width. mario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corey Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 The big question is: Because it feels narrower, could you benefit by going wider when using higher angles? I'm too impatient to fuss with it. It's all a little crazy as a given stance width feels fine on a 22cm waist board, but feels narrow on a 19cm board. And then I feel comfortable on an 12cm skwal with a much smaller stance and almost 90-degree foot angles. :shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Buggs Posted December 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 so consequently it will feel wider at lower angles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunSurfer Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 The perception of "width" has a lot to do with the tension your muscles around your hips and knees are under. As the binding angles swing from across the board to along the board, the relative position of pelvis and feet changes, from feet side beside but a long way apart (0 degrees) to one foot in front of the other but now tucked in under the pelvis. I wrote about how this changes the appropriate binding set up in the Cant/ lift thread that was recently discussed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Buggs Posted December 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Using that it would be logical to believe lower angled back foot might be more comfortable at a slightly smaller stance width? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunSurfer Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Bobby Buggs said: Using that it would be logical to believe lower angled back foot might be more comfortable at a slightly smaller stance width? Or by slightly increasing the amount of inward canting on the rear foot. Edited December 1, 2016 by SunSurfer Clarity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queequeg Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 (edited) 22 hours ago, SunSurfer said: Changing binding angles changes almost everything APART FROM stance distance. In particular it changes the relationship of your hip joints and feet. Your ankles are not located in the middle of your feet, so this is not a practical argument. You are correct in the sense that your stance width is an arbitrary measurement from the middle of one binding to the other; so if you consider stance purely as this arbitrary metric independent of everything else then yes you are right. However, if you consider the notion of stance width more generally/practically as how wide apart your legs are: the angles matter because your ankles are not located in the middle of your feet, and changing the angle will move your ankle, which moves your your legs further apart or closer together. This is why the angles affect the way your stance feels. In the example you cite: going from duckfoot to skwal binding angles at the same width: your ankles would be in dramatically different positions on either end of the spectum and depending upon your foot size and binding bias, the overall delta would be easily a foot from one extreme to the other. Edited December 1, 2016 by queequeg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunSurfer Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Queequeg, I agree absolutely. Stance is so much more than just stance distance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Buggs Posted December 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Im only asking this because in my limited days riding last year my Am board which is at a slightly lower rear angle felt like the stance was a bit too wide, it was not comfortable like I remembered. I dont use any cant angles and have not for 10 years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunSurfer Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Maybe the rider is not quite as flexible as he once was. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Buggs Posted December 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Cant dispute that 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.