Originally Posted by Cheizz
Simple physics say you need a wider stance (i.e. distance between the two ski edges that touch the snow once on edge) in order ot increase the edge angle. If standing up your feet are glued together, no way you will get an extreme angle if you put your skis on edge. The boot of the ouside leg will not be able to go trough the inside leg and ski. As simple as that. I think there are several ways to explain the word 'stance' here, that's the confusion.
Physics does not say anything about how wide you have to stand, which probably means you do not understand simple physics. Furthermore, as I've explained, you can also stand wider through vertical seperation, instead of horizontal seperation. Just look at the pics of Hirscher, or any other good wc races for that matter. They all have lots of vertical seperation, but hardly ski with big horizontal seperation (transitions being the exception)
Edited by Art of Skiing - 1/19/16 at 8:05am
Physics say you need a radius, velocity, acceleration, weight (and of course gravity), which result in centripetal forces and centrifugal forces in order to create angles and not fall over.
^It's quite similar to a bucket of water or a stone attached to a rope, being swung around.
To extremely oversimplify, it all comes down to this:
The heavier you are, the more velocity you need for big edge angles and you'll create bigger centripetal forces.
The bigger your radius, the more velocity you need for big edge angles. Small radius increases centripetal forces, big radius decreases centripetal forces, this sentence is a quite poor choice of words, but you should see it in the context of the centripetal forces formula, because ==> (M*V^2)/R) (R = radius)
How this translates to skiing: A wide stance will put more weight on the inside ski, making the outside ski lighter, which means less velocity needed to create high edge angles with the outside ski. A wide stance also means, the speed difference between the outside and inside ski increases, compared to a narrow stance, because the circle in which the inside ski travels becomes smaller. This means it will be very easy to create big angles with the outside ski when skiing wide (because it's light and going fast), but near to impossible to create edge angle with the inside ski (because the ski is travelling is too slow and it's too heavy). You see that perfectly demonstrated over here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NQtVx8UC2k
In conclusion, physics says you need as much weight on the outside of the radius (outside ski) as possible, because that's where maximum velocity is at. Or you need more velocity, in order to compensate for the extra weight inside of the turn, where the extra weight is travelling at a slower speed. This comes down to, more weight towards the outside of the turn means less speed needed in order to create big edge angle (This here is why people who claim 50/50 weight distribution is the way to go are full of s***). A narrow stance will help to get more weight towards the outside of that turn. On the other hand, due to gravity more velocity and weight on the outside of the turn will make you heavier, due to increased g-forces. This makes things a lot more complicated and because of this my explanation is not 100% accurate. E.g. ==> Due to a narrow stance and g-forces it is possible you'll have more weight on the inside ski, compared to a wide stance, but that still does not have to mean you'll have more weight on the inside ski, relative to the outside ski when skiing narrow, compared to skiing wide (does everyone still understand is?). Another thing that makes this story partly innacurate is because a narrow stance will result in a bigger radius turn with the inside ski compared to a wide stance. Bigger radius means you need more velocity, but if the weight increases due to g-forces and what not, you'll need even more speed, which will result in more g-forces, which will result in more weight, which all will result in more centripetal forces etc.. However gravity will always pull at 9,81 m/s^2 and that's where the difficult stuff begins. But even when taking that into account (I won't go into detail, partly because I myself find this very hard to explain and understand as well) no way physics says a wide stance is necessary for big edge angles, because it is not and wc racers are proving it unnecessary race after race. Just because a wider stance will sometimes make things (big edge angles) easier, does not mean it is an excuse for poor technique.
Bare in mind I purposely extremely oversimpified and purposely left some things out in order to keep it simple.