pinto
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Depends.
-
Women skiers, this is the place for you -- an online community without the male-orientation you'll find in conventional ski magazines and internet ski forums. At TheSkiDiva.com, you can connect with other women to talk about skiing in a way that you can relate to, about things that you find of interest. Be sure to join our community to participate (women only, please!). Registration is fast and simple. Just be sure to add [email protected] to your address book so your registration activation emails won't be routed as spam. And please give careful consideration to your user name -- it will not be changed once your registration is confirmed.
Type II vs. Type III skiers?
- Thread starter ski diva
- Start date
Depends.
That's my new approach. I told the guy I was a strong II when I got my MissBehaved's mounted last season (because the picture of the type III person was like -- jumping off a cliff), and he instantly went into "you're an intermediate skier who doesn't know what you're talking about" mode. It was really infuriating. So my new approach is to always say III, and if I know I'm going to have a chill groomer day I can just bump my DIN down a little bit myself.
Also, saying II resulted in bindings that were set ridiculously low. So maybe I am legitimately a III, and they should consider a different picture on those signs.
MaineSkiLady
Angel Diva
Indeed.
And anyone who has been skiing in excess of 25 years surely must remember just how BAD bindings used to be -- as well as the onset of the whole DIN scale. Heck, I even remember when AFD's came out and were an add-on.
Premature release was beyond common, especially back in the day when settings were 1, 2 & 3. Period. Or---bindings that completely and totally SHATTERED.
Those were NOT the good old days!
I agree that pre-releases can be every bit as dangerous as having your DIN set too high. I've had a couple injuries from just walking out of bindings - like someone else said - skiing bumps and suddenly on one ski with your other ski a bump or two behind you before you crash. And then I tore a ligament in my thumb in the process - not good. This was on demo bindings that were quite likely not set up perfectly.
On the other hand, if you crash a lot, you want them lower. But keep in mind, even a low DIN setting is not designed to protect your knee ligaments if you get yourself into a bad leverage position. It can't - you can tear an ACL in shoes, so it doesn't necessarily matter if your bindings release or not. It's more to keep you from breaking bones in a crash.
On the other hand, if you crash a lot, you want them lower. But keep in mind, even a low DIN setting is not designed to protect your knee ligaments if you get yourself into a bad leverage position. It can't - you can tear an ACL in shoes, so it doesn't necessarily matter if your bindings release or not. It's more to keep you from breaking bones in a crash.
That's my new approach. I told the guy I was a strong II when I got my MissBehaved's mounted last season (because the picture of the type III person was like -- jumping off a cliff), and he instantly went into "you're an intermediate skier who doesn't know what you're talking about" mode. It was really infuriating. So my new approach is to always say III, and if I know I'm going to have a chill groomer day I can just bump my DIN down a little bit myself.
Also, saying II resulted in bindings that were set ridiculously low. So maybe I am legitimately a III, and they should consider a different picture on those signs.
Dude, you jump off cliffs.
After all the pre-releases I had 2 years ago, I set mine in between what the II and III would have prescribed and haven't had any problems since. I'm pretty sure the issue was the rear binding, though. I got tired of digging for my skis.
I don't know if AT bindings use a completely different formula (BSL is the same, just different sole blocks), but the DIN on my b/c setup is the highest I've ever seen it (for me -- on a normal chart, it would be my III+ setting - YIKES). And I went into that shop telling them I was a noob.
SkiBam
Angel Diva
Yeah, I'm sure those of us who have been skiing for many years (perhaps more than we care to admit!) can recount horror stories of old bindings. I broke an ankle in Austria in the late 60s because the binding released for no reason (and I had had them checked the day before).
I always say I'm a III, which, with my small size, results in a DIN of 4.5. If I were to say I was a II, it would be down to 3.5, which I think is too low, even for someone of my "advanced" years. I actually fail to really see what age has to do with it. Anyway, this setting seems to work just fine for me so I'll continue to say I'm a III.
I always say I'm a III, which, with my small size, results in a DIN of 4.5. If I were to say I was a II, it would be down to 3.5, which I think is too low, even for someone of my "advanced" years. I actually fail to really see what age has to do with it. Anyway, this setting seems to work just fine for me so I'll continue to say I'm a III.
Yeah, that's my question, too. It's not so much "why age 50?" but rather, "what are binding manufacturers (and their lawyers) assuming happens as we age that makes an impact on how much torque is necessary to release a binding?" Is it an assumption that bones break easier? That reflexes are not as fast? That we inherently ski less aggressively as we age? Does it matter whether someone has been skiing for the prior 44 years before turning 50? Or picked it up 2 years earlier?
Maybe I'll go ask a friend who is a binding engineer what he thinks....
That made my afternoon, but rocks and cliffs are hardly the same thing.
My point is -- those dudes in ski moves, THEY'RE type III. I guess they must just use a whole different scale than us recreational skiers.
sibhusky
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
pinto
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
That made my afternoon, but rocks and cliffs are hardly the same thing.
My point is -- those dudes in ski moves, THEY'RE type III. I guess they must just use a whole different scale than us recreational skiers.
No, they are type VI.
I mean, a Type 3+ guy who's 6'2" 190 lb only comes to a 10 ... I guarandamntee you that guys jumping off cliffs are cranked higher than 10.
mountainxtc
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
No, they are type VI.
I mean, a Type 3+ guy who's 6'2" 190 lb only comes to a 10 ... I guarandamntee you that guys jumping off cliffs are cranked higher than 10.
now there's a (extreme) situation where pre release could be far more dangerous than not releasing.
Obviously your DIN setting should match your everyday skiing, and be adjusted for extreme circumstances. For example, I don't race, except for one day a year in the peak to valley. My regular DIN is 8-9 but when I'm doing that race I crank the damn things to 13. Firstly, a pre-release would be catastrophic, and secondly the forces being dealt with are waay higher than my average ski day, so the ski should still release if necessary at 13 despite the fact that I haven't put on weight, grown taller, gotten older (much), etc. that day.
So by all means adjust for extreme situations, but most people should just set it and forget it.
PS, don't forget to REset afterwards!!
PowDiva85
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
so i was definitely a type III, which put me at a 7. I turned it up to a 7.5 after I started skiing more double black terrain and was perfectly happy there. Then i opened my big mouth about how i really didn't like those people who crank their DIN up just to seem like they are more aggressive skiers than they are. Step in...karma...not a week later i double ejected out of both skis in early season mank and bashed my knee against a rock. Now, I ski at an 8 or so depending on the binding. Ultimately I don't think a type III is about being a racer, its about terrain preferences and skiing style.
mountainxtc
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Agree. Just using racing as an example.
That made my afternoon, but rocks and cliffs are hardly the same thing.
My point is -- those dudes in ski moves, THEY'RE type III. I guess they must just use a whole different scale than us recreational skiers.
That's true. The athletes in ski movies are definitely NOT type III. Even if you look at the website that calculates out DIN settings, it has a "type III+" But those guys you see in the movies are picking their DIN based on their own experiences and I guarantee that for most of them it has very little to do with the DIN chart, which is for us normal human beings.
sibhusky
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I plugged in my daughter's info to this....it says NA. She apparently is too short, too light, etc. to be a 3+ (I was testing what they set her stuff to for race days). By extrapolating, I got the 9 they would set it to, but it won't spit it out. Thank goodness she sets things back a bit now!
Yeah - I was just playing around with the calculator to see what the max DIN it would pop out would be and it was around 11.
So consider that some of the race bindings (that are what a lot of freeskiers use) have a DIN range of 12-20. If being a large type III+ skier only puts you at an 11, obviously they are considering that the big cliff jumping, or serious downhill racing types are often looking for something well off the standard DIN chart.
https://www.powder7.com/sale-skis/s...on-920-EQ-Race-Red-Ski-Bindings-912-All-Metal
So consider that some of the race bindings (that are what a lot of freeskiers use) have a DIN range of 12-20. If being a large type III+ skier only puts you at an 11, obviously they are considering that the big cliff jumping, or serious downhill racing types are often looking for something well off the standard DIN chart.
https://www.powder7.com/sale-skis/s...on-920-EQ-Race-Red-Ski-Bindings-912-All-Metal
evaino
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I think it's that there are changes as we age, and because it's a generically applied equation, they need a cutoff to apply the "old" factor to. What this means is that when you hit certain cutoffs, if you are not a typical person of that age, the equations will not be very relevant to you unless you put in the wrong age.
The same thing is true with body fat % calculations. I took a seminar with Michael Boyle, and he mentioned that one of his athletes had just turned 21 (I think) and suddenly his body fat % went up several % points from the previous week (he tests his elite athletes weekly). Nothing had changed except he was a week older, but the equation changed as a result. So I learned to always set the person's age to 18 when doing a body fat % calculation so that you're working on a level playing field.
Elsbeth
marzNC
Angel Diva
Lots of good info in this thread from a few years ago.
With the improvement in my technique after working with instructors last season, something tells me I may be thinking about using the DIN recommended for Type III and my weight and age in the future. Don't fall much at all so a little hard to guage. But had a release on a cat track that was unexpected. Crossed the over-50 line several years ago.
With the improvement in my technique after working with instructors last season, something tells me I may be thinking about using the DIN recommended for Type III and my weight and age in the future. Don't fall much at all so a little hard to guage. But had a release on a cat track that was unexpected. Crossed the over-50 line several years ago.
Serafina
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
The question I have is this: legal liability issues aside, is there some good reason why your DIN setting should automatically change after age 50? Also, why do we have to go back to the drawing board every single time on the DIN when getting new skis, if the new skis are using bindings from the same manufacturer as the ones you already have? Here's me: every pair of my skis has a set of Marker bindings on them. Not because I have a mad passion for Marker, but that's just how it's worked out. Every single pair of my skis has a DIN of 6.5.
It's an honest question: what's the complication that makes it so we can't just say "Please set the DIN to 6.5?" since I know - from plenty of personal and immediate experience - that at this setting my bindings blow when I take a certain kind of fall, but they do NOT blow when I'm just doing a series of aggressive turns and pressuring the skis hard.
It's an honest question: what's the complication that makes it so we can't just say "Please set the DIN to 6.5?" since I know - from plenty of personal and immediate experience - that at this setting my bindings blow when I take a certain kind of fall, but they do NOT blow when I'm just doing a series of aggressive turns and pressuring the skis hard.
I've always thought of the difference between type 2 and 3 as - when do you want your skis to release. 2 is a good fall, but not just because I caught an edge. 3 is the nasty - I could do damage type of fall.
If you're over 50 and athletic and want your DIN higher, the shop can do it. They will ask you to sign off that, that is what you asked for. Then they are covered if you should try to sue.
If you're over 50 and athletic and want your DIN higher, the shop can do it. They will ask you to sign off that, that is what you asked for. Then they are covered if you should try to sue.
