Bindings, shorter deck, more torque
I've never surfed or skated (where the riders feet aren't bound to the board), but I've spent several seasons on a snowboard and been wakeboarding a few times (where the rider's feet are bound to the board). On the Onewheel, if i hit a corner very fast, my feet won't slide across the deck, but at some point the board will barrel-roll sideways out from under me, especially on a heel-side turn. This wouldn't happen if I had bindings, like the ones on the Leif board. Those bindings don't require fastening, and your feet could pop out easily during a crash.
Imagine also that you place the feet in close to the tire, and cut off the outer half of each footpad, the half that is farthest from the tire. Without the extra length, you could tilt the board farther forward or backward, or you could navigate a steeper hill without touching down the nose or the tail. With bindings, you wouldn't need a large landing zone of deck, because your feet would never leave the deck. You could drop off of a curb without wondering if you would be able to get both feet planted firmly on the deck when you land.
Being able to tilt more aggressively or climb/descend steeper hills, of course, requires more torque.
I know someone who put "hook" on his onehweel :) so you can do it too, just order freebord binding and install them on the footpads :)
Interesting idea. I probably could get more aggressive with bindings. I'm far more aggressive on a snowboard, but I'm not sure I want to be that way over pavement :)
@jeff8v7 Yeah, no thanks. Bindings on pavement sounds like a death sentence.
I'm six foot, I feel like I'd like a longer deck, seems like it would be more comfortable, I already have my feet wider than the center of the footpads. I do spend a lot of time on hills so that might be a problem. I haven't noticed that I'm coming anywhere close to the ground on hills, though.