# Reducing Stance Width - Will it help with 3s?



## alecdude88 (Dec 13, 2009)

it should help a little but not enough to make up for skill. so just keep practicing


----------



## ShortAssassin (Dec 16, 2007)

alecdude88 said:


> it should help a little but not enough to make up for skill. so just keep practicing


That's what I assumed. I like the stability of my wide stance so I think I'll stick with it.


----------



## Extremo (Nov 6, 2008)

I found that narrowing my stance actually hurt my spins...maybe just because I had to re-learn them that way. I went from 25" to 23.5" and it was too much of a change. I ended up going back to 24" . At first I couldnt generate the torque with and still feel that I don't get the pull I used to with a wider stance, but with a narrow stance it reduces the pain I had in my knees.


----------



## rasmasyean (Jan 26, 2008)

I've found...and remeber reading somewhere, that wider stances are better for spinning. And it makes sense to me...since you can generate torque due to mechanical advantage, much like gripping a tire iron at the ends. Of course too wide gives you less leg motion and is harder to balance this way.

I've found for myself, the alieviation of the *wide stance pressuring knees problem* can be solved simply by increasing the stance angle. I used to ride 0 0 for all mountain. When I switched to mostly spinning and freestyle, I went widest and 15 -15. This way, when I bend my legs and it's in more of an "angle" because of the wide stance, my feet are more aligned with my thighs...reducing that "axial twist pressure" on my knees.

I imagine every body is different and wide to some is short for others and some ppl are more flexible and in certain postions, etc. too. But you can try what I did and see if it solves your knee problem.


----------



## snowjeeper (Nov 11, 2008)

is there any benefit to having a narrow stance in general? I've been changing up all my settings on the board.


----------



## Phenom (Dec 15, 2007)

A narrower stance will make spinning in the air easier but like others said generating the rotational force during take off is more difficult. Whenever you compact your body as much as possible it results in less angular momentum meaning faster spins. Think about a figure skater spinning around, first with her arms out and then once she brings her arms in.



Snowolf said:


> Some find it easier on their joints....:dunno:


Isn't it also true that having a narrower stance helps with carving/holding an edge since you're applying force further away from the tip and tail meaning it's easier to flex the board? I always thought this was a good way to handle very stiff boards.


----------



## ev13wt (Nov 22, 2010)

Phenom said:


> Isn't it also true that having a narrower stance helps with carving/holding an edge since you're applying force further away from the tip and tail meaning it's easier to flex the board? I always thought this was a good way to handle very stiff boards.


Are you riding a metal plank?


On the 360 issue add pop to the butter maybe? Over a roller?


----------



## Phenom (Dec 15, 2007)

ev13wt said:


> Are you riding a metal plank?


Why do you think board sizes are so dependent on rider weight?

There's a good reason why skinny little 140lb kids don't buy 160+ cm boards


----------



## snowjeeper (Nov 11, 2008)

phenom, logically i would think it's the opposite, that you'd be able to flex the board less nose to tail with a narrower stance...


----------



## Phenom (Dec 15, 2007)

snowjeeper said:


> phenom, logically i would think it's the opposite, that you'd be able to flex the board less nose to tail with a narrower stance...


I'm not talking about buttering/pressing, I'm strictly talking about turning and carving. The tip and tail are the contact points, and the turn is initiated by applying force (the momentum of your bodyweight) to the board through your feet. The further your feet are from the contact points (ie narrow stance) the greater the torque you can apply to bend the board. Think about a beam cantilevered at both ends; The beam will bend easiest if I force is applied directed in the middle of it.


----------



## rasmasyean (Jan 26, 2008)

Phenom said:


> A narrower stance will make spinning in the air easier but like others said generating the rotational force during take off is more difficult. Whenever you compact your body as much as possible it results in less *angular momentum *meaning faster spins. Think about a figure skater spinning around, first with her arms out and then once she brings her arms in.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it also true that having a narrower stance helps with carving/holding an edge since you're applying force further away from the tip and tail meaning it's easier to flex the board? I always thought this was a good way to handle very stiff boards.


The correct term is "moment of inertia". 

Regarding tip/tail length:
I believe part of having the long tip at least, allows more dampening when riding. This should aid in the stability. Imagine if your lead foot was right at the tip of the board. You can guess you would feel every little bump and it would jerk your leg arround. So if you move your lead foot furthur... 

I'm not sure about the tail, but I know in carving boards, the tail is relatively short.


----------



## Phenom (Dec 15, 2007)

rasmasyean said:


> The correct term is "moment of inertia".
> 
> Regarding tip/tail length:
> I believe part of having the long tip at least, allows more dampening when riding. This should aid in the stability. Imagine if your lead foot was right at the tip of the board. You can guess you would feel every little bump and it would jerk your leg arround. So if you move your lead foot furthur...
> ...


Yes, I know what the moment of inertia is. For simplicity's sake angular momentum seemed to fit the bill just fine.

edit: if you really wanted to pick my terminology apart you could have simply argued that bringing the arms in does nothing to change angular momentum as it is conserved despite the increase in rotational velocity.


----------



## ShortAssassin (Dec 16, 2007)

Thanks for all of the replies guys. I think I'll take the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach and stick with my current width since it's comfortable and not painful on my knees. 

What sparked this question is seeing people land 3's seemingly effortlessly off small jumps/lips/you name it. Some people just make it look so easy. Meanwhile I'm under-rotating on much larger jumps.


----------



## Phenom (Dec 15, 2007)

ShortAssassin said:


> Thanks for all of the replies guys. I think I'll take the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach and stick with my current width since it's comfortable and not painful on my knees.
> 
> What sparked this question is seeing people land 3's seemingly effortlessly off small jumps/lips/you name it. Some people just make it look so easy. Meanwhile I'm under-rotating on much larger jumps.


That's a good idea. I don't think it would be worth it to reduce the width since you see tons of guys using a wide stance for park stuff because it's arguably the best stance to go with. Even if it would help you, you wouldn't want to narrow your stance until you get the hang of spins and then widen it up again.


----------



## Steery (Oct 25, 2010)

Turn your head and your body will follow.


----------



## rasmasyean (Jan 26, 2008)

Steery said:


> Turn your head and your body will follow.


I'm not sure why ppl keep saying this. This is simply not true. While it may seem to work for some people, it's only because you have done all your other movements unconciously perhaps, but it definately has more to do with timing and body position than where you are looking. And in most cases of backside landings, it is suggested that you don't even look "where you want to go".


----------



## PanHandler (Dec 23, 2010)

are you setting up your spin properly?

I found thids video extremely useful.




if embedding doesnt work:
YouTube - How to 360, 540 and 720 Frontside or Backside (regular riders) from Snowboard Addiction.


----------



## thetraveler (Feb 24, 2010)

Extremo said:


> I found that narrowing my stance actually hurt my spins...maybe just because I had to re-learn them that way. I went from 25" to 23.5" and it was too much of a change. I ended up going back to 24" . At first I couldnt generate the torque with and still feel that I don't get the pull I used to with a wider stance, but with a narrow stance it reduces the pain I had in my knees.



hey Extremo,

what are your other stats?

height, weight, binding angles, board length? 

what kind of a pain was it in the knees?

i'm currently riding a 26" stance and have a slight funny feeeling in the knees from time to time, around the kneecaps, like a slightly raw nerve or something. i'm considering reducing it to 25" or 24.5" and seeing if that gets rid of the pain. any thoughts?


----------



## ShortAssassin (Dec 16, 2007)

Thanks a ton for that video PanHandler. I went out for a day trip today and spent a good amount of time in the park. The lift line was ridiculous for the lift servicing the primary park with large jumps, so my friend and I settled for the smaller park with no jumps. However, I started practicing BS180s by popping off my toe edge on a roller and realized after a couple smooth ones that I could probably throw a 3. So here is the result of a day of practicing: 

Edit: Embed fail...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNRAqhoKUbI

Edit 2: Thought I should mention that I did not change my stance width, since that's how the thread started lol. I also apologize for the crappy video quality.


----------



## PanHandler (Dec 23, 2010)

Nice! now just go throw that over a big jump! should actually be easier since you have more air timer to spin


----------



## snowjeeper (Nov 11, 2008)

yeah nice and smooth!


----------



## synthetic (Dec 10, 2009)

Phenom said:


> A narrower stance will make spinning in the air easier but like others said generating the rotational force during take off is more difficult. *Whenever you compact your body as much as possible it results in less angular momentum meaning faster spins*. Think about a figure skater spinning around, first with her arms out and then once she brings her arms in.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it also true that having a narrower stance helps with carving/holding an edge since you're applying force further away from the tip and tail meaning it's easier to flex the board? I always thought this was a good way to handle very stiff boards.


radius X momentum = angular momentum
momentum = Mass x Velocity
mass X velocity X radius = angular momentum
angular momentum is conserved, if you decrease radius you increase velocity because the resultant wont change.


----------



## Phenom (Dec 15, 2007)

synthetic said:


> radius X momentum = angular momentum
> momentum = Mass x Velocity
> mass X velocity X radius = angular momentum
> angular momentum is conserved, if you decrease radius you increase velocity because the resultant wont change.


Yes, that's why I said this on the previous page:



Phenom said:


> if you really wanted to pick my terminology apart you could have simply argued that bringing the arms in does nothing to change angular momentum as it is conserved despite the increase in rotational velocity.


In my original example I was speaking under the assumption that the person has the same angular velocity in each case. The first being the person with their arms and legs spread out, the second case being a person who was in a more compact position.

If I'd have known people would be so passionate about this I would have been more clear.


----------



## synthetic (Dec 10, 2009)

Phenom said:


> Yes, that's why I said this on the previous page:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


oops, didnt realise that there were more pages and that it had already been stated. sorry for coming off as a jerk


----------



## Extremo (Nov 6, 2008)

thetraveler said:


> hey Extremo,
> 
> what are your other stats?
> 
> ...


I'm 6' 185 with 15/-12 on a 156. I had what felt like MCL sprain on both knees...more so on the front and it was really intense when I landed flat or on the knuckle. I went to 24" and I have no pain this year at all.


----------



## rasmasyean (Jan 26, 2008)

Phenom said:


> Yes, that's why I said this on the previous page:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, next time you should be more clear. It's like saying "flip" instead of "spin", "skid" instead of "carve". It makes a difference. We all make typos, mistakes, etc. But if you have this attitude about being "corrected" then you need to take a look at your ego and help yourself be "more clear" in your future writing despite how "pasionate" your readers are.


----------



## Phenom (Dec 15, 2007)

rasmasyean said:


> Well, next time you should be more clear. It's like saying "flip" instead of "spin", "skid" instead of "carve". It makes a difference. We all make typos, mistakes, etc. But if you have this attitude about being "corrected" then you need to take a look at your ego and help yourself be "more clear" in your future writing despite how "pasionate" your readers are.


Well excuse my ignorance then. I wasn't aware I had a forum full of physicists on my hands.

Sure it makes a difference if you want to nit pick. But I assure you the OP won't be landing spins any less or any more because he saw the term angular momentum instead of moment of inertia. LOL I can picture the scene now:

Some guy keeps bailing on his spins and says to himself "what the heck is going on, trying to reduce my angular momentum just isn't working." Then a bystander goes "Nah brah you want to reduce your moment of inertia dude! Don't worry about your angular momentum noob." Then the guy proceeds to nail a few 7's like it's no problem.


----------

