or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Interesting take on DIN

post #1 of 107
Thread Starter 
post #2 of 107
 I think that a skier should be in a binding that goes a bit higher than they intend to use it.  For example my DIN setting tends to range between 8 - 10 depending on the set up.  I wouldn't buy a binding that maxed at 10.  Mine tend to max at 12.  I think I have one binding that goes to 14.  I still set it somewhere near 9.  I see no reason to spend extra money and have a heavier setup just to have a higher max DIN setting.
post #3 of 107
What he said, more or less.  I use Atomic bindings pretty much exclusively, because except for one pair of Head Monster 88s, all 10 pairs of my other skis are race stock Atomics.  I generally use a 10.5 DIN for free skiing, 11 for SL and GS, 12 for Super G, and 12.5 for DH.  An Atomic 614 will handle all that, because it tops out at 14, but I use 1018s because I'm also in range with that binding but I don't have to wind down on the spring as hard...it's not a macho thing, it's just a practicality thing...



Quote:
Originally Posted by tetonpwdrjunkie View Post

 I think that a skier should be in a binding that goes a bit higher than they intend to use it.  For example my DIN setting tends to range between 8 - 10 depending on the set up.  I wouldn't buy a binding that maxed at 10.  Mine tend to max at 12.  I think I have one binding that goes to 14.  I still set it somewhere near 9.  I see no reason to spend extra money and have a heavier setup just to have a higher max DIN setting.
post #4 of 107
I completely see that. I bought the barron's last year even though I'm a big dude -- over 200 lbs 6ft tall. Everyone seems to lean on the Duke's as being the "core" binding, but in comparing the two, I just don't see myself ever needing to crank my bindings over a 12 DIN -- generally ski at an 8-10 like teton (though he probably does it better).

Since the two bindings look alike, I often get "hardcore" dudes asking me about them and giving me weird looks when I say I got the lighter bindings -- oh well. They're good enough for me.
post #5 of 107


Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.
post #6 of 107
Thread Starter 
I think the author was commenting on the obsession with high DIN, rather than high-din bindings in general. I really don't mess with my setting unless I have a reason to. If I ain't coming out of the bindings, why move them up? 
post #7 of 107
I agree.  My numbers are as low as I can possibly make them, and still prevent a possible pre-release, which ain't a great idea at 70 mph...



Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoMan View Post

I think the author was commenting on the obsession with high DIN, rather than high-din bindings in general. I really don't mess with my setting unless I have a reason to. If I ain't coming out of the bindings, why move them up? 
post #8 of 107
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.  That was the absolute best post of the month...you just made my whole day...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post





Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.
 
post #9 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleph Null View Post

I completely see that. I bought the barron's last year even though I'm a big dude -- over 200 lbs 6ft tall. Everyone seems to lean on the Duke's as being the "core" binding, but in comparing the two, I just don't see myself ever needing to crank my bindings over a 12 DIN -- generally ski at an 8-10 like teton (though he probably does it better).

I'm another 200 pound 6 footer, who also skis at 9-10 DIN depending on the binding and purpose.  I probably would've gone with the Baron as well, had it been out.  But I only use one pair of 12-DIN bindings -- a pair of Fischer-branded Railflexes that came with my AMC79s. 

For one thing, there are construction differences other than beefing up for stronger springs.  Tyrolia has three different adult toe models, and the best-constructed on the bunch is only available on 13 and higher DIN bindings. 

But another thing that shouldn't be ignored is that the 10 and 12 DIN bindings are the volume sellers of the adult consumer market.  As such, retailers tend to sell them out during the season, and have relatively few to clear out afterwards.  I've paid much less for my 5-15 DIN Mojo 15s and 6-17 DIN Freeflex 17s than I'd have paid for 12 DIN bindings.  Since my 9 or 10 DIN setting falls well within the range, and the construction is beefier, is there any reason I shouldn't go with the high-DIN bindings?
post #10 of 107
Thread Starter 
I look at it this way: I am not a racer and ski 99% of the time inbounds. If I am skiing fast enough or aggressively enough on a non-controlled run for me to come out of my bindings at reccomended settings, I am likely to get my ticket pulled before the binding pops off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiRacer55 View Post

I agree.  My numbers are as low as I can possibly make them, and still prevent a possible pre-release, which ain't a great idea at 70 mph...



 



 
post #11 of 107
I totally agree Mojo.  I see people coming in more and more often to the shop wanting higher DIN settings.  We have to set it at the recommended setting, and we have NEVER set it higher than 13, even with your 6'4" skier at 240 lbs and type 3+ skier. 

If you are a racer or a pro freeride skier, a higher DIN setting would be preferable.  There is nothing worse than going 60+ mph and having your ski come off inadvertently or hucking off a huge cliff and having your skis come off at the landing.  There are bindings out there that go from 8-18.  You better have your sh!t together to even step into those puppies.  
post #12 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoMan View Post

I look at it this way: I am not a racer and ski 99% of the time inbounds. If I am skiing fast enough or aggressively enough on a non-controlled run for me to come out of my bindings at reccomended settings, I am likely to get my ticket pulled before the binding pops off.

 



 




Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoMan View Post

I think the author was commenting on the obsession with high DIN, rather than high-din bindings in general. I really don't mess with my setting unless I have a reason to. If I ain't coming out of the bindings, why move them up? 

I was thinking the same thing, I ski a similar style to you and I ski an 8. I think the manager at my local ski shop put it best when refering to "macho" skiers and they're high DIN ratings:
"Turn it up until you break your leg, then crank it back a half turn"
post #13 of 107

post #14 of 107
Damn.  Seriously?
post #15 of 107
 I'm almost 200 pounds, set my bindings at 4 and I never pre-release. High DIN maybe a macho meter, low DIN is the measure of smoothness.
post #16 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by rippinskierz View Post

Damn.  Seriously?

they are marker hence the only binding company ever to make a 30 din binding is marker since they wont stay on anyways.


Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15 View Post

 I'm almost 200 pounds, set my bindings at 4 and I never pre-release. High DIN maybe a macho meter, low DIN is the measure of smoothness.
post #17 of 107
 Full disclosure, the 4 is on a binding that is not on the DIN standard.
post #18 of 107
I think what's being missed here is when someone walks upto you and looks at you skis, then the bindings and says "Oooh yours are set at 12..... you MUST be a really good skier"......  Not "Oooh 12..... you Fat Bstrd!"

Also i've heard a few kids in the park bragging over how high they set their DIN.... "Tanner has his set this high, so do I!!"
post #19 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

they are marker hence the only binding company ever to make a 30 din binding is marker since they wont stay on anyways.
 

Actually, Tyrolia makes/ made a 'speed skiing' binding with a DIN of 45. Seriously. 45.

supposedly it took 3 people to get into the binding, the skier, someone pushing down on the skiers leg and someone lifting up on the heel lever. Yea ha.
post #20 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramzee View Post

I think what's being missed here is when someone walks upto you and looks at you skis, then the bindings and says "Oooh yours are set at 12..... you MUST be a really good skier"......  Not "Oooh 12..... you Fat Bstrd!"

Also i've heard a few kids in the park bragging over how high they set their DIN.... "Tanner has his set this high, so do I!!"
 

high park DINS are super lame. alot of the really good guys actually turn down for rails due to slow twisting falls might keep the ski on and break the skiers legs.

Parks kids are mostly not to smart though....
post #21 of 107
I weigh 205 and am 5'11". I finally got my first DIN bindings a couple of years ago and haven't been higher than 7 with them.

The first time I used my wife's old skis, I skied half a day on them, including several modest bump runs, without any problems. Then, while riding the lift, I realized I hadn't reset the bindings to accommodate my higher weight. I got off the lift, made two turns and walked out of the bindings. I couldn't keep the skis on my feet to save myself the rest of the way down the hill, where I borrowed a screwdriver and reset the tension to something more suitable. A classic case of "what you don't know won't hurt you".
post #22 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post




Actually, Tyrolia makes/ made a 'speed skiing' binding with a DIN of 45. Seriously. 45.

supposedly it took 3 people to get into the binding, the skier, someone pushing down on the skiers leg and someone lifting up on the heel lever. Yea ha.


 

Might as well just bolt the boots to the skis.
post #23 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morrison Claystone View Post

Might as well just bolt the boots to the skis.

If you open the link in the original post (from 'wild snow'), the picture is just that, a boot with 3 screws through the toe lug and into the ski.
post #24 of 107
If a company wants to sell bindings to the rad high DIN crowd they need to make the numbers real big and put them in a magnifying window on the binding that everyone can see in the lift line.  Macho only works if everybody can see it.  My DIN is bigger than your DIN!
post #25 of 107
Mudfoot, look at the Marker above. Isn't that a magnifying glass icon circling the 30 in the scale and a magnified 30.0 model number, with a square decimal point lined up directly over the circled thirty? You can set them as low as 15 and they still scream thirty! Not to suggest 15 is a low DIN.
post #26 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post




Actually, Tyrolia makes/ made a 'speed skiing' binding with a DIN of 45. Seriously. 45.

supposedly it took 3 people to get into the binding, the skier, someone pushing down on the skiers leg and someone lifting up on the heel lever. Yea ha.


 

I can imagine. Pretty hard for me to get into the 30s when set on DIN30. Basically had to stomp into it.
post #27 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rise To The Top View Post




You should see thsi guys truck.
post #28 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15 View Post

Mudfoot, look at the Marker above. Isn't that a magnifying glass icon circling the 30 in the scale and a magnified 30.0 model number, with a square decimal point lined up directly over the circled thirty? You can set them as low as 15 and they still scream thirty! Not to suggest 15 is a low DIN.

Holy Sh*t!!!  I didn't realize the DIN actually went to 30.  The untimate unit extension device. Those would be great if you weighed 300 lbs, dropped a 100 ft, cliff and landed head first.  Your skis would stay on and your could roll into a ski out turn.
post #29 of 107
Thread Starter 
How do skiers who crank up their bindings decide DIN 13 is right for them instead of 14, or 15? Why not 17? Why not 20? What basis do people go buy when they choose a setting? They figure 14 might be better than 13? There are no charts or reccomendations to go by outside of the spec sheets supplied by the manufactuer for recreational skiers, and these don't cover anything above 10, for obvious liablity reasons. Do people pre-release at DIN 14 so they move it up to DIN 15? Or they just set the binding as high as they go out of fear of avoid pre-release, even though they never have pre-released at 12 instead of 13, etc? So they figure, what the heck, just crank it all the way up to make sure I never come out?
post #30 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoMan View Post

How do skiers who crank up their bindings decide DIN 13 is right for them instead of 14, or 15? Why not 17? Why not 20? What basis do people go buy when they choose a setting? They figure 14 might be better than 13? There are no charts or reccomendations to go by outside of the spec sheets supplied by the manufactuer for recreational skiers, and these don't cover anything above 10, for obvious liablity reasons. Do people pre-release at DIN 14 so they move it up to DIN 15? Or they just set the binding as high as they go out of fear of avoid pre-release, even though they never have pre-released at 12 instead of 13, etc? So they figure, what the heck, just crank it all the way up to make sure I never come out?

I had thought about this when i rode the with a guy skiing a Marker 30, he had it set on 22. I asked him if thought a setting of 20 or 21 was jut too warm and fuzzy and kept coming out. He looked at me funny. 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion