or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DIN setting - Page 2

post #31 of 51

just for completeness...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
So where's the link to a chart with a type III+ on it, or do you just move one more line down the same chart?
exactly.

I'm sure you guys already know this, but for the sake of those who stumble across this thread:

start with the chart
modify for skier type:
I- go up one row
I stay there
II down one
III down two
III+ down three

age under 10 or over 50 - go up one row
[That means that an internationally recognized standard says that I will be officially "old" two months from now.]

There are also some details on how to use the chart, for example what to do about blank boxes (move sideways) or if height and weight disagree (use whichever gives the higher row (lower setting)).

For exact wording see alpinedad's link, or use search to find the link I got the Rossi manual from.

There is also a page about what to do if the skier wants a setting different from what the calculation comes out to. ("Information for Skiers Requesting Discretionary Settings") It doesn't say the technician shouldn't do it -- though that may still leave shop policy or insurance company regulations to get around.
post #32 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltron View Post
....Blame the DIN charts, not those that read and use them.
Voltron, I'm not sure if I can take that leap...my professor of statistics mother constantly reminded me "Figures don't lie but Liars do figure" :
post #33 of 51
The DIN charts are just a bunch of numbers - they cannot accept or respond to blame.
The information provided, how it is interpreted, and then how the results are applied are all gray areas.

I think james is a good example - the initial information he gave was that he had 265mm soles. That's the information we have to put into the chart. Turns out we find out later that he may be wrong with that number (but we cannot be sure, nor should we guess what the number is).
So are the DIN charts to blame? No.
(but if you are going to do it yourself, make sure you are using a current chart)
post #34 of 51
...as an aside, I created an Excel spreadsheet that could be used to calculate DIN based on 05/06 Salomon data, it just gives you one answer based on the precise data put in.

I have given it to a few ski techs who have used it as a ready reckoner.

Most skiers who I have shown it to have told me that it is wrong.
Why? Because they look at a chart and see that they are close to a different level, and maybe they use that one, or maybe they don't convert properly to the correct units - but what they are doing is interpreting facts to suit their beliefs.
post #35 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat View Post
The DIN charts are just a bunch of numbers - they cannot accept or respond to blame.
The information provided, how it is interpreted, and then how the results are applied are all gray areas.

I think james is a good example - the initial information he gave was that he had 265mm soles. That's the information we have to put into the chart. Turns out we find out later that he may be wrong with that number (but we cannot be sure, nor should we guess what the number is).
So are the DIN charts to blame? No.
(but if you are going to do it yourself, make sure you are using a current chart)
The DIN chart is not up to different interpretations. The instructions are specific and you either read it right or you read it wrong. Perhaps my statement regarding blame was not the best choice of wording; my apologies. If a person reads the bootsole length wrong, that's obviously user error. However, depending on whether James writes down 147 lbs or 148 lbs, he can fall into the same catagory as a small 5'2" 126 lbs person or a 5'10" 174 lbs football player. This is the case regardless of whether you read the value off the chart or use an excel spreadsheet.
post #36 of 51
I'm 6', 165, III+, 315mm, and the odd bit is that using any of these charts, my already low shop DIN (7; I usually persuade them to go to 8) should be 6. In another few years it'll go to 5 unless I lie about my age. Have I been stressing my knees all these years?
post #37 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltron View Post
The DIN chart is not up to different interpretations. The instructions are specific and you either read it right or you read it wrong. Perhaps my statement regarding blame was not the best choice of wording; my apologies. If a person reads the bootsole length wrong, that's obviously user error. However, depending on whether James writes down 147 lbs or 148 lbs, he can fall into the same catagory as a small 5'2" 126 lbs person or a 5'10" 174 lbs football player. This is the case regardless of whether you read the value off the chart or use an excel spreadsheet.
The charts are a step function, much like interest tables. The values in the interest tables are in fact just points taken from a continuous function. The DIN should be a continuous function of boot sole length, and skier weight, and possibly skier height for each risk level. The functions could easily be put into a spreadsheet, if we knew what they were. Does anybody have any idea what they are? (we could always fit a cubic spline)
post #38 of 51
Ghost -
I figure theres a 67.8% chance you are teasing us engineers, but I looked at it anyway.

The rows ("Skier code") are linear with weight for the first 6 rows and quadratic after that.

Within a column, the din settings are nearly proportional to weight, with a slight kink between rows 6 and 7.

Within a row, the din is nearly proportional to the inverse of boot sole length.
post #39 of 51
I'd have never taken up this whole skiing thing if I knew math was going to be involved in any way.:
post #40 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Singel View Post
I'd have never taken up this whole skiing thing if I knew math was going to be involved in any way.:

Singel, skiing is all about maths/physics - mainly complex equations for producting curves, working with forces, etc. It's an engineer's dream!
post #41 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post
Ghost -
I figure theres a 67.8% chance you are teasing us engineers, but I looked at it anyway.

The rows ("Skier code") are linear with weight for the first 6 rows and quadratic after that.

Within a column, the din settings are nearly proportional to weight, with a slight kink between rows 6 and 7.

Within a row, the din is nearly proportional to the inverse of boot sole length.
No teasing. I'm also a P.Eng.
post #42 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat View Post
Singel, skiing is all about maths/physics - mainly complex equations for producting curves, working with forces, etc. It's an engineer's dream!
Sweet! I knew I wasn't studying engineering for nothing. Back to the original question...

Such a huge difference is not normal. I set my DIN based on feel. When I first got my skis, the shop set me at 7, but I've slowly cranked it up to 8.5/9 depending on the conditions. Also, talking with the shop owner, he'd never recommend maxing out the DIN on any binding.
post #43 of 51
Thread Starter 
Are shops allowed to set bindings different from the chart, at least from a legal standpoint? As of now, I do not see a reason to go below 10, but since the chart reads lower, would it be a problem to have it set higher? The shop that I bought the skis from is the one that set my old skis to 6.5, so I may have a problem getting them to raise it 3.5 points.
post #44 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesgig View Post
As of now, I do not see a reason to go below 10,
Reread this thread, and every other thread concerning din settings. Ask in the patrol shack because I'm sure they can provide some very valid reasons there. Unless you have had a lot of prerelease issues at 8 and 9, going to 10 is not a good idea.

You'll feel a lot stupider getting dragged down the mountain in a sled after breaking your leg without releasing than from taking a powder shot to the face or ejecting under the liftline from a pre-release.
post #45 of 51
The shop won't do it. Meet me in the parking lot at Roundtop 8:00 am on opening day. I'll crank 'em down for you.
post #46 of 51
Thread Starter 
"Reread this thread, and every other thread concerning din settings. Ask in the patrol shack because I'm sure they can provide some very valid reasons there. Unless you have had a lot of prerelease issues at 8 and 9, going to 10 is not a good idea."

I understand the concept setting it to a higher number, and the risks that follow. I am just saying that if my skis were set to 10 before without a problem, then why would I go down?
post #47 of 51
Because you might break your leg. Your skis only came off when you fell, so we know they are not set too low. The chart says 6.5, so maybe ten is too high. Reasons for using higher than recommended setting are, you are pre-releasing, or you are skiing far from help where a lost ski would be life threatening. Imagine a situation where you might be able to get back to civilization with torn knee ligaments or broken leg but not without two skis.
post #48 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesgig View Post
I understand the concept setting it to a higher number, and the risks that follow. I am just saying that if my skis were set to 10 before without a problem, then why would I go down?

I think I need to pile on here too. If you really were set 3.5 above your "proper" setting, I think you got lucky. Every fall is different.

If you do need to up your setting, do it in small steps and quit when you stop having problems.
post #49 of 51

I better add the disclaimer

(jamesgig - not specifically aimed at you, you just reminded me. It's a big internet out there.)

Since I posted the numbers, I better add the disclaimer:

Do not adjust your own binding settings unless you know what you are doing. Even if you do know what you are doing, you probably don't have the test jig to make sure the indicated setting matches the real release value.

If you need to change settings, start with what the shop set them to and adjust cautiously, in small increments.

Just because your skis come off and you are still upright does not necessarily make it a "prerelease". For example, you are not supposed to be able to run straight into the side of a mogul.

If you do have pre-releases, check carefully for dirt, ice, snow or damage before blaming the setting.
post #50 of 51
It is possible to be lucky and fall without putting a big torque on your leg bones, but it is also possible to fall and brake a leg. Broken legs were a lot more common before modern bindings. If you're skiing somewhere that a lost ski will likely mean schmucking into a rockface at 70 or going over a cliff, then crank 'em up by all means. If not, you're only begging for a broken leg.
post #51 of 51
First of all, the boot sole length has to be wrong at 265mm. That being said, even if he got to the bottom of the chart and there were no DIN settings for him in that range you move to right until you come to a release number. However, it looks like he might have given mondo size not sole length. I highly recommend that you have a reputable shop adjust and test your bindings based upon a current chart.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion