Anyone modified their heel lift like this?

[CB Utah]

Just saw this while perusing EBay.  I like a lot of heel lift but I would think the bindings and hardware may not have been designed for such double stack goodness.  Thinking about leverage and other factors but I’m not an engineer.  
 

Full disclosure, using @philw’s clever idea, I modified my F2 titanium plates and the Burton hardware to mount to the Burton Channel system and happily rode that binding set-up so I guess I’m tossing a few stones around glass houses.   
 

Thoughts?

[SunSurfer]

Have tried 9 degrees rear heel lift on Bomber TD3 step ins, using a 6 degree disc and 3 degree wedging under the toe and heel pieces. The F2 setup pictured gives about 8 degrees lift. I used 306 stainless steel joint connector bolts with M6 threads as my fastenings. Was using it to try using a longer stance.

Have gone back to 6 degrees, in part because I found as I lengthened my stance there was a point beyond which it was harder to both rotate my trunk to face towards the nose of the board and harder to get my weight over the front foot when I wanted to.

Also found that if I tried to use that kind of lift on the front foot that my board would keep trying to slide away from me when I tried to step in. Wouldn't be an issue with a bail binding.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Is that some type of custom dampener underneath the binding?

Those are the stiffer Intec interface which would help a little, but I agree that this introduces a shit-ton of lateral flex into the binding. Some people like that and some people don’t….Jack’s brain would probably implode 

[TimW]

With Intec bindings that should not be too bad for the loading on the binding, the Intec heels just transfer the loads by tension through the bolts and compression in the blocks. With bail bindings I would not recommend it because the bails also pull the toe and heel blocks apart, so the higher sack increase the bending loads on the baseplate. But with Intec that is hardly the case (unless you put them overly tight, which is not needed on Intec).

But check your bolts and T-nuts regularly. More blocks = more flex* = more fatigue loading on the bolts = shorter lifespan. Bolted connections hate flex.

*I mean just the compression stiffness of the stack

Edited July 25, 2023 by TimW

[Jack M]

17 minutes ago, TimW said:

*I mean just the compression stiffness of the stack

There will be more torsional flex as well.  Probably too much.

16 hours ago, CB Utah said:

Thoughts?

If you feel you need more than one F2 wedge or more than 6 degrees of Bomber lift, I'd recommend trying a narrower stance first.  This looks pretty ridiculous for many reasons.

[snowburn]

9 hours ago, ShortcutToMoncton said:

Is that some type of custom dampener underneath the binding?

Those are the F2 TITAN FLEX bindings. Flexier than the TITANIUMS but stiffer than the F2 RS CARVE

[slapos]

maybe I know little about snowboarding and setups, but it kinda feels like this much heel lift would put your hips rotated towards heelside?

probably would feel like driving with a steerting wheel permanently in turned position?

 

[philw]

I'm thinking... that although I'm "extreme" in many things, and most people probably think I'm ridiculous... I'd maybe want to look for alternatives to that, which looks a little inelegant at least. But then I think much that passes as snowboarding "style" is inelegant, so "it's all good" as the Canadians would say.

But.. what problem are you trying to solve, precisely? I've not seen the film, but Barbie's foot angle is in the trailers and that's what came to mind here  The boot delta - the angle of the footbed to the horizontal - is a factor in any forward lean, as is forward lean on the boot itself.

I have a bog-standard 1 degree/ 3 degree F2 set up, no titanflex. If I rode stock Atomic Backlands with their forward lean minimum on front, max on back (the standard lever gives 2 settings), I did not have sufficient lean on my back foot. I could ride, but I found the back foot felt odd, I had to put extra effort into forcing the back of the board down, something like that. I could perhaps have "double stacked" to fix that (I thought about it), but instead I found the Phantom Levers, which have a much larger maximum forward lean... with those, the feeling went away.

Hence my question: what feeling is it that the double-stack is intended to fix, and are there possibly not other ways to fix it?
 

[SunSurfer]

7 hours ago, philw said:

Hence my question: what feeling is it that the double-stack is intended to fix, and are there possibly not other ways to fix it?
 

In my TD3 at 9 degrees experiments I was trying for 2 things.

A longer stance. Discovered that while that kind of angle made the longer stance possible, that the even longer stance beyond that comfortably achievable with 6 degrees wasn't functional in terms of managing weight distribution.

A toe and heel lifted and significantly outward canted skwal style stance with bindings at 80 degrees plus. That worked.

 

[st_lupo]

Maybe post a pic of you standing on the board with this setup?

At the very least I would be a bit nervous about the extra leverage shortening the life of your t-nuts (both in the bindings and in the board) as well as on the bolts that are fastening the heel receivers to the bindings.