New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Binding Question

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
I just got my old Elans back from the shop where I had a pair of left-over Salomon Carbon 912's mounted. The DIN is set on 8, but the toe is REAL soft. I know I can raise the DIN to 10 and stop this, but my question is what is the large adjustment screw on the top of the binding for?

Thanks,
post #2 of 21
That's the height adjustment screw for the toe piece.
Cheers, Matt.
post #3 of 21
I believe with the boot set in the binding the gap between the sole of the boot and binding plate is .020. If you think the binding may be soft at DIN of 8. You may be better off to have a expert check it. The $$ you may save now, could end up spoiling a day on the snow or worst. Hospital.
post #4 of 21
Thread Starter 
Thanks!!! I will take them back this weekend.
post #5 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by smithby:
I believe with the boot set in the binding the gap between the sole of the boot and binding plate is .020.
WTF do you think you're talking about? .020 what? It's nice to attempt to be helpful and all that, but when you don't have a clue, why throw out meaningless numbers?

When a shop adjusts the toe height on a Salomon spheric toe binding with the big old screw on tope, it's done using a Salomon (or Atomic) toe height card. Both are just plastic cards .5 mm thick. The instructions for Salomon say to "place the card between the boot and the AFD and adjust the toe height until the card can be removed with a slight tug."

[ November 07, 2003, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: Ugli Pupferknick ]
post #6 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by Ugli Pupferknick:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by smithby:
I believe with the boot set in the binding the gap between the sole of the boot and binding plate is .020.
WTF do you think you're talking about? ...When a shop adjusts the toe height on a Salomon spheric toe binding with the big old screw on tope, it's done using a Salomon (or Atomic) toe height card. Both are just plastic cards .5 mm thick. ...</font>[/quote]Err ... you did realize that 0.020 in = 0.508 mm, didn't you?

Tom / PM

[ November 07, 2003, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]
post #7 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by PhysicsMan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ugli Pupferknick:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by smithby:
I believe with the boot set in the binding the gap between the sole of the boot and binding plate is .020.
WTF do you think you're talking about? ...When a shop adjusts the toe height on a Salomon spheric toe binding with the big old screw on tope, it's done using a Salomon (or Atomic) toe height card. Both are just plastic cards .5 mm thick. ...</font>[/quote]Err ... you did realize that 0.020 in = 0.508 mm, didn't you?

Tom / PM
</font>[/quote]You do realize that his post didn't say inches anywhere, do you?
post #8 of 21
Anyone who has *ever* worked as a ski tech, automotive tech, in a machine shop, or for that matter, has done anything remotely mechanical in the USA would instantly realize from the context of his post that the "0.020" was in inches.

For better or worse, inches are still the default unit of measurement in the US. His number obviously couldn't have been in mm, since 0.02 mm (roughly one "mil") would be about 1/3 rd the size of a human hair, and that's much too precise a fit for an application like this. Since millimeters were the only option that are even vaguely close, it had to be in inches. Besides, what else would could the measurement unit have possibly been, light-years, feet, yards, meters?

If you were trying to bust the guy's chops for not specifying an otherwise obvious unit of measurement:

(a) Why didn't you just say, "How 'bout some units, buddy?";

(b) Busting chops for something that obvious is lame ; and

(c) If you did realize that it was in inches yourself, why did you then say, "It's nice to attempt to be helpful and all that, but when you don't have a clue, why throw out meaningless numbers?". He obviously had not only a clue, he had the exact number.

:

Tom / PM

[ November 07, 2003, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]
post #9 of 21
This is a eurocentric sport buddy, it's metric all the way. If you want to dip your inches in the queen's bum for a pound and a few quid it's fine with me but I'd rather that you kept it to yourself.
post #10 of 21
[img]smile.gif[/img] , but just for the record, I'm not into queens.



Tom / PM
post #11 of 21
Big mouth, small brain, tons of attitude. Why do they seem always to converge in one individual?
post #12 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by PhysicsMan:
Anyone who has *ever* worked as a ski tech, automotive tech, in a machine shop, or for that matter, has done anything remotely mechanical in the USA would instantly realize from the context of his post that the "0.020" was in inches.
No, you're wrong. Somehow, I doubt you've worked in a ski shop since you think inches would be used for anything relating to skiing. I've never heard of a shop that used inches as its default measuring system.
Have you ever specified a ski length as 72? How about a boot sole length as 12? If I heard anyone say anything like that I'd have no idea what they meant.
Just about the only thing that sometimes is put in U.S. units is boot size, since it has to more or less match consumers' ideas of foot size (for convenience in shops, etc.).
Ugli may have been harsh, but think about people who didn't already know a typical toe height measurement who would not actually understand what .02 meant--personally I had assumed he meant .2mm and just didn't understand decimal points, which is actually a mistake that's made all the time (people like to say 'zero point two' for some reason, and other confuse that with 'point zero two').
But such is life in JONGland.
post #13 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by Maddog1959:
Big mouth, small brain, tons of attitude. Why do they seem always to converge in one individual?
A good question. This matter was addressed very thoroughly by phrenology, hailed in the 18th and 19th centuries as the only true study of the mind. Phrenologists posited that the brain was composed of anywhere from 27 to 35 distinct organs whose size and shape determined one's personality and behavioral traits. By measuring the shapes and sizes of patients' skulls a skilled phrenologist could determine the balance of these organs within the brain, and the pioneers of this lost art produced extensive charts linking cranial dimensions to attitudes, actions, conduct, and demeanor. The convergence of charactaristics you have observed is no accident -- due to the shape and size of my cranial cavity and of my orifice, I am physiologically destined to be rude and belligerent.



Who am I to fight my destiny, as foretold by the primal forces of science?
post #14 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by Maddog1959:
Big mouth, small brain, tons of attitude. Why do they seem always to converge in one individual?
That individual's name: Maddog91981289182
post #15 of 21
0.020 is normally referred to as "20 thou", i.e. 20 thousandths of an inch.
Most feeler gauges used around the world are available in imperial or metric.
Having been educated at school to use the metric system, when I went to university, most of the small mechanical engineering gaps were still quoted in thou. Probably the most common example would be spark plug gaps in your car engine.
The idea of using a standard feeler gauge, rather than a bit of card is a more sensible way of letting others check the gap.
What I mean is, thank you smithby, and to the JONGs who proceded to rip into him and PM, I suggest you stop gaping at people with a bit of intelligence.
post #16 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by PhysicsMan:
Anyone who has *ever* worked as a ski tech, automotive tech, in a machine shop, or for that matter, has done anything remotely mechanical in the USA would instantly realize from the context of his post that the "0.020" was in inches.

Tom / PM
Physicsman:
Respectfully:
Consider he didn't know what the BIG screw was on top of his toepiece!

A-man
post #17 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by Wear the fox hat:
and to the JONGs who proceded to rip into him and PM, I suggest you stop gaping at people with a bit of intelligence.
That'll leave you off scot free.

Do you have a prominent brow or any pronounced bumps or depressions in your skull? I'm curious only from a scientific standpoint.
post #18 of 21
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all of the input guys. I'm sorry my question has caused so much controversy. I was just curious to know what the Salomon 912's DIN of 8 is so much softer than my Marker 1200 Pistons.
post #19 of 21
No, Ugli, I'm not related to you.

Ullr,
Apologies for the little ego flexing going on here.
As well as checking the toe height, also check the wings. Do they fit snugly around the boot, or is there a big gap?
You'll find a screw on one side which will bring them in tighter (or loosen them, if required)

S
post #20 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by smithby:
... You may be better off to have a expert check it. The $$ you may save now, could end up spoiling a day on the snow or worst. Hospital.
Guys, Guys, Guys, I think you missed the most important part of this post. Regardless of whether it was inches, mm, cm, miles, feet, yards, rods, furlongs...., the most important thing that smithby said was totally disregarded.

If you do not know and have to ask it is always best to take it to someone who knows! If you don't know what you are doing don't mess with them!
post #21 of 21
During the 1980's of the last century when I was a devotee of Salomon bindings, we used to place a fresh US domination piece of currency between the boot sole and the AFD. Then tighten the adjsutment screw so the bill couldn't be pulled out, and then back off the adjsutment until the bill could be pulled out. They bill should pull with a slight tugging feel on the bill. A clean pull meant the adjustment had been backed off too much.

That wass the 1980's. Some 12 or 13 years later, bindings have changed, but Salomon still insists on using that plastic AFD.

Now I am a Marker devotee, they have the best technology, and far and way the best sliding AFD of any binding out there. Their technology for slow forward or backward twisting falls is second to none. The pre-release tendancies have finally been solved.

If you are going to ski out west...ski the best...marker bindings.

If skiing in the east.....do the least with the most...marker bindings..{ yeh it doesn't make much sense, but I couldn't think of better word to rhyme with 'east"}

Even a used pair of Markers are better than the used Salomons, but frankly, I would go with new bindings, no matter what brand you choose.It is just to risky to use those old bindings !!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion