T-runner tapering

Home Forums IDNIYRA Technical Committee Discussion T-runner tapering

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
  • #454
    Richard Larsson

    We got a question from a member. I hope it is ok to post it here.


    Hi members of the TC.

    I am about to restore my set of T runners (new bodies) and I have been reading the rules and interpretations. I must say that I can’t find the answer to my problem.
    It says that the body is allowed to be tapered in front, we all do on inserts so that’s easy.

    But how about the top section of the T profile? (The horizontal part).
    I can’t find anything about it being ok to taper the same way as the body, but I also can’t find anything that says it isn’t allowed.
    It says that the steel must have correct thickness within 10mm in front, but that refers to the vertical part only. Or?

    I know that there are runners out there that have tapered steels. I just want to be sure that it is according to the rules before I put the grinder in them.

    Best regards and a happy new year to you all.
    / David Croner, S-1

    Paul Goodwin

    My opinion is it is Ok to taper the top of the T section within the allowed limits of the overall runner, in other words it can me tapered to match the wood body. Minimum thickness at the leading edge 1/4″ (E.2.i); minimum radius on the leading edge 1/16″ [1.6mm] (E.9) – this would apply to the top of the T since it is more than 3/4″ [19mm] (E.9) above the ice.

    Jeff Kent

    I agree With Pauls Comments

    Peter Hamrak

    I agree with Paul.
    Nothing prevents in the spetifications to shape the top of the T sections to runner body allowed measurements.
    Also I feel it was intended to otherwise it would leave a sharp edge on the side of the runner if it wasnt. That could couse severe injuries by accidents.
    On the other hand spetifications mentions the T section dimensions. The front of the runner if tapered, wont fit the allowed T section dimensions.
    So, in a way David is right.
    It seems a glitch again in the specs.

    Jeff Kent

    It appears that existing specification(s) is not 100% clear again. An interpretation will be required to make this crystal clear that the top flange shall be considered part of body restrictions. This should apply to angles as well


Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.