Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 49 of 49
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The greatest N. New Mexico resort in Colorado
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    Is there any component of the DIN testing standard that accounts for ski flex? So if a ski is flexed and (presumably) forward pressure is higher than it would be on the bench, does the DIN standard account for that and require the release value to still be within some range?
    Nope! Ain't it fun?

    I think at that point the variables become essentially infinite, between amount of deflection, initial/resting camber/rocker, stiffness of ski/boot, length of lever/leg, etc. etc. etc. All that testing and calibrating does is determine whether all the parts can move like they should with a specific amount of force in a controlled environment.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    23,034
    Quote Originally Posted by RollGybe View Post
    In which case, you've already released.
    You misunderstand.

    I am simultaneously released and not released.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The greatest N. New Mexico resort in Colorado
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    You misunderstand.

    I am simultaneously released and not released.
    At least, until you're confirmed dead.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    4,244
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    Is there any component of the DIN testing standard that accounts for ski flex? So if a ski is flexed and (presumably) forward pressure is higher than it would be on the bench, does the DIN standard account for that and require the release value to still be within some range?
    I believe section 3.7 of ISO 9462 requires the ski to be flexed by a controlled amount and the binding to still release within a specified range (I think plus or minus 20%), but I can't find a free copy of ISO 9462 and I'm not about to pay ISO $175 USD to find out.

    From the ISO abstract: "3.7
    deflection of the ski
    deflection of the ski perpendicular to its gliding surface
    Note 1 to entry: In practice, the deflection of the ski depends at the same time on the loading situation and the profile of the snow-surface (“geometrical” situation). In test simplification, only the “geometrical” situation is simulated."

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    4,244
    Quote Originally Posted by gregL View Post
    I believe section 3.7 of ISO 9462 requires the ski to be flexed by a controlled amount and the binding to still release within a specified range (I think plus or minus 20%), but I can't find a free copy of ISO 9462 and I'm not about to pay ISO $175 USD to find out.

    From the ISO abstract: "3.7
    deflection of the ski
    deflection of the ski perpendicular to its gliding surface
    Note 1 to entry: In practice, the deflection of the ski depends at the same time on the loading situation and the profile of the snow-surface (“geometrical” situation). In test simplification, only the “geometrical” situation is simulated."
    Pretty sure ISO 13992 (touring binding standard) has a similar test, which is the reason only frame bindings and tech bindings with a spring-loaded heel have been able to pass.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by skifishbum View Post
    the fact that you tested fore the turn of the centurty with a pos overpriced torque wrench on a stick vermont
    and you think it accurately measured relase values makes this still a tech 2 1/2 decades later
    laugh out fuckin loud
    My shop has a brand new $25k Montana “robot” binding tester, and a old ass Vermont as a backup, and the Vermont is actually pretty close in the hands of a competent operator

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    10,334
    Quote Originally Posted by gregL View Post
    I believe section 3.7 of ISO 9462 requires the ski to be flexed by a controlled amount and the binding to still release within a specified range (I think plus or minus 20%), but I can't find a free copy of ISO 9462 and I'm not about to pay ISO $175 USD to find out.

    From the ISO abstract: "3.7
    deflection of the ski
    deflection of the ski perpendicular to its gliding surface
    Note 1 to entry: In practice, the deflection of the ski depends at the same time on the loading situation and the profile of the snow-surface (“geometrical” situation). In test simplification, only the “geometrical” situation is simulated."
    Quote Originally Posted by gregL View Post
    Pretty sure ISO 13992 (touring binding standard) has a similar test, which is the reason only frame bindings and tech bindings with a spring-loaded heel have been able to pass.
    Interesting.

    I guess I don't really have any way to translate that to real world experiences since I don't have a great concept of how much skis actually flex underfoot, and I have even less of a concept of how much that flex actually impacts the bindings. But it does seem like a large percentage of binding releases are happening while the ski is heavily flexed.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    8,842
    This is like the resurrection of EpicSki


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    23,163
    Actualy DIN is just DIN or it wouldn't be DIN

    The Op's point that they all work & feel different is probably valid

    but entirely besides the point
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    10,334
    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn View Post
    This is like the resurrection of EpicSki


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    It's different because we put our bindings on wider skis.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Portlandia
    Posts
    2,509
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    It's different because we put our bindings on wider skis.
    How dare you ski wide skis that aren't suitable on east coast ice even though you don't ski east coast ice.
    Training for Alpental

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dystopia
    Posts
    12,832
    What DIN is Velcro?
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.”
    Hunter S. Thompson

    “I got the degree of Stamp-licker from the Bezuzus Mail-order University”
    Babbitt, by Sinclair Lewis

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue
    Posts
    6,014
    DIN-3415 I believe.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    1,159
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    Interesting.

    I guess I don't really have any way to translate that to real world experiences since I don't have a great concept of how much skis actually flex underfoot, and I have even less of a concept of how much that flex actually impacts the bindings. But it does seem like a large percentage of binding releases are happening while the ski is heavily flexed.
    The purpose for the requirement for an alpine binding to have a forward pressure feature (ie a 'floating' heel with a stated minimum travel) to achieve DIN certification is exactly for this reason as it ensures as best as practically possible that the bindings release values remain consistent thoughout the flex range of the ski.

    Many of the latest tech bindings now also have floating heels to also give the same benefit as well as mitigating against the boot punching forward out of the toe pins etc.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    3,926
    I could make a Vermont test any number I wanted back in the day


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I rip the groomed on tele gear

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    10,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Spyderjon View Post
    The purpose for the requirement for an alpine binding to have a forward pressure feature (ie a 'floating' heel with a stated minimum travel) to achieve DIN certification is exactly for this reason as it ensures as best as practically possible that the bindings release values remain consistent thoughout the flex range of the ski.

    Many of the latest tech bindings now also have floating heels to also give the same benefit as well as mitigating against the boot punching forward out of the toe pins etc.
    Yeah, I get the basic purpose of forward pressure. But it seems like there's a massive difference among bindings as to how that forward pressure actually works. On one hand you have a Pivot where the heel piece can float up and down in the vertical plane, which presumably would have some impact on how the binding functions when the ski is flexed. On the other hand you have the royal family of bindings from Marker, which don't have any vertical movement and which I find to feel much "tighter" than most bindings when forward pressure is properly set. You can get both of those bindings to test within spec on the bench, but I wonder what the real world release values are when you're getting ejected out the front after landing in a bomb hole.

    Mostly my point is that it seems like there is a wide variation in how bindings approach the issue of release values while bindings are flexed, and that might explain some of the reason that certain bindings have been more consistently popular over the years.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    3,117

    My View DIN is not just DIN

    Quote Originally Posted by RollGybe View Post
    In which case, you've already released.
    Aren’t you simultaneously both connected and not connected to your skis?

    Or are immediate released as soon as you look down?

    Edit: dammit. I was late. Or was I?

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    3,117
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    Yeah, I get the basic purpose of forward pressure. But it seems like there's a massive difference among bindings as to how that forward pressure actually works. On one hand you have a Pivot where the heel piece can float up and down in the vertical plane, which presumably would have some impact on how the binding functions when the ski is flexed. On the other hand you have the royal family of bindings from Marker, which don't have any vertical movement and which I find to feel much "tighter" than most bindings when forward pressure is properly set. You can get both of those bindings to test within spec on the bench, but I wonder what the real world release values are when you're getting ejected out the front after landing in a bomb hole.

    Mostly my point is that it seems like there is a wide variation in how bindings approach the issue of release values while bindings are flexed, and that might explain some of the reason that certain bindings have been more consistently popular over the years.
    FWIW, I have experienced the head over heels prerelease that is rumored to happen with pivots when you hugely flex your ski upwards at relatively slow speeds.

    Not a rumor. #flexmatters

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    You misunderstand.

    I am simultaneously released and not released.
    But the second you want to know...

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    Actualy DIN is just DIN or it wouldn't be DIN

    The Op's point that they all work & feel different is probably valid

    but entirely besides the point

    yeah, except there is no way to know what "initial compression" means. Not even with on a test machine unless you had x-ray vision.

    In practicality, there in only one number on the binding that a skier can relate to. I know my binding settings based on my own experience. I also know from experience that the these aren't precise binding to binding. So I don't really know if my bindings are consistent.

    Anyone who doesn't know his perferred DIN is using a generic chart for all makes and models. Back to my initial point that DIN is DIN - most people would take that to mean "release" and it's not. But it's the only number available!

    So if you have to use your own heuristics to translate DIN into your own setting, and you would set different makes models differently, then DIN can't really be DIN unless we play a razor thin game of semantics. No one cares when the spring is initially compressed.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    16,577

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    People's Republic of MN
    Posts
    5,451
    This threads hurts my eyes...
    Gravity. It's the law.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    23,034
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    Glad someone finally posted that.
    Now, padawan, 'DIN is both DIN and not DIN' is what you're trying to say.

    An Archimidean approximation, always evolving, never precise, subject to the observations of Heisenberg.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6
    I agree that the plastic Rossi toes release in a strange manor - once the boot transitions onto the toe's rollers, most of the retention is lost. However, this does give you time to slam your boot back straight while still skiing.

Posting Permissions

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