Interesting take on DIN

Thanks...for some other light-hearted, ski-related tomfoolery, see the following:


http://www.rmmskiracing.org/articles/RMalm-2006-03-Goals.pdf

 

http://www.rmmskiracing.org/articles/RMalm-2006-03-Hotbox.pdf

http://www.rmmskiracing.org/articles/RMalm-2001-10-DayJob.pdf

Because that would just be stupid. I want my skis to come off if I have a hard fall. Isn't that the point of a binding?



- Heel release
- If the ski didnt come off it would have been near perfect.
- idk, maybe
- Always.
- All screws flush on my skis. Always.

The funny thing about this thread is that instead of boasting about how high people set their DIN, people are boasting about their moderation. "Look at me, I am SO prudent, and those silly people who have high DIN bindings, how inferior they are, I am doing well to sneer at them."

I like higher DIN bindings because they generally are designed to withstand greater forces and hence utilize more durable materials (metal vs plastic). I've had plastic bindings break on me before, so I don't entirely trust them. Plastic becomes brittle as it ages, metal doesn't. I couldn't care less about saving weight, I like the feel of heavy bindings.

However, one of my many pairs of Chubbs came with a pair of Marker M41s with a top DIN of 9,  I had initially planned on replacing them, but I've never had any prerelease issues with them set at 8.5, in spite of putting them to the test time and again.

I'd think a binding might tear out of a ski before releasing if set at a DIN over 18.

Not if it's set in steel!

MojoMan,

You don't know.  A lot depends upon how strong your legs are, how bad of a jolt your bindings take, or whether you twist slowly.  Look at Bode Miller, who lost a ski in a race last year and the year before (He skied for awhile on one ski!).  Matthias Lanzinger lost his lower leg in a downhill because he was less concerned about injury than Bode.  You gotta do what's right for you.  I personally ski with a DIN setting less than recommended when spending the day with my wife and kids (more worried about slow twisting falls), and crank 'em down more than recommended when skiing with fast friends or by myself.

The shops, for liability purposes, have to be careful and go by the book.  You, however, own a screwdriver and can do what you want.
Edited by quant2325 - 11/5/09 at 3:36pm

I think I'm right about this. I don't believe that a Marker 3000 is an indemnified binding. Can't be installed by a shop, at all. They're only available via Marker race, and Marker will not sell the binding to anybody with a USSA number and a race form. They will check with coaches, etc. They are very concerned about the numbers of used ones out there, and the potential dangers of some macho thinking. They can't control it, but would like to, IMO. Nobody needs a 15-30 range DIN binding, other than those using it for it's intended purpose. The binding like most, works best in it's mid range 18-22, and that's a one trick pony. Have a fair amount of experience with this.

Anybody being macho about DIN settings is really asking for trouble.

MuleSki,

Re: The idea of skiing a binding in the middle of its range

So you are saying getting a more expensive version of the same binding (a "heavier" spring) is marketing hype if a skier is already in the "sweet spot" of the binding DIN range?  I don't have your expertise, and always assumed a heavier spring (and more expensive model of the same binding)  is a waste of money if you are already within the DIN range.

When Racing comes into the picture, we are talking about another beast altogether. I am really thinking from the perspective of recreational free skiers like myself. Racing has different goals and, in general, racers are willing to take higher risks in what they do. That's how I see it, at least. Like wider skis, I thnk higher DIN has become somewhat of a show of machismo or a label of 'talen't.'  Many skiers who flock to fatties, 180+ skis or hgh DIN don't really need it. It's really about perception, peer pressure, or a mental peprcpetion that size matters, even in situations where it really doesn't.

Everyone is certainly free to make their own equipment decisions. But this is not what the OP was originally about. Is DIN the new Macho Meter in skiing? I would say yes, along with super-fat and super-long skis. We all are influenced by the perception of our peers to some degree. Regarding this issue, however, I would ask if it is worth cranking the bindings higher than someone else just to portray an image of gnar? 

Volantaddict's admonition that those of us who stick to the charts are boasting of moderation is probably true. I admit it is for me. Then again, I would rather boast of common sense than stupidity. That's not me saying foks who jack the bindings are being stupid --I have no idea how they ski or what they experience to really need such a setting. I am just giving my opinion on the OP. I think, in general, there is a display of machismo(perhaps combined with paranoia) when it comes to free skiers cranking up the DIN settings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__Faa87IQhk

Thanks for your comments.  We have probably beat the subject to death but...the above YOUTUBE ski release is worth watching.

I wouldn't call that a pre-release. Looks like the binding did it's job. He jammed the inside edge on the snow -- it would probably pop off in that scenario regardless of how high the setting was.  Regardless, most skiers would eat snow right then and there and wouldn't recover anyways. I view this whole clip as a testament to his athelticism and talent, rather than a commentary on binding settings.

Again, when talking WC and Bode and Herman, we are talking apples and oranges when trying to make any worthwhile comparison to free skiers. There is no comparison to be made, really. It's a totally different universe.

I could not agree more.

Oh and you need to answer the questions 100% honestly. I have seen several kids in the park land with there skis almost sideways resulting in a release and them going down.They claim the landed almost perfect and curse at their bindings and then crank them up higher.

It was a head on landing, skis slightly on edge. Tails touched down slightly before the tips.

Hey,

I don't know what this says about DIN, but here's the story...

When I was younger, me and two other buddies all worked at the same ski shop.  We all happened to be about the same size and going by the charts we would have all been the same DIN.  At one point we were all even skiing on Salomon 957 equipe bindings on our daily driver skis (we got an awesome deal from the rep!).

For the most part, we were all about the same ability, and skied together a lot.  One of my buddies had to crank his bindings up two to three notches to stop getting the pre-releases.  Same terrain, same bindings (all torque tested roughly the same), but he would pop out all over the place if he didn't ski at a higher DIN.

So obviously, skiing style and smoothness definitely play a roll in what your DIN needs to be set at to get that balance between pre-release and needed release.  Having said that, I still ski with a fairly low DIN (7 on Salomon Z12Ti -- I'm 195# 6"0") and don't have any trouble with pre-release today...  I don't get to ski a lot with my buddy anymore, but last time I did, he was still skiing with a DIN of 10.


Z

Ideally you want your din to fall in the middle of the range on a binding. Steel springs are the most accurate and consistent in the middle range of there travel. When fully extended and compressed springs can be inconsistent. Also alot of the time when buying a more expensive binding the DIN range is not the only thing that changes. Look at the materials used.

I have never bought or made a binding decision based on the din range. I look at all of the other features the binding offers and use that to decide. I just purchased a pair of Marker Dukes. I currently have them set at a 7 which is what the DIN chart suggests. I could have saved some money and just bought the Barons if I used DIN range to determine my bindings. I got the Dukes because of other things like stronger materials and so forth.

How many people here actually do a torque test on their bindings to see if a 7 is releasing with the torque values a 7 should release at? I have tested lots of bindings that at just 1 year old they were off by as much as 1(6 was more like a 5) on the din scale on the binding.

High DIN settings have been a macho thing for as long as I can remember - it's nothing new.

Low DIN isn't going to guarantee you safety. There is s fine line between prereleasing and not releasing at all. Both situations can mess you up. It's a personal descision and usually based on trial and error, working your way up. I start out with 10.5 toe/11.5 heel, I usually end up higher by 1 - 2 by the end if the season. I know this is higher than what the chart recommends, but it'sworked for me so far. If you base your DIN settings on what people will think of you in the lift line or on a message board then you deserve messed-up knees.

I agree it would be just plain wrong to put a plastic binding on a steel topsheet, or anything else for that matter, but costs can be prohibitive.  If a ski comes with a plastic binding that isn't busted yet I will ski it.

Interesting.  The tolerances change a whole lot as the binding gets older or used more.  In your above example it is roughly a 16% change.  Maybe I should do a torque test on my older equipment and set them myself.  Thanks for the suggestion.

I remember my dad brought his skis in for me to tune them and I decided to test the bindings. His 4 year old bindings(Look) were toast. To get the right release torque I was setting them 3-4 off from what the DIN chart said. Even then each test would vary. In all the testing I have done on bindings Marker was the most inconsistent. A good shop will not set bindings without both boots. Skis are labeled left and right because the left ski was tested and set to release with the left boot.

Another problem is setting a binding in a warm shop to a warm boot. When a ski boot cools off the shell shrinks. They can shrink enough to actually change the forward pressure on a binding.

If this is true, then why do manufactuers list the high and low ranges as valid setitings on bindings? You would think the legal department would have an issue with this if it is common knowledge that there is inconsistency in the binding DIN pattern if the springs are near the high and low end. Nobody wants to get sued. This is one of the stories we often here about bindings, but other than conjecture, there is no emperical data to support this claim that bindings do not function correctly at their high and low ranges. Urban Legend of ski gear? By emperical data, I mean more than someone stating, "Some guy did a torgue test on a three-year-old binding and discovered that DIN 6 really torqued to a DIN 5." 
 
DIN 4-11 means DIN 4-11, not DIN 6-9. Engineers and attorneys are not stupid, so I tend to doubt the assertion that one should not use DIN settings at their high and low end. Money talks and product liability litigiation can be mighty expensive. Corporations tend to guard their wallets and the last thing they would do is put out a defective product that does not function as stated. The binding manufactuers have been building, researching, and producing bindings for quite a number of decades. I trust their experience, testing, and engineering over conjecture.
Edited by MojoMan - 11/5/09 at 5:17pm

They do function at those settings that is why the scale on a binding goes from 4-11 not 3-12. A spring can only be accurate for a certain range. This is the range a bindings DIN is rated for with a good margin of error. I don't know about you but I would prefer to be in the center of that range as much as possible. But what setting do you think will be the first to fail as things wear? In a perfect world everything would keep working exactly as is does the moment you pull it out of the box. This does not happen.

As for the protection binding companies have. Every binding is required to have a torque test to make sure that if a skier is a 6 on the chart the bindings is set so it releases at the torque specs for a 6 not 6 on the little window on the binding. The window on the binding is more of a guide that a majority of the time is pretty accurate.

Things break and wear down, that's why we have torque tests. IMO,however, the thought that the engineers never tested how the springs wear down at all settings is a little absurd. Even more absurd is the thought that they would have emperical data which suggests low and high DIN setitings will wear quickly and cause failure, yet they chose to put them out anyways. This would be addressed ASAP and they would no longer advertise a DIN 4-11 as a DIN 4-11.  Again, nobody wants to get sued and these manufactuers have been producing, developing, and testing bindings and components far before we were born. Neither the attorneys or engineers are as stupid as we are making them out to be. IMO, this is skiers urban legend.  

Also, you are making the assumption tha the bindings are completely coiled or extended at the high and low settings. This is not the case. If you ever get the chance to look at the springs and take a binding apart, there is play on both ends. The low setting does not completely uncoil the spring, and the high setting does not completely compact it. They put play in the springs--that's probably why bindings go out of calibration. Again, engineers are not that stupid. They know what they are doing. DIN 4-11 means exactly that.
Edited by MojoMan - 11/5/09 at 5:34pm

Of course they have tested the shit out of bindings. How do you think they come up with warranty time frames? Also why do you think there is a list of indemnified bindings that is updated every year. This list of bindings is released every year and it list the bindings certified shops are allowed to work on per each manufacture. If a binding is no longer on the list it can not be worked on by a shop that wishes to keep its certification. A shop can work on a non-indemnified binding but they will receive no support from the manufacture if a problem arises.

By buying a binding where you are at either extreme(more on the high side) on the DIN scale is not a good choice. If you replace bindings on a regular basis it is no big deal. If you are one of those people that keeps something until it tells you it is time to replace it then you want to be in the middle. The place a binding starts breaking down first are at the extremes. You can get more life out of a binding by choosing one where you are in the middle of the scale. Any binding will function at the levels in which they are rated for. I have personally worked on bindings that 1/2 rotation of the adjustment screw below the lowest number the spring had no tension at all. I would not want to ski on that setting knowing that if the screw some how moved my ski would have very little keeping it on. 

Also the amount of road blocks the attorneys have setup you would be very hard pressed to get a lawsuit against a manufacture for bad engineering. The lawyers are very smart and have made it very difficult to get to the manufactures themselves.

Remember these engineers you are talking about came up with the mechanical release toe for Marker that has given Marker the reputation for pre-releasing. They actually engineered a binding to pre-release  according to other manufactures ideas.

I start with a DIN that the calculator/table recommends then I step in and twist out each foot both ways, lean forward and pop my heels out.  Increase or decrease as needed based on what kind of skiing I plan to use the ski for, tighter in bumps and shorter skis, looser on longer skis cause that cranks more leverage on the leg.  Knock on wood, I've logged countless years/days/hours and haven't had a day ending knee, leg, or ankle injury..... YET?  Had plenty of yard sales that hurt a lot though...

Its been an ISO standard for a long, long time.

ITT: People who don't really know what they are talking about doing a lot of handwaving.

Care to actually add anything here, or just say people are wrong and leave?

starting at recommended din setting:  values plus or minus, factors on the plus din side: ski fast +1, ski varied snow and terrain +1, heavy snow +1, sending it +3 , and in the other direction adjusting minus:  smooth technique (-) 1, slower skiing (-)1, rehab or injury (-)1 I can't think of more of these .

adjust to suit conditions and skiing style. and, IMO, usually a release is due to flailing or forcing.

It seems an issue worthy of attention on TGR also..