Din Setting

[1000-oaks]

Those 185 Gigawatts are soft (even softer than a 1st year carbon Megawatt) & super heavy, even heavier than a big-boy stiff 193 Empire 127.

Looks like the mode strap snapped on the Tours (they bend and break if forced when there's ice in the tracks), though it's hard to say if the heel track split before or after the mode strap snapped. Doesn't look like a pivot failure.

[XXX-er]

they were all over the place on close out, I paid <300can , not much point in bringing them out for < 20cms where they become fun but I sure as hell would not tour them

[Lindahl]

Those 185 Gigawatts are soft (even softer than a 1st year carbon Megawatt) & super heavy, even heavier than a big-boy stiff 193 Empire 127.

Looks like the mode strap snapped on the Tours (they bend and break if forced when there's ice in the tracks), though it's hard to say if the heel track split before or after the mode strap snapped. Doesn't look like a pivot failure.

It happened while skiing when hitting a firm compression really hard. He blew it right off the track, so the pivot probably snapped. Temps were in the single digits probably made the plastic brittle.

[1000-oaks]

Could be, though the pivot isn't still on the front baseplate. Looks like the lower pivot section is still attached to the toe and attached to his boot in the photo, so when the mode strap snapped the whole assembly just slid off the tracks. Just guessing going by the photo though, so what do I know.

[stuckathuntermtn]

If you look at the range of weights, heights, and BSL's that produce the same DIN setting it's pretty clear the chart is only a rough approximation of the best setting for any skier. Note to that DIN settings were calculated in large part based on the premise that heavier people had bigger bones, which may have been true back in the day but not necessarily true in modern Western civilization.
Adjusting the DIN away from the textbook value should be based on the understanding that the higher the DIN the more likely an injury due to failure to release. When the consequence of release is high--ie no fall zone--raising the DIN makes sense. After all if you do fall you're going to wind up with a lot worse than a broken leg . In powder it makes less sense (that said--the worst injury I had was from a pre lease traversing at low speed through heavy powder--fell headfirst downhill landed on my shoulder and dislocated it.) So ask yourself--is it worse if I release in such and such situation or worse if I don't, and adjust accordingly.

IME surveyor's flagging tears too easily. Leashes or fabric powder ribbons are better.

I could see why that might be an issue, but the correct way to derive a DIN setting using the chart, takes into account short fat people and tall skinny people. There is a range of height/wight in each box, and if 1 of those factors fall out of the range, you go with whichever is lower. So, your short, fat housewife can easily fall out of her bindings when she falls over in the lift line, and your tall skinny teenager might wind up with the same setting so his little stick legs don't snap in half.
What's weird is how it starts going up by 1.5 after adjusting to Type III. IDK what the exact torque difference is, but I felt like 1 higher was plenty.

Total shit. DIN is only half the equation. This happened yesterday.

Attachment 173553

That's hilarious, but it looks more like snow stuck under the plate and forcing it open and closed one too many times. I'm talking about the non-vertical releasing, shitty elastic travel having mechanism in the "DIN" toe.

[old goat]

I could see why that might be an issue, but the correct way to derive a DIN setting using the chart, takes into account short fat people and tall skinny people. There is a range of height/wight in each box, and if 1 of those factors fall out of the range, you go with whichever is lower. So, your short, fat housewife can easily fall out of her bindings when she falls over in the lift line, and your tall skinny teenager might wind up with the same setting so his little stick legs don't snap in half.
.

Not sure you got what I meant--a 175 pound, 5'11 skier with a 310 bsl and a 209 pound 6'4 in skier with a 291 BSL chart out to the same DIN unit. . A muscular 200 pounder with big bones and a fat 200 pounder with skinny bones have the same recommended DIN. Or--if you gain 1 pound from 174 to 175 your DIN goes up a full unit. The point is that DIN setting by the chart is very imprecise and it's very understandable that chart DIN settings need to be tweaked.

[old goat]

Is there any reason a shop would set toes and heels at different DINs? The shop advertises that it tests. The difference is a full number. According to the charts the heels are correct (7) for my height, weight, BSL, level (III) and age (70). The toes are set to 6. I would assume that if the toes tested that far off they would have failed them. Is there a reason for the difference or is it tech being careless? I think maybe careless, since the FP was one click off on one ski and 2 clicks off on the other.
7 is where I have all my skis, seems to release when it should and not when it shouldn't.

[ZomblibulaX]

That’s SOP. Bindings are initially set according to the chart (height, weight, age, bsl, skier type) and then the setting is calibrated during testing to fall within range. Variation can be +/- 2, in increments of 0.5. It is not uncommon for some bindings to need calibration right out of the box, that’s why you’re supposed to test the system every time you adjust it.

Typically if there is a variance it would be noted in your paperwork, or even sharpied on the toe piece (“-1.0”).

[XXX-er]

Using a vibram sole AT boot in an AT frame binding I set the heel 1 higher or I get pre-release , using a plastic DIN sole in that same binding I set it back down 1 DIN

but thats about the Vibram rubber sole affecting release values

[old goat]

That’s SOP. Bindings are initially set according to the chart (height, weight, age, bsl, skier type) and then the setting is calibrated during testing to fall within range. Variation can be +/- 2, in increments of 0.5. It is not uncommon for some bindings to need calibration right out of the box, that’s why you’re supposed to test the system every time you adjust it.

Typically if there is a variance it would be noted in your paperwork, or even sharpied on the toe piece (“-1.0”).

Thanks. No paperwork. So I have to guess which setting was out of spec. I assume the toes, since the heels were set at the value from the chart. Guess I should call the shop.
Edit--shop says DIN of 7 correct, toes tested stiff, as you said, so thanks again. I wonder, since the FP was slightly high (screw heads slightly inside the housing instead of flush--could that have given a falsely high torsion reading on the toes. As I said, one ski was a click off, the other 2 clicks. And if so, would that affect the heel release force as well, or not?

[gregorys]

I think the explanation that the bindings DIN scale wasn't quite in-line with the test result is right.
Can't say if FP made a difference for the heel/toe differences. I doubt it though. My minimal testing using a ski torque (DIN) tester I own doesn't seem to indicate that as an issue. (FP issues seem to have a pretty wide range of proper functioning in general.) Next time I'm testing releases, I'll do some tests around FP specifically.

But interestingly enough - since I've been the victim of a tib+fib (comminuted) that was caused by a rotational force non-release - well I run my toes at a lower DIN as a matter of course.
I tend to find that I release at the heel on deeper days (when I don't want/need to), and almost never release at the toe accidentally.

So, I'd prefer a lighter touch at the toe. [I've hammered out on a really rough groomer at 50mph, but I don't think any release value would fix that. You can just feel the binding open up and suddenly you're gliding along on one ski as the other wanders off in search of glory. When you find the ski, the binding is in a non-released state, like nothing happened.]

I don't know if you've read it, but the info at vermont ski safety is pretty interesting.
https://vermontskisafety.com/researc...-skiersriders/ [Expand the section about "If my bindings are releasing inadvertently..."]

[old goat]

I think the explanation that the bindings DIN scale wasn't quite in-line with the test result is right.
Can't say if FP made a difference for the heel/toe differences. I doubt it though. My minimal testing using a ski torque (DIN) tester I own doesn't seem to indicate that as an issue. (FP issues seem to have a pretty wide range of proper functioning in general.) Next time I'm testing releases, I'll do some tests around FP specifically.

But interestingly enough - since I've been the victim of a tib+fib (comminuted) that was caused by a rotational force non-release - well I run my toes at a lower DIN as a matter of course.
I tend to find that I release at the heel on deeper days (when I don't want/need to), and almost never release at the toe accidentally.

So, I'd prefer a lighter touch at the toe. [I've hammered out on a really rough groomer at 50mph, but I don't think any release value would fix that. You can just feel the binding open up and suddenly you're gliding along on one ski as the other wanders off in search of glory. When you find the ski, the binding is in a non-released state, like nothing happened.]

I don't know if you've read it, but the info at vermont ski safety is pretty interesting.
https://vermontskisafety.com/researc...-skiersriders/ [Expand the section about "If my bindings are releasing inadvertently..."]

Thank you. I've seen that--definitely worth a re-read.

[ZomblibulaX]

Thanks. No paperwork. So I have to guess which setting was out of spec. I assume the toes, since the heels were set at the value from the chart. Guess I should call the shop.
Edit--shop says DIN of 7 correct, toes tested stiff, as you said, so thanks again. I wonder, since the FP was slightly high (screw heads slightly inside the housing instead of flush--could that have given a falsely high torsion reading on the toes. As I said, one ski was a click off, the other 2 clicks. And if so, would that affect the heel release force as well, or not?

One or two clicks? Depends on the binding, but not terribly likely. They probably adjusted the forward pressure a little with the boot in the binding and didn't pop it out and recheck it, but that's probably not enough to drastically affect the outcome.

[BABBLING=Me] Forward pressure has a range that is dictated by the design of the heel, and different indicators on what is essentially the same heel piece have different ranges but yield similar results. For instance, the worm screw adjustment on the old salomon heel. Older (957/977/997/900) worm screws had a range of accuracy with forward pressure adjustment, then when they re-released as the Z lab/sth steel, it was flush with the back of the heel track. They're both right, and the release mechanism was identical, so the results were similar enough that the manufacturer didn't consider it to be an issue, and real world testing showed that. So even though an indicator might have an exact setting, it still functions properly within a certain range (which depends on the design of the heel). However, the forward pressure obviously should be set correctly before you proceed with testing.

Bindings are tested and calibrated to accommodate for sole wear, metal fatigue, manufacturing tolerances, etc., and having different DIN settings is a reflection of those factors affecting the outcome of a specific test. But the range is pretty wide; you could (potentially) end up with one toe at 5 and one at 9, with the 9 releasing with LESS torque than the 5, but still fall within range and test out. But anyone with any sense in their head is just going to sell you a new binding, because that test just isn't an exact replication of real world situations. [/BABBLING]