# What stance angles are considered too high?



## drblast (Feb 28, 2017)

If it works for you, it's not too high. Angles like +36/+18 were not uncommon in the early days of snowboarding and hard-booters still ride like that.

I carry a #3 Phillips screwdriver in my car in case I need to tighten or adjust bindings. So try it out for a couple of hours and adjust if you don't like it.

FWIW most information related to highbacks you'll read is BS. I have a snowskate and manage to get down the hill on it just fine. Skiers can turn with no highback. You can set up a highback with zero forward lean or take it off entirely and still ride just fine. Some snowboarders rotate highbacks out of the way so they're parallel with the heel edge of the board which reduces power transmission and they ride just fine.

Sure, boards are wider than skis and snowskates, but there are very few bindings that can't apply any pressure laterally. You might have a problem if you have a very wide board and ride on ice, but other than that you should be fine.


----------



## Crusty (Nov 8, 2018)

My high score was +55/+60.

Getting on edge should be about weighting, not highbacks.


----------



## Surgeon (Apr 13, 2020)

drblast said:


> FWIW most information related to highbacks you'll read is BS. I have a snowskate and manage to get down the hill on it just fine. Skiers can turn with no highback. You can set up a highback with zero forward lean or take it off entirely and still ride just fine. Some snowboarders rotate highbacks out of the way so they're parallel with the heel edge of the board which reduces power transmission and they ride just fine.


In the mid '90s we used to cut our highbacks or remove them completely. Did it work? Yes. Would I go back to mini-highbacks (which became a thing shortly after we started cutting them off) or no highbacks? Never. Sure it rides. Sure it works. I could ride fine without one. But highbacks do serve a purpose and I widely prefer one and I doubt that the subset of the population who would ride better without one would be very big.


----------



## Kijima (Mar 3, 2019)

Those angles are fine and you will have good access to the upper body rotation needed to do killer heel turns. 
I regularly do days with no highbacks, its fine for carving but it sucks for skidded turns, and sometimes skidded turns are part of snowboarding.


----------



## Scalpelman (Dec 5, 2017)

I’m going 90/90 next time out.


----------



## Kijima (Mar 3, 2019)

Scalpelman said:


> I’m going 90/90 next time out.


If the essence of snowboarding is standing sideways then angles more than 45 degrees are becoming closer to skiing lol.


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

Scalpelman said:


> I’m going 90/90 next time out.


Monoski are having their revival, I hear. 
Let us know how you liked them. Uhm... it. 🙈








Le monoski est de retour ! - Glisshop.info


Longtemps qualifié de ringard, le monoski n'a pourtant pas dit son dernier mot. Découvrez le monoski newschool et ses sensations de glisse incomparables...




www.glisshop.info


----------



## WigMar (Mar 17, 2019)

Kijima said:


> If the essence of snowboarding is standing sideways then angles more than 45 degrees are becoming closer to skiing lol.


I recently rode a lift with an older gentleman riding old K2 clickers @ 0,0. He's snowboarding for sure.


----------



## Kijima (Mar 3, 2019)

WigMar said:


> I recently rode a lift with an older gentleman riding old K2 clickers @ 0,0. He's snowboarding for sure.


Snowboarding hard


----------



## ridethecliche (Feb 27, 2019)

drblast said:


> FWIW most information related to highbacks you'll read is BS. I have a snowskate and manage to get down the hill on it just fine. Skiers can turn with no highback. You can set up a highback with zero forward lean or take it off entirely and still ride just fine. Some snowboarders rotate highbacks out of the way so they're parallel with the heel edge of the board which reduces power transmission and they ride just fine.
> 
> Sure, boards are wider than skis and snowskates, but there are very few bindings that can't apply any pressure laterally. You might have a problem if you have a very wide board and ride on ice, but other than that you should be fine.


The skier comment really doesn't make sense here since the boots literally are the highbacks. Turning mechanics are also totally different. 

In any event, why would turning the high backs parallel to the hell edge decrease power transmission?


----------



## drblast (Feb 28, 2017)

ridethecliche said:


> The skier comment really doesn't make sense here since the boots literally are the highbacks. Turning mechanics are also totally different.
> 
> In any event, why would turning the high backs parallel to the hell edge decrease power transmission?


You're right, turning mechanics are totally different, as they are totally different between a duck stance and a very positive stance. If you are facing forward on a board with extreme +/+ angles, you are no longer pushing on the highbacks to turn. It's a different thing entirely, facing mostly forward and leaning side to side instead of front to back. We don't need highbacks to apply pressure on skis because we're facing forward, and that's similar to +/+ on a snowboard. The feet both forward completely changes the body position and makes it easier to lean heel-side without falling over.

Do highbacks help? Sure, of course. Are they absolutely necessary so that nobody should ever try an extreme forward stance? No, that's silly.

As for the second question, highback rotation parallel to the edge of the board that was all the rage ten years ago rotates the highbacks out toward the lateral side of your calf so you can't push on them as much. Your feet, ankles and legs are not parallel to the board unless you're riding 0/0, so the highbacks at essentially parallel to the board won't help with power transmission because they're not aligned with your body. People might like the highbacks out of the way for park riding and butter tricks but usually the reason given is that it increases power which makes no sense.

This is all pretty funny because in the 90's the extreme +/+ angles were fairly common. I'd encourage everyone to try it out at least once.


----------



## Kijima (Mar 3, 2019)

ridethecliche said:


> The skier comment really doesn't make sense here since the boots literally are the highbacks. Turning mechanics are also totally different.
> 
> In any event, why would turning the high backs parallel to the hell edge decrease power transmission?


The biomechanics of the body are different between the two but the mechanics of turning a ski are exactly the same as turning a snowboard. 
I actually watch ski tutorials rather than snowboard ones because pro youtube skiers have a far better understanding of how to control their equipment in carved turns than pro youtube snowboarders do. 
Theres a lot of heart and soul in snowboarding but much of that ends up as bro science


----------



## Yeahti87 (Jan 17, 2019)

Kijima said:


> The biomechanics of the body are different between the two but the mechanics of turning a ski are exactly the same as turning a snowboard.
> I actually watch ski tutorials rather than snowboard ones because pro youtube skiers have a far better understanding of how to control their equipment in carved turns than pro youtube snowboarders do.
> Theres a lot of heart and soul in snowboarding but much of that ends up as bro science


As you geek a lot the turn mechanics - what’s your take on asymetrical directional boards? I’m talking about the ones with the heelside edge being ‚offset’ back to match the heel alignment in a double forward stance e.g. Nidecker Tracer.


----------



## ridethecliche (Feb 27, 2019)

Kijima said:


> The biomechanics of the body are different between the two but the mechanics of turning a ski are exactly the same as turning a snowboard.
> I actually watch ski tutorials rather than snowboard ones because pro youtube skiers have a far better understanding of how to control their equipment in carved turns than pro youtube snowboarders do.
> Theres a lot of heart and soul in snowboarding but much of that ends up as bro science



These two statements are contrary to one another. You're suggesting the biomechanics are different but the mechanics are the same? What? 

Yeah, each ski/snowboard has two edges but that's where the similarities end. I've skied as well and the turning Mechanics are very different because of how you engage your muscles. If youre suggesting that they're similar because of the rhythm and how you engage the edge then you're getting a bit too reductionist for me. 

Let's think of it this way. Can you explain technique in a way that the movement of one becomes intuitive to the other? I don't think that's possible at a basic level. 

If you reduce everything to a downhill and uphill edge and talk about how to weigh /unweigh to move more smoothly then sure I agree, but that becomes a much more physics based argument. 

I guess I'm saying that you can say that an apple and an orange are the same because they're both made of matter. It's a silly argument because you're technically correct but that did that even get you?


----------



## ridethecliche (Feb 27, 2019)

drblast said:


> You're right, turning mechanics are totally different, as they are totally different between a duck stance and a very positive stance. If you are facing forward on a board with extreme +/+ angles, you are no longer pushing on the highbacks to turn. It's a different thing entirely, facing mostly forward and leaning side to side instead of front to back. We don't need highbacks to apply pressure on skis because we're facing forward, and that's similar to +/+ on a snowboard. The feet both forward completely changes the body position and makes it easier to lean heel-side without falling over.
> 
> Do highbacks help? Sure, of course. Are they absolutely necessary so that nobody should ever try an extreme forward stance? No, that's silly.
> 
> ...


How is the absolute force vector changing whether you're putting the high backs directly behind your calf or parallel to the heel edge. 

The way the force diagram works in my head you're just losing some of the vector pushing towards the tail of the board. 


I think the comparison to skis makes no sense unless you're in a hard boot setup. The ski boots are the Highbacks for all intents and purposes.


----------



## JDA (Feb 10, 2016)

I was going to sell my Korua Dart after riding it several times with my usual directional stance of +21 -6 and not really liking it at all. Then I went straight to +27 +15 which was my first time ever riding double positive, the first few runs felt a little strange but after that I was hooked. The board just turned so much better, especially heel side carves and gave less fatigue in the legs after a full day on the hill. 
I don't really use this stance for any other of my other boards but I have tried it on my K2 Simple Pleasures which rides well with both the stances mentioned above, the only thing is I don't like how jumps feel with double positive and grabs are out of the question.


----------



## Scalpelman (Dec 5, 2017)

JDA said:


> I was going to sell my Korua Dart after riding it several times with my usual directional stance of +21 -6 and not really liking it at all. Then I went straight to +27 +15 which was my first time ever riding double positive, the first few runs felt a little strange but after that I was hooked. The board just turned so much better, especially heel side carves and gave less fatigue in the legs after a full day on the hill.
> I don't really use this stance for any other of my other boards but I have tried it on my K2 Simple Pleasures which rides well with both the stances mentioned above, the only thing is I don't like how jumps feel with double positive and grabs are out of the question.


I just went back to 18/0. SO MUCH better for jumps than +\+. And switch too, esp for a guy still trying to master switch riding.


----------



## WigMar (Mar 17, 2019)

I've been looking to skiers lately too. I've never skied, but I was following a guy blasting carves on his skis the other day. He was pulling some serious G's. I feel like we can learn from each other. Here's a video of a pro skier breaking down Ryan Knapton's carves. He makes some useful observations for us, and some that don't apply to us either.

I've been looking at alpine boarders a bit as well. They have a few different styles of carving, and their Extreme Carving is pretty much Korua style turning from what I can tell. Here's some info on alpine carving, and a playlist on carving I found lurking over on the alpine forum. Some of those guys are in soft boots as well, and I think a lot of the information translates to ++ angles with soft boots.


----------



## WigMar (Mar 17, 2019)

I had some breakthroughs after a couple days @ +33, +18. I was at +36, +24 for two days, but I felt like that was a little extreme to jump into. I'll probably migrate that way again shortly. 

My biggest takeaway was with fore-aft weighting. I began throwing my weight way forward to initiate turns. Like WAY forward feeling. Really throw yourself forward and into the turn, sit on the toilet, give some upper body rotation, and BOOM- you're doing almost full circle heel carves like nothing. I ended up on my butt a couple of times, and then I had that magic-feeling almost full circle on repeat. In fact, the majority of my heelsides were feeling very stacked and powerful. Now to link that into a hula hooping soul arched toe carve. 

I was having a blast really digging the nose into the turn at first, and bending at the knees through the turn to end up in the back seat crouched over the tail and leaving a massive trench. I felt like I was pressuring the front edge into the hill as opposed to pushing off of it, and this allowed the board to follow the sidecut pretty effortlessly. Knee rolling helped with this, and was an extremely effective steering method as well. 

On a side note, it was icy today and I washed out into the trees at a decent speed. Thankfully I got very lucky with my trajectory. Nothing was hurt but my confidence. It was an eye opening experience though. I'm definitely giving the sides of the run a little more space for awhile.


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

I like working on technique, whether we're talking snowboarding, mountain biking, basketball, or whatever. What I have trouble getting a handle on though, is how much of a person's steeze level (like Knapton in that video) is due to proper technique, and how much of it is due to just a whole fuckload of practice. Knapton is obviously fantastically good, but I can't spot anything he's doing that's materially different from what I or anyone else might be doing. It's not like there's some glaring technique thing that he's got--he just seems to be able to make the standard techniques work so much better.

Ignoring the nose rolls, of course. Those are just totally beyond me.


----------



## Kijima (Mar 3, 2019)

Donutz said:


> I like working on technique, whether we're talking snowboarding, mountain biking, basketball, or whatever. What I have trouble getting a handle on though, is how much of a person's steeze level (like Knapton in that video) is due to proper technique, and how much of it is due to just a whole fuckload of practice. Knapton is obviously fantastically good, but I can't spot anything he's doing that's materially different from what I or anyone else might be doing. It's not like there's some glaring technique thing that he's got--he just seems to be able to make the standard techniques work so much better.
> 
> Ignoring the nose rolls, of course. Those are just totally beyond me.


He is a natural. He doesn't rise up high between his turns. He is stocky build which helps incredibly, his muscle strength to bone length in his legs is favourable for doing what he does. And he works hard at it.
He also removes a lot of the squat from his toe turns, go watch buckhouse with his bum in the air if you want to see why squat in toe turns is bad news.
99% of peeps trying to imitate Knapton have bums in the air, but he hasn't identified this, he just does it. 

Having said that he favors toe side heavily, the butters after each toe turn are subconsciously avoiding heel turns.
His heel side turns are never completed and almost always spun out of which is what happens when you lack the necessary upper body/hip rotation due to duck stance.
Instead of having solid structure to his teachings he got sucked in to youtubing and sprayed 1 million "tips" to keep the money flowing and that just muddied the waters of his teachings. 
He also puts words in the mouths of his guest riders which is annoying. 

Personally I love the guy and he is a far better snowboarder than me but I don't learn much from his teachings unfortunately.
I wish he would delete all his vids and just have one with clear thoughts and methods spelled out, but its more about creating media than actual coaching for him now, but he is getting paid to snowboard so he is the winner lol.


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

My heelsides are way, way better than they were last year, but still not as good as my toesides. I also avoid the squat on the toesides, going for more of a "humping the mountain" vibe, and it works well. But on heelsides, I feel like I have to practically sit down on the snow to get the edge to dig in, and I note that Knapton isn't bending his knees nearly that much (although he is getting his butt low).

But then I think I may also be trying too hard on the toesides to get a shorter-radius carve.

What I really need to do is bring my selfie stick and 360 camera on a session.


----------



## Manicmouse (Apr 7, 2014)

Back to the original question, you also need to look at your biomechanics or “are your feet funny”  A minority of people need to factor in joint issues.

I ride +36,-30 because my feet stick out. My crazy duck stance is actually a forward stance when you look at my knee and hip alignment. My right foot sticks out the most and I ride natural.


----------



## NT.Thunder (Jan 4, 2020)

Manicmouse said:


> Back to the original question, you also need to look at your biomechanics or “are your feet funny”  A minority of people need to factor in joint issues.
> 
> I ride +36,-30 because my feet stick out. My crazy duck stance is actually a forward stance when you look at my knee and hip alignment. My right foot sticks out the most and I ride natural.


😳 that hurts just reading


----------



## Crusty (Nov 8, 2018)

ridethecliche said:


> You're suggesting the biomechanics are different but the mechanics are the same?


Without nitpicking terminology, its true. How the board acts in a turn is the same as a ski. How the body affects that action is completely different.


----------



## Kijima (Mar 3, 2019)

ridethecliche said:


> These two statements are contrary to one another. You're suggesting the biomechanics are different but the mechanics are the same? What?
> 
> Yeah, each ski/snowboard has two edges but that's where the similarities end. I've skied as well and the turning Mechanics are very different because of how you engage your muscles. If youre suggesting that they're similar because of the rhythm and how you engage the edge then you're getting a bit too reductionist for me.
> 
> ...


Just look at a snowboard, it's a wide ski right?
If we were talking about cars it would be a wide car. Driving a wide car is just like driving a skinny car. The only difference is a snowboarder stands sideways. So lets turn te drivers seat sideways in the wide car, the mechanics of the car did not change but the biomechanics of the driver will surely need to change if he/she is to successfully drive it.
Changing stance angles is akin to rotating that drivers seat this way or that way.
The mechanics of a ski and snowboard are exactly the same but the biomechanics of a skier and a snowboarder are very different and that's what makes snowboarding twice as much fun.


----------



## Kijima (Mar 3, 2019)

Donutz said:


> My heelsides are way, way better than they were last year, but still not as good as my toesides. I also avoid the squat on the toesides, going for more of a "humping the mountain" vibe, and it works well. But on heelsides, I feel like I have to practically sit down on the snow to get the edge to dig in, and I note that Knapton isn't bending his knees nearly that much (although he is getting his butt low).
> 
> But then I think I may also be trying too hard on the toesides to get a shorter-radius carve.
> 
> What I really need to do is bring my selfie stick and 360 camera on a session.


Do sit down for heel turns, with upper body rotation as it was at the finish of your toe turn. Then stretch out and rotate for the heel turn.
And don't follow knapton for heel turn advice because he has not mastered heel turns.


----------



## Snowdaddy (Feb 2, 2018)

Skiing and snowboarding are quite different in many ways. Besides, anyone who tried going downhill on touring skis knows the value of alpine boots.


----------



## ridethecliche (Feb 27, 2019)

Kijima said:


> Just look at a snowboard, it's a wide ski right?
> If we were talking about cars it would be a wide car. Driving a wide car is just like driving a skinny car. The only difference is a snowboarder stands sideways. So lets turn te drivers seat sideways in the wide car, the mechanics of the car did not change but the biomechanics of the driver will surely need to change if he/she is to successfully drive it.
> Changing stance angles is akin to rotating that drivers seat this way or that way.
> The mechanics of a ski and snowboard are exactly the same but the biomechanics of a skier and a snowboarder are very different and that's what makes snowboarding twice as much fun.



Have you done any performance driving? 

Are sleds the same thing too? Theyre basically like skis with a platform. 

The mechanics are totally different for all of these. That doesn't mean you can't learn from them, but they're not equivalent. You have too many corollaries in this theory.


----------



## Kijima (Mar 3, 2019)

ridethecliche said:


> Have you done any performance driving?
> 
> Are sleds the same thing too? Theyre basically like skis with a platform.
> 
> The mechanics are totally different for all of these. That doesn't mean you can't learn from them, but they're not equivalent. You have too many corollaries in this theory.


I owned a turbocharging fab shop for 10 years if that means anything to you. A couple of race cars and magazine shoots etc.
But I wil gracefully step out of this thread and let you have your moment as arguing this point with you means little to me.


----------



## Scalpelman (Dec 5, 2017)

Kijima said:


> Do sit down for heel turns, with upper body rotation as it was at the finish of your toe turn. Then stretch out and rotate for the heel turn.
> And don't follow knapton for heel turn advice because he has not mastered heel turns.


Upper body rotation is the key. You can squat as much as you want and still have that chatter at higher speeds. For me the key was shoulder rotation toward the nose through the turn.


----------



## Snowdaddy (Feb 2, 2018)

ridethecliche said:


> In any event, why would turning the high backs parallel to the hell edge decrease power transmission?


I think it was meant to be perpendicular to the edge.



ridethecliche said:


> Yeah, each ski/snowboard has two edges but that's where the similarities end. I've skied as well and the turning Mechanics are very different because of how you engage your muscles. If youre suggesting that they're similar because of the rhythm and how you engage the edge then you're getting a bit too reductionist for me.


I think that how a board and a single ski is affected throughout the turn is much the same. On a ski you may lean into the turn to apply more pressure to the tips and make the ski bend more. Then move your weight back as you accelerate through the turn yo keep the turn shape and reduce drag. But then you suddenly have two edges that will have different amount of pressure depending on if it's up or downhill. And compared to a snowboard you don't have two independent points of pressure (or at least on a ski they are pressure and lift with the length of a boot). All the pressure fore and aft comes from the bindings. So while the force from the hill on the ski might be the same on snowboards and skis they are also very different in both mechanics in the way they turn, but also your body's "biomechanic" in how you make it turn.



Kijima said:


> But I wil gracefully step out of this thread and let you have your moment as arguing this point with you means little to me.


You don't have to make it a personal competition. I suspect this all started with a miscommunication of terminology.


----------



## Snowdaddy (Feb 2, 2018)

Yeahti87 said:


> As you geek a lot the turn mechanics - what’s your take on asymetrical directional boards? I’m talking about the ones with the heelside edge being ‚offset’ back to match the heel alignment in a double forward stance e.g. Nidecker Tracer.


So I looked at the Tracer. Where do you see the heel side being offset back?

From what I understand after looking around the internet and at the board is that the contact points looks pretty much the same on both sides. The difference is that on the heels side you have a deeper and shorter radius sidecut.

When you think about how you tilt a board it's much easier to. get a higher tilt angle on your toe side. So you have a longer sidecut on the toe side because you can bend it more easily on the toe side.

On the heel side the sidecut is deeper and shorter because the side cut can actually be seen as a help to bend the board into it's turning shape. So to get it to bend into the turning radius you don't have to tilt it as much on the heel side edge.

EDIT: It does look like the sidecut might longer towards the tail on the heel side though...

EDIT2: But maybe that's an illusion from the deeper sidecut...


----------



## ridethecliche (Feb 27, 2019)

Kijima said:


> I owned a turbocharging fab shop for 10 years if that means anything to you. A couple of race cars and magazine shoots etc.
> But I wil gracefully step out of this thread and let you have your moment as arguing this point with you means little to me.


Haha because of course you did! 

This isn't about being graceful or arguing or any of that. I've watched your videos and practiced a ton of the movements you've posted because I think you're really on to something. The mechanics of an edge on a surface are constrained and I agree with you that you can learn a lot by studying the movement that drives the behavior. Where I am completely disagreeing with you is in the realm of biomechanics. 

You're still the man in my book and id gladly take any opportunity to learn from you and or ride with you!

🤘🏽


----------



## ridethecliche (Feb 27, 2019)

If you want to take another stab at explaining have at it. As sometime mentioned, maybe this is terminology confusion etc.

Hope you're having a good one and happy holidays!


----------



## Yeahti87 (Jan 17, 2019)

Snowdaddy said:


> So I looked at the Tracer. Where do you see the heel side being offset back?
> 
> From what I understand after looking around the internet and at the board is that the contact points looks pretty much the same on both sides. The difference is that on the heels side you have a deeper and shorter radius sidecut.
> 
> ...


I didn’t refer to the asym (shorter sidecut) alone there.
I agree that a shorter sidecut - less speed to generate the G that allows you to lean over. And like you say, less tilt needed to turn (but a too tight turn if you lean much or go faster). That’s why asym twins help switch.
I keep claiming that my Yes Optimistic is a board that you can learn to carve on and nowhere near ‚a stiff bomber carving board’. Tested on a couple low intermediate buds who only skid properly. On a board like that they start to scarve actually. That’s why I also say that the Tracer I’ve tried is a relaxed resort carver as well.

Let’s assume for the sake of this discussion that there is a board that has it offset a bit (be it the Tracer or not). I’m interested in @Kijima take on it since he has referred to the toes and heels working differently with ++ angles (leverage points) and an offset edge could
be a nice addition in this theory.


----------



## Snowdaddy (Feb 2, 2018)

Yeahti87 said:


> Let’s assume for the sake of this discussion that there is a board that has it offset a bit (be it the Tracer or not). I’m interested in @Kijima take on it since he has referred to the toes and heels working differently with ++ angles (leverage points) and an offset edge could
> be a nice addition in this theory.


If nothing else: the angle of the bindings would make it more natural to pressure the front or rear foot differently, even if the actual placing of the heel would make less difference in how the force is applied to the board. At least that's what would be my guess.


----------



## bob2356 (Jul 13, 2012)

Snowdaddy said:


> If nothing else: the angle of the bindings would make it more natural to pressure the front or rear foot differently, even if the actual placing of the heel would make less difference in how the force is applied to the board. At least that's what would be my guess.


I started boarding in the late 80's. Offset side cut was common in the early 90's. The theory being that the center of the side cut would be directly between the feet on both sides with forward binding angles. The need for shops to carry 2 different sets of boards for regular and goofy along with so many people going to low binding angles to have a park look even if they never went into the park killed these boards. 

I've owned a number of these boards in the day usually using +35 +25 roughly. The biggest difference is you don't have to do a weight shift back and forth with each turn to compensate for side cut being different relative to the center of the toes and heels s when running forward angles on a board that is symmetrical. You just smoothly rolled the board side to side while keeping your body centered between the bindings. 

I've run low binding angles but don't like it much. I do a lot of bumps, trees, and crud where you really need to make quick hop and pop turns rather than roll side to side. Having bindings forward lets me work with my hips more to drive the nose in, loading up the edge, popping out off the tail while keeping the upper body relatively quiet and still. In the really tight and/or quick places it comes down to sucking up the board mostly with the back leg, swinging the board around, and extending to plant the edge then repeat. I really can't do that with low binding angles. Life is different when terrain dictates the turns.

Any stance angle that works for your style and riding is fine.


----------



## MrDavey2Shoes (Mar 5, 2018)

I just set up my Sims at +24 +9 and I’ll be heading for the mountain early. No turning back now!


----------



## Snowdaddy (Feb 2, 2018)

bob2356 said:


> I've owned a number of these boards in the day usually using +35 +25 roughly. The biggest difference is you don't have to do a weight shift back and forth with each turn to compensate for side cut being different relative to the center of the toes and heels s when running forward angles on a board that is symmetrical. You just smoothly rolled the board side to side while keeping your body centered between the bindings.


I would have thought it's more about the knee joints than where the toes and heels are on the board. When you sit down you naturally move back over the board with positive angles. And the other way around when you lean forward...

I'll take your word for it though because if that was a standard back then it must have been properly thought through.


----------



## MrDavey2Shoes (Mar 5, 2018)

Great success


----------



## ridethecliche (Feb 27, 2019)

MrDavey2Shoes said:


> Great success


Very nice! 
_cue borat gif_


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

Double positive is a major eye opener (for people who have only been exposed to duck stance).

You don't know how good your heel turns can be until you try a ++. Also, a lot of people can carve on duck, go really fast, make big jumps and so on. But even with proper everything, when i look at their turning it's definitely not how i want to look. And by look I mean ride; flow.

To answer the starting question... for the front: 45* is kind of too much. Anything below 18* is too little. But it depends, on the board, terrain, riding desires, etc. 
For the rear... whatever angle feels comfortable, it depends on your front angle and overall preference.


----------



## drblast (Feb 28, 2017)

As a service to this forum I just did a few runs with a +39/+24 "alpine stance" on a Rome Blur 164W this morning, since I hadn't ridden that way since the 90's and I don't even know that I ever had my back foot point that far forward.

Verdict:
Carving is ridiculously easy this way. Heel turns take almost no effort. Toe turns take almost no effort. Stopping and avoiding slow skiers is harder. My back knee felt a little weird and I think I didn't have enough splay between my feet. If I do this again I'll move the front binding to +45.

On the first run my left glute (forward leg) burned in a way it doesn't normally. By the second run that went away.

I thought the wide board might feel sluggish this way, but it does not. I've never ridden a hard boot setup but when I see guys out in those I imagine this is what it feels like.

Jumps and ollies feel weird and wrong. If I wanted to do anything other than smooth carves and straight airs off of side his I didn't like the stance. But for carving one direction you can't beat the +/+ feeling.

The Blur has got to be the all time smoothest board I've ridden after the Doughboy Shredder. It feels like you're riding on melted butter.

And now I'm swapping for a +15/-12 twin so I can ride my way.


----------



## Phedder (Sep 13, 2014)

drblast said:


> Jumps and ollies feel weird and wrong. If I wanted to do anything other than smooth carves and straight airs off of side his I didn't like the stance. But for carving one direction you can't beat the +/+ feeling.


This is what makes me always swap back to a negative rear angle, as much as I love carving, I love variety in my riding more. Any single run will likely include drawn out carves, tight quick cross under carves, switch, spins, sidehits, butters and trees.Taking larger drops ++ makes me feel like eventually I'm going to not absorb it properly and eat shit hard or hurt myself. 

Though the next day I take my Squash to Lake Louise to freeride on the backside, I'm committing to + + all day. Currently set up at +30 +6 waiting for me to get off the Dancehaul hah.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

Phedder said:


> This is what makes me always swap back to a negative rear angle, as much as I love carving, I love variety in my riding more. Any single run will likely include drawn out carves, tight quick cross under carves, switch, spins, sidehits, butters and trees.Taking larger drops ++ makes me feel like eventually I'm going to not absorb it properly and eat shit hard or hurt myself.
> 
> Though the next day I take my Squash to Lake Louise to freeride on the backside, I'm committing to + + all day. Currently set up at +30 +6 waiting for me to get off the Dancehaul hah.


Yeah i rode +27 +9 for a while, but sideways'ed it more to a +25 +5 and slightly wider than what ++ people normally ride, for more variety. Including handling pow and chop.

Been a few yrs at that and that's my sweet spot I think.


----------



## WigMar (Mar 17, 2019)

Phedder said:


> Though the next day I take my Squash to Lake Louise to freeride on the backside, I'm committing to + + all day. Currently set up at +30 +6 waiting for me to get off the Dancehaul hah.


+30 +6 were my default freeride settings last season, and I loved it.


----------



## drblast (Feb 28, 2017)

Phedder said:


> Taking larger drops ++ makes me feel like eventually I'm going to not absorb it properly and eat shit hard or hurt myself.


Yup. I don't know if I feel like this because I'm just not used to the stance or whether it's just more stable to ride duck. Probably some of both.

I'd love to hear more about the dancehaul!

In an effort to get really good at riding switch I've been paying a Kijima-level of attention to how I ride regular on my twin, then flipping around and trying to replicate that on the other side.

Today was a good lesson and confirmed some things for me. When I'm riding balanced I'm not putting an abundance of pressure on highbacks, it's more like I'm trying to pressure my heels as if I were trying to push them through the board. This is more apparent with high stance angles.

With a duck stance you really do have to twist your upper body to stay balanced. I'm used to doing that regular but it's not automatic switch and I have to remind myself to open my shoulders and weight my front foot. I skid and use the bindings more switch because it's not second nature. I have trouble carving at slow speeds switch where normal I can use the sidecut and make those tiny little turns.

There's such a difference between knowing what to do and feeling what to do. It's clear because of switch riding I only have the muscle memory for one side. It's great to have that comparison because I always know when I'm doing something wrong regular, but it's harder to know what I'm doing _right_ because it just feels natural.


----------



## Phedder (Sep 13, 2014)

Basically ditto everything you said. I can ride switch pretty well and someone watching without a trained eye likely couldn't tell I'm switch at all if I'm just cruising or carving. As soon as I have to really absorb the terrain or make a quick reaction to something the calm control disappears and everything I can do as just 'instinct' while riding regular becomes ugly and erratic to try and save myself haha. Switch ollies feel terrible, most of the time switch I'll nollie into something since that's my 'popping foot' when riding regular. It really is a never ending battle dialing in switch riding! 

Proper Dancehaul review likely coming this week, I should get on it this Monday/Tuesday which will make 7 total days in enough different conditions and terrain that I think I know it pretty well by now.


----------

