New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What DIN setting POLL - Page 2

Poll Results: What is your DIN setting

This is a multiple choice poll
  • 2% of voters (3)
    < 5
  • 9% of voters (13)
    5 - 6
  • 52% of voters (74)
    7 - 9
  • 26% of voters (37)
    10 - 12
  • 5% of voters (8)
    13 - 15
  • 0% of voters (0)
    16 - 18
  • 2% of voters (4)
    > 18
  • 0% of voters (1)
    Release? I don't need no stink'in release! I tele
140 Total Votes  
post #31 of 51
for me, I chart to an 8, but have litterally just pulled my foot out of it and I don't find they hold that well (being about 250) in certain situations.

My DIN's are usually:
teaching 8-10
park skis 12
racing 12
big mountain/pow 14+
post #32 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manus
for me, I chart to an 8, but have litterally just pulled my foot out of it and I don't find they hold that well (being about 250) in certain situations.

My DIN's are usually:
teaching 8-10
park skis 12
racing 12
big mountain/pow 14+
250 lbs, a ski teacher and a racer, and you chart to an 8: . Are you Methusala?
post #33 of 51
I guess HeluvaSkier, DD223 and AMike said it all for those racing. There might be some differences based on good/bad personal experience with particular bindings or generally.

I agree that there are too many skiers using too high settings but I have to repeat what is paralelly being discussed here: http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=29845 (my post #68 vs. #69 and 81 vs. 79...)

in more serious racing the speeds, snow conditions and resulting forces influencing the way the bindings operate are different to the extent that justifies higher settings.
Most people have probably never seen a "race chart" (racers don´t need a chart, do they) but I have one. It´s for junior racers and was published 10 years ago but except shorter skis (less leverage) there´s not much change (maybe more snowmaking hence harder snow though not so deep ruts).
It operates with slightly different setting at the toe and heel.
Some examples:
a 14-year old boy needs DIN 5 when skiing free but DIN 7-8/toe and 8-9/heel in GS
a 17-18-year old has DIN 8 but 12/toe and 13-14/heel in GS and 14/toe and 14-16/heel in DH.
(Girls/women need 1-2 less, heavy and physically very strong more, and vice versa. Let´s not forget the biological age which may differ by 3 years up or down in 11-year-old girls and by 3.6 years in 13-year-old boys according to Swiss studies.
If Atomicman joins the discussion he could tell us what his sons use, the older is, afaik, a pretty big guy.)

Which means that you could/should set almost twice as high for a race than for "civil" free skiing.
I can be happy with DIN 8 when demoing some allmountain skis or on slalom skis skiing free, and with 9.5 on GS skis used only for free skiing. I use 10.5-11 when training GS in average conditions and I increase the forward pressure to prevent "counterflex release" (called "the flex effect" by Vermontskisafety). For a race I go up to 13-14/heel and maybe 13/toe but never forget to go down when it´s over. I don´t find such a differentiation hazardous. To race on 9.5 and wonder why it pops off would be ridiculous, though.

As I remember, in international tests with excellent skiers including some top ex-racers the most common setting was approximately 9.5. DIN 11 was an exception and I don´t remember having seen 12. Fact is you don´t test racestock skis in gates and the slope is mostly well groomed.
post #34 of 51
another coquesmanship poll?

it ain't the size of the boat, it's the motion in the ocean. time to grow up, people.
post #35 of 51
Thread Starter 
Checkracer, do you know quantitatively how much forward pressure affects the DIN setting, as measured by torque? I have walked out of bindings where I forgot to set forward pressure, OTOH what is the effective DIN if forward pressure is set to where you can barely get the boot in the binding?

Also, a lot of folks here are technically proficient enough to change their own settings, forward pressure and sizes. Since I use several different boots, I make changes frequently. We should probably say, if you are in doubt, leave these settings alone. This thread is not intended to promote experimentation or cranking up bindings where no problem exists.

I am impressed that so farr the poll shows the distrubution of settngs is statistically normal, and centered right where you would expect at 7 to 9. Good skiers (not racers) using strong technique so well with low, safe settings.

Gonz, what is "coquesmanship"?:
post #36 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
Checkracer, do you know quantitatively how much forward pressure affects the DIN setting, as measured by torque? I have walked out of bindings where I forgot to set forward pressure, OTOH what is the effective DIN if forward pressure is set to where you can barely get the boot in the binding?
I think that DIN setting is DIN setting. They are two independent values, each set individually. As to how they influence one another I´m not quite sure. I assume that the release function can´t work properly if forward pressure is unsufficient and I can imagine that the binding pops easily off if the pressure is too high and setting extremely low.
I can´t tell for less evident combinations.
I couldn´t say more than what Vermontskisafety writes
(http://www.vermontskisafety.com/faq_skiers/faq_skiers_8.html)

Nevertheless, I manage to have an opinion on setting changes. They are standard to desirable in experts and racers who use their experience and who know exactly what they are doing.
I fully agree that the general message to less "professional" skiers should´t encourage or even promote experimentation.
post #37 of 51

"The Standard Normal Curve"

If you were to take this poll over to TGR, you would probably find it skewed toward the upper end of the DIN.

Two probable variables in action ....

#1. Younger population

#2 Less brains than balls factor
post #38 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuki
If you were to take this poll over to TGR, you would probably find it skewed toward the upper end of the DIN.

Two probable variables in action ....

#1. Younger population

#2 Less brains than balls factor
The TGR poll was completed a couple days ahead of this one. WTFH, Canyons and others were aware of it and alluded to it earler. The TGR poll used some different DIN groups, but here are the results:

Setting ...TGR.............. EPIC
< 8..........12.43%........<7.......14.77%
9 -10.......43.24%........7 - 9....50.00%
11 - 12.....24.32%.......10-12...25.00%
13 - 14.....9.19%........13-15....6.82%
15 - 16.....4.86%.........16-18.......0
> 16.........5.94%.........>18......1.14%

Yuki, is correct, we're skewed The statistical mode is about 1 grouping higher at TGR at 9 - 10 rather than the 7 - 9 here. Considering the demographics, we have more in common with our TGR brethren than you might expect. I posted the thread because I was curious about this very question. I think the TGR poll may be biased to the high side, because names appear in the poll. Accounting for that factor, we could actually be nearly the same. Thanks.
post #39 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzostrike
another coquesmanship poll?

it ain't the size of the boat, it's the motion in the ocean. time to grow up, people.
We're working on it! I'm more impressed by the guys who can stay in low DIN, than the racers who need to crank them down.

I set my bindings on 4 out of 5 (non-DIN scale) because I'm heavier than 80% of skiers. OK, I'm heavier than 90% of skiers but I'm old too. I didn't want to max them out, so backed it off a notch.
post #40 of 51
I usually set it around 9-9.5. I could easily get away with setting them to 10 or 11, and I used to...but in my wise older age (I'm all of 26 now) I've realzied that the risk of a pre-release now and again is better than that of my ACL or MCL. Besides, I've come to the decision that there's no such thing as an undue pre-release. Sure you may have been able to pull it together and save your balance, but you obviously weren't in the right position, or made some other ****-up that prompted your binding to release. In 99% of the situations, if you're set around 9 or 10, you're probably not generating enough force to cause the binding to release without torsional force. It happens, but you're usually slightly out of position. Your ligaments are worth the slight embarassment of a digger.
post #41 of 51
With knees like I have, courtesy of non-releases in my teens, ligaments trump the rare prerelease. 7 for my fatter skis, 8 for my carvers.
post #42 of 51
I have mine set at 6. I always try to buy bindings that place me right in the middle of the range. I could never understand guys about my weight and skill buying bindings IE P12's that start at 5-6 and then set them to 7-8, when 5-6 is the right setting.

not sure about most but I like my knees, ligaments and muscles. I don't mind that my ski came off. this just tells me I SCREWED UP, and need to learn how to do that section without loosing a ski.

I skied with a ski patroller that had knees so bad another injury would likely side line him permanently. His bindings were so loose a simple outward push on his boot would eject him. He could ski the most gnarly terrain with grace, style and incredible accuracy with bindings that would barely hold a 8 year old.

Since then I beleive if you can't ski without loosing a ski you are likely doing something wrong. Granted powder and nasty chop may alter this philosiphy, but at my correct setting of 6 it is only when I screw up I loose a ski, and thank god it does let go.

I just bought a set of P10 Junior race (100% same as adult P10) and the salesman looked at me like I was mad. Huh new 8800's and mounting P10's. I said my setting is 6 show me where that is on that binding. His finger went to the middle of the scale, I said "see". Even if I went up to 8 I still have 2 DIN's to go.

I beleive it's ego that places many into the top end binding and not the actual din range they require. Granted many guys are far heavier than me and do require a bigger DIN and some are racers or hard charging carvers with no off piste worries.
post #43 of 51
my local shop will always set DIN to 9, which i feel to be too much for my 160lbs. i usually ski at 7.5-8. i have only had a very few pre-releases in heavy offpiste snow, but i prefer that to the one late release, that could wreck my knees.
post #44 of 51
The DIN 6 Marmot uses is by no means an inferior setting. It holds surprisingly big skiers when they are well balanced and ski smoothly and technically on less demanding terrain.

Officially, with 190 lbs and sole length 323 I´m as skier III DIN 8.5 minus old age penalty = DIN 7. My old boots were 332 which brought me .5 lower to DIN 6.5.
Skiing "normally", e.g. testing non-race skis, I usually don´t go higher than 8 and it works for me on groomers.

There are some discussions in the industry about the old norm and chart adapted to new skis and possibly to binding improvements. (Shorter skis resulting in less leverage, maybe even b/c softer longitudinally.) There are some new calculations which bring the DINs somewhat lower than now. The "new" chart they have at Vist puts me to 6.5 instead of 7.

I guess that all insiders know how often the "DIN pride" (you may call it "ego") appears.

Otoh, I have never read/heard of/seen a distinction between a solid type III skier who is still a chart guy and another expert who already is beyond and needs more. There isn´t any sharp line and as we know the same skier will be the former when leisurely skiing with family and the latter when hard charging alone or with other experts.

Cf. also some posts in the other DIN thread.
post #45 of 51
I really resonate with Marmot mb's post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marmot mb
not sure about most but I like my knees, ligaments and muscles. I don't mind that my ski came off. this just tells me I SCREWED UP, and need to learn how to do that section without loosing a ski.
That is also what I think. One of my other hobbies is running, and I can't stand the thought of doing something stupid to my legs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marmot mb
I skied with a ski patroller that had knees so bad another injury would likely side line him permanently. His bindings were so loose a simple outward push on his boot would eject him. He could ski the most gnarly terrain with grace, style and incredible accuracy with bindings that would barely hold a 8 year old.
Funny, one of the guys I'll ski Mt Hood with is also a ski patroller. He got himself in a bad wreck several years ago that left him unable to ski two days in a row (too much swelling from one day of skiing) for several years. He's 6'0" 240# and now sets his bindings at a DIN of 5! Still skis the mountain. He tells me that I should loosen my bindings up, but mine are already set at 5.5 (should be 6.25 for Type II Skier).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marmot mb
Since then I beleive if you can't ski without loosing a ski you are likely doing something wrong. Granted powder and nasty chop may alter this philosiphy, but at my correct setting of 6 it is only when I screw up I loose a ski, and thank god it does let go.
I won't increase the DIN setting of my bindings for powder or crud. Don't think I need to. You can certainly tell me that I'm not a very good skier or that I'm not very aggressive. That's fine - no problems there. But last ski season I spent a couple of days skiing the crud on South Face on the Sherwood Chair at Alpine Meadows and passed 10 times the number of skiers going down it than those that passed me, bindings at DIN 5.5.
post #46 of 51
i'm quite a big guy and a racer my din would be about 12 - 13 and upto 17 or so for DH and SG - u don't want to step out when your going that fast because it is mighty painful!
post #47 of 51
I may have missed the point here, as I often do. But TGR folks are younger therefore less weight. Their din should be lower than the aged and well fed group we have here.

My weight is 200 lb and I'm 51. I tell them I'm a level 3 which I am except for the amount of air I tend to get these days. My din is 8.5 to 9. I have to tell them that my age is 49 or they will not use the higher setting. At the lower setting I release prematurely - from my bindings.
post #48 of 51
I think the poll shoud be "in relationship to where you chart". I ski at a 10 and have no problem with pre-release. The smoother and more neutural you ski, the less stress there is on your bindings.
post #49 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul jones
I may have missed the point here, as I often do. But TGR folks are younger therefore less weight. Their din should be lower than the aged and well fed group we have here.
This may be a point but I don´t think it plays any significant role.
The increments are:
I: 108-125 lbs
J: 126-147 lbs
K: 148-174 lbs
L: 175-209 lbs
M: 210+ lbs
The heavier the bigger they are. If I stay within those 175 and 209 lbs I´m still the same L group. And it´s quite a lot.

If someone getting older puts on so much weight that he really should move up the chart he will most probably be less wild and aggressive on skis (weight + age factors).

Moreover, not everybody is heavier when older.

Theoretically, if you´re around 125, 147, 174 lbs, should you change your setting each time you gain or lose 2 pounds?
147 lbs + 2 makes you chart-wise no "J" anymore but with 149 lbs already "K". Not very logical but it´s the general problem with any sharp borderlines.

I guess that natural preference of (improving) technique over (diminishing) power plus "more reason", both coming with age, are more important than the (accumulating) body fat raising our weight and our weight-based chart position.
post #50 of 51
I am 15 years old, have been skiing for 10+ years. I ski, Taos NM, Alta and Snowbird Utah, and some places in Italy and Switzerland. I ski a lot of unmarked terrain and chutes. I ski a pair of 148 volkl 5 stars and have my din setting at 7.5 and only have problems with prerelease when skiing out of a jump in powder.
post #51 of 51
I ski 8.5 just where I chart. I've never had issues w/ pre-release, and guess I am also conservative -- I'd rather have my knees around when I get up there in age. I agree w/ Phil that it is about skiing smooth, tho perhpas if I were hucking 30' cliff bands and what not I might think about going up.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion