Auto reduction in DIN setting on bindings over 50 y/o?

[cantunamunch]

One of the features that the Look tech rep's use to push was that the binding could be skied at a lower setting than was normal. They claimed it was because Look has a greater amount of elasticity in the toe and would return to center after an impact that would cause other bindings to release.

That's true but the spring has a disturbingly dramatic tendency to pop out if undone past the last detent.

Elastic - elastic - SPROINGGG!

 

[TimothyD11]

I did not know that you should dial down your DIN settings when storing your skis until the beginning of next season! Is that critical?

 

[Jilly]

I told my tech to shove it and leave them at 5.5. Had the same problem out west this fall with rentals.....5.5 please, no, you sign here for 5.5.

Anyone else remember checking your bindings by clicking in and swinging the tip into the snow? If it popped off doing that you might need to bump it up a bit. If it didn't pop off your probably hurt your knee. Ah, good times!

Yup, but I think it was Markar Rotomat....

 

[Rod9301]

A simple solution is to spend $100 to check your bone density.
I did and I left mine at 11.

 

[Wilhelmson]

I love .5 settings. Especially when there is no room between a 6 and 7 to begin with.

Without getting them tested its a crapshoot to get the indicator on the line anyways. If my kid gets new boots i do the calc and reset then dial it back whatever amount of turns is about .5

 

[HardDaysNight]

I did not know that you should dial down your DIN settings when storing your skis until the beginning of next season! Is that critical?

It is not and is, in fact, a bad idea.

 

[Sibhusky]

My bindings are set with the 1 DIN 50+ age reduction and don't have a pre-release problem. Try it.

Same here. Set at 5.5 for 18 years now. How come they don't have you set it down again at 60? Seems like they should.

 

[ARL67]

This 53 yo just tells them I'm 49 , problem solved.

 

[Philpug]

Same here. Set at 5.5 for 18 years now. How come they don't have you set it down again at 60? Seems like they should.

Especially when 60 is the new 50.

 

[Andy Mink]

Down half a notch for every year after 50. I'm starting at 20 setting.

 

[Doug Briggs]

My bindings are set with the 1 DIN 50+ age reduction and don't have a pre-release problem. Try it.

It isn't a 1 DIN reduction, it is a one ROW reduction on the chart. That reduction can be .5, 1 or 1.5 DIN depending where on the chart you start.

If you anyone prefers not to reduce at 50+, then they simply need to say they are one Skier Type higher. A III would become a III+, for instance, a II would say they are type III.

 

[François Pugh]

When I turned 50 years old, I gave serious thought to my risk acceptance level (it's not an ability level) and decided I really was a III+ skier and not a III. The III setting just would not have worked for the forces induced by speeds, terrain and turns I made.

 

[LiquidFeet]

I changed my setting this season to a 6, down from 6.5, since I've finally recognized I am actually getting old (and yes, heavier). Then a ski pre-released for the first time ever on me the other day. I've never had that happen before.

I've decided to put the setting back up. Going to my mountain's repair shop was interesting. It seems that the chart says they must set the bindings at 6.0 for L3 and 7.0 for L3+. I guess I'm going for a setting of 7 since the pre-release happened at 6. They refused to set them at 6.5, my previous setting for years.

Question: only one set of bindings pre-released. Should I assume that I should set them all up at 7.0 since I had one that pre-released? I was making fine turns at high speed when said binding (Attack 13) decided there was a problem and let loose. Not all my bindings are Attack 13s.

 

[crgildart]

Last time I crashed hard, over the handlebars when ski dove in refrozen crud, ski did release but leg was kinda sore a couple hours afterwards. Turned 50 following year and said, yep, time to dial them back a little. Might have left them if I was skiing more often. Why wouldn't bone density also be related to the kind of duress you're putting on them through activity and what kind of calcium suppliments you take? I bet Bode Miller isn't skiing a 6.5. But, I'm only going 7 now when I was going 8.5 20 years ago and 40 pounds lighter. I think the chart says 6.5 for me, going with 7. No problems losing skis, no achy knees or ankles when I do crash and lose one or two.

 

[eok]

One of the features that the Look tech rep's use to push was that the binding could be skied at a lower setting than was normal. They claimed it was because Look has a greater amount of elasticity in the toe and would return to center after an impact that would cause other bindings to release.

I was a huge fan of the old Look N77 for this. Compared to other bindings of the time, the elasticity range was just insane. Saved my bacon too many times to count. The N77 build was seriously burly, all metal & bullet proof. A little heavy, yes, but absolutely trustworthy. If they brought it back with an appropriately updated turntable heel I'd buy 'em in a heartbeat. No, the current crop of Looks are not in the same league (in my opinion).

 

[François Pugh]

I changed my setting this season to a 6, down from 6.5, since I've finally recognized I am actually getting old (and yes, heavier). Then a ski pre-released for the first time ever on me the other day. I've never had that happen before.

I've decided to put the setting back up. Going to my mountain's repair shop was interesting. It seems that the chart says they must set the bindings at 6.0 for L3 and 7.0 for L3+. I guess I'm going for a setting of 7 since the pre-release happened at 6. They refused to set them at 6.5, my previous setting for years.

Question: only one set of bindings pre-released. Should I assume that I should set them all up at 7.0 since I had one that pre-released? I was making fine turns at high speed when said binding (Attack 13) decided there was a problem and let loose. Not all my bindings are Attack 13s.

Do your work regulations as an instructor prevent you from using a screwdriver and setting it at 6.5?

 

[Johnny V.]

That's true but the spring has a disturbingly dramatic tendency to pop out if undone past the last detent.

Elastic - elastic - SPROINGGG!

This recently happened to me on a pair of Atomic X16 with a din range of 8-16. I was selling the skis (Redster 183s) to a guy I ski with and since his boot sole is 342 he wanted the din set to 7. Stupid me just backed them off without thinking........BOINNGGG! He passed on the skis as he didn't want the higher din bindings. I tried to screw the adjustment barrel back in, but I found it impossible to do by hand. I'm sure Atomic has a special clamp to assemble them at the factory, but I had to redneck engineer a setup using furniture clamps and a piece of wood with a hole cut in it. Got 'em back together, but what a pain it the butt! (and I didn't make the sale!)

 

[Bill Talbot]

I was a huge fan of the old Look N77 for this. Compared to other bindings of the time, the elasticity range was just insane. Saved my bacon too many times to count. The N77 build was seriously burly, all metal & bullet proof. A little heavy, yes, but absolutely trustworthy. If they brought it back with an appropriately updated turntable heel I'd buy 'em in a heartbeat. No, the current crop of Looks are not in the same league (in my opinion).

Absolutely agree but not the N77 (early) but the LOOK 77R. I have these on several retro skis that still get out to play!

 

[Dakine]

I've done that with Look single-pivots and gotten away with it.

You wouldn't want to go in bumps that way.
Funniest thing I have seen was a strong racer kicking out of both skis at a start leaving the skis in perfect position and his ass tumbling down the start ramp.

 

[Philpug]

If they brought it back with an appropriately updated turntable heel I'd buy 'em in a heartbeat. No, the current crop of Looks are not in the same league (in my opinion).

Where are the new looks lacking?