ACSS - Advanced Carving Spring System for Deeluxe

Post by **Hans** » Friday 25 February 2011, 20:06

And I find the aluminium used in the ACSS very soft. When you don't get the screws right, the aluminium is to soft to correct the screw in the right position: problem: the screwhole will be ruined.

Post by **Abrax** » Friday 25 February 2011, 20:59

Hans: Seems like an area to improve? Which hole exactly are You talking about?

My intention during the design process was to use generally available materials which are easy to lathe and strong enough to keep the difficulties of extremecarvers... This was due to strong need of keeping things cheap enough to be affordable by most users.

After using the system for a while, testing the 4 prototypes before the final ACSS was shown in this post and having some testers who were trying their best with it, I'm pretty sure that all the parts of the system are strong enough.

It may look like it was too weak but another part of my job was the weight...

And long time ago I had a Burton MegaFlex hardboots and there the lowest bolt was 3cm wide and 1,2mm in diameter!!! Anyway it was strong enough to keep my weight (90kg) through all these years before I've tried Deeluxes. Finally there is not that much strength used to cause the necessity of bulletproof parts...

Post by **Hans** » Friday 25 February 2011, 21:02

The two bolts that goes in horizontally between the two springs.

Post by **Abrax** » Friday 25 February 2011, 21:18

Yes and what is the point?

Generally there is M6 screw and 6mm hole. the inside barrel (the one which slides on the main rod) moves about 5 degr not more. You think that it may press inside the 3mm U-profile wall causing the hole to ovalize a bit?

Nothing like this is spotted till now... There are 2 walls with 3mm each. Too much material to press...

Anyway in the far beginning I was thinking about a M5 screw and some kind of steel ring on it... Finally I decided to keep things simple, because the aluminum U-shape was untouched after I've dismounted the parts with my second prototype.

If there will be a need, sure I'll do it. By now, after 3 months of many people using it, any stronger design seems obsolete.

Post by **Abrax** » Friday 25 February 2011, 21:23

Hans wrote:When you don't get the screws right, the aluminium is to soft to correct the screw in the right position.

How can it be possible? I ship already mounted and checked parts... There is no need to dismount them. And the screws are glued with anaerobic glue so even more, they should not be unscrewed...

Post by **Hans** » Friday 25 February 2011, 21:25

May be it was caused due to the springs were too much bend and so the system was under strong pressure when I had to attach all of the screws to the system. I could't get the screws 100% in the screwholes and almost destroyed one of those screwwinds.

I had to dismount the system to screw the aluminium housing to the boot with the small screw you have delivered with it.

Post by **Abrax** » Friday 25 February 2011, 21:52

Hans, please send me a picture. If anything is broken, I'll replace it... Anyway, I didn't spot this kind of problem before.

Post by **Hans** » Friday 25 February 2011, 21:54

I have fixed it myself with a winder, so made new screwwinds into the system.

Post by **Abrax** » Friday 25 February 2011, 21:56

Nice

As said before, there is lifetime guaranty.

Post by **luomu** » Thursday 3 March 2011, 15:37

Hi!
Just got another set of the ACSS to put on other boots and it seems the design has been changed - to a bad direction;

check these two pictures:

Version 1. the version that really works:

- the bolt has around 3cm of screw in the lower part of the system, starting from the lower block.
- With my setup, there's around 2 cm of free suspension before the middle system comes to touch with the screw. This is more than enough to straighten the boot as much as the shell allows.

In the new version, the screw starts from 5mm higher (as the bottom block is higher) and seems to be around 5cm long.
Now with the same setup as with system 1 this only allows 5mm flex backward before the middle system reaches the screw. And when this happens, it doesn't move smooth over the screw.

Version 2:

I have installed the system to older raichle's and it seems the suspension backwards might be _just about_ enough not to cause bigger issues, but I would recommend returning to the design in picture 1.

Post by **Abrax** » Thursday 3 March 2011, 16:42

Luomu, please raise the lower nut upwards. Use 10mm key to regulate it

There were several problems with the angulation and the later system is the final product.

The lowest mounting part is about 1cm higher, and the hex screws were moved up about 2,5cm which causes a 1cm-1,5cm "hole", but keeps You sure, that the maximum back flex can be possible when needed.

Anyway, moving the nut upwards can tune it nicely.

Post by **Abrax** » Thursday 3 March 2011, 16:55

luomu wrote:With my setup, there's around 2 cm of free suspension before the middle system comes to touch with the screw. This is more than enough to straighten the boot as much as the shell allows.

Yes, that's right, but the system is not yet tuned up !

luomu wrote: In the new version, the screw starts from 5mm higher (as the bottom block is higher) and seems to be around 5cm long.
Now with the same setup as with system 1 this only allows 5mm flex backward before the middle system reaches the screw. And when this happens, it doesn't move smooth over the screw.

Again, right!
But when You move the lower nut upwards (it should be moved up, to be about 1,5cm from the mounting point), everything should work as it should be.

In the new design, we have 1cm more screw on the main rod and 1cm longer lowest part (the one which is different).

I agree that if the U-shaped profile had the holes in the same places as before, there would be a problem...

But the hex-screw holes were moved up, to compensate the longer screw and the longer mounting part. It should be working nice as it works here!

Please check it up...

Anyway I could have missed something, but I'm pretty sure that when tuned well and on the snow it will finally work as it should.

Post by **luomu** » Thursday 3 March 2011, 17:06

The PROBLEM is that if you move the lower screw up, you will end up limiting the movement even more. The goal is, as I see it, to have a system that allows you to straighten your legs ( straighten the boot) as straight as the boot structure allows (which is not totally straight, which in turn is OK since we don't need to get standing all that straight, especially when you are actually standing forward, not straight up). Now, with your modification to the design, the suspension backward/forward is the same as before, BUT 1cm higher on the bolt == 1cm more forward lean to begin with. Meaning, it may become a limiting factor in the setup. But as said, it seems it is at least very close to the actual position allowed by the boot structure. With the earlier setup, you could adjust the backward lean to meet the flex allowed by the boot structure.

Edit: It seems very likely that the system allows you to get this boot just as high (backward) as the shell does.

In which case there is no problem.

Post by **Abrax** » Thursday 3 March 2011, 17:30

luomu wrote:The PROBLEM is that if you move the lower screw up, you will end up limiting the movement even more.

No, because when the hex-screws were moved up, the "center of the move" moves up also...

luomu wrote:The goal is, as I see it, to have a system that allows you to straighten your legs ( straighten the boot) as straight as the boot structure allows (which is not totally straight, which in turn is OK since we don't need to get standing all that straight, especially when you are actually standing forward, not straight up). Now, with your modification to the design, the suspension backward/forward is the same as before, BUT 1cm higher on the bolt == 1cm more forward lean to begin with.

The goal is clear -> exactly.
But the movement can be regulated to begin exactly in the same point with the 2 systems the same... The whole main section is longer in the latter system and the hex-screws are moved up to compensate this. This means that You have the same amount of forward flex possible and +1cm extra of backward flex just in case.

The whole change is present because I have received some info from the guys that the backward flex could be bigger.
I've also found that the lowest part made in the firs way was not really repeating it's measures and was terribly long to produce.
This caused me to consider the price change or the part change and finally pushed me to a lathed part, which is stable and the same all the time.

luomu wrote:With the earlier setup, you could adjust the backward lean to meet the flex allowed by the boot structure.

Not really, there were cases where it could be done and the others which needed 7mm more place on the screw to be possible, so the change was crucial.

luomu wrote:Edit: It seems very likely that the system allows you to get this boot just as high (backward) as the shell does. In which case there is no problem.

Yes, but I'm starting to worry that I've finally switched wrong drawings...
There was one report as Yours that something is wrong, but after a tuning, everything was right... So -> use the 10mm key

Post by **luomu** » Thursday 3 March 2011, 18:02

Great customer care Abrax for calling about my worries. Thanks!

With Raicle 324, when you test the flex backwards, it seems there could be around 1-2mm less of the screw o the rod for _maximum_ movement allowed by the shell. In practice I am sure this will not pose any problem (most likely it would be too much) and as said, screwing the lower nut higher will adjust the flex so that this will not pose a problem.

And indeed I didn't at first take into account that the design of the U-piece had also changed.