Page 2 of 2

Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:01 pm
by twizzstyle
YvesSPDC wrote:also the rocker part, quite long, is not part of the run ...
Aha! That makes more sense now. Beautiful.

Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:33 pm
by skidesmond
I agree with the binding mount, looks like they are set way too far back. Worth a double check.

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:01 am
by YvesSPDC
skidesmond wrote:I agree with the binding mount, looks like they are set way too far back. Worth a double check.
I do trust solidworks and a cnc cut and drill. :D

Maybe you're not familiar with lens deformation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-angle_lens

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:26 am
by skidesmond
No, I'm familiar w/ lens deformation especially w/ wide angles lens and of course fish eye lens (barrel distortion). I've been an avid photographer for 30yrs, but whoop-dee-doo.

The pics that look like the binding mounts are in the proper place are the 7th and 8th pics. Probably because the binding mounts/holes are in the center of the pic, where as the pics w/ the bindings mounted tend to be toward the outer sides of the pic.

Let us know how they ski.

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:08 am
by MontuckyMadman
bbr