Modifying Fritschi Titanals for smaller boots...

[gloryandconsequence]

Hello, I'm wondering if you can chop the bar on fritschi titanals to make them fit smaller boots. It looks to me like there is just and "end cap" on the end of the bar and maybe you could just re-attach it after hacksawing the bar shorter. Anyone have any exerience with that? I know the silvrettas are completly different, but I've heard you can cut some additional grooves in them and they will work with smaller boots as well so i thought I would ask.

Thank you.

[powderface]

mmmmm, I wonder if this would void warranty? ahahaha

[kidwoo]

There's a lot more going on in that bar than just space.


I wouldn't do it..........but if I were to do it..............I'd completely disassemble the bar, remove the heelpiece and see if there's even enough thread space on the internal screw to move the heel foreward. There actually might be.......once you go longer with that groove you're talking about.

But just chopping off the end won't do squat.


UAN will be along shortly.

[upallnight]

first off: why do you want to do this? do you have the wrong size fritschis?

do what kidwoo said and disassemble before cutting. i think what you find will scare you.

all the folks that think insta-tele is their biggest problem would be shocked to see how the whole schmageggy is held together with one small torx screw. (i still happily ski on mine, but this deal is scary.)

personally, i think you're going to open a bigger can of worms and have more problems than it's worth -- although your best bet would be, probably, to ditch the long screw that allows the binding to adjust and just attempt to affix the heel in the precise position required for your new boot.

is money that tight that you can't sell these and then get a pair (even used) in the proper length? what sole length do you need to make 'em fit? what size titanal IIs do you have?

[gloryandconsequence]

they are actually brand new Titanal IIIs but they are long and I need a medium. I didn't figure I'd be able to sell these old guys for enough dough to buy what I needed so I thought I had better make these work.

[upallnight]

well, you're kind of taking a big risk there.

titanal 3s (not sure why they switched from the roman numerals on the 3rd version) are still under warranty for next year, but that's the end. since they're new, you might get a decent price for them.

also, you might be able to pick up a set of used medium FRs or Titanals for about the same price...and i'd probably trust a used pair more than I would a new-but-hacked pair.

but that's just me.

[Jonathan S.]

A friend of mine bought a pair of long Diamirs for only ~$90 and then a professional machinist buddy of his modified them (for free) to fit (barely) a 310mm shell.
They seem to work just fine, but he's hardly ever used them.
Conclusion: yes, it is *possible* but given the necessary time, skill, and specialized tools involved, and the long-term durability uncertainty...

[powderface]

I would'nt do it. The min boot sole on the long is around 330mm. Have your boot set to 330mm or less increase the risk of the binding flipping into AT mode due to all the leverage.

[upallnight]

I would'nt do it. The min boot sole on the long is around 330mm. Have your boot set to 330mm or less increase the risk of the binding flipping into AT mode due to all the leverage.

these are separate issues.

the mnimum length is a function of the rail length and the fact that there's a hard stop @ 330mm. he wants to chop the bar and reposition the heel so the rail is not as long (=no extra leverage).

also, leverage is not the reason for "insta-tele" -- it's either improper mounting of the heel piece or deep flex of a soft ski (in which the bar actually moves back past the piece of plastic that holds the bar down so it is no longer effective; this is also a function of poor mounting in most cases).

for extra leverage to cause a problem you'd essentially be saying that insta-tele mode would actually rip out the heel piece from the ski.

just want to clear that up.

[kidwoo]

I would'nt do it. The min boot sole on the long is around 330mm. Have your boot set to 330mm or less increase the risk of the binding flipping into AT mode due to all the leverage.

Huh?

The pressure on the end points is still the same regardless of where your boot sits on the bar.

The back of the bar and the toe pivot don't change.

[upallnight]

Huh?

The pressure on the end points is still the same regardless of where your boot sits on the bar.

The back of the bar and the toe pivot don't change.

i think what this guy was saying that if you:
(a) keep the rail length constant; (this, of course, is contrary to what the original poster wants to do)
(b) keep the skier's weight constant;
(c) find some way to move the heel piece closer to the toe without cutting the rail (i.e., just break that hard stop @ 330)
(d) are talking about someone switching from, say a 340mm sole to a 320mm sole.

... then the same weight is distributed across a shorter distance (and closer to the toe), therefore there will be marginally greater force acting on heel due to the leverage.

of course, it's all invalid because the rail length changes in the original poster's question, and the above answer is predicated on someone actually switching boots.

just a guess as to what he was thinking when he replied.

[pechelman]

all the folks that think insta-tele is their biggest problem would be shocked to see how the whole schmageggy is held together with one small torx screw. (i still happily ski on mine, but this deal is scary.)

hmm, methinks I will do some investigating tonight.
Dont know if ive ever really sat down and saw how everything went together.

You have a pic of one thats been disassembled so I can eyeball it without tearing down one of mine?

Without even seeing it this reminds me of how the rear axles on my mustang are held on. At the VERY end of the axel, where the splines insert into the rear differential, there is ONE snap ring\c-clip (whatever you want to call it) that keeps the axle from sliding outward. The inward stop I beleive is on a machined shoulder near the wheel (probably wrong, its been a while). Actually, yea, if anyone does know for sure what constrains it inward, Id like to know. I think its been "loose" for a few years. maybe just pm me that.

It took me a good 10 minutes of discussing it with a friend of mine to convince myself the outward axial loads that the axel saw some 4 feet away from the wheel were indeed low enough that ONE DINKY snapring could hold it together. The key here being 4 feet away and axial. Most of the loads are torques that are resolved at the wheel bearing.

[kidwoo]

Most of the loads are torques that are resolved at the wheel bearing.

What?

You don't screech that bitch sideways into parallel parking spots with your mullet flapping, budweiser in hand hootin a rebel yell?

Nothing worse than wasted potential.

[pechelman]

The reason why I know about the internals are because I did screech directly parallel into a curb, bent an AXLE, swingarm, wheel, and destroyed a wheel bearing.

Some things just arent meant for mustangs.

dammit, i forgot the rebel yell, thats why it went wrong.

[Kya]

Interesting thread. I have been thinking of doing this to be able to fit a kids ski boot. Its the best thing I can come up with to get my daughter out touring with me. I will investigate this further over time.

Other then the issue of the binding falling a part, what concerns could there be trying to fit a kids boot in this scenario?