Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 58
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The North Country
    Posts
    3,674
    Quote Originally Posted by AaronWright View Post
    Fixed that for you. The high din dick wagging is hilarious. If I were younger and hucked big I might set my din higher but I ski fast and I'm big and I run my din at 9 and my skis only come off when they should.
    This. /\/\

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,041
    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.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    13,370
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Ok, we all know Markers with the Biometric toe test out fine in the shop, but have caused lots of grief in the real world. I got schooled here on that when I was new.
    Middle of the range = greatest working envelope. (or whatever you call it).
    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.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    whistler
    Posts
    1,164
    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

  5. #30
    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.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    14,612
    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.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gaperville, CO
    Posts
    5,845
    Quote Originally Posted by AaronWright View Post
    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.
    This is what I expect to be the case.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The North Country
    Posts
    3,674
    Quote Originally Posted by skiing-in-jackson View Post
    One day we were bored at a shop where I worked. We tested a couple of different standard binding at the extreme ranges. One I remember was a Rossi Axail 12. It tested right to specs at both 4 and a 12.

    I think we also did a Solly 916- at far ends of the range it tested smack on every time.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1000-oaks View Post
    DIN means "Deutsches Institut für Normung", which means the binding will work correctly per the standard at any setting within the intended range.* Don't believe the wives' tales about avoiding the ends of the adjustment range, binding engineers know more than shop rats.

    * Assuming a particular binding doesn't have a defect or wear that interferes with proper operation, which is why shops do function tests.
    Quote Originally Posted by XavierD View Post
    I'm a shop rat and will happily ride a 4-12 binding at 12. Now, when purchasing a binding, understand that some bindings may not test out exactly at their stated setting. Most bindings do, but a small percentage don't. Most STH 13s test out at 13 when set at thirteen but a small few might test out at 12.5. Also keep in mind that as your gear (boots and bindings) wear out, the effective release value may change up or down. Being on either end of the spectrum reduces your ability to compensate for these changes.
    All three of these posts make the most sense. Thanks.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The North Country
    Posts
    3,674
    Quote Originally Posted by ill-advised strategy View Post
    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).
    Force is force.

    11 is 11, unless we are talking about your fake news universe.

    Take your bullshit elsewhere, motherfucker.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    13,370
    Quote Originally Posted by charles martel View Post
    Force is force.

    11 is 11, unless we are talking about your fake news universe.

    Take your bullshit elsewhere, motherfucker.
    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.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The North Country
    Posts
    3,674
    Quote Originally Posted by ill-advised strategy View Post
    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.
    Hey, dick throat, fuck off. Damian would flunk an engineering or physics test with an answer like that. That why the DIN institute was created. 11 is 11.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    13,370
    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.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In a parallel universe
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by charles martel View Post
    Hey, dick throat, fuck off. Damian would flunk an engineering or physics test with an answer like that. That why the DIN institute was created. 11 is 11.
    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.

  14. #39
    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.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    13,370

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In a parallel universe
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by charles martel View Post
    I apologize to Ill Advised Strategy. Sorry, my mistake.
    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by charles martel View Post
    I meant to dump on Dumbian.
    And, down with that.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The North Country
    Posts
    3,674
    Quote Originally Posted by ACH View Post
    Cool



    And, down with that.
    Ok. Thx.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    13,370
    lol, holy shitshow. Especially because yeti's posts were solid.


    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    well maybe different rules up here so maybe they don't have to test as much or sft?

    http://www.vermontskisafety.com/file...CALIBRATER.pdf

    I could be totally wrong but i don't notice these^^ things up here
    On mountain shops that have rentals have them for sure. Van ski service does too.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    30,885
    Quote Originally Posted by pisteoff View Post
    On mountain shops that have rentals have them for sure. Van ski service does too.
    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 eh
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    C-Town
    Posts
    5,542
    I've always wondered about ski stiffness and DIN. Does a m103 make a prerelease more likely than a pocket rocket under the same conditions?
    Quote Originally Posted by twodogs View Post
    Hey Phill, why don't you post your tax returns, here on TGR, asshole. And your birth certificate.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    22,462
    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.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    whistler
    Posts
    1,164
    Quote Originally Posted by doebedoe View Post
    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.
    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?

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    13,370
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    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 eh
    You may want to protect your friend(s) by ensuring this doesn't become public info. Testing rental gear is a requirement.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    21,938
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    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 eh
    there are testers besides the vermont manual tester... there are semi-automated systems by montana etc

    but not even owning a tester in the shop?
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    13,370
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •