My View DIN is not just DIN

[ZomblibulaX]

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.

[Buster Highmen]

In which case, you've already released.

You misunderstand.

I am simultaneously released and not released.

[ZomblibulaX]

You misunderstand.

I am simultaneously released and not released.

At least, until you're confirmed dead.

[gregL]

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."

[gregL]

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.

[MegaStoke]

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

[toast2266]

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.

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.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

This is like the resurrection of EpicSki


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[XXX-er]

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

[toast2266]

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.

[Sessiøn]

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.

[Core Shot]

What DIN is Velcro?

[abraham]

DIN-3415 I believe.

[Spyderjon]

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.

[detrusor]

I could make a Vermont test any number I wanted back in the day


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[toast2266]

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.

[EWG]

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?

[EWG]

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

[RollGybe]

You misunderstand.

I am simultaneously released and not released.

But the second you want to know...

[RollGybe]

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.

[old goat]

[axebiker]

This threads hurts my eyes...

[Buster Highmen]

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.

[Drizzle]

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.