Köp & Sälj
Artiklar
Forum
Nya inlägg
Forumlista
Sök trådar
Medlemmar
Regler/Hjälp
Skidorter
Snödjup
Boende
Prylar
Video
Shop
Logga in
Bli medlem
Vad är nytt
Sök
Sök
Sök bara rubriker
Notera
Av:
Nya inlägg
Forumlista
Sök trådar
Medlemmar
Regler/Hjälp
Meny
Logga in
Bli medlem
Ladda ner Freeride som app
JavaScript är inaktiverat. För en bättre upplevelse, vänligen aktivera JavaScript i din webbläsare innan du fortsätter.
Du använder en gammal webbläsare. Den kanske inte visar den här eller andra webbplatser korrekt.
Du bör uppgradera eller använda en
alternativ webbläsare
.
Forum
Utrustning
Freeride - Skidor
Ryktestråden 14/15
Svara på tråd
Meddelande
<blockquote data-quote="SiSt" data-source="post: 1043757" data-attributes="member: 68917"><p>[USER=13861]@Glisseur[/USER]: Du har kjørt på begge, kjapp sammenlikning Kingpin<->Beast? Tenker spesielt på elastisitet i tådelen og hvordan du ser på sikkehetsaspektet. Ryktene sier ihvertfall at Beast får samme sertifisering som Kingpin, ISO 13992.</p><p></p><p>Sertifiseringen er i mine øyne problematisk, da den markedsføres som om dette er det samme som gjelder for alpinbindinger (DIN, ikke Release Value), men sertifiseringen er den samme som gjelder for rammebindinger (Duke, Guardian, etc), og der er det tydeligvis ingen krav om at tådelen individuelt skal kunne løse ut ved vridningsbelasning.</p><p></p><p>Fra Wildsnow (<a href="https://www.wildsnow.com/13542/marker-tech-binding-pintech/" target="_blank">https://www.wildsnow.com/13542/marker-tech-binding-pintech/</a>):</p><p></p><p>"I need to apologize for overlooking something here. As I learned last winter and subsequently spaced out, Dynafit Beast is ostensibly already TUV certified to the ISO 13992. Apparently the process takes forever due to small details such as owner’s manual conforming to TUV requirements, so Dynafit has been waiting to have the cert in hand before really emphasizing this.</p><p></p><p>As many of you know (and perhaps doesn’t show in my recent reporting), I actually think the TUV cert is a non-issue for the user and might even be detrimental to binding innovation and development. This especially considering how different tech bindings are from frame bindings, along with the fact that a separate standard was never developed specific to tech bindings (e.g., how can they give ISO 13992 to a binding when part of the binding is actually part of the boot, and can be all over the map in terms of performance?). But in terms of sales for the companies that have it, it’s huge, as normal ski shops will be much more comfortable selling bindings that have ISO certification.</p><p></p><p>At any rate, I’ll edit the post above to get more clear on this situation.</p><p>For more of my opinion on this stuff:<a href="https://www.wildsnow.com/13542/marker-tech-binding-pintech/" target="_blank">http://www.wildsnow.com/6953/tech-dynafit-bindings-tuv/</a></p><p></p><p>Lou"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SiSt, post: 1043757, member: 68917"] [USER=13861]@Glisseur[/USER]: Du har kjørt på begge, kjapp sammenlikning Kingpin<->Beast? Tenker spesielt på elastisitet i tådelen og hvordan du ser på sikkehetsaspektet. Ryktene sier ihvertfall at Beast får samme sertifisering som Kingpin, ISO 13992. Sertifiseringen er i mine øyne problematisk, da den markedsføres som om dette er det samme som gjelder for alpinbindinger (DIN, ikke Release Value), men sertifiseringen er den samme som gjelder for rammebindinger (Duke, Guardian, etc), og der er det tydeligvis ingen krav om at tådelen individuelt skal kunne løse ut ved vridningsbelasning. Fra Wildsnow ([url=https://www.wildsnow.com/13542/marker-tech-binding-pintech/]https://www.wildsnow.com/13542/marker-tech-binding-pintech/[/url]): "I need to apologize for overlooking something here. As I learned last winter and subsequently spaced out, Dynafit Beast is ostensibly already TUV certified to the ISO 13992. Apparently the process takes forever due to small details such as owner’s manual conforming to TUV requirements, so Dynafit has been waiting to have the cert in hand before really emphasizing this. As many of you know (and perhaps doesn’t show in my recent reporting), I actually think the TUV cert is a non-issue for the user and might even be detrimental to binding innovation and development. This especially considering how different tech bindings are from frame bindings, along with the fact that a separate standard was never developed specific to tech bindings (e.g., how can they give ISO 13992 to a binding when part of the binding is actually part of the boot, and can be all over the map in terms of performance?). But in terms of sales for the companies that have it, it’s huge, as normal ski shops will be much more comfortable selling bindings that have ISO certification. At any rate, I’ll edit the post above to get more clear on this situation. For more of my opinion on this stuff:[url=https://www.wildsnow.com/13542/marker-tech-binding-pintech/]http://www.wildsnow.com/6953/tech-dynafit-bindings-tuv/[/url] Lou" [/QUOTE]
Verifiering
Skicka svar
Forum
Utrustning
Freeride - Skidor
Ryktestråden 14/15
Tillbaka
Topp
