Bindings- Does PMTS affect the settings??

PMTS Forum

Re: My understanding is that the chart the shops use

Postby Guest » Wed Mar 24, 2004 3:14 pm

It depends on the binding, the size, and ability of the skier. A shop shouldn't make a blanket statement that a 7 is intermediate. What they may have meant is that for a type 2 skier at your size, the recommended setting was 7. The charts have 3 classifications (type 1, 2, and 3) with grids and recommendations based on your size. They don't top out at 9, at least for bindings that go higher.

As to edge control, I don't see it. If a ski is holding while you have it on edge at 7, a 9 won't help your ability to hold an edge. I think you have the cart before the horse.
Guest
 

Postby Harald » Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:15 pm

Skiers can have personal opinions about binding settings and what causes binding to require higher settings, but the reality still exists that the amount of torque you add to a given turn by steering or rotating the knee and leg does have impact on your binding release. If you are trying to twist the ski while it is in the act of turning and on an edge, you are in fact transmitting torque down to the boot and against the binding. If you run over a divot or a rut in the snow, the shock from contact can release the binding at a higher setting than if you have the ski on edge and are increasing the angle of the ski by tipping. This is a frequent case in ski racing. The poorer skiers get late and try to twist the skis. When they impact ruts the skis come off. The better racers carve the turns and don?t have a problem in the ruts or chatters as they are tipping the ski. I have seen this for decades. I have known racers who ?crank? the bindings because they can?t stay in, the reason they can?t, is because of their inferior technique.

Factors that influence settings: Boot sole length figures largely in the calculations and formula for din settings. A longer boot sole length requires more torque to twist out of the binding. A shorter boot requires less torque to twist to a release; therefore your binding setting is lower, this is the case if all the other parameters such as age, weight, and height and skier type are the same.

If you ski in balance and you use tipping rather than twisting to turn, your ski is less likely to release in must circumstances. This doesn?t mean you should adjust your bindings out of the din range. But within the range, you have the option to select the way you ski (skier type I, II, or III), timid, aggressive or over the top. Depending on your selection of skier type you can lower your settings or increase your settings. So again, if you are in balance and using PMTS and you want to be extra cautious with you release settings, you can lower your settings by 1. I don?t recommend this to wedge Christie skiers, as I have seen skiers twist right out of their bindings trying to turn a ski by twisting the leg.
Harald
 

Postby Guest » Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:09 pm

Herald

You are right on all accounts. Good post!!
Guest
 

Postby Bluey » Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:36 pm

Harald,

Thanks for setting out your reasoning so clearly.

In respect to your suggestion that if I want to be extra cautious then I might consider reducing the DIN setting by 1........sharing your experience on this topic is really appreciated.
I was at a loss as to how one would work out by how much to reduce the DIN setttings by....that is, how does one go about quantifing the impact.......

Like JohnM, it occurred to me that it might only be possible to work out what the reduction should be by a process of either individual personal by trial and error and /or comparing other PMTSers DIN settings.
Your suggestion by 1 etc.... gives me a good starting point should I contemplate moving my DIN setting this coming season.



Bluey
Last edited by Bluey on Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bluey
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:30 am
Location: Sydney

Postby Guest » Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:59 am

[quote="Harald"].

Factors that influence settings: Boot sole length figures largely in the calculations and formula for din settings. A longer boot sole length requires more torque to twist out of the binding. A shorter boot requires less torque to twist to a release; therefore your binding setting is lower, this is the case if all the other parameters such as age, weight, and height and skier type are the same.
quote]

Sorry Harald, that's wrong. The DIN settings go DOWN as the boot sole length increases. It's a simple matter of leverage. Here is a chart originally issued by Marker.

http://www.terrymorse.com/ski/din.html
Guest
 

Postby piggyslayer » Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:30 am

Guest wrote

? IMO, there is a huge misunderstanding of DIN.?

Could you elaborate?
Piggy Slayer
let the piggy breathe
piggyslayer
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 9:27 pm
Location: New Jersey

Postby piggyslayer » Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:32 am

Sorry I overlooked some of the posts (like next page!).
Ignore my last post.
Piggy Slayer
let the piggy breathe
piggyslayer
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 9:27 pm
Location: New Jersey

Postby BigE » Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:10 am

Harald wrote:. Skiers can have personal opinions about binding settings and what causes binding to require higher settings, but the reality still exists that the amount of torque you add to a given turn by steering or rotating the knee and leg does have impact on your binding release.This is a frequent case in ski racing. The poorer skiers get late and try to twist the skis. When they impact ruts the skis come off. The better racers carve the turns and don?t have a problem in the ruts or chatters as they are tipping the ski. I have seen this for decades. I have known racers who ?crank? the bindings because they can?t stay in, the reason they can?t, is because of their inferior technique.

If you ski in balance and you use tipping rather than twisting to turn, your ski is less likely to release in must circumstances. This doesn?t mean you should adjust your bindings out of the din range. But within the range, you have the option to select the way you ski (skier type I, II, or III), timid, aggressive or over the top. Depending on your selection of skier type you can lower your settings or increase your settings. So again, if you are in balance and using PMTS and you want to be extra cautious with you release settings, you can lower your settings by 1. I don?t recommend this to wedge Christie skiers, as I have seen skiers twist right out of their bindings trying to turn a ski by twisting the leg.


Claiming that the torque the skier adds to a turn can be responsible for binding release can easily be verified. Try this simple experiment: twist out of your own bindings whilst standing still. Don't hurt yourself. Ask yourself if you can apply that much torque whilst skiing the groomed.

Or as we used to do it in the"old days" to be cool. Knock off the skis with a sideways force. Kick your leg out to one side and bring it down in a pendulum motion in slamming the inside edge on the ground to apply lateral force. Again ask yourself if you can apply that much force simply by steering.

As for race course ruts, an ejection is more likely caused by a skier catching an edge than his own effort steering -- especially given the grotesquely higher DIN settings most racers use. They are late in the turn, and their skiis are not aligned with the ruts, so the ruts twist the ski right off, not the skier.

I'm in the process of looking for a document that was posted by Atomic claiming that higher DINs is not the solution to avoid pre-release -- I'll post the link when I find it.

Bindings are supposed to release to avoid injury. They are also supposed to keep your skis on. Make no mistake: you are taking your own health in your own hands when you lower the settings below that of the chart. Pre-releases have killed people. Harald, it is simply irresponsible to suggest that one could lower their DIN settings to 1. Very, very bad advice.
BigE
 
Posts: 1519
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 11:42 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Postby Joe » Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:51 am

Harald said you may reduce the DIN setting "by" 1, not "to"1.
Joe
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: Northern Calif

Postby Guest » Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:43 am

Joe wrote:Harald said you may reduce the DIN setting "by" 1, not "to"1.


I stand corrected. My sincere apologies.
Guest
 

Postby Bluey » Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:02 am

Joe,

I think my last post has a 'typo" error in it's last sentence and so hasn't helped here and it's possibly caused confusion for Guest........

It's amazing the difference the right preposition makes.....

I'll go back to my last post and in particular, it's last sentence and see if I can edit out/delete the word "of" and replace it with the word "by".


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

Postby Guest » Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:13 am

Anonymous wrote:
Joe wrote:Harald said you may reduce the DIN setting "by" 1, not "to"1.


I stand corrected. My sincere apologies.


That's me again, forgeting to login as BigE.

My intent is simply to warn people of the dangers and risks that they take if they play with their DIN. My posts claim you can loosen your bindings completely, if your skiing admits to no lateral force. Regardless, I would not for a minute lower my DIN below recommended settings!
Guest
 

Postby Jeff Markham » Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:54 am

I'm trying to understand this DIN stuff, so bear with me...

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?

Here's a picture...

Code: Select all
                                     /\           
                         .........../..\...................................DIN release point
                                   /    \                     /\         
non-PMTS skier             -------/      \-------            /  \         
                                                            /    \       
PMTS skier                                          -------/      \-------


I guess the question is: does a PMTS skier exert less torque (releasing) force on his/her bindings than a non-PMTS skier? How could this be objectively tested?
Jeff Markham
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:53 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby Guest » Thu Mar 25, 2004 12:40 pm

Jeff Markham wrote:I'm trying to understand this DIN stuff, so bear with me...

I guess the question is: does a PMTS skier exert less torque (releasing) force on his/her bindings than a non-PMTS skier? How could this be objectively tested?


Jeff

I am bearing with you, but in all reality other than for marketing purposes this is a pretty silly question. Generally speaking, a good PMTS skier as compared to a good PSIA skier, given equal variables such as size, skier type, boot sole, etc., would release no differently under like scenerios. Now, if you want to compare a lousy skier to a polished skier this could prove true.

Now, I know someone is going to jump in and demand that one approach causes more torque regardless of ability so I'll go ahead and say this up front: BULLSH@T!!! That's like someone from PSIA claiming that PMTS skiers have to tune their skis half as much because they always have one ski in the air.

Sometimes 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.
Guest
 

Postby BigE » Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:14 pm

Jeff Markham wrote:I'm trying to understand this DIN stuff, so bear with me...

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?

I guess the question is: does a PMTS skier exert less torque (releasing) force on his/her bindings than a non-PMTS skier? How could this be objectively tested?


Yes, that is what is being said, but the physics doesn't back up the hypothesis.

Suppose you are making a LH turn, and twisting. The rotational force you exert is pushing your toes to the left, so you are pressuring the left arm of the toepiece. You have a low edge angle and are skidding the turn.

Now, as you near the end of the turn, you skid into a bump. The bump will push the ski in the direction that the skier is twisting it. The lateral force is not an additive force, it subtracts from the force on the left arm of the binding. So the physics says, twisted/steered turns can actually assist keeping the ski's on!

This skier will only loose a ski if the bump overrides his torque and the right arm of the toepiece releases. A properly edged skier will not loose the ski. But, it's not the skiers torque that assisted in the ejection, it's the high lateral force received by skidding into the bump due to a low edge angle. The hypothesis that the torqe ADDS to the ejection force is incorrect here.

BTW: This is the concern when bump skiing, and why you can't lower your DIN in the bumps.

Now, suppose that the skier is making another steered LH turn. This time, the skis are rotated at the top of the turn and bump hits inside edge of the RH ski only, prior to getting to the fall line.

I can't imagine how quickly the skier would need to be pivoting their feet to overcome the speed that the traverse to the right that brings them past the bump for this to happen. I'd think it's beyond anyones capacity, unless they are moving extremely slowly/stopped are parallel and manage to fit the bump between their skis just when the turn starts.

For the ski to be dislodged when traversing perpendicular to the fall line, they'd have to twist with the same force that would release the binding when standing still! There is no additive force.

Moreover, it can't happen at all in a wedge!

In conclusion, I see no evidence to support the hypothesis that steering torque assists binding release due to irregularities in terrain.

Is there some piece of this analysis I've missed?
BigE
 
Posts: 1519
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 11:42 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Primary Movements Teaching System

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], MSN [Bot] and 3 guests