DIN set low to pass release test?

kauffee

Booting up
Skier
Posts
10
Had a set of new 2020 Tyrolia Attack13s mounted at a reputable local shop (big name in online sales too). My DIN is 8.5 and the heel pieces were set to that. However, the toe pieces were set to 5.5 and the shop tech explained that the springs in the toe pieces were just “tight” and in order for the binding to pass the release test, the toes had to be set down to 5.5. He made it seem like this was no big deal but it sounds rather fishy to me. Any thoughts?
 

Doug Briggs

Skiing the powder
Industry Insider
Pugski Ski Tester
Posts
3,947
Location
Breckenridge, CO
Depending on your Skier Type (I, II, III or III+), weight, height, age and BSL, while the system may release reliably at the DIN setting, the manufacturer may consider these out of the acceptable range. Basically, IIRC, if the release setting DIN varies by more than two rows up or down from the initial setting, they are considered not acceptable. I need to check a binding manual for the exact description of the conditions to be certain.

One 'solution' to getting the DIN set in the acceptable range is to use a dish soap solution to increase the slippery-ness of the boot / binding interface. It is also possible that the AFD height is not correct or that damage or dirt on the toe lug and/or the binding is causing too much friction. Finally, the binding may in fact be defective. If you provide me with the Skier Type, weight, height, age and BSL, I would be happy to look it up.

A difference of 3 of the DIN could be OK or it could be too much for the manufacturer. It is not uncommon to have to adjust up or down 1 or 2 but 3 is pretty excessive. The difference between two rows is not consistent, hence the need to know the Skier Type, weight, height, age and BSL. If I were the tech, I'd look hard for other factors, especially on a new binding. BTW, how old is the boot? What is its condition?
 

markojp

mtn rep for the gear on my feet
Industry Insider
Instructor
Posts
3,366
Location
PNW aka SEA
Depending on your Skier Type (I, II, III or III+), weight, height, age and BSL, while the system may release reliably at the DIN setting, the manufacturer may consider these out of the acceptable range. Basically, IIRC, if the release setting DIN varies by more than two rows up or down from the initial setting, they are considered not acceptable. I need to check a binding manual for the exact description of the conditions to be certain.

One 'solution' to getting the DIN set in the acceptable range is to use a dish soap solution to increase the slippery-ness of the boot / binding interface. It is also possible that the AFD height is not correct or that damage or dirt on the toe lug and/or the binding is causing too much friction. Finally, the binding may in fact be defective. If you provide me with the Skier Type, weight, height, age and BSL, I would be happy to look it up.

A difference of 3 of the DIN could be OK or it could be too much for the manufacturer. It is not uncommon to have to adjust up or down 1 or 2 but 3 is pretty excessive. The difference between two rows is not consistent, hence the need to know the Skier Type, weight, height, age and BSL. If I were the tech, I'd look hard for other factors, especially on a new binding. BTW, how old is the boot? What is its condition?
The attacks test very consistently... I don't know if I've ever heard of that large a differential... I think Doug is right about something going on with either the boot or AFD plate height.
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
Pugski Ski Tester
Posts
22,424
Location
Reno, eNVy
If I were the tech, I'd look hard for other factors, especially on a new binding. BTW, how old is the boot? What is its condition?
@Doug Briggs hits the points here, the boot binding interface. The first two things I would look at after boot condition, is the toe height correct and is the forward pressure also correct.
 
Thread Starter
TS
kauffee

kauffee

Booting up
Skier
Posts
10
Thanks guys. I think you are totally right. The boots are going on their 6th season - Fischer Vacuum Ranger Pro 13. The sole plates need to be replaced. They’re worn at the corners and overall pretty dirty. I bet that’s the culprit. I’ll attach a pic.
Doug-info is level 3, 5’6”, 170lbs.

The boot is a mondo 23.5. I have a short and wide foot which is why the vacuum works great. I actually I have an identical pair from the year after that are lying in wait for when the first pair kicks the bucket. I may have the shop test the new pair, which will tell us whether it’s the boot or the binding.

Anyone know where I can order replacement sole plates for these Fischers? Google didn’t yield many results.
 

Attachments

Doug Briggs

Skiing the powder
Industry Insider
Pugski Ski Tester
Posts
3,947
Location
Breckenridge, CO
I am posting this as a follow up for anyone that may wish to better understand the aspects (and complexities) of binding testing. Running outside the in-use range is not recommended and I'm surprised the tech signed off on the test unless he indicated that the binding failed. Our shop tickets have a check box for fails so that the user will know certainty that the binding is considered unsafe by the manufacturer and not indemnified.

I have marked the Release/Retention Adjustment Table below in green with the result of the calculation for your 8.5 DIN; this assumes you are 10 or older and 49 or younger. Age matters in this calculation. The Mechanical System Testing indicates that 5.5 is beyond the in-use range.

The dirt on the boot can cause issues. The wear isn't that bad but the roughness of the contact point with the AFD may be problematic, especially if the height of the AFD is incorrect. Forward pressure also is a factor. That the boot wasn't cleaned before testing is not a good sign.

Pictures of the boot in the binding illustrating the .5mm space that should be between the AFD and the boot as well as the forward pressure setting would allow us to provide more feedback.

1575303785397.png


1575303645930.png
 

Doug Briggs

Skiing the powder
Industry Insider
Pugski Ski Tester
Posts
3,947
Location
Breckenridge, CO
Thanks so much Doug. I’ll take the boots into the shop and see what the deal is.
You are quite welcome. I hope that you/they get it figured out.

As was mentioned above, new Tyrolias (and most new bindings) test pretty accurately right out of the box. I'm confident something was overlooked and it is a good thing you are asking questions before finding out the hard way.
 

graham418

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Posts
1,550
Location
Toronto
There are a few places to get boot parts online





I'm sure other people here know more places
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
Pugski Ski Tester
Posts
22,424
Location
Reno, eNVy
I have yet to see an issue with an Attack toe...now Attack 11 heels...not quite as consistant as the 12/13 heels..but the heel is not the issue in this case,
 

Henry

Putting on skis
Skier
The indicator for the release value on the bindings isn't a precision scale, but that much variation raises all the red flags noted above. If the indicated setting was .5 or 1 number different on the indicator, it's probably an indicator error. In any case, I would want a different tech to reevaluate the boots and the release test. Even though the worn boots eventually released in the bench test, I would be very cautious that the release would the the same every time in the variable conditions while skiing.

Could the boot sole extensions be smoothed over so they release smoothly? That and adding the new sole plates might save the boots.

Kauffee...how about a pair of Cat Tracks for your boots? I know, they can be a pain, but they can save the soles. A tip--with a hot nail poke holes through the tabs on the back for a loop of cord to help pull them on.
 
Thread Starter
TS
kauffee

kauffee

Booting up
Skier
Posts
10
Ok, so I went over to the shop at lunch and worked with one of the senior techs. The testing was done on a Wintersteiger Skitronic.

For the particular binding, the reason it allowed the 5.5 was that the lowest possible release that would pass the computer's test was a 5.1. I guess it ignores the charts and just goes by the force? Forward pressure and AFD height looked good to me.

Anyway, turns out the different boots made a big difference. With the new boot, the toe ended up at 7.5 and the heel at 9.5 for an 8.5-equivalent release. The tech said it's pretty common for the indicator to be off a little bit, but he agreed that the 5.5 on the old boot was suspicious.

So I'm going to ski the new boots until I get replacement soleplates for the old ones. Does this all sound reasonable? Any reason I should still be concerned? The machine seemed pretty idiot-proof to me.
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
Pugski Ski Tester
Posts
22,424
Location
Reno, eNVy
Anyway, turns out the different boots made a big difference. With the new boot, the toe ended up at 7.5 and the heel at 9.5 for an 8.5-equivalent release. The tech said it's pretty common for the indicator to be off a little bit, but he agreed that the 5.5 on the old boot was suspicious.

So I'm going to ski the new boots until I get replacement soleplates for the old ones. Does this all sound reasonable? Any reason I should still be concerned?
@Doug Briggs for the win.
The machine seemed pretty idiot-proof to me.
You would be suprised how ingenious and creative idiots are. ;)
 

Doug Briggs

Skiing the powder
Industry Insider
Pugski Ski Tester
Posts
3,947
Location
Breckenridge, CO
Ok, so I went over to the shop at lunch and worked with one of the senior techs. The testing was done on a Wintersteiger Skitronic.

For the particular binding, the reason it allowed the 5.5 was that the lowest possible release that would pass the computer's test was a 5.1. I guess it ignores the charts and just goes by the force? Forward pressure and AFD height looked good to me.

Anyway, turns out the different boots made a big difference. With the new boot, the toe ended up at 7.5 and the heel at 9.5 for an 8.5-equivalent release. The tech said it's pretty common for the indicator to be off a little bit, but he agreed that the 5.5 on the old boot was suspicious.

So I'm going to ski the new boots until I get replacement soleplates for the old ones. Does this all sound reasonable? Any reason I should still be concerned? The machine seemed pretty idiot-proof to me.
I'd say you are good to go with the new boots. Definitely have the bindings check with the old boots when you get the new sole plates and report back here. Maybe you could just use the new and keep the old for backup? And absolutely get something to protect the boot soles. Cat Tracks, YakTrax SkiTrax or Walk-EZ (if only you could; they are out of production :() A clean boot is a safe boot. I am frequently surprised by the grit stuck in the contact points of boots. Grit does not make for a predictable release.
 
Thread Starter
TS
kauffee

kauffee

Booting up
Skier
Posts
10
I'd say you are good to go with the new boots. Definitely have the bindings check with the old boots when you get the new sole plates and report back here. Maybe you could just use the new and keep the old for backup? And absolutely get something to protect the boot soles. Cat Tracks, YakTrax SkiTrax or Walk-EZ (if only you could; they are out of production :() A clean boot is a safe boot. I am frequently surprised by the grit stuck in the contact points of boots. Grit does not make for a predictable release.
Will-do! Thanks so much for the knowledge and help.
 

Advertisement

Top