or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ISO numbers

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 

Hi!

 

I haven't skied in 14 years. Today I went to get skies and they told me that they can't adjust my kind of boots because it is a European model, but the truth is that 14 years ago I skied with my European boots (in Tahoe). Did something change? This was a ski rental place, and they said that they only operate with ISO 5355 or ISO 9523, but not my number. Would somebody educate me on this please? I am disappointed not to be able to use my boots.

Thanks!

post #2 of 15

what ISO standard do your boots conform to? I looked up ski boots on the ISO (I stands for International) web site and the only two standards I found were 5355 (alpine) and 9523 ("tech" AT boots). This is current--5355 was revised in 2005 but I know there are people here skiing on boots from 1905 so I suppose it's unlikely that your boots don't conform because they're too old. Maybe someone here actually knows.

post #3 of 15
Thread Starter 

Thanks for your response. The number I see is a DIN 7880. From what I see online DIN is a different norm...

 

So

post #4 of 15
DIN (German industrial standards, more or less) is the German member of ISO (international standards organization). We call binding standards DINs because they originated them.
ISO 5355 is also DIN 5355.
Apparently DIN 7880 has been withdrawn, replaced by 5355. I have no idea if they are really different,or if it was done to make the id number match iso.
I do notice that 7880 was last revised in 1984 with the previous rev in 1977. Plastic boots became common in the 1970s, so I suspect the standards really are different.

(The binding settings standard is DIN 7881, published in 1982 and revised in 2008.)
post #5 of 15

Post a full picture of the boot and it might make it easier to comment.

 

Google the Look binding manual it has the DIN5355 requirements listed in one of them.

 

Any boot in the last 20-25 year old range should meet spec's for the most part (with the exception of plastic aging).

post #6 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post

DIN (German industrial standards, more or less) is the German member of ISO (international standards organization). We call binding standards DINs because they originated them.
ISO 5355 is also DIN 5355.
Apparently DIN 7880 has been withdrawn, replaced by 5355. I have no idea if they are really different,or if it was done to make the id number match iso.
I do notice that 7880 was last revised in 1984 with the previous rev in 1977. Plastic boots became common in the 1970s, so I suspect the standards really are different.

(The binding settings standard is DIN 7881, published in 1982 and revised in 2008.)

in answer to the OP's query.

^ above

ISO 5355 is the latest std used and takes earlier DIN 7880 and sole dimensions as applies to binding/boot/ walking contact interface, into the ISO and adds additional standards as to material properties, 'hardness', compliance testing parameters and the proper application of the Mondo point sizing system, .

rental shops not working with 7880 boots is their decision, of course

 

on a practical side, a 14+ old boot (given the boot was used for some time prior to the 14 yr lay-off) would be on very shakey ground with regards to materials integrity.

It's just not worth the price of an unexpected crash and a visit to the Base Lodge Med Center because of boot materials failure or boot/binding issues. it's not just that the boot breaks, it's what happens to the skier when that happens.

True story - guy I ski with had his Technica TNTs explode at the top of AVY 2 on Lincoln (Mammoth). Thankfully all he did was body-punch the next mogul and being a sturdy guy he groaned a bit but was mostly whole. I would prolly have dislocated something doin the same body-punch.

If one thinks a certain chute is sketchy while on skis, try climbing down in broken boots... he had to hoof it down to the bottom of Chair 2 - about 1 mile of post-holing down the deep sides of the trails...

you can ski with bent poles

you can ski with ratty skis

crap (mis-sized, explodomatics, badly worn soles, etc...) boots are an injury waiting to happen... just not worth the risk. I would want something 'branded' and with ISO 5355

given the many options, there are plenty of ways to get some good, even great, high quality, well fitting boots on a budget.

.... just sayin

post #7 of 15
Thread Starter 

Thanks everyone for the responses. Here's the full photo. The boots are in great shape, not worn out at all, that's why I am sorry to give them up...

 

post #8 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by lameri View Post
 

Thanks everyone for the responses. Here's the full photo. The boots are in great shape, not worn out at all, that's why I am sorry to give them up...

 

You won't be at all sorry you gave them up when you get yourself into a modern boot. Old rear entry boots light years behind today's designs when it comes to responsiveness. Also, a boot that age is not really safe to use. Plastics degrade over time, and become brittle. Cold temperatures make things even more brittle. What that means is that a plastic boot of that age is probably not structurally sound enough to take the forces of skiing. What can likely happen if you use that boot is that the boot will shatter as you're skiing. Leaving you without a ski in the middle of a turn, and with a bare foot to get down the rest of the mountain with. 

 

And while the last time you skied was 14 years ago, those boots are at least 26 years old, since the sole says they were made in West Germany. Way too old. 

 

Sorry, but its definitely time for new boots. 

post #9 of 15
Is that what most rear entry boots look like? Never seen one or Googled it.
post #10 of 15
Well, no. In rear entry there was Salomon, who invented them, had a patent, and boots that worked. Then there was everyone else who had to use a mechanically inferior design.
post #11 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post

Well, no. In rear entry there was Salomon, who invented them, had a patent, and boots that worked had a mechanically inferior design. Then there was everyone else who had to use a(n) even more mechanically inferior design.

FIFY 

post #12 of 15
I know that is an article of religious faith, so I am not going to convince you.

It is worth noting that Salomon ruined the design when they went to the combined buckle on the SX92. (Not the SX92E, which was really a 91 with new colors.)
post #13 of 15

Is there some reason to argue about the merits of a boot discontinued years ago, or do you guys just like to argue for the fun of it?

post #14 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post

Is there some reason to argue about the merits of a boot discontinued years ago, or do you guys just like to argue for the fun of it?

I think you would be unwise to offend the adherents of the church of SX91. Wars have been fought over less.
post #15 of 15
The above rear entry boots look like they have more rear flex than forward flex. Plus little lateral support.

Do we really have to go into the losers who skied a rear entry Salomon?

scot-schmidt-02.jpg
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion