or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › are salomon and tyrolia din settings comparable?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

are salomon and tyrolia din settings comparable?

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
for my new skis I'm switching from salomon 900 series to tyrolia mojo 15. I've been riding my salomons at a din of 8 with no issues. but for my new binders, the shop tech said that tyrolia recommended a setting of 6 for my skier type

I was surprised since I am under the impression that din is a standard measurement across all bindings. I know tyrolias and salomons release in different ways, but I figured the din would essentially be the same

I've seen one post where someone said they rode their tyrolias at 2 settings above their old binding

can anyone who has recently made the switch to tyrolia or skis the mojo 15 comment about their din setting? I am 5' 9", 165lbs and an expert skier (level 3, I guess) but not hucking cliffs or anything
post #2 of 23
You didn't post your age or BSL. Here is a calculator for you but I'd go with the 8 of past. I'm guessing the 6 they recommended is a Type II skier or an age issue.

http://www.dinsetting.com/
post #3 of 23
DIN = Deutschland Industry Norm...

It's an industry wide standard. Some people 'adjust' their DIN from brand to brand slightly differently, but the STANDARD setting from a shop should be the same for a LOOK, Tyrolia, Salomon or Atomic.
post #4 of 23
You're correct -- a DIN is a standard (from the Deutsches Institut für Normung - the German institute for standardizations).

The shop tech sounds to me like one of those guys who wants to prove he knows more than you. What I like to do with new bindings is ride 'em a bit light, make sure they release how you want them to release and ratchet them up if you need it.

So, I'd ride them at 6 for a while and if you get pre-releases or you get to a situation where you're more worried about a pre-release than your knees then turn them up.

Unless you're planning on hitting chutes or trees right off the bat, I'd expect that a pre-release isn't going to be too dire, while a wrenching of the knee could be. As a point of reference, I'm over 200 and I keep my DIN at 7 or 8.
post #5 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
It's an industry wide standard. Some people 'adjust' their DIN from brand to brand slightly differently, but the STANDARD setting from a shop should be the same for a LOOK, Tyrolia, Salomon or Atomic.
: EPIC FAIL. You of all people should know better than this. Pay attention next time you fill out the silly little multiple choice tests in the fall.

YES, RELEASE SETTINGS VARY FROM MANUFACTURER TO MANUFACTURER FOR A GIVEN SKIER.

The only correct way to choose a setting is to use the chart supplied by the manufacturer for the year that binding was manufactured, unless otherwise directed to use a different chart.

Further, the resultant setting on a new or used binding after testing will not necessarily be the same as the nominal setting listed on the chart.

And DIN has had nothing to do with it for most of my lifetime. See: ISO.
post #6 of 23
Not so much.

Pick some stats and let's play the DIN game... I'll buy you a six pack if you find a variation.

A simple question was asked: "should my DIN on a Salomon S900 be 2 higher than my DIN on a Tyrolia Mojo 15?"

A simple answer is: NO. Not unless your height, weight, boot sole length, skier type and age (did you turn 51 recently?) has changed or the Salomon tested way out of spec... something (or someone) is wrong.
post #7 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
Pick some stats and let's play the DIN game... I'll buy you a six pack if you find a variation.
304mm boot sole.
Age: 23
Weight: 195lbs
Skier Type: III
Height: 6'

Compare: Salomon vs. Look/Rossignol


9.5 is our starting place.



8.5 is our new result. For those of you who haven't used a chart like this before, here is the relevant instruction that makes that so:



Notably, the torque range remains the same for both of those scenarios. However, in practice the Salomon "tests high" at the nominal setting more often, for reasons which should be a wee bit obvious. A change in setting of 2 points is really quite small, perhaps one of the OPs old bindings tested low and the new binding high. Or perhaps the tech isn't right. This isn't rocket surgery, but many ski techs aren't even brain scientists.

I like Long Trail's Double Bag.
post #8 of 23
an excellent choice, a fine VT beverage brewed just south of me... I fricken' hate Salomon.

Get me your address, I'll send you $7.00
post #9 of 23
no worries man, I'll collect if I ever catch you in your neighborhood.

/this is not the first bet I've won on this thing. honestly if it didn't affect me I probably wouldn't have noticed either.
post #10 of 23
I don't see a Din of 14 listed on there.....hummm.
post #11 of 23
FFT: Here in Euro land they never ask your ability or sole length, just your weight. And everyone assumes (erroneously? I have no clue) that the DIN setting corresponds to weight in kilos, eg, an 8 setting for someone who weighs 80 kilos, and so forth. Oh yeah, and it's also really hard to get ice for your Coke.

Also, been meaning to ask you guys in the know about this. The DIN setting descends as the sole length rises, right? Why is that? Wouldn't there be more leverage with a longer sole, thus more need for retention?
post #12 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by prickly View Post
Wouldn't there be more leverage with a longer sole, thus more need for retention?
You are looking at it backwards perhaps. When I apply a given torque with my leg, the longer boot has less leverage over the binding toe and heelpiece. An analogy would be trying to flip a light switch with your finger, versus trying to flip a switch with a six inch stick. The strength of the lightswitch doesn't change, but it becomes more difficult for you to flip.

As a result, the binding settings go down as the boot gets longer to keep release forces for a given Skier Code (the alphabetic left hand column of the chart) similar. Or up as it gets shorter. At some length they stop changing, though the criteria for testing remain the same. I'm not sure the exact rationale for that, nor why Salomon/Marker and Look/Rossignol have a different take on it.
post #13 of 23
The DIN settings are a standard.
However, the very best way to insure that you are at the correct DIN is to use a device like the Vermont Ski Safety torque tester.
Have a ski tech set thim using this method if you are in doubt.
post #14 of 23
Not being a scientist, much less a rocket scientist, I don't see where age and skier type come into play on these charts. Is it imbedded in the skier code?
post #15 of 23
There are simple rules regarding age, though some have changed in recent years, and again they aren't exactly similar among all manufacturers (see the max increase one row gray section of the Rossi chart). The basic rules are that some children are effectively limited to Type II, and people 50 and over are one code further towards the top of the chart than otherwise indicated.

Skier code is based on a Type I skier. Type II is one code further down the chart. Type III is two codes further down the chart. Feel free to download and read the Salomon tech manual which explains this from their perspective in detail, available here: http://salomoncertification.com/download.jsp
post #16 of 23
Thread Starter 
thanks, guys

my boot sole is 307 and I just turned 40 (ugh) but I haven't slowed down that much. in my mind, anyway

also, I probably posted this in the wrong forum. so I'll re-post in ski gear discussion
post #17 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
304mm boot sole.
Age: 23
Weight: 195lbs
Skier Type: III
Height: 6'

Compare: Salomon vs. Look/Rossignol


9.5 is our starting place.



8.5 is our new result. For those of you who haven't used a chart like this before, here is the relevant instruction that makes that so:



Notably, the torque range remains the same for both of those scenarios. However, in practice the Salomon "tests high" at the nominal setting more often, for reasons which should be a wee bit obvious. A change in setting of 2 points is really quite small, perhaps one of the OPs old bindings tested low and the new binding high. Or perhaps the tech isn't right. This isn't rocket surgery, but many ski techs aren't even brain scientists.

I like Long Trail's Double Bag.
Both charts are according ISO 11088 standard and are exactly the same within normal range of use. The mentioned skier 195 lbs / 6’ should have bigger foot. Maybe not 355 mm sole length of my boots, but should be at least 320 mm.

I don’t know why Rossi left some values blank covering them by “relevant instruction”. International standards should be followed without such blank fields. It’s better to have values for impossible cases rather than to leave blank ones. One sample of impossible case is value for weight 67-78 lbs and boot sole length longer than 330mm? Is that 10 years old kid with shoe size 13?

ISO 11088 recognizes settings up to 10, so, row P in both charts is out of standard and is useless. The biggest skiers are in row M for skier type I, in row N for type II and in row O for type III. I didn’t hear about skier type IV (row P).

The latest revision of ISO 11088 standard can be found (in German) here: http://www.sportech.com/D/NORMEN/ISO11088.htm
post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post

304mm boot sole.
Age: 23
Weight: 195lbs
Skier Type: III
Height: 6'

Compare: Salomon vs. Look/Rossignol
The OP was comparing Salomon to Tyrolia -- interestingly, in that case the answers would have been the same.

Also, if you had picked a smaller person for an example -- e.g. someone in the 130 lb range -- all three release setting recommendations would have come out the same.

It looks like the variance is in the upper range of the Rossi chart -- Look/Rossi has left blanks in a couple of boxes, and the "sideways rule" gives a lower recommended setting for the big & tall folks. Other manufacturers include a similar note (it's number 4 in the Tyrolia book), but the Salomon & Tyrolia charts have a few less blanks, so they don't use this rule as often.
post #19 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by stekan View Post
The mentioned skier 195 lbs / 6’ should have bigger foot. Maybe not 355 mm sole length of my boots, but should be at least 320 mm.
You should have a smaller foot. I wear a US size 10.5 or 11 shoe, which is perfectly normal.
Quote:
ISO 11088 recognizes settings up to 10, so, row P in both charts is out of standard and is useless.
No. Row P is useful in several cases. One obvious example would be when testing bindings for skier codes N and O. The other obvious bit is that manufacturers do not need to limit settings to 10 in their own programs, and some/most in fact do not. There are cases where I'd be breaking the rules if I let a binding out with a setting below 10. I follow the rules as set out in technical manuals that maintain my indemnification, not an unenforceable standard.
Quote:
The latest revision of ISO 11088 standard can be found (in German) here: http://www.sportech.com/D/NORMEN/ISO11088.htm
No. That is someone's interpretation of the standard. The standard is available here: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue...csnumber=44398

Regardless of how nonsensical manufacturer idiosyncrasies may be, anyone signing their name to work orders in the US better damn well get them straight. I know several people who've had to endure protracted legal BS over dotted i's and crossed t's...the jobs don't pay well enough for that.
post #20 of 23
The definite answer on original question: "are salomon and tyrolia din settings comparable" is: YES.

Just compared both charts, and are exactly the same in season 07/08. For season 08/09 Tyrolia added new column for people like me (sole lengths over 351 mm): http://www.tyrolia.com/fileadmin/dow...nglish_web.pdf. There is interesting note on right margin regarding accordance with some standards. Thank you Tyrolia for having in mind my boot size. You are the best! Together with Vist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
You should have a smaller foot. I wear a US size 10.5 or 11 shoe, which is perfectly normal.
No. I’m 202 cm (6’ 7.5”) tall, which is also perfectly normal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
No. Row P is useful in several cases. One obvious example would be when testing bindings for skier codes N and O. The other obvious bit is that manufacturers do not need to limit settings to 10 in their own programs, and some/most in fact do not. There are cases where I'd be breaking the rules if I let a binding out with a setting below 10. I follow the rules as set out in technical manuals that maintain my indemnification, not an unenforceable standard.
I do not need row P, so I'm using unenforceable standard chart.
Settings over 10 are not covered by that standard and that's why settings 11 and above are usually marked red on bindings. It's up to skier to take the risk with such settings.
Your obvious example of testing bindings for skier codes N and O is not obvious to at least one mechanical engineer (202 cm tall).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
No. That is someone's interpretation of the standard. The standard is available here: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue...csnumber=44398
You are right. Finally. That's interpretation of the standard. They made the interpretation of settings chart quite well. You can pay CHF 84 on your link to check.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
Regardless of how nonsensical manufacturer idiosyncrasies may be, anyone signing their name to work orders in the US better damn well get them straight. I know several people who've had to endure protracted legal BS over dotted i's and crossed t's...the jobs don't pay well enough for that.
That's US issue, so can't comment that.
post #21 of 23
And we have another country to add to our list of posters! This is the first time I've seen a post from Bosnia and Herzegovina, though I guess Stekan has posted a few times before. Dobor Dan (excuse my spelling).
post #22 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by stekan View Post
It's up to skier to take the risk with such settings.
Not necessarily the case. The manufacturer's guidance is what is most important, not an international standard. The former is obviously largely based on the latter, but there may be/are differences. How the settings are marked on a binding in relation to some standard doesn't and shouldn't mean anything to the user.
Quote:
Your obvious example of testing bindings for skier codes N and O is not obvious to at least one mechanical engineer (202 cm tall).
They don't teach common sense in engineering school, nor do they teach the testing of ski bindings. If you've actually done the latter, you'd likely recognize that previously computed torque values for acceptable and in use results are nicer than calculating by hand each time you test a system. The extra rows of settings are also nice guidance in the course of selecting non standard settings, such as for athletes.
post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by prickly View Post
And we have another country to add to our list of posters! This is the first time I've seen a post from Bosnia and Herzegovina, though I guess Stekan has posted a few times before. Dobor Dan (excuse my spelling).
Dobar dan, Prickly. In fact, there are a number of people from this region (Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia) keeping eye on this forum, but not posting. Or are unregistered, as I used to be 5 or 6 years ago.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › are salomon and tyrolia din settings comparable?