ACSS - Advanced Carving Spring System for Deeluxe

[Abrax]

Pokkis,
Now I can see why You are ok with Your BTS -> it is not the original system!
The back lean is now possible, but You have very short back spring which IMHO is too short to effectively fight with moguls. Anyway, removing the lower nut would let it move even more. The question is if You really need it. Nice work!
Anyway the back lean in ACSS can be much bigger, restricted finally by the shells touching each other.
This kind of back lean is too big, and the edge does not grip well, so finally there is a nut to regulate the maximum back lean. This is why I propose the lower nut to be about 7 mm raised.
The front lean is restricted by the buckle touching the shell, but in some cases leaning this much would cause problems with ones achillee, so again it can be regulated by the upper nut. In the position mentioned above it should be safe, but please be sure to check it twice! In some fatal cases this should not lean foreward too much!

Hans,
The original BTS part is made with CNC tools so it is exactly the size it should be. So after it is mounted, it gently lays in the right place. With hand made pieces some minor mistakes happen and 0,5 mm in this case could cause the forces to move the lower part of the ACSS mounting away from the boot, what would finally cause some problems. To avoid this and to be sure that nothing like this will ever exist, the mounting screw and a special nut is needed.

[Abrax]

That mod does not allow any more back flex than there originally is.
Only by moving material of other places or simply moving/changing inner joint bult will allow that. Mine is setup as upwards as it is allowed without any plastic mode and it is pretty close what i would like it to be. I'm too lazy to move joint, perhaps again next summer, or not
I've never had any problems allwing boot bend forward, or to be exact after i got my BTS setup.

After having the shell measured and tested I'm sure that moving joints or any tuning which would raise the original lean is not needed. Hard testind and the 2 earlier prototyles clearly showed, that the original lean is at least enough, and needs to be even limited by the nuts...

[SITO]

Hi Pokkis!

But with this short back spring only two spirals, I think that you don't have more back flex you really have the boots at the position gave for you, you don't have any movement on your back side , the boot is practically blocked on the back lean movemen, you only have forward lean movement ,so in my understanding...

Is not better to have a spring on the back side (back lean ) which work and have the travel and stiffnes desire by the rider and with adjustment posibilities to get this back flex?

[pokkis]

On normal position my boot is so up as it can mechanically go
So even if i would remove that nut and spring situation would be same.
Nut is there just to make sure that bolt does not loosen up, and spring is more or less decoration
I prefer very high boot postion. This allows me to do back turn more easily and it is extreme comfort when going up on lift. Later one is very important due that is area where you spend most of the day on slope
Upper spring is double long as original BTS and soft, equal to Bomber soft color, and it allows nice and very long flex forward from very high up position.

I know that my boot setup philosophy is different but it woks for me very well and few others who have tried same thing. But it does not fit for all certainly.

[Arnaud]

The goal of shell mods is not always to increase forward flex but also to remove all frictions between plastics components in order that the flex forward becomes independant of plastic stiffness / friction or temperature. Accordingly the flex is controlled only by the springs system and is easy to adjust to rider's feeling.
Without the springs system it should be possible to move forward / backward with only 2 fingers .

[leeho730]

Hi Abrax,

Awesome! I've been modifying my BTS because I always felt that the system was somewhat limiting on the forward flex due to the fact that the shaft would bang against the upper case when the boots are fully flexed forward. Not only that, I also found that lower bracket was hindering forward as well as rearward flex. Finally, I found out that the short (heel side) spring was preventing full rearward flex because the spring would be fully compressed BEFORE the boots were fully extended.

I was also thinking about bending the shaft to allow the boot to flex more naturally. I'm glad someone is doing this, finally!

Your modificaiton of outer shell of the boots is also interesting, since I've been modifying 225 in similar fashion. I found out that the tongue above the heel was preventing the full rearward flex someehat so I've softened that. I've also reduced some areas on upper cuff and my 225 is fully flexing rearward as well. I also softened the tongue in the front but then 225 ended up being far too soft so I hardened the tongue again.

How do I order your system? I'm thinking of getting two sets. Do you ship to Australia?

[Abrax]

It seems that I have to make another movie... This time on backward flex

If the nuts are in upmost and lowest poossible positions, the springs do not get fully stressed and plastics are touching each other on the back move and a buckle is limiting the move in foreward flex. Anyway as I've written above, this kind of flex seems a bit too big. The board simply slides, not carves. So a bit of tuning is needed.

The MOD: I find it comfortable enough, but to completely get rid of friction, some more material should be wasted. I don't need to experiment on this, because the friction does not disturb that much. Actually it is minor after the mod. I have the feeling, that I could do something with the tongue, because it's stiffness is slightly blocking a backward move, but by now the higher buckles are just loosened 2 teeth and everything is nice.


leeho730 -> I'm very happy that You like the design:-) I can ship anywhere, but I need to check what is the cost of sending 2 sets to Australia. I have calculated the price for Europe shipping, so if the shipping price is bigger, I'll have to add the difference to the basic price. I'll check it tomorrow.

[Abrax]

So let's see the back move -> atachment,

You can see completely stressed spring, and a move which is limited by the nut. When the nut i all way down, the 2 shell plastics touch

[Transistor Rhythm]

I like the curved metal center rod. The one in my BTS is straight and always seems to bend a bit....

[sabestian]

I also softened the tongue in the front but then 225 ended up being far too soft so I hardened the tongue again.

Could you please share how you did that?

[leeho730]

I also softened the tongue in the front but then 225 ended up being far too soft so I hardened the tongue again.

Could you please share how you did that?

I used silicone putty (very hard consistency) on the tongue and glued it with silicone adhesive to make the tongue less bendable, increasing stiffness.

[Abrax]

My very first impression after mounting the ACSS, was that the boot is far too soft too. But after a while I decided to soften the springs even more. Finally I've realized, that the impression was based on my previous riding style.

I used to "fight with gravity" and while I've changed to EC, push-pull eliminated this and no more stiff boots were needed.

The springs should let You completely lean forward, just by trying to bend Your knees, putting on the board is not really needed to test if the springs have a right stiffness. Simply if You can do it, they are good. Too soft flex is where the board has a tendency to turn far too much and Your calf hurts after the ride.

In my opinion, hardening the tongue is not really what You should do. I'd rather change for stiffer springs. But the question is if it is too soft tongue or maybe Your riding technique is not as good as You would like it to be. I'm not saying that Your riding style is good or bad, but please consider this. I am still thinking of changing the flex of the INDY tongue, because it does slightly block the backward move... I'd be happy if the boot upper and lower part were completely independent, controlled just by the spring mechanism.

And finally talking after the EC founders ->

The boots must be reconsidered. There elasticity should not depend on the shell deformation, but on an independent adjustable mechanism. This would allow to improve the mobility of the rider, while increasing the pushing power. Furthermore, a shell that keeps its shape would protect the ankles. ( https://www.extremecarving.com/philo/manif.html )

And the other one:

Difficult to find really high-performance hardboots today. They are either too soft, either too hard, because the ankle joint is controlled by a totaly primitive system (usually free or blocked). The own material of the shell must bend itself (like with freestyle boots) and so, this doesn't allow a rigorous ankle rotation control. ( https://www.extremecarving.com/tech/mat.html )

At the time when they've written this article, there was no solid spring system for Deeluxe available on market, so this is why the other brand was proposed later in the text.

[SITO]

Ummmm...
Simply a question about the modification of the shell for you, technicians.

From the factory the lower part of the shell is tall and one time asembly with the upper part we have two layers of plastic around our ankles given support-protection and lateral stiffnes.

Well, when the lower shell is cutted we have only one layer of plastic around our ankles when asambled with the upper part of the shell.

Is for this motive that the boots are feeling less stiffer or lose its stiffnes?

Could you lose ankle protection and support and less power to drive turns?

[Abrax]

I don't feel safier because of this another layer of plastics... I doesn't matter that much for me... I'm wearing my helmet and the other protective gear, and I keep far from skiers going straight at high speed

You ask about the lateral stiffness - this does not really change at all.

OK, let's get to the point:
The factory shell feels like, the more You lean forward, the more difficult it is.

Our goal is to change it!

We want it to be: the more You lean the more the same it goes...

I mean that we are doing this to make the stiffness the same through all the move.

We do our best to be similar to this:
1. to lean forward 1cm, You add A strength
2. to lean forward 2cm, You add 2A strength,
3. to lean forward 3cm, You add +1A = 3A strength.
4. to lean forward 4cm, You add +1A = 4A strength.
5. and so on...

And we do all this serious modifications, because usually the original construction will rather act like this:
1. to lean forward 1cm, You add A strength
2. to lean forward 2cm, You add 4A strength (stiff spring) + some "A" strength because there is some friction between plastics and + some "5A" strength because some parts are starting to block the move... ,
3. to lean forward 3cm, You add 8A strength (Yes, too stiff spring) + 20A because of the friction (and another 5A if there is cold outside), +40A because it is seriously blocked now,
4. to lean forward 4cm... You can't really do this... You know it but You still try...

You know what I mean?

[Kallo]

Abrax, how do you think the system works without cutting the boot?
I have raichle 325 + BTS and would be intrested in trying this out, but do not want to cut the boots and stuff like that ...
my use is classical tecnique riding, not extreme carving