Originally Posted by michaelA
Why do you state that a 'lower stance is more stable' or that with a lower stance 'you are in better balance...'?
Good question....seems simple enough....but the answer is surprsingly involved.
A good start is here:http://www.jimloy.com/physics/stable.htm
Hence it comes down to energy...and torque.
Hence for a given "hit" from a clump of snow, that will impart a certain amount of energy into slowing your feet...(in reality your feet are transfering energy to the snow....but it is easier to think of it the otherway)...the momentum from your COM will keep going forward.
Now between your BOS and COM, the COM is leveraging over your BOS, mainly due to the stability provided to your BOS from your skis.
Now the amount of leverage is determined by the amount of Torque.
Torque is equal to Force X Distance. Distance is the distance at a right angle to the force...between your COM and BOS.
Now the Force for a given clump of snow will be constant....but the amount of torque will depenedent on the "Distance" varialbe.
Hence less distance from COM to BOS...less torque. That is more stable becuase then there is less torque to overcome to get back into balance...aiding any muscular effort to get back in balance...AND (and perhaps most importantly) less torque will mean that your COM will move less relative to your BOS...meaning any recovery moves will not need to be as dramatic...further changes in fore/aft pressure on the skis will be less.
Alternativley.....you can just think of it intuitavley...
Why can a corvette corner faster then a Jeep?
Why do hockey players, or football players "get low" to give, or take a hit?
Why is it easy to stand on the bottom rung of a step ladder, but perhaps abit scary to be on the top step?
Why is it harder to balance with your girlfriend sitting on your shoulders at a AC/DC concert?