Help: Atomic Alpine Binding Beta

OK, so I just picked up a pair of Atomic Supercross 310 bindings on the cheap.

They "meter" up to 10.  I usually ski at a DIN 8.  Yeah, yeah, I'm a softy...  but it works for me.

So when I get the bindings home I find a little card that says if my weight is greater than 185 lbs (sadly it is) that I should buy a binding "with a Z value of 4-12 or 6-14"

What is this "Z value"?  Is it the same as a DIN value in measurement?  Or has Atomic dumbed down the DIN to a new system, called Z so that theirs can go to a rad. 14?  Kinda like Nigel from Spinal Tap's amp going to eleven.

Is a Z-8 something like a DIN 5 or is a Z-8 the same as a DIN-8?


Anyone??????????????????

Hey Doug,
I race CityLeague on Atomic SX:11s and use the 6-14 binding.  I am 99.999% sure that "Z" equals DIN.  I weigh 180lbs and ski them on 12 as I do on Soloman bindings.  I think the manufacturer is suggesting that you not max out the springs on your bindings by saying you should opt for the beefier model.  If you normally ski on a setting of 8, you are very borderline in my opinion, especially at your weight.  If anything, I'd say the toes release a tad easier on Atomic bindings, so you may find that you want to crank them a little higher.

Disclaimer:  I am the type of person who can rarely forsee a situation where I want my skis to come off, so take what I say with a grain of salt.  I'll always steer folks to the beefier model of just about anything.

Sam, thanks for the reply.  Great info!

Yes, I'm probably near the edge of the envelope on these bindings, but I think I'll be fine as long as they're calibrated (DIN) the same as all my other bindings that are all set at 8 and max out at 10, 11 and 12 respectively.

So what I could tell from my research (mainly on the atomic website), the bindings in question are rated on DIN values.  I still couldn't find what the Z value was or where it came from other than that it was printed on a little card attached to one of the bindings in the box.

I've been looking for a cheap pair of high performance slaloms that are quicker edge-to-edge than my Volkl G-4's and found a set of unused 2001 Atomic 9.16's for $99.  I couldn't pass it up.

Hey, if anyone has a set of 4-12's or 6-14's that will fit on these skis, I'm accepting donations, or can trade unneeded stuff for unneeded stuff.

Now to drop a few more pounds and I'll be under the 185lb recommendation on the SX 310's...and skiing like the happy bargain hunter that I am

Hey,

Don't know how recent your bindings are, but I had a pair 3 years ago(din to 14 Set on 10)
mounted on a pair of GS skis. I rarely ever use them maybe 15 days tops. Turns out that the rear springs have had major defects. Mine are completely useless now. I'm 220 with a long boot sole.
however, they should have lasted more then 15 days.

Turns out that the rear springs have had major defects. Mine are completely useless now.

Frightening ???

Was there a recall on that binding that you're aware of?  What are (aren't) they doing that let you know that the rear springs are defective?

Is anyone else aware of Atomic binding failures?

This was maybe 3-4 years ago...I had a pair of the older 614 Races (the Red and Black ones) that crapped out on me in the heels.  All of a sudden, one day up at Baker, I was cranking down Pan Face (minding my own business, I might add) and both of them released for no reason.  Biggest highspeed yardsale I've ever had...it really rung my bell! >
I probably had 20-30 days on those skis, but  took em into Sturtevants and they sent them back to Atomic for me and I had a replacement pair in about 10 days.  No problems since.  I recall that the guy in the shop had heard of it happening on this particular batch of 614s...

Seems to me that even if they are a few years old, if there was a known defect in the batch, that they ought to offer you some sort of credit towards a new pair, at least.