Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 83
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    684

    Why does TGR love high din bindings?

    I'm heavy, ski hard, do large drops, etc and run my bindings at 11 or 12 and haven't have any issues with breakage/durability/slop with din ~13 bindings (Warden, Attack13, Griffon). So why do so many people love STH16/Pivot 18 type bindings so much? Are people really running their bindings at 15+? I feel like that is few and far between but maybe TGR is even more hardcore than I thought . There seems to be a lot of talk about metal but once again as a heavy/aggressive skier haven't had any problems durability/slop. Please enlighten me.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,125
    Bindings like handguns should be made of metal, me, I have many Pivots/SPX of the 15 and 18 DIN flavor and some other lesser brands that are similar in DIN range. I might ski around 10 or 11 now in my advanced age but I know that the metal will not fail like space aged plastics seem to.
    what's orange and looks good on hippies?
    fire

    rails are for trains
    If I had a dollar for every time capitalism was blamed for problems caused by the government I'd be a rich fat film maker in a baseball hat.

    www.theguideshut.ca

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    945
    Quote Originally Posted by waxman View Post
    Bindings like handguns should be made of metal, me, I have many Pivots/SPX of the 15 and 18 DIN flavor and some other lesser brands that are similar in DIN range. I might ski around 10 or 11 now in my advanced age but I know that the metal will not fail like space aged plastics seem to.
    Agree, and if my boots could be made of metal Iíd prefer that as well


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Fraggle Rock, CO
    Posts
    6,217
    Cuz truck nuts?
    Brandine: Now Cletus, if I catch you with pig lipstick on your collar one more time you ain't gonna be allowed to sleep in the barn no more!
    Cletus: Duly noted.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    3,376
    Quote Originally Posted by brundo View Post
    I'm heavy, ski hard, do large drops, etc and run my bindings at 11 or 12 and haven't have any issues with breakage/durability/slop with din ~13 bindings (Warden, Attack13, Griffon). So why do so many people love STH16/Pivot 18 type bindings so much? Are people really running their bindings at 15+? I feel like that is few and far between but maybe TGR is even more hardcore than I thought . There seems to be a lot of talk about metal but once again as a heavy/aggressive skier haven't had any problems durability/slop. Please enlighten me.
    Today, I would agree with you.

    But 7-10+ years ago when P18s and 916s were all the rage, 13 DIN bindings were generally plastic pieces of shit that would self destruct, develop slop, and otherwise be unreliable. Full metal was the only way.

    Now take into account the somewhat indestructible nature of those older heavy metal bindings and the average TGR members propensity to ski their gear into the ground - that is why they are still loved/used to this day.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    inpdx
    Posts
    14,603
    cuz we used to be younger

    give it a few years & watch the curve dial down

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    22,646
    Fat North American skiers ?
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    No longer Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    1,996
    Not related to high DIN for me. Durability is the issue.

    STH 16 = metal toe plate/tower
    STH 12, 14 = plastic toe plate/tower

    Not speaking for sth2, not sure about those.

    Iíve cracked two plastic towers.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    DownEast
    Posts
    1,078
    DIN Theory 1) Your binding release and retention is controlled by springs. One thought was that springs work best/most consistent in the middle of their range of travel as opposed to being more unsprung at a lower DIN setting and more compressed at a higher DIN setting. You wanted be in the middle of the of the range so if you skied a DIN setting of 12 you would want to be on a binding that went from 8-16.

    DIN Theory 2) Lots of expert skiers think it is more likely to have a ski prerelease and cause them to crash than to crash on their own and need the ski to release. The risk of having a ski come off is greater than the risk of it not in their mind. Think ski racers and ski mountaineers in you fall/you die terrain. They set their bindings accordingly.

    DIN Theory 3) Ego.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    13,412
    Quote Originally Posted by mc_roon View Post
    Today, I would agree with you.

    But 7-10+ years ago when P18s and 916s were all the rage, 13 DIN bindings were generally plastic pieces of shit that would self destruct, develop slop, and otherwise be unreliable. Full metal was the only way.

    Now take into account the somewhat indestructible nature of those older heavy metal bindings and the average TGR members propensity to ski their gear into the ground - that is why they are still loved/used to this day.
    This. Also, and I'm not sure if it still holds true, but back when I could throw a football over that mountain over there, high-DIN bindings had more elastic travel and were less likely to pre-release at equal DIN settings. I never run mine above 11-12, but BITD I couldn't trust anything else not to randomly blow off when skiing through crud and chunk at speed.
    Last edited by Dantheman; 01-11-2021 at 01:31 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    141
    Compensating for something

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    DownEast
    Posts
    1,078
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    This. Also, and I'm not sure if it still holds true, but back when I could throw a football over that mountain over there, high-DIN bindings had more elastic travel and were less likely to pre-release at equal DIN settings.
    Related to skiing in the middle of the spring as I understood it back then, but I'm getting old and my memory is going.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    6,304
    Pivot 18 and 15 are indemnified for a really long time. Others every 3-4 years change. That is key in long term use in your quiver.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I need to go to Utah.
    Utah?
    Yeah, Utah. It's wedged in between Wyoming and Nevada. You've seen pictures of it, right?

    So after 15 years we finally made it to Utah.....


    Thanks BCSAR and POWMOW Ski Patrol for rescues

    8, 17, 13, 18, 16, 18, 20, 19, 16, 24, 32

    2020/2021 (20/24)

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    9,170
    Iím a 916 guy. When I started buying them, there were not great alternatives. And I skied at 13 or so. Now there are alternatives. But my 916s from back then are still going strong. I have a five hole wide jig for them too. I ski at 11 which is in range.

    Not sure why I would buy new lower din options to replace something that works that I own already that is attached to my skis, mount with a paper template, and drill another set of holes in my skis to prove that Iím not compensating.

    When my existing herd of metal bindings become unusable, I wonít go out of my way to find high din metal bindings and will go with whatever covers an 11 din and is reliable. But by the time my metal bindings are done, I probably will be too.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    3,145
    Quote Originally Posted by singlecross View Post
    Related to skiing in the middle of the spring as I understood it back then, but I'm getting old and my memory is going.
    The DIN setting is not relative to the range of the binding. The spring is calibrated such that the din setting is consistent throughout the range. Otherwise, the binding would fail in an evaluation.

    I ski metal pivots because I trust them to hold up and keep me in the binding unless I should absolutely come out. If Look had been manufacturing the 15 din pivot over the last 10 years, my quiver would be 15's, not 18's, I ski them at 10. I may begin transitioning the quiver, but it will take some time for that kind of investment.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The greatest N. New Mexico resort in Colorado
    Posts
    1,570
    What mc_roon said, plus performance benefits.

    I skied salomon for a long time until their NA race program dried up and 916s and 920s became hard to come by. Older 997/977s still had a worm screw heel which was very durable, if prone to slop in the heel tracks, even in the lower din versions. Once they switched to the four-hole heel, those lower din heel tracks were more likely to snap in two than hold your foot in, and the toe wing adjustment was prone to stripping out. Back when racing was a thing I was regularly running 16+ din in Salomon to prevent prerelease, and same when I ran atomic for a few years. I’m not the biggest badass in the world, but I do have very long levers.

    Since switching to pivots ~12 yrs ago, I run a 13 din across the board and it works well for everything. But the aluminum race toe in the P15 and 18 has a very different feel on hard snow than the FDC toe, and better elastic travel for greater retention at the same din setting. So while I could run a P14 and be within the DIN range, I’d need to run a higher setting to account for the lost elastic travel. Plus the toe feels sloppy on hardpack at speed, and the gigantic plastic din window loves snapping off when you’re cleaning snow off your boot.

    So, metal=good, plastic=bad.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    146
    My understanding is that ski bindings are a special case in cam mechanics. The spring is linear, but the cam profiles add progressivity, making different springs behave similar at peak force (before release).

    Still, IMHO, there should be a slight difference in the beginning of travel with less preloaded springs (higher din) moving easier.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    163
    There may be some info in this old article that is helpful too.
    https://blisterreview.com/at-binding...n%20the%20boot.

    Long story short a light spring with lots of preload (13 binding set at 11) does not work the same way as a heavy spring with minimal preload (18 binding set at 11) because:
    1. the slope of the spring (k value) is (a) steeper with a heavier spring but (b) starts with less preload. So the lighter spring is more linear aka harder to move initially but less retention later in its travel and the heavy spring is more progressive aka easier to move initially and more retention later in the travel.
    2. a binding release value in practice is a measure of WORK DONE (force x distance), but DIN/RV testing is actually measuring peak force(see above) within +/-10% of recommended/chart, so bindings with more elasticity (distance) can generally use a lower spring force (ie lower DIN setting) for the same functional Release Value on snow.


    One of the reason Pivots are so popular is the old P18 and freshly re-released P15 combine super long elasticity toe and heal and a pretty high (8-18) spring, so folks get smooth motion at a relatviely lower DIN setting, with lower occurrence of pre-release when not needed/wanted.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    12,377
    Quote Originally Posted by waxman View Post
    but I know that the metal will not fail like space aged plastics seem to.
    Except in Pivot heels.
    "timberridge is terminally vapid" -- a fortune cookie in Yueyang

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Gallatin County
    Posts
    1,000
    Quote Originally Posted by waxman View Post
    I might ski around 10 or 11 now in my advanced age but I know that the metal will not fail like space aged plastics seem to.
    Having a heel piece explode for no real reason at 0*F in chest deep snow a mile from the road on a powder day completely cured me of plastic bindings.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    22,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    There may be some info in this old article that is helpful too.
    https://blisterreview.com/at-binding...n%20the%20boot.

    Long story short a light spring with lots of preload (13 binding set at 11) does not work the same way as a heavy spring with minimal preload (18 binding set at 11) because:
    1. the slope of the spring (k value) is (a) steeper with a heavier spring but (b) starts with less preload. So the lighter spring is more linear aka harder to move initially but less retention later in its travel and the heavy spring is more progressive aka easier to move initially and more retention later in the travel.
    2. a binding release value in practice is a measure of WORK DONE (force x distance), but DIN/RV testing is actually measuring peak force(see above) within +/-10% of recommended/chart, so bindings with more elasticity (distance) can generally use a lower spring force (ie lower DIN setting) for the same functional Release Value on snow.


    One of the reason Pivots are so popular is the old P18 and freshly re-released P15 combine super long elasticity toe and heal and a pretty high (8-18) spring, so folks get smooth motion at a relatviely lower DIN setting, with lower occurrence of pre-release when not needed/wanted.
    I agree with this ^^ so I have always chose accordingly so only needing a 7 or 8 DIN i chose somewheres in the middle of a range so a attak13 or Baron is just fine and I've never broken a binding

    but how do you think this pertains to the tech binding or at least the tech with traditional springs in a dynafit/ION/ fixed U springs, its my peception you can run them at a high release value and they will release accordingly but since its not really DIN what does that mean ?
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    but how do you think this pertains to the tech binding or at least the tech with traditional springs in a dynafit/ION/ fixed U springs, it's my perception you can run them at a high release value and they will release accordingly but since it's not really DIN what does that mean ?
    Totally. The trick with DIN is it is a German Standardized test. Lateral release at the toe and vertical release at the heel. That is not really how (most) tech bindings work. Both lateral and vertical release is at the heel, even when there is some motion in the toe, they don't "Toe Release" the same way. Additionally, (most) tech bindings don't have forward pressure in the same way as alpine bindings and the release springs themselves in (most) tech bindings are TINY compared to alpine bindings (way more preload, way less elasticity).

    As such, if you test vertical (or horizontal) release of a tech binding a few times in a row, you get a much larger range of readings that in an alpine binding.

    For a bit of hyperbole, it's like trying to compare the tone of your tennis racket to that of a piano. Sure you can pluck the strings of the tennis racket, and noise comes out, but it doesn't work the same way as a baby grand. Tech bindings certainly release, and when you lock the toe or crank down the heels, it gets harder for them to release, but there is only a very light correlation of those RV are to that of an alpine. Like how 130 flex alpine boots =/= 130 flex touring boots.

    So that said, I personally think that U-spring bindings (race heels) actually work better that standard prong bindings (vertical/radical heels) because the spring is much bigger and can just work in its natural way without wacky changes to preload/etc to keep you in. It's a more known and plannable entity that has much more consistent releases, should you need them.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    THOR-Foothills
    Posts
    5,751
    I like 916s.
    Even after I blew up my knee in a pair, I still prefer them. I run 11 in the toes and 12 in the heels. I like how positive the engagement is when you step in. If you don't hear them go "THUNK", you need to clear your soles better.
    It doesn't matter if you're a king or a little street sweeper...
    ...sooner or later you'll dance with the reaper
    -Death

    Quote Originally Posted by St. Jerry View Post
    The other morning I was awoken to "Daddy, my fart fell on the floor"
    Kaz is my co-pilot

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    22,646
    Ya up to speed on most of that ^^

    I run the Verts at the same values as a DIN binding even tho i know its not really DIN and they seem to release reliably

    U springs may work better but my complaint is you can't adjust them and you can't independantly adj vertical & horizontal release
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    CO/UT
    Posts
    2,923
    Quote Originally Posted by jackattack View Post
    The DIN setting is not relative to the range of the binding. The spring is calibrated such that the din setting is consistent throughout the range. Otherwise, the binding would fail in an evaluation.

    I ski metal pivots because I trust them to hold up and keep me in the binding unless I should absolutely come out. If Look had been manufacturing the 15 din pivot over the last 10 years, my quiver would be 15's, not 18's, I ski them at 10. I may begin transitioning the quiver, but it will take some time for that kind of investment.
    Pretty much this. With the exception of some baseplate cracking issues, and I'll admit the brake situation is a PITA, they ski good, don't prerelease, and last a long time.

Posting Permissions

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