EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Bindings Question - DIN
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bindings Question - DIN

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 

So I'm looking at buying new bindings for the first time ever (I'm 33 and I've been skiing on the same ones since I was eleven!  My mom bought them to last.) and am working out my DIN setting.  I'm 6'4" and around 205 lbs.  In terms of ability, I've been skiing since I was 5 and am quite comfortable on black diamonds and will ride an occasional double black.  I ski pretty aggressively and am curious about whether a binding with a DIN setting that maxes out at 11 would be sufficient.  I've seen 12's for sale but at the same time there are more 11's available it seems.  Any help would be appreciated.

post #2 of 20

So as far as working out your din, the length of your boot plays an important part in determining your din setting. Judging by your stats you are going to have a relatively high setting (7-9 i would guess). I have been told that you should buy a binding in which you sit close to the center of the din range. So if you were a 9 setting, an 11 max binding may not be the best choice. Bindings are available in several ranges of dins (3-11, 4-12, 6-14, 8-18 as an example, actual ratings will vary by manufacture) The best way to find you din is to go to a shop and ask, although I'm sure you could find a din chart online. I would suggest you consider a binding in the 6-14 range because of you size. They will be more expensive but they are generally better built and more durable. My experience with low din bindings(11 max) is that they are made of cheap plastic, and won't hold up in the long run.  I would not recommend instaling or setting up bindings yourself, find a good shop and pay what they ask. This will be much cheaper than hospital bills.

post #3 of 20
post #4 of 20

Thanks for the link to the DIN setting site.  I was amused that I have given all of my correct information to the techs when I've had my last three pair of bindings mounted (at two different shops) and in each case they set my bindings for a type 2 skier instead of the 3, and then 3+ that I indicated on the slip I filled out.  I finally checked the last pair before I skied them for the first time and cranked them to where I thought they should be.  It turns out that I was setting them to the correct DIN for my skiing, according to the chart, and not over-cranking them.  With the first two pair I just took them out and skied them without looking, crashing big time on both when the bindings pre-released under normal stress.

post #5 of 20

I prefer the chart over the app.

http://www.dinsetting.com/dinchart.htm

at 205 lbs and and aggressive skier - likely a boot sole in the 311 to 330 range

chart says 6

+1 for aggressive Type 3 skier

becomes 7

and not unreasonable to find yourself closer to 8

 

a binding with topend of DIN 11 is more than enough for the vast majority of skiers out there.

that, of course, is not a certification of the binding's sturdiness or reliability...

 

... wait, itz gonna come...

post #6 of 20

^^^ What they said.

 

You can measure your BSL yourself (in mm... some boots have it printed on the bottom) and look up recommended DIN settings online. There'll be a range of recommended settings, depending on whether you catagorize yourself as a Type I, II or III (or III+) skier.

 

Whichever number you settle on, it's correct that bindings tend to perform closest to nominal when set near the middle of their range. This is the nature of spring-loaded systems. A binding set near its minimum OR maximum value will perform less reliably and predictably than one set near the middle. Think of a heavily-sprung truck that's lightly loaded: it sits on top of its springs and the ride is very bouncy. Or think of a lightly-sprung car that's overloaded: it bottoms out on its springs and the ride is very harsh. All spring-loaded systems perform best when loaded near the middle of their range of compression.

 

One more factor... if you're likely to continue advancing onto more double blacks at really serious mountains (like Squaw, to pick an example near you) you may someday want to crank the DIN settings up a little. On terrain that can seriously hurt, the risk of injury from a ski coming off may be greater than the risk of injury from a ski staying on. I just learned this the hard way, see Post #145 on this thread:  http://www.epicski.com/t/2113/atomic-bindings/120  Another reason to leave yourself some headroom on the DIN scale.

 

 

post #7 of 20

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Posaune View Post

Thanks for the link to the DIN setting site.  I was amused that I have given all of my correct information to the techs when I've had my last three pair of bindings mounted (at two different shops) and in each case they set my bindings for a type 2 skier instead of the 3, and then 3+ that I indicated on the slip I filled out.  I finally checked the last pair before I skied them for the first time and cranked them to where I thought they should be.  It turns out that I was setting them to the correct DIN for my skiing, according to the chart, and not over-cranking them.  With the first two pair I just took them out and skied them without looking, crashing big time on both when the bindings pre-released under normal stress.


I feel your pain. I just lived through four inadvertent releases on the ridgeline steeps at Taos. See the thread I linked just above for the gory details (no injury, no fun either).
 

 

post #8 of 20
Thread Starter 

Good help from all here!  I've been leaning towards the 12's and I'm thinking that that is where I'll end up.  Thanks!

post #9 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiingblind View Post

So if you were a 9 setting, an 11 max binding may not be the best choice. Bindings are available in several ranges of dins (3-11, 4-12, 6-14, 8-18 as an example, actual ratings will vary by manufacture) The best way to find you din is to go to a shop and ask, although I'm sure you could find a din chart online. I would suggest you consider a binding in the 6-14 range because of you size. They will be more expensive but they are generally better built and more durable. My experience with low din bindings(11 max) is that they are made of cheap plastic, and won't hold up in the long run.


^^^This. I'm about the same size as you, I wouldn't even think of buying an 11 or 12 DIN binding. I don't know how you ski, but I would recommend something like a Rossignol FKS 14, or a Look Pivot 14. The Atomic FFG 16s and the Salomon STH 16s are also good bindings for a great price. The FFG 14s, not so much. 11 DIN and under bindings are cheaply made, and they will break. Like I said, I don't know how you ski, but I don't feel comfortable trusting my bindings until they are at about 13-14. The way I see, when it really counts, I would rather fall and have a ski stay on then lose a ski and fall. Plus, I don't know if this is true or not, but I have heard that most bindings function most reliably around the middle of their DIN range. I would say an FKS or a Pivot would be a good choice.

 

post #10 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by moreoutdoor View Post

I prefer the chart over the app.

http://www.dinsetting.com/dinchart.htm

at 205 lbs and and aggressive skier - likely a boot sole in the 311 to 330 range

chart says 6

+1 for aggressive Type 3 skier

becomes 7

and not unreasonable to find yourself closer to 8

 

a binding with topend of DIN 11 is more than enough for the vast majority of skiers out there.

that, of course, is not a certification of the binding's sturdiness or reliability...

 

... wait, itz gonna come...



This is wrong--the chart reads for a type 1 skier, for a type 3 skier you would go down 2 levels--DIN 8.5, assuming the boot sole length is 311-330. I have seen a Marker chart that acknowledged level 4 (if you're getting serious air or skiing no fall lines--obviously if you fall in a no fall zone it doesn't matter if you release or not, but a prerelease is a problem.)

post #11 of 20

Hmmm.  I did a quick search but couldn't find the thread from this past fall I was looking for that, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, takes away the "urbanski" legend of binding release range.  I'm pretty sure that one of the industry leaders that has been in this trade for decades, posted that it is perfectly safe to set the binding at any setting in the range.  If it wasn't, it couldn't have that range.  So on a 4/12 binding, setting to 4, 8, and 12 were all as safe and reliable.  Don't confuse the bindings safety and reliability in a range with the manufacturer's safety and reliability.

 

Bindings aren't volume knobs or springs that bottom out at the end.  Bindings are calibrated to work within a certain range.  The range ends, but not the ability of the binding to work at that setting.

 

I'll look some more for the thread while you all post about how wrong I am duel.gifbiggrin.gif

 

Ken

post #12 of 20


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by flatlandr View Post


^^^This. I'm about the same size as you, I wouldn't even think of buying an 11 or 12 DIN binding. I don't know how you ski, but I would recommend something like a Rossignol FKS 14, or a Look Pivot 14. The Atomic FFG 16s and the Salomon STH 16s are also good bindings for a great price. The FFG 14s, not so much. 11 DIN and under bindings are cheaply made, and they will break. Like I said, I don't know how you ski, but I don't feel comfortable trusting my bindings until they are at about 13-14. The way I see, when it really counts, I would rather fall and have a ski stay on then lose a ski and fall. Plus, I don't know if this is true or not, but I have heard that most bindings function most reliably around the middle of their DIN range. I would say an FKS or a Pivot would be a good choice.

 


 

This is exactly what I thought as soon as I started reading this.  At your weight and level I would not even consider a 11 or 12 din binding.  The Look pivot or Rossingol FKS are great bindings (same binding different name), the 14 din version would be great for what your looking for.

Personally at 5"9' and 170 I ski the Look Pivots 180s at a 13 din and have never had an issue not releasing when I should of or pre-releasing.  I come from a racing background and ski hard but even at your level I would feel unsafe at a 7 or 8 din.

Basically you can't go wrong with a higher din binding.

 

post #13 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by L&AirC View Post

Hmmm.  I did a quick search but couldn't find the thread from this past fall I was looking for that, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, takes away the "urbanski" legend of binding release range.  I'm pretty sure that one of the industry leaders that has been in this trade for decades, posted that it is perfectly safe to set the binding at any setting in the range.  If it wasn't, it couldn't have that range.  So on a 4/12 binding, setting to 4, 8, and 12 were all as safe and reliable.  Don't confuse the bindings safety and reliability in a range with the manufacturer's safety and reliability.

 

Bindings aren't volume knobs or springs that bottom out at the end.  Bindings are calibrated to work within a certain range.  The range ends, but not the ability of the binding to work at that setting.

 

I'll look some more for the thread while you all post about how wrong I am duel.gifbiggrin.gif

 

Ken


I'd love to see this, and not in a sarcastic way.

 

post #14 of 20

 

You might get more movement before release out of a binding with extra head room in the spring, but whether or not that's a good thing or not is still up for debate; the extra few micrometers of movement would be with a lower force and return to centre not as fast.

 

 5'9, 150 lbs, 311 boot sole,I chart out at III 7, and III+ at 8.5.  Bindings are set to 8, which works well for me.

 

While any binding that goes up to 9 would have worked, I ended up buying DIN 16, and DIN 17 bindings the last two times because the bindings were more robust than the cheap plastic crap they sell in the lower DIN range.  Back in the '80s (before I got fat biggrin.gif) I bought a DIN 10 binding that was solid metal (and set it at 11 on occasionbiggrin.gif), instead of the higher DIN binding because the ONLY significant difference was the spring (and it's still working).  Times change.

 

Regardless of whether or not you want to be in the middle range or in the tested and certified for range, if you want a strong, durable, well built binding, get a higher DIN Binding, like you typically see in racing applications. 

post #15 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by flatlandr View Post


I'd love to see this, and not in a sarcastic way.

 

I'm going to PM the person I'm pretty sure posted it to see if they will re post.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post


 

You might get more movement before release out of a binding with extra head room in the spring, but whether or not that's a good thing or not is still up for debate; the extra few micrometers of movement would be with a lower force and return to centre not as fast.

 

 5'9, 150 lbs, 311 boot sole,I chart out at III 7, and III+ at 8.5.  Bindings are set to 8, which works well for me.

 

While any binding that goes up to 9 would have worked, I ended up buying DIN 16, and DIN 17 bindings the last two times because the bindings were more robust than the cheap plastic crap they sell in the lower DIN range.  Back in the '80s (before I got fat biggrin.gif) I bought a DIN 10 binding that was solid metal (and set it at 11 on occasionbiggrin.gif), instead of the higher DIN binding because the ONLY significant difference was the spring (and it's still working).  Times change.

 

Regardless of whether or not you want to be in the middle range or in the tested and certified for range, if you want a strong, durable, well built binding, get a higher DIN Binding, like you typically see in racing applications. 

 

Agree.  Especially with the bolded part, though it has more to do with the quality of the product than the ability to work in the range.
 

 

 

post #16 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skibum220 View Post


 


 

Basically you can't go wrong with a higher din binding.

 



Could you clarify this please.  Do you mean a binding that goes higher but still includes your # (because it's made better), or just go higher and set it for something that you think might possibly be right?

 

post #17 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by L&AirC View Post



Could you clarify this please.  Do you mean a binding that goes higher but still includes your # (because it's made better), or just go higher and set it for something that you think might possibly be right?

 

I guess both.  Higher din bindings are usually made out of metal instead of plastic for example a Marker comp 16 vs. Comp 20 or a Look PX 14 vs. PX 18  also Rossingol FKS 14 vs FKS 18.  All of the latter bindings are made similarly to the lower din counterpart but with metal.  The metal makes the binding beefier and less prone to breaking, they also tend to last longer.  Most people are not going to be setting their din close to the top range in these bindings but the added durability and security is what makes many go towards them.

 

For the OP and many other people getting into high din bindings is never an issue as they don't need it. But if I skied at a 9 din and had the option of going of being middle range on a plastic binding or low range on an all metal I'd pick the all metal binding

post #18 of 20

Many of the posts here have hit on most of the salient points. Here are a few clarifications..........

 

  • You don't need to be in the center of the range but you don't want to be at the very top or bottom either.
  • At the extreme edges of the range elasticity is compromised and hence retention may be an issue.
  • Lower DIN bindings ARE generally made much more cheaply and hence have more flex in the housings, less efficient energy transfer and lower durability.
  • My own rule of thumb is that a strong high level skier should not be any closer than two digits from the top of the range for best retention and fast return to center.
  • That skier should buy a higher DIN binding for the more rigid housings and durability factors.
  • So.......a strong skier that runs a setting of 8 or 9 should not buy an 11 din binding and should be at least a bit judicious about a 12 DIN'er.
  • This does not mean that skier should buy an 8-18 race binding and ski it at 8 b/c the binding will not perform very well at that setting either.
  • Typically, for a strong skier that skis at an 8 or 10, I'll suggest a Look PX 12 or PX 14, a Pivot 14, or a Sollie STH 14 or something in that category.
  • Conversely, to the above, it's not bad at all for a light, casual skier to be near, but not at, the very bottom of the range. (say....DIN 5 on a binding that starts at 4 is fine)

 

SJ

 

 

 

 

post #19 of 20


What he said.  There are other considerations re buying bindings, as in, are you looking at bindings that are part of a system (e. g., Atomic) or bindings that are not (e. g., Marker). Once you figure out your number, SJs recommendations are pretty much the bible.  For example, my current binding is the Atomic X16 (range 8 to 16)...set on 11 for free skiing or tech events, 12 for Super G, 13 for downhill...all close enough to the middle of the range for me, and, additionally, it's the best binding I've ever skied in (good retention, releases when it's supposed to, easy entry and exit, durable, tight link with the ski, good Atomic plate underneath, adjusts to 7 positions)...
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

Many of the posts here have hit on most of the salient points. Here are a few clarifications..........

 

  • You don't need to be in the center of the range but you don't want to be at the very top or bottom either.
  • At the extreme edges of the range elasticity is compromised and hence retention may be an issue.
  • Lower DIN bindings ARE generally made much more cheaply and hence have more flex in the housings, less efficient energy transfer and lower durability.
  • My own rule of thumb is that a strong high level skier should not be any closer than two digits from the top of the range for best retention and fast return to center.
  • That skier should buy a higher DIN binding for the more rigid housings and durability factors.
  • So.......a strong skier that runs a setting of 8 or 9 should not buy an 11 din binding and should be at least a bit judicious about a 12 DIN'er.
  • This does not mean that skier should buy an 8-18 race binding and ski it at 8 b/c the binding will not perform very well at that setting either.
  • Typically, for a strong skier that skis at an 8 or 10, I'll suggest a Look PX 12 or PX 14, a Pivot 14, or a Sollie STH 14 or something in that category.
  • Conversely, to the above, it's not bad at all for a light, casual skier to be near, but not at, the very bottom of the range. (say....DIN 5 on a binding that starts at 4 is fine)

 

SJ

 

 

 

 



 

post #20 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

Many of the posts here have hit on most of the salient points. Here are a few clarifications..........

 

  • You don't need to be in the center of the range but you don't want to be at the very top or bottom either.
  • At the extreme edges of the range elasticity is compromised and hence retention may be an issue.
  • Lower DIN bindings ARE generally made much more cheaply and hence have more flex in the housings, less efficient energy transfer and lower durability.
  • My own rule of thumb is that a strong high level skier should not be any closer than two digits from the top of the range for best retention and fast return to center.
  • That skier should buy a higher DIN binding for the more rigid housings and durability factors.
  • So.......a strong skier that runs a setting of 8 or 9 should not buy an 11 din binding and should be at least a bit judicious about a 12 DIN'er.
  • This does not mean that skier should buy an 8-18 race binding and ski it at 8 b/c the binding will not perform very well at that setting either.
  • Typically, for a strong skier that skis at an 8 or 10, I'll suggest a Look PX 12 or PX 14, a Pivot 14, or a Sollie STH 14 or something in that category.
  • Conversely, to the above, it's not bad at all for a light, casual skier to be near, but not at, the very bottom of the range. (say....DIN 5 on a binding that starts at 4 is fine)

 

SJ

 

 

 

 


Well.  Not the first time my memory has failed me.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Bindings Question - DIN