Who’s running Catek OS2

[lowrider]

32 minutes ago, Neil Gendzwill said:

 Jeff Caron stopped supporting his product years ago and doesn’t answer email but leaves the website up, which I find really annoying. 

I suspect that that is the point he's trying to make ! You don't get a whole lot of satisfaction selling product to this particular demographic. Middle of summer bring on the flaming.

[davekempmeister]

ride whatever you want to ride.

[Beckmann AG]

Jcar,

If your intent involves ‘baselining’, or higher resolution adjustment, you’ll want less flex in the binding.

While the Catek OS2 offers more support than a fresh box of Kleenex, it’s not, by design, as solid as the OS1 and WC.

The ‘short’ plate versions of the WC, OS1 and 2 are .375 inch thick, while the ‘longs’ are .5.

While your internal processor is sensitive to a very small increments of change, there’s a point where ‘rider philosophy’, and the fit/flex/geometry of your boots will render such increments moot.

The standard bails are, for the most part, interchangeable across the three variants. Heel loops came in both narrow and wide versions.

There are both coarse and fine grooved patterns used to locate the toe and heel blocks on the WC.

Boot sole length adjustments are much faster on the WC than the OS series.

Toe and heel blocks can be reversed on all variants. This may be necessary to accommodate odd combinations of boot sole length/boot center and boot size.

Spherical kingpin nuts are different between each variant. If you don’t have access to a lathe, take care not to lose them.

Toe flip levers are more or less interchangeable, though the later versions were more svelte/stylish than the earlier.

An OS2 top assembly can be mounted to an OS1 base, but not an OS1 top to the OS2 bottom. In a pinch, you could mount a WC top to an OS1 base, but you’d need a bushing to center the king pin.

The WC has the fewest parts to lose/misunderstand, the OS2 has the most.

Of the three, the WC is the easiest/most versatile for ‘on snow’ adjustment, as one can affect toe/heel height, canting, angle, and boot offset without removing fasteners.

Critically, cant and lift can be altered independent of each other. (These parameters are co-dependent on the TD series).

->The compromise: In order to change stance width, or binding location on the board itself, you’ll need to disturb established cant and lift settings.

Similarly, the means by which adjustments are made can make it very easy to get lost in the process. Fortunately, you can get a digital protractor app for your phone, and from what I understand, pocket-sized notepads and pencils are still available.

--

Lacking a better picture of where you are with your riding, and where you want to be, it’s not appropriate to suggest Cateks will or will not serve your needs/wants. 

In general, the Catek platform is a significant asset if you want to better understand/resolve the relationship between interface geometry and various rider outcomes. 

->So long as you’re capable of methodical practice and entry-level critical thinking.

If you find yourself at a loss before technical monoliths like the adjustable spanner, multi-speed bicycle, and shoelaces, you should probably avoid the Catek.

Edited August 17, 2019 by Beckmann AG

[Wolf]

21 hours ago, Beckmann AG said:

If you find yourself at a loss before technical monoliths like the adjustable spanner, multi-speed bicycle, and shoelaces, you should probably avoid the Catek.

That comment gave me a great laugh, to top off a really informative post.

I guess if I can't figure out how to use my adjustable spanner to work on my multi-speed bicycle because my shoelaces got caught in the chain, I'm even more lost.