or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › High DIN binding question
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

High DIN binding question

post #1 of 219
Thread Starter 

In a thread I started a few days ago, it came out that I was skiing recreationally on bindings with a DIN of 10-20 (Tyrolia FF+20), and it got me thinking whether I'm doing something stupid.  These are the bindings I used when I was Masters racing a few years ago, but now I just use them on my normal skis (Monster 88 and, for next season, will put my other pair on whatever front-side race carver I choose to buy).  I have them set around 12 (I'm 6'2", 185, with a boot chassis of 320 or so).  Is there anything wrong with setting these bindings that low?  Are there any other problems with what I'm doing?

 

Thanks! 

 

PS: two seasons ago, I took quite a spill (caught the front outside edge of my right ski at pretty high speed on a groomer when I transitioned a turn incorrectly.  I had the bindings set at 15 (idiot) and they never released, despite the very high amount of torque I put on my ski -- enough for a full ACL tear).  Obviously 15 is too damn high, but I've never had a problem releasing out of bindings set at 12.  Is a high-DIN's 12 different than a mid-DIN's 12? 

post #2 of 219

DIN is DIN across the board.  

 

Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (DIN; in English, the German Institute for Standardization) is the German national organization for standardization and is that country's ISO member body. DIN is a Registered German Association (e.V.) headquartered in Berlin. There are currently around thirty thousand DIN Standards, covering nearly every field of technology.

 

As iti's name implies, it is the Institute that comes up with standardizations.

 

In reality the safest setting is the lowest you can use and still maintain retention

 

I would say 12 is way,way high. I ski on Tyrolia FF 17+ on about 9.5  and am 6 Ft. 183 with a 313 BSL. (Shorter BSL = Higher DIN).

 

or an Atomic Race 10.18 on 10 (they go 10-18)

 

 

Read this!

 

http://www.vermontskisafety.com/vsrfaq5.php

 

I particularly like this part. 

 

 Race bindings are tightened for a variety of reasons (most of them wrong), but are rarely loosened. All research efforts to date show that the magnitude of the load a skier applies to a modern binding toe piece decreases with speed (even during competition) and yet all problems of retention (inadvertent release) are blamed on the binding setting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbuquerqueDan View Post

In a thread I started a few days ago, it came out that I was skiing recreationally on bindings with a DIN of 10-20 (Tyrolia FF+20), and it got me thinking whether I'm doing something stupid.  These are the bindings I used when I was Masters racing a few years ago, but now I just use them on my normal skis (Monster 88 and, for next season, will put my other pair on whatever front-side race carver I choose to buy).  I have them set around 12 (I'm 6'2", 185, with a boot chassis of 320 or so).  Is there anything wrong with setting these bindings that low?  Are there any other problems with what I'm doing?

 

Thanks! 

 

PS: two seasons ago, I took quite a spill (caught the front outside edge of my right ski at pretty high speed on a groomer when I transitioned a turn incorrectly.  I had the bindings set at 15 (idiot) and they never released, despite the very high amount of torque I put on my ski -- enough for a full ACL tear).  Obviously 15 is too damn high, but I've never had a problem releasing out of bindings set at 12.  Is a high-DIN's 12 different than a mid-DIN's 12? 

post #3 of 219

I don't think there is a problem if that's your correct DIN setting. Although it looks a little high for your stats specially that you said you are skiing recreationally and not dropping from 30 ft cliffs or anything like that... I probably would be more comfortable skiing on a DIN 10 or so unless it start causing unwanted releases.

 

but to the question, I don't think there is a problem as long as the DIN is within the binding range, DIN are supposed to be exactly the same given the binding is set correctly and tested correctly as well. So a DIN 12 release on a 10-20 DIN range binding should be the same as a DIN 12 release on a 6-14 DIN range binding...

post #4 of 219
Thread Starter 

Thanks guys.  I'll read the article and turn my bindings down.

post #5 of 219
A quick glance at the chart suggests a setting of about 8.5 for you as a type III (aggressive) skier. I am 5'11", 200 lbs, BSL 315mm and I ski at 8 to 9. I ski hard and fast but don't have any problems with pre-releases. The bindings come off when needed, though. I race DH with my bindings set at 13 (Salomon 916) without a problem, so I think that 12 for you may be a bit high for safety.

A DIN setting of 12 on any binding ought to provide a fairly similar release. Only putting your bindings through a bench test measuring actual release values would reveal the actual values.
post #6 of 219
Thread Starter 

This is all great info.  My concern was that bindings set on the low side of the DIN range wouldn't operate property (that's why I have them set at 12 rather than 10.5, which is where I'll turn them too now).  I'm glad to hear that bindings can be set at their lowest level (AtomicMan's 10.18 set at 10) and still work.

 

All in all, though, these bindings have been more of a pain than anything else since I stopped racing.  Anyone think there's a market for these (I'd guess I've used them about 50 days each, and they have some cosmetic scratches)?

post #7 of 219

I'd bet that the springs in a 20 would still be save down to 9 if the stop didn't prevent the screw from going there.  I see the logic that absolute best performance would likely be near the middle of the curve of tested safe range.  But tested safe is still tested safe.  As for folks cranking DIN past recommended levels, I used to do it more than I do today.  I think there is a factor not included in the variables I still consider.  Leg strength and muscle girth.  If you can pop your foot out of it with very little effort due to being VERY strong and bulked up down there it might be OK to crank them up a bit more.  I don't anymore as I don't really work out anymore and I'm a weakling old fart now.  Chairman and Howell will likely and probably rightly disagree on me adding that additional factor of strength to the DIN variables.  I just suspect that is why some feel OK going higher than others.

post #8 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbuquerqueDan View Post

This is all great info.  My concern was that bindings set on the low side of the DIN range wouldn't operate property (that's why I have them set at 12 rather than 10.5, which is where I'll turn them too now).  I'm glad to hear that bindings can be set at their lowest level (AtomicMan's 10.18 set at 10) and still work.

 

All in all, though, these bindings have been more of a pain than anything else since I stopped racing.  Anyone think there's a market for these (I'd guess I've used them about 50 days each, and they have some cosmetic scratches)?

 

bindings work best at the bottom part of the range.

 

adjusting the release value is only adding PRELOAD to the spring.  it is not making the spring stiffer.  the more preload you add, the more force the spring requires to move initially. the release is most important as WORK DONE to release, or force relative to time.  

 

so a soft spring cranked up really high (say 10 on a 4-12din) will be harder to move initially, and then you blow thru the second half of the stroke.  a firm spring with no preload (say 10 on a 10-18din) will be easier to move initially, and then gets harder to release as you get deeper into the bindings elasticity.  

 

they release (meaning the skier must accomplish the same amount of force over a given distance/time)  aka 10 DIN.   HOWEVER:  the soft/high preload arrangement is more likely to injure by being difficult to get into the bindings elasticity, and is also more likely to prerelease since it blows thru the travel quicker (which generally means the skier will crank the dins, which is the last thing they should be doing).  this is compared to a firm spring/low preload arrangement, where the skier can access the elasticity very easily, and has more ability to recover without releasing.  generally you can get away with a lower din and stay in here, but also be less likely to injure yourself since there is more initial ROM in the binding.  

 

so yeah.  better to ski 10din on a 10-18 than 10 on a 4-12.  simple fact.  

post #9 of 219

work done is force relative to distance, not time.  sorry.  but you get my point.

post #10 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by msolson View Post

 

bindings work best at the bottom part of the range.

 

adjusting the release value is only adding PRELOAD to the spring.  it is not making the spring stiffer.  the more preload you add, the more force the spring requires to move initially. the release is most important as WORK DONE to release, or force relative to time.  

 

so a soft spring cranked up really high (say 10 on a 4-12din) will be harder to move initially, and then you blow thru the second half of the stroke.  a firm spring with no preload (say 10 on a 10-18din) will be easier to move initially, and then gets harder to release as you get deeper into the bindings elasticity.  

 

they release (meaning the skier must accomplish the same amount of force over a given distance/time)  aka 10 DIN.   HOWEVER:  the soft/high preload arrangement is more likely to injure by being difficult to get into the bindings elasticity, and is also more likely to prerelease since it blows thru the travel quicker (which generally means the skier will crank the dins, which is the last thing they should be doing).  this is compared to a firm spring/low preload arrangement, where the skier can access the elasticity very easily, and has more ability to recover without releasing.  generally you can get away with a lower din and stay in here, but also be less likely to injure yourself since there is more initial ROM in the binding.  

 

so yeah.  better to ski 10din on a 10-18 than 10 on a 4-12.  simple fact.  

that's good information... same force applied but in a different way would make you want to ski on the lower range! That's good to know! Some people say that it's recommended to stay mid range, but didn't really give any explanation on to the "why", not I get your point on skiing at the binding's lower range! it kinda makes sense to me...

post #11 of 219
Quote:

 

 Race bindings are tightened for a variety of reasons (most of them wrong), but are rarely loosened. All research efforts to date show that the magnitude of the load a skier applies to a modern binding toe piece decreases with speed (even during competition) and yet all problems of retention (inadvertent release) are blamed on the binding setting.

 

 

I, ashamedly admit, forgot to turn up the DIN on a second pair of my wife's skis when we pulled them out for the first time mid-season. She successfully skied most of the day before it was noticed. She's a great skier, we were on groomers all day, at a moderate to fast pace usually. No problems with them releasing. Goes to show that if you are in balance, then it isn't a problem.

post #12 of 219

I agree with those above who said DIN is DIN and does not vary.

 

According to this calculator http://www.dinsetting.com/  you should be setting your DIN release setting to 10 for a III+ type skier.  III+ setting seems about right for aggressive skiing (i.e. at high speeds in rough terrain making hard turns - there is a high danger of injury if pre-release occurs at high speeds, even on tame terrain).

 

If I were you I would set those 10-20 bindings (or any other bindings that include that option) at 10.  If they couldn't handle 10, 10 would not be on the dial.

 

The downside to using the lower setting (without the pre-load) is lower recentering force.

The downside to using the higher setting is much higher risk of injury when you fall and catch the ski at slow speeds; at high speeds the impact loading tends to aid release.  

post #13 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by msolson View Post

 

bindings work best at the bottom part of the range.

 

adjusting the release value is only adding PRELOAD to the spring.  it is not making the spring stiffer.  the more preload you add, the more force the spring requires to move initially. the release is most important as WORK DONE to release, or force relative to time.  

 

so a soft spring cranked up really high (say 10 on a 4-12din) will be harder to move initially, and then you blow thru the second half of the stroke.  a firm spring with no preload (say 10 on a 10-18din) will be easier to move initially, and then gets harder to release as you get deeper into the bindings elasticity.  

 

they release (meaning the skier must accomplish the same amount of force over a given distance/time)  aka 10 DIN.   HOWEVER:  the soft/high preload arrangement is more likely to injure by being difficult to get into the bindings elasticity, and is also more likely to prerelease since it blows thru the travel quicker (which generally means the skier will crank the dins, which is the last thing they should be doing).  this is compared to a firm spring/low preload arrangement, where the skier can access the elasticity very easily, and has more ability to recover without releasing.  generally you can get away with a lower din and stay in here, but also be less likely to injure yourself since there is more initial ROM in the binding.  

 

so yeah.  better to ski 10din on a 10-18 than 10 on a 4-12.  simple fact.  

Excellent post Marshall!     beercheer.gif Cuts through a lot of the BS that is often propagated here with dire warnings about how bad it is to ski at the bottom of the range 

post #14 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbuquerqueDan View Post

This is all great info.  My concern was that bindings set on the low side of the DIN range wouldn't operate property (that's why I have them set at 12 rather than 10.5, which is where I'll turn them too now).  I'm glad to hear that bindings can be set at their lowest level (AtomicMan's 10.18 set at 10) and still work.

 

All in all, though, these bindings have been more of a pain than anything else since I stopped racing.  Anyone think there's a market for these (I'd guess I've used them about 50 days each, and they have some cosmetic scratches)?

  Could possibly arrange a swap for some similar 17s.  PM me if you are interested

post #15 of 219

Doesn't sound too far out of line.  Having suffered a bad wrist break at the start of the season with an unintended release at 8.5 I am normally running 9.5-10 for everyday use and typically 12 on my race or training skis.  5'8", 165#, 284 BSL 

post #16 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier View Post

Doesn't sound too far out of line.  Having suffered a bad wrist break at the start of the season with an unintended release at 8.5 I am normally running 9.5-10 for everyday use and typically 12 on my race or training skis.  5'8", 165#, 284 BSL 

Ray, you are tiny!!!!wink.gifbiggrin.gif

post #17 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post

Ray, you are tiny!!!!wink.gifbiggrin.gif

That's why i have always had to punch above my weight A'man biggrin.gif

post #18 of 219
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

. . . 

 

The downside to using the higher setting is much higher risk of injury when you fall and catch the ski at slow speeds; at high speeds the impact loading tends to aid release.  

 

The danger of setting bindings too high isn't just relegated to slowish speed falls (not that any of us ever fall at slow speeds, right?!?).  Like I said in my original post, I took quite a spill with these bindings set at 14 and they never ejected, despite the entire crash happening due to my ski twisting (if you can imagine this, I dug my outside edge into the snow when I transitioned into my next turn too soon.  I was probably going 35-40mph (skiing very fast on a steep blue groomer early in the day).  I put a TON of torque on my binding and it never even thought of releasing (my ACL released a lot quicker).  These bindings are mean SOBs, let me tell you!  

post #19 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier View Post

Doesn't sound too far out of line.  Having suffered a bad wrist break at the start of the season with an unintended release at 8.5 I am normally running 9.5-10 for everyday use and typically 12 on my race or training skis.  5'8", 165#, 284 BSL 

There's enough solid info on this thread to warrant inclusion in some kind of sticky. Tip of the helmet to MO and Atomicman.

 

But I'll question the logic behind your statement here, SS. In the most respectful way, since you know a bunch more about our sport than I do. Nor did I go through your wrist break. Although I've had a number of pretty bad breaks and tears, some of which have functionally compromised me forever, so I'll use my imagination. And full disclosure: My most serious and lifelong injury was caused by a binding not releasing. 

 

My argument: If a binding set at 8.5 releases you, then the joints south of your navel are being subjected to enough force that the binding's design parameters for someone your size have been reached. Put another, way, it might not have been what you wanted, but it was not "unintended," or a "prerelease." Your bindings did exactly what they were supposed to do, and if they had not released, you might have torn a knee instead of broken a wrist. Both suck, obviously. But how would you have reacted if your binding didn't release because of a high DIN and you blew your ACL? Would you have felt the same blame toward your DIN? I'd guess no, because you'd feel like you had control over the risk of injury. 

 

And that's the problem. I think that we've all engaged in specious reasoning about DIN. It's a PITA to fall. And much worse if that fall causes a break or tear or concussion. So we tend, in hindsight, to blame the binding, thinking "I coulda saved that. My binding gave up." But this is a post hoc fallacy. The fallacy works as follows: X (binding releasing) was followed in time by Y (injury). Thus, X caused Y. Then to avoid Y, avoid X by cranking up the DIN so it can't release at normal loads. 

 

The speciousness stems from the confusion of a temporal sequence with causality. In reality, the causal pathway between X and Y is pretty indirect at best, and probably not causal at all in a proximate sense. Example: My car doesn't start the morning after I switch to a new gasoline. I blame my new gas, on the grounds I never had any issues with the car until I switched. But in fact, there is a only a temporal correlation. It's highly likely that the car wouldn't have started regardless of which gas I used; it was just the morning that the ignition switch decided to die, or whatever. Slight probability it might have been the gas, but have I bothered to think through all the other probabilities, all the other pathways? Simply having Y following X doesn't prove cause. At best it suggests something to check out and likely dismiss. 

 

So what if you had an unintended release that didn't lead to a broken wrist? Would you feel the same way? Imagine there are 1,000 Scots Skiers in alternative universes. And imagine that in 999 universes, that release at that moment was a PITA but didn't lead to a broken wrist. All those other Scots Skiers tumbled differently, hit at a fractionally different angle, whatever, and came up bruised but whole. So now is it accurate to say that the DIN caused the break? Looks like your bad luck (1/1,000) caused the break, and the binding just did what it was asked to do.

 

Well, you'll say, fine for those other Scots Skiers, but if the binding had not released, tumbling angles or fences or however you hurt your wrist are irrelevant. You wouldn't have fallen at all. Perhaps, but what about all those times a release at 8.5 prevented a major injury?

 

Put another way, we may have a binding releasing thousands of times at a normal DIN without causing an injury; some decent percentage of these releases in fact prevented an injury. But our minds have difficulty being interested in what didn't happen, and it's tough to even measure negative events without a careful design. So we overweight a single occurrence where we were injured, and infer causality. It was d**n DIN. Ironically, by avoiding X (eg, using a higher DIN that prevents release), we are probably strengthening its possible causal connection to Y, a bad outcome. If we increase the loads on our knees by 50% to avoid again coming out that one time that could produce an injury, we are far more likely to be very near ligament shear loads many times we fall. The cumulative risk of that shear skyrockets. But because it's a negative event so far, we fail to weight its future risk correctly. Very much like not being especially concerned about dying driving a car when the odds are waaay higher every time we start the engine than for any other activity than most of us ever do. Definitely including skiing. 

 

Now obviously, there are true no fall-zones, where we will have to risk a knee to avoid dying. But I don't honestly think Masters qualifies, and certainly not almost all recreational skiing we do. If we're at Chamonix, getting ready to go over the other side, then yep, crank that sucker up. That's why god made stubby screwdrivers.

 

Anyway, to build on MO, my own hunch is that it's less about "pre-release" than about elasticity. Most bindings have mediocre elasticity, and we may approach their limits routinely by certain events like landing or doing bumps or turning at speed in rutty snow. So to avoid coming out and getting snow up our privates, or worse, we crank up the DIN. Which further compromises the remaining elasticity. Thus my favorite hobby horse, other than Bonafides biggrin.gif, which is the antiquated status of literally all bindings. IMO Looks are the best of a fundamentally stupid approach, and it's downhill from there. 

post #20 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by msolson View Post


so a soft spring cranked up really high (say 10 on a 4-12din) will be harder to move initially, and then you blow thru the second half of the stroke.

I'm asking cuz I like to have some peace of mind. I' not trying to argue for the sake of arguing...Thank you

So are we saying springs lose rebound as more load is added? Are we saying it is easer to contract a spring with more load than one with less load at the same din? Is this a fact or just an assumption?

Do we have a distance vs torque curve to prove this. It'd be also important to confirm whether springs behave consistently regardless of their length, thickness, materials used, and how they are tempered.

Don't we also need to consider other factors, such as how temperature affects the behavior of a spring with varying amounts of preload?
post #21 of 219

You'd never have any problems with Knee Bindings biggrin.gif ROTF.gif

post #22 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

There's enough solid info on this thread to warrant inclusion in some kind of sticky. Tip of the helmet to MO and Atomicman.

 

But I'll question the logic behind your statement here, SS. In the most respectful way, since you know a bunch more about our sport than I do. Nor did I go through your wrist break. Although I've had a number of pretty bad breaks and tears, some of which have functionally compromised me forever, so I'll use my imagination. And full disclosure: My most serious and lifelong injury was caused by a binding not releasing. 

 

My argument: If a binding set at 8.5 releases you, then the joints south of your navel are being subjected to enough force that the binding's design parameters for someone your size have been reached. Put another, way, it might not have been what you wanted, but it was not "unintended," or a "prerelease." Your bindings did exactly what they were supposed to do, and if they had not released, you might have torn a knee instead of broken a wrist. Both suck, obviously. But how would you have reacted if your binding didn't release because of a high DIN and you blew your ACL? Would you have felt the same blame toward your DIN? I'd guess no, because you'd feel like you had control over the risk of injury. 

 

And that's the problem. I think that we've all engaged in specious reasoning about DIN. It's a PITA to fall. And much worse if that fall causes a break or tear or concussion. So we tend, in hindsight, to blame the binding, thinking "I coulda saved that. My binding gave up." But this is a post hoc fallacy. The fallacy works as follows: X (binding releasing) was followed in time by Y (injury). Thus, X caused Y. Then to avoid Y, avoid X by cranking up the DIN so it can't release at normal loads. 

 

The speciousness stems from the confusion of a temporal sequence with causality. In reality, the causal pathway between X and Y is pretty indirect at best, and probably not causal at all in a proximate sense. Example: My car doesn't start the morning after I switch to a new gasoline. I blame my new gas, on the grounds I never had any issues with the car until I switched. But in fact, there is a only a temporal correlation. It's highly likely that the car wouldn't have started regardless of which gas I used; it was just the morning that the ignition switch decided to die, or whatever. Slight probability it might have been the gas, but have I bothered to think through all the other probabilities, all the other pathways? Simply having Y following X doesn't prove cause. At best it suggests something to check out and likely dismiss. 

 

So what if you had an unintended release that didn't lead to a broken wrist? Would you feel the same way? Imagine there are 1,000 Scots Skiers in alternative universes. And imagine that in 999 universes, that release at that moment was a PITA but didn't lead to a broken wrist. All those other Scots Skiers tumbled differently, hit at a fractionally different angle, whatever, and came up bruised but whole. So now is it accurate to say that the DIN caused the break? Looks like your bad luck (1/1,000) caused the break, and the binding just did what it was asked to do.

 

Well, you'll say, fine for those other Scots Skiers, but if the binding had not released, tumbling angles or fences or however you hurt your wrist are irrelevant. You wouldn't have fallen at all. Perhaps, but what about all those times a release at 8.5 prevented a major injury?

 

Put another way, we may have a binding releasing thousands of times at a normal DIN without causing an injury; some decent percentage of these releases in fact prevented an injury. But our minds have difficulty being interested in what didn't happen, and it's tough to even measure negative events without a careful design. So we overweight a single occurrence where we were injured, and infer causality. It was d**n DIN. Ironically, by avoiding X (eg, using a higher DIN that prevents release), we are probably strengthening its possible causal connection to Y, a bad outcome. If we increase the loads on our knees by 50% to avoid again coming out that one time that could produce an injury, we are far more likely to be very near ligament shear loads many times we fall. The cumulative risk of that shear skyrockets. But because it's a negative event so far, we fail to weight its future risk correctly. Very much like not being especially concerned about dying driving a car when the odds are waaay higher every time we start the engine than for any other activity than most of us ever do. Definitely including skiing. 

 

Now obviously, there are true no fall-zones, where we will have to risk a knee to avoid dying. But I don't honestly think Masters qualifies, and certainly not almost all recreational skiing we do. If we're at Chamonix, getting ready to go over the other side, then yep, crank that sucker up. That's why god made stubby screwdrivers.

 

Anyway, to build on MO, my own hunch is that it's less about "pre-release" than about elasticity. Most bindings have mediocre elasticity, and we may approach their limits routinely by certain events like landing or doing bumps or turning at speed in rutty snow. So to avoid coming out and getting snow up our privates, or worse, we crank up the DIN. Which further compromises the remaining elasticity. Thus my favorite hobby horse, other than Bonafides biggrin.gif, which is the antiquated status of literally all bindings. IMO Looks are the best of a fundamentally stupid approach, and it's downhill from there. 

Ah, touche again beyond!  duel.gif  biggrin.gif

 

 

Noe, there's a scary thought, 1000 Scotsskiers beercheer.gif, in parallel universes.  Hmm, does that offer me additional market opportunities???

 

You are of course,  as always,  much more technically correct than this simple farm boy  rolleyes.gif.     Technically correct in that it was not a prerelease in that the binding opened based upon the forces applied.  Of course in my simple lexicon, pre-release means coming off when it shouldn't, as in this case. When a GS ski is loaded up exiting the turn prior to the next transition is not when I want to find that my boot has become disconnected mad.gif. (Note, prior to transition, not when the downhill ski has started to go light)     And in this case with a pretty much top of the range race binding (Atomic X16) which has a pretty good pedigree and elasticity (and by MO's theorem should have been really in the sweet spot as it it was just above the minimum setting).  So I stand corrected around pre-release BUT in this case pretty certainly, (and even in parallel universes!) a setting that was simply too low for the forces being applied.  Hence the reason I have found that, for me, it is more prudent to run a bit higher DIN setting.  Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) my most serious ski injuries have been from, lets call it inadvertent, releases.  

 

So, I will not hurt my poor addled old brain more trying to work out the causal effect statistics.   I will put it down to plausible deniability.....

 

However, i do think we are both pretty much saying the same thing.  Where you want to set the DIN is really based on a whole combination of factors.  Your own release/retention thresholds/preferences, the individual binding model and your skiing style in addition to DIN charts as a starting point. 

 

Almost makes me wonder if having a standard DIN range is worthwhile????  If we look back at the "olden days" when the norm was just a simple 1-4 scale we would just start at 1 and work our way up till we found what worked.  On the 727E with green (WC) springs, i never needed to go past 1.5! 

 

 

post #23 of 219
Quote:
Noe, there's a scary thought, 1000 Scotsskiers beercheer.gif, in parallel universes.  Hmm, does that offer me additional market opportunities???

 

 

Never mind the statistics just bring the whisky from the darker timeline.

post #24 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post

 

 

Never mind the statistics just bring the whisky from the darker timeline.

 

 

Dark enough??   

beercheer.gif

post #25 of 219

I have a little left of the Laphroaig Quarter Cask. Too peaty for my liking as is the case for most of the Islays. Highland Park however......

post #26 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

According to this calculator http://www.dinsetting.com/  you should be setting your DIN release setting to 10 for a III+ type skier.  III+ setting seems about right for aggressive skiing (i.e. at high speeds in rough terrain making hard turns - there is a high danger of injury if pre-release occurs at high speeds, even on tame terrain).

 

I want to put in a plug for III+

 

III+ puts me at an 11 DIN.   III puts me at a 9.5.  I always pre-release at 9.5.  I never pre-release at 11.  It makes a big difference.

 

My typical pre-release at 9.5 is skiing bumps fast.  I jam a tip into a bump and the toe on the outside ski releases.  I then get to try to ski bumps on one ski at high speed.  I guess that's a good mogul drill, but it's also a good way to get hurt.

post #27 of 219

Great post.

Great question.

Simple questions often bring out complex issues. Such is the case with this one.

As noted previously using the DIN chart blindly or without some "training" is dangerous.

 

The most common error is the idea that "since I am a great,,,no "expert skier"  my din scale should be at + 12,,,,

 

Another one, often used blindly by shop technicians is the +55 age "adjustment" .

 

Can we agree that the DIN scale ( which is now very dated, based on old long skinny ski ) data is based on "average" distribution data ( generated in Germany). The assumption was that skiers in Germany are like all skiers in the world.

 

If you accept this premise, then I am sure you will all accept the idea that if you are not "average" skier, then you must apply the DIN values with some caution or adjustment.

 

If you are a +55 year old male who;

-trains well all year

-is at the 40 year old physical fitness level

-skis with some technique

-skis within safe ski terrain

- etc,,,

perhaps the scale should not be used blindly since a TOO LOW setting will be as dangerous at a TOO HIGH setting.

 

Whenever I teach any skier or guide skiers I always check their DIN setting. I am amazed how many have "issues" with settings.

 

Even more unsettling is that,,,,,, very few skiers know that more important than the DIN setting ( that number you see on the bindings) is the rear tension indicator is crucial in a correct setting of the ski binding. If this rear tension is off, then the DIN value is in essence not valid. Yet how many skiers on this site speak about this indicator.

 

How many skiers even know about this setting?

 

In conclusion my advice is do not set bindings yourself unless you are trained.

It is your safety.

 

Never let anyone other than a well trained, well experience ski shop technician touch your bindings ( even then check them after ).

 

PS Now go on Google and check you what is the rear tension pressure indicator on ski bindings.

post #28 of 219

With no comment.

 

Source: a site on "how to adjust ski bindings"

 

"(1) To test your back binding release, have your friend stand on the back of your skis, then lean forward and fall on to your hands. Your back bindings should release, and the heels of your boots should snap free from the bindings.


If they do not release, unscrew the big tension screw a figure or more, and do the test over again until your boots will release.

(2) To test your front binding release, have your friend simply kick the toe of each boot in a sideways direction. Your boots should pop free with an average kick.

If they do not, loosen your bindings and do the test over again until it works

post #29 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by tball View Post

I want to put in a plug for III+

 

III+ puts me at an 11 DIN.   III puts me at a 9.5.  I always pre-release at 9.5.  I never pre-release at 11.  It makes a big difference.

 

My typical pre-release at 9.5 is skiing bumps fast.  I jam a tip into a bump and the toe on the outside ski releases.  I then get to try to ski bumps on one ski at high speed.  I guess that's a good mogul drill, but it's also a good way to get hurt.

 

Is that a "Marker" 9.5 that releases or a LOOK 9.5?  wink.gif

post #30 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbuquerqueDan View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

. . . 

 

The downside to using the higher setting is much higher risk of injury when you fall and catch the ski at slow speeds; at high speeds the impact loading tends to aid release.  

 

The danger of setting bindings too high isn't just relegated to slowish speed falls (not that any of us ever fall at slow speeds, right?!?).  Like I said in my original post, I took quite a spill with these bindings set at 14 and they never ejected, despite the entire crash happening due to my ski twisting (if you can imagine this, I dug my outside edge into the snow when I transitioned into my next turn too soon.  I was probably going 35-40mph (skiing very fast on a steep blue groomer early in the day).  I put a TON of torque on my binding and it never even thought of releasing (my ACL released a lot quicker).  These bindings are mean SOBs, let me tell you!  


Well, yes, you can hurt yourself at high speed with you bindings set high.  In fact you could lose a leg in a WC race.  Just say'n it's even more likely to injure you at slow-to-midlin speeds, if perhaps not as severely (I'll take a torn acl over a lost leg).  Thanks for making it clear.  smile.gif

BTW 35- 40 mph is not all that fast, but still fast enough to wreck your bad shoulder for another few months. 

 

I've settled on III+ after much painful experimentation.  At III+ my bindings release, but hurt me enough to know that if they hadn't released I would be injured.  At III they release with no indication that there is anything wrong; the skis just refused to hold a hard sudden turn on a big pile of dense snow, or execute a fast hard turn in rough frozen bumpy terrain and get rattled off my feet instead, or in one instance I can recall come off when I'm running sideways up a hill (yes I had a good reason for doing that - first tracks on a fast narrow icy groomer that was made for speed). 

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 › High DIN binding question