New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DIN Question!

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
Hey all,

I bought a new atomic ski with bindings for my trip to Mont Tremblant in a couple of days and I am a bit worried about the din setting. I am 240 lbs and like 6'1 and I would say an expert skier very aggressive and I go fast and ski everywhere, trail, moguls, off trail, glades. I am not a perfect skier but very good. They asked if I was a type I type II or type III skier so I put type III. I go to pick them up and the din setting is at 9. I asked why it was so high and they said you put type III skier which is like heli-skier, ski down cliffs and stuff you see in those Warren Miller movies which I am obviously NOT.

Now my question, is 9 too high? I never set up binding so I am not sure and I forgot what my old skis were at since I got rid of them last year. I just want to be safe so I am asking.

Any help would be great.

Thanks
post #2 of 29
somebody was being a smart butt when they said all those things, but to answer your question 9 should be just fine on your DIN settings according to your weight, height, and I'm assuming your under the age of 50, and with your height I assume your boot size is between 10 and 13. This calculates to the correct settings. Enjoy your trip!!
post #3 of 29
9?! I'm 140, 5'7" and free ski on 10's.
post #4 of 29
Thread Starter 
Hey there,

thanks for some quick replies. I am a size 12, 24 years old. I don't think they knew very much. At first they wanted to sell me a 155 ski but I checked around this forum and found out longer is better (when they were telling me shorter is better) and then their service department was a joke.

I am just asking because I don't want the settings to be too high and then not release but I assume its a good din setting so I am happy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rise To The Top View Post
9?! I'm 140, 5'7" and free ski on 10's.

Why so high for your size and weight?
post #5 of 29
Why do you go to that shop?

Are they holding your sister or some family member hostage? :
post #6 of 29
Thread Starter 
It was cheaper by like $250. Next time I will find a better place for sure. It was a chain department store so I guess I shouldn't have expected anything less then I got!
post #7 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rise To The Top
9?! I'm 140, 5'7" and free ski on 10's.


Why so high for your size and weight?
Xtremo Hillrodder

DIN recomm. is a safe standard for average guy skier. Some skiers set theirs higher to reduce a chance of pre-release.: Mine are +3 above recomm. I turned 50 awhile back: and recomm. DIN dropped a few clicks. But I kept my settings for under that age group.:
post #8 of 29
Totally rad gnar shredders want (maybe even need) bindings set very high.

SJ
post #9 of 29
I'm 5'6, 125 and have mine on 8.
post #10 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by cereal83 View Post
Why so high for your size and weight?
Because for some reason I can step out of 8's. Not literal step like walking, but simply ski out of them while turning. I would rather have my skis not come off my feet at all than to come off randomly. When they come of randomly I'm more prone to getting a broken leg. When I fall I know a good 2-3 seconds ahead of time, leaving me some time to try to make a recovery or just slip it.
post #11 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by cereal83 View Post
Hey all,

I bought a new atomic ski with bindings for my trip to Mont Tremblant in a couple of days and I am a bit worried about the din setting. I am 240 lbs and like 6'1 and I would say an expert skier very aggressive and I go fast and ski everywhere, trail, moguls, off trail, glades. I am not a perfect skier but very good. They asked if I was a type I type II or type III skier so I put type III. I go to pick them up and the din setting is at 9. I asked why it was so high and they said you put type III skier which is like heli-skier, ski down cliffs and stuff you see in those Warren Miller movies which I am obviously NOT.

Now my question, is 9 too high? I never set up binding so I am not sure and I forgot what my old skis were at since I got rid of them last year. I just want to be safe so I am asking.

Any help would be great.

Thanks
A type III skier is NOT a "like hell" skier. It is a very conservative DIN setting. Mine should be a 7 (type III) but I routinely ski at 13+. Kids bindings go to 7 for goodness sake!
post #12 of 29
I'm 6', 200#, very good all-mountain, all-conditions skier, and have my bindings set at 6.5. I don't jump. The bindings don't come off unless they need to, and then they come off smoothly. I do ski "on top" of my skis...I bank them into a turn so the force is straight toward the ski, not twisting sideways.
post #13 of 29
According to the Din Calculator.. it says 8.5 and that is what i have my skis on ( am prob 30 lb lighter ) and i have never pre released and they have always come off when they should have so 9 is prob just right
post #14 of 29
DIN settings are from a chart and have nothing whatever to do with the quality of a shop and there can be no way to infer from them shop quality or knowledge.

You said you wanted category III and the shop set them according to your desires. It has nothing to do with heli-skiing or cliff jumping or anything else related except what you may have inferred into the meaning of cat III. It is simply a matter of whether you want your bindings set average for height and weight, tighter than average or lighter than average.

You gave them the answers. If they didn't explain properly that is their problem, but you should have asked if you didn't understand. Meanwhile the settings they came up with were correct based on your answers and your height, weight, age and sole length.
post #15 of 29
Thread Starter 
wow, came back to loads of answers. Thanks all. I feel a bit better now.

Lou, yes I totally understand your point but I was just asking to make sure as I want to be on the safe side. I don't want to be out skiing, have a major wipe and then my ski not release because the settings are too high.

Also while I am a good skier, I am not knowledgeable about new ski technologies and din settings etc as my dad always took care of that for me, now I am a big boy so I am learning to do it myself.

Thanks again
post #16 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwill View Post
somebody was being a smart butt when they said all those things, but to answer your question 9 should be just fine on your DIN settings according to your weight, height, and I'm assuming your under the age of 50, and with your height I assume your boot size is between 10 and 13. This calculates to the correct settings. Enjoy your trip!!
Wrong assumption bro. Thta's kinda dangerous. Without knowing the EXACT sole length, you can't calculate that.
post #17 of 29

Din

Cereal83. Answer your own question - do the following. Leave on 9 as set and perform the following release check:

1. Put you skis (one at a time) on the carpet at home.

2. Use you strong/dominant leg. Have friend, wife etc. stand on the tail.
Click into binding. With knee bent and forward kick out hard and
and forward.

3. You should release with this pressure. The release should be a firm
release, not to easy and not too hard, i.e., hurting leg and knee.

4. Have wife, friend etc. stand on front of ski. Again with bent knee
twist to the inside and this should be hard but doable release.

If you release and its not too hard or too easy the 9 Din is ok, if not
adapt accordingly. Move DIN 1/2 number at a time, repeat above test.
I check my bindings every Fall to make sure they're working properly. Reading on Epic some guys really crank their DIN up, personally I'd rather have a good knee that rarely prerelease. You can't really rely on others experiences but have to go on your own body, strngth etc. Test them yourself and you will know and won't be relying on a chart only or anothers opinion.:
post #18 of 29
If you don't feel good about 9, turn them down to 8. 9 doesn't seem that high to me, I am 5'10 165 lb and am currently skiing at 9 and still prereleasing from the heels. I started at 8 and will keep slowly turning them up untill they stop falling off. This is what I do. You should decide what you are comfortable with.
post #19 of 29
BSL's are the trump card in setting a DIN, the shorter the BSL, the higher the DIN.
post #20 of 29
Just to draw the connection...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DropCliffsNotBombs View Post
Kids bindings go to 7 for goodness sake!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
BSL's are the trump card in setting a DIN, the shorter the BSL, the higher the DIN.
post #21 of 29
I'm 5'10" 205 muscular very aggressive skier. Bumps jumps etc..
Had din on 10 tore a ligament in my knee. 8 is too light pre-released alot. 9 has been perfect. I'd go up to ten again only on steep deep powder like in say Alta. Less likely to get hurt and more likely to lose a ski until spring.

More din doesn't make you more of a man.
post #22 of 29

Type III Skier

Here's a sample description of a Type III skier from a shop manual:

TYPE III:
Fast skiing on slopes of moderate to steep pitch.
Skiers who designate themselves as Type III receive higher than average release/retention settings. This corresponds to decreased releasability in a fall in order to gain a decreased risk of inadvertent binding release.
If you think that description fits your ability level, then my guess is that the shop used an appropriate setting from the binding chart. As noted elsewhere, your boot sole length also has to be accounted for when selecting the chart setting.

The chart recommendation for a Type II setting would be 1.5 lower in your height/weight range. This would be a significant drop, so if you think you want to revise your ability level downward just a bit, you might drop the DIN settings by 0.5. I would suggest discussing a bit more with your shop to be sure you've got the optimal setup.

Other posts have shown examples of people who feel most comfortable with settings above the standard chart recommendations. This works for a lot of people, but requires good equipment knowledge & experience to do safely. (Unfortunately, some of this experience is probably going to be gained from falling...)
post #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by cereal83 View Post
Hey all,

I bought a new atomic ski with bindings for my trip to Mont Tremblant in a couple of days and I am a bit worried about the din setting. I am 240 lbs and like 6'1 and I would say an expert skier very aggressive and I go fast and ski everywhere, trail, moguls, off trail, glades. I am not a perfect skier but very good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cereal83 View Post
I don't think they knew very much. At first they wanted to sell me a 155 ski but I checked around this forum and found out longer is better (when they were telling me shorter is better) and then their service department was a joke.
Can't believe I am going to flip flop on this, as much as I have been bashing the customer service at shops lately, but are you kidding me?

This shop set up your ski's correctly, and you think they don't know much, and they are a joke? :

You yourself stated that you are an "expert" (and a fairly big guy), and you thought that DIN was too high? I really thought you were going to say it is too low!

BTW, longer are ski's are not always better, but I will agree that for your size 155 is too short................................
post #24 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ullr View Post
BTW, longer are ski's are not always better, but I will agree that for your size 155 is too short................................
Cereal -- if you had to look at forums to find out if this was true, I question your claims of "expert". I know what I need (well, 90% of the time anyway), and if I was your size and someone told me what you say they told you, I would categorically call BS on that. No forum needed. Just sayin'...
post #25 of 29
Thanks Axe. Cereal, you (like others) have to be careful when you throw this term around. Mica Black, Plake, Nobis are experts (and some on this forum too......). When you go into a shop and tell them this, they may assume this is what you mean. You could have gotten yourself in a real jam with a super stiff ski, and a 20 DIN binding (plus, Tremblant, although nice, is not an "expert" destination)!! The shop most likely was just doing what you told them with the DIN set-up.

Hope you have a good trip, and do a late night a Petit Caribo, or Le Shack!
post #26 of 29
Hello cereal83.

Which ski shop did you purchase your skis from?: I also live in the GTA and would like to stay as far away as possible from the jokers you dealt with.
post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by axebiker View Post
Cereal -- if you had to look at forums to find out if this was true, I question your claims of "expert". I know what I need (well, 90% of the time anyway), and if I was your size and someone told me what you say they told you, I would categorically call BS on that. No forum needed. Just sayin'...
Not at all!
Some people just go skiing on old equipment and can be pretty good on it. You could, for example, be quite happy bombing down runs on your old 200+ cm skis for years, and then decide finally to get some new skis. You don't have to know about the latest equipment to be able to ski. Today's top of the line short skis do not have the stability issues skis in those same lengths used to have. "G shorter" is a good idea, but shorter for someone who weighs 240 lbs doesn't mean 155 cm.

As to the DIN, it sounds like they got the setting right. Look at it as a risk of non-release acceptance level, not an ability level. I set my bindings one line above where the chart level III tells me to (level III+), which works out to 7.5 DIN. I inadvertently stuck my ski into the snow while the chair lift was leaving the ground station last weekend; I hadn't noticed the snow piling up and was negotiating my poles past the chair safety bar. The ski stuck in and the binding released. I could feel the strain in my ankle, but it didn't do any damage. 20 years ago I had a lot less skill, weighed 20 lbs less and I set my bindings to 11. I was skiing a lot faster and I was not willing to risk having a ski come off at speed.

Tremblant.... I remember skiing Tremblant right after skiing Mount Washington BC, and being amazed at how easy the "expert" trails were. Mount Washington used to have some pretty steep lines. I haven't been there since they installed the new Boomerang lift; I guess it saves some walking. Cross country skiing through thick BC forest growth with SG skis (what I would end up doing after exploring to find the steepest fall lines, or just exploring) is a real pita. I guess most of the steepest skiing wasn't on a map at the time, but my impression was that nothing at Tremblant would be rated above blue square at Washington. The only thing is they don't know what ice is at Mt. Washington BC.
post #28 of 29
Ghost I like your analogy and will start using it in the store. Bindings are not a perfect tool and the settings chosen are the skiers choice of where they want to be on the release/no-release scale. Is it more dangerous to have an accidental release or more dangerous to not release. It is the skiers own perception of the situations they most find themselves in. It is the reason skier categories exist.

When I am working on slow technical skiing at my local hill in Calgary I often set my bindings at around 8, When skiing back bowls of Louise or Castle around 10-11 and skiing fast at Nakiska around 12-13. It is all a matter of how dangerous I feel a prerelease is. Of course it changes as the situation changes.

But this brings up another important subject I hope no one minds if I address briefly. Cereal 83 I'll agree with Axe and propose that although you may ski fast you probably aren't an expert. In my dealings with customers over the years it is evident that people that have skied long enough to be truly good are also very knowledgeable about equipment and they know their DIN and they know how the chart works.

Cereal whether you are an expert or not isn't important at all, but what is is that you have somewhat flamed a shop publicly that by all appearances set your bindings properly and you have done them some harm. Nix has decided not to shop there, despite the overwhelming evidence from others in this thread that your bindings are properly set given the choices you made.

This forum is populated by people that are not experts and many that are. Often it is the people who are not experts that are shouting about problems with shops that may not really exist, but the shouting damages the businesses anyway. I think it is important to use this forum as a place to learn prior to making damaging statements. See the thread by Ked Eh for more evidence.
post #29 of 29
Lou Rosenfeld: thank you for your thoughtful post!

cereal: i just have a few more thoughts to add about DIN . . .

*when it comes to ligament damage, often DIN is not responsible . . . it doesn't take much to tear or damage a ligament so i don't feel it's fair to say knee damage is often a result of too high DIN

HOWEVER . . . when it comes to broken bones, etc, appropriate DIN setting is a VERY important factor

*often personal preferance comes into play when lowering and/or raising DIN from the recomended setting . . .

but always start with the recomended setting as a guideline!

some folks out there like a higher DIN than usual because they are worried about losing a ski (then having to probe for hours in neck deep snow looking it) or they are skiing really aggressive lines where pre-release could be more catastrophic than the alternative . . .

personally i like my DIN as low as possible without risk of pre-release, so i usually play with it a bit starting with the excersise outlined by Pete No. Idaho . . .
then if i pre-release initiating turns or compressing into a roller, i crank it up a 1/2 point until i stop pre-releasing.

my butt was already saved by my ski releasing at the RIGHT time . . . one ski went over, and one under, a large log at high speed . . .
luckily my ski released and my leg is still intact!!!!

sweet!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion