or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Which breaks first the DIN or the fib
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which breaks first the DIN or the fib - Page 2

post #31 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
my recommendation to anyone who wants to be truly fast aggressive skier is to strengthen their muscles and ligaments to the point that you can ran what others would consider stupid high DIN.

the other trick is to to always ski fast that way any falls will sheer the ski off quickly. you run the risk of not releasing more at slow speeds than you do at faster speeds.
BWPA,

Were these serious comments?

Smiles
post #32 of 45
I will heed your advice not to exceed the III+ rating.

However I noticed that my binding toe released on the III setting last week. I knew the ski was going to hit a patch of dense snow. I had it lined up. I was counting on it to catch my ski and was braced for the hit, and had just the right angle so the hit would turn me up hill and redirect my line enough so I could make the turn to the run I wanted to reach. I was going too fast to carve the turn (13-m turn radius, about 45 to 50 mph), but I should have been able to make the turn with a little ski abuse and leg strength. Instead my binding came off, the inside ski couldn't save it either and came off too. I couldn't ski on my boots 'cause they stuck in the snow, I couldn't run that fast, I hurt my thumb (at least I had the good sense not to use the straps). Earlier I had released the same toe when I was sidestepping (a bit over enthusiastically) up the hill.

I just don't get why you can't demand more force from a binding without assuring yourself a broken leg. It seems the ski binding is designed to release more easily to the side when the foot tries to go forwards in combination with a sideways force. The bindings need to be redesigned to release forwards while maintaining enough pressure to hold a little tighter in the sideways direction, IMHO of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post
From the Noodler lessons learned file - I was under the false belief for many years that I would be better off (safer) avoiding inadvertent releases in tough situations so I cranked my bindings down a little more every year. After breaking my leg in multiple places I have a little different viewpoint on this subject . I think that you're better off using the suggested DIN value based on your ability, weight, sole length and learning how to ski better (read that as smoothly) so that your skis don't come off even when you're skiing hard.

Of course there is a techy gear side of this issue as well. I think every binding I've ever worked on has always had stronger hold and less travel when it's cranked down. Although manufacturers have a suggested DIN range for each model there's no doubt that buying "too much" binding and running it at the low side of its range isn't doing yourself any favors. I think finding a good binding match were you can use it with the DIN set somewhere in the middle of the recommended range should be the goal.

For years I worried about falling out of my skis when I didn't want to release - man, it just wasn't worth it. I can't recall exactly, but I think I was running my bindings around 11 or 12 when I crashed and my suggested DIN (using III+ as the skier level) was 9. There's no doubt in my mind that it contributed to my wreck.
post #33 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
Not all bindings function equally, and some race bindings really are not well suited to low settings. That whole "ski fast and run high settings" thing works great for Tyrolias, Atomics, etc...but the last time I twisted out of a metal Rossi toe set to 12.5 in a hole on a quick GS course...it hurt quite a bit. If you pull yourself out of a Look/Rossi race binding heel set at something high, you are probably going to feel it. OTOH, I doubt I could ski a Tyrolia in anger without a setting of at least 12 or 14.
Are you talking about the old pivot heel or the new px race heel?
post #34 of 45
I think high performance skis boots and bindings are safer if you are going to ski fast anyway. I went around a corner last Sunday, on a beginner run. It was a beginner run, and not that steep, but I hadn't lost any speed from the top as I had been making beautiful carves all the way down. I decided to go around a rise-hill-jump instead of over it due to speed and visibility. It seems most people had been skidding turns in the same spot. The ice and resulting loss of grip forced me off line by about 10 feet, pretty close to the woods. If I would have been on SS Magnums or my Volants instead of WC SCs, I'm pretty sure I would have gotten close and personal with a tree.
post #35 of 45
You obviously need fatter skis to stick that turn. Bro.
post #36 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
I was going too fast to carve the turn (13-m turn radius, about 45 to 50 mph), but I should have been able to make the turn with a little ski abuse and leg strength. Instead my binding came off, the inside ski couldn't save it either and came off too...
I just don't get why you can't demand more force from a binding without assuring yourself a broken leg.
Ghost, if you were doing 50 mph into a 13 m turn in unexpected crud, and you stop to think about the g's and f's, you probably could have set your DIN at 50 and something would have released (binding, ACL, brain, your pick). Be thankful you still have legs and a head instead of complaining about binding design.
post #37 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
Ghost, if you were doing 50 mph into a 13 m turn in unexpected crud, and you stop to think about the g's and f's, you probably could have set your DIN at 50 and something would have released (binding, ACL, brain, your pick). Be thankful you still have legs and a head instead of complaining about binding design.
One thing I've learned through "paying attention" is that, If you're comfortable skiing on Groomers but you're not comfortable skiing on varied terrain, then you're not really in control on groomers.

There is a "Bob-ism" that says this far more eloquently.
post #38 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
Ghost, if you were doing 50 mph into a 13 m turn in unexpected crud, and you stop to think about the g's and f's, you probably could have set your DIN at 50 and something would have released (binding, ACL, brain, your pick). Be thankful you still have legs and a head instead of complaining about binding design.
No. You misread my post. I expected the pile of crud, I knew it was there, indeed I was COUNTING on it being there. I was going to use it to alter my path; the force of hitting it at the correct angle was going to accelerate me enough as I plowed through it to change my direction just enough so that I would make the turn to the run I was trying to reach. I had to go a little faster and turn back up after being forced to go a little too far down hill in order to get around (on the downhill side of ;going around the uphill side would have required me stopping or at least slowing down enough to loose momentum and not make it up to my intended path) a snowboarder who was straightlining the run I had to cross.

The turn would not have been 13 m; my skis have a 13 m sidecut, which means they could not arc a nice 26 m turn that would have been ok. In non-arcing mode with low tipping angles they cannot provide enough force to have made the 2-g turn I was looking for, but with a big enough tip and that pile of snow there, it would have worked great had they only stayed attached.
post #39 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by torfinn View Post
Are you talking about the old pivot heel or the new px race heel?
Doesn't really matter, either one will usually test high when set to low settings and remind you at any setting that it isn't a simple "click, I'm out" kinda thing.
post #40 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
No. You misread my post. I expected the pile of crud, I knew it was there, indeed I was COUNTING on it being there. I was going to use it to alter my path; the force of hitting it at the correct angle was going to accelerate me enough as I plowed through it to change my direction just enough so that I would make the turn to the run I was trying to reach. I had to go a little faster and turn back up after being forced to go a little too far down hill in order to get around (on the downhill side of ;going around the uphill side would have required me stopping or at least slowing down enough to loose momentum and not make it up to my intended path) a snowboarder who was straightlining the run I had to cross.

The turn would not have been 13 m; my skis have a 13 m sidecut, which means they could not arc a nice 26 m turn that would have been ok. In non-arcing mode with low tipping angles they cannot provide enough force to have made the 2-g turn I was looking for, but with a big enough tip and that pile of snow there, it would have worked great had they only stayed attached.
Thanks for the clarification, but my point is more like this: People always complain that "I coulda made that if my #$!**!@ garbage bindings hadn't pre-released." But the bindings most likely worked fine. Whether or not you knew the crud was coming and whether or not the turn was 13 m, and whether or not you could have made high edge angles, your bindings absorbed a spike in force along their axes the moment you hit the crud, enough to release at the specified DIN. Bindings rarely malfunction. Truth: You have no way of actually knowing whether or not without release that jolt would have released your ACL's or fibula instead. You're just assuming since you're a strong skier who knows how to pull G's on a course. But ligament damage is not related to the G's you're pulling or how strong your quads or hams are - witness phantom ski ACL blowout - it's related to an already taut ligament getting a tiny bit extra at the wrong angle. Maybe the crud jolt causes a tiny failure of form you don't even notice. Bone failure will be more closely related to actual forces operating on the binding, but would you have wanted your fibula to absorb much more than your binding did when it hit that crud? Both Noodler and Dawgcatching serve to remind us that excellent skiers on good equipment can get the wrong forces for the fractions of a second needed to break stuff.

So glad you're convinced you was robbed, but maybe that unwanted release saved your bacon. Sucks that we'll never know. Maybe you should go repeat the maneuver 10 times at max DIN and see if you can pull it off before you break your leg.
post #41 of 45
I've been a ski patroller for over 25 years. I have not seen a broken leg in 20 years. Lots of torn ligaments (knee) and snowboard wrists. But no broken legs.


Most pre-release problems occur when the skier is not a smooth skier; ie. eratic, and muscles his way through, I like my grippers set so that I can manually twist out of them. I like to ski real fast, race and love the bumps. Rarely have I had a binding pre-release. ( Salomons now, love rossi/Look, and Marker) won't use a Ty/Fisher, saw too many trashed by road salt. I'd never carry skis on the roof unless in a box.)
post #42 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
maybe that unwanted release saved your bacon. Sucks that we'll never know. Maybe you should go repeat the maneuver 10 times at max DIN and see if you can pull it off before you break your leg.
I agree with you. Maybe the ski folded up more than I thought it was going to and the force would have been greater than I had planned for. Sucks that we'll never know. However I think I'll just up the Din to "8" half way between III and III+ and see what happens. I do know that it should not have come off while aggressively sidestepping up a hill earlier in the day. I don't think I was anywhere near breaking a bone in the earlier release, and I have a pretty good idea what it takes to break one of my bones; I've broken enough of them.

All that aside, I do think it's about time for a binding improvement. Despite the fact that bindings were designed to save legs, the last toe improvement I'm aware of was to help prevent ligament damage in backwards twisting falls. It consists of not only having a toe release upwards and sideways, but having the binding release easier to the side when there is a forward force added to the mix. We need a binding that does not force your toe sideways when there is forward force applied. In the past we did not have a forward release mechanism. We relied purely on sideways release at the toe. The forward release could be made quite hard to activate in comparison to the sideways release mechanism, and we could keep the two release mechanisms separate. It's all academic anyway, nobody is going to take the risk.

Not counting dodgy binders on yard-sale or demo skis, that was the first unexpected binding release I've had in many years. Previous releases (both of them) in the last 15 years have been easy, but warranted.

EDIT: I've pulled off that same maneuver many many times, but usually on gs or sg skis at higher speeds. I had the binders set at 11 on the SGs when said maneuver was a fairly common occurrence.
post #43 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
However I think I'll just up the Din to "8" half way between III and III+ and see what happens.
Yeah, I do this too. I run about 1-2 DIN points above rec.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
I do think it's about time for a binding improvement...The forward release could be made quite hard to activate in comparison to the sideways release mechanism, and we could keep the two release mechanisms separate.
Nice point. Have often wondered why all models of a given brand seem basically work the same way. Aggressive skiers who know what they're doing might benefit from a somewhat different design, different allocation of risks, I guess you could say, rather than just stiffer springs and higher DIN's. Only bindings I know of that do this are FKS's, where the 155 toe doesn't release upward, 120 does. But as you say, it's really about economics and legal exposure...
post #44 of 45
Ghost - I absolutely agree that it would be great to see some "modern" technology really hit the world of ski bindings. There have been some feeble attempts (like adding electronic sensors), but the basic mechanics of the bindings have pretty much remained the same. I'm sure this is due to the DIN standard for boot soles. The binding manufacturers are kind of stuck unless they really get involved with the boot design too. They have to be considered together in a new design since it's a system. In fact, I seem to recall that there was some development in this area a while back (I'm a bit out of touch on the gear side of things at the moment) where there were some proprietary integrated boot/binding systems coming out. Since it looks like skiers have pretty much accepted the integrated ski/binding combo can we really be that far off from having the boot shells integrated too?
post #45 of 45
This is why I'm so lucky that I just don't particularly like skiing fast. I never have. I ski with friends, some excellent skiers and former racers, who bomb and carve their way down groomed slopes at breakneck speeds. Instead of trying to match them, I pop into the trees, or the bumps, or pop off lips, rocks, etc.

I'm by no means a slow skier, nor cautious. To the contrary, I'm extremely aggressive. Just not fast.
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 › Which breaks first the DIN or the fib