Toe/heel lift & cant

[McKarver]

   I use F2 Intec Titanium bindings. Can I change the cant and toe/heel lift, without using the stackable shims provided with the bindings? There's only fewi shims so it's not very versatile.    

    If my stance and binding  angles are good, how do I determine lift and cant?

[H2O]

I don't like F2 cant/lift shims.

I use bindings flat and under the rear binding I use the Burton/Ibex Unicant.  

[workshop7]

Setting up the proper cant/lift on your bindings takes trial and error.  It's a delicate mix of all the variables that go into your stance in an effort to put your body in an athletic and comfortable riding position.  Once you finally get it right, you'll have put your body in the right spot (tip to tail) over the board so that you are getting the most out of the relationship between you and that board.  As well, you are looking to eliminate any muscle and/or joint strain you may be experiencing while you ride.  Although it can take a while some people figure it out quickly.  You can get started by playing with your options and seeing how they feel on the carpet in front of the TV.  However, don't get too settled on anything specific before seeing how your indoor choices translate to riding the slopes.

Edited November 23, 2016 by workshop7

[Eric Brammer aka PSR]

I usually advise putting in some rear-foot heel lift. The reasoning is simple; your knees bend such that you'll end up behind the board, so a lift at the rear heel allows for recovery of your balance. Canting may or may not be needed, you'll notice this most with discomfort at the boot cuffs. If the boot cuff fights against how you naturally want to stand, then add canting (again, usually, at the rear binding, tilting inwards). F-2's blocks are effective, and very simple, and also easy to build upon. Got a friend with a 3-D printer? Just copy the shims as they are, and stack 'em to suit.

 

[Aracan]

Of course, a lot depends on your anatomy, your angles and boots as well. E.g. my angles are about 55/35 (Pureboarding surf stance) and UPZ boots have a rather high ramp angle already built in. So I use a toe lift (no canting) in front for more comfortable riding. In the rear I have inward canting, but no heel lift apart from that already provided by the boot.

[BlueB]

F2 / Snowpro shims are actually the best and safest way of lifting/canting. They reduce the number of moving parts and connections, notorious for other systems. It takes a bit more work to find that ideal setting, but once you did, i's pretty much set and forget... 

[philw]

What he said: rock solid, no faff. Dial them in and you're set for the next 30 years or so. Changing boots is the only time you need to muck with them.

To determine the settings... well... something like ...

1. I usually start flat
2. Set the sort of lean I expect from the boots, which may well be: front as upright as it'll go, rear as forward as it will go.
3. Ride it. If you can't get your front edge in, then either that boot isn't upright enough, or it's not fastened, or you need a little toe lift in it, so when you push, the edge gets it.
4. Ride it. If the rear doesn't feel comfortable as you push through the turn.... maybe you need a little heel left for it.
5. Rinse and repeat until done.

It's not one of those things which needs more precision than the standard shims. When I change boots I usually leave it alone until I'm used to the new boots, but I vaguely remember always riding flat until I got some boots which required the lifts. Note that you can't tell by looking at the boot as they put some sneaky slope inside the boot itself, so what you see is not what your foot feels.

 

[teach]

Some people are fairly adaptable and insensitive to binding lift/cant, others are not very adaptable and are very sensitive to lift/cant settings, beyond the resolution allowed by standard shims/wedges. If you're the second type, then messing with custom cut shims and screw lengths will take forever. Try Bomber or Catek bindings. Incidentally, the "moving part and connection" count is very low for these, and they're extremely solid. No worries there.

[Jack M]

On 11/10/2016 at 0:08 PM, BlueB said:

F2 / Snowpro shims are actually the best and safest way of lifting/canting. They reduce the number of moving parts and connections, notorious for other systems. It takes a bit more work to find that ideal setting, but once you did, i's pretty much set and forget... 

I don't see how this is any better or safer or less parts than the Bomber system.  Bomber is also set-and-forget once you get it dialed, and it's pretty easy to get it dialed, with clear markings on the bindings and no extra shims and screws to lose.

[Corey]

I started with Bomber TD1 bindings, then Catek WC, TD2, TD3, TD3 SW, and finally picked up a pair of F2s to use on a powder board.  

I was suprised at how complex it was to set up the F2s to my preference.  I still need to buy more shims to get the lift I want, and with that get longer screws and grind them to fit so they don't hit the board.  The new screws won't have the wave-form on the underside, but maybe that doesn't matter?  These are supposed to be simple?  I suppose if you want flat, 2-degrees cant (or whatever angle the shims are), or a 4-degree lift, then they're simple.  Any other combination requires new bolts.  

I ended up using Bomber TD3 Sidewinders on the powder board!  I didn't notice the 1.3-lb difference.  

[Neil Gendzwill]

The little cant shims on the F2 are OK, but if it's toe or heel lift you're after you either like their lift block or you don't.  Works for me so that's OK.

[SunSurfer]

Corey, get back into your workshop and build your own wedge/cants. Exterior plywood and epoxy/fibreglass or Dynel makes fine and durable heel and toe blocks for F2. My biggest gripe with F2 Intecs is the creep I get in the toe bail position over the course of a day or so's riding. 

[Corey]

Yeah, but these are supposed to be the 'easy' solution and I'm fabricating parts? 

TD3s for me, thanks.

[SunSurfer]

I must have heavy F2s. My metal base plate large F2 Intecs are essentially the same weight as my non-sidewinder TD3 Intecs. 

TD3S are able to produce nuanced lift and cant within the range of the 0, 3 & 6 degree base plates. Their toe and heel pieces stay firmly in place.

F2s can be canted and wedged outside that range if you're prepared to fabricate your own parts. 

Now, if I can just persuade Jim C to produce 4.5 and 9 degree bases for me to have a play with on my TD3S. ;-) 

I have a theory, linking anatomy & geometry, that predicts if your boot shells are canted so that your boot soles are flat on the floor (with feet same distance apart as if you were straight line gliding on skis), then for binding angles 60 deg +/- 5 most people will need no canting. At lower angles progressively more inward canting will be helpful. At higher angles progressively more outward canting will help comfort. Strangely enough with the Trench Digger bindings setting the 3 or 6 degree cant discs to 60 deg and just rotating the binding plate to the desired angle produces this result as a first approximation which can then be tweaked to the riders final preference. Playing with Scott Firestone's Trench Gear 3D app is the best way to appreciate the fine tuning that the Bomber bindings uniquely provide in today's market.

Edited November 15, 2016 by SunSurfer
Details

[H2O]

On ‎10‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 4:25 PM, Aracan said:

Of course, a lot depends on your anatomy, your angles and boots as well. E.g. my angles are about 55/35 (Pureboarding surf stance) and UPZ boots have a rather high ramp angle already built in. So I use a toe lift (no canting) in front for more comfortable riding. In the rear I have inward canting, but no heel lift apart from that already provided by the boot.

Which board do you ride with this setting?

What in your opinion are the advantages of Pureboarding setting? And your stance with this setting?

I also tried it but with less difference between front and rear angles.

Thanks

Edited November 15, 2016 by H2O

[BlueB]

On 14/11/2016 at 9:50 AM, Jack Michaud said:

I don't see how this is any better or safer or less parts than the Bomber system.  Bomber is also set-and-forget once you get it dialed, and it's pretty easy to get it dialed, with clear markings on the bindings and no extra shims and screws to lose.

Well, count the screws and you'll know... 

[BlueB]

On 14/11/2016 at 3:22 PM, corey_dyck said:

Yeah, but these are supposed to be the 'easy' solution and I'm fabricating parts? 

TD3s for me, thanks.

Actually, nothing really needs to be fabricated... Extra shims and longer screws can be bought from F2 and possibly from YYZ. However, you can do lots of options from what's already in the kit. The canting shims can be doubled in opposed direction to create a 3mm flat shim. 6mm is already supplied. Screws are long enough to accommodate flat mount up to big 6mm shim with cant. That means it can also take 6+3mm flat shims - that's a loooot of heel lift... 

[teach]

5 hours ago, BlueB said:

Well, count the screws and you'll know... 

Three for Bomber, four for Catek. No swapping out necessary.

 

4 hours ago, BlueB said:

Actually, nothing really needs to be fabricated... Extra shims and longer screws can be bought from F2 and possibly from YYZ. However, you can do lots of options from what's already in the kit. The canting shims can be doubled in opposed direction to create a 3mm flat shim. 6mm is already supplied. Screws are long enough to accommodate flat mount up to big 6mm shim with cant. That means it can also take 6+3mm flat shims - that's a loooot of heel lift... 

If you use the long screws with little lift, you're going to gouge your board. Also, 9 mm over 240 mm span gives a little over 2 degrees lift... this is why you see huge heel wedges (custom-cut) on many racers' setups.

[BlueB]

15 minutes ago, teach said:

Three for Bomber, four for Catek. No swapping out necessary.

 

If you use the long screws with little lift, you're going to gouge your board. Also, 9 mm over 240 mm span gives a little over 2 degrees lift... this is why you see huge heel wedges (custom-cut) on many racers' setups.

Stock screws can be used without shims and they don't touch the board. 

I do not think your math on thickbess/angle is right. I'm too busy now to draw it on CAD to check. 

[SunSurfer]

For F2s, the absolute height of the higher wedge, for any given degree of lift, varies with sole length.

In my experience, and I've tried it, angles of lift greater than 6 degrees start to run into issues related to the angle between the now sloping heel and toe units while the bolts attaching them to the metal base are still perpendicular to the base. That's in part why I, only slightly tongue in cheek, suggested Bomber might want to look at some more cant disc angles including a 9 degree for racers rear feet.

I source my extra length bolts etc. from a local stainless steel fastenings company. Almost everything I want is in 304 or 316 grade marine stainless. I then trim the bolts to suitable length so they don't gouge my boards using a hacksaw, then file, then thread die to finish, for the wedge/binding I'm using them in.

[Eric Brammer aka PSR]

With F-2's, the lack of precise lifts and wedge angles is EXACTLY why I note having the use of 'friend's' 3-D printer! with a that tooling machine,coupled with a scanner, it'd be pretty easy to make the shims you'd want to suit. Bolts are of no true concern, as belt/disc sanders are easy to find/use to get the length set to the mm. IF Bomber used plastics, btw, then shims there would be easy, again with 3-D printers. But, being mostly metal, it'd be better IF Jim would just makes 'slim-shims' that fit with existing binding arch/toe/heel blocks, as I suggested to Bomber ten+ yrs. ago (which resulted in Sidewinders btw, in another bar-side discussion, based on my knowledge of G+S plates). Maybe Fin was hoping I'd forget? I don't. It'd take me about a week or so to 'set up' the machining to make those shims, barring that they use HAAS controls (I'm used to FANUC CNC's), and that correct prints are on hand (otherwise, perhaps up to a month! Details!).

Bomber has the edge, though. They have the infastructure to Create Stuff, in House!  Using Metal! F-2 can't do that, but can make parts outa decent plastic quicker, cheaper, with more options to them. No RACE here, just different manufacturing approaches. As you all saw with CATEK, the better idealized design didn't Evolve with a fan-base, and was  (using Geoff Smith's 4-screw canting, not the Tri-Pod of screw sets I proposed in 1991) noted for it's 'slippage' when not secured in tension by the end-user. Sometimes, the best 'ideal' is just too much for the 'casual' rider to use in true comfort. My concern, really, isn't bindings, but rather Boots.  They NEED updating, and some consolidation, yet differential of features and fit, and mostly, in FLEX PARAMETERS! I propose that the few companies that want this sport to continue, choose to meet every other year, and talk over what's the 'common good', while leaving the 'initiative' of 'cool, new, stuff! kept close to-the-vest, yet compatible with the Base Products that Define this part of the Sport. Does the current doubt to metals in the right thickness leave any doubt as to the Sanity of this approach?  Oh, and to store supplies of that metal... Well, that, we'll talk about, if needed....

Wait for it... In two years, I will bring a spring-loaded cant/lift, that destroys bumps, onto the market. I just had to wait for 3-D printing to catch up to my 1989 thoughts!

 

Quote

 

 

[McKarver]

Just out of curiosity, what is the angle/degree of lift achieved using the biggest F2 shim? And if the large shim is used to create heel or toe lift, is it necessary to shim the opposite end of the binding, to compensate for the angle of the boot?

[SunSurfer]

To get the boot sole to sit flat on bail binding heel and toe units the answer is that a sloping shim is necessary at both ends. 

Intec heels are more forgiving because the heel rides on the Intec pins, not the boot heel sole.

[Eric Brammer aka PSR]

Per McKarver's post;  I think that F-2 had only expected to for the 'large lift' block to be a rear-footed Heel lift, with canting stacked upon it. There were thinner spacers, but they were Always several MM, [or more] short of being really [in-line]  usable with most boots.  But, then, in the late 80's, the BOOTS of choice were still. um, Variable. We'd simply take the thick lift and belt-sand them to fit what felt like it worked!. Canting got the same treatment, usually, too! Crazy Banana used the same toe/heel kit, but in two seperate units, mounted on a horse-shoe set of toe/heel plates that 'might' mount onto your pre-94 deck? Good luck!

((Part of why I developed mount thru-the-deck inserts as an Industry Add-on, well, and  the Titanal-ski-screw-mounted wrecks that many companies made! I figure the INDUSTRY owes ME a few MILLION PESOS in the fact that I stopped them from potential lawsuits!! LOL, I'll die POOR, but never as a Republican!))

Anyhow, the basic plan for bindings from Europe was already DONE by '92. So No NEW THOUGHT has been really attempted by them since! CATEK, and BOMBER ,Phiokka, Drake and [thru Burton], IBEX, showed up, but ONLY the AMERICANS of BOMBER and  CATEK  made an all-metal,BURLY RACE Binding.F-2, Ibex, Phiokka, and Bomber have survived but all are sitting on pretty old tech. Few have tried to 'modify' the fit (it's one heck of an indemnification issue! Lawyers Suck!), even though it's really easy, with these 'base' models. By far, Bomber,Catek, and F-2 have shown the best RACE results!  So, do we need a different binding? I don't think so! But, canting/lift, personalization, that's an 'open field' one that could be put use, but with limits.  And the Lawyers are chasing anyone whose so daring as to affect a change!!  Don't expect any great strides, at least until BOOTS catch up again (if they ever do!).

Although, I might surprise a few, with my very quaint idea of foot movement. We tried it in '89-90, and both units were destroyed at $1k/pop (in '90 dollars, so, OW!) after 5-6 runs. The Machine Tooling of the day simply cost too much, and, more importantly, I don't know exactly why/what/where the failure occurred. We broke the Protos, but in two different areas, same rider, no reasoning why. I'll see, though, what can be done with 3-D printing. No one else has even tried in a quarter century, so, I think I can make this one work.  

Edited November 16, 2016 by Eric Brammer aka PSR

[Aracan]

Quote

Which board do you ride with this setting?

My ride is a Pure Boarding Bastard 168. IIRC, it has a 24.5 cm waist, enough to accomodate low rear angles even for my MP 29.something foot. Actually, the width of the different PB boards is calculated to allow 30° in the rear with a given Deeluxe SB shell - the longer the board, the bigger the shell. Unfortunately, the calculation only goes up to MP 28.

The advantages of the large splay as advocated by Pure Boarding are a relaxed, stable stance (think fistfighter or surfer) and the ability to really drive your rear knee into the snow on toeside turns.

Oh, and my stance is pretty standard: I am slightly above 6' and ride a 20" stance. Most guys in the PB crowd ride not only with a lot of rear canting, but also significant heel lift. But I have found it does not really help me, maybe due to the heel lift already provide by UPZ, as mentioned.

Disclaimer: Please do not take this as universal wisdom. I have not tried everything. But I have found this works well for me.