jim_s

Yeah, but sometimes happy is just ignorance in disguise. :-) They had been, but seem not to be in production any more (I couldn't find anyone selling them new, at least). A place called 'Carve Company' - seems to be based out of Switzerland, and targets Euro/Pure type of folks - seem to be selling the old Burt/Ibex plates now, under a new brand. (http://carvecompany.com/) They were pricy enough, though, (same price as the F2's, plus shipping from Europe), that the F2's seemed to be a better deal - that was before it was suggested that the F2's might be too stiff, though. (Was it you who pointed out that possible issue to me?) But, you're right, if the F2's end up being too stuff, the Burton/Ibex/CarveCompany bindings might be the next step. (Those F2s are so damned sexy, though! And, I'm then still faced with using something like the old Burton Unicant to achieve any lift/cant on them - another factor in my wanting to move beyond the old Burtons.) Interesting observation on the turn completion - I hadn't considered that. It was never a problem on my SL board - quite the opposite, I can't tell you the number of times I ended up hooking the tail on the SL board, and taking unplanned sojourns across the hill, up the hill and/or occasionally off the hill. But, the geometry of the MK is pretty significantly different than the SL (MK has pretty dramatic setback), so it could be that what wasn't a problem on the SL is now a problem on the MK. What would be the recommended tweak to try to affect that on the MK? I'd be happy if it'd hold the tail a little longer toward the end of the turns, for sure. Sadly, I have 'jazz hands' (I think its more like 'hula hands', LoL...) in pretty much all terrain, at least when I'm carving - one arm is usually sticking up in the air at one angle or another. <:o) Yeah, I've always just concentrated on having the toe side of the boot (ie, front/side of boot shell around my pinkie toe area) lined up with the toe edge, and the diagonally opposite heel boot side/rear (so, for me, the left/rear side of the boot shell) lined up with the heel edge. I'll have to look at things and try a little carpet surfing to try to figure out where the actual pressure application points actually are. Glad you bring that up! Thanks for everyone's input, thoughts and advice on this - I'm finding this very helpful!

Trust me, that was pretty funny... :-) What's the inherent bias issue w/ UPZs, is it the fact that the heel ledge is so far under the back of the boot? Regardless of where the rear bail holds the boot, I should still be able to adjust the bail positions on the binding bases (within reason, of course) to get neutral, toe or heel bias, shouldn't I? When I went to the UPZs, I remember having to move the bails around a bit on the Raceplates, but I was still able to get the boot centered between the edges (ie, toe side of boot lined up with toeside edge, heel side of boot lined up with heelside edge), which would be neutral bias, wouldn't it? The F2s seem (quite literally) infinitely more adjustable than the old Burtons, which relied on the two plates being moved between sets of holes for a very finite number of position possibilities. I like the fact that the F2s can be adjusted to the boot as tight as desired (for clamping and lever open/close pressure), and that the whole shebang can be moved forward/backward on the base plate with the screws - seems to be a much better system. Yes, that's a large part of my reason for moving to the F2s - I have a brand new pair of F2 Titanium Race bindings just waiting to go on the board - I'm just seeking input/advice on how/where to place them. My initial goal was just to duplicate what I presently have on the Burtons, but as I got to thinking about it, it seemed that this might be a good opportunity to make sure that's the sensible thing to do, or not. That having been said, I've been warned that the F2 Titaniums may be a bit stiff for my scrawny self, which does make me wonder if just staying on the Burtons might be better, from a flex perspective, but as you note (and as I alluded to in a prior entry in this thread), the day is going to come that the old Burtons are going to give up the ghost, and I don't want to be searching for parts (binding parts or body parts) when that happens. I bought the Burtons back in probably the mid-90's - I think they were new at that point, but ICRC for sure. But, bottom line, they need replacing, thus the shiny new F2's sitting here on the floor beside me, waiting to go on to the board, once I determine how I'm going to set them up. (Your concern on the age/state of the Burtons is noted and appreciated!) Searched high and low for a pair of Carve RS bindings, just couldn't find any anywhere (even on eBay) - everyone seems to be out of stock, but my concern w/ the Burtons was enough that I went ahead and got a pair of the Titanium Race. They're going on the board - if I then find that they're too stiff, I'll start searching anew for something more flexy. I'm hopeful that they'll be Ok for me, though.

@SunSurfer - I feel a little like Charleston Heston - as soon as I read your advice about taking out the rear cant, my first thought was, "out of my cold, dead, hands..." :-) I've previously tried riding wider and flat (on my 2006 era SL board), and it caused me to be all kinds of unbalanced in my turns, and also aggravated a grumpy right hip joint that I have. (I find the same thing on my slalom waterski - if my feet aren't jammed heel-to-toe, and with a few degrees of outward angle on the rear boot, the hip gets all bitchy, and then I have to take time off.) So, my assumption has been that feet closer together and less stress on the hips is the answer, and just sort of anecdotally, it seems that the inward cant helps relieve some of that stress. Anyway, I'm not putting a stake in the ground on the stance/cant, but I'm definitely a little hesitant to widen or flatten things radically, due to the aforementioned hip issues. (And while I realize its counter-intuitive, and that I'd realistically have better front/rear balance with my feet wider, I tend to center and balance myself much better on the board with the narrow stance - likely at least in part just due to what I'm used to.) I suspect I'm very 90's in my knee position - the rear isn't tucked into the front, and I move them independently, but they're definitely much closer together than it sounds like is the current thinking. I'll try to play around with at least reducing the cant little by little, and see how things feel, and if I get really brave, I'll try sliding the bindings a tiny bit farther apart, a tiny bit at a time, and see if I can find the point where the hip starts objecting (though I usually don't see the full effects on that until a day or two later...) I'm 5'9 (175cm) tall, with a 31-32" inseam (~80cm), 135 lbs, and pretty narrow in the X and Y planes. BTW, I laughed when that video started - even w/o the image, I could have immediately known you were on a MK - I've never ridden another board that sounds like like the MK. It growls through the carves - almost sounds like its sliding, w/ the noise, but its leaving a razor-thin line behind! :-) @Beckmann AG - You bring up a good question - from my own perspective, I really don't have any 'problems' to fix. That's not to say I'm the world's greatest carver (much less on a tight board, on tight trails, at a tiny resort in the hills of West-by-Gawd-Virginia...), but I'm very comfortable with my setup, even on the new board. I have no problems initiating turns, controlling/moderating turn radius, transitioning between turns (the MK is much easier to get out of a turn than my old SL board - the SL had very little setback and a full-width tail - the MK almost forces me to work on drawing the turns out sometimes - its impatient to move from edge to edge...), etc. I'm confident in all terrain that I encounter at my local hill, though I don't do any park, and I tend to preferentially avoid the rare big mogul field, if/when they develop I'm sure any of you far more skilled guys could give me tons of tips and advice, and even correct some bad habits (its been said I look a bit like I'm dancing, with my arms, for instance...) but as far as glaring problems that I'm able to identify on my own, I really can't name any. I'm just recognizing that I'm unlikely to reproduce my exact stance/angles/lift/cant/etc when I switch from the Burtons w/ Unicant to the F2s with wedges, so figure if there's a time to try some things out, now might be that time. (OTOH, if its all working and comfortable, and I'm satisfied with how it all rides - even if misguided in some ways - maybe I should just leave it all alone?) My sole problem on the MK at present is that the thing is so daggone fast, and so stable at speed - I need to rein that in better, as I'm still sitting out due to significant remaining effects of a concussion I got on the MK earlier in January. (The MK is so much more stable at speed than the old SL board, that I got into the habit of letting it a run bit too free, and paid the price at higher speed than I really needed to fall at. :-( @lonbordin - I don't watch TV, so no Faux News for me. :-) My only boots are UPZs, and TD3's scare me (big, bulky, tall, stiff and expensive) - I think my scrawny butt is served just fine by lower tech approaches like the old Burtons and the F2's. (In fact, I'm of half a mind not to go to the F2's - I just worry about relying on the Burtons much longer, as they're getting long in the tooth - they're on their 3rd board over the 20-some-odd years I've had them, and one day, they're going to break and I'm going to be up the creek. Same worries about the Bombers - I tend to lean toward moving to something that I can at least go online and buy parts for. As far as wide boards, life is too short to waste time waiting to get onto the next edge - skinny is where its at! :-)

Ok, so I'll bite. I'm setting up a relatively new board (I've thus far gotten 5 days on it this season), with new bindings (I swapped my old Burton Race Plates to the new board back in December, and have been riding with those, but have just purchased a pair of F2 Titanium Race bindings, and am going to put those on the board now). SO, this is a good time for me to give some thought/consideration to my binding setup, vs just duplicating what I've got presently (which was as close to a duplication as I could get to what I had with the same Raceplates on my old Board - a Donek 158 SL board - on my new board - a Donek MK.) I ride in size 26 UPZ RC10 boots. The MK has an 18cm waist, and is approx 18.4 cm wide at the disk center of the front binding, and approx 18.6cm wide at the disk center of the rear binding. My stance is narrow - right around 42cm. I ride with both boots leaned pretty far forward, and with a fair amount of heel lift and inward cant on the rear foot (with the old Burton Unicant, its hard to quantify the lift/cant angles, but from some measurements, and a little trig that I applied to them, I'd say its a safe bet that I'm at about 6deg of heel lift and 2 deg of inward cant.) Front bindings are dead flat on the board. Some further measurements and calculations seem to show my front stance angle is around 61-62 deg, and my rear is around 58-59 deg. I can't claim to currently adhere to any particular binding setup approach, other than I basically sight down vertically from over the top of the board, and have things aligned so that there is really no boot overhang at toe or heel on either boot. (I guess this is closest to the Fuego Box method, LoL. :o) Having come from a skiing background long ago (I've now been hardbooting way longer than I ever skied, however...), I was used to side pressure on the boot cuffs to carve, so I suspect I've always gravitated toward steeper angles than I actually needed, just due to the familiar feeling of pressuring the sides of the cuffs, and the fact that I much prefer to face the direction that the board is headed, vs some significant angle off of that. Now, the truth is, this all works for me - I'm comfortable on pretty much any on-trail terrain, I think I carve pretty well (I like the small, tight boards - evidence the old SL and the new MK, so I'm not attempting to drag body parts on the snow - I much prefer the faster-cadence, shorter-turn, less-relativistic-speed type of riding, on generally narrower trails. I don't feel a need to shake things up, but if there's a direction I should consider experimenting with a bit, I'd be interested in doing so, since I'm about to mess up my current setup to some degree, anyway. So, with this minimal amount of information, what would be the suggested approach to biasing my setup??

Nice work, erazz!!

Despite some of his past questionable decision-making and indiscretions, I've always believed that Phil is good at heart. https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/582448208/groundhog-day-behind-the-scenes-with-punxsutawney-phils-inner-circle

I was on a Donek Slalom board for 10+ years. I loved the board - it was everything I seek in a board - tight, super lively, needs to be stayed on top of and driven the whole time - the works. I was quite skeptical that Donek could build me something better than what I had, but it was getting old, tired, and floppy - definitely less lively than it used to be. I've been blown away by the difference in my new board (Donek MK). In many, many ways, its quite similar to my old SL board (same attributes listed above), but its better in several key ways, as well, which I attribute to the improvement in materials and general design experience that Sean has adopted over the past 10+ years. (Edge hold is like nothing I've ever experienced - all the way up to solid ice, this thing just rails!) Bottom line, I had an older board that I loved, and that I didn't fully believe could be improved on significantly, but the developments between when it was built and now, were quite significant, and made a big difference. I suspect you'll be quite pleasantly surprised and impressed if you move to a contemporary board!

I can't comment on Bruce, from Coiler, as I've not purchased anything from him, but having been through the 'which board should I get' exercise twice with Sean, from Donek (the first time 10 years ago, the second time, just this past year), I can attest that he will listen to what you have to say, and will make one or more highly astute recommendations based on your conversation(s) with him. He has been very patient, has answered my endless questions - both by phone and email - repeatedly - and has provided me with game-changing boards, on both occasions. (From what I've read, I'm sure that Coiler would be equally accommodating, but I can only speak to my experience with Donek.) I'd strongly recommend talking directly to one or both of these well-reputed board builders - That's likely where you're going to find your answer!

Yes, already, you can get custom 3D Printed insoles (and even entire shoes/sandals) from several on-line and/or physical-location companies, including Wiivv, Resa, Sols, Podfo, and I'm sure an ever-increasing number of others. I'd looked into trying to use one of these services for insoles for my UPZs, but just didn't yet have the confidence in buying w/o trying. (I went with generic Superfeet Carbon insoles, as I was able to try them out in-person at a store.) A completely custom-built shell would be pretty amazing! :-)

It can sound a bit overdramatic, but 3D Printing really is democratizing design and manufacturing - its a game changer in a number of ways. Too many 3D Printers at present are used just to turn out little figurines and trinkets, but they can produce genuinely useful creations, that can be customized to the user's specific needs, on-demand, and at low cost. Anyone with a little interest, time, effort and money (very functional printers can be had in the $200-$300 range - that's what I use) can become their own designer and manufacturer. Its all simple in concept, but I personally find it head-spinningly cool! :-)

Coming soon to a printer near you, I hope! I just want to beat on it a bit before I turn it loose on anyone else. (And I still need to find the right Open Source license and verbiage to try to keep from getting sued should someone's printed pieces end up breaking and causing any type of injury or such...)

There's a classified forum on here, where you can list that pointless softboot stuff... ;-) Congrats on getting hooked - for many folks, myself included, getting back on anything other than a carving board sort of brings up the realization that hardbooting is really where the heart and pure joy is at! :-)

Van test passed - 20 trips over the shims w/ the front wheel of the van - pausing while on top to let it bear the full weight, and aside from getting a little dirty from the tires (and that washed right off), no sign that it even happened.

Latest print (sadly, had a fleck of gunk on the print bed that I hadn't noticed, discolored the toe piece!). Anyway, all is fitting well. Going to run over them repeatedly w/ the van today, and see how they hold up. :-)

Based on rough measurements taken from the picture that @piusthedrcarve posted, here's the model with the parameters set for a size Medium binding. This is a rough approximation of the length, hole spacing (along the length of the shims) and end radius, as I took them from measurements on the picture, scaled off of the picture measurements for the Small/Large piece (whose actual dimensions I know), but its probably pretty close. Once I can get hold of the actual measurements, it should be all set. (There's a new parameter "bindingSize", that lets you set "SL" or "M" and will then use the appropriate dimensions.)

@Carvin' Marvin - sounds good on the measurements - no rush on my end. As regards the end radius - its all adjustable parameters, so once we know the end radius, its just the matter of changing a number, and it'll then print out with the new end radius - no fuss, no muss. :-)

@BlueB - I appreciate the tip - I didn't know that. (Unfortunately, they don't seem to be any more available than the F2's...) Looks like I'm gonna have to stick w/ my Raceplates for this season, and/or try out the F2 Titaniums.

Yeah, I'd have to rely on that little ridge/groove deal in the middle to act as a pivot point. If it were only compressing a tiny bit, this would prob be Ok, but as you note, that's then a lot of wear of metal bolts/t-nuts on plastic pieces that were never designed for that kind of movement. Really just kind of a mental flight of fancy (especially since CarveRS bindings can't seem to be found online anywhere).

So, woke up early this morning, and worked out the tweaks to the model to allow toe lift, and then felt foolish when I realized that, at least for the Small/Large setup that I have, there is no difference in producing heel or toe lift (ignoring cant) - you can just swap the taller/shorter piece from back to front, in order to produce toe lift vs heel lift. <:-) That having been said, if you have left cant in a heel-lifted configuration, and swap heel/toe shims, you now have right cant in your toe-lifted configuration. That's Ok, though, as the model lets you specify which cant direction you want, so you could just reverse the cant for toe lift. (And of course, you could always just print custom lift-only blocks, then use separate printed and/or factory cant-only shims on top of those...) I don't yet know if/how this might affect the size Medium setup - it sounds like maybe the heel and toe pieces are shaped differently on those? Are the heel and toe pieces for the Medium bindings interchangeable? (ie, any Medium block/shim will fit on both the toe or heel piece of the Medium binding? Or are the heel and toe pieces not interchangeable on Medium bindings?) If the Mediums just differ from the Small/Larges, in terms of overall length, and hole placement (also looks like the end radius is different - no problem), then that's easy - the model will already support all that. Lacking caliper measurements (maybe even in addition to caliper measurements), if someone can slap a size medium heel and toe shim, flat-side down, on a copier, and then attach an electronic copy of that here (as a PDF - most modern-day copiers should be able to scan to a PDF and email it to you), I should be able to get good enough measurements off of that paper copy. (Attached is an original Small/Large next to a paper copy of it, from a copier here at work.)

So, I can't say I'm 'in the market' for yet another set of bindings (I haven't even yet been able to try out the F2 Titaniums), but @Eric Brammer aka PSR's suggestion of considering something like Cateks prompted me to look around a bit, and it appears (probably I'm the only one this is any news to?) that Catek is either out of business, or out of production, or in some indeterminate state or such - their website eventually leads to an "Internal Server Error", when you try to access the online store, the forums, etc. So, Catek is not producing the OS2 at this point, I guess? I'd be hesitant to stake my binding future on something that isn't in production (ie, the Cateks; same thing about the TD/Sidewinders). If the F2 Titaniums end up being too stiff, would stepping down to the F2 CarveRS make sense? A large part of me says just to stick w/ the Burtons, esp if the Unicant isn't actually likely causing any problems (as suggested by @Beckmann AG). I just similarly worry a bit - if/when the day comes that something on them breaks or wears out or such, I'm then scrambling to find new parts on eBay, or to buy new bindings. I'd almost rather get it sorted out now, with a brand/model that I have reasonable expectations of being around for a while. On the F2 Titaniums, I'm kinda wondering what would be the effect of making up some of those shims a little bit thicker, and out of an elastomer material... Hmm... (Though I might as well just get the CarveRS model at that point, I suppose...) I really appreciate everyone's insight and advice!

Hi, Marvin - its kinda bizarre - from what I've seen online, there seems to be one shim size that fits both Small and Large F2 bindings, and then another size that fits size Medium bindings. (For instance, on the YYZCanuk web store, you specify that you want Small/Large, or Medium, when ordering: http://www.yyzcanuck.com/shop/parts/f2-canting-wedge-kit/) I have size Small F2 Titanium bindings, but they came with shims that are marked with an 'L', which I guess confirms this. Anyway, the parameters I'm using presently mimic the dimensions of the shims that came with my size Small bindings. My model is all parametric, so you can set numeric values for things like length and width (as well as the hole diameters/spacings, the radius of the curved ends, etc), in addition to the lift/cant angles and elevation boost, so it should work fine with a different sized shim plate, but I'd like to be sure there aren't any problems with a different set of dimensions. I'd be very curious to know what the size difference is between the S/L and the M sized cant plates - it really blows my mind that Small and Large are the same, but Medium is apparently different, LoL! :-) Do you have calipers, or some other means of making reasonably precise measurements (down to about 1/10 mm would be ideal). If so, I'd like to know: - the length measurement, ie, the distance along the length from the center/tip of the convex front, to the center/valley of the concave rear. (Mine measure 58mm). This would be the length of the ridge/groove section of the shim. - the width of the plate - just outside edge to outside edge - mine measure 50mm, and are a consistent width along the length of the shim - the distance from the front-most point of the front/convex edge, to a line drawn between the center points of the holes (ie, how far back from the very front point, the holes are - mine measure 35mm - the distance from the side edge to the center of the hole - mine measure 5mm - the diameter of the holes - mine measure about 6.6mm I'm going to assume that the ridge and groove are the same between the two sizes, as I can't imagine F2 has separate molds for the toe and heel blocks of the different size bindings. (But then, I'd have never imagine they'd have different molds for S/L and M... :-) If you can send me that info, I'd like to make sure that my model supports them - it should, but I'd feel better knowing for sure that it does. Do you ride with toe lift, or heel lift? (I need to adjust my model to support toe lift - I should be able to get to that this weekend, but presently, it only does heel lift.) Do you have access to a 3D printer? (ideally one that'll print ABS - I fear that PLA could be too brittle in the cold, and might crack)

Just an update - haven't had much time to work on this this week, but did print another toe piece tonight - finally got the ridge/groove fitting precisely in the groove/ridge on the binding and original lift/cant shims. Also now have the bottom hollowing out, on taller pieces. This is all parameterizable, but for the sample here, I set the wall widths to 5mm - that's the sides, the webs, the lugs around the bolt holes, and the thickness of the top plate (where the geometry is 5mm or greater - its obv thinner in the front part of the toe piece, in this particular configuration). Shown is a rendering of the model w/ 4 deg heel lift, 2 deg left cant and 0.5mm height boost (ie, both pieces raised 0.5mm), and a printed toe piece (white) next to an original toe piece (black). (The real deal will be printed at 100% infill, but for speed of prototyping, they're printing at 40% infill right now.) You can specify any desired combination of lift and/or cant and/or height boost. I need to do a little more tweaking of the model, to allow it to do toe lift. Talked to an attorney about possible risks of making this available on Thingiverse for anyone who wants to use it, and was told it should be low risk with some verbiage added, so should have this up on Thingiverse, after I've beaten on it for a little while on the slopes.

LoL - I'm on it! 3D Printed Cant-o-Matic - specify the boot sole length, the desired lift angle, cant angle and/or height boost (ie, toe and heel both raised the same amount vertically), and through the magic of parametric modeling, the 3D printer spits them out at will. Shown is a rendering of the model, and a printed toe piece (white - this one at 4 deg lift, 2 deg cant, 0.5mm boost) next to an original F2 cant shim (black). (Heel piece is printing as we speak.) They can be parameterized for a combination of lift and/or cant, and w/ or w/o height boost. I need to do a little more work on the model before they'll support toe lift, but that'll be an overall minor tweak. The latest tweak was getting the grooves and ridges to fit precisely, which they now do.

I think I got your gist, but that was a bit more stream-of-consciousness than my concussion-addled mind can parse right now. <:-) So, I'm on RC10 boots - snugged down, but not absurdly so - I feel like I've got good flex in the boots, themselves, but can also pressure the cuffs well. Are you thinking that I might ultimately find the F2 Titanium bindings (*not* Intec, BTW) too stiff? Truth is, I have no compelling reason to abandon the Raceplates, other than I've been wanting to move away from the Unicant that I have under the rear - it takes up a fair stretch of longitudinal real estate on the board, and at least on my old SL board, I've seen a few mid-carve pictures of me where I could see the bend in the board change abruptly at the rear binding - my suspicion being that the big'ole Unicant was adversely affecting the board's flex. I haven't seen any pics of me on the MK yet, but I'd expect it to be much the same in that regard. LoL, on the hard shell choice - I tried softboots once (granted, back in the late-80's/early-90's timeframe) - after 3 days of absolute brutalization (first time on a snowboard, bindings that were basically 2 straps across my feet, made of thorns, I think..., in something like a soft snow boot...), I swore I'd never ride a board again. Once finding hard boots, I never skied again. (Not entirely true, I did ski again for a few runs one day, and quickly concluded that even my race skis had nothing on a hardboot board... :-) SO, no complaints or recriminations on the hardboots - I'm a lifer now, and happy about it!! :-)

I saw a pair of Bombers on a board one time - didn't get to try to clip into them or such. They were an engineering marvel, but looked gawdawful heavy and bulky, and seemed way taller than what I was used to. Don't get me wrong, I believe it when everyone says they're the top of the line in bindings, they were just a radical departure from what I was used to - the very minimalistic Burton Raceplates, with my front plate sitting flat on the board, and the rear with some heel lift and cant, but still pretty close to the board. The F2's are a little taller than the Raceplates, but are definitely closer to what I'm used to, profile-wise, than I remember the Bombers being. Sounds like it might be a good middle-ground for me. (As a 135 pounder, I tend to put a bit less stress on things than all you 'real men', so if you say the F2s are plenty stiff, I'm guessing they'll be more than stiff enough for my scrawny self!. :-) I'm definitely curous to feel the difference between the Burtons and the F2s.