Stance - How to set your gear?

Various topics, technical questions, announcements, events, resorts, ...

Moderators: fivat, rilliet, Arnaud, nils

User avatar
István
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 899
Joined: Monday 29 September 2003, 13:04
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Settings

Post by István » Tuesday 26 October 2004, 16:14

This is cool. Thanks for all those who contributed.

So we concluded that the 3.5 vs height rule works, and it even works better combined with the 0.6 vs leg length rule.

We also completed the angulation and the canting / heel lift topic.

I still have a principle to discuss: Does everyone agree that for EC the bindings should be placed simmetrically on the board (no longitudinal offset)?

Any other topics on settings?

Nils, you might want to include the results of this topic into the Technique / Settings sequence. (I mean only the ideas that are not there already and only if you wish, of course, it is your decision :-) )



Cheers,

István

User avatar
fivat
Swoard & EC founder
Swoard & EC founder
Posts: 2834
Joined: Thursday 21 March 2002, 13:13
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Contact:

Update

Post by fivat » Tuesday 26 October 2004, 22:10

Not Nils, but I, will include/modify the technical Web pages :-)

I especially like the 3.55 and 0.6 ratios.

Many things to update! Our priorities for now: developments and boards tests with our new factory...

Patrice Fivat

User avatar
tommaso2k
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 293
Joined: Tuesday 20 January 2004, 21:59
Location: Geneva / Switzerland

Post by tommaso2k » Tuesday 26 October 2004, 22:31

@Patrice
Many things to update! Our priorities for now: developments and boards tests with our new factory...
Does this mean the decision for the new factory is already made and if yes could you share the secret ? :wink: :wink:

Cheers

Thomas
Brand doesn´t matter, the spirit does!

Malecky
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 39
Joined: Friday 13 February 2004, 13:11
Location: Slovenia!
Contact:

Post by Malecky » Tuesday 26 October 2004, 22:44

Ablazespy is right and that 3.5 is not right.


edit: Messed up. the distance is from your ankle to the middle of your knee.

I will mount my Swoard tommorow with this thread beeing the guideline.

Lp

User avatar
fivat
Swoard & EC founder
Swoard & EC founder
Posts: 2834
Joined: Thursday 21 March 2002, 13:13
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Contact:

Too early

Post by fivat » Tuesday 26 October 2004, 22:53

tommaso2k wrote:Does this mean the decision for the new factory is already made and if yes could you share the secret ? :wink: :wink:
It's too early. Developments take time and we can't give any date before January.

We want at least the same performances as before, and prefer quality to precipitation. We want to create again the best tool for extremecarving (and carving), then we will reveal the secret :silenced:

The most demanding persons are the riders from Swoard themselves :D

Patrice Fivat

User avatar
Arjan
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 33
Joined: Wednesday 11 August 2004, 15:47
Location: Den Haag, Netherlands

Post by Arjan » Wednesday 27 October 2004, 8:34

Together with a friend of mine we came up with a formula to calculate the most ergonomical stance. We took into account:

1) size of hips
2) length of legs (knee down and from hip to knee)
3) size shoes
4) forward lean

The formula calculated for me a stance of 48 cm with 1 degree of canting in both bindings + more forward lean on my back hardboot (around 20 degrees). This stance is calculated based upon a formula to come up with the most "natural" stance.

User avatar
ablazespy
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 129
Joined: Wednesday 21 August 2002, 17:53

Post by ablazespy » Wednesday 27 October 2004, 9:15

Please Arjan,

Can you present you're formula! May be in an Excel sheet where people can put down their info and get the data from. Or just share the formula and I will create the excel sheet myself!

gr Ablazespy

User avatar
Arjan
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 33
Joined: Wednesday 11 August 2004, 15:47
Location: Den Haag, Netherlands

Post by Arjan » Wednesday 27 October 2004, 9:18

Hi Dènis,

We have the formula in excel of course. I will see if i am able to post the excel of have Nils upload it somewhere....

User avatar
vkrouverk
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 248
Joined: Thursday 11 April 2002, 8:11
Location: Estonia

Post by vkrouverk » Wednesday 27 October 2004, 10:34

8O 8O 8O 8O
Jesus Christ and fresh corduroy! This stance setup is not rocket science which would need excel sheets and formulas with 4 input variables, much more proven practice is to go to slopes with small screwdriver and mess with setup until it feels comfortable.
It certainly seems that people are bored as hell from this autumn and need winter to get out to slopes if they start inventing something like this :D
Converting potential energy to kinetic..

User avatar
Lee
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 53
Joined: Friday 26 December 2003, 17:25
Location: Netherlands

Post by Lee » Wednesday 27 October 2004, 11:04

ok... for those who want to know....

the theory behind the stance calculation according speedcarving.com

If a person stand straight up and his ankles and legs are vertical you get your basic stance. when he puts one foot in front of the other at the same basic stance you only need forward-lean. and if you stands wider you need canting.

Let say, a board 0f 170cm has an optimum stance of 48cm. a long person needs less canting then a short person. The angle from the vertical differs from leg length. Da vince has made a nice presentation where you can see why we need canting (see Vitruvian by Da Vinchi ).

The most important distance is the length between your hip "hinge" and the sole of your boot. This length differs from length. It depends if your legs are straight or slightly bend (basic snowboarding posture).

The calculation i made was based on the variables above but with the canting angle variable it is difficult to determine the optimum stance. I decided to re-write the sheet based on the optimum stance the board manufacturer states for a specific board.

The only problem is when you want to order a custom board. What stance do you want???

do you state your own preffered stance to the board builder? or does the board builder find the optimum stance for the board you ordered?

Regards,
Lee & Arjan

User avatar
skywalker
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 814
Joined: Saturday 3 August 2002, 11:24
Location: Fribourg (CH)

Nice Tread ;)

Post by skywalker » Wednesday 27 October 2004, 11:29

Hi,

first to question your theory: Where do you know, that one's legs are exactly vertical? most interesting would be the distance between the hips, right?

Then: Does a board have an inherent optimal stance :?: :?: :?: I don't believe. There is rather an optimal system stance for a rider-board-combination.

Last point: stiffnes and shape of boots are a main factor for optimum stance and canting if wanted.

Let's try it the other way: The goal is to have the widest possible stance for maximum board control. But if the stance becomes to wide, you lose flexibility. Undependent from the riders geometry as mentioned, the amount of flex that will be left, will be left depends on the rider's own flexibility (hips, knees,...), the boots and bindings (and their contact surface). Also the angulation is affecting the "calculation", but depending again on foot position in the boots, rotation of the hips, etc. Maybe trying out is easier and will lead to better results ;)
free extreme carving

User avatar
Lee
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 53
Joined: Friday 26 December 2003, 17:25
Location: Netherlands

Post by Lee » Wednesday 27 October 2004, 12:03

Yes... the distance between the hips is right. If you look at the pelvis structure and the bone structure of the upper legs, its difficult to measure.

I totally agree with you... trail and arror is most of the times the best solution. As a scientist i just want to know if it is possible to calculate... its part of my passion for snowboarding.

User avatar
István
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 899
Joined: Monday 29 September 2003, 13:04
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Model

Post by István » Wednesday 27 October 2004, 12:47

Lee,

Very cool.... I had a feeling that you were using the Da Vinci model. On the other hand, I believe the function will be too complex and will lead to more questions than answeres :-)

However, I partially disagree with Vkrouverk. It is a good challenge to work on scientific models, because it helps us in understanding our environment. Sometimes a practical approcah is more useful (in this case go out to the slopes and try it) but the theory is still useful.

E.g. we all know that gravity drives us on the slopes and it does not seem to be too complex, but we do not say: stop the scientifical researches regarding gravity, because Newton once had an apple and we all know how it works....

So, we might be bored, but I appreciate that some guys dedicated some time to develop a model in XLS. Pls e-mail it to me if possible.

Cheers,

István

User avatar
Lee
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 53
Joined: Friday 26 December 2003, 17:25
Location: Netherlands

Post by Lee » Wednesday 27 October 2004, 13:26

I still have to re-do my homework... i will send the sheet to Fivat as soon as its ready....

Here an image of my basis of calculations

Image

User avatar
frunobulax
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 813
Joined: Wednesday 8 September 2004, 12:50
Location: Gmunden, Upper Austria

Post by frunobulax » Wednesday 27 October 2004, 13:28

Theory can be particularly useful when it reflects practical experience. F.e. there is a scientific proof that women are evil (I apologize to all the girls in the forum and to all who already know this):

1. First we have to state that women require time and money:

women = time x money (I know, this is the weak point in the calculation)

2. Then we know that time is money:

women = money²

3. And money as we know is the root of all evil:

women = (root (evil))² (don't know how to indicate "root" on my comp.)

4. So by a simple transformation we get the result:

women = evil

q.e.d.


Ok, let's go back to the topic...

Locked