New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DIN Advice - Page 3

post #61 of 67
post #62 of 67
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier View Post

no, couldn't do that,   No Prius "power button " to double the speed  snowfight.gif
You might be able to get 25% more speed if you tape the doors. Aerodynamics and all.
post #63 of 67
Originally Posted by clink83 View Post

I did add the masters racer part because I was sure someone on here would be one or something crazy:p

That's just it.  The DIN Charts and calculators CAN tell you based on stats what the average leg-breaking force to stay under is, based on a statistical equations, using lever arms of boot sole length and height, and substituting weight for strength.  It cannot tell you if you are "normal" or stronger than the average bear or weaker than the average bear.  You have to decide that.  Just like YOU have to decide if you are skiing in a manner that is outside the norm and requires additional force to keep you from losing a ski.  This site probably has a higher percentage of skiers who are outside the norm.  Just say'n. 

post #64 of 67
You're right about the physics of Injury, but there is no objective way to measuring how your leg or acl is stronger or weaker than anyone else's so that's kind of a bad way to go online.
If you read that article on how DIN/TUV standards are set, you will see saying "my wife needs my binding set 1 lower" or " I run a 13 din" is completely meaningless because the binding could be releasing in a range that encompasses 3 visual indicator levels! Without torque testing you have no clue.

I don't say things about binding adjustments for the people who know how to adjust bindings, I say it for the people who don't know but read the garbage on here and other forums. I'd rather be gruff and give solid advice than be internet cool and give people harmful advice. I have had to treat way to many patoents with serious ski injuries that could have been prevented by common sense bonding adjustments.

If you are worried about injuries there are ways of adjusting for that in most shop manuals, but it doesn't involve arbitrary adjustments.
Edited by clink83 - 2/4/15 at 4:37pm
post #65 of 67
Bindings don't protect acl's. There's one that does for rear twisting falls.

Plus when you get them tested they set them to whatever visual number it actually tests at. However it'ts not allowed to be more than 2 numbers off or it's considered a fail. Afaik

I don't know where you get this "reckless garbage " binding business for people on here. Most are pretty conservative in that dept unless they have good reason. In the retro thread they're skiing on 30 and 40 yr old bindings and are usually ok with it.
post #66 of 67
Originally Posted by primoz View Post

Clink83 you still didn't get my point. And it has nothing to do with this if I'm skiing with bindings set to 14, 20 or 5 (except for that part, that I don't know how to set binding or that my bindings are jacked ;) ). Main point is, most of, well not most of but every single binding DIN setting calculator I have seen, includes way too little data to rely on that. So as any service guy in store/ski shop, which asks you how big and heavy you are and sets your binding without actually seeing you ski. As I wrote, bindings should be set according to the way you are skiing and where you are skiing, and not just your height, weight, boot sole length and 2 or maybe 3 types of skiing level.

If skiing with low DIN settings on bindings works for you, it's perfectly fine with me. As I wrote, my wife's bindings are set 1 below "recommended" value, and she's fine. I'm not telling anyone should be skiing with high DIN values, unless you know why. And I know why I have my bindings set the way I have them. All I wanted to say was, we most likely ski different, and that's why our bindings can't be set same way, even if we are same size and same weight.

And one more thing, as I really have feeling, quite few of you guys have miss understanding with DIN standard with bindings. DIN is shortening for Deutsches Institut für Normung, which would sort of translate to German Institue for standardization (I guess, as neither German nor English are my native languages :)). These guys were first to put out some sort of standards (not (just) for skiing) and DIN is one set of standards. With bindings it has nothing to do with current way of skiing or with current or not current equipment, so it doesn't need to be revised. DIN scale with bindings can be there forever, or at least as long as bindings will operate the way they do nowadays. It's actually pretty simple thing. It tells what force is needed to release binding which is set to certain number. And as this is standard, it means all bindings using this standard need to release at exactly same force when set to same number. So setting binding, any binding, to DIN 8 mean they will release at exactly same force. Now finding out what "number" your binding should be set is different thing, and has nothing to do with DIN itself. So no need to revisit DIN standard for bindings, but it might be time to revisit those "calculators" which are used to determine what settings certain user should use.

You are of course technically correct, and most people here know what you are saying. But generally, at least in North America the term "DIN" is used to refer to the visual indicator on the binding and the process used to determine what visual indicator setting to use. We assume that the release torque will be correct for that indicator setting, an assumption which of course should be  tested for every binding. But to be semantically correct, let me say that the DIN standard itself does not need revision, but the chart used to determine the correct visual indicator setting does. Specifically, given the available technology to do rapid calculations, much finer gradations of weight, height, age, and bsl can be used and additional information about body composition, when available can be added.

post #67 of 67
Originally Posted by clink83 View Post

Evaluate my agrument:, yes/no:
"Standard din release settings are perfectly fine for 90% of recreational skiers, and you(said rec skiers) should ignore the advice of someone bragging about how high his DIN is set and skiing at speeds that few resort skiers ever see, while at the same time saying that din standards are inadiqute despite the significant liability that the companies who indemify them carry"

First, I NEVER!! said din standards are inadequate! DIN standards are just fine, and I'm almost 100% sure, bindings are made according to them. But once again, you obviously have no idea what DIN standard with bindings is. I explained once or twice in this thread already what DIN standard with bindings means, so I'm not going to do it third time, just read my previous post again. But I did say, charts determining what setting your bindings should be are inadequate, or at least lacking quite few things to set bindings proper way. And I still stand by this.

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