Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Grandma's Basement
    Posts
    1,192

    Max DIN Allowance on Binders

    Howdy folks - I want to preface this thread with an apology as I sure as shit couldn't find an existing thread on this subject, but I would be blown away if it hasnt thus far been discussed. But if it has, someone point me to the right direction.

    So now that's over with.

    What is the maximum that people will run a particular binding? For example, a DIN 12 binding can be run all the way up to 12 or should you leave some gap in there?

    I've always been told to leave ~ 2 DIN on a bindings max setting, so for that DIN 12 - don't ever run it above 10. However the enginerd in my mind says that the allowance should already be built into the design of the binding.

    So what's the actual story, and is there any literature folks could point me to?

    Thanks
    "Poop is funny" - Frank Reynolds

    www.experiencedgear.net

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    20
    If binding is DIN compliant, it means it needs to fulfill DIN standard (it's real standard not just some vague term). This means, it needs to work exactly same at din 8, 9, 10 or 12. This also mean there's no need to "go only to 10, not to 12", as binding needs to operate accurately at any setting from min to max value and everything in between.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    5,161
    Where did you get that from? Back in the day, the practice was to give you some flexibility up or down in the release value range to compensate for factors in the overall boot-binding system related to variations in binding testing outputs. But, it was never about some limitation of the bindings at the extremes of the range.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,063
    Full DIN range good to go.
    The old wives tale is false!

    Cody mentions something about this(from a Salomon engineer) in the Shift thread

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,469
    Considering how litigation happy the US is, would a manufacturer leave the min/max up to forum advice?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Cocximus View Post
    Considering how litigation happy the US is, would a manufacturer leave the min/max up to forum advice?
    True, but there is likely some benefit to not running the binding at max DIN, so that you arent exposing it to its maximum rated stress every release. Kinda like how a car driven by an 18yr old wont last quite as long as the same car driven by grandma (assuming grandma doesnt crash). IDK if most folks would actually keep a binding long enough for this to matter.

    If i want something to last, i dont run it at its maximum all the time. Also, if you ride at a 13 DIN, its probably a better bet that the 16 DIN binding will hold up better than a 13 DIN binding just because the 16DIN is usually built beefier to handle higher forces.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    751
    I always thought this was to compensate for a small mismatch between the indicator value and actual standard. If a tech adjusts to DIN 11 and the binding tests out of spec, he can go to 12 to get the actual 11 standard release. If you are already at 12 on the indicator then you can't adjust if it tests a little off. Someone who actually knows this stuff should chime in, but I seem to remember reading that this was pretty common for the indicator to be off a little and the standard allows for this within reason.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    14,003
    +1 on lowest click to highest click is safe and will function reliably.

    I'd still want a bench test if I'm not going to physically test it with my feet/legs trying to twist out of it and pop up the heels.


    Be extra careful if it looks like this..

    Name:  330px-Spinal_Tap_-_Up_to_Eleven.jpg
Views: 333
Size:  15.1 KB
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Grandma's Basement
    Posts
    1,192
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    +1 on lowest click to highest click is safe and will function reliably.

    I'd still want a bench test if I'm not going to physically test it with my feet/legs trying to twist out of it and pop up the heels.


    Be extra careful if it looks like this..

    Name:  330px-Spinal_Tap_-_Up_to_Eleven.jpg
Views: 333
Size:  15.1 KB

    But its one louder....
    "Poop is funny" - Frank Reynolds

    www.experiencedgear.net

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    30,879
    I think those of you who break or come out of 13 din bindings know who you are
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Grandma's Basement
    Posts
    1,192
    This is all good info - thanks for dispelling the old wives tale!
    Appreciate the help.
    "Poop is funny" - Frank Reynolds

    www.experiencedgear.net

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    14,003
    If you're a legit 10 DIN due to ability more than weight and BSL I'd go with a higher DIN simply because what if you put on another 15 pounds or want to run some gates?

    I never skied above a 9.5 but I weighed 105 pounds at the peak of my GNAR. Now I'm 180 pounds and skiing around 7.5.. without any pre release issues at all... Getting old sucks..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    2,667
    Back when I couldn't afford anything but 12s I always set them to 13.

    Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    13,841
    I think a lot of the "don't run max DIN" talk came from concerns about the extra pressure on shitty plastic bindings. Yes, when they were new, they'd function and test out as advertised. But the extra preload pressure on the spring would deteriorate the plastic bits over time leading to a failure. This was also why people gravitated towards metal bindings and also advocated for turning down your din adjustments in the summer.

    I think the materials used in bindings have improved significantly. But I also think that, regardless of what din you're running, heavy metal bindings will hold up to all kinds of abuse and last for years, while the (usually lower din) plasticky versions tend to succumb to wear and tear a lot quicker. That doesn't really have anything to do with where in the range the din is set to though.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    30,879
    how many bindings actulay have much metal in them ??
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    13,841
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    how many bindings actulay have much metal in them ??
    The higher din pivots are mostly metal. Older 16 din Sally's were mostly metal.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The greatest N. New Mexico resort in Colorado
    Posts
    2,188
    As has been stated above...(most eloquently by Tuco)

    Your DIN number is just a starting point, and having some wiggle room to calibrate the springs to account for variables like materials fatigue, uneven wear, etc. is a good idea, but not absolutely necessary. The binding is designed to give consistent release values as long as it is properly adjusted to a conforming boot within it's specified release value range. Certified technicians are allowed to make small adjustments to your bindings (0.5 increments, up to +/-2) to ensure that the release values fall within range. Skiing at the top or bottom end of a binding's release value scale could potentially put you in a position where you would not be able to adjust the binding further to get it to test within range. If you test your bindings. But the function of the binding doesn't (or shouldn't) change because of where you are on the release value scale of that binding.

    Initial visual indicator settings are selected based on your height, weight, age, skier ability and boot sole length. Any time a tech makes an adjustment to your binding, they are required (but too many rarely bother) to test the ski/boot/binding system and calibrate the spring to ensure that it tests within range in two very specific release scenarios, laterally for the toe and forward leaning for the heel. So if you have a little wiggle room at the top or bottom of the scale, those adjustments can be made with less likelihood of failing the very specific test of those very specific scenarios.

    Sometimes bindings test off, and need calibration when they're brand new. But within the last twenty years, if I'm mounting a ski and it takes more than +/-1 to land within range right out of the box, I'm sending it back and getting a replacement.

Posting Permissions

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