or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › DIN Setting vs. DIN Range
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DIN Setting vs. DIN Range - Page 3

post #61 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by XJguy View Post
Im no binding expert but what I can say in general about products that are available in several levels is that you have to look at the overall constuction and features. For example you can have two bindings from the same manufacturer and have the same DIN range, but the top of the line unit will be made to withstand more abuse, perhaps be made out of lighter materials, and have a fancier finish, improved aerodynamics, and adjustability.

You can buy a bike made out of steel or carbon fiber, both will go the same places but the advantages of the cf bike are clear. With bindings not so clear, but I would imagine if you do some deep digging you can see where the added costs are justified. Of course you also always pay a premium for the "top of the line" even if its only cosmetics.
Exactly.
post #62 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post
Any topline skier that lurks here and is skiing a rocky 50 degree slope is going to know what kind of bindings he wants to be on, and he's going to have them cranked beyond the recommended din. My advice doesn't pertain to him.
I still stand by my statement.
That's still just making more assumptions. Not every good skier knows everything about gear. If they did, no one would need to argue over this issue right now. Seems ignorant to me to make blanket statements like that where there is so much room for misinterpretation. From what you said in earlier posts a 5"8, 170 lb Level 3 skier with a 315 mm boot sole length could easily take it to mean that a Tyrolia SL70 binding would be his best option, because he falls in the DIN range and it's the cheapest. Not to say that most skiers are stupid, but it's an awful shame when gear-ignorant people try to do research about a purchase and find poor advice (or interpret unclear, good advice wrong).

I myself have read, and heard many things that I believed to be fact, until eventually discovering the truth from more reliable sources and research. Ideally everyone would read every piece of literature available on a topic, but it isn't always possible. The internet is an awfully nice way to answer a quick question through a 5 second google search. Maybe I'm just assuming that there are so many stupid, lazy people out there, but in my experience making that assumption leaves a lot less room for misinterpretation than assuming everyone has a good background knowledge in all subjects. How many good skiers come here everyday looking for advice on subjects that many of us take for granted as common knowledge?
post #63 of 74
You're reaching singel, assuming people are assuming. What do you want me to say? I know and you know that a top of the line binding is better than a low end binding. It's made of better lighter weight materials and has more contact points, possible a higher riser plate, possible more features. Everyone got away from the starting question of this thread of which I mearly stated that a binding is designed to release throughout the entire range, whether it costs $390 or $200. And it was foolish to spend more money on a binding than you need to.

Calling me or my advice ignorant is getting close to a personal thing of which I will have no part in or reply.

This is a dead horse issue as the topic has already been beat to death. If you want to get personal, pm me and we'll settle it there ok?
post #64 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by utahskier View Post
Ok -- so I've searched on the archves, but haven't found a definitive answer...if there even is one.

Q -- does the DIN setting need to fall in the middle of the binding range (i.e. if my setting is 8 I should have a 4-12 binding) for the optimal use of any given binding? Or does it simply need to be 2 or 3 settings below the top DIN setting?
wow, nearly a 3 page cat fight and no one has addressed what to me is the crucial point.

Beginner bindings are intended to release.
High end bindings are intended to retain.

Retention is more important to me than release. I ski only high end bindings. Usually in the middle of the range. I don't want to blow out of my binding in a high speed arc.

I suspect most bears should be focused on retention first....as most of us are good skiers?

My .02.
post #65 of 74
(Ullr interjection)

I interrupt this thread to bring a brief respite. This is a discussion of bindings, and there's enough heat in this thread to melt snow. ...and we need that snow... so please be more mindful of the emotions you're bringing to your posts. This means everyone!

Make your case without emotion and you're more likely to be heard. And not to have your posts deleted or edited.

Thanks...

(Ullr out)
post #66 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post
Calling me or my advice ignorant is getting close to a personal thing of which I will have no part in or reply.
I've re-read both of my posts, and saw no mention of the word ignorant directed at you. I apologize if I wrote something unclear that you mistook as a personal attack. What you've said is true, I just didn't agree with the way it was presented.
post #67 of 74
I'm ok wih that singel. Thanks
post #68 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by hrstrat57 View Post
Beginner bindings are intended to release.
High end bindings are intended to retain.
That just sounds like some retail guy trying to up sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hrstrat57 View Post
Retention is more important to me than release. I ski only high end bindings. Usually in the middle of the range. I don't want to blow out of my binding in a high speed arc.
If all you really cared about was retention, you could use the same bindings we used back in the '60's. They were great at retention.

BK
post #69 of 74
In the 60s we had the added safety that the wooden ski would break if the binding didn't release. Now with all that metal in the skis we need bindings that release when forces reach a certain point.
post #70 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
In the 60s we had the added safety that the wooden ski would break if the binding didn't release. Now with all that metal in the skis we need bindings that release when forces reach a certain point.
Actually, we had Head Standards, the most indestructible ski ever made. If you find a pair in any condition, they'll still ski just the same way they did 40 years ago.

All you guys are a bunch of babies. If you had to ski on the equipment we had back when all those ski areas were first built, you would all stay home.

BK
post #71 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
Actually, we had Head Standards, the most indestructible ski ever made. If you find a pair in any condition, they'll still ski just the same way they did 40 years ago.

All you guys are a bunch of babies. If you had to ski on the equipment we had back when all those ski areas were first built, you would all stay home.

BK
Not a retail guy ...just a skier.

I actually had 7' Head standards in high school with Look Nevada's
no baby here bud, I was 140 lb's of stem christie power!!!

....had 208 rossi 7g's too with Marker Mrr's

You can have your pre releasing beginner bindings...I'll take my chances staying in the skis even if they are shorties....:
post #72 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by hrstrat57 View Post
I actually had 7' Head standards in high school with Look Nevada's
no baby here bud, I was 140 lb's of stem christie power!!!

....had 208 rossi 7g's too with Marker Mrr's
Look Nevada heels are essentially the same as the current Rossi FKs I had a couple of seasons ago. It's still good enough for the World Cup. Once they added teflon under the sole and at the toe, Look Nevada's were excellent bindings. Marker MMR's (or the low DIN MR's) are as good as any current Marker, except that you had to bend down to put them on. Those bindings were much closer in performance to modern bindings than the bindings that were common in the early '60's. If you want to talk about bad bindings, you need to go back to Cubco's.

BK
post #73 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
Look Nevada heels are essentially the same as the current Rossi FKs I had a couple of seasons ago. It's still good enough for the World Cup. Once they added teflon under the sole and at the toe, Look Nevada's were excellent bindings. Marker MMR's (or the low DIN MR's) are as good as any current Marker, except that you had to bend down to put them on. Those bindings were much closer in performance to modern bindings than the bindings that were common in the early '60's. If you want to talk about bad bindings, you need to go back to Cubco's.

BK
You know your stuff Bode! I loved those skis!! Couldn't turn em of course(the 7' Standards) at 140 lbs but didn't matter, I was fast

....Bode Klammer what a great handle!!
post #74 of 74
++++++++++++++
Part I

I spent all last season (140+days) skiing on a pair of top end bindings (Tyrolia FF17) and a pair of supposedly inferior 2-piece consumer bindings (Tyrolia Mojo11).

Both sets of skis used in equally demanding situations and terrain.

Whilst the FF17 had nice bells and whistles (diagonal release, more elasticity etc.), I can safely say that I am perfectly happy on both bindings, and will be perfectly happy to ski both for an additional season.

Clearly if I were going into a rutted course, I'd choose the one with the higher elasticity.

However, both bindings released when I expected them to, and retained when I expected them to. No surprises.

++++++++++++++++
Part II

The whole point about DIN (Deutsches Institut für Normung) is that it isn't vague - it's an exacting (worldwide) standard, so that no matter what brand of binding you buy - a DIN 5 is a DIN 5 across the board.

The appropriate DIN standard that we are discussing is:

DIN 7881-5 - Winter sports equipment; release bindings for alpine downhill skiing; adjustment scale for release values (also ISO 8061:2004)

SO:

A Type 1 Skier, weighing 76kg, 5'8" in height, with a boot sole length of 305mm will have a DIN release figure for his toe and heel piece of 5.5. This will equate to a nominal release force of 50Nm at the toe (twist) and 194Nm at the heel (forward lean).

No ambiguity.

On a binding release testing machine, we will test for a nominal of those release figures above, with a manufacturers testing tolerance being accounted for.

When they are both brand new, an Atomic release at 9 will be identical to a Salomon release at 9.

Over time, with dirt, worn springs, dirty grease, worn parts etc. no doubt this will change relative to each other.

There is something else to take into consideration: The individual features of each binding manufacturer.

The torque figures in Nm are given for a twist in the horizontal plane for the toe piece, and a forward lean "up" release for the heel piece.

Different manufacturers have different features, eg; Tyrolia and the diagonal heel release, Salomon and the spheric release, Marker and the upward toe release - so there will be some differences in release strategies, but on the whole, for the two "standard" figures (twist/toe. forward lean/heel) - this will always match the DIN for ANY binding for ANY manufacturer.

Other factors to take into consideration are skier, technique, terrain, shock loading, stiffness of skis etc., all of which will have an influence on if/when you release.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Part III

Elasticity was talked about briefly above. Yes, there is a difference between say the top end model, and a base model.

Salomon S912Ti has an allowable toe elasticity of 48mm lateral, 10mm vertical.

Salomon S710Ti has an allowable toe elasticity of 32mm lateral, 15mm vertical.


All that said - if you're centred and balanced well on your skis, you won't have to worry.
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 › DIN Setting vs. DIN Range