Update on 2006 warning !

[lowrider]

 I was wondering if there was any update on a posting warning not to use boots with removable toe and heels (not pads) with Bomber bindings ? I'm thinking that T nutting them was the solution but wanted clarification. It's been a few years now so maybe checking those fasteners might be a good idea.

[Corey]

The UPZ boots definitely fit differently in bindings than Deeluxe and Head boots. I think it's a fair disclaimer to absolve Bomber from responsibility for a boot they didn't design their binding around. If it were my company/livelihood/house on the line in the litigious USA environment, I'd do the same.

My UPZ RC-10 boots in Bomber TD3 step-in examples: The main Intec/Fintec pin sits a lot further back in the slot of the heel receiver with UPZ vs. Deeluxe, indicating the toe/heel blocks are at different angles or positions. I've also added a thin layer of Shoe Goo under the toe block to move the boot up and prevent it from touching the sides of the toe bail near the shoulder bolts.

I also wonder if the early UPZ/UPS boots didn't have the same internal lips to hold the toe-piece on. My UPZs have an aggressive lip molded in that holds the toe block on. The screws now just hold the toe block against the boot. I'd look very carefully at ski boots with bolt on toes or heels. A separated boot is quite inconvenient on a ski, of the same level as a ski releasing early. It can be a horrific failure on a snowboard!

[queequeg]

AFAIC - the only (real) issue using UPZ on bombers is that you can encounter fitment issues under MP 27 (for stepins anyway I think you can go lower with standards). Mine are t-nutted, for peace of mind. If I were not on step-ins I would be a lot more concerned about this.