Various topics, technical questions, announcements, events, resorts, ...
Moderators: fivat, rilliet, Arnaud, nils
-
Hans
- Rank 5

- Posts: 933
- Joined: Wednesday 19 March 2003, 21:17
Post
by Hans » Thursday 22 September 2005, 18:56
Arnaud wrote:Looks nice, but the main problem of Raichle boots remains !
The upper part of the boot describe an arc (yellow arrow) while the screw remain straight ! This system will jam, like original RAB.
It could be acceptable with little forward flex angle on Suzuka / Indy boots, but not on 12x / 32x / Le Mans with small radius (86.5 mm on right).
For EC, we need high forward flex, more than a few degrees ...
IMOH, a good system for Raichle should have two axis in order that the screw remain parallel to upper part of the boot.
Don't think this system will jam. The problem with the original RAB are otherwise:
- the springs are too stiff
- the springs are too big (that's what causes the jam) or
the RAB itself is too small for the big springs.
Several riders for bomber have tested this new RAB and were satisfied.
I will put an topic with bomber.
Greets, Hans.
-
Dave
- Rank 5

- Posts: 140
- Joined: Tuesday 3 February 2004, 20:03
- Location: Zwevegem,(W-Vl)Belgium
-
Contact:
Post
by Dave » Thursday 22 September 2005, 19:04
Nice, verry nice
I concider buying 2 for my dads and mine:

Greetings,
Dave
Party hard, party wise
Swoard2005 168H 004, Northwave nexus grey
-
kelvin o
- Rank 4

- Posts: 77
- Joined: Friday 22 March 2002, 21:47
- Location: New York, NY
-
Contact:
Post
by kelvin o » Thursday 22 September 2005, 19:10
It seems to me they have addressed the jamming issue by moving the bottom rod connection to the boot further out from the boot (away from the heel). The Raichles naturally don't have a huge amount of travel anyway (if you consider the movement with everything tightened up and the liner inserted) so it seems the Bomber RAB would take advantage of what is available...
Anyway I think congratulations are in order to the EC community for making this an issue and presenting a bunch of arguements for the development of this item. I really didn't see as much discussion of it over on the Bomber site (but I DEFINITELY could be wrong

)
-
Arnaud
- Administrator

- Posts: 3290
- Joined: Friday 24 January 2003, 9:00
- Location: Paris - IdF 95
Post
by Arnaud » Thursday 22 September 2005, 19:32
Hans wrote:The problem with the original RAB are otherwise:
- the springs are too stiff
- the springs are too big (that's what causes the jam)
Sure that original springs are not suitable. No jam with these springs because there is no movement !

Before developping Head system, I used RAB on 124 boots, and spent some time to improve it ... The hole in aluminium bracket must be enlarged to avoid jam. Mounting the system upside down helps too.
kelvin o wrote:The Raichles naturally don't have a huge amount of travel anyway so it seems the Bomber RAB would take advantage of what is available.
Kelvin_o is right ! But for high flex angles, let's says over 10°, the screw jam. I suppose riders who test Bomber's kit are race riders used to stiff boots with low flex amplitude. In these conditions, RAB behaviour satisfy.
Jam occurs with higher flex angles. FYI, modified Head can flex about 20° without jam !
Swoard EC Pro2 168H - Swoard EC12 Boots - Gen5 168H - Stoke 162 M