Talk:Ski binding

Snowbrakes

Added para on snow brakes to Alpine as could not find any other reference. A couteau is referenced on the caption for the alpine touring binding but not referred to in the text. WinterOfDiscontent 10:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bindings not boots

Perhaps the images of boots would be better placed in an entry under ski boots and not bindings.

75mm Boots/Bindings

They are still used in backcountry areas: [1]

I just did a web search for 75mm boots (since I have skis with that binding). The bindings are still for sale, but I didn't come up with a single boot. Perhaps this sxn should be re-written? I would do it, but I'm too far from knowledgeable. Mcswell (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

As you can see, we need a good picture of a 75mm boot and a SNS binding. Thanks!

Wikipedia:Requested pictures is probably a good place to post a note. --snoyes 21:34, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)

DIN Setting Links

www.dinsetting.com should be the link used rather than http://coffee.sdsc.edu/din_setting.

www.dinsetting.com provides a quick easy form with 5 inputs (skier height, weight, ability, age & boot sole length) to calculate the DIN within seconds. It also provides a reference to the source from which the DIN calculations are derived.

http://coffee.sdsc.edu/din_setting is slow, you have to click through 4 web pages to determine the DIN setting, unless you accidentally click on an advertisment that is located near the links required to access the next page (which happens to be a violation of Google's Adsense policy anyways).

Wiki-pedians want fast reliable information. Visit each site and tell me which link you think should be included in the wiki content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Preston325 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

• You are biased in your opinion as you own dinsetting.com. Apart from the fact that Wikipedia rules state you are not permitted to add your own links (case closed), this also indicates your efforts are significantly related to promotion of your own site. I am largely indifferent to the benefits of either link (both have them), and I note that your site carries Google AdSense also and would state that the adherence to Google's TOS (in my opinion the site doesn't break the TOS) is not something we should be concerned about nor discuss here in relation to the article. WinterOfDiscontent 09:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the site is mine just like coffee.sdsc.edu/din_setting/ is yours. I propose we put another site that is better in appearance and information quality than coffee.sdsc.edu/din_setting/. www.forskiers.com/gear/din.aspis a good alternative; It gives the same information very quick. (And I am not affiliated with this site in any way). Preston325 08:19, 24 January 2007 (PST)

• I can assure you I have no affiliation with the coffee.sdsc.edu page and I am not sure what led you to believe that was the case. I do not live in the US let alone San Diego, nor have I attended any educational institutions there. Nor was it I the person who added that link. I see that despite your proposed solution, you have engineered the addition of your link to the See Also / External Link category instead now!! - Again not acceptable as it it just another way of achieving your sole goal of a link - thank goodness Wikipedia has added "nofollow" to ALL outbound links now. Wikipedians are not stupid, logging out and making the change under an IP address where the contribution history has done nothing but repeatedly add that link to date won't cut it. I suggest if you are truly interested in helping the Wikipedia community and readership, you create a page on DIN settings, what it stands for, what it means and the formula for calculating the correct DIN Setting whilst resisting the temptation to link to your own site in anyway. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium.

• Please note that I was the last user to edit the DIN link (a minor part of a bunch of other stuff). My appoligies for being unaware of the history. I have no interest in the dinsetting.com site, but of the three sites it's the clearest and the simplest to use which is why I chose it. In particular the current link does not include age as a factor, so it's an incomplete implementation of the DIN standard. I'm not going to get into an edit war over it, but I'd ask for reconsideration. Thanks. Mr swordfish 18:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

DIN?

Does DIN stand for Deutsches Institut für Normung? That page doesn't mention skiing, but it seems plausible. DIN (disambiguation) has a red link to DIN ski binding scale. This should get sorted out. Also, it would be interesting to see how DIN settings are quantified. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Other form of X-C cable binding

There was an alternative form of cable binding for X-C skies. It consisted of a toe piece which fit over the front sole, similar to an old fashion roller skate. Two pieces of cable hooked into either side of this and at the heel, these cables screwed into a metal band which fit around the shoe's heel. A lever here camped the band tight on the heel, forcing the toe securely into the toe piece. The cables could screw in or out of the heel band to adjust the fit. This type of binding could be used with a standard 75 mm boot, but also could be used with regular hiking boots or the like. Just what these where called escapes me, but I had a pair back in the 1970s on my first X-C skies. Anyone here have more info on this type of binding? 16:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wschart (talk • contribs)

That might be the TEMPO binding. I remember them from 1972. Photo on the this site: [2] I had "kandahar style" bindings made by Gresshoppa on my skis for a few years before switching to 3 bin Ddermott (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

What to do about an interesting image on the article made under an erroneous premise?

This would be the image:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_binding#/media/File:Salomon_bindings_1980s_2011.jpg

Somebody posted this in the "1980s" section with the intent to show how binding designs have not changed much (at least to the 2011 model shown next to it) since then. Aside from the questionable claim in itself, the bigger problem is that the two bindings shown are only superficially similar and significant different mechanically. A questionable claim backed-up with superficial pseudo-evidence.

Aside: the mechanical designs of these two bindings can actually be traced back to the advent of the very earliest modern bindings in the early 1950s. But this is not a claim one can paint the entire category of ski bindings with. For example, transverse-spring toepieces, which only came about in the last decade with the growing popularity of wider skis... and the evolution of the Barthel/Dynafit/"tech" binding (which is entirely neglected here in this article!)

I took the liberty to edit out the questionable claim and the superficial and false interpretation of the image... but it remains in the "1980s" section with no justification for the presence of the circa-2011 binding. It's an interesting image... but it seems to be inappropriate under the "1980s" section absent its questionable claim and superficial/false interpretation. 00:27, 17 April 2019‎ 199.133.105.135 talk

Table vs prose

I converted the list of binding types into a table because I found the prose incomprehensible. The images (which are most useful to understanding the text) don't line up well with the text. The text is already broken up into multiple subsections, which means it doesn't "flow" (per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables) anyway. A table is much easier to read, and might even be expanded by adding dates to each binding type. My edits have been reverted. - 129.242.129.238 (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your good-faith effort to improve the section with a table. However, that brought its own problems. Prominently, not every row had a corresponding image, thereby leaving a lot of empty space on the page. Currently, the images have very detailed captions. It's debatable whether all the information present is appropriate to an encyclopedic overview. WP:Encyclopedic style offers advice on this.

MOS:LISTBASICS offers some good guidance on presenting a list of items. Its first sentence recommends, "Prefer prose where a passage is understood easily as regular text." Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables under appropriate use says, "Tables are a way of presenting links, data, or information in rows and columns." So, if one were organizing a list of attributes, like attachment mechanism, binding width, style of skiing, etc., a table might be appropriate.

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: I read the MOS in your edit comment, but as I mentioned, the current text lacks the benefit of flowing prose since each style has its own section with little reflection on the relation between them. Rather it's a list with bad formatting.

Your key criticism, the fact that every row did not have a corresponding image, is hardly an insurmountable problem. Add photos = Problem solved. An incomplete list is not a reason to remove the list. Each section, as it stands, does not have an image but that isn't reason to remove the list - instead, it's motivation to use a table to point out which image goes with which section and which sections lack images. - 129.242.129.238 (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I concur with your assessment of the problem. However, I suggest that the order of the solution should be: 1) Fix the prose and make sure that it paraphrases reliable sources. (If unsupported by an RS, remove the entry.) 2) Make a list that has some order, whether alphabetic or by type of mechanical principal, or by purpose of the binding. 3) Tabulate things that can be presented concisely, like size or mechanical principle or purposed.

"Add photos" is fine, but doesn't assure that photos are available. Also, is there a reason in an encyclopedic entry to have an exhaustive list of entries? Would it not be similarly appropriate to include every historical alpine binding in the same manner? I expect that exhaustive lists would be of interest to very few readers. Therefore, I suggest that only the most significant examples warrant inclusion here. Thanks for engaging here! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This compatibility guide would be a good basis for a table. It has three families with subsets below each:

• 75 mm
  • 75-mm boot
    • 3-pin binding
• NNN
  • NNN Boot
    • NIS, NNN, Prolink, and Turnamic bindings
  • NNN BC Boot
    • NNN BC binding
• SNS
  • Profil boot
    • Profil binding
  • Pilot boot
    • Pilot binding

This could have pictures. What do you think? HopsonRoad (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: It definitely doesn't need to be an exhaustive list - that's just my point. If images are not available for every style, that's also okay. (Though I bet it wouldn't be hard to get photos of every major binding type.) I can't really comment on the above structure because I don't know anything about ski bindings. I was trying to figure it out before making my first purchase and I found the text totally unhelpful. I'll trust your judgement. =) -- 129.242.129.238 (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Material for the alpine binding section

The section on alpine bindings is underdeveloped. Here are some potential sources:

• RELEASE! HISTORY OF SAFETY BINDINGS
• Early iron bindings
• GEZE SE3
• Historical dictionary
• Alpine touring
• REI taxonomy
• General reference

Need a good taxonomy of current binding designs. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)