EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Atomic Race 412 or 614 ???????
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic Race 412 or 614 ???????

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
i have a pair of atomic sl 9 skis and i am not sure which bindings to buy. which one is better, is there a big difference between each other? any help will be apreciated.......
post #2 of 23
The 614 has double forward pressure springs and the heel has a metal housing as opposed to plastic. Better forward pressure and no deformation of the heel housing at higher DINS. More weight.
post #3 of 23
What is your DIN setting? The 412 has a DIN setting of 4-12 and the 614 is 6-14.

A binding should have a range with your normal setting falling somewhere in the middle.

For example if your normal DIN is 7 or 8 a 412 should be fine. If you like your DIN alittle higher then the 614 is good.

I beleive the 614 binding also weighs more and has more varizone settings then the 412.
post #4 of 23
6.14 has 5 varizone settings

Allaround in the center and 2 behind & two forward.

4.12 has 4.

6.14 is built better and as Scalce said you should try to be in the middle of the DIN range!
post #5 of 23
Go for broke and get the 1018. You shouldn't race below 12 anyhow.

Just kidding... What they said.
post #6 of 23
Why not even more DIN?
Marker 30.0 or 3000, DIN 15-30
Also kidding.
Definitely 614.
post #7 of 23
I'm curious about the suggestion to stay in the middle of the DIN range. Is there a concrete reason why you should do this? Do binding manufacturers really sell a binding with a range of 4-12 that only operates properly at 7-9? Seems like a setting of 4 or 12 on that binding should also work if that's what the range of the binding is.
post #8 of 23
Max:

I don't think it is that it only works in that range but probably works best close to the middle. I think it has to do with how much or little the spring is compressed and maybe how accurate it is. Not as good in the extremem ends of the range.

This is not just an Atomic suggestion. I have heard this for years from many sources.
post #9 of 23
I have heard it as well. But if the manufucturer says it works on a setting of 3 then I would hope that it would work at that setting as well as any other setting. But maybe there is release data that says there truly is a sweet spot?
post #10 of 23
Bindings are mechanical devices that rely on springs. Springs have more accuracy in the middle of their range of travel than at the extremes. As a result, a binding adjustment will be more consistent when the spring is adjusted to the middle of its compression and not near either of the extremes (full compressed or fully extended). This is the reason for the oft-given advice to purchase bindings that have your setting near the middle.
post #11 of 23
But aren't release settings torque tested as well? If a setting of 3 (or 10 for that matter) in a 3-10 binding has the correct release torque values doesn't it work as designed?
post #12 of 23
They are designed to work within a tolerance range. It can be fairly significant.
post #13 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501
But aren't release settings torque tested as well? If a setting of 3 (or 10 for that matter) in a 3-10 binding has the correct release torque values doesn't it work as designed?
Probably not very close out at the ends of the scale.
post #14 of 23
If you are on the low end you will get scared.
On saturday I skied the Atomic SG on a 12-xx binding. they set it to 14 (I am normally at 6-8, just like I feel) gave me screwdriver and told me to set it up to my needs. So I lowered it to the lowest possible equals 12.

When I gained speed I knew that the ski would not release easily. Powering down a black diamond in a super G course made me fear like hell. Don't even think about a 15-30 binding. My concept is. Take your weight and divide it by 10. Now you are at a quite safe value. Add at least two if you go into the powder. Beware, the longer the shoe, or ski (???) the higher the forces = the lower value to set. I don't think this Din Value is very critical to be set up exactly, but it should not differ by say more than 2-3 numbers (hey, on a snowboard there is no release at all, and speeds are up to GS level on a long raceboard)
6-14 is reasonable. But if you're a lightweight consider the 4-12. A 6-14 should be used in between 8-12 to be on the safe side.
post #15 of 23
^ ... just in case anyone is considering following the above advice, don't.

Given your "formula", my DIN would be 22...
post #16 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
^ ... just in case anyone is considering following the above advice, don't.

Given your "formula", my DIN would be 22...
damn, I was already in the garage with a screwdriver! (Maybe he meant in Kilos)
post #17 of 23
Duh!!! :

You got it A'Man. Europeans measure weight in kilos and extremecarver is European as pointed out in another post today. Using kilos it seems like it is actuallly not far away as a rough rule of thumb.
post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier
Duh!!! :

You got it A'Man. Europeans measure weight in kilos and extremecarver is European as pointed out in another post today. Using kilos it seems like it is actuallly not far away as a rough rule of thumb.
Wow, now that you mention it it does kind of work out. For me anyways.
post #19 of 23
Everyone seems to agree that you do not want to run a binding with the DIN set torwards the min/max values. But is this just a gut feeling or is there actual data that supports this practice?

BTW, I'm interested as I have kids and their bindings are set at the lowest settings or very close to it. Not much of a choice as they are lightweight racers and the bindings with the lower DIN are made of plastic and can't take the abuse over a season so we have to use all metal bindings which typically have a broader range like 3-10.
post #20 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
damn, I was already in the garage with a screwdriver! (Maybe he meant in Kilos)
Hah, or stone.

You'd be amazed how many tourists from a particular corner of the world only know their weight in stone, not kilos or pounds. I can mentally convert the latter two, and every DIN chart obviates that need with both values covered anyways. However, I still haven't the foggiest of ideas WTH a stone is.

edit: Although a "DUH" may be in order, I feel its unfair, as I had no damn clue where extremecarver was from. Just another good reason to let us all know where you are from in the profile...

Max: Its pretty much a gut feeling. If a shop sets up and adjusts the bindings, you can rest assured that the bindings are performing within the standard for that particular skier, regardless of internet banter. However, the differences in forward pressure springs and overall design of various bindings mean that the actual experience on the hill can be good or bad. For lightweight racers, running a low setting on a high end binding probably isn't a bad thing. Just make sure those bindings get torque tested frequently. Most of the race stock bindings are built in low volume from old designs, and in my experience are the least consistent (pretty much all manufacturers) in testing.
post #21 of 23
Ups, should have written it.

Well I think my rule of thumb is accurate enough for the buying decision. find A binding where your weight in kilos divided by 10 is in the middle, and so you can adjust it good enough.
If you are seriously racing this does not apply. However then you won't ask this question.
Many shops in Austria actually do nothing more than dividing by 10. Germans are much more concerned about liability.
post #22 of 23
Skiingman

( OK, no DUH!! this time )

1 stone = 14 pounds I think stones are only normally used in the UK and possibly less so by those youngsters who have been brought up more on a (quasi) metric system. I'm a bit more screwed up, having grown up originally with the imperial system and also moved around a lot I still tend to convert metric units back to imperial to be able to "understand" the value.

OTOH, it is interesting how all of us automatiically understand metric measuremnts for skis
post #23 of 23
It doesn't make sense to assume that the spring are only accurate in the middle range of the scale. Even if a spring might not have the same linearity at the begining and end of its compression range, it usually is compensated by the manufacturer with its slight change in distance between each tick mark.
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 › Atomic Race 412 or 614 ???????