# Nidecker video on stance width



## eelpout (Mar 1, 2009)

Has anyone else seen this? It's Nidecker's take on stance width/angles for each snowboarding style. 

I find some of their numbers... interesting.






(and does this format like crap for anyone else? In my version of Firefox it's a mess...)

Edit: reformatted post from within Chrome.


----------



## SlvrDragon50 (Mar 25, 2017)

Video doesnt work for me.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

Yeah Nidecker knows what they're doing. They have a good discussion on stance in their 2019 catalog: Nidecker - zuzupopo / Catalogues - zuzupopo

I ride what they call a Freeride stance. And ride.... Freeride. :hairy:


----------



## speedjason (May 2, 2013)

Pretty close to what I have my bindings set at for free style.


----------



## Argo (Feb 25, 2010)

F1EA said:


> Yeah Nidecker knows what they're doing. They have a good discussion on stance in their 2019 catalog: Nidecker - zuzupopo / Catalogues - zuzupopo
> 
> I ride what they call a Freeride stance. And ride.... Freeride. :hairy:


Same here. Fairly accurate.


----------



## Varza (Jan 6, 2013)

This video?






Whoa! I gotta re-adjust my bindings! Yay for having something to do this evening! :hairy:


----------



## Varza (Jan 6, 2013)

I should note that after testing how far down I can comfortably squat in my "natural" stance, this whole thing actually makes a lot of sense to me and I'm glad I found validation from switching back from the gods-damned duck stance I've been in. Not that I couldn't ride that way, but was an experiment that had gone on for too long. I'm not even a freestyle rider in the least. The most I can do is ollie 2cm off the snow =/


----------



## eelpout (Mar 1, 2009)

F1EA said:


> Yeah Nidecker knows what they're doing. They have a good discussion on stance in their 2019 catalog: Nidecker - zuzupopo / Catalogues - zuzupopo


This was helpful to read their catalog page which expanded on the video, thanks. 

I've never looked at a freeride stance this way before, having it slightly wider, 2 cm, than all-mountain. But I guess it makes sense for more stability in powder.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

Argo said:


> Same here. Fairly accurate.


Yeah, they give very reasonable ranges that end up being pretty accurate. Also like that they give a little reasoning behind the numbers...



Varza said:


> I should note that after testing how far down I can comfortably squat in my "natural" stance, this whole thing actually makes a lot of sense to me and I'm glad I found validation from switching back from the gods-damned duck stance I've been in. Not that I couldn't ride that way, but was an experiment that had gone on for too long. I'm not even a freestyle rider in the least. The most I can do is ollie 2cm off the snow =/


heheh 

So what were your angles/width and what do you like to ride mostly?

I would say this is a nice 'chart' to start with. You can always make small adjustments as you feel.... 

Probably the best is to start with an all mtn stance, either mild duck or mild fwd, slightly wider than that natural stance and adjust it from there.


----------



## Varza (Jan 6, 2013)

F1EA said:


> Yeah, they give very reasonable ranges that end up being pretty accurate. Also like that they give a little reasoning behind the numbers...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep, that sounds reasonable for sure.

My angles were +18/-15. Width was hovering around my natural stance, so that was mostly ok. I had actually ended up with it after having a too-narrow stance, so no wonder it feels more right now.

I've now set up my boards all different (one freeride, one all-mtn, one carve) - their guidelines for the rear binding angles are actually closer to how I used to have it (-6). I'll see how it feels.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

Varza said:


> Yep, that sounds reasonable for sure.
> 
> My angles were +18/-15. Width was hovering around my natural stance, so that was mostly ok. I had actually ended up with it after having a too-narrow stance, so no wonder it feels more right now.
> 
> I've now set up my boards all different (one freeride, one all-mtn, one carve) - their guidelines for the rear binding angles are actually closer to how I used to have it (-6). I'll see how it feels.


Got it. I would say the worst combinations are either too narrow duck stance or too wide forward stance.

In your case, that -15 was too much for what most people are looking for (all mountain). When you add too narrow it's even worse. Slightly wider than natural with the -6 on the rear should feel noticeably better...


----------



## 16gkid (Dec 5, 2012)

Im def a weirdo, pretty much ended up at freestyle stance after years of messing with angles, I hate carving with a narrow stance, being able to squat down low is too important.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

eelpout said:


> This was helpful to read their catalog page which expanded on the video, thanks.
> 
> I've never looked at a freeride stance this way before, having it slightly wider, 2 cm, than all-mountain. But I guess it makes sense for more stability in powder.


Yeah i am 53cm floor to knee ("natural stance") and ride 57cm (22.5"), so precisely +4cm as they mention. 

I think that extra width adds a lot of stability and power, but adds some fatigue. I can definitely feel the leg burn after long days....


----------



## Faded_Butters (Jan 22, 2017)

Thank god for this thread and video. Because I have been so confused with my stance width for too long and I feel like I may have been riding too wide for too long.

Specs: 5'5"-5'6" - 165lbs
Current stance width: 23"
Knee to floor measurement: 19"
Boot Size: 7.5
Angles: 15/-15 (park/freestyle) 12/-12 (groomers/carving/all mountain)

Riding style: Aggressive Park/All mountain freestyle
Board Preferences: Medium Soft Flex Park Boards in 150-151 with a somewhat narrow waist width (245-248).

My old stance width theory: Stand in a 'athletic' (basketball/football) stance and measure how wide it is between your feet. I did this many years ago and 23" is what my athletic stance is. So I just went with this.

Nidecker stance width theory: According to the video and Nidecker's Theory...I should be somewhere in between 21-22" for a 'freestyle' riding style. 

Concerns/Caveat: I tried a narrower stance width many times before (less than 23")...and it doesn't feel stable or powerful for carving, steep slopes and landings on jump tricks. On the other hand...I have noticed that going with a narrower stance does makes ollies and spins a lot easier and better. 

Conclusions:

1. Is a 23" stance width too wide for someone with my specs and riding style...? 

I mean I know some people who are 6' tall who ride a 23" stance width. Seems like my stance width should be a lot narrower (21-22").

2. Is stance width really just a 'preference' and therefore I should just disregard whatever theories I hear and just go with what feels most comfortable for me and my riding style...?

3. If there are any riders in here with similar specs to myself...Are you also running a 23" width...? Or are you running narrower...?

4. Maybe my board is too soft for my specs and riding style...? Or maybe its too short...? Therefore why I keep having to resort to a wider stance for stability and power. I am now thinking I should try either a stiffer board or a longer board now. 

Any tips/advice and experiences would be much appreciated.


----------



## seadonist (Feb 17, 2018)

Tagged


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JDA (Feb 10, 2016)

I tried some wider stances this year and found my legs got tired much quicker, especially the thighs. If you are just riding one day then having a break you probably won't notice but I tend to do many days in a row, sometimes 2 weeks at a time because I travel long distances to get to the snow, so I need to manage leg fatigue.

Knee to ground 48cm

On my twin stance width is 55cm

Directional powder 54cm


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

Faded_Butters said:


> Thank god for this thread and video. Because I have been so confused with my stance width for too long and I feel like I may have been riding too wide for too long.
> 
> Specs: 5'5"-5'6" - 165lbs
> Current stance width: 23"
> ...


Well... only one way to find out. 
True that stance is definitely a matter of preference, but it's tied to a few things... so that's why there's ranges in the Nidecker recommendations. 

If I were you, I'd try a stance width between the freestyle recommendation and what you have; and for angles try the +15 you already have in the front, but with a -12 in the back. So 22" wide at +15 -12. Then adjust from there. This is not a huge change for you; so you will not feel too awkward, yet it will give you an idea if there's something that feels better. If you go cold turkey and make a big change, it will feel too awkward on your muscles for you to make a real test of the stance itself.

Also, you ride really short boards for your weight, but you're short and prefer freestyle. So it's ok to prefer the 'shorter' end.... 156 would be a board length for your weight, but if 150 is more of what you prefer.... so a compromise between real performance and preference is probably around 154.


----------



## Faded_Butters (Jan 22, 2017)

F1EA said:


> Well... only one way to find out.
> True that stance is definitely a matter of preference, but it's tied to a few things... so that's why there's ranges in the Nidecker recommendations.
> 
> If I were you, I'd try a stance width between the freestyle recommendation and what you have; and for angles try the +15 you already have in the front, but with a -12 in the back. So 22" wide at +15 -12. Then adjust from there. This is not a huge change for you; so you will not feel too awkward, yet it will give you an idea if there's something that feels better. If you go cold turkey and make a big change, it will feel too awkward on your muscles for you to make a real test of the stance itself.
> ...


I think my stance width might not be the real issue. Although I will try again with experimenting narrower widths and see how they feel and than adjust from there.

I think the biggest problem might be that my board is just too short and soft for my specs and riding style. Therefore why my progression has stalled for so long. 

I think I am gonna have to step up to a 152-154 board size and see if that will help some. I should probably also go with a slightly stiffer flex than what I am currently used to and see if that will help with stability and power for carving. 

Thanks for the advice/tips guys.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

Varza said:


> Yep, that sounds reasonable for sure.
> 
> *My angles were +18/-15. *Width was hovering around my natural stance, so that was mostly ok. I had actually ended up with it after having a too-narrow stance, so no wonder it feels more right now.
> 
> I've now set up my boards all different (one freeride, one all-mtn, one carve) - their guidelines for the rear binding angles are actually closer to how I used to have it (-6). I'll see how it feels.


I can't recall exactly where I read it, but early on I saw something that recommended _never_ setting your binding angles where adding the numbers together exceeded 31. :shrug:

Iir the logic was less stress on the knees or sum such. For my first season or two I rode a *really* narrow 19.5" stance @ +21°/-9°! I managed, but improved my confidence & ability exponentially once I widened that stance to 21.75" and eventually settled on my angles @ +18°/-12°. 

I've since gone wider with the stance widths on most of my boards. All at 23"-24" plus change. I've kept the 18/12 angles tho. 

I haven't checked any of this against the info in the video, and I can never keep track of the difference between "freestyle" & "freeride" so Im not sure which category of rider, (...besides "barely able too!") :lol: I fall in. :laugh:

I'll have to delve into this a little further. See if there's anything I can/should/need to change that might help my riding improve, progress. :shrug:


----------



## Faded_Butters (Jan 22, 2017)

F1EA said:


> Well... only one way to find out.
> True that stance is definitely a matter of preference, but it's tied to a few things... so that's why there's ranges in the Nidecker recommendations.
> 
> If I were you, I'd try a stance width between the freestyle recommendation and what you have; and for angles try the +15 you already have in the front, but with a -12 in the back. So 22" wide at +15 -12. Then adjust from there. This is not a huge change for you; so you will not feel too awkward, yet it will give you an idea if there's something that feels better. If you go cold turkey and make a big change, it will feel too awkward on your muscles for you to make a real test of the stance itself.
> ...


Danny Kass was always a pro I looked up to. Danny Kass specs...5'5", 22.5" stance width, 15/-12 angles, 153-155 boards.

I am pretty much a mirror image of Danny Kass's height and stance specs. So now I am thinking...my 23" stance width might be alright after all for my height/specs and riding style. 

Although...I will give 21-22.5" another shot and see how it goes.


----------



## Fire Rose (Feb 15, 2016)

I find this pretty interesting cause I've been told that my stance is really narrow. I've tried a wider stance (~50cm) but get knee and hip pain from it. My leg measures 41cm from floor to mid knee and my stance is 48 cm and angles are 18/-6. So that puts me in the freestyle width range. On my all mountain board this is the narrowest stance and it's reference on my powder board. I tried 1 insert narrower on my powder board and was actually pretty happy with it but went back to reference last time. My legs definitely don't get tired as fast with the narrower stance so maybe I'll give it another try.


----------



## Phedder (Sep 13, 2014)

Faded_Butters said:


> Danny Kass was always a pro I looked up to. Danny Kass specs...5'5", 22.5" stance width, 15/-12 angles, 153-155 boards.
> 
> I am pretty much a mirror image of Danny Kass's height and stance specs. So now I am thinking...my 23" stance width might be alright after all for my height/specs and *riding style. *


I'm really looking forward to your next vid;


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

That formula doesn't work for me. 
Knee to ground: 48cm.
My (freeride) stance: 58cm 
:dunno:

I couldn't do a proper pow turn with a 52cm stance. Would feel alien and blocked. Tried 55cm and even that was hampering. I think there's more to this that simply lower leg length... like... there's also an upper leg and a hip


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

neni said:


> That formula doesn't work for me.
> Knee to ground: 48cm.
> My (freeride) stance: 58cm
> :dunno:
> ...


Wow crazy. That's pretty much my stance and I'm 5'11"

Maybe you're just super flexible and have strong quads.

I see all sort of weird stances, saw the widest stance I've ever seen a couple weeks ago. Looked insane, but the guy was alive and there were no death reports that day, so I guess it works 

To be honest..... "Too wide" is definitely better than "too narrow". Especially if riding duck angles.


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

F1EA said:


> Wow crazy. That's pretty much my stance and I'm 5'11"
> 
> Maybe you're just super flexible and have strong quads.
> 
> I see all sort of weird stances, ...


Naw... nothing crazy, nothing weird...










Girls have longer legs vs upper body than guys (e.g. I've the same leg length as SO, even tho he's 6' and I'm 5'8).

There's not one rule to fit 'em all


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

neni said:


> Naw... nothing crazy, nothing weird...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah that's not weird. But definitely wide.
So basically, you ride Freeride with what they recommend for a freestyle stance (+10cm). That's fine. Nidecker doesn't call them "rules" 

Also... 
"Girls have longer legs vs upper body than guys"

You mean.... SOME girls have longer legs than SOME guys, right?


----------



## Scalpelman (Dec 5, 2017)

Cool specs. My stance was right on for freeride—my preference. But I too have been ducking too long. Going back to forward stance this weekend. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Argo (Feb 25, 2010)

@neni nidecker is a swiss company, you know anything about them? 

I just ordered a few different boards, their mellow is one of them. Great looking board and appears to have good build quality. I like the looks of the megalight and a few others too.

Anyone know much about their boards? I know they made some boards for other companies but I never followed them at all...


----------



## robotfood99 (Mar 19, 2016)

Argo said:


> @neni nidecker is a swiss company, you know anything about them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It’s been around from very early days of our sport and recently is on a wave of resurgence. Whitelines wrote a nice short background on them:

https://whitelines.com/brands/nidecker

In their own words:

2015 and beyond
2015 / Henry V & Brothers
From making ladders and wagon wheels, to skis and then snowboards, Nidecker currently manages seven leading action sports brands including Jones Snowboards, Now Bindings, Slash by Gigi Snowboards, YES Snowboards, Laird SUP, as well as the namesake Nidecker brand which produces snowboards, snowboard boots, snowboard bindings and also SUP boards. For their steadfast product innovations the Nidecker group collects over 15 design awards annually and continues to grow every brand internationally. As a leader in these respective industries and the oldest family owned business in action sports, the Nidecker family is still thriving and focused on future success.

^^I don’t think Slash is part of the family anymore. Bought Flow in 2016 - so iirc you’re already a customer of theirs 

The new Nideckers look very sleek and totally on-board with the current pow-carve trends. I had a couple of runs on the Concept and Carbon bindings and found the board to be kinda high strung, little to no damping but very precise and powerful through the carving arcs. This is consistent with my past experience with Nidecker or Nidecker built boards. But I understand some current models are more forgiving. @Nivek also did a mini review of the Area which iirc he liked a lot.


----------

