or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › DIN settings and over 50?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DIN settings and over 50? - Page 2

Poll Results: I'm over 50 and follow the DIN settings follows:

This is a multiple choice poll
  • 15% of voters (6)
    Religiously.
  • 47% of voters (19)
    Regiliously, yeah right!
  • 32% of voters (13)
    I'm never over 49!
  • 5% of voters (2)
    What is a DIN setting?
40 Total Votes  
post #31 of 69

Would take me too long to reset everything...

 

 

post #32 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

Would take me too long to reset everything...



 





 



 




Those had all better be backed down young man!!!
post #33 of 69
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by james123 View Post

This could tie into the fall to learn discussion. First off I'm not 50. But I can contribute right ?
So I ski at a 12, because in some situations the speed and terrain are a little dangerous. My skis are torn and flexed in many many directions, if my ski comes off, I'm dead.
So, I also have been to the skate park in town, these kids are launching off of all kinds of features, sliding stair rails with 12 flights, often losing something, call it balance, and hitting the concrete ground from 5 to even 7 feet, landing forward, on the back, on the side, on the feet with a nasty role. They get up and do it again and again, did they learn to fall, have super strong tendons, ligament, and bone from repeating falling? Idk.
If I skied at 8.5 my skis come off all the time. Have they come off at 12, once in a while yes, when needed.
Is age that much of a factor on broken bones. Guess so. Yikes.

 

I going to quote a famous ski film maker Warren Miller, somewhere after the age of 17/18 the warranty on the body expires (sometimes even earlier).  So matter what, you are in trouble....BTW, you'll know it expired when you don't shake it off in the morning.

post #34 of 69

This is a liability issue, I am hitting sixty in September and have skied with a Din setting at 8 FOR 40 years , I am 170 and shrunk to 5'-10", never had a ski not come off unless it needed to , I fell this is not an age issue but a aggressive issue, If you are slowing down turn them down, but if your skills and strength are still relatively the same, I for one plan on leaving them alone. I have had the ski shop set my race ski's and they set them @ 8 , no age discussion, as for the guy who sets one ski different then the other, would never do that for many reasons. 50 is just a # not anything else. I know a guy who is 70 and can ski 98% of the skiers to the ground. ( am sure he sets his own Din setting)

post #35 of 69

I've been skiing 0.5 below my official under 50 DIN setting (I'm 63 for a few more days) and not coming out when I shouldn't--and haven't had a release fall or an injury in y ears. At the correct over 50 setting--the equivalent of a level 2 setting--I know from experience I will release in deep snow. I believe that DIN setting goes down with age not because of differences in skiing--level should account for that--but because bones get weaker. And obviously nothing magic happens the day you turn 50. Your bones get slowly and steadily weaker from your 20's (I think) until you die. One age adjustment is a relic of the straight ski era when older skiers were a lot rarer. And of course as we all of us know (and are sick of hearing)- DIN setting is a very rough approximation. Maybe one day instead of a chart with big jumps between levels, age,  height/weights and BSL's we'll have a formula into which you can plug the variables and get a more customized DIN--which each serious skier will still want to fine tune.

post #36 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post
 

Your bones get slowly and steadily weaker from your 20's (I think) until you die.

QFT.  This is why we dial it back as we get older.  Another thing that happens is people that log a lot of ski days in their twilight usually ski much more smoothly than younger folks.. that also allows for a slightly lower DIN to hold just fine for us well seasoned folks..

post #37 of 69

IMHO people and skiers in particular are in better shape now at 50 than they ever were, I think with 60 being the new 50, plus the fact that bindings are better built and more consistent in release than they were 40 years ago,  it is time that the DIN chart can be revamped after 4 decades. 

post #38 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

IMHO people and skiers in particular are in better shape now at 50 than they ever were, I think with 60 being the new 50, plus the fact that bindings are better built and more consistent in release than they were 40 years ago,  it is time that the DIN chart can be revamped after 4 decades. 
Wow! That's a fact. It's amazing to ski with 60+ folks that bring it. It is something to be admired for sure. The endurance and strength, it's awesome.
Super great point !!!!!!!!!!!!
post #39 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

IMHO people and skiers in particular are in better shape now at 50 than they ever were, I think with 60 being the new 50, plus the fact that bindings are better built and more consistent in release than they were 40 years ago,  it is time that the DIN chart can be revamped after 4 decades. 


As true as this ism there is only so much a good diet and exercise can do to slow the inevitable decay of bone density and age related mineral deficiencies.  .Just take a look at the rehab and recovery threads and check out all of the people there over age 40 that were in fantastic shape at the time of their surgical intervention requiring injuries. Heck there's also threads from people that didn't fall at all and still require cutting edge medical intervention to keep their knees and other joints going.

post #40 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

IMHO people and skiers in particular are in better shape now at 50 than they ever were, I think with 60 being the new 50, plus the fact that bindings are better built and more consistent in release than they were 40 years ago,  it is time that the DIN chart can be revamped after 4 decades. 

 

I'm not exactly sure but I thought the DIN chart was revised in the mid 2000s, but with just some minor changes to the chart numbers and no changes to BSL or Height/weight, or Skier Type categories.

post #41 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

IMHO people and skiers in particular are in better shape now at 50 than they ever were, I think with 60 being the new 50, plus the fact that bindings are better built and more consistent in release than they were 40 years ago,  it is time that the DIN chart can be revamped after 4 decades. 

 

I'm not exactly sure but I thought the DIN chart was revised in the mid 2000s, but with just some minor changes to the chart numbers and no changes to BSL or Height/weight, or Skier Type categories.

What is funny, DIN is not DIN. there are differences between the Marker/Look/Salomon charts. 

post #42 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by james123 View Post



Wow! That's a fact. It's amazing to ski with 60+ folks that bring it. It is something to be admired for sure. The endurance and strength, it's awesome.

Super great point !!!!!!!!!!!!

 




Still skiing with my Dad, now 91
post #43 of 69

A couple of years back I was riding the shuttle at Mammoth when this older gal got on the bus grinning from ear to ear: She told all of us that she had just picked up her free season's pass for being 80 years old. I fully intend to get mine and use it a lot when my turn comes around!

post #44 of 69

I keep using my same din because I still remember the number.

Having a ski release prematurely would be a much bigger problem.

post #45 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by james123 View Post



Wow! That's a fact. It's amazing to ski with 60+ folks that bring it. It is something to be admired for sure. The endurance and strength, it's awesome.

Super great point !!!!!!!!!!!!

 




Still skiing with my Dad, now 91

91? You or your dad?

post #46 of 69
Thread Starter 

Younger bones are softer and similar to young trees, older bones are stronger and harder until calcium starts to come out of them at some point (come earlier some later).  Since a few of you have mentioned joints, that is a different issue as these are wear points (and for the most part are abused for our enjoyment in physical activities), blaming a binding setting for our own initial abuse is just wrong.

 

This all said, it is summer and hot with no snow, so the beer should be flowing.  If not some please be nice and hook up another keg and after a few drinks lets see what other good liners we can come up with.

 

The best comment so far goes to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

I am 49 and 19 months. 

 

so Phil, the next beers on me.

 

Cheers.

post #47 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post


my Dad, now 91

What is his DIN set at?:dunno

post #48 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
 

What is his DIN set at?:dunno

 

That is an interesting point. If the DIN standard makes an "adjustment @ 50+, should there not be another @ say 70, and then what, 85?

I think he was @DIN 5 last time noticed.

post #49 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post
 

 

That is an interesting point. If the DIN standard makes an "adjustment @ 50+, should there not be another @ say 70, and then what, 85?

I think he was @DIN 5 last time noticed.


I've noticed that most very old people that are active lose a lot of weight in their twilight years. When I think about it many of them look like they'd blow away if they got caught in a breeze.  It could also be that the heavier set, or outright fat people don't live as long so the skinny bean pole builds are the only ones we see past age 80.

post #50 of 69
[thread derail]My mom died last Christmas at 94. Was heavy up until 3 years before her death, until swallowing problems prevented her from getting the nourishment she was used to. That fat probably sustained her a good long time until she went on a feeding tube for the last eight months.

Point is, good genes are more likely why people live longer and fat isn't always a bad thing. [/thread derail]
post #51 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

[thread derail]My mom died last Christmas at 94. Was heavy up until 3 years before her death, until swallowing problems prevented her from getting the nourishment she was used to. That fat probably sustained her a good long time until she went on a feeding tube for the last eight months.

Point is, good genes are more likely why people live longer and fat isn't always a bad thing. [/thread derail]


Good info.  I've been under the assumption that the heart just wears out from having to circulate more blood in bigger people.  Was your mom pretty active? I would assume she had to be to keep going.  Use it or lose it is most true for everything as we age.   The skinny old folks I see are either very active, or smokers that somehow managed to not get cancer or emphysema (also good genes I suppose).

post #52 of 69
Not really. She thought she was, but aside from a short walk each day during nice weather, housework, and the occasional swim, it was just more than what her mother did.
post #53 of 69
So this young guy at copper mtn, his name is Frank, he turn 92 this year. Two years ago I was riding the lift with him. He was telling me about his new skis.... New skis!!!! That's optimistic man !!!!! Great dude. Skis around 100+ days, has a run named after him Franks Fave. I'll have to check his DIN. I'll see him in November.
post #54 of 69

I guess a big caveat would be the relative risk of pre-release vs. FTR.  In the case of James123, I agree that extreme terrain trumps potential for FTR injury.  

post #55 of 69
It matters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ventura View Post

I guess a big caveat would be the relative risk of pre-release vs. FTR.  In the case of James123, I agree that extreme terrain trumps potential for FTR injury.  
It matters what ski your on! Blizzard bonafide has zero speed limit !!!!! 12 gets me by, I'm always worried there coming off. Don't want to run higher for fear of FTR. I delaminated my bonafides in February brand new 14' skis. So I guess 12 is good. Idk. :-)
If your on one of those inferior type skis, well set the DIN whereever. Go blizzard!!!!!
post #56 of 69
Wait.......you're saying that the DIN is dependent on the ski, and you base this on your assumption that your skis feel stable at speed and therefore you can rip like hell on them with no caution, responsibility or significant consequences, further anyone else could do the same, as long as they buy the right brand?
post #57 of 69
N
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesiredUsername View Post

Wait.......you're saying that the DIN is dependent on the ski, and you base this on your assumption that your skis feel stable at speed and therefore you can rip like hell on them with no caution, responsibility or significant consequences, further anyone else could do the same, as long as they buy the right brand?
No. I'm just playin. But blizzard does rule.
post #58 of 69
I was playing too.
But no they don't.
post #59 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesiredUsername View Post

I was playing too.
But no they don't.
Ohhhhh now it's on
:-)
post #60 of 69

not talking numbers until i wipe some of the milk off my face, but you all use just one number - doesn't anybody use higher DINs for GS/speed skis versus slaloms and fartabouts? Like all mountain/big radius rigs?

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 › DIN settings and over 50?