| Author |
Message |
fatscot 
|
|
Post subject: Application of Bio-Mechanics
 Posted: Jun 10, 2011 - 05:07 PM
|
|
First post: Dec 05, 2010
Total posts: 6
Status: Offline
|
|
Warning folks this is a longun! 
I was just watching some vids of Jed Anderson on googletube and I was struck by how much narrower his stance width and angles were in comparison to the older generations of freestylers like MFM, Jeremy Jones(Park no big mountain) TRice. This sparked of a few questions and ideas in my head, largely about fads vs facts, which led to a couple of hours on the internet. Rather than write off that time as wasted, I thought I would take a risk and share my theories with you to see what challenges you provide. Please be kind these are just thoughts for discussion.
First my theories
1. I believe that there is a bio-mechanically optimum stance for everyone
2. I believe that using feel to define your stance actually adds an element of chance that largely randomises how quickly you develop good fundamentals
3. I believe that that optimum stance is actually narrow with the maximum width being approximately 2 inches outside of shoulder width
4. I believe that the stance width should define your stance angles and position on the board
Why I believe these things
1. Take any sport that has been in existence longer than snowboarding and so has more scientific research and more developed teaching methods and you will see the application of bio-mechanics. In fact Snowboarding is starting to head down this route. Jed Anderson and lot of the new kids are products of training camps, like windells, and lessons where their development has been structured; observe how far more standardised and generic the average person is as a product of applying bio-mechanics. Let’s take Golf as the epitome of this type of teaching and development; note in 2010 the golf teaching industry in the US is worth approx. $2billion dollars vs the entire US ski and Snowboarding industry which is worth around $2.4 billion dollars. (data from IBISworld.com a company specialising in global industry statistics)
2. In these highly developed sports, the key aim is to align what an individual feels is correct with what is actually right bio-mechanically. Only true geniuses with some good luck end up able to a play a sport at the highest levels without lessons. For the rest of us to have a chance we need the direction of teaching to provide the framework to get better. I also think that snowboarders are realising this and the now standard view is if you are beginning you should get lessons. So with that in mind doesn’t setting your stance, probably the most important fundamental as it defines how you interact with you board, by feel a dangerously risky approach? Bear in mind that how you feel on a day to day basis will changes particularly if you only snowboard 1 week a year?
3. So optimum stance widths, excluding snowboarding the view in most sports that depend on stability is the recommend stance is shoulder width apart. The general view bio-mechanically is that the core muscles that drive both balance and action operate most efficiently within the shoulder width range. Wider stances provide the sensation of stability, but actually do not improve balance or dynamic stability; the sense of stability occurs due to a reduction in the mobility of the upper body. Example split your legs as wide as you can now try and balance on one leg keeping both legs as far apart as they were. Now if snowboarding did not require any form of turning direction and or absorbing changes in the terrain through your body, then static stability may win vs balance.
This is also the case in landing jumps, take sports such as gymnastics (or if you climb view people jumping down from the bouldering wall). When falling on to their feet from any height they look to absorbing the forces of the fall through major muscles: Hamstrings, thighs, Abs, Lats and traps. This invariably leads to stacked joints, so our ankles, knees, hips, and shoulders are over each other. If we land otherwise we would be putting excessive forces through smaller muscles and ligaments, increasing the chances of damage. So why do we not apply that to snowboarding?
4. As your Stance widens then so does the relationship between your joints. So in an attempt to keep the stacked relationship you would have to rotate, supination, your feet outwards. So If you rock a really wide stance then you will need bigger angles on; i.e if you are 15/15 at shoulder width I expect you to be at 21/21 if you widen your stance by x inches. That suggests that defining the optimum stacking of muscles should be followed by setting your binding angles to ensure you have the best joint alignment and if you were to have a feel element to your setup this is where it would be.
Assuming you are still with me and survived reading this,  , any thoughts?
F  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
jdavies1976
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Application of Bio-Mechanics
Posted: Jun 10, 2011 - 05:21 PM
|
|
First post: Jan 21, 2011
Total posts: 260
Status: Offline
|
|
| I bought my first board a couple of years ago and have spent a while experimenting with my set up and have now found a setup that feels comfortable and enables me to ride confidently. At first I was looking around at other people and advice on stances and when I tried the set ups that some people ride with I ended up with pain in my knees etc. because we're not all the same and so what works for one person doesn't necessarily work for another. I think people should experiment to find what feels right for them rather than using a setup that they've been told about which in fact is not comfortable for them. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
fatscot
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Application of Bio-Mechanics
Posted: Jun 10, 2011 - 05:23 PM
|
|
First post: Dec 05, 2010
Total posts: 6
Status: Offline
|
|
p.s. As an addition, I thought that it might be good to suggest a different approach to setting up your stance. So here is an idea. i.e. practical application
1. Stand facing a mirror with your back and legs fully straight, your feet together and your weight equally distributed on your feet
2. Bend only your knees as far over your toes whilst keeping your back straight and your body balanced
- you should find your weight has moved forward so you are standing on the balls of your feet. if you are on you toes you are not balanced
3. keeping this position move your feet apart until your big toes are in line with the outside of your shoulders.
- this is what the mirror is for
- you should find yourself still on the balls of your feet with you knees pointing inside your feet
4. Rotate your feet outwards, supinate, till your knees point at your big toes
- your weight should keep centered on the balls of your feet
5. stand straight, this is your new stance |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
fatscot
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Application of Bio-Mechanics
Posted: Jun 10, 2011 - 05:32 PM
|
|
First post: Dec 05, 2010
Total posts: 6
Status: Offline
|
|
@jdavies1976
Were the uncomfortable stances wide or narrow? and did you experiment with a variety of stance angles at each of those positions?
What stance are you riding now? Could you also tell me how tall you are, how wide are your shoulders and how long your fibula is (distance from center of ankle to knee).
Also do you feel you have reached a performance ceiling or are you progressing at a speed you feel matches your potential? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
nickmotture
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Application of Bio-Mechanics
Posted: Jun 10, 2011 - 05:36 PM
|
|
First post: Jan 09, 2006
Total posts: 10414
Location: Washington DC USA
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fatscot
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Application of Bio-Mechanics
Posted: Jun 10, 2011 - 05:53 PM
|
|
First post: Dec 05, 2010
Total posts: 6
Status: Offline
|
|
|
nickmotture wrote:
"a speed you feel matches your potential?"
But how do you know if you are or aren't, how does anyone know our potential and if we are reaching it or not? You can't quantify potential, is it the stance holding you back or are you just rubbish and ment to play hockey instead?
Good point 
I think what I was indirectly trying to get at was why he felt discomfort. Was it a mis-alignment between technique and stance. Or was it a physical issue like dodgy knees. The use of the word comfortable is just so subjective.
Actually I remember when I first went to a duck stance having learnt with a forward positive stance 21/6. I had serious issues on my back knee. It was only when a friend who slagged me off for trying to turn in my back knee like a euro carver that I realised my technique was bad. I believe that was a turning moment on improving my all round riding. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
nickmotture
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Application of Bio-Mechanics
Posted: Jun 10, 2011 - 06:02 PM
|
|
First post: Jan 09, 2006
Total posts: 10414
Location: Washington DC USA
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Branny
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Application of Bio-Mechanics
Posted: Jun 10, 2011 - 06:41 PM
|
|
First post: Oct 11, 2004
Total posts: 4672
Location: Is in the U freakin' K
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fatscot
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Application of Bio-Mechanics
Posted: Jun 10, 2011 - 06:52 PM
|
|
First post: Dec 05, 2010
Total posts: 6
Status: Offline
|
|
I would disagree, anything that needs trial and error to find a solution and that solution changes depending on the people involved must be complicated. And I do recognise that there is no one size fits all to peoples issues, however I dont think that applies to something as fundamental as your setup.
That said, I do agree snowboarding is not science class. So there will be none of this when the winter starts |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
dashie
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Application of Bio-Mechanics
Posted: Jun 10, 2011 - 10:53 PM
|
|
First post: Sep 24, 2007
Total posts: 4409
Location: stockport/dundee
Status: Offline
|
|
| Is this gonna be another of the what weight range should I be in? Clothed/unclothed? Stopping snowboarding being fun threads. Take it to Goneboarding. |
_________________
Boobs, booze, snowboarding, in that order!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
DereksDontRun
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Application of Bio-Mechanics
Posted: Jun 10, 2011 - 11:49 PM
|
|
First post: Mar 09, 2009
Total posts: 1723
Location: The port of Stock
Status: Offline
|
|
What's wrong with pondering these things? We are all passionate about the sport and some of us like to consider/research such things (but admit I'm keeping out of the suggested board weight being when laden or unladen). Saying that, there's a fine line between being interested in a magic trick and having it ruined by digging about and finding out how it's done...
I have to admit I've wondered some of the things fatscot is suggesting.
certainly the last point - i know that when i'm in "cruising" mode I have a slightly narrower stance with +/-15 and when in a dome or messing about I tend to kick it out wider with +/-18 as I've noticed that widening my stance naturally spreads my feet, so I assume I would be better with matching angles.
As to whether we typically ride a wider stance than optimum, I dunno... I'm no biology/medical graduate so not intimate with the joints and their names or ideal positions... BUT... I have wondered (and even asked on here to no reply) whether our stances should be narrower just by the snowboard's design. Most boards have marked/suggested mounting points - they're usually in the 2nd set of holes out from the middle (even on jib boards - look at a www), so a med-narrow stance - well away from the "usual" jibber's wide-ass stance. With fancy camber-designs and profiles that have the camber changing around the bindings then surely there's an optimum binding-position which was used when designing the board, and thus not getting the ideal/intended flex or pop when maxing out the stance? |
_________________
struggle with forums?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
NickE
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 11, 2011 - 11:44 AM
|
|
First post: Sep 18, 2007
Total posts: 127
Status: Offline
|
|
If I’ve understood what you’re saying, it is pretty much consistent with what is usually recommended. Your stance should be set to enable you to make the right movements easily and with least risk of putting strain on your joints. The most important movement in this respect is going to be your basic up and down, through flexing of the knees and ankles. That’s usually going to involve such things as having your feet pointed in the same direction that your knees move when you squat.
Although the basic flexing is the same, the way you blend various movements does differ based on how you are riding. That means that sometimes more emphasis must be given to other movements when deciding stance. That’s why optimal stances are not necessarily the same for jibbing as for carving. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
fatscot
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 11, 2011 - 11:58 AM
|
|
First post: Dec 05, 2010
Total posts: 6
Status: Offline
|
|
Actually, I suppose I should have framed this discussion better. I am not interested in anything other than stance setup. Simply it is too complicated otherwise, you would need to take this to a lab. And at that point the real benefit gets up and walks out the door laughing at the idiots inside.
However getting a sound stance has masses of benefit. I put it into the same categories as having correct aim in golf, holding a basketball properly when shooting, having enough water in a pool when swimming. If this is not right, you are going to be held back and ultimately your enjoyment of the sport diminished.
Think of this not as taking the magic out of the trick or adding science to art, but more like turning the lights on in the room so the magicians trick can be better appreciated. Or providing those that are new to the sport the fundamentals to create their own Art.
@DereksDontRun I once had a go on the stance fitting machine at TSA in covent gardens. And, surprise surprise, I ended up having a big conversation about the information that it produced. The key highlights surrounding stance angles were that the total angle between both feet is what is important, in the case of your cruising stance width that would be 30deg. Depending on your style, and he defined that as what angle you wanted your hips in relation to the board, would define how you set your feet. If you rode perfectly duck, your hips would be parallel to the board so you would split 30 equally 15 15. IF you liked a more carving setup with your hips at 45 degs to the board, you would set your front foot at 24deg and your back 6 to still equal 30. He said the makers had proof that this worked, tests that showed that the person would be equally balanced on the machine with different stances based on this rule.
The manufacturer question is an interesting one, I figure their design approach must be similar to the approach taken in mountain biking: Use a a model pro, usually a member of staff, with a set height, stance width and riding style. Once they have designed, built a demo the pro tests the board suggesting changes, they then add the companies standard binding plate in line with the pro's stance. This sets the optimum, max and min widths possible. From this prototype board, they then use CAD with a mixture of experience to scale the board up and down for to meet various weights and sizes which causes the binding positions to move in and out. This means that generally there is one board in the line that is slightly better than the rest, depending on the companies abilities, and maybe explains why the bigger boards are sometimes not characteristic of the range. i.e. the 160 Salomon grip was a lot stiffer than the 154 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
dunx
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 11, 2011 - 12:29 PM
|
|
First post: Oct 07, 2004
Total posts: 9314
Location: Herts, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
This is exactly how Neil McNab teaches you to set your board up. All about bio-mechanics, so you work with your body, rather than against it. It's a good place to start. Comfort, flex, angles... you could probably do a nice dissertation on it, not that you haven't already  |
_________________
SCUK Editor • Me on Facebook • Neverland
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
nickmotture
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 11, 2011 - 12:59 PM
|
|
First post: Jan 09, 2006
Total posts: 10414
Location: Washington DC USA
Status: Offline
|
|
| The problem with the recommended guide stance the manufacturor sets is that it might be perfect for the boards flex and side cut but it might not be perfect for your own body. Its important your stance is set up right for your body of course, the wrong stance can hard your knees badly...but who knows what the right stance for their body is without trail an error? Unless you try the stance finder machine of course..... |
_________________
www.dalikfodda.com
www.686.com
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Board ... 0231728399
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Snowboard Club 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Maximize
RSS Feed
