Why do you need wide stance? This guy manages to have high edge angles, and a 'narrow' stance, so why the need for the 'separation?'
i don't think there is terrain that asks for a wide stance for technical reasons... there is only speed and a lack of one footed balancing skills that ask for a wide stance.
Those are some terribly beautiful stills BTW.
However and still, and to answer both Raz and Roll, these shots supports the logic that a narrow stance is best for slower speed & laterally agile turns where a wider stance (as seen in the GS montage above) is better for higher speed turns that, while not requiring quick lateral movement simply asks and bodes the stability of a wider stance. You will see when watching WC races, even though only by a few inches, that SL, GS, SG and DH have, on average, progressively wider stances. All this logic fully applies to recreational skiing: an SL stance width in bumps, powder, trees, steeps and most off piste --- and a wider GS/SG stance width (foot separation) for bombing down the mountain. Here comes the Luftwaffe!
Am I in another world here or isn't all this standard accepted knowledge?
Rick, I took two pencils and held them together while running them across apiece of paper. First they were straight vertical and then I tilted the pencils to a 45 degree angle and the resultant lines were about 20% wider. However, I have to say that the photos above show very high edge angles yet, at the same time, there seems to be almost no foot separation. As a matter of fact, it looks as though the inside ankle of the outside boot is pressing down onto the outside edge of the inside ski. It makes me wonder if there are some super peculiar high level dynamics at play (in the SL photos above) that I have yet to here about.
Edited by Rich666 - 4/22/15 at 6:21pm