Corey Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Has anyone experimented with removing the teeth from a TD3 cant disc? I'd love to be able to change my binding angles without completely disassembling* the binding. This will allow the base plate and cant disc to spin as a unit around the center disc, so I initially dismissed this idea. However, F2 bindings don't seem to have this problem and they don't have any teeth locking the base plate to the center disc. Plus, those E-rings tend to be bloody-well stuck to the topsheet on any bindings I've ever removed so I doubt it would be able to spin! * Back story: I use M27 UPZ boots, the front and rear sole blocks cover two of the three bolts holding the baseplate to the cant disc, so a simple angle change means removing every bolt except the bail lugs - if I want to keep the same cant and lift settings with the new angles. I run almost pure toe/heel lift, so rotating the baseplates alone would introduce cant that I don't want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.oldsnowboards.com Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 you first :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Gendzwill Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 F2 bindings, at least the ones I've got, have a rubber ring in there that provides a friction fit. If you can't pressure the ring, such as was the case with one board where my inserts were slightly pulled up, then the binding will spin under load. This is mildly disconcerting at speed.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big mario Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 If you think about how the binding plate moves up and down and all around as that elastomer compresses.....removing those teeth might not be a very good idea. If the elastomer is stuck to the top sheet as it always seems to be, you would still have to disassemble everything anyway. mario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corey Posted October 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 No worries about constant pressure, the TD3 has quite a bit of compression in the E-ring. Maybe it'll slowly walk around - I'm picturing rotating my knee in a big circle clockwise causing the entire binding to walk counter-clockwise under it. That's about the worst thing I can imagine as those teeth are WAY too small to supply any structural integrity. Diameter will be key, I must not increase the ID of the hole enough to allow slop between the cant ring and the center disc, or I'll increase the stress in both parts. I think I'll try it, though chucking a cant disc in a lathe may prove to be a pain. At worst I'll be out $58 for a couple of cant discs. At best I can stop having random people stopping to ask me why my bindings exploded on the table/bench/floor! you first :) Haha, that's kind of what I figured. But remember that guy who talked about cutting out the center of a TD2 baseplate to access the binding screws? Many thought that was daring (maybe stupid) too. Cue one of the improvements in the TD3. Heck, I even heard of some crazy guy that put step-in parts on top of a Sidewinder binding. Crazy! ;) Are you still riding those or was the height a deal-breaker? Hmm, I probably should have put this in the first post: Legal disclaimer: I'm sorry if this thread has caused, or will ever cause, any lawyers undue stress. I do all this at my own risk with no liability expressed or implied to Bomber, and I certainly don't recommend anyone else, living or dead, touch their bindings with anything other than loving caresses and/or the supplied 5mm Hex key. I don't believe in suing others for my mistakes and/or experiments, I've got my big boy pants on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corey Posted October 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 If the elastomer is stuck to the top sheet as it always seems to be, you would still have to disassemble everything anyway. True, but it's 4 screws per binding instead of 11. Just thought of two things: Maybe I'm the only one that also rotates cant discs when going from an 18 cm board to a 23 cm board. Or most people run the 'classic' TD style of cant layout where the discs are both at 0 degrees. This modification would be pointless for either of those parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) You can't do this. In order for the suspension action to work, the center disc only "traps" the cant disc, it does not apply enough downward force to prevent it from spinning, no matter how hard you screw it down. The thickness of the space under the lip of the center disc equals the thickness of the e-ring plus the thickness of the cant disc minus a very small preload. If you screw the center disc down harder, you will only be sucking the inserts into the core, you will not be compressing the e-ring or cant disc. Edited October 12, 2012 by Jack Michaud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.oldsnowboards.com Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 I think I'll try it, though chucking a cant disc in a lathe may prove to be a pain. At worst I'll be out $58 for a couple of cant discs. At best I can stop having random people stopping to ask me why my bindings exploded on the table/bench/floor! Please explain "At best" part? Haha, that's kind of what I figured. But remember that guy who talked about cutting out the center of a TD2 baseplate to access the binding screws? Many thought that was daring (maybe stupid) too. Cue one of the improvements in the TD3. Heck, I even heard of some crazy guy that put step-in parts on top of a Sidewinder binding. Crazy! Are you still riding those or was the height a deal-breaker? Yes, SVR is fricking brilliant. Although I don't look for added height. What I found is I don't care for the added flex as much as I want immediate transfer. Oh, and taking two perfectly good bindings and making ONE set of bindings was a worthwhile temporary experiment, but pretty expensive for sure. Corey, I think you are perhaps taking my comment in the wrong light. I think you are the perfect person to find out if this works. With a M29, I don't have a horse in the race. Go for it! I look forward to the feedback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corey Posted October 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Jack, on my TD3s there is likely 3mm of preload in the E-ring. It's really no different from the F2 bindings I have, other than the rubber also touches the center disc on the F2. The friction of the rubber on the topsheet (with a bit of preload) is all that holds the binding from rotating. Bryan, no worries! I expected that no one has done this but wanted to throw it out there just in case someone has tried and failed. Sorry if my tone was too sarcastic! I'll report back sometime in mid to late December once we have enough snow to actually ride on my boards instead of just thinking about riding. ;) I'll see if I can rig up some kind of torque wrench setup to see how much torque that friction could support - no promises but I'll try. I should likely do it wet to simulate a real-world binding change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Jack, on my TD3s there is likely 3mm of preload in the E-ring I would bet money it's a lot less than that. Too much preload would kill a lot of the suspension action. Fin would have to chime in on the TD3, but I do know from reviewing the cad drawings way back when, that the TD2 e-ring had 0.25mm of preload. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian M Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 I'm with Mario and Jack on this one. Seems to me that the preload will not be enough to prevent the binding from rotating once you remove the teeth. Jack is bang on that the disc maxes out on the board, and you cannot over-tighten the elastomer preload. But, maybe you're the type of person who just has to know what the result will be if you do it anyways... :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corey Posted October 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 You're right Jack; it's less than 1mm of preload on the E-ring on my TD3s. It's about 2mm of preload in the F2 bindings I have, but they have softer rubber and less of it. (Measurements estimated with a crappy tape measure) I'll modify one cant ring and do some tests. Anyone know what kind of torque a human leg can take before a knee gives out? I'm going to guess 20 lb-ft for an average snowboarder. If it slips at a higher value than that, I'm not very concerned. My gut feel is that it'll take much more torque to spin the binding than a leg can generate/take, but I have no idea how it may walk around with me gyrating around on top of it. I'm the kind of person who's just as eager to post a complete failure as a success. A negative result is still a result. This awesome animation shows what I fear may happen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_(mechanical) Please explain "At best" part? Missed this earlier. Any time I want to change from wide to narrow or back again, I end up taking my bindings apart on whatever flat surface is convenient. Inevitably I get some funny guy coming over and making comments about board exploding, my two powder skis not matching, etc. It is usually light-hearted and can be an interesting chat, but sometimes it's an annoying/needy person that I'm stuck with until I put the puzzle back together again. I'm hoping that this will kill that as all I'll have to do is remove the four center bolts, pulll the binding, rotate the whole binding around the center disc, and tighten the four bolts in the new board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.oldsnowboards.com Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) This awesome animation shows what I fear may happen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_(mechanical) Edited October 13, 2012 by www.oldsnowboards.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~tb Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 Don't do this. . . so . . . I think it will work just fine in your basement or your living room. When everything is clean and dry, then the elastomer will likely stick to the board like glue. As you suspect, you will not be able to spin it. however if you EVER do an on hill adjustment or move the bindings midday, you will like end up with a small amount of water, or even worse, ice crystals between the elastomer and the board, in this scenario, the binding will spin at a much lower torque. also, I don't think the elastomer was ever meant to be loaded in shear. it may work, but at the same point, I am sure that it would be designed differently to make sure it didn't fail at some of the corners. This second point is much less of a concern than the water/ice crystal concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeho730 Posted October 14, 2012 Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 I find that idea interesting. I too, suffer from the problem of toe/heel blocks covering baseplate bolts. And I also noted that it was rather pre-load that stopped cant disk from moving, not the teeth themselves. But I'm not brave enough to try the idea of removing the teeth of either centre disk of cant disk... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corey Posted October 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2012 Don't do this. . . I'm curious: Have you ever seen an F2 binding? All of your concerns apply directly to that binding design too, yet they work well. My tests will include water and snow crystals. Of course, it's good practice to at least give a hand-wipe of the area before mounting anything, so I will test with only a sprinkling of snow crystals. I won't leave a sheet of ice (common when bringing a -30 board into a lodge) either as I wouldn't mount bindings to a board before melting it off in at least that area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RideGuy Posted October 15, 2012 Report Share Posted October 15, 2012 I too feel your pain. With size 26 boots the bolts are buried under the toe blocks for me as well. Total PITA if your moving from one board width to another. I finally broken down and bought a pair of F2s which work really well on my wider all mountain. I'm curious to see if the bindings would stay set with the teeth removed. It would solve this issue for us small footed folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kieran Posted October 15, 2012 Report Share Posted October 15, 2012 i'm on the 'don't do that' side of the fence, unless you fancy machining the teeth from both sides of the interface, adding a conical bevel on the center disc, and that you use a rubber grommet between the two. the f2 interface is metal disc - rubber grommet - binding subplate. the center disc has a bevel on the underside that increases engagement against the rubber as the screws are clamped down, which increases circumferential friction against the binding subplate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeho730 Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 I too feel your pain. With size 26 boots the bolts are buried under the toe blocks for me as well. Total PITA if your moving from one board width to another. I finally broken down and bought a pair of F2s which work really well on my wider all mountain.I'm curious to see if the bindings would stay set with the teeth removed. It would solve this issue for us small footed folks. I, too, feel the same way. I want to remain loyal to Bomber but with size 24 boots it has been pain in the butt to 1) get the right centring 2) swap the binding from one board to the other. Unfortunately, without major design change of Bomber bindings, I won't see either of those issue being solved. F2 binding starts to look very attractive to me.... One does not need to remove teeth from both interface; removing teeth from only centre disk or cant disk will suffice to freely rotate the cant disk... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Tat Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 ...In order for the suspension action to work, the center disc only "traps" the cant disc, it does not apply enough downward force to prevent it from spinning, no matter how hard you screw it down. The thickness of the space under the lip of the center disc equals the thickness of the e-ring plus the thickness of the cant disc minus a very small preload.... ...My tests will include water and snow crystals. Of course, it's good practice to at least give a hand-wipe of the area before mounting anything, so I will test with only a sprinkling of snow crystals... ...unless you fancy machining the teeth from both sides of the interface, adding a conical bevel on the center disc, and that you use a rubber grommet between the two.... the center disc has a bevel on the underside that increases engagement against the rubber as the screws are clamped down, which increases circumferential friction against the binding subplate. There's nothing quite as exciting as watching three Mechanical Engineers flame each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bordy Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 There's nothing quite as exciting as watching three Mechanical Engineers flame each other. isn't TB on of the td2 designers?? I think you should just go for it, who gives a fuch about safety when you can adjust your stuff easier, that is way more important then broken legs n stuff... I have to change my angles fifteen to twenty time a day...... Heck f2 bindings don't need no stinking teeth why would any binding that doesn't use a compress able rubber ring between the top and bottom of the binding base to make the friction under screw pressure not work the same!! maybe we should remove part of the can't disk, you know like just a third or so that way we can just pop it out like a wedge move around the binding and hammer it back in place with a buddy's prosthetic leg that he has from when his binding spun after he took the teeth off..... I can keep a gun from firing with the safety off by not touching the trigger but just like the teeth on my center disk I would like the safety on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pokkis Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 F2's are no heaven either with small boots. For small boots one can not adjust boot in middle of board/binding (atleast not with Intec's) and there also screws are hidden under front and rear pieces. Specially that center setting is real PIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kieran Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 There's nothing quite as exciting as watching three Mechanical Engineers flame each other. i'm no mechanical engineer. i have had, however, a few moments where i've belatedly realised i could have improved a bit of kit in a less dangerous manner. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeho730 Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 F2's are no heaven either with small boots.For small boots one can not adjust boot in middle of board/binding (atleast not with Intec's) and there also screws are hidden under front and rear pieces. Specially that center setting is real PIA They've got new small size! :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pokkis Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) This year model for Intec also? BTW i drilled two additional holes to F2 base plate to make it adjustable also for small boot, so it is possible to have proper small size too, but still srews are PIA due you can not access them, but now i can adjust place of boot correctly Edited October 16, 2012 by pokkis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.