Din setting Question...

[whyturn]

I use the brush end of my scraper to clean my bindings off at of the end of the day. It seems to start alot of conversations and no I don't curl.

[bornincolorado]

i'm so glad there is finally a thread about binding DIN settings

[stuckathuntermtn]

If anybody bothered to search for this you'd find it has been discussed at leeeeeenght.

It boggles my mind that people think that the engineers who; spent all that research & development money, over all those tens of years, with so much profit to capitalise on (if only they could just get it right), and who are ultimately liable, would build bindings that wouldn't work to the ends of the designed DIN range?

Think about it people? Particularly when binding manufacturers issue a list each year of those bindings they still consider to be 'of-standard' which often stretches back 15+ years.

And to add to the 'test your binding every year' gig; in NZ there are zero binding testing machines and no-body has even thought about bringing one in. This is either because; knees in NZ are naturally more robust (all the rugby I suspect), or the litigation system in NZ isn't mad - who can tell?

My rebuttal: Marker. Just because it test out in the shop doesn't mean it works.

My car's spedometer goes to 120mph and has a redline around 6.5. Does that mean it's ok to drive around constantly mashing the gas and going as fast as I can? No, it's outside the normal operating parameters. So stop being a cheap fuck and a shitty shopper and stay at least 2 from the top.

[jerr]

^^Your last sentence? Is that suppose to some sort of community advice or is a line from a "b" grade comedy?

I'm not an engineer but I've read many posts by people who are, describing why DIN's work as they are designed to do - to the ends of their prescribed range. If you really want to know go find one of those.

"Cheap fuck shitty shopper", without the "and a" sounds better, it's cleaner...

[ill-advised strategy]

Suspension not being the same in your truck doesn't fuck your shit up.

And I've also heard the +/- 2 DIN thing. Aside from upselling, you're getting outside the optimal operating range of the binding. Do you buy a half ton truck to haul 1,000lbs in the bed all day, every day? No you don't.

I was more thinking of valve springs than anything else...as they bear a similarity to binding springs. But yes, lots of industrial and service vehicles are regularly operated at their stated limits. Now that you mention it, there's a 1/2 ton work truck at my job that, since the 80s has been sitting there being filled with 1000+ lbs of firewood, then driven a short distance and emptied. Know what happens when it's not under load? Right back to normal....know why? The springs are springs.

I tested a rental shop full of bindings every year for many years. I never found a relationship between turning the bindings down at the end of the year and variations in the torque testing results. I never found a relationship between setting the binding at its maximum DIN and failure.

Go on with the paranoia. It sells a lot of bindings.

[leroy jenkins]

You have to consider your binding as well personally id feel more comfortable with an sth 16 cranked to 16 then a z10 at 10 ( just an example). Having tested more bindings then i care to count i would still recommend trying to stay within the middle of your bindings din range... more then once I have refused to test a binding that is max out ( a reserved right for a certified tech) its just not something i am comfortable signing off on. Bottom line have your binding calibrated yearly its cheaper then a new knee.

How do you calibrate a binding? I am aware of testing but all testing tells you is if its properly calibrated. I am very curious to learn how you recalibrate it? Replace the springs?

[Cordova Kid]

So... I guess I should start looking for some dukes then? Anybody wanna trade me my large barons for some dukes?

[coldfeet]

I was more thinking of valve springs than anything else...as they bear a similarity to binding springs. But yes, lots of industrial and service vehicles are regularly operated at their stated limits. Now that you mention it, there's a 1/2 ton work truck at my job that, since the 80s has been sitting there being filled with 1000+ lbs of firewood, then driven a short distance and emptied. Know what happens when it's not under load? Right back to normal....know why? The springs are springs.

I tested a rental shop full of bindings every year for many years. I never found a relationship between turning the bindings down at the end of the year and variations in the torque testing results. I never found a relationship between setting the binding at its maximum DIN and failure.

Go on with the paranoia. It sells a lot of bindings.

IMO the reason, if there is one, to turn bindings down for storage is that in a plastic housing binding, having the spring compressed to the max setting puts more tension stress on the housing. If you look at enough old skis you can find a binding where the housing is cracked or even the end has popped off. But I'm thinking of OLD bindings, not something that happens in a year or two.

I agree that springs should be in their elastic deformation range throughout the DIN settings, not plastic deformation. That means they will not take a permanent set or fatigue and wear out in any number of use cycles a skier could reasonably put on them.

[leroy jenkins]

So... I guess I should start looking for some dukes then? Anybody wanna trade me my large barons for some dukes?

I'll sell you some like new small dukes for $300+ shipping. Taking the almost like new wood core ak rocket swallowtails that are attached to them is mandatory. I don't want your barons.

[stuckathuntermtn]

^^Your last sentence? Is that suppose to some sort of community advice or is a line from a "b" grade comedy?

I'm not an engineer but I've read many posts by people who are, describing why DIN's work as they are designed to do - to the ends of their prescribed range. If you really want to know go find one of those.

"Cheap fuck shitty shopper", without the "and a" sounds better, it's cleaner...

yes, yes. "Cheap fuck shitty shopper" does sound cleaner.

You mean to tell me that every binding's travel, stress capacity, and other measurements of function are the same from 4 to 12 in a 4 to 12 DIN binding?
Don't really care about letting off the DIN in the summer. Since I'm only at 9 of 12, it's not at the edge of it's operating design.
And it seems like when things are operated at the edge of their design envelope, they need a lot of maintenance.
Your half ton only drives a short distance. Also, half ton is a class of vehicle, so that's a bad example.

It just doesn't seem possible that my bindings would operate the same at 9 as they do at 12 since you're essentially at the bindings' limit of smoothly traveling through its entire range of motion.

And that's not even getting into stress on the plastic

[jerr]

^^^At work we build "safety margins" into everything we do. So, when we sell a product and say it'll work fine from this point to this point - that's exactly what we mean.

Why does everyone assume that a safety margin simply can't have been engineered into the DIN function of ski bindings? To my way of thinking it's absurd to think the engineers would miss such a fundamental element of design. And it's easy to get it right, so why wouldn't you?

...since you're essentially at the bindings' limit of smoothly traveling through its entire range of motion.

What limit? Increasing DIN doesn't limit the range of motion of a binding. It just means you need more force to make the binding move through it's range of motion. My point being that the range of movement is unrestricted throughout a bindings DIN range.

[XXX-er]

if you ski a 10 din binding at 10din and you get a couple of shocks/bumps/some real life unsmooth skiing are you more or less likely to come out as compared to skiing the same thing on a 14din binding at 10din??

[stuckathuntermtn]

if you ski a 10 din binding at 10din and you get a couple of shocks/bumps/some real life unsmooth skiing are you more or less likely to come out as compared to skiing the same thing on a 14din binding at 10din??

That is basically my question. Seriously. Enlighten me.

[XXX-er]

That is basically my question. Seriously. Enlighten me.

Well IME in tech anything which is operated at its design limit is more likely to wear, break or malfunction, I can't tell you from personal experiance on ski bindings because I always buy bindings which don't put me at the limits for that reason, this doesn't mean I would buy a DH race binding with a din scale that starts well before my din setting but a margin of safety is a good thing

[jerr]

if you ski a 10 din binding at 10din and you get a couple of shocks/bumps/some real life unsmooth skiing are you more or less likely to come out as compared to skiing the same thing on a 14din binding at 10din??

Are you going to release the same at 10 on a 10 DIN binding as you are at 10 on a 14 DIN binding? Yes you are.

Go have a look at your ski bindings. Look where the DIN spring is. Look what that spring works against. Back the DIN spring right off and get an idea of the release motion of the binding - toe and heal, and then tighten the DIN and test the binding motion as you go. You'll see that the range of motion isn't changed at all, it just needs more force to move it - DIN. The DIN only increases the force you need to provide for the binding to move through it's range of motion.

This is the function of DIN, it doesn't inhibit it at-all.

A binding's range of motion will travel just fine when you introduce a force equal to the DIN setting.

[jerr]

Well IME in tech anything which is operated at its design limit is more likely to wear, break or malfunction, I can't tell you from personal experiance on ski bindings because I always buy bindings which don't put me at the limits for that reason, this doesn't mean I would buy a DH race binding with a din scale that starts well before my din setting but a margin of safety is a good thing

I had a pair of v-pros years ago that I put a 10 DIN binding on cause that's all I could find and I was a poor ski bum. I cranked them a little past to about 10.5, cause I was releasing a bit higher on my go to skis. I skied them hard, as a rock ski, and 'small spring' ski over two years and the bindings were solid. They released when I wanted them too because sometimes I ski like a punter, and totally held through some crazy frozen mank power turns, which they should have held through, and otherwise were solid.

So I'm a believer of DIN represent. (These were all on salomon bindings)

And now I think about it I had a pair of S900, 12 DIN set on 11- 11.5 for more than 100 days.

And I put my mum on 5.25 on a 4 DIN min binding, she's been fine for years.

Really, has anyone got a documented occasion of a binding that hasn't released properly because it was at the end of it's range?

[XXX-er]

I had a pair of v-pros years ago that I put a 10 DIN binding on cause that's all I could find and I was a poor ski bum. I cranked them a little past to about 10.5, cause I was releasing a bit higher on my go to skis.

doesnt sound like it worked very well, I have played with bindings at low settings to see what happens and I agree the action is the same but a binding used past its din setting if it has any weak spots in the design or manufacturing is more likely to fuckup it is certainly more likely to pre-release if you have it cranked to 11 and still need more holding power ...you would have to agree a binding not used outside its design parameters will work better?

[jerr]

^^^I didn't say it worked better or was a good idea. I said I did it 'cause I was a broke-arse ski bum and that's all I could get my hands on, but it worked just fine. I'm pretty happy sally build some comfortable safety/performance margins into their bindings. So, if I turn the 'big screw' half a turn more it's not the end of the world,

[XXX-er]

^^^I didn't say it worked better or was a good idea. I said I did it 'cause I was a broke-arse ski bum and that's all I could get my hands on, but it worked just fine.

YMMV but I want a binding that does work better and that is a good idea because if a binding is not 100% I want something else

To say you used something that was not 100% is your thing, thats OK but I don't think you should be telling people to use something that is < 100% other wise what is the use of standards in din settings ... we might as well all just telemark

[jerr]

^^Huh?

If a binding says it'll work between a DIN of 6 and 14, it'll work between 6 and 14. This is what I'm saying.

[jetski]

I thought we as hardcore mother fuggers were supposed to crank them all the way up and a quarter turn back regardless of what binding?
Shit I have been doing it all wrong.

[XXX-er]

^^Huh?

If a binding says it'll work between a DIN of 6 and 14, it'll work between 6 and 14. This is what I'm saying.

and we can agree to disagree on how well it will work

[Cordova Kid]

I'll sell you some like new small dukes for $300+ shipping. Taking the almost like new wood core ak rocket swallowtails that are attached to them is mandatory. I don't want your barons.

Leroy, intriguing, but I think I need to stay with the larges, that and the money issue.
Thanks for the offer though.

[stuckathuntermtn]

What if I nuke it from orbit and behead the remains (if any)?

[Alaskan Rover]

NN

errr you actually clean your bindings after day skiing on them? Maybe I've been a tard for all these years, but that seems pretty extreme to me.

When I was skiing, I didn't have one of those fancy car-top sarcophaguses....I just used a ski rack. The skis and bindings were often grey with road grit and salt...so I would clean them pretty thoroughly after taking them off the rack. When I was a teen, I pretty much neglected ANY sort of ski-maintenance, until the importance of maintenance was pounded into me by my VERY German coach.

I've been pretty good with my equipment ever since....not anal, just thorough.