The Numbers Game: Bindings, Part 2

[LegacyGT]

If you weigh 200 lbs you could ski on a binding that goes to 10 but is not really meant for heavy skiers. It will not clamp the boot well and you'll get some play at high forces on hard or in heavy snow, or during abrupt changes in direction. Anywhere you apply significant force.
Maybe think of it like tires. Different tires will work but one may have higher performance.

I hear what you're saying but this is my point. The binding holds the boot to the ski. It does this by clamping down on the boot at the various contact points. It's an oversimplification but the points of contact resist lateral forces on either side of the toe and heel and resist upward forces on the tops of the toe and heel. The act of skiing applies forces at each of those points and the binding counteracts those forces until it doesn't...the point of release. Before the release I don't see what a binding that goes to 13 is doing differently from a binding that goes to 11 or 9.

The tire example doesn't really change things. Higher performance tires will offer higher thresholds of performance. If you will be driving in the snow or are taking your car to the track, you will be doing something that may exceed the threshold of performance for a certain tire where another tire would better suit your needs. Similarly, if you need to set your bindings at 13 for whatever reason (weight, height, ability, type of skiing), then you are exceeding the threshold of a binding that goes to 11 and you need the stronger binding. But, when we're talking about the person with a release setting of 6, we're not talking about the thresholds of performance for an adult binding. Pretty much any adult binding goes above 6.

Two chairs are both rated to hold 300lb sitters. One is intended for a second empire salon. The other is intended for circus duty. Should they be the same? No, of course not. The single specification of sitter weight is the only point on which the two coincide. No other point of usage will be similar.

But we're not talking about other uses. For sitting, if both chairs can support 300 pounds, then a 300 pound person can sit on either one without the chair failing. It seems to me that bindings would be similar. If a binding can keep the ski attached to the boot under a certain amount of torque, then it will do so. While I completely understand how a stronger binding can be set to withstand more torque than a weaker one, I don't understand how they would perform any differently if they are both set at 6.


A binding is just an assembly of materials. The binding will behave according to the laws of physics but it will not "know" if the skier is 150 lbs. or 200 lbs. It will not "know" if the skier is an expert or beginner. All it "knows" are the forces and torque applied to it and it will release when the those exceed the release setting. The original post makes a distinction between "release" and "retention." I guess this is at the root of whatever I'm missing. To me, everything before "release" is "retention." So if you find you should release at 6, how would you experience a difference between a 3.0-11.0 binding and a 4.0-13.0 binding, whatever your size or weight?

I'm not sure this isn't a case of industry upselling. Yes, there are skiers and circumstances that necessitate a stronger binding and it's totally understandable that they would charge more money for stronger springs and materials. But that doesn't mean that everyone has something to gain by moving up the ladder. To test this, I just dug around the websites for Marker and Salomon as examples. I read whatever they had to say. As you move up each binding series, the DIN ranges increase. That is the only precise indicator of binding performance. Other than that, there is language like "lighter," "advanced," "performance" and "versatile" but it is all extremely qualitative. Some have recommended weight ranges but the ranges are huge. For example, the Marker Squire has a DIN range of 3.0-11.0 and recommended weight range of 65-240lbs, and the Jester with a 13.0 max DIN has a max recommended weight of 265lbs. I would imagine if there was a reason that a 200 lb. skier with a suggested DIN of 6.0 shouldn't be on a binding that maxes out at 11, then the manufacturers would be saying so. If there was any concern at all, wouldn't the engineers and lawyers make sure it was clear? Wouldn't the sales and marketing people jump at the opportunity to "require" that more people buy the more expensive binding? I find this to give greater comfort to the idea that if you fit in the DIN range, you're probably OK with the binding.

 

[pchewn]

The forces on a binding are not all in the direction of release. A bigger, stronger, more expensive binding will be less likely to fail in the direction of:

A) Upward forces at the toe. -- not a usual release direction. e.g. When falling straight back.
B) Sideways forces at the heel -- not a usual release direction e.g. Hit a log, tree, slalom gate sideways near the boot
C) Many other forces (e.g. Falling off the car ski rack on I70 when your friend forgets to fasten the rack after skiing down Loveland pass to the car)

A "strong" binding may have a different spring rate and geometry which can allow more elastic motion at the higher DIN settings than an equivalent "weak" binding.... (maybe)

So yes, a "strong" binding may be more appropriate for big/heavy/fast/aggressive skiers -- even if the DIN setting they use is not "BIG".

 

[James]

I hear what you're saying but this is my point. The binding holds the boot to the ski. It does this by clamping down on the boot at the various contact points. It's an oversimplification but the points of contact resist lateral forces on either side of the toe and heel and resist upward forces on the tops of the toe and heel. The act of skiing applies forces at each of those points and the binding counteracts those forces until it doesn't...the point of release. Before the release I don't see what a binding that goes to 13 is doing differently from a binding that goes to 11 or 9.

The tire example doesn't really change things. Higher performance tires will offer higher thresholds of performance. If you will be driving in the snow or are taking your car to the track, you will be doing something that may exceed the threshold of performance for a certain tire where another tire would better suit your needs. Similarly, if you need to set your bindings at 13 for whatever reason (weight, height, ability, type of skiing), then you are exceeding the threshold of a binding that goes to 11 and you need the stronger binding. But, when we're talking about the person with a release setting of 6, we're not talking about the thresholds of performance for an adult binding. Pretty much any adult binding goes above 6.



But we're not talking about other uses. For sitting, if both chairs can support 300 pounds, then a 300 pound person can sit on either one without the chair failing. It seems to me that bindings would be similar. If a binding can keep the ski attached to the boot under a certain amount of torque, then it will do so. While I completely understand how a stronger binding can be set to withstand more torque than a weaker one, I don't understand how they would perform any differently if they are both set at 6.


A binding is just an assembly of materials. The binding will behave according to the laws of physics but it will not "know" if the skier is 150 lbs. or 200 lbs. It will not "know" if the skier is an expert or beginner. All it "knows" are the forces and torque applied to it and it will release when the those exceed the release setting. The original post makes a distinction between "release" and "retention." I guess this is at the root of whatever I'm missing. To me, everything before "release" is "retention." So if you find you should release at 6, how would you experience a difference between a 3.0-11.0 binding and a 4.0-13.0 binding, whatever your size or weight?

I'm not sure this isn't a case of industry upselling. Yes, there are skiers and circumstances that necessitate a stronger binding and it's totally understandable that they would charge more money for stronger springs and materials. But that doesn't mean that everyone has something to gain by moving up the ladder. To test this, I just dug around the websites for Marker and Salomon as examples. I read whatever they had to say. As you move up each binding series, the DIN ranges increase. That is the only precise indicator of binding performance. Other than that, there is language like "lighter," "advanced," "performance" and "versatile" but it is all extremely qualitative. Some have recommended weight ranges but the ranges are huge. For example, the Marker Squire has a DIN range of 3.0-11.0 and recommended weight range of 65-240lbs, and the Jester with a 13.0 max DIN has a max recommended weight of 265lbs. I would imagine if there was a reason that a 200 lb. skier with a suggested DIN of 6.0 shouldn't be on a binding that maxes out at 11, then the manufacturers would be saying so. If there was any concern at all, wouldn't the engineers and lawyers make sure it was clear? Wouldn't the sales and marketing people jump at the opportunity to "require" that more people buy the more expensive binding? I find this to give greater comfort to the idea that if you fit in the DIN range, you're probably OK with the binding.

Forget the analogies. Just learn something about bindings. You're trying to go off very little information of a general description on a binding website. You're making all sorts of confirmation leaps. There's a difference between being "OK" and having a binding that drives the ski well. No one said you're in danger.

Go to a shop and take a look. Release is not clamping. One tests release by applying a constant force, then the binding releases at some value. Skiing has lots of little vibrations, small forces. If the binding doesn't firmly hold your boot there's a performance penalty. The forces are way under release value.

I posted photos once of a Marker M10 toe vs a M16. I was using the M10 which is really meant for small juniors.The M10 toe wings had a much greater entry angle over the toe lug. This made them easier to get into but left little contact area of the binding toe wings to the boot toe lug.

The M16 had much more physical contact area of binding toe wings to boot toe lugs.

 

[Wilhelmson]

For kids under 100 pounds, is there a boot size where an adult binding would be safer than than an 7 DIN?

 

[BGreen]

@LegacyGT This is a case where if you have to ask, buy the cheaper binding. There is no performance advantage to the better binding. For the person with a 12 DIN, their choice of a 16, 18, or 20 spring binding has nothing to do with their DIN setting.

@Wilhelmson There are three basic types of bindings for kids. True junior bindings are for a junior DIN interface, are generally built out of plastic, and are mostly junk. They are meant for kids under 8, and are probably good for 100 days or less, at which point they develop a lot of play and tend not to hold forward pressure reliably. Next are junior/adult bindings. These are built to a higher standard and have the capability to accommodate both junior and adult DIN interfaces. Race boots usually transition from junior to adult DIN around 22, but there is variation there. It is not uncommon for kids to start a season on a junior DIN boot and finish the season on an adult DIN boot. Age range about 8-10, DIN range is probably 3-10. Next is a low DIN range adult binding. Build is light but quality. Should be good for 200 days, maybe more. Adult DIN interface boot only. DIN range probably 4-12 and up. In my opinion, if the kid is an aggressive or skilled skier who skis more than 30 days a year, and in an adult DIN boot (you will see the letter A next to the midsole mark), s/he should be in the last category.

 

[cantunamunch]

A binding is just an assembly of materials. The binding will behave according to the laws of physics but it will not "know" if the skier is 150 lbs. or 200 lbs. It will not "know" if the skier is an expert or beginner. All it "knows" are the forces and torque applied to it

Yes.

and it will release when the those exceed the release setting. The original post makes a distinction between "release" and "retention." I guess this is at the root of whatever I'm missing. To me, everything before "release" is "retention." So if you find you should release at 6, how would you experience a difference between a 3.0-11.0 binding and a 4.0-13.0 binding, whatever your size or weight?

Your question is actually two questions - a) how does the binding behave during a retention, both in terms of sensation to the skier and longevity b) is the binding absolutely correct in determining the release event.

Part (a) - well I have personal experience of crushing 310 and 412 rated bindings so I'm convinced. Part (b) -> see below

I'm not sure this isn't a case of industry upselling. Yes, there are skiers and circumstances that necessitate a stronger binding and it's totally understandable that they would charge more money for stronger springs and materials. But that doesn't mean that everyone has something to gain by moving up the ladder. To test this, I just dug around the websites for Marker and Salomon as examples. I read whatever they had to say. As you move up each binding series, the DIN ranges increase. That is the only precise indicator of binding performance. Other than that, there is language like "lighter," "advanced," "performance" and "versatile" but it is all extremely qualitative.

Yes, but you've forgotten to consider that the either/or indicator number is also extremely qualitative. That "6" is a qualitative combination of extremely simplified* mechanical loading tests that is subsequently corrected by test skiers.

If anything, I would say it is the indicator number "standard" which has been oversold.

. If there was any concern at all, wouldn't the engineers and lawyers make sure it was clear?

The law is an idiot - the law has "proven" that a whale is a fish and similar farcical contentions.

Engineers are getting better at designing what the public wants. They want a wide weight range for low-indicator bindings - fine - baboom, "here is a Marker Squire, and yes you can use it at 240lbs, it's so much better than the 3-10 bindings from even 10 years ago, and the durability proves it. It lacks upwards toe release, but nobody wants that anyway".

 

[trailtrimmer]

I always look at bindings like I do audio equipment. It's far better to run an amplifier in the middle of it's range rather than the top.

If you need to drive a nominal 400 watts RMS to hit the needed levels to fill a room with your choice of speaker, you don't buy a 400 watt amp to do it, at minimum you go with 600 but 800 would be better. Equipment that's run in the middle range of it's rating lasts a long time and functions well. Equipment run at the ragged edge day in and day out won't last as long.

You don't haul 10,000 lb construction trailer around daily with a half ton rated at 10,500 lbs. You step up to the 3/4 or 1 ton because it's the proper tool for the job.

The 9 DIN and 10 DIN bindings are made cheaper, typically function less smoothly and are simply not designed for the avid skier that puts in dozens of days per season or weighs more than 130lbs.

 

[cantunamunch]

I always look at bindings like I do audio equipment. I.

I look at them like I do at road bikes. Similar wattages for steady and peak power, though.

(but one of the things that bikes let me explain where audio gear does not is that the 140lb rider who does 300 watts at AT will want a completely different bike than the 220lb rider who does 300watts at AT. One of them will be fine on an Emonda.)

 

[James]

I always look at bindings like I do audio equipment. It's far better to run an amplifier in the middle of it's range rather than the top.

If you need to drive a nominal 400 watts RMS to hit the needed levels to fill a room with your choice of speaker, you don't buy a 400 watt amp to do it, at minimum you go with 600 but 800 would be better. Equipment that's run in the middle range of it's rating lasts a long time and functions well. Equipment run at the ragged edge day in and day out won't last as long.

You don't haul 10,000 lb construction trailer around daily with a half ton rated at 10,500 lbs. You step up to the 3/4 or 1 ton because it's the proper tool for the job.

The 9 DIN and 10 DIN bindings are made cheaper, typically function less smoothly and are simply not designed for the avid skier that puts in dozens of days per season or weighs more than 130lbs.

But that has nothing to do with release which is what concerns @LegacyGT .
Maybe elasticity/retention.

Plus you're obliquely perpetuating a myth- one should be in the middle of the range of a binding. It's a simple spring. If you're way near the top, maybe. But what about an 8-18 binding skied at 8? I see no problem with that. The reason one would do so is your other points.

The points about skier days and use are good ones.

 

[trailtrimmer]

But that has nothing to do with release which is what concerns @LegacyGT .
Maybe elasticity/retention.

Plus you're obliquely perpetuating a myth- one should be in the middle of the range of a binding. It's a simple spring. If you're way near the top, maybe. But what about an 8-18 binding skied at 8? I see no problem with that. The reason one would do so is your other points.

The points about skier days and use are good ones.

I see nothing mythical about a DIN 9 skier being told that DIN 10 bindings are a bad idea. While running at the bottom of the range isn't a big deal, running at the ragged edge isn't suggested. I sure wouldn't trust my 9 DIN setting on a typical 10 DIN binding, but perhaps if they were built like a Pivot 15/18 I would.

 

[CalG]

I see nothing mythical about a DIN 9 skier being told that DIN 10 bindings are a bad idea. While running at the bottom of the range isn't a big deal, running at the ragged edge isn't suggested. I sure wouldn't trust my 9 DIN setting on a typical 10 DIN binding, but perhaps if they were built like a Pivot 15/18 I would.

How can one say what the "ragged edge" might be? Do you suspect the manufacturers no nothing of "margin for error" etc.

 

[Ken_R]

I see nothing mythical about a DIN 9 skier being told that DIN 10 bindings are a bad idea. While running at the bottom of the range isn't a big deal, running at the ragged edge isn't suggested. I sure wouldn't trust my 9 DIN setting on a typical 10 DIN binding, but perhaps if they were built like a Pivot 15/18 I would.

Yep. That has more to do with how the typical DIN 10 (max) binding is designed/made rather than the rating per se. Most if not all DIN 10 bindings are designed with lighter skiers and lower pricepoints in mind hence they are obviously not gonna be as beefy as other bindings rated much higher. Will the DIN 10 binding work for a hard charging skier that uses a DIN 9... probably... will it last, most likely not.

Also, not all bindings have equal elasticity (in each direction of release) which is an important spec that is not always put in the products spec sheets. Skiing is a dynamic sport after all.

 

[Atomicman]

I've looked at this table before and it seems broken to me. I fit the mold but what if you were 5ft 9 inches and weight 190lbs? My inclination would be that weight is the over ride.

Doesn't tibia length come into play......Length of the lever, not simply weight. And BSL is also a varible not just height or weight.

 

[Joel]

BSL is accounted for on any given skier code. It's just when I looked at it, I thought it was broken because it assumes a weight range for a height range. I would think how the binding works would also be a factor, all heel release, heel/toe release, toe release. For where I am today skill and the fact I'm very conservative ( read chicken ) my bindings are set low 5.5 ( on a good day I'm 6Ft and probably around 200lbs with my backpack on and BSL is in range 5 ) and so far has been working well. no unwanted releases.

Doesn't tibia length come into play......Length of the lever, not simply weight. And BSL is also a varible not just height or weight.

 

[Atomicman]

BSL is accounted for on any given skier code. It's just when I looked at it, I thought it was broken because it assumes a weight range for a height range. I would think how the binding works would also be a factor, all heel release, heel/toe release, toe release. For where I am today skill and the fact I'm very conservative ( read chicken ) my bindings are set low 5.5 ( on a good day I'm 6Ft and probably around 200lbs with my backpack on and BSL is in range 5 ) and so far has been working well. no unwanted releases.

I am 175 and 5'11" BSL 313mm and I ski on 9.5 to 10. But I have never been a pre-releaser and honestly, I have to do something pretty weird to ever come close to coming out. But I also ski fairly fast , but smooth. A couple of my bindings Atomic X19 and X20 RS range is from 11-19 and 12-20 respectively. Pivot 18 I ski on 9.5, Atomic X16 on 9.5. But with that said, I have long tibias....

 

[François Pugh]

There are a lot of things that go into making a good high performance binding good besides release setting that corresponds with your DIN torque setting, e.g. quick return to centre, solid transmission of forces, etc.
Selling bindings to competitive racers is a competitive business. It is not that far-fetched to think that a top of the line racing binding from any major manufacturer will have those features.
I'm partial to Tyrolia's diagonal heel release.
Ergo, I favour whatever Tyrolia top of the line racing binding is on sale and has my DIN number (using DIN number to indicate a number that can be set to a chart to provide the DIN torque is an allowable use of the English language imho) on it, if I need to make a binding purchase, and am not limited to a Marker Comp due to hostage plate.

 

[Philpug]

Here is The Numbers Game: Bindings, Part 1; it will reiterate that bindings are not just about numbers or retention and release; they are also about performance.

 

[murphysf]

Child Setting Indicator Value?

My kids are:

5 year old 228mm sole length and he weights 50lbs according to the chart setting would be 1.75

8 year old 230mm sole length and she weighs 60lbs according to the chart setting would be 2

Is this correct, I thought I read once on a Salomon data sheet that for kids and adults over 50 years old you derate 1 position?

 

[Atomicman]

There are a lot of things that go into making a good high performance binding good besides release setting that corresponds with your DIN torque setting, e.g. quick return to centre, solid transmission of forces, etc.
Selling bindings to competitive racers is a competitive business. It is not that far-fetched to think that a top of the line racing binding from any major manufacturer will have those features.
I'm partial to Tyrolia's diagonal heel release.
Ergo, I favour whatever Tyrolia top of the line racing binding is on sale and has my DIN number (using DIN number to indicate a number that can be set to a chart to provide the DIN torque is an allowable use of the English language imho) on it, if I need to make a binding purchase, and am not limited to a Marker Comp due to hostage plate.

They quit putting diagonal release in the heel of their Race bindings a while ago! I skied on the Freeflex's 17 and Head Mojo for a few years.

 

[François Pugh]

That's because I bought a pair: FF17 plus with diagonal heel release.

It's the same with tires; I used to find a tire in my size that was good, then try to replace it with same, which seldom worked (exception being the Michelin Pilots).