EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Are all DINs equal on different bindings?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are all DINs equal on different bindings?

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 

Hello,

 

Would a 10 DIN on a Marker Comp 10 children's binding actually be the same as a 10 on a Marker Comp 18 WC race binding?  If so, what would be the disadvantage to someone who wants to ski in a 10 to buy the children's binding?

post #2 of 27

shock absorption

 

it would be fun to watch you explode on the comp 10 set on ten. make sure to use multiple go pros, i am pretty sure you have a few.rolleyes.gif

 

jim

post #3 of 27

Not sure on all the details but I have heard you generally want to be around the middle. For example, if you want your DIN set at 10, a 6-14 would be ideal. You could probably get by with a 4-12 or 8-16, but I wouldn't go with something that has 10 as a max. I don't remember the disadvantage of being right at the end, if it's a matter of being unsafe or just lower performance or what. Also keep in mind that sometimes the front and back DIN will not be set the same. When I had my bindings mounted at a ski shop they set the front two off from the back. I don't know if that varies based on the boot or what, but they used one of those fairly new machines to determine what's ideal.

post #4 of 27
Thread Starter 

Question is, should I go with the Comp 10, 12, 16, or 18 for a pair of Super-G skis?

post #5 of 27

What are your height and weight? How aggressive of a skier are you? How good of a skier are you? Will you be using them primarily for competitive racing, recreational racing, or something else?

post #6 of 27

An adult toying with the idea of using a child's 10 DIN binding on a Super-G ski?  I don't think I'd let my child use a kid's binging on a SG ski.  As for the mechanics.. The mid range of the spring tension is best for retention and shock absorption.  Cranking it all the way up to the max doesn't leave much room for the springs and rollers to do their job.  Yes, the shock test should pass, but less than ideal overall performance.  If you go for that traveling at SGS speeds, please please please do capture the results on video and share them...

post #7 of 27
Thread Starter 

5'10, 190 lbs.  Medium-aggressive.

 

These will be mostly for freeskiing on groomed trails.

post #8 of 27

To answer your question - Yes, a 10 DIN is a 10 DIN regardless of the binding.  That is the whole point of "DIN" - its a standard.  Before the DIN standard, all bindings were different.  But would I reccomend a childs binding cranked at 10 for a SG ski, for an adult?  Never.  If you want to set your bindings at 10, get some that go to at least 12, prefereably 14, so if you later find you want to go to 11 or 12 you can.

 

 

 

Go for the 16s....easier to sell after.

post #9 of 27

Are you already decided that you definitely want your DINs set at 10, or were you just saying 10 as an example? Sounds a little high for 'medium aggressive freeskiing' on groomers (of course people will go way higher than that for aggressive racing). But I'm also about 40 pounds lighter so my first impression might be swayed. th_dunno-1[1].gif If you do want 10 I'd go with Skidude's advice. No idea on what's easiest to sell, if you don't care about that I'd probably go with 14, if you do care I'd just trust Skidude and go with 16.

post #10 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeganFreeskier View Post

Are you already decided that you definitely want your DINs set at 10, or were you just saying 10 as an example? Sounds a little high for 'medium aggressive freeskiing' on groomers (of course people will go way higher than that for aggressive racing). But I'm also about 40 pounds lighter so my first impression might be swayed. th_dunno-1[1].gif If you do want 10 I'd go with Skidude's advice. No idea on what's easiest to sell, if you don't care about that I'd probably go with 14, if you do care I'd just trust Skidude and go with 16.

 

Yeah, us meat-eaters really lay it down.  I'll try 10 for now.  "Medium aggressive" means I won't be railing 3-G turns on 35-degree injected pistes, but I will be trucking.

 

 

Alright, the 10's and 12's are off the table.  16 it will be.  There is no Comp 14, and I very much dislike the feel of Tyrolia freeflex bindings, so those are out.  And then Look's near-vertical heel-piece sketches me out, so those are out.

post #11 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlugBootBlues View Post

 

Yeah, us meat-eaters really lay it down.  I'll try 10 for now.  "Medium aggressive" means I won't be railing 3-G turns on 35-degree injected pistes, but I will be trucking.

 

 

Alright, the 10's and 12's are off the table.  16 it will be.  There is no Comp 14, and I very much dislike the feel of Tyrolia freeflex bindings, so those are out.  And then Look's near-vertical heel-piece sketches me out, so those are out.

 


I'd probably go 10 at your weight too, I went 9 a few years ago and I was probably a bit lighter then than I am now. Had to have my dad sign some waiver or something cause it was so much higher than an 'expert' of my weight was supposed to have, lol. But when I hear 'medium aggressive' I just assume an intermediate level skier.

post #12 of 27

I'll assume for a moment that you are using adult SG skis (meaning over a 201). If so, the plates that come on most of them are drillable so you can mount almost anything you want. OTH if you going with a 196 or less (Jr skis).......then you are probably subjected to the "captive" plate rule wherein (in most cases) you will have to use the binding that the plate is pre-drilled for.

 

Ummmmm......what resorts do you frequent?

 

 

SJ

post #13 of 27

Don't forget the Boot Sole Length (BSL) as it also factors into the DIN setting. 

 

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

 

Not to take away from the Pro's but this gives you the basic starting point.  Some bindings because of design require more, some don't.

post #14 of 27
Thread Starter 

Nope, Jim, these are adult SG skis... I think 210 CM with R >33M.

 

The 16s should do.

post #15 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlugBootBlues View Post

 

Yeah, us meat-eaters really lay it down.  I'll try 10 for now.  "Medium aggressive" means I won't be railing 3-G turns on 35-degree injected pistes, but I will be trucking.

 

 

Alright, the 10's and 12's are off the table.  16 it will be.  There is no Comp 14, and I very much dislike the feel of Tyrolia freeflex bindings, so those are out.  And then Look's near-vertical heel-piece sketches me out, so those are out.

 

There's a reason Marker make Comp 30s......smile.gif

 

While the DIN does start at 11, I have always found that the Comp 20 works better for me with fewer issues than the 16 on a race ski, even though I usually run it at 11 or 12.  Also important to set the forward pressure "correctly" i.e. an extra half turn past flush...

post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlugBootBlues View Post

5'10, 190 lbs.  Medium-aggressive.

 

These will be mostly for freeskiing on groomed trails.

 

And you think you need a DIN of 10?  WTF?

 

If you're popping out of your bindings on groomers you need to think about refining your technique - it's a software not a hardware problem.

post #17 of 27

I have to agree with Walt unless you're doing hard quick slalom-style turns. Anyone CAN ski with their DINs set to 18, doesn't mean you get anything out of it. However high DINs can be helpful... almost lost a ski in the woods once and that's when it was set way higher than the charts recommend.

post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post

 

And you think you need a DIN of 10?  WTF?

 

If you're popping out of your bindings on groomers you need to think about refining your technique - it's a software not a hardware problem.


Not necessarily.

 

While a Marker M-10 and (example) LOOK MTF 15 will both static torque test the same when set at 10, there is an enormous difference in the quality of the coupling and the retention. The Marker M-10 is practically all plastic with a ton of flex in the housings, minimal elasticity, and light forward pressure springs. The Look or most other real race bindings for that matter are the exact opposite on all those points. While the OP might only want a 7 or 8 on his rec skis, he is almost sure to need (like really need) better retention than what he can get from a light duty Jr binding. Assuming that he can get those SG skis up to the speeds where they'll turn, there's almost no way he'll stay in those bindings.

 

Generally, a case like this would suggest a real race binding set low rather than a cheap rec binding set high.

 

BTW.....assuming a fairly recent ski that has some value in the first place, an M-20 would have far greater resale value than an M-16. No one racing on a 210 would have a 16 on there and at least some have 30's.

 

SJ

post #19 of 27

So Jim,

What DIN setting do most 160 lb racers use on their DH and SG bindings.  Curious minds want to know.

post #20 of 27

PlugBlueBoots,

 

You are been given some fairly good comments by people that (I think know a lot about the skis, bindings and the whole general subject than I) listen and think about it.

 

Me Level 3+ just about the same wt and taller, DIN just under 9. I ski Look PX15s (other than a sore Butt once) love them.  I love to push the front side hard when give the opportunity.  I've skied moguls at lower settings with no problems on Older Longer Straight Skis (45-50m R, 205cm) on bindings that had a popping issue Marker M48s.

 

In short its your knees, joints and bones that get destroyed and therefore your choice, just remember it hurts to get up in the morning (been there, done that and it really still does hurt in the morning).

post #21 of 27

Just to be accurate, there IS a Comp 14, but I believe marker stopped making them around 2006. There are a ton of pairs still rocking around, you just have to find them. I prefer the 14s on SL skis vs the 16s because they are noticeably lighter (more plastic).

 

For GS or faster ... get an all metal binding. It should be pretty easy to sell (and buy!) used pairs of 16s and 20s. (Marker also used to make a comp 18 binding that can be found for pretty cheap if you look around enough)

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PlugBootBlues View Post

 

Yeah, us meat-eaters really lay it down.  I'll try 10 for now.  "Medium aggressive" means I won't be railing 3-G turns on 35-degree injected pistes, but I will be trucking.

 

 

Alright, the 10's and 12's are off the table.  16 it will be.  There is no Comp 14, and I very much dislike the feel of Tyrolia freeflex bindings, so those are out.  And then Look's near-vertical heel-piece sketches me out, so those are out.

post #22 of 27
Duplicate post....$$$ned iPad
post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

I'll assume for a moment that you are using adult SG skis (meaning over a 201).




SJ

Jim.....you mean I have to get rid of the 201s and get a 210 to wear the big boy pants.?????biggrin.gif
( funnily enough I have actually been thinking along these lines......should have grabbed a pair at the SH ski swap mad.gif ......or these heads you showed me!)

Can I compromise at a 205 since I Am an old guy? rolleyes.gif
post #24 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

So Jim,

What DIN setting do most 160 lb racers use on their DH and SG bindings.  Curious minds want to know.

 

Depending on the binding brand and the athlete. Nor Ams = SG 13-15, DH 14-17.............ish.

 

SJ

post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier View Post


Jim.....you mean I have to get rid of the 201s and get a 210 to wear the big boy pants.?????biggrin.gif
( funnily enough I have actually been thinking along these lines......should have grabbed a pair at the SH ski swap mad.gif ......or these heads you showed me!)
Can I compromise at a 205 since I Am an old guy? rolleyes.gif

 

Sure.....205 can be a boys size..............biggrin.gif

 

SJ

post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

 

Sure.....205 can be a boys size..............biggrin.gif

 

SJ

So is Scottskier. eek.gif

post #27 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

 

Sure.....205 can be a boys size..............biggrin.gif

 

SJ

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

So is Scottskier. eek.gif

 

 

 

Bummer, just when i thought i could move to the bigger boy league just realized.....205 is the new girls SG.eek.gif    Oh well, back to the little leagues...mad.gif

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 › Are all DINs equal on different bindings?