or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Glade skis and DIN

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 

What type of skis do people typically use in glades that may have powder? I did some of this type of skiing at Pico Mtn this weekend, and it's something I'm curious about. My skis are Head Rev 80, and while I know they are far from powder skis, I have to be very careful in it because the first time I tried going through my ski sank immediately in at least 6 inches of powder and my boot popped off from me falling over. The ski was even completely submerged in the snow and I had problems finding it. Even when going slow and being careful it came close to popping off. Would it help if I increased the DIN setting a tiny bit? Or would that make it less safe? I'm 130lb 5'7" intermediate fast skier, DIN currently 5.5.

 

My other question about skiing in glades is the length of skis. Do people tend to use shorter skis for more maneuverability to move between trees?

post #2 of 21
"my boot popped off from me falling over"

Why do you think your ski should NOT have come off?

Sounds like you need some time in ungroomed snow without trees. And then some time in trees without powder. And finally trees with powder. Don't worry about your skis until then. As for the bindings, they may be working just right.
post #3 of 21

you want something maneuverable, so definitely tip rocker and probably tail as well (or maybe even full rocker). also probably a little wider than 80mm, but at 130 lbs, you don't need to go overboard. that said, there's no reason you can't ski the rev 80 in those conditions.

 

you said your boot "popped off from me falling over." does that mean you fell first and then it came out of the binding? if so, that's what bindings are supposed to do (assuming you didn't just topple over sideways gently). and what do you mean by "it came close to popping off?" either it did or it didn't. if you're coming out of your bindings before you fall, then you probably need a higher DIN...but they're supposed to come off when you crash.

 

as for length...yeah, someone spending a lot of time in tight trees will probably pick a shorter ski than someone charging down open groomers all the time.

 

edit: qcanoe beat me to the binding point.

post #4 of 21

I cannot advise on skis, other than to say if money were not scarce I would have been on bushwhackers instead of Völkl P50 F1 GS from 2002 the last time I was in fresh snow in the glades.

 

I can comment on DIN.  Whatever your DIN Setting is, don't change it for conditions.  It is based on what release setting will prevent injury, and that  does not change with conditions; it depends on weight, boot sole length, and risk acceptance.   My skis are set by the chart at III+, and don't change if I'm in trees, powder, hardpack, or anything else.  I would only consider upping it for skiing at DH speeds in conditions and locations  where fall due to release = die.

post #5 of 21

dreaded double post

post #6 of 21

I'm about your height but 20# heavier.  For two seasons my primary ski for trees was a 170cm Nordica Steadfast, 90mm waist.  This year I added a 174cm Atomic Ritual, 103mm waist to my collection.  If the snow is fresh and/or there is more than 6" of fresh I will definitely be on the Rituals otherwise I'm still on the Steadfasts.  The Steadfasts have what Nordica calls "Camrock" meaning an early rise tip and camber.  The Rituals have Atomic's "All Mountain Rocker" meaning tip and tail rocker plus camber and it's a twin tip.  The Steadfast is stiffer than the RItual but both handle very nicely in the trees.  My groomer ski is a 160cm Atomic ST11 and there is no way I would take those into the trees, too stiff and too heavy.  And I agree totally with what everyone else has said about the bindings. You didn't say how long your skis are.

post #7 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Originally Posted by treeski7 View Post

 

you said your boot "popped off from me falling over." does that mean you fell first and then it came out of the binding? if so, that's what bindings are supposed to do (assuming you didn't just topple over sideways gently). and what do you mean by "it came close to popping off?" either it did or it didn't. if you're coming out of your bindings before you fall, then you probably need a higher DIN...but they're supposed to come off when you crash.

 

I fell over because the ski came to a sudden stop in the powder. And when it came close to popping off, I felt the boot getting flexed forward a lot but I was able to pull the ski ahead before it was released.

 

Sounds like my DIN is just fine.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
 

I'm about your height but 20# heavier.  For two seasons my primary ski for trees was a 170cm Nordica Steadfast, 90mm waist.  This year I added a 174cm Atomic Ritual, 103mm waist to my collection.  If the snow is fresh and/or there is more than 6" of fresh I will definitely be on the Rituals otherwise I'm still on the Steadfasts.  The Steadfasts have what Nordica calls "Camrock" meaning an early rise tip and camber.  The Rituals have Atomic's "All Mountain Rocker" meaning tip and tail rocker plus camber and it's a twin tip.  The Steadfast is stiffer than the RItual but both handle very nicely in the trees.  My groomer ski is a 160cm Atomic ST11 and there is no way I would take those into the trees, too stiff and too heavy.  And I agree totally with what everyone else has said about the bindings. You didn't say how long your skis are.

 

Oops, my skis are 163 in length. Why do you use longer skis in the trees than you do for groomers?

post #8 of 21

Part of the equation is BSL (Boot Sole Length) as it helps define the torque in the binding.  The basic ski binding formula is based on WT, HT BSL, ABILITY and Age.  It could be that your bindings are set on the light side but unless you check or have them checked you have no idea were to start.

 

As Ghost noted he is at 3+ (ability) because at lower settings he develops enough energy to release the bindings. Part of this may be strength, part may be technique but for the 3+ group this is correct.

 

Additionally as others have mentioned in various different threads, DIN settings do not always reflect the release numbers expected.

 

For all of those reason alone it becomes difficult to realistically suggest higher settings.  There is a lot of information out there that can give you an idea of what you should be looking for, just GOOGLE it.

 

My parting shot is "if you have to ask get it done by a professional".

post #9 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post
 

Part of the equation is BSL (Boot Sole Length) as it helps define the torque in the binding.  The basic ski binding formula is based on WT, HT BSL, ABILITY and Age. .

Not to nitpick, but Skier Type is NOT ability, an expert skier can be type II and a very low skill level skier can be type III.

post #10 of 21
There is a on-line DIN calculator out there. I have it bookmarked at home.

Most of buy are fat skis longer so they have more float. Even newer skis in the 85-100mm waist now, you buy a bit longer then the 80-84mm wasit skis lots of us were on 4-10 years ago.

With a rocker tip or early rise, you can go a size longer.

I also ski at III+ because a pre-release got me a plate and 7 screws on my left collar bone. My skis still come off when I crash big time, proved that on Saturday, or when one breaks through the surface in the wind blown snow, also proved that a few minutes before the big high speed crash on Saturday. smile.gif both skis came off about 50 ft apart from other and I was another 50ft down. Of course it was just above the lift line, over the final roller, so I provided lots of entertainment.
post #11 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis256 View Post

 

Oops, my skis are 163 in length. Why do you use longer skis in the trees than you do for groomers?

That is your primary problem, skis are too short for their width.  I have a pair of 161cm Icelantic Shamans that I have skied in the trees a lot, but they're 110mm underfoot.  The Steadfast is my daily driver and because it has an early rise tip it skis a bit shorter than the measured length so that is part of reason.  The same is true for the Ritual but it was both tip and tail rocker, more than the Steadfast, so it skis even shorter than the measured length.  My groomer ski is a slalom race ski, about 7-8 years old, and has an 11m turn radius for quick turns.  When I'm on those skis and ripping groomers I'm not concerned about flotation and they're heavy enough that they're quite stable even going pretty fast. I don't ski like that very often.  I mostly ski off-piste; trees, powder, bumps and for that I want longer skis for more stability and flotation.  If I had a full rocker ski for powder it would probably be about 180cm.

post #12 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
 

Not to nitpick, but Skier Type is NOT ability, an expert skier can be type II and a very low skill level skier can be type III.

 

Stand corrected.

 

But I would not suggest that a low level skier is a type III, that's just an injury waiting to happen.  Let the binding temper the uncontrolled power until the skill set catches up ;) before some part of the human interface fails :eek.

post #13 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post

 

Stand corrected.

 

But I would not suggest that a low level skier is a type III, that's just an injury waiting to happen.  Let the binding temper the uncontrolled power until the skill set catches up " src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif"> before some part of the human interface fails " src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/eek.gif">.

 




I'm thinking an expert skier who is in there 70's has a lower DIN because they are no longer skiing at the speeds us 60 y/o's ski at. I don't know for sure, but I here the old guys have lower DIN's.

Hey I'm really only 59y/o. But I hear things about the old guy's...
post #14 of 21

nemesis -- in your first post, you mentioned that you were going slow -- which is a natural reaction when in trees.  But the slower you ski in powder, the more likely that you'll sink into it (EEBE).  I agree with qcanoe's advice in his first post, although I would add: try ungroomed and powder without trees, then trees without powder, before trees with powder.  

post #15 of 21
Even at your light weight, when a ski sinks into the powder the weight of the snow on top if can be pretty great.

A few weeks back one of my gotama's went under the 15" we got. I tryed to lift it straight up without turning it on edge. I couldn't do it. I had to roll the ski on its side then pull it out of the snow. Again a 9.5 DIN going slow, in the deep snow.

I'm sure that's you happened to you.
post #16 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimski View Post
 

 try ungroomed and powder without trees

 

good advice, but this is going to be pretty tough to find for someone whose location is cambridge, MA.

post #17 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by treeski7 View Post

 

good advice, but this is going to be pretty tough to find for someone whose location is cambridge, MA.

 



Should have been at Okemo this past thursday - saturday. We spent most every run in the ungroomed powder. didn't go in the trees, not enough base yet for us. It's not that hard to find this season.
post #18 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity View Post
 
I'm thinking an expert skier who is in there 70's has a lower DIN because they are no longer skiing at the speeds us 60 y/o's ski at. I don't know for sure, but I hear the old guys have lower DIN's.

Hey I'm really only 59y/o. But I hear things about the old guy's...

 

Actually, that change happens at 50 according to the charts.  If, at age 49, your DIN is 9, at age 50 it technically drops to 8.  I doubt it has anything to do with speed and everything to due with bones getting more brittle and easier to break as we get older.  In addition to that, the older you are the longer it takes to recover from an injury.  I basically lost an entire season a few years ago due to ruptured Achilles tendon, although I did manage to get my PSIA certification that year, but skiing wasn't much fun.

post #19 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity View Post
 
I'm thinking an expert skier who is in there 70's has a lower DIN because they are no longer skiing at the speeds us 60 y/o's ski at. I don't know for sure, but I hear the old guys have lower DIN's.

Hey I'm really only 59y/o. But I hear things about the old guy's...

 

Actually, that change happens at 50 according to the charts.  If, at age 49, your DIN is 9, at age 50 it technically drops to 8.  I doubt it has anything to do with speed and everything to due with bones getting more brittle and easier to break as we get older.  In addition to that, the older you are the longer it takes to recover from an injury.  I basically lost an entire season a few years ago due to ruptured Achilles tendon, although I did manage to get my PSIA certification that year, but skiing wasn't much fun.


Actually what happens at age 50 is you decide to go from 3 to 3+ (or 3+ to 3++) :D and leave the DIN where you like it.

post #20 of 21
I know people who have suddenly gains 60 lbs on their 50 th, and others that just stay 49 forever.
post #21 of 21

I'm on 49B soon to be 49C

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