Results 26 to 50 of 58
-
02-21-2017, 07:13 AM #26Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- The North Country
- Posts
- 3,674
-
02-21-2017, 07:34 AM #27
Bindings are a relatively simple mechanical device that translates forces at the boot to compression of a spring. All DIN bindings are supposed to be calibrated to *release* at specific forces vs. DIN setting.
HOWEVER. This DIN setting is set by taking a spring and compressing it - preload.
Say you're comparing a 3-10 din Salomon S910 driver, vs. an STH16 (9-16 din). These are mechanically identical bindings, the STH is just built heavier. You set them both to a DIN of 10. The S910 will have it's lighter spring (lower spring rate) heavily preloaded, while the STH16 will have a small amount of preload, being at the bottom of it's range. At the point of release, both bindings will have the same force at the boot sole, and the same force at the spring.
HOWEVER.
What happens when you just start applying force at the boot, way before the release point? Well, the S910's spring at din 10 will not start to compress and the binding won't start to move until the considerable force of the spring preload is overcome. The STH16 at 10 will likely start moving earlier than prefered, because it has such a low amount of preload. The S910 binding maxed out will have an ON-OFF feel to it when absorbing shocks, it will blow through it's elastic travel much more abruptly, but it will have a nice stiff feel otherwise. The STH16 at a 10 din will feel a bit mushy, moving way before release, but it be very gradual feeling in absorbing shocks and using it's elastic travel.
Neither scenario is desirable. For proper binding feel, you want a blend of both stiffness and reasonable elastic feel without release. That occurs in the middle of the binding's din range.
I've got some 12 din bindings that I run maxed out, and they are definitely on-off when releasing. Most of my bindings are 16 or 18 din and I run them in the middle of the range at 13.
-
02-21-2017, 08:04 AM #28
The marker twincam is a special case of a design with almost no elastic travel. If your leg is going to exert DIN 10 onto a toepiece all the way to release, it's safer that the twincam kicks you loose quicker....but if you're skiing hard and have brief moments of several milimeters of DIN 10 torque from chattering on a race course or landing an air or doing 50mph over crud or whatever that lack of elastic travel is going to spit you out where a toepiece with good elastic travel will absorb those little hits without a release. So on a marker you end up having to ride it at 13 (or whatever) so that in the original instance (full-on release, no chance of recovery) you're now carrying a much greater torque through your leg for the full release situation.
When you think about the twincam vs other toes, the parameter isn't just torque, but torque for distance...so the twincam needed DIN X torque for distance Y to release, but a Pivot needs DIN X for distance 3Y....so the torque is the same but for a longer or shorter vector.
That twincam toepiece was a great thing for the recreational skier who has no real use for a lot of elastic travel, and who just wants to be safely out when shit starts twisting around.
I don't think any of this implicates you shouldn't ride a binding at the upper or lower ranges of its DIN. Xavier makes a solid point about the risk of buying a DIN X-Y binding if you need to be right at X or Y because it may be a little off and then you're up against the adjustment window of the design....I think the better reason not to buy a DIN 10 or 12 binding is that if you buy a DIN 15 or 18 binding you're going to have more consistent long-term service from the stronger components. But both reasons apply equally well.
As for running a Salomon 920 at its lowest DIN (14)....Xavier's point is that if you torque test that thing and it's releasing at 14.5 or 15 you've got nowhere to go....not that there's an inherent reason a binding system should perform out of spec while adjusted at the top or bottom of the range....just that some small number of bindings will be out of spec (and the out-of-spec binding will be out-of-spec in the middle of the adjustment range too, not just at the high or low end. Or at least they'll tend to be, if you encounter a binding that's running out of spec at just the top or bottom of the range there's likely some internal problem and the thing should just be taken out of service).
You hedge your bets by being in the middle of the range in a few other ways too: you may have a quality binding for 10+ years (I still ski pair of metal 997s I raced in high school and I'm 39 years old), or through an injury, or you may start throwing big airs you weren't throwing 3 years ago or vice versa. You may gain or lose weight (ask me how I know ) There are good reasons for getting a high end binding and riding it in the middle of the range, but it's not really a matter of 12 not being 12 on a 4-12 (or 14 not being 14 on a 14-20.)
Another thing is that if a binding that was once consistently in-spec is now not-in-spec, you should really investigate why...not just adjust the thing into spec. Usually a binding that releases at 10.5 instead of 11 does so from day one until it's junk. If in season 5 your binding is testing weird, do some critical thinking and make sure your AFD is right, and your boot surface is OK and then start making sure you didn't get some rust or plastic deterioration happening internally (in which case, it's junk).
If I have a binding that's good to go at 11, it should be 11 indefinitely...if you find you're having to adjust it over time to get the same release values, it's time to scrap that system because something is breaking down inside (cams getting gritty...slop in the system...who knows).Last edited by ill-advised strategy; 02-21-2017 at 08:15 AM.
-
02-21-2017, 02:15 PM #29
So I looked into it and I stand by my assertion, DIN goes to 12 and everything above and beyond is a (relatively narrow) crap shoot. All the DIN charts I could find go to 12 as the highest with a specified testable torque value. Sally's 16 does not need to equate to Look's 16
-
02-21-2017, 03:05 PM #30Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Location
- Gaperville, CO
- Posts
- 5,845
Is your assertion based only off of consumer-recommended settings tables going up to 12? Because that doesn't seem like evidence that DIN settings only exist up to 16.
If DIN only goes up to 12, then all major manufacturers are selling bindings claiming to be certified DIN to 16, but are in fact not DIN certified? That seems pretty unlikely to me.
-
02-21-2017, 03:43 PM #31
I think it's more likely that the charts go to 12 because that's all anyone really needs. That doesn't mean the bindings aren't certified to the higher DIN.
-
02-21-2017, 03:49 PM #32Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Location
- Gaperville, CO
- Posts
- 5,845
-
02-21-2017, 04:06 PM #33Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- The North Country
- Posts
- 3,674
-
02-21-2017, 04:09 PM #34Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- The North Country
- Posts
- 3,674
-
02-21-2017, 05:06 PM #35
Take your retarded thread elsewhere, douche.
If you don't know how bindings work and you have to ask, don't be a fucking faggot when somebody takes the time to educate you.
Fuck off to epicski if you can't figure out how bindings work and can't deal with having it explained.
-
02-21-2017, 05:14 PM #36Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- The North Country
- Posts
- 3,674
-
02-21-2017, 05:30 PM #37
I don't know who "damian" is...so maybe you're confused about something.
So is this trolling now? I write a detailed response to help you learn about what you asked and you come back with some rude bullshit?
I really mean it: fuck off to a forum for gapers, gaper. It's one thing to not know all the details about alpine bindings, it's another to start a thread then talk shit when somebody answers your stupid question.
-
02-21-2017, 05:46 PM #38
I suspect that I-AS has forgotten more about ski bindings than you will ever know.
Maybe you should try re-reading some of the posts in this thread to really try to understand what you are being told instead of choosing to be a dick about something you apparently don't fully understand.
-
02-21-2017, 05:53 PM #39Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- The North Country
- Posts
- 3,674
I apologize to Ill Advised Strategy. Sorry, my mistake.
I meant to dump on Dumbian.
-
02-21-2017, 06:05 PM #40
well fuck it man. I'll live.
-
02-21-2017, 06:06 PM #41
-
02-21-2017, 06:08 PM #42Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- The North Country
- Posts
- 3,674
-
02-21-2017, 06:54 PM #43
-
02-23-2017, 05:39 PM #44Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- northern BC
- Posts
- 30,885
Yeah so today I asked my buddy who is working at the on mountain rentals shop about binding testing and he said huh? they don't have one so then I asked my buddy who owned a local ski shop for 8 years and did all the ski tech both alpine and AT he never had a binding tester either
but 15 yrs ago he was contracted to test all the bindings at 2 small ski areas with a machine sent to him from vancover which did not sound like a vermont tester
so like I said ... this ain't vermont ehLee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know
-
02-23-2017, 05:50 PM #45
-
02-23-2017, 05:56 PM #46
From what I've seen, a soft ski like an old Pocket Rocket + shitty Z toe = prerelease.
Stiffer, straighter, damper ski should keep forward pressure more consistent, whereas some old foam core garbage with a binding lacking in the elastic travel department can let you out. Especially when the ski rebounds. Seen it with my own eyes.
Buddy had some old Salomon twins not unlike the pocket rocket (the white and gray ones) and Z bindings. Steep, tight spot (one of the few at Snowbowl) with uneven snow and he popped right out. Not even a full on jump turn. You could see the ski flopping around like fettuccine.
-
02-24-2017, 08:40 AM #47
My assertion is based on the fact that DIN charts for ski bindings specify torque values that the binding must test at to pass certification. these torque values stop after setting 12. It's been a long time since anyone put out a binding with the lowest setting higher than 12. Coincidence?
-
02-24-2017, 08:42 AM #48
-
02-24-2017, 09:43 AM #49
-
02-24-2017, 10:03 AM #50
Yeah, one of the shops in which I monkeyed we used the wintersteiger safetronic. It was nifty. I just mentioned the vermont because it's so cheap and ubiquitous (ime)....and frankly because duder made me think maybe he's in the middle of nowhere without a shop nearby (been there) and vermonts are on ebay sometimes and it's a viable option for a guy in the middle of nowhere who wants to own a tool to work on his own gear.
and also....when you mount a pair of retail bindings for a customer part of the procedure should be a torque test....at least if you want indemnity from the manufacturer. The line and the din window are not always going to net the proper torque readings.
Bookmarks