Binding DIN calculation chart needs refinement

Thole DIN chart thing is "coarse" and needs refining. Not to mention the "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" factor in terms of some folks ability or non-ability. Would venture to guess there are mucho un-humble skiers out there checking the binding mount/set level at level 3 who are barely level 1.5. At my age I set myself with a DIN calculation of 2.5, based on my physical attributes, including my level of conditioning pre-season. The level 1 2 3 is biased and not refined enough to really dial anyone in to where they belong IMHO. Not to mention the "window" sizes associated with the DIN charts age, weight, and height. Weight and height not so bad..age spans ridiculously large. And no conditioning factor variable either.

Agree?

If someone gets hurt because they lied about their ability level that's on them. It's a guideline. If you think your din is too low, the only thing stopping you from changing it is whether or not you have a screwdriver.

100% disagree. bindings arent accurate enough to warrant anything more than the 1-2-3 skier type, other than the occasional -1 or +3. also the descriptions are pretty accurate in my opinion. im not sure how else you would word a new chart without confusing people. its bad enough now trying to get someone to make a decision with three options.

also the chart is a guideline. just because someone isnt technically sound doesnt mean they arent a type 3. someone could be an intermediate skier, but if they are aggressive on everything that technically puts them at a 3 because they need, or would want, a higher release. same thing going the other way. if a person can ski everything under the sun but they are just cruising down they dont need to be a type 3.

the 1-2-3 rating is directly effecting release setting. 2 is considered average, 1 is below average and 3 is above average.


and nothing makes me cringe more than someone setting up their own "din." just because the VISUAL INDICATOR says 9, does not mean it correlates to a 9 release setting. ive tested thousands of bindings from every manufacture with both the vermont calibrator (by hand) as well as the automated wintersteiger. most bindings are within the in use range. but ive had brand new bindings have deviations up and down. toe, and heel. sometimes its just the toe, sometimes its just the heel. one of both. ive also had 10yr old bindings that are spot on accurate.

Condor wrote

and nothing makes me cringe more than someone setting up their own "din." just because the VISUAL INDICATOR says 9, does not mean it correlates to a 9 release setting. ive tested thousands of bindings from every manufacture with both the vermont calibrator (by hand) as well as the automated wintersteiger. most bindings are within the in use range. but ive had brand new bindings have deviations up and down. toe, and heel. sometimes its just the toe, sometimes its just the heel. one of both. ive also had 10yr old bindings that are spot on accurate.

So what's the deal when someone off the street partakes in a Demo Day at a hosting resort. Maybe I haven't looked recently, but don't ever recall seeing any elaborate binding release test going on b4 the skis are handed over. Guess it's a demo at your own risk thing and a signature to release liability on the vendor's end at that point. There are so many variables to a ski releasing form its binding, including wear and tear, lubrication, boot sole condition, etc., so I feel to be "safe",, one would have to have their bindings tested at very short intervals, almost to the point of every 3 days of use.

all demo skis are tested before they go out for the season. then sporadically during the season. ive worked many demo days and currently work at a rental shop. any bindings that have deviations are generally marked on the ski, at least thats what ive always done and seen.

you are correct in the wear on the boots. its all accounted for when we test a ski. whether its toe height adjustment, or the binding has an automatic toe height. there are tools that measure the wear of a boot lug and its easy to see if it passes or fails before even putting it into a binding. there is a section on every binding form that will show whether or not the boot passes of fails visual inspection as well as the compatibility with the binding. i always recommend once a year for a release check. twice if you are skiing a lot and really working the bindings. most people arent wearing boots down in a season unless you drag your feet through the back of the parking lot.

we had skis in our rental fleet that were 4 yrs old and were as accurate on the 150th day they went out as they were on the first day.

there are numerous variables to release accuracy. everything you listed is spot on. i still think the current system is as accurate as it can be until bindings become more accurate in the release consistency. which i also think is currently pretty good as it is.

of course its ski at your own risk, have you actually read a release form? somewhere on there it will say, bindings are NO guarantee of safety. just because they are meant to release doesnt mean they will, and just because they are meant to hold you doesnt mean they will.


you can have your bindings tested as many times as you would like.

Agree..

I should have considered the deviation/quality/slop factor all along, as I'm on the higher end of mechanically inclined. Obviously a high percentage of ski bindings are not precision devices by any means, hence your points are 100% valid about the slop being a reality in almost, if not all cases.

I pretty much thought about everything else through, and am a chronic user of CatTraks. to keep my boot soles as pristine as possible. Trucking through a parking lot, beating the crap out of my boot soles is something I would never do. One, I want to be able to maintain the condition of the sole in hopes of supporting binding release when needed, and two, it' can lead to a recipe for disaster, especially when passing over ice.

I never check my bindings....  

its impossible to account for everything but i feel in my experience, which is all i have, the current system is pretty good. safety is always a concern with both sides of the counter, especially from the shops perspective. shops have a lot to lose and not much to gain when it comes to rentals. if there were enough issues out there to require a change it would happen.

i also thinking having more than the 1-2-3 setting will confuse a lot more people and cause a lot more problems.

I'm 174 lbs, 5'11", type 3, and have a boot length of 330mm.  My DIN comes out to be a 7.  If I gained a couple more pounds, I'd go up a category and my DIN would be an 8.5.  Sort of weird how it changes significantly without a major change in weight.

not entirely. your in use range for a skier code M is 58-78 on the twist and 229-320 on the forward lean. where if you set yourself as a 3+ or gained 1lb to go to a skier code N your in use range would be 67-91 on the twist and 271-380 on the forward lean. they always overlap so its really not that drastic.



ALSO!!!!!!! 7.0 is NOT YOUR DIN. it is a visual indicator that has no numerical value on a setting.

Type 3? Out of 10?

Spongeworthy wrote

Type 3? Out of 10?

This is my 13th season skiing and I've used a type 3 setting for at least the last 4.  Just because I tend to not ski bumps or trees doesn't mean that I'm not a 3.  I do ski fast and aggressively, but primarily on groomed runs.  That can still cause a binding to release if it isn't set tight enough.  Last thing I want is to be going 40mph and have my ski come off out of nowhere.  If I'm going fast enough to crash, I'm also going fast enough for my bindings to release if I fall, so I want it set high.

Condor wrote

 ALSO!!!!!!! 7.0 is NOT YOUR DIN. it is a visual indicator that has no numerical value on a setting.

I can vouch for that. My girl had a very bad experience with brand new bindings/skis that came from the shop set WRONG due to them not torque testing the bindings. I know this because after her injury I took them to a different ski shop, told them nothing, just had them set for her weight/skill/etc. Turns out the new Salomon bindings with messed up and the scale was off some 40% ! WAY TOO TIGHT. Seriously,,,,,Damn near ripped her knee apart like a chicken wing. When I told them what had happened and how she was hurt they said we should pursue civil action.

I know most here probably skip it but they should be tested once a year.

Condor wrote

ALSO!!!!!!! 7.0 is NOT YOUR DIN. it is a visual indicator that has no numerical value on a setting.

Condor are you questioning sno's expert knowledge of everything skiing?

freeheeln wrote

Condor are you questioning sno's expert knowledge of everything?

With all due respect, FIFY

Thacheronix wrote

freeheeln wrote

Condor are you questioning sno's expert knowledge of everything?

With all due respect, FIFY

Yes I did get that wrong.