New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DIN setting question - Page 2

post #31 of 39

That Thumbs Up

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 


The rating is a "risk acceptance" rating, not a skiing skill rating.  

 

   That Thumbs Up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
 

This is actually an Urban Myth. Think about the liability issues if it were true and you will recognize it as a myth.

 

   And that Thumbs Up

Quote:
Originally Posted by huhh View Post
 

Pre-releasing in difficult and dangerous terrain is also very bad, life ending bad. 

post #32 of 39
Thread Starter 

Hi all,

 

Thanks for the advice - much appreciated. There were enough varying opinions that I still don't feel fully confident in evaluating whether the 7 DIN on the Guardians is a significant concern or not. I had some pretty in-depth discussions with a couple of shop techs in Whistler last weekend who both felt it was a non-issue, but I've heard enough solid arguments in the other direction to retain some doubt.

 

Anyways, I pulled the trigger on a pair of Dynafits - I think the Guardian 16 is more binding than I need regardless of the release concerns, and if I'm going to switch it makes sense to go full tech since my skiing is increasingly focused on the backcountry. I'm looking forward to trying them out.

post #33 of 39

Here we go again:

 

13 or 16 din Guardians: 75kg , 181cm. Din chart sets me at 8.

 

I am worried since 13 looks more plastic overall - see this post for example:

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php/281202-Salomon-guardian-13-heel-plastic-mounting-strips-vs-guardian-16-metal-ones?highlight=guardian%20din%20range

 

Thanks!

post #34 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by cayzi View Post
 

Here we go again:

 

13 or 16 din Guardians: 75kg , 181cm. Din chart sets me at 8.

 

I am worried since 13 looks more plastic overall - see this post for example:

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php/281202-Salomon-guardian-13-heel-plastic-mounting-strips-vs-guardian-16-metal-ones?highlight=guardian%20din%20range

 

Thanks!

good thinking, get the 16. It's heavier, which is more reliable:

 

post #35 of 39
When setting my bindings balancing actual injuries (minor thankfully ) against actual undesirable releases, I found a 0.5 din change to be noticeable. I haven't felt the need for finer tweaks though.
post #36 of 39
Great decision in dynafits, and they ski very well.

One point though. Bindings are designed to prevent bone breakage.

They will do nothing to prevent ligament damage.
post #37 of 39
Well that is a bit of an over-simplification. The DIN levels were determined by studying what it takes to break bones. And tearing ligaments takes a lot less force than breaking bones. But lower levels still correlate with a reduced chance of ligament and soft tissue damage.
post #38 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by L&AirC View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voila View Post
 

There are "rumors" that a revised or new DIN scale is in the works!

 

Think about it. When was the DIN scale established. How many changes have occurred in ski design, ski type, ski boots? All these parameters affect the binding. I have not seen any serious research data on;

- tolerance levels in the extreme binding zones ( 1 and 14 scales)

-on standard "equivalent" values from different bindings models. I have noticed a difference in tension release when comparing various models as I mount and test them. Just my bias ? Not sure.

-varied "fracture levels" based on country, ski resort, skier type, etc,,,,

 

I would ask all ski binding companies to provide public data on their research for safe DIN levels. Seems to me when you pay well over $200 for a ski binding , there should be some source of information of "product" validity testing!

 

Just a thought.

 

Pa

 

 

Why?  I thought we haven't evolved since Paleo man.  Change all the equipment you want.  It's still about my leg.

 

Maybe our friends that post in the knee binding thread will jump in and explain again why the study that was done years ago, is still valid.


Because the scale was developed to save bone not ligament

post #39 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by rod9301 View Post

One point though. Bindings are designed to prevent bone breakage.

They will do nothing to prevent ligament damage.

 

Wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post

Well that is a bit of an over-simplification. The DIN levels were determined by studying what it takes to break bones. And tearing ligaments takes a lot less force than breaking bones. But lower levels still correlate with a reduced chance of ligament and soft tissue damage.

Right.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion