Jump to content
Note to New Members ×

Customizable 3D Printed Lift/Cant wedges for F2 bindings


jim_s

Recommended Posts

This is intended to be a clearly-named spot to provide information about my approach to building customized lift/cant wedges for the F2 series of bindings (F2 Race/Intec Titanium and Intec Titanflex). This topic has previously been discussed to some extent in the following two threads, but the threads were mixed with several other topics, and I've been told that some were having problems finding information on this particular effort, so I'm centralizing it here.

 

I recently acquired my first set of F2 bindings, and absolutely LOVE them. (I'm a life-long Burton RacePlate user, so this is a pretty huge change!) I was not so in love, however, with having to make lift and cant adjustments in 3-4 degree increments, as the F2 factory wedges force you to do. I'd heard various accounts of people making their own wedges by sanding, grinding, etc wood, plastic and metal, of people using washers and other shim material (ex, http://www.tognar.com/ski-binding-cant-strip/) to achieve desired lift/cant angles and lift heights. As a 3D Printing geek, my thoughts pretty immediately turned to how I might solve this problem with printed parts. Around the same time, @erazz was approaching a similar problem for soft-boot boards (see the 'Adventures in plates' thread...), and had also turned to 3D printing, so we traded some design ideas and approaches back and forth.

The result is that using a free tool called OpenSCAD, or utilizing the 'Customizer' app on the Thingiverse website, it is now possible to custom design cants to your desired lift (heel or toe), cant (left or right) and binding height settings, for all 3 sizes of these F2 bindings. The file (if using OpenSCAD) , as well as access to the Thingiverse Customizer (no need for OpenSCAD), are available at: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2865271

I am merely sharing this approach with others, in case it can be of any use to anyone else. Bear in mind that I am not an engineer (nor even a particularly good snowboarder), and am not in any way qualified to claim that these are appropriate for use on your snowboard. If you choose to use this approach, be aware that your choice to do so is yours alone, and you are responsible for determining the suitability of the end result for your purpose, equipment, body, environment, etc. If you have any doubt or concern, DON'T USE THEM - your life and limb (literally) is not worth risking on this unproven and untested approach.

Examples of what these look like are:

IMG_2681.jpeg

IMG_2682.jpeg

IMG_2688.jpeg

IMG_2689.jpeg

Edited by jim_s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, this is awesome. :biggthump  Was looking for this, but couldn't remember the thread it was attached to.

I was going try printing this in POM(Delrin) with modifications to fit better with Virus Powerlocks.  My concern though with printing is thermal expansion and contraction breaking the bond between layers and the thing just disintegrating.  Solid block might be better to keep it under pressure?  Dunno, certainly not an engineer, but looking forward to testing it out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Material choice is something that I'm interested in, as well. I have printed and used a set made out of ABS, and they stood up to several days of use this season, but that is far from exhaustive testing (and I weigh all of 135 lbs, too...) I printed a set in PETG, but have not had a chance to try those out. Delrin might be a really good material, if you can get good inter-layer bonds (from other work with Delrin, I know its about impossible to get anything to stick to it, LoL... :-)

@erazz provided a link to a chart of plastics cold temperature performance in the 'Impatient Curiosity' thread. I'll repost his link here:

https://omnexus.specialchem.com/polymer-properties/properties/ductile-brittle-transition-temperature

Edited by jim_s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suddenly my want for a 3D printer has turned into a need for a 3D printer. This thread prompted me to do some looking around. I get the impression that little plastic pieces like cant discs could be printed. That’s very intriguing to me. I lost a UPZ cant disc due to my own negligence and increased stress caused by installing DGSS springs. I bought a couple of new replacement discs from the UPZ site after it happened. It took a while for them to get to me. I had no hardboots for maybe 12 days of my short season. What if I could have just printed  a replacement? That would have been huge. Cants, go pro mount stuff, new google clip for my helmet, and who knows what else. Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kneel said:

Thank you, this is awesome. :biggthump  Was looking for this, but couldn't remember the thread it was attached to.

I was going try printing this in POM(Delrin) with modifications to fit better with Virus Powerlocks.  My concern though with printing is thermal expansion and contraction breaking the bond between layers and the thing just disintegrating.  Solid block might be better to keep it under pressure?  Dunno, certainly not an engineer, but looking forward to testing it out...

 

Here's my take on common 3D printable plastics for our needs:

  • PLA - DO NOT USE!!! Brittle and not very durable. Good for trinkets but not for an engineered solution.
  • ABS - Probably one of the better materials to use. There is an incredible spectrum of grades of ABS so tread carefully but generally speaking it has good mechanical properties and good layer adhesion. ABS is relatively flexible down to at least -25 C and does not tend to shatter. It is cheap and compared to the other materials on this list, pretty easy to work with. ABS, however, degrades in UV light so for a mechanical part try and use black color as that includes charcoal which tends to block UV and prevent part degradation.
  • PET/PETG - PETG is marginally stiffer and stronger than ABS but the 3D printed variety tends to come out more brittle (this might have to do with internal stresses). In reality it should be as good as ABS for our uses and you should pick the material that you are more comfortable printing with. 
  • POM - significantly stiffer than ABS or PETG. Good abrasion resistance but, as you wrote, poor self adhesion. POM does tend to be very tough and very creep resistant. In the plastics world it is used for springs or gears a lot for those reasons. It is also more expensive than ABS or PETG.
  • PC or PC/ABS - Stiff, strong, very good for dimensional stability. Requires higher temperatures to print but will also withstand higher temperatures. I use this plastic for bike parts. I like using PC when I can but it is very expensive and hard to use.
  • Nylon - This is the best material for most of our applications. Nylon is tough and relatively soft which can make for excellent shock absorption. Nylon also has enormous strength and layer adhesion (peeling it off the bed can be a pain). However, Nylon is tough to work with. It is very hygroscopic (absorbs water) and you have to keep the filament in a dry box before printing. After printing the parts will absorb water for a couple of weeks and will become noticeably softer. They might also swell up a bit so keep that in mind before using.

 

p.s. I am assuming you know how to print each of these materials. Most of them need to be printed on a heated bed in an enclosure. Some are more difficult than others. My list assumes the parts are printed correctly.

Also, don't forget that for each material there are a ton of factors that can substantially affect their properties. Colorants, surfactants, flow modifiers, etc... All can change the properties of the plastic fundamentally. White color, for example is notorious for making plastic weaker. For binding parts spend the extra $$$ to get good quality material.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, downloaded the .SCAD file from thingiverse and OpenScad from http://www.openscad.org/downloads.html, this is just freaking awesome.  Looks like I know what my workbench is going to look like in a few months.

The one variable that I can see needing to experiment with by printing a few variants would be the base_depth.  I'll most likely be printing up a toe lift kit at around 7 degrees, and running a couple of renders (vs previews) shows me that the default base_depth of 0.5 is too low for this higher angle.  1.5 looks like it might do the trick, 2.0 might be better?  

I'm highly impressed with the stamping of the parameters into the print, makes everything self-documenting:

5ad7ec5b7cdba_ScreenShot2018-04-18at6_05_53PM.png.adeca8110838f258e05842fcd5acaba5.png

5ad7ec287c558_ScreenShot2018-04-18at6_08_15PM.png.7f7710f8ff3583a9b9859ffc4bb48ab8.png

Has anyone yet printed up a lift kit with the higher angles?  If so, let us know what base_depth you had to use.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the base depth is a little fiddly, for moderate combinations of lift and cant, 0.5 - 1.0 can often work, but you need to keep a close eye on how thin/thick the little groove/ridge at the thin edge is - it should extend all the way to the edge, and be thick enough at the edge to be durable. If the base depth is too thin, the wall of the groove/ridge will get too thin, and/or disappear altogether at the edge. (Toe edge for heel lift, heel edge for toe lift.) If you're not overly concerned about getting an extra 1-2mm of base height in your shims, I'd recommend just specifying base depth as a minimum of 1-2mm. (But again, always visually inspect your generated STL, and make sure things look good before slicing and sending to a printer...)

The other thing to keep in mind is that if there are significant differences in angles between 2 sets of shims (ie, front set vs rear set), then one will come out taller than the other, and for those very particular about their setup, it can be worth playing with the base depth to make sure that your binding tops end up at the same height. (There would have to be a particularly significant difference between front and back, and you'd have to be particularly particular for this to make a noticeable difference, but it seems we've got some folks here who are able to discern very small dimensions in their setups, so this is worth considering if you're one of those folks. (I'd considered adding extra parameters that could be used to match heights between two different sets, and/or be used to set a specific height, but the seemingly-minor benefit didn't seem worth the added complexity and confusion.

BTW @jburk, "embossed" is a gratuitously-kind description of how the settings end up coming out on the surface of the shims. Because they print on the surface that is against the print bed, the gaps in the letters pretty much fill up with melted plastic, and can only really be read by holding the surface at an angle to the light, and squinting at it while moving it around. :-) I usually label mine with a Sharpie, but, if you do end up with a collection of them and they're not labeled, it should be possible to figure out which ones are which with some visual effort.

Further BTW, these things are a work in progress, for sure. If you run into problems, have suggestions, request for improvement, additional features, etc, please let me know - these were designed to just meet my particular needs, so I'd be interested in what ideas others come up with. (Can't promise I can do them all, but I'd be interested to hear them!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were about 70 downloads of this from Thingiverse in the first day it was up, but unfortunately, I'd put up an old version with a bug in it (the shims wouldn't sit flat against the printer bed if there was toe lift or rightward cant, which means they wouldn't print successfully - Thanks to @Donek for noticing this). I uploaded the proper version a little before 11AM USA EST this morning (4/18).

SO, If you downloaded the .scad file from Thingiverse before about 11am USA EST on 4/18, please discard that file and re-download it again from Thingiverse. The one that is up there now is the latest and greatest, and does not have this bug. Sorry about that - just goes to show that one shouldn't make decisions with consequences late at night! <:o/

Edited by jim_s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was some discussion of screw lengths in the old 'Impatient Curiosity' thread, but I don't think there was discussion of 6 deg lift, in particular. (See the below post, and the post immediately following it). I think I printed up a 6 deg at one point along the way - I can check when I'm home tonight. I know I ended up going to the local hardware store and purchasing some bolts, as I didn't have enough of the long stock ones to do both front and back. (I bought little star lock washers to use under the pan-head bolts, as I wasn't willing to shell out the big bucks for another whole set of factory screws with the special bumps under them, and I was unable to source those suckers from anyone, even online...)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks @jim_s !  Now I got something to play for off-seasons, along with softboots 3D plates.  

Here are few questions before I start:

  • Since a set is 2 parts (toe & heel), how do they get printed?  one STL file to print 2 objects?
  • Stock screws are M5, I think.  If I make a 6 degree lift, what length of screw are needed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, piusthedrcarve said:

For the record, I just measured the lengths of the 2 screws that come with F2 bindings for wedge installment and they are 22 mm and 28 mm.

YYZCanuck has these on their site, the 3 lengths are listed as M6 22m, 27mm, and 36mm. 

 

2 hours ago, Colozeus said:

Are the stock screws long enough so support a 6 degree toe lift? 

According to the manual, if you have 5mm of thread exposed below the combo of lift and cants you should be good.

 

IMG_2598.jpg

IMG_2599.JPG

Edited by jburk
update to show thread pitch (M6)
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, piusthedrcarve said:

Since a set is 2 parts (toe & heel), how do they get printed?  one STL file to print 2 objects?

Yes, both the toe and heel parts are generated in one STL file - just be sure to set the 'Layout' parameter to 'Print' - this will flip the pieces upside down for printing, so that the top surface comes out nice and flat, and so that the bottom surface can be printed with the little protruding ridge.

Some of the online printing services apparently used to be pretty strict about charging per the individual part, regardless of it being one STL, but they seem to be more relaxed about that these days, from what I've read more recently. If anyone finds that an online service is trying to charge them for 2 individual parts for a single set, let me know, and I can add an option to generate a 'tree' between the two parts. (I've got another version semi-in-progress that will generate 2 sets in one STL file, and I definitely plan to offer an option for treeing those together, as 4 separate pieces might understandably start stretching the goodwill of an online printing service...)

There are numerous online services for printing parts. Probably the most popular is Shapeways, though it can run a little on the pricier side, as they tend to have only more premium materials to choose from, and they use SLS (Selective Laser Sintering), which tends to produce the nicest and strongest parts. One set of shims (ie, for one foot) will run around $30 for nylon, depending on the volume of your job (higher angles and/or base depth will result in greater volume). The other end of the spectrum is probably '3D Hubs', which is a network of individuals with printers, who will accept jobs from 3D Hubs, print things out, and then mail them to you. Objects produced in plastic via 3D Hubs, however, will all be FDM (Fused Deposition Modeling - the filament-based approach that most home/hobby machines utilize). A set in nylon via this service will also run around $30 (so in that case, use Shapeways' SLS service), but they also have less expensive materials, such as ABS, PETG and ASA - each of which should run in the neighborhood of $10 per set.

There is a good summary of available online printing services here: https://all3dp.com/1/best-online-3d-printing-service-3d-print-services/

Edited by jim_s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd checked on prices for your SB risers back when you were working on them, and IIRC, it was around $550 for a pair in SLS nylon from Shapeways, LoL, but only about $90 for a pair in FDM from 3D Hubs. (which I think was around the price of a commercial pair, but the printed ones are customizable to your exact specs!) The beauty of Shapeways, though, is that you could just jump straight to aluminum, for a mere $4k! Nobody on 3D Hubs even offers that option. :-)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is fantastic. For those without a 3D printer, you can often borrow time on one at your public library. In Toronto, you have to be certified through a 1 hour class and then you just pay for materials.

Failing that, most cities have maker spaces that are run like co-operatives. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jim_s Thanks.  Another question: 

Base Depth in mm - Base height to add under the shims. Should generally be minimum of 0.5mm. Higher lift angles, 
or very low lift and cant angles may require a larger base depth to for the groove to print acceptably.

base_dpth = 0.5;

I  don't quiet understand what the base depth is.  Would you explain this more?  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@piusthedrcarve - I should probably have named (or maybe should rename) that parameter 'Base Height' so it is more clear.

If you consider a setup with just heel lift, and no cant, and no base depth (ie, Base Depth = 0), then looking at it from the side, the toe piece would look like a right triangle laying on its side, such as below. (This is ignoring the ridge that is usually on the bottom, to lock into the base binding piece...)

2092857224_ScreenShot2018-04-20at10_20_45AM.png.5dbe38ee087e5f1bf4b63d6a62f88fec.png

The problem with this is that the front edge is razor-thin, which #1 is weak, and #2, the little groove in the top surface (and the ridge on the bottom, if it was shown here) doesn't extend all the way to the front edge, because it thins out too much. Here's the same toe piece (with no base depth) viewed from an overhead angle:

723121735_ScreenShot2018-04-20at10_21_14AM.png.f1706b73b3997666bbed6db83538462e.png

 

So, if you add base depth, you're just adding a block onto the bottom of the wedge - this serves 2 purposes - first and foremost, it makes that front edge thick enough to have some structural strength, and second, it provides enough thickness at the thin edge that the ridge and groove will extend all the way to the front edge. (3rd, if you you want a little extra height on your bindings, it will also elevate the bindings by that Base Depth amount...) Here is the same toe piece, but with the 'Base Depth' parameter set to 3. (that's 3mm)

1565015054_ScreenShot2018-04-20at10_24_12AM.png.e0177681d60ea346150c045c3934fa27.png

1155614521_ScreenShot2018-04-20at10_24_36AM.png.acd1d2a7b451bd61a6b9b0dae23a1542.png 

 

And here it is with the little bottom ridge added back in. (I just hid it above so the side views would be clearer...)

1315567292_ScreenShot2018-04-20at10_25_45AM.png.72bd8568cc98bc64323b0883c203c4bb.png

 

So, you need some minimum value for Base Depth, so that you get a structurally sound thin edge (toe edge if using heel lift, heel edge if using toe lift), and so that you've got enough material that the little groove/ridge feature is fully formed, and thick enough to be useful. Here is an example where there's some base depth, but not really enough - notice that the front edge of the shim is reasonably thick (I have Base Depth = 1mm on this one), but that the wall thickness of the little groove/ridge feature at the front is paper-thin. So, this would be better off with a base depth of 1.5 or 2mm.

187319841_ScreenShot2018-04-20at10_40_04AM.png.0790afeb4b71f6604f08639cd4c62924.png

 

Note that this example doesn't have any cant. If you had some cant in there, then you could probably get away with 0.5 to 1mm of base depth, because the higher edge due to the cant would make that front area at the groove/ridge feature a little thicker, like this: (this version has a base depth of only 0.5mm - which wouldn't work without the cant, but since it has cant, the cant ends up making the front edge thicker, because the one edge is lifted up higher to actually provide the cant.

25487269_ScreenShot2018-04-20at10_44_03AM.png.bdde023a7fe3dfd67f18eb0f3cdf6eb2.png

 

Does that all make sense?

Edited by jim_s
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...