WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Archive through April 01, 2005 (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=221657)
-   -   how wide?? (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=217610)

big_xstar 03-16-2005 12:05 PM

So I have read alot about stance and wider is supposidly better. Does it really make that much of a difference when riding. I tried it once and it felt really akward, so I went back to my regular stance(1 in from all the way out). I am sure it is just a matter preference but I was just trying to get some input from other people and seeing how wide non pros riders ride. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by big x-star on March 16, 2005)

dakid 03-16-2005 12:12 PM

it's not necessarily better. it's all preference. i myself like to ride with a wide stance...all the way out! <BR> <BR>when i first met bug and ed, i thought their stances were pretty narrow. i suggested they try their stance all the way out. now they won't go back to narrow.

skibum69 03-16-2005 12:12 PM

Just about everyone I know that has tried it, ended up smucking their knees, the pro's seem to do it, I think because it makes it easier to do spins and control the board. Would make sense if you think about the board as a lever so the wider out you are the more leverage you have on the center of the board

jarrod 03-16-2005 12:18 PM

I ride wide because it takes the pressure off my knees. I can suck up the landing better, wide.

skibum69 03-16-2005 12:32 PM

How tall are you guys that ride all the way out? I am 6'1" and I ride one in from all the way out. It seams like if I go all the way out, it puts a lot of sheer(lateral) stress on my knees.

eubanks01 03-16-2005 12:37 PM

I find this interesting as well. I'm 6' and ride one in from all the way out on a Premier 135. You hear basically every Pro ride all the way out and I too thought it was supposed to be bad for your knees...along with riding too "ducked". <BR> <BR>

big_xstar 03-16-2005 12:51 PM

Does riding all the way out just help the balance and such or does it help with getting more pop also? <BR>Jarret--6'?.. premier 135 seems kinda small for your height, IMO. I am 5'5" and ride a 133. . most 6 plus footers I know ride like a 141 or better. <BR>Just my 2 cents worth

craiger 03-16-2005 12:52 PM

I'm 5'7" and ride all the way out on a Premier 135 with average duck. I have never had any pain or discomfort in my knees from this style. <BR> <BR>It just depends on the way your lower torso is built, everybody is different. When I walk my feet are naturally ducked out, so my bindings are matched up with that.

dakid 03-16-2005 1:01 PM

kevin height isn't the factor when purchasing a board. jarret may very well be 6' tall, but what if he's a buck fifty? then a bigger board wouldn't be the right board for him. <BR> <BR>it's also based on preference. i'm 5'9 and weigh 160. i should be riding a 135 right? well, before i rode the blade which is a 138, i was riding a 141. before that, a 142. the boards weren't big for me...they were my preference. <BR> <BR>so your 2 cents is about 2 cents short! <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/lol.gif" border=0>

260searay 03-16-2005 2:58 PM

i just bought an 05 team with sphynx i cant ride because the lake is frozen but set the bindings one from all the way out and 16 degrees duck i am 6'2"

thane_dogg 03-16-2005 2:59 PM

I'm 5'9" 145 and I rode a Substance 141 for a while, all the way out. I'm now riding a Substance 138 all the way out. Just stand there on the ground and have someone walk around you and push you around a bit and tell me what feels more stable, wide or narrow. Plus wide looks cooler.

stephan 03-16-2005 3:32 PM

Thane, you're skinny! hehe just kidding! I'm 5'7" 145 and ride a 134 with my stance all the way out. I used to ride one in &amp; I would never go back. It feels so comfortable. Both knees still intact (knock on wood feverishly!!!)

big_xstar 03-16-2005 4:36 PM

question from earlier.. <BR>"Does riding all the way out just help the balance and such or does it help with getting more pop also? " <BR> <BR>

bill 03-16-2005 4:59 PM

like has been said its all depends on rider preference...i am 5'9 160 and ride a 141 have ridden a 134-141 and i always have ridden one in from the end ..i tried all the way out it and it hurt my hammy a little so i moved it back in as to not get hurt...

blabel 03-16-2005 5:13 PM

It doesn't help your pop at all. Technique and matching the right board for your technique will give you the pop you are looking for. It's personal preference. Try it wide, if you like it and it doesn't hurt your knees, go for it. If not, ride with your own stance. Most like it wide but it doesn't matter. Look at Vandal, he looks like his legs are an inch apart and he obviously knows what he is doing.

eubanks01 03-16-2005 7:14 PM

Thanks for the support Joe! <BR> <BR>Kevin: You're probably right, but I've been on that Premier 135 for the past 4 seasons and have loved it. I have just preferred to ride a shorter board. I used to only be 160-165 but since I got married last year I'm probably pushing 170-175 now. So I'll probably look at something in the 140 range this year when I get a new board.

dick 03-16-2005 8:05 PM

im 5'4 and ride a byerly 132 all the way out finless but im looking forword to getting a 136 premier and riding all the way out. I think it gives you way better controll over the board in all ways. but if you like it short, thats your appinion, but in the long run youll probally want it a bit wider when you get into spins and whatnot, mabye im wrong .

pierce_bronkite 03-16-2005 8:24 PM

Maybe I missed but what is the purpose for people who have there stance all the way out? I understand its personal prefference and comfort but is wider a better stance that narrow? If so how? I think Thane nailed it by saying it "looks cooler". I personally ride one in from the end and I am 6'1" 205 with a 143.

dakid 03-16-2005 8:41 PM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>it's not necessarily better. it's all preference.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

nlitworld 03-17-2005 1:37 AM

People tend to ride all the way out because it makes spinning a tad easier. Jason said it right near the top that it helps with spinning because it keeps less weight outside of your legs, which allows for an easier swing of the feet. I ride all the way out because it just feels a little more controlable to me.

craiger 03-17-2005 7:43 AM

Another reson a wider stance is better than a narrow one is it gives you more control on sliders.

whit 03-17-2005 7:50 AM

The Kyle Schmidt article in one of last season's WakeboardMags had a great way to determine stance. Look straight ahead and jump into the air. Not how your feet land--the angle of your feet and width of the stance. The theory being--this is how your body likes to land from a fall and absorb the impact. Move that postion to your board and your knees should be better for it. <BR> <BR>All that said--the wider your stance--the lower your center of gravity would be. And it would be easier to lower the CoG even more when you bend your knees.

sylv2080 03-17-2005 11:07 AM

Thane how do you like that 138 Substance??????? Is it the '05??????? I was looking into getting that board. I am currently riding a 136 Option which I really like b/c of it being such a free board.......I see that Tino is using that Substance a good bit this year.....so I wanted to check it out. He will be up @ our lake next month for a Tige Demo weekend!!! Should be cool! Cheers! HAPPY GREEN BEER DAY

brhanley 03-17-2005 12:33 PM

Another point in that K. Schmidt article (good article by the way) was that different boards have different insert placements. In others words, "all the way out on a DU" might not be the same as "all the way out on a Hyperlite." <BR> <BR>I'd also guess that different bindings might affect your stance width vis-a-vis the insert placement (i.e., some bindings would have different plate widths). <BR> <BR>I recently went one in on my 141 Premier (2004) after riding all the way out on my old 140 (2003). Seemed to feel more comfortable, and less stress on my knee, with that stance. Still felt wide enough to me. <BR> <BR>I'd go with personal preference, and also experiment. Sometimes different stances feel better at different times of the year, possibly depending on your physical condition/conditioning. I would not recommend going wide b/c its cool, even though it is cool. <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/wink.gif" border=0>

da_moose 03-17-2005 4:34 PM

if you had a sliding adjustable track ,you could put your foot in the sweet spot anytime <a href="http://www.nobulljustmoose.com/board.htm" target="_blank">www.nobulljustmoose.com/board.htm</a>

jwat142 03-17-2005 5:52 PM

Brian, <BR>The reason your stance feels the same on your '04 141 as it did on your '03 140 is because it is the same. On the '04 premier they widened the stance on it. So really, one hole in on the '04 141 is the same as all the way out on the '03 140.

stephan 03-17-2005 6:18 PM

Uh oh here comes the Moose Man. Moose, whattup homey? Make a better shape &amp; then put that sliding track in a board. Besides Neptune did it 6 years ago and it didn't work that well.

thane_dogg 03-17-2005 8:09 PM

Brandon - I really like the Substance. It's the '04 though. '04 and '05 are the same board. For some reason I like my '03 better than my '04. Oh well, the '04 still feels good. Rumor has it that LF is releasing a new shape from Watson...and Shane. <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/blush.gif" border=0>

fullonsalesgrp 03-18-2005 4:48 AM

I used to ride all the way out and every time after my back would hurt, didn't realize why until I read Kyle Schmidts article last year. <BR>I moved them in one and now I caqn ride for ever no back pain. Mine is a lil past my shoulder width, just play around with it but give it more than one set to make a decision. <BR>itch

big_xstar 03-18-2005 7:25 AM

Thanks for all the input and advise.. I remember that article in wakeboard mag, now that you reminded me I better got digging for that issue. <BR>Thanks again guys...

da_moose 03-18-2005 4:08 PM

Hilts, you see 14 years not one worries,I use 5/16-18 not 1/4-20 100% more bite,on a better shape.

dococ 03-18-2005 5:00 PM

It's actually easier to spin the board with a narrower stance, because there is less centrifugal force, or "swing weight." This is why they dish out the ends of some wakeboards to reduce swing weight. You'll notice the ultra high end snowboards will have titanium, honeycomb or other weight-shaving materials at the tips where it matters but not in the middle. Mountain bikers will understand this and know that shaving 50 grams off your center hub has little or no effect, but shaving 50 grams off your rims can have a big effect on the handling of the bike in the air, and that's because the rims are spinning. Figure skaters will extend their arms out to slow a spin, and then if they draw their arms in toward their body, they will start to spin faster again. I guess here we go into another infamous WakeWorld "everyone is a physics professor" discussion, my bad for fueling it I suppose. I readily acknowledge that a wider stance may make for more stable landings, and I do ride all the way out on my Byerly. I'm just letting people know that it slows your spin instead of making it quicker. Ever seen a trick skier do a 720 with like 8 inches of air? Check the narrow stance.

poser007 03-18-2005 5:15 PM

Geeeezo, I need to lose weight after reading this post. Im 5"8 190 ride 1 in on a 137. I tired a wider stance and didnt feel comfortable so moved it to where it did.

stephan 03-18-2005 5:15 PM

Ahhh but Mr Octogon, what about the board weight? I believe you have it backwards. If you were to put your bindings at their narrowest position I guarantee it will be harder to spin than if they were at their widest. More energy would be required to get the board movin' because there is more of it to move. I believe that with a narrow stance there is more swing weight by the simple fact that the weight of the board is outside of your feet. Whereas with a wider stance it is between your feet and not noticed. Anyone wanna throw their opinion in on this one??

dococ 03-18-2005 6:08 PM

Stephan, I like the way you are working to think this thing through, but, your perception of the problem appears to assume that there is no energy required to spin one's own feet and legs. I argue that board weight actually is largely irrelevant because it remains constant, regardless of stance. Your legs and feet (in addition to the bindings) are the variable that is subject to fluctuation and the further they move away from the center of your body (or the center of the rotation), the more force is required to initiate and maintain the spin. This might call for some experimentation. People who have trampolines with ropes attached nearby, you might go out and do some simulated wakeboard spins. Do a bunch of spins with your legs spread way out as far as you can get them, then do some spins with your feet together. I maintain my position that it will be easier to spin with your legs together (i.e., narrow stance) than with your legs spread way apart (i.e., wide stance). Think about it this way, when you went to grab your first invert, you undoubtedly over-rotated the trick, am I correct? That's because your body and board mass became pulled in closer to the center of rotation, so you rotated faster than you were accustomed. The same principles apply here. Of course, this all is assuming we are talking about on-axis spins.

wakeboarder123 03-18-2005 7:00 PM

mine is inbetween not to far out not really narrow

stephan 03-19-2005 10:02 AM

I understand the principle of mass being pulled together and thus making it easier to spin I just place more stock on the board weight playing a more important role. Board weight is constant but how can it be irrelevant? Your feet and legs aren't rapidly changing weight are they? Wouldn't that make them irrelevant too? Clearly that can't be. Board weight is the sole variable becuase depending on where you place your bindings the tip/tail of the board is going to have more or less mass. You trampoline spin thing makes sense for a figure skater, not for someone with an alternate piece of mass attached that extends outside of their feet. I also agree with experimentation, regardless of how you like your stance put your bindings as narrow as possible &amp; witness the additional force you have to exert to make the board spin, it's because there is now a lot of mass out side of your pivot point (basically your bodies center mass). <BR> <BR>(Message edited by stephan on March 19, 2005)

big_xstar 03-19-2005 12:39 PM

Boy o boy, I should have payed better attention in physics class!!!<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/crazy.gif" border=0>

dococ 03-19-2005 10:33 PM

Stephan, I respect the hell out of you buddy, as you consistently offer some of the most valuable and factually accurate contributions to this message board... but in this particular discussion you are not quite getting the physics of it, and I'm way beyond tired of it all by now... <BR> <BR>...thus, confident in his logic and in his education, yet worn down by the tenacious exuberance of the stylish young ripper from CenCal, the tired old country doctor gives up and heads out for a beer... <BR> <BR>Ride whatever stance you like, spinning is mostly in the pop and rope control anyway. See you on the water.

buzz_grande 03-19-2005 10:57 PM

Doc Octagon, <BR> <BR>Maybe that's why they call you "Doctor". <BR> <BR>Hilts, <BR> <BR>Probably why you have such a long name. <BR> <BR>Both of you are consistent with big brains or something. You guys are making my head hurt!!! <BR> <BR>Great info and perspectives. Really. It is all starting to make sense now. I am going to go out and jump off the roof and see how I land. Wish me luck! jk <BR>

team_o 03-20-2005 7:00 AM

I agree with Dr Octagon on this one: <BR> <BR>Just as mass is a measure of how readily an object accelerates due to a given force, the moment of inertia of an object measures how easily an object rotates about a particular point of rotation. Thus, objects with a larger moment of inertia about a given point will be harder to rotate with a set torque. Correspondingly, a larger torque will cause a larger acceleration on a particular body. <BR> <BR>The moment of inertia of a body, which is always measured relative to a point of rotation, depends in general on the object's mass and on its shape. It is perhaps evident that for a single mass going in a circle of fixed radius, the greater the radius the harder it is to change the angular velocity. This is because the actual displacement, and hence linear velocity of the mass is proportional to the radius, so greater radius, for a given angular displacement means greater linear displacement. In an extended object the parts that are further from the axis of rotation contribute more to the moment of inertia than the parts closer to the axis. So as a general rule, for two objects with the same total mass, the object with more of the mass located further from the axis will have a greater moment of inertia. For example, the moment of inertia of a solid cylinder of mass M and radius R about a line passing through its center is MR2, whereas a hollow cylinder with the same mass and radius has a moment of inertia of MR2. Similarly when a spinning figure skater pulls her arms in to her body she places more of her body weight closer to the axis of rotation and decreases her moment of inertia. <BR> <BR>All that said - ride the stance that feels the best to you, makes you knees/back/whatever less sore or more comfortable - you'll be riding longer that way and that's what it's all about... <BR> <BR>(Message edited by team_o on March 20, 2005)

bbr 03-20-2005 8:39 AM

Think of when you do squats at the gym. You don't have your legs close together...do you??? No, thats because your legs can support more weight with a wider stance. Similar to the impact when landing. Just my $ .52.

drewsky24 03-20-2005 2:16 PM

a wider stance makes spinnig alot easier.

stephan 03-21-2005 2:40 PM

All the tech talk &amp; Andrew, you pretty nailed most riders opinion. Thanks for simplifying the message. As for my name, yes it's long just because no one can remember how to say it!! Dammit!!! Long running joke...oh yeah, pass me a beer too doc!! Yeah I should have been a lawyer, I thoroughly enjoy a good verbal joust.

big_ed_x2 03-21-2005 7:21 PM

Doc ~ Obviously these people didn't pay attention in physics class. <BR> <BR>Narrow stance ~ Easier spin,harder to land <BR> <BR>Wider stance ~ Harder spinning,easier landing(more shock obsorbtion)and if you don't believe me ask your teacher!jk hahaha lol <BR> <BR>

penny4urthots 03-21-2005 10:29 PM

I got bored of reading all of the same input on this PM.... Has anyone mentioned the fact that it also effects how deep your rail penetrates/tracks as you edge?? wider stance = deeper edge. I ride full width because spinning is less work, provides better style with grabs, and feels more solid on my edging. Over all I feel more balanced... I got A's in physics but that isn't saying much, LOL.

dococ 03-22-2005 11:43 AM

Narrow stance Jeremy Kovak skibored stylie, boyeeeeeee! <BR>(and neon volley shorts with tighty-whiteys) <BR>Who says Westside ain't got style?

stephan 03-22-2005 12:16 PM

I still think the physics support my arguement. I challenge you "narrow stance better spin people" to put your bindings narrow &amp; try &amp; spin the board. Then try it with stance wide. Then report to us how it felt. <BR> <BR>I'm fascinated, how does it affect edge penetration? Basically weight further forward so edge is sunk more evenly along a greater area? I guess it does make sense. I would think that edge profile(shape) would make more a difference but I guess stance would play a small role as well.

nlitworld 03-22-2005 12:45 PM

Stance will play into edging like this. <BR>The overwhelming majority of your edging comes from the fins, not the center of the board. With your stance out wider, it allows for more weight to be distributed over the outer regions of the boards tip and tail, allowing for more of a bite with the fins. It's basically the same principal as a fat man on a motorcycle as compared to a skinny man. If the skinny man can get traction up a hill, but will start to spin out when accelerating hard, the fat man will have better traction on the same hill because of more weight distributed over the back tire allowing for a more solid bite. <BR>Basically, it's hard to control your board when your weight is positioned over the center of the board, so you lean hard on your back foot. A wider stance simply allows for the weight on your back foot to be positioned farther back on the board.

stephan 03-22-2005 1:18 PM

I call immediate shenanigans on your theory Lloyd. Edging does not come from the fins!!! If that were the case then how would a board like the roam edge? It has no fins! I read in an interview a few years back with Jimmy Redmond(the chief board designer at LF) and he was saying that center fins help initiate the turn(like a pivot point) and outside fins keep the tail of a wide board down in the water as the increased surface area wants to ride on top of the water not through it. I ride my boad finless and use the molded fins, with the fin attached it's grippier and would allow me to edge harder only on the principle that it keeps the tail engaged. If we only edged with fins then there would be no reason to sink the rail &amp; a raley could be done with a flat board and directing it without leaning. Preposterous! Wouldn't a wider stance also position more weight on your front foot? I know when trying off axis spins my weight is way forward. i'm combative, teehee.

guido 03-22-2005 1:35 PM

duh.... You guys are smart.

penny4urthots 03-22-2005 6:47 PM

All praise the PM by Hitlershambergerhelper!!!! Hehehe sorry I had to go there bud... Seriously though you hit my point precisely on the head. I can say no more at this point, all opposed to this hydrodynamic FACToid keep your ignorance to yourself.... WOOOWEEE all of this rain made me a bit more strong willed than I was before LOL. I vote for the 3" surf dawg fins they will drastically help in the edge release for an off axis wrapped 3. LMAO <BR> <BR>-KEEP SLAAAAYYYYYSHIN THE SLALOM GNAR

nlitworld 03-22-2005 10:02 PM

Well Stephan, I was really meaning to talk about how the weight helps keep the tail engaged. Now that I look at my post, I would call shenanigans on it too. Please just ignore the majority of what I said.

stephan 03-23-2005 9:28 AM

Sing my praises!! The Lord is my shepherd &amp; he knows what I want!! <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/218642.jpg" alt="skiBORED is on the far left- Feeling the SOUL!!">


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 5:56 PM.