Din Dilemma - does size really matter ? New boot BLS is 3mm+ different WWYD

[Pequenita]

I wonder what would happen and has anyone witnessed what happens when a shop gets it wrong? What if they end up, " On the hook"? How does that play out and who investigates that situation and makes the final call on it? My assumption is the Insurance companies work it out, if it goes beyond the customer and shop... but I'm not sure? Who does the insurance underwriter or investigator ask, ski patrol, the mtn, the customer, ski shop records, or a combo of all of the above?

It probably settles, if the insurance company gets as far as to the shop/binding. I would imagine that it’s the insurance company, when it gets a claim for certain types of injuries and finds out that it’s a skiing injury that does the investigation to see who could be held liable. I’ve received letters in the past from my insurance company when it saw I had leg injuries, asking who / where / how it happened. The investigators go down that rabbit hole.

 

[Philpug]

It seems like it could be better (for me) to be able to get a shop to use a machine to confirm that when I have set my bindings to 11, they release with the right torque values for an 11 setting.

I don't mean to sound snarky but ... how did you decide 11 was your best setting? Were you coming out at 10 but feel 12 was too risky? If so, what conditions? Did take any consideration that your setting is a balance of release and retention and that while the binding will hold you in in adverse conditions it might not relase in a slow twisting fall?

 

[AngryAnalyst]

I don't mean to sound snarky but ... how did you decide 11 was your best setting? Were you coming out at 10 but feel 12 was too risky? If so, what conditions? Did take any consideration that your setting is a balance of release and retention and that while the binding will hold you in in adverse conditions it might not relase in a slow twisting fall?
View attachment 183277

I realize this sounds strange, but yes I had some pre-releases at 10. I have not had them at 11. I have had exactly one non-release where the setting difference was plausibly relevant in my judgement. By contrast, I seem to step out of bindings at my chart DIN in soft snow or crud more often than I would like.

Set at 11, my bindings do indeed come off when they have needed to in general. The memorable recent examples involve my stuffing the tips of my skis into steeper than expected bumps, the skis stopping and my body flying out of the skis with sufficient velocity to do an involuntary front flip.

 

[In2h2o]

BSL variable is about the torque leverage generated by the boot when twisting out of the binding. It's pretty important. Instead of thinking of it as just 3 mm beyond the highest limit of the old setting,,, think of it as TWENTY mm beyond the highest setting of your new category. It's what a half click to fix it? Just change it to the new DIN.

That is a way of looking at it that I had not thought of. I think I was focusing on the small difference between the two boots BSL.
I will say the 7.5 has served me very well. A few years ago when I had thought maybe I should adjust for 'age' and set at 6.5 it was not good. Going to 7 (which is closer to 6.5) just because the boot was 3mm longer is something I'm trying to wrap my head around.

However, here is the thing that I find somewhat ambiguous about the din calculations -- taking "age" out of the equation:
the DIN for a 3+ skier under 50yo in both boot size is 8.5.
the Din for a Level 3 skier in the under 270 bsl is a 7.5. over 270 bls is a 7
it seems odd there is such a big jump from the level 3+ to the level 3 in the over 270 size.

 

[KingGrump]

Why is this so hard?

But, but, but, that mean the skier will have to take responsibility for his/her action.

 

[dovski]

Hey I am the only one who has noticed the elephant in the room, your BSL changed and you didn't even consider a remount, now your turning will be off by at least 1.1% Totally kidding do not remount I repeat do not remount .... but do make sure the forward pressure is correct, if anything I think small changes in BSL are more likely to impact forward pressure than DIN setting, then again 3 mm is so small depending on your bindings you may be fine ....

 

[crgildart]

That is a way of looking at it that I had not thought of. I think I was focusing on the small difference between the two boots BSL.
I will say the 7.5 has served me very well. A few years ago when I had thought maybe I should adjust for 'age' and set at 6.5 it was not good. Going to 7 (which is closer to 6.5) just because the boot was 3mm longer is something I'm trying to wrap my head around.

However, here is the thing that I find somewhat ambiguous about the din calculations -- taking "age" out of the equation:
the DIN for a 3+ skier under 50yo in both boot size is 8.5.
the Din for a Level 3 skier in the under 270 bsl is a 7.5. over 270 bls is a 7
it seems odd there is such a big jump from the level 3+ to the level 3 in the over 270 size.

Put it at 7 and see if you can physically crank your foot out of them.. Or, put them at 6.5 and see if they seem to pre release a little too easy.. 7 is probably fine though.

 

[Henry]

What are the actual boot sole lengths? Don't rely on the numbers from the boot, measure it yourself. If you want it shorter, put the boots into a freezer for a while before you measure.

Bones get more brittle as we age. Old weaker bones need the reduced release value. I understand the limitations of the step functions in calculating the release settings. If age > 50 needs one number lower release, does age > 75 need an even lower number?

If one sets their bindings at the chart value and has multiple inadvertent releases, maybe it's technique that needs the tune up...just sayin'.

 

[Tony Storaro]

But, but, but, that mean the skier will have to take responsibility for his/her action.

Thank you! Was wondering how to say that…

 

[In2h2o]

Hey I am the only one who has noticed the elephant in the room, your BSL changed and you didn't even consider a remount, now your turning will be off by at least 1.1%

Ok don't think I didn't think about this!!!!! my newest pair of skis were mounted what I feel is a 'hair' forward I was thinking a bit longer BSL would get it back to on the line...... which was a good thing

What are the actual boot sole lengths? Don't rely on the numbers from the boot, measure it yourself. If you want it shorter, put the boots into a freezer for a while before you measure.

Bones get more brittle as we age. Old weaker bones need the reduced release value. I understand the limitations of the step functions in calculating the release settings. If age > 50 needs one number lower release, does age > 75 need an even lower number?

If one sets their bindings at the chart value and has multiple inadvertent releases, maybe it's technique that needs the tune up...just sayin'.

So interesting. I measured with a ruler in inches, and I will need to do this more accurately with a cm ruler but to me it looks like 10 5/8 (10.625) inches which according to google is = 26.99cm or 269.9mm. Does this mean people need to question the stamp on the side of the boot?

For reference, I had been skiing the same boot for a while (270) at 7.5. Somehow I got it in my head that maybe I should be following the chart for those 'over fifty' all that got me was 3 preleases on 2 different skis in a short period of time when it was at 6.5. I went back up to 7.5 and was quite happy with that -- al that did was tell me was that if I use my real age I need to be at Level 3+ skier.

 

[markojp]

The 'age' trigger was invented a good long time ago. Today's 50 y.o.'s are generally more fit and probably have better bone density than 25 years ago. At 50, after I got my skis back from the shop, I moved the setting to the same I had at 49. At 60, I'm going to try the '50' y.o. setting.. 8.5 vs 9.5.

 

[Tony Storaro]

Today's 50 y.o.'s are generally more fit and probably have better bone density than 25 years ago.

And many of them are faster on climbs and more powerful on the flats than their younger friends. Don't ask me how I know-the sad story of my life as road cyclist...
Seems in today's world 50 is the new 35 dammit...

 

[fundad77]

And many of them are faster on climbs and more powerful on the flats than their younger friends. Don't ask me how I know-the sad story of my life as road cyclist...
Seems in today's world 50 is the new 35 dammit...

Agreed for sure. I will be keeping my pre-50 DIN of 8.0 until I am eligible for Medicare. No shop has refused me yet and I demo all the time, but some have said that 8.0 is the highest they will go off chart. I wonder where that number came from?

 

[François Pugh]

Here's how it works, sort of (BASED ON a true story).
Decades ago a mad scientist with access to cadavers decided to find out what it took to break leg bones, i.e., how much torque was required. He broke many bones that he obtained from corpses. He then did a statistical analysis on the data he had about the dead bodies, their weight, height, age (at time of death), etc. He correlated statistical distributions, such as at Torque A, 50% of the bones broke, at Torque B, 30% broke, At Torque C None broke, etc. He then made up graphs that compared how easily the bones broke at different risk levels representing higher and lower percentages of bones broken at that torque. The equations for these graphs were quite complicated, so he made a chart. For a given length of boot (changes what torque you get from a given force applied to a size 13 vs a size 4 boot), a given weight (heavier correlates to stronger bones developed by supporting that weight), a given height (relates to length of bones), and a very low (maybe even zero but seems like) percentage of broken bones you get curve 1 - risk level 1 on the chart. For a higher percentage you get curve two and level 2 on the chart, for higher still, you get curve three and level 3 on the chart.

The force from the chart (derived from statistical curve and length of boot in the length x force = torque) gives you, the chances of breaking your leg at that force.

It has nothing to do with how much force you need to stay in the bindings skiing the way you do in the conditions you do.

To be safe, you really should set the bindings with the least amount of force you need to stay in the bindings even if you could set them higher (at 3+ say) and be fine.

As you age, you lose bone density. Maybe we could have smooth curve, but that would be complicated for most folk, so they picked an age and drew a line in the sand there.

If/when you are skiing the same way in the same conditions as you did at 27 when you're 62, you will need the same DIN now that you needed then to stay in your bindings (and you made it to 62 ). If you want to have the same chance of breaking your legs, and not a greater chance, you either lower the setting and change how/where/when you ski (don't straight-line steep icy chutes full of snow boulders where it levels out a bit from when the cornice fell in last week), or accept a higher risk factor.

 

[oldschoolskier]

@In2h2o

Back to settings, there are a lot of members on this forum that set well off the charts (both above and below the recommended settings as they understand and accept the risks and dangers involved, to be fair I am one of them). Use the charts as a guidance for the starting point and adjust from there.

That said, if you have to ask, don't.

You are asking so you can likely guess what I'm going to suggest.

 

[mdf]

Yes, I beieve FP's explanation is correct.

As you age, you lose bone density. Maybe we could have smooth curve, but that would be complicated for most folk, so they picked an age and drew a line in the sand there.

We also don't know how much spread there is in bone density decrease. Did a few bad cases pull down the averages, or did everyones decrease fairly evenly?
And leaving aside the historical question, does the idea that regular weight bearing exercise (e.g. skiing hard) keeps bones strong still hold, or has that idea been overturned?
[Personally, I waited till age 60 to do the age 50 DIN turn down, but then I accepted reality. My bindings are set at the age-adjuted level 3 chart values and I haven't had problems.]

 

[Tom K.]

3 mm?

Time to go shopping for new skis!

That's how much my BSL changed this year, so I snagged a pair of Blossom Pure 99s.

Doesn't take much to push me over the edge!

 

[Tricia]

I did't think I would have an issue getting my bindings adjusted to my new boots. However, my old and new BSL are both right on the cusp of the two settings - the size breaks are :

251-270 and 271-290

My old BLS was 270 my new BSL 273. Nothing has changed for me other than the 3mm of BSL. I run the same binding on all my skis.
So I thought I would just keep the bindings set at 7.5 which I have been successfully running for the past two years.
However the the new Din calculates out at 7.
But since the boots sizes were so close to the size breaks I thought it made more sense to keep it the same.
One shop just denied me, the other will test at 7 and set at 7.5. Am I over thinking the .5? I did have issues a few years ago when I 'mistakenly' used my real age and being bumped down 1 caused a series of not so good pre-releases. I understand we are only talking .5 and I may be overthinking this.

Thoughts?

Ton answer your question more directly...
Yes the difference in BSL can make a difference on torque when coming out of a binding.
IIRC the last time I checked where I am on the release value chart was something like 6.5. It used to be 7.5.
After I turned 50 I dropped down 1.

I tend to err on the side of what the chart says and let it go. If I start popping out of the binding when I don't want to, I may re-address it.

 

[Tricia]

Ok don't think I didn't think about this!!!!! my newest pair of skis were mounted what I feel is a 'hair' forward I was thinking a bit longer BSL would get it back to on the line...... which was a good thing

 

[In2h2o]

@In2h2o

Back to settings, there are a lot of members on this forum that set well off the charts (both above and below the recommended settings as they understand and accept the risks and dangers involved, to be fair I am one of them). Use the charts as a guidance for the starting point and adjust from there.

That said, if you have to ask, don't.

You are asking so you can likely guess what I'm going to suggest.

I guess I was asking for general thoughts b/c I was borderline with both boots. Top of one bracket bottom of the other with a 19 mm spread between levels. It was more a theoretical question asking is it really cut and dry- magically at 271 a lower din is more appropriate than 270? So yes they are a starting point. Certainly the historical story of how the DIN numbers were created gives rise to a lot of questions as @mdf posted. And, why hasn't someone come up with additional (computer aided?) testing to prove or disprove? so we are accepting something from 'decades ago'?

But it is interesting and as always a thread sparks discussion - I hadn't thought of actually measuring the boots (b/c any number could be stamped by the manufacturer) and interesting to see what others have done, especially at age "50".