Bindings- Does PMTS affect the settings??

PMTS Forum

Postby BigE » Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:17 pm

[quote="AnonymousSometimes you have to use a little common sense and acknowledge that the King is wearing no clothes. BTW, he's naked as hell on this one.[/quote]

Agreed. Completely starkers.
BigE
 
Posts: 1519
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 11:42 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Postby Bluey » Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:14 pm

This thread is really getting a bit technical for me....I'm a bit of a slow thinker so I'll go get a cup of coffee and go back and reread it again.....


In the interim and to throw another pondering of mine into the discussion.....The DIN setting is also affected by Body Height......so are the Charts based on a skier's height in a static normal standing position ( ie with knees not bent and no plate risers etc affecting height ).
If its based on this than the Charts must be also assuming every skier has a standard crouching position when dynamically flexing in turns etc....My guess is that there must be wide vaiance in how different skiers at different skill levels flex in a turn.........

Therefore for a skiier with my combination of weight, heigth, boot sole lenght and Skier Type........ I can either have a DIN setting of a 5 , or a 6 or a 7 depending on the factors discussed in this thread. This is because I fall between categories in the Charts and that's without making any consideration of whether PMTS impacts DIN or not.

If a DIN level adjustment of 1 is critical then I think there is a real need for skiers to reassess there DIN level throughout each day if they're going to ski varied terrain or adopt varied skiing styles caused by say tiredness/fitness.



Anyway, I'm off to get my coffee and go back and see if I can work out the more technical bits.......


Bluey
Bluey
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:30 am
Location: Sydney

Postby Bluey » Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:30 pm

OK ....I've had my coffee.......re-read the earlier posts and I think I understand what everyone's trying to say.


I'm now satisfied that my current DIN settings on my skis are OK.
I'm also now confident as to when I might consider moving the DIN setting should any "professionals" recommended that I adjust them.


The only real advantage I can see that I'm gettting from adopting PMTS techniques in respect to the topic of DIN settings is that I'm a little lest likely to release unexpectedly under some circumstances...which is still a plus.


As stated in my last post, what's still not clear in my mind is whether the Charts are based on a skier's height in a static normal standing position ( ie with knees not bent and no plate risers etc affecting height ).
If its based on this, than the Charts must be also assuming every skier dynamically changing the same amount in height ( read inches ) during turns etc....or are the Charts only working on the assumption that a skier will only exceed the critical amount of torque whilst in a fully upright position?



Bluey
Bluey
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:30 am
Location: Sydney

Postby BigE » Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:08 am

It's skiers full height. Tall skiers apply more leverage to the heel piece than short skiers.

I would not touch my bindings once they are set. But, hey, it's your choice.

I really can't understand why anyone (outside of those that make a living on a race course) would want to fool with this setting. Sheesh! :roll:

There is absolutely nothing to gain. If you think that spouting stuff like "I lowered my DIN and did not fall out" somehow enriches your life, think again. You'd not fall out of the higher setting either....

Here's a clue: it only sets a bad example that others may follow. They may think it's ok for them to do it, do a bump run and break their neck.

Leave your DINs alone! :evil:

I've had enough of this sillyness....
BigE
 
Posts: 1519
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 11:42 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Postby Bluey » Fri Mar 26, 2004 11:04 am

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2004 2:08 am????Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's skiers full height. Tall skiers apply more leverage to the heel piece than short skiers.

I would not touch my bindings once they are set.


BigE,

I agree.

I'm not suggesting I want to change my DIN setting from what is probably a correct setting, which was assessed by a shop "professional" as a 5.

Nor would I suggest others change theirs without seeking professional advice.

Rather, what I concerned with how accurate these Charts are for a professional to use....... and in particular, as I don't think I neatly fit the Chart's selection criteria, ... so their is a high risk of error, by that professional, when assessing me.

To back track a bit ....firstly, I think the categories (Types 1,2, & 3) of skier seem too broad....but I'm probably, mostly, a Type 2....but also I'm close to the dividing line on the other 3 selecting criteria namely on Height, Weight and Age Grouping...... so its possible for me to drift between a DIN setting, say 5 or 6.


I agree nobody wants to do a knee in.... nor does anyone want to break their neck.
I shouldn't imagine I'll do either as a DIN settting of 5 or 6 sounds fairly pedestrian and I'm not really into bump skiing, certainly not at my age.



Height has me puzzled. I appreciate your statement that its the skiers full height..... so for me that's about 5' 10"......... but the torque would be different if I was turning in a standing-tall position versus a more-crouched position.

So are the Charts based on the assumption I'll always be skiing and falling from a standing tall position or is it based on the assumption that I'll always be skiing and falling from a more crouched position? Maybe this is just a point not worth persuing as I don't think anyone really knows the answer to this....i don't think their could be a definitive answer.


I get the impression that the Charts are not as scientifically based as they first appear to be and as such that's why we rely upon professionals to try and get it as near as right as possible.........


Therefore its back to working on my skiing skills as I think they will have a bigger impact on my safety than the approx DIN settting I have for my bindings.


Thanks for the input...its certainly helped me get a better understanding of the selection criteria for DIN setttings.



Bluey
Bluey
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:30 am
Location: Sydney

Postby Guest » Fri Mar 26, 2004 11:18 am

Bluey wrote:
Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2004 2:08 am????Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Height has me puzzled. I appreciate your statement that its the skiers full height..... so for me that's about 5' 10"......... but the torque would be different if I was turning in a standing-tall position versus a more-crouched position.
Bluey


Sure there would be a difference, but very little. These are stardard guidelines as a result of testing by the various binding companies, and they're just that, general guidelines. Once your bindings are set based on these guidelines, pay attention to what they're doing on the snow. If you're coming out to easy, have the shop adjust them up and, conversely, if they are not releasing to your liking have them turned down. There is no absolute on this issue.

BTW, why do they call it common sense when it's so rare? Now there's a question worth beating to death.
Guest
 

Postby Bluey » Fri Mar 26, 2004 1:47 pm

Guest,

So it's come to this.....I think your right.....back to trial and error on potentially any adjustment of my DIN setting.....
I presume, after consulting with a ski shop "expert/professional", that if I did adjust it, I might try increments/decrements of a 1/2 to 1 DIN until its right....not too hard I guess.....
Just thought there would be a better/quicker way of quantifying the amount of the required increment/decrement......I don't have much faith in ski shop "experts".

As a closing comment on DIN .......I want to acknowledge there is an interesting thread specifically on DIN setttings in the "50+ Forum" of this website.....


Gotta go....thanks...


Bluey
Bluey
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:30 am
Location: Sydney

Postby HH » Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:38 pm

That's right! the binding settings go down for the longer boot and up for the shorter boot. I had it reversed in my post, short bout of dyslexia. The same person in a longer boot would need more torque on the leg to twist out of the boot; therefore the settings are lower..
HH
 

Postby Harald » Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:17 pm

[quote]"Isn't Harald saying that the combination of a persistent force/torque coupled with the spike caused by an irregularity (e.g., rut) causes the total force to exceed the DIN release point? So, if you normally exert less torque/force (binding-wise), it would require a larger "spike" to release? Conversely, if you are torquing on the bindings a relatively smaller spike will cause you to release? "

This is exactly the point, thanks Jeff for rewording it so clearly, but unless you are skiing with skidding, late pressure and edge sets, you won't experience a need for a higher setting. If someone is having a problem at their lowest setting, you can select a DIN setting higher by two points, using the same data, if you select skier type 2 or 3. You can select type 2 skier rather than type 1, this increases your setting based on the subjective selection ?skier type? by one binding setting, and you will still be within specifications for your height, weight and boot sole length.

Let me add, if you are experiencing early release, the setting and bindings are responding to the forces at the binding fixation., not your skiing level or aggression attitude. An aggressive skier, skiing with good tech can easily stay in the binding with a lower setting, but I would stay in the range recommended by the binding setting formula. A meek skier "type 1" can easily twist out of a proper setting, if they try to crank on the ski with leg twisting. The subjective skier rating, as some have suggested, needs to be defined more accurately.
Harald
 

Postby BigE » Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:32 am

Harald wrote:
Jeff wrote:Isn't Harald saying that the combination of a persistent force/torque coupled with the spike caused by an irregularity (e.g., rut) causes the total force to exceed the DIN release point? So, if you normally exert less torque/force (binding-wise), it would require a larger "spike" to release? Conversely, if you are torquing on the bindings a relatively smaller spike will cause you to release?


This is exactly the point, thanks Jeff for rewording it so clearly, but unless you are skiing with skidding, late pressure and edge sets, you won't experience a need for a higher setting.


I agree, that is statement is true. However, if we focus on the the torque using skidding and steering coupled with the spike, the size of the spike needed to release actually increases. The physics is covered in an earlier post.

Harald wrote: If someone is having a problem at their lowest setting, you can select a DIN setting higher by two points, using the same data, if you select skier type 2 or 3. You can select type 2 skier rather than type 1, this increases your setting based on the subjective selection ?skier type? by one binding setting, and you will still be within specifications for your height, weight and boot sole length.


Yes, this is a conservative approach, and I think one most people would take. In fact, many are even more conservative, and increase DIN settings by only 1/2 a point at a time....

IIRC, the charts suggest moving down a whole row for each higher type. which seems excessive.

Harald wrote:Let me add, if you are experiencing early release, the setting and bindings are responding to the forces at the binding fixation., not your skiing level or aggression attitude. An aggressive skier, skiing with good tech can easily stay in the binding with a lower setting, but I would stay in the range recommended by the binding setting formula. A meek skier "type 1" can easily twist out of a proper setting, if they try to crank on the ski with leg twisting. The subjective skier rating, as some have suggested, needs to be defined more accurately.


Technique is "good enough" if there are sufficiently high edge angles. A turn that is "railed" is more than good enough. How high an edge angle is enough? High enough that one's does not skid into bumps leading with the side of the ski. Skidding into bumps leading with the base is "good enough" to keep the ski.
BigE
 
Posts: 1519
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 11:42 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Previous

Return to Primary Movements Teaching System

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests