EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › When to set toe and heel to a different DIN?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

When to set toe and heel to a different DIN? - Page 2

post #31 of 55

Manufacturer's advice

Following the gear link, I see that the marker Comp 20 is recommended for skiers who weigh 130 pounds and up.

The Din on the Marker Comp 20 goes from 11 to 20.

I've also seen numerous DIN charts, but never one that would agree with the above. Could someone please show me a chart that puts a hundred and thirty pound skier at a DIN setting of 11 or more?

The DIN setting is based on a risk analysis. Higher DIN for those more willing to put up with more risk of injury in exchange for better retention. Hence, the different DINs for a III+ and a I skier.

I've pre-released twice that I can remember, (not counting those trashed skis that wouldn't stay on my feet skating to the lift). Once was landing in a compression that pinched the boot between the toe and heel; the new rail systems have pretty much eliminated that. The other time was just skiing fast on a hard icy uneven surface; the skis just couldn't stay on the boots through the bumps at that speed.

I can see if you are landing on edge 'cause you need to turn right when you touch down that you could easily knock your skis off though the sideways release mechanism, exactly when you don't want them to release. For that reason I tend to avoid those situations and try to be smooth at speed, but sometimes stuff happens and you have to adapt. If you are skiing at DH speeds and need your skis to stay on when you make a few hard turns to avoid rocks, rock cuts, trees and the occasional hazard who jumps onto the trail from the trees, maybe you should set your bindings closer to what most DH skiers use, especially if you don't have the benefit of a clear course, fences and netting.
post #32 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
I've also seen numerous DIN charts, but never one that would agree with the above. Could someone please show me a chart that puts a hundred and thirty pound skier at a DIN setting of 11 or more?
Marker has been one of the manufacturers that doesn't indemnify competition bindings period. The regular ISO standards aren't really applicable for anyone wearing these bindings. 11 isn't an unheard of setting for a light junior racer, particularly one wearing Markers. That said, it would be a very rare 130lb kid that needed more than the 16 version.
Quote:
If you are skiing at DH speeds and need your skis to stay on when you make a few hard turns to avoid rocks, rock cuts, trees and the occasional hazard who jumps onto the trail from the trees,
Then risk management wrt bindings is the least of your worries...
post #33 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
Marker has been one of the manufacturers that doesn't indemnify competition bindings period. The regular ISO standards aren't really applicable for anyone wearing these bindings. 11 isn't an unheard of setting for a light junior racer, particularly one wearing Markers. That said, it would be a very rare 130lb kid that needed more than the 16 version.

Then risk management wrt bindings is the least of your worries...
No worries, but one has to set the bindings somewhere; it may as well be at the appropriate setting. Apparently 11 is appropriate for some forms of racing for a 130 lb skier. I don't see how what they are doing with all those extra curves thrown in to kill speed, careful course preparation and safety netting would merit any more need to have a high DIN setting skis stay on than pure adrenalin pumping skiing for speed thrills.
post #34 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
No worries, but one has to set the bindings somewhere; it may as well be at the appropriate setting. Apparently 11 is appropriate for some forms of racing for a 130 lb skier. I don't see how what they are doing with all those extra curves thrown in to kill speed, careful course preparation and safety netting would merit any more need to have a high DIN setting skis stay on than pure adrenalin pumping skiing for speed thrills.
I guess 11 is not that outlandish for a 130 pounder with say a 271 to 290 BSL. if you use the chart they would come out about an 8.5 for a 3+ skier, which is the same for up to a 209 lbs. skier with a 311 to 330 BSL. the other way to look at is this is where the chart goes koo-koo!

I had a Boeing engineer tell me I was full of it when i tried to convince him the smaller the BSL the higher the setting. he told he me he thourhly understood levers as he was an engineer. He turned purple when I showed him the chart.

Maybe want to bring a personal parachute next time you fly Boeing!!!!
post #35 of 55
isn't it nice when people can semi agree on an issue. morale is that you have to do a process of elimination when you are dealing with a pre-release, lubricated vs. dry test, or accident report before you take out the old pocket screwdriver and crank her up. If you have eliminated all possible mechanical/compatibility reasons and think about your run and have also eliminated having a fluke incident were you made a human error and had your weight distributed wrong then maybe you might turn it up
post #36 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
I had a Boeing engineer tell me I was full of it when i tried to convince him the smaller the BSL the higher the setting. he told he me he thourhly understood levers as he was an engineer. He turned purple when I showed him the chart.
The DIN chart actually does make sense, but it is easy to come at it from the wrong perspective.

Hmmm... I just erased a long explanation that wound up being nonsense. I know I figured it out once, with curve fits and everything, but I'm going to have to go back and think it through carefully again. I guess it is confusing after all.
post #37 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
I guess 11 is not that outlandish for a 130 pounder with say a 271 to 290 BSL. if you use the chart they would come out about an 8.5 for a 3+ skier, which is the same for up to a 209 lbs. skier with a 311 to 330 BSL. the other way to look at is this is where the chart goes koo-koo!

I had a Boeing engineer tell me I was full of it when i tried to convince him the smaller the BSL the higher the setting. he told he me he thourhly understood levers as he was an engineer. He turned purple when I showed him the chart.

Maybe want to bring a personal parachute next time you fly Boeing!!!!
I'm an engineer, and it makes perfect sense that a smaller foot should have a larger release setting (same torque with less length needs more force). Still that 130 lb skier at DIN 11 must have a hoof. I used to set my bindings to 11 when I weight about that much and skied fast. Now I don't ski fast, well maybe a little fast, but not that fast and when I do, I forget to up my DIN. Maybe those Tyrolias just won't release anymore.
post #38 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2-turn View Post
I don't know what you're trying to say, but what Starthaus said is that a binding's release setting is not to protect your knee from ligament damage. Release settings are set to release before there is enough torque to break your lower leg.
If your ligament is put in a dangerous position, healthy or not, it will tear way before the binding ever feels enough torque to release.
OK, I'll try to restate more clearly: Starthaus's second point I quoted does not follow from his argument. Why? Well, the first premise we all agree on: bindings are designed to release upon achieving a certain load transmitted through the hard skeleton. The second premise we also agree on: Ligaments have less mechanical strength than bone and therefore if loaded will tear before bone will break.

But Starthaus's conclusion - that bindings will not protect ligaments from injury - does NOT follow from these premises.

Why? First because binding release for a particular F is engineered to be well below the F required to break bone (call this a margin of safety to make the lawyers happy), and this puts releases within ligament strength ranges. Just think about it; if it were not so, we'd be seeing far higher percentages of breakage and corollary ligament damage out of total releases. We do not, and it's not just blind luck of the fall.

Bindings just do not put joint soft tissue in as much danger as Starthaus implies because they are not designed to release close to bone failure. Yes, obviously you can max your DIN and get to that point, which is well past the safety zone for ligaments, but that's not how bindings are designed to be used. (You can also just screw your boots to the skis, which is cheaper than bothering with a binding and saves 7 lbs of weight per ski.)

Second, I suggested his conclusion needs qualification because many skiers have ligaments that are already stretched and less compliant from old injuries. As a result, the ligament is never under full load; that falls on the cartilage, or worse, the bone, directly. So a key piece of one of his premises (ligaments fully loaded) is not met. A lot of us have sloppy knees.

Put another way, stretched ligaments are not actually supporting the knee through part of its range of motion and therefore are not part of the mechanical system transmitting force. As you know, this is why rehab works on building up large muscle groups that can take over some of the load bearing from the ligaments. The ligaments are already out of the loop, biomechanically speaking.

Now about your own argument: First, cannot quite see what you mean by "dangerous position." If you mean, "at risk of immediate tear from the forces already acting on it," then IMO your argument is circular. You're saying that an extended taut ligament ready to tear (in dangerous position) is ready to tear (at release in dangerous position) before the bone breaks. Well, yes, but so what? My point was rather that not all ligaments are taut and extended and ready to tear at release.

Or if "dangerous position" simply means loaded, period, a ligament's risk of being in a "dangerous position" depends on the effective length of that ligament and its relation to other load bearing structures in the knee joint as force is applied. Thus my point about previously injured ligaments. They have longer effective lengths and less elasticity. They will not tear when a shorter, fully extended ligament will.

Or we can look at this empirically: The literature I know doesn't support your assumption ("healthy or not") of no significant difference between responses of healthy vs previously injured ligaments to loading. Nor am I aware of any data that shows that ligaments will inevitably tear before a binding "feels" enough torque to release. Unless you're just restating the earlier premise, that ligaments aren't as strong as bone and will tear before it will break, and sure, you're right.

Finally, why do I bring up braces? Because the literature again shows that previously injured ligaments will not much aid the meniscus cartilage/articular surfaces in dealing with new forces. So the brace appears in most studies to do some of the work. The joint, you might say, is sloppy enough to benefit. As you know, and as I stated, braces are ineffective in preventing injury to healthy knees because of insufficient slop: the difference between the time it takes to tear a fully loaded and extended ligament and the time it takes for the brace to stabilize the leg externally and handle enough force to prevent the tear.

Cheers.
post #39 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
Bindings just do not put joint soft tissue in as much danger as Starthaus implies because they are not designed to release close to bone failure. Yes, obviously you can max your DIN and get to that point, which is well past the safety zone for ligaments, but that's not how bindings are designed to be used. (You can also just screw your boots to the skis, which is cheaper than bothering with a binding and saves 7 lbs of weight per ski.)
You need to go back and reread his post at the very least, and perhaps you also need to reread some papers on the mechanics of ACL injuries in falls.

Some popular injury scenarios successfully tear ligaments while torque measured at the binding toe approaches zero.
Quote:
Nor am I aware of any data that shows that ligaments will inevitably tear before a binding "feels" enough torque to release.
Words like inevitable are misplaced, but yes, the literature pretty clearly explains that bindings aren't intended for or effective in sensing strains on certain ligaments.

2-turn and Jim have apparently done their homework.
post #40 of 55
Cliffs' Notes:

post #41 of 55
Interesting video

should be over on this thread too;

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=74047
post #42 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
You need to go back and reread his post at the very least, and perhaps you also need to reread some papers on the mechanics of ACL injuries in falls.

Some popular injury scenarios successfully tear ligaments while torque measured at the binding toe approaches zero.

Words like inevitable are misplaced, but yes, the literature pretty clearly explains that bindings aren't intended for or effective in sensing strains on certain ligaments.

2-turn and Jim have apparently done their homework.
So have I. Try looking at literature outside engineering. First news flash: Not all ligament damage during falls involves the ACL. In fact, it is far from the most common injury. Second news flash: Not all ACL damage occurs when torque at the toe approaches zero. You're referring to one type of fall, and one engineering "scenario" as you put it. Third news flash: YOU'RE THE ONE DELIBERATELY MISCHARACTERIZING POSTS. I NEVER SAID THAT BINDINGS ARE EFFECTIVE IN SENSING STRAIN ON LIGAMENTS, DID I? IN FACT I STATED REPEATEDLY THAT THE ONLY REASON BINDINGS PROTECT LIGAMENTS IS THAT WITH RECOMMENDED DIN'S THEY ARE DESIGNED TO OPERATE WELL BELOW THE RANGE OF BONE FRACTURE AND WITHIN THE RANGE OF LIGAMENT SAFETY. I THEN STATED (TWICE) THAT ALREADY STRAINED LIGAMENTS PROBABLY INCREASE THE RANGE OF SAFETY BECAUSE THEY ARE LONGER AND BEAR LESS LOAD UNDER NORMAL RANGES OF MOTION. GET YOUR CHARACTERIZATIONS RIGHT, GARRETT, BEFORE YOU GO ERECTING ANY MORE STRAW MEN TO KNOCK DOWN.
post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
Try looking at literature outside engineering.
All of what I've referred to in this thread as "the literature" has been in the context of medical journals, as I've determined from my reading of certain papers and my reading of more casual information from highly respected sources. If you'd like the perspective of engineering, you could refer to a patent search and find designs addressing these deficiencies dating back to at least the early 1970's.
Quote:
In fact, it is far from the most common injury.
I can't prove a negative, and this statement contradicts statements from several sources I trust, so I'd be very happy if you could provide me with some citations here so I can further my knowledge. I'm suspect you are correct in the broad sense of "injuries" from anecdotal experience, but I'm not sure you are correct in the senses of injury that are reported, serious, require intervention, or some combination thereof.

The rest of your post was a little bit over the top. I didn't disagree with the insights you describe in loud-speak. Most of what you say I agree with, for instance I agree that there are likely very few of us that ski who don't have some damage kicking around these joints.

My post was about a specific scenario...one widely recognized as important and common in all the literature and commentary I've read. I think it is bizarre that you'd refer to such a scenario as a straw man.
post #44 of 55
How many of you geeks ski with a pocket protector?

Personally - I set my heels 1.5-2 higher than my toes, although I'd never recommend anything I do to anybody else.
post #45 of 55
I'm totally going to put on a sweat stained shirt and pocket protector and post a TR now.

Where does one obtain a pocket protector?
post #46 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
Where does one obtain a pocket protector?

http://www.pocketprotectors.com/
http://abernook.com/prod/Ultimate-Po...source=froogle
post #47 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
I'm totally going to put on a sweat stained shirt and pocket protector and post a TR now.

Where does one obtain a pocket protector?
The quickest and easiest way might be to just borrow one of Beyond's.
post #48 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
How many of you geeks ski with a pocket protector?

Personally - I set my heels 1.5-2 higher than my toes, although I'd never recommend anything I do to anybody else.
the only reason i ski with one is so when my bindings pre-realease my pen doesn't burst in my pocket and ruin the nice shirt my mom just bought me for christmas geeze!!!!!!!
post #49 of 55
Something interesting about ACLs that often gets overlooked is that ligaments do very well with high strain rate loading - impact loading, in other words. They can generally withstand much higher transitory loads than sustained loads.

Basically, the above is why it's possible to tear your knee apart on slow backwards twisting falls where the binding is set correctly, yet still blow out at pretty low settings at-speed in a faster fall with no knee damage at all. (Of course, there's plenty to do with knee position and tons of other factors as well)

PS: I leave my good pocket protector at home while skiing.
post #50 of 55
Thanks! www.vermontskisafety.com/vsrfaq8.php should answer most of the questions raised here. The Release Indicator Value is just a starting point in the release adjustment process.
If you are concerned about your knees, check out www.vermontskisafety.com/kneefriendly.php.
cfe
post #51 of 55

Having trouble with my bindings

Hopefully not thread jacking, but on a related note I was hoping I could get some advice opinions.

I would consider myself a 3+ skier, and I ski mostly hardpack/ice in Michigan.
My last pair of skis were Salomon Verse 9's (beginner-intermediate skis) with Salomon bindings that had a maximum of 9 on the DIN. I don't remember how high I had them set, but I never had a problem with pre-release.

I now have Scott Punishers 182 (89 at the waist) with Tyrolia Railflex LD12 bindings mounted on the Railflex system. A local ski shop set me up at DIN 7, and I had some pre-release issues on corduroy, so I went eventually to 9, and the problem went away. Yesterday I skied in freezing rain conditions, and I pre-released literally every run down the hill. This happened either on very hard carves or when trying to skid to a stop from high speed. Either way I ended up sliding a long way with just my boots to try and stop me on cordurice. I know with proper technique you can supposedly avoid pre-release but skidding to a stop at high speed is something I need to rely on my skis to let me do.

I took them to the shop on the hill and he tested the forward pressure,and used whatever tool to basically twist the boot out of the binding. He said everything check to spec. He advised me to get the DINs up to 11, which I did, and didn't have a release the rest of the day. He also said "I didn't do this".

I'm a little torn on what to do, because my previous bindings were not set this high. I'm wondering though if the width of the ski has an effect on the torsion on the bindings? What else should I consider?

Thanks
post #52 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by redderthanafeutz View Post
Hopefully not thread jacking, but on a related note I was hoping I could get some advice opinions.

I would consider myself a 3+ skier, and I ski mostly hardpack/ice in Michigan.
My last pair of skis were Salomon Verse 9's (beginner-intermediate skis) with Salomon bindings that had a maximum of 9 on the DIN. I don't remember how high I had them set, but I never had a problem with pre-release.

I now have Scott Punishers 182 (89 at the waist) with Tyrolia Railflex LD12 bindings mounted on the Railflex system. A local ski shop set me up at DIN 7, and I had some pre-release issues on corduroy, so I went eventually to 9, and the problem went away. Yesterday I skied in freezing rain conditions, and I pre-released literally every run down the hill. This happened either on very hard carves or when trying to skid to a stop from high speed. Either way I ended up sliding a long way with just my boots to try and stop me on cordurice. I know with proper technique you can supposedly avoid pre-release but skidding to a stop at high speed is something I need to rely on my skis to let me do.

I took them to the shop on the hill and he tested the forward pressure,and used whatever tool to basically twist the boot out of the binding. He said everything check to spec. He advised me to get the DINs up to 11, which I did, and didn't have a release the rest of the day. He also said "I didn't do this".

I'm a little torn on what to do, because my previous bindings were not set this high. I'm wondering though if the width of the ski has an effect on the torsion on the bindings? What else should I consider?

Thanks
Tyrolia bindings arent as good as retention as say Looks. I run my tyrolia very high at 12. because I had one really really bad prerelease that was totally my fault for jamming the ski, but if the ski would of stayed on it would have been much safer and I would have taken a slide.

My suggestion is to get looks and run them at 9. I run my looks at 9 most days which is actually 1.5 below my shop DIN number. These binding simply do not prerelease and never ever torque your leg when they do come off for the right reasons.


Look IMO and alot of other good skiers opinion as well have been and continue to be the best binding made.
post #53 of 55
I wouldnt run anything different
post #54 of 55
I'm not too eager to ditch my brand new bindings just yet. If a Tyrolia 11 DIN is the same as a Look 9 I'll just run 11, all else being equal.
post #55 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
So have I. Try looking at literature outside engineering. First news flash: Not all ligament damage during falls involves the ACL. In fact, it is far from the most common injury.
Yeah, I've seen a lot of A-C separations, shoulder separations, rotator cuffs, thumbs (is a ligament involved with that?), some ankles, MCLs, LCLs and that was just this past holiday period. What's the point?
[correction, the MCL was 3 weeks ago]

Quote:
Second news flash: Not all ACL damage occurs when torque at the toe approaches zero. You're referring to one type of fall, and one engineering "scenario" as you put it. Third news flash: YOU'RE THE ONE DELIBERATELY MISCHARACTERIZING POSTS. I NEVER SAID THAT BINDINGS ARE EFFECTIVE IN SENSING STRAIN ON LIGAMENTS, DID I? IN FACT I STATED REPEATEDLY THAT THE ONLY REASON BINDINGS PROTECT LIGAMENTS IS THAT WITH RECOMMENDED DIN'S THEY ARE DESIGNED TO OPERATE WELL BELOW THE RANGE OF BONE FRACTURE AND WITHIN THE RANGE OF LIGAMENT SAFETY.
From an engineering perspective, that really sounds plausible, but not correct. We're talking 2 different mechanisms. A ligament tears when it is put in a situation that it is not designed for. Picture a rubber band, it doesn't break when you put too much force on it, it only breaks when it gets stretched too far. When the knee is positioned wrong, the ligament tears, people have torn them sitting on the couch. Hence, Vermont Ski Safety's program to keep the skier from getting in that wrong position.
The only way a binding protects ligaments is co-incidence, when they release before your body gets in that wrong position.
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 › When to set toe and heel to a different DIN?