Whooaaaah, it should be the other way around. Warden toe piece front holes are way forward of sth2 front holes. They share the toe piece rear holes though.Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
Printable View
Whooaaaah, it should be the other way around. Warden toe piece front holes are way forward of sth2 front holes. They share the toe piece rear holes though.Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
Agreed. Take a look at Powderguides template. Front holes are from other bindings besides STH2. Focus on the back four holes. I think Thom has the right intentions but dropped out the middle set of holes on this template.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoooL
Attachment 267861
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
You're right, I originally showed the Warden 'coz I don't like to draw a binding I've never mounted (STH2s).
I re-drew, edited/updated the post above, showing the STH-2 (based on the Powderguide template), so there should be no ambiguity.
Sorry about that.
Yes, the front holes of the STH2 toes are 35mm closer to the tail than the Warden's front two holes (not closer to the tip as I previously wrote).
... Thom
Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk
After several years of using 24 hour marine epoxy I got tired of the hassle and went back to Titebond III. The result was rusty screws in only one year of skiing which never happened with epoxy. So I'm on to my next experimental sealing material which is easy to use, not quite like glue easy but way easier than epoxy. I will see how it goes when I have to remove screws.......
Attachment 267956
http://galibierdesign.com/images/other_forums/BillyGoat_Remount-03.jpg[/IMG]
Ready for snow:
https://tgr.scdn2.secure.raxcdn.com/...Remount-04.jpg
Looks good Thom. I've skied worse!
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Yeah, if I were man enough to huck 50' cliffs, I might have second thoughts, but that ain't happenin' in this lifetime ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by margotron
... Thom
Those turned out. You’ll love them.
What surprised me about these is that in a touring flex, they're like what I'd guess a Praxis 3 flex is like. I've only skied Praxis 4-flex so I'm extrapolating about 3. They're quite a bit softer than Steeples I demoed a few years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
For the tight tree application they'll spend much of their time in, I think this will be great. Praying for snow ;-)
... Thom
Second gen RES is pretty damned great.
That was a nice graphic on the 13/14 too. I went to the factory that year and saw the original art work, which was painted on a piece of wood, hence the grain.
I'm about to mount up some DPS Lotus 124 Tour1's with G3 Zed's for my GF, and I noticed DPS recommends a 4.1mm drillbit. I'm used to using that on skis with metal in them, and I can't imagine these ridiculously light things have any of that. Any ideas why?
Same reason as for metal, drilling into a non-compressible material (carbon in this case) so you want the hole to better match the screw diameter.
I'm curious about others' thoughts.
I always use a 3.6 along with a tap. I've never had trouble tapping into a titanal top layer.
I wonder if 3.6 + tapping would rip up a carbon fiber sheet? I doubt it, but wonder if anyone has insight.
... Thom
Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk
I do the same use a 3.6 and tap. Has worked with titanal and did not see volcanoes from it.
Have also done the same with DPS Pures a few times. Drill with 3.6, start tap then about 6 half turns, epoxy.
Measure the shank of a screw. It should be around 4.1mm. The ideal bit for carbon, metal/titanal is 4.1mm so the screw's shank slides through the top sheet without crushing the edges. The threads follow the tapping. If you don't, the end of the world will come crashing down upon you.....or not. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
That makes perfect sense, thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by teledad
So thinking of remounting a pair of Fatypus DSenders with the same bindings I took off to put on a pair of volkl 100Eight skis. The Volkls are now gone and so want to revive the DSenders to see if I still want to keep them as they're still in good shape. Is it advisable to use the same holes? Or do I need to re-drill? It's the same binding and the same BSL that I had before.
Ended up preddi gudd. Mounted on the line. Exactly 2000 grams with 115 mm brakes, which fit just about perfectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrgha
She was worried they'd be a tad long, but they only measure 176 cm.
Attachment 268284
Anybody have input on my re-use previous holes with same binding question?
Fine if the holes are in good shape. Just make sure to not screw up the threads when starting them in. Use some GFlex epoxy if you want to beef 'em up.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheK12
Thanks for the help!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by doebedoe
Bumping this to add to what Alpinord said. I'd use the 4.1Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
I don't have it handy, but there was a pullout-strength chart floating around here years ago, and from that perspective you could drill every ski with a 4.1 then run a tap, and it would be just as strong or stronger than a 3.5 or 3.6
The reason is that those smaller bits are just pilot holes (therefore undersized), and driving the binding screws in weakens the surrounding core due to expansion. That's actually why the rule of thumb is to space new holes 1 cm from other mounts, because the wood has been compromised. Since the bigger bit matches the screw diameter better the wood is disturbed less, and the same goes for metal and carbon.
I'm not sure I get these comments. Of course, you don't want to drill into Titanal/carbon fiber with a 3.6 and directly run a screw into it without a tap. Even with a 4.1 bit a tap is advised.Quote:
Originally Posted by pisteoff
BTW, the tap I'm referencing is a standard 12AB ski tap - used for all ski materials.
My question centered on whether running a tap into a carbon fiber topped ski drilled with a 3.6 will rip or shred the fiber in ways that drilling with a 4.1 won't. My only experience of using an "undersized" bit with tap is into metal and it's been fine.
... Thom
I just run a 4.1 / 3.6 step bit for everything any more. It doesn't hurt if there isn't a metal/carbon layer and you're good if there is.
^^^ I like that.
My point was that wood gives and carbon doesn't.
Obviously not a big deal either way, just that it would be a little cleaner using the bigger bit.