Observation en question on bindings

[Cheizz]

Here on the Pugski forums, many binding recommendations are the bigger, higher DIN range bindings (Look Pivot 18, Marker Duke, Jester, etc.). And that is for skiers with specifics like myself. In numerous sources it is stated that your DIN setting should be in the middle of the DIN range of the binding (or at least not on the very bottom or top end of that range).

I'm a man, 1.82 m tall, 86 kg, 38 years old, Type 2 skier, BSL of 305 mm - that would give me a calculated DIN of 7.5. If I would call myself an aggressive Type 3 skier, that would go up to 9. And I have seen skiers like myself been recommended a Look Pivot 18. That binding has a DIN range of 8 - 18. That would put my calculated DIN at the very end of that range?

Is that wise? Why such a heavy, high DIN binding? Wouldn't a 5-12 or 6-13 range binding be plenty, even if I were to crank up my DIN a little if I wanted to jump cliffs or boost my ego? Or am I missing something?

 

[oldschoolskier]

Skiers choose binding for features, and in Look/Rossi the toe found on the Pivot 18’s is highly desired in how much give it has before release and it ability to re-center. Others do not.

What skiers on this site realize is that pre-mature release is as dangerous if not more so than late release which can result in injuries. That said the DIN settings chart is the standard that bindings are set and tested for, to ideally balance this retention/release safety. As such the experienced (level 3 and up generally) skiers use chart as a starting point to determine setting and go from there.

Why?????

Inexperienced skiers apply fall forces in a slow building fashion gradually loading to some failure point (binding release or body injury).

Experienced skiers quickly counter act which cause extremely high momentary pulse loads that you cause premature binding release but no injury (unless of course the binding release which would cause fall and injury).

Finally, there are skiers that also tweak downwards to just the point of retention, some are well beyond 3++ but because of smoothness and great technique and style and ski several DIN settings lower and have no fear of pre-release and the added safety of proper release.

What is best for you? If you are asking, stick with the chart, if your skis are falling off (get them tested to ensure values are correct) and then start tweaking, your style or ability may be at a higher level then you suspect.

 

[Cheizz]

Thanks for your answer. I didn't ask the question for me per se. I stick with the chart and that works for me (no pre-releases and no injuries either). I was just wandering.

 

[Philpug]

Here on the Pugski forums, many binding recommendations are the bigger, higher DIN range bindings (Look Pivot 18, Marker Duke, Jester, etc.). And that is for skiers with specifics like myself. In numerous sources it is stated that your DIN setting should be in the middle of the DIN range of the binding (or at least not on the very bottom or top end of that range).

I'm a man, 1.82 m tall, 86 kg, 38 years old, Type 2 skier, BSL of 305 mm - that would give me a calculated DIN of 7.5. If I would call myself an aggressive Type 3 skier, that would go up to 9. And I have seen skiers like myself been recommended a Look Pivot 18. That binding has a DIN range of 8 - 18. That would put my calculated DIN at the very end of that range?

Is that wise? Why such a heavy, high DIN binding? Wouldn't a 5-12 or 6-13 range binding be plenty, even if I were to crank up my DIN a little if I wanted to jump cliffs or boost my ego? Or am I missing something?

Many of your questions have been aswered in our The Numbers Game, Bindings series...
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

When you are buying a better binding, you are buying a better housing, not only a bigger spring. That better housing affords you a better boot to ski interface. As far as where you want to be on the range. Being in the middle to to lower end, is ideally you want to be. A spring needs to retract to release, it does not extend so being at the bottom range allows that.

As far as the Pivot 18 reommendations, i am not sure who recommended it to "skiers like you", skiers that are out of the suggested setting range, but I know it wasn't me. But, this is one of the reasons we pushed Look so hard to "Bring back the 15" with it's 6-15 setting range, there are skiers who do want an better/more solid interface but do not want/need or can use a binding that starts at an 8. "Look, thanks for bringing back the 15" hopefully will show that people who want a better built binding are willing to pay for it.

A better binding isn't about jumping off of cliffs or ego boost...well for some it might be...but it is for a more solid interface thus creating more confidence in your gear.

 

[Marker]

Look recently redesigned the toe in the SPX/Pivot 12/14 bindings (I have them on my Fischers). The old toe seems to still be used in the NX bindings (I have those toes on my old Pivots and the adjustable binding on my Heros). I'm thinking about new skis with new Pivots, and would have thought they beefed up the new toes to satisfy all but most "expert" skiers (definitely not me). Plastic boots flex, wood and plastic skis bend, so why obsess about a metal vs plastic binding for anyone up to pro/expert skiers? The binding already "flexes" to its limit when it operates to release/retain...

 

[Philpug]

...so why obsess about a metal vs plastic binding for anyone up to pro/expert skiers? The binding already "flexes" to its limit when it operates to release/retain...

I guess that falls under the title "If you have to ask?" Some people are willing to go to the extra level, in this case we are talking bindings. For some people, it might be audio, I have a coworker years ago that spent more money on his speaker wire than I did on my whole system. I am sure there are things that you beleive are levels above the average that myself or others would also scratch their heads. Since this is a ski discussion forum, you are dealing with the lunatic fringe and in many cases they are not willing to compromise.

 

[ScotsSkier]

Many of your questions have been aswered in our The Numbers Game, Bindings series...
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

When you are buying a better binding, you are buying a better housing, not only a bigger spring. That better housing affords you a better boot to ski interface. As far as where you want to be on the range. Being in the middle to to lower end, is ideally you want to be. A spring needs to retract to release, it does not extend so being at the bottom range allows that.
........

This! Running a higher DIN binding at the lower end of the range provides better elasticity and return to center. The notion that you should try to run in the middle of the DIN range is just that, a notion!

 

[Wilhelmson]

Plastic boots flex, wood and plastic skis bend, so why obsess about a metal vs plastic binding for anyone up to pro/expert skiers? The binding already "flexes" to its limit when it operates to release/retain...

My kid weighs 95 lbs and broke an 11 din binding jumping off a cliff or something like that. So even with a 3.75 setting he hit a stump just the right way to break a metal tooth.

 

[Doug Briggs]

Look recently redesigned the toe in the SPX/Pivot 12/14 bindings (I have them on my Fischers). The old toe seems to still be used in the NX bindings (I have those toes on my old Pivots and the adjustable binding on my Heros). I'm thinking about new skis with new Pivots, and would have thought they beefed up the new toes to satisfy all but most "expert" skiers (definitely not me). Plastic boots flex, wood and plastic skis bend, so why obsess about a metal vs plastic binding for anyone up to pro/expert skiers? The binding already "flexes" to its limit when it operates to release/retain...

The more things that flex and give, the sloppier the skier-to-snow feeling becomes. Usually proper adjustment to the binding will reduce play to low levels. You'd be surprised, though, how many loose bindings show up in the shop with loose binding screws, improper forward pressure, improper toe height adjustment. So in my mind, proper maintenance and appropriate binding choice is far more important than plastic vs metal.

 

[Philpug]

And I have seen skiers like myself been recommended a Look Pivot 18. That binding has a DIN range of 8 - 18. That would put my calculated DIN at the very end of that range?

As far as the Pivot 18 reommendations, i am not sure who recommended it to "skiers like you", skiers that are out of the suggested setting range, but I know it wasn't me.

In fact, going back and re reading part 1, I came across this...

Most skiers do not need to spend $400 for a top-of-the-line Look Pivot 18/Marker Jester Pro/Tyrolia Attack 18, but the average skier could take one step down from the top, which is actually a giant leap up from the average 12DIN binding that costs $150 to $200. So, for the cost of a lift ticket or Gatorade at your favorite resort, you get to click into a binding that will not only be safe, but also perform better.

 

[Marker]

I guess that falls under the title "If you have to ask?" Some people are willing to go to the extra level, in this case we are talking bindings. For some people, it might be audio, I have a coworker years ago that spent more money on his speaker wire than I did on my whole system. I am sure there are things that you beleive are levels above the average that myself or others would also scratch their heads. Since this is a ski discussion forum, you are dealing with the lunatic fringe and in many cases they are not willing to compromise.

Yes, my wife thinks I'm a lunatic!

In fact, going back and re reading part 1, I came across this...

A majority of questions that get posted could be answered by reading your articles or the gear guide reviews, but it's not as much fun!

This! Running a higher DIN binding at the lower end of the range provides better elasticity and return to center. The notion that you should try to run in the middle of the DIN range is just that, a notion!

I run my bindings at 8, so I guess this means I should be buying a Pivot 14, not the 12 on my current daily driver.

 

[François Pugh]

It's a little bit like choosing a high-performance tire. The tire that has the performance features you want (e.g. Michelin Pilot ) comes with a V speed rating. You buy it, even though you will never drive your car at 149 mph for 1/2 an hour or more (or work it that hard for that long on a twisty road or take the car to the track).

As far as I'm concerned if the binding didn't work with it set at the lowest or highest number on the scale, that number wouldn't be there. All other things being equal (which they never are) I would choose not to be too close to the top end due less room to move before release, but I wouldn't worry about being too close to the bottom end.

 

[fatbob]

My simple answer would be

Higher end binding = more metal = greater durability = less chance of catastrophic failure

I think DIN is DIN and it doesn't really matter provided you are in the range although not a lot of point paying for an otherwise indentical binding with higher DIN than you'll ever need unless for ego or resale market reasons. But I get Phil's campaign point too as below

Personally for historic injury reasons I like to crank my DIN down a bit (or perhaps falsely assert I am Type I etc). Even cranked down a notch or two I don't really get pre release unless I am already doing something wrong

 

[Eleeski]

My personal preference is to light weight. So I seek out the binding with the most plastic and the lightest spring that meets my DIN needs. The engineering is often the same as the "top of the line" binding so the return to center characteristics will be the same (at the same DIN setting).

Durability is sacrificed with lightweight plastic. But I don't get to ski enough to wear out bindings. As my bindings age, there can be some play (I also like adjustable bindings) but once the boots clip in it goes away. I'm a sloppy aggressive skier so I probably wouldn't feel a better connection with the ski.

Of course, last year I did feel my bindings being loose while skiing. Turned out the mounting screws were loose. A repair to the mount and all was good. Perhaps it's an issue with light skis but I've pulled out more mounts than had pre releases.

I did break a few old Salomon tracks but the failures were never catastrophic. That was a long time ago.

Modern engineering is pretty good. All the bindings should perform well for you.

Eric

 

[Doug Briggs]

Just an FYI. Steel will break.

The images above are from two different pairs of bindings.

 

[Eleeski]

The bottom picture is a Solomon track?

Plastic Solomon heels would break the plastic housings but that was a very long time ago. When that happened to me on a trip, I had to rent skis. It was my first taste of shaped skis - I bought the skis I rented! Being forced onto the new technology was a great thing for my skiing!

My plastic Schizio Squires age a bit and rattle in the tracks when empty. Since I have several of the setups, I just move fresh bindings from a ski that didn't get much use to the first string ski. Buy bindings off season and it's pretty reasonable to have spare parts around.

New stuff is fun. If you are getting decades out of your skis and bindings, you are missing the fun (and safety) of the new equipment.

Eric

 

[Doug Briggs]

The bottom picture is a Solomon track?

Plastic Solomon heels would break the plastic housings but that was a very long time ago. When that happened to me on a trip, I had to rent skis. It was my first taste of shaped skis - I bought the skis I rented! Being forced onto the new technology was a great thing for my skiing!

My plastic Schizio Squires age a bit and rattle in the tracks when empty. Since I have several of the setups, I just move fresh bindings from a ski that didn't get much use to the first string ski. Buy bindings off season and it's pretty reasonable to have spare parts around.

New stuff is fun. If you are getting decades out of your skis and bindings, you are missing the fun (and safety) of the new equipment.

Eric

Yes, a Solomon track. Most of these pictures I take for the client, so I don't know which model it was.

 

[Philpug]

I have heard of Look heels breaking like that, I have never seen one though.

As far as the Salomon heel, that is not limited to older bindings and even the newest Z heel is suspect. This is why I won't endorse putting that heel on any ski much over 85mm underfoot. If you want a lower weight binding, there are much better choices.

 

[Doug Briggs]

I have heard of Look heels breaking like that, I have never seen one though.

As far as the Salomon heel, that is not limited to older bindings and even the newest Z heel is suspect. This is why I won't endorse putting that heel on any ski much over 85mm underfoot. If you want a lower weight binding, there are much better choices.

Now you've seen two! ;-)

One of the pivots might have been broken due to impact. It was on a ski with base/edge damage. The other was not. Apparently it just fatigued.

 

[Marker]

Now that I think about it, I don't know about binding engineers, but at my company they design in a healthy safety factor. 12 or 14 probably just represents the end of the adjustment range, not the actual spring that still has enough action for 27-45 mm of elastic travel in a Pivot/SPX binding