Lou posted a video of this neat binding testing machine that he picked up for his shop -- really cool. I don't know of any of these in Colorado, do any of you? He says his is the only one in Alberta...
Actually there are differences from brand to brand (as minor as they are). Here is a Marker and Look Indicator/release settings charts and there are numerous differences. If all the settings were identical, the electronic machines would not require the technician to enter the binding brand when doing a ATSM.So - New to the forum - thought I'd add some clarity. I've worked as a Rep for both Salomon and Marker, now run a shop on Idaho. We use BOTH the Wintersteiger and Montana machines. The Montana is my choice for a Marker Royal family binding because it closes the heel automatically (but has a tendency to scar the boot heel). All other bindings test on either machine far better than the Vermont testers that we started with back in the day.
Now the GEEK-OUT part on DIN settings - Running a shop and rental business, this is important to me as it is what the industry uses in the event of a lawsuit regarding a skier injury occurs. The true history of DIN (a German institute for standardization) is that it was created so that the industry could reduce the number of broken legs - the torque values are set based on the average tested strength of the tibia bone broken in half, and laterally (twist). The teams could use cadavers to obtain the static information to establish consistent ranges that could be used by all binding companies primarily to provide a "safer" way to ski. This also served as the base to be used in legal issues (mostly in the US - which is why you don't see the same level of attention in the EU). Being the accepted industry standard, ALL binding companies use the same adjustment chart settings and initial values. There are no variances in the charts used by the different companies. If everything was equal, a "7" on a Marker would release with the exact same torque as a "7" on a Tyrolia or Salomon. Variables come in to play, though. Strength of the plastics in the housing, wear on the metal springs, wear on the boot toe or heel, and material used on the boots all have the potential to affect the true torque values. The charts provide an "Initial Release Setting" value as a starting point. From there, the Tech tests the release values for lateral (toe) and forward lean (heel), and fine tunes the bindings to release within the accepted values. Every time you walk across the parking lot, you have the potential to scuff and change the parts of your boot that interact with the binding, so you should get them checked at least once per year - beginning of the year is best.
As far as the 7.7 - Never heard of that. The correct Initial Indicator Setting should be 8.5.
About damn time they got all on the same page. I never understood why there was not a standard to the settings. Now if we could just get a standard for delta within not only the industry but brands...let alone within a model collection.I think that you might be looking at an old Look DIN Chart. I am looking at the 2019\2020 Charts for Salomon, Marker, Tyrolia, and Look\Rossignol right this second, and they are all identical. I would think that if there is an industry standard, it would be the same across all manufacturers. The DIN and ISO groups work independent of the manufacturers so that the information can be used throughout the industry.
I would be happy with consistant delta.But I want adjustable delta.... The standard should be to express the delta and provide a way for one skier to reduce it and the next skier (me) to increase it to whatever the sweet spot is for each.
Delta is the difference, in this case the difference in height above the ski base of the binding part the boot heel sits on and the binding part the boot toe sits on. The difference of the boot forward tilt on the same binding changes as the binding is adjusted for boot size changes... Shorter boots will have a greater delta angle than longer boots on a binding with the same delta height. Even if Phil and I like the same delta angle, we'd need to adjust the delta height if our boot lengths are different. (We're using the term ramp angle for the slope of the boot board inside the boot.)
No, no and no. While I don't think the VRC is slow, it might be a bit slower than some machines, but a good operator can move through a binding with ease and efficiency.Are there any older release testing machines that one should avoid?
Is the old Vermont Release Calibrator unsafe, or inconsistent (and therefore unsafe), or just slow to use?
https://vermontskisafety.com/vermont-ski-safety-equipment-inc/vermont-release-calibrater/