Ski touring bindings are becoming lighter, more sophisticated and increasingly capable on the descent. At the same time, the terminology used to describe them is becoming more confusing.
Product pages regularly mention terms such as:
- DIN 5–13
- release value 6–12
- TÜV certified
- ISO 13992
- Multi Norm Certified
- GripWalk compatible
To many skiers, these labels sound as though they describe the same thing: how safely and predictably a binding releases during a fall.
They do not.
A binding may have an adjustable release scale without being certified to an ISO binding standard. Another binding may comply with a standard but only when used with specific categories of ski boots. A hybrid touring binding may operate as a pin binding on the ascent but as an alpine binding on the descent.
This article examines the main standards relevant to ski touring bindings and compares how several widely used binding models are described by their manufacturers.
The most important distinction: a number is not a certificate
The term “DIN” is widely used by skiers and retailers to describe a binding’s release setting.
In everyday conversation, a skier might say:
“My bindings are set to DIN 9.”
Technically, however, the number marked on a binding is not automatically proof that the binding has been independently certified to a recognised DIN or ISO standard.
Three different concepts must be separated:
1. Release-value range
A manufacturer may state that a binding has an adjustable release range of 5–13.
This tells the buyer that the binding can be adjusted across a numbered scale. It does not, by itself, establish that the complete binding has passed an independent certification procedure.
2. Compliance with an ISO standard
ISO standards define requirements and test methods for particular categories of ski equipment.
For bindings, the most relevant standards are:
- ISO 13992 for alpine touring ski bindings;
- ISO 9462 for alpine ski bindings.
ISO 13992:2014 specifies the main characteristics and test methods applicable to alpine touring bindings, while ISO 9462:2023 covers bindings intended for alpine skiing.
3. Independent certification
A manufacturer may have compliance independently assessed by an organisation such as TÜV.
“TÜV certified” is therefore not a separate binding standard. It usually means that an independent testing organisation has verified the product against a stated technical standard.
The exact certificate and the standard to which it applies still matter.
The key standards
| Standard or designation | What it covers | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 13992 | Alpine touring ski bindings | The principal international standard specifically intended for touring bindings |
| ISO 9462 | Alpine ski bindings | Relevant to conventional alpine bindings and some hybrid bindings in downhill mode |
| ISO 5355 | Traditional alpine ski-boot soles | Determines dimensional compatibility between alpine boots and bindings |
| ISO 9523 | Touring ski boots | Covers rigid touring-boot sole dimensions and interfaces |
| ISO 23223 | Improved walking soles, including systems such as GripWalk | Important for boot and binding compatibility |
| TÜV certification | Independent conformity assessment | Indicates that an outside body has tested conformity with a named standard |
| MNC / Multi Norm Certified | Compatibility with several recognised boot-sole categories | Mainly concerns boot compatibility, not automatically the touring release characteristics of every operating mode |
A compatibility standard and a release-performance standard should not be treated as interchangeable.
A binding can be compatible with several boot-sole standards while the question of how its release system is certified remains separate.
Why pin bindings are difficult to compare
Classic pin bindings hold the boot using metal inserts at the toe and heel. This makes them efficient and lightweight, but their mechanical behaviour differs from that of conventional alpine bindings.
The differences can include:
- less elastic travel before release;
- different lateral and vertical release mechanisms;
- heel units using U-springs rather than independently adjustable springs;
- release behaviour affected by boot-insert geometry;
- sensitivity to snow, ice, wear and alignment;
- large differences between race, touring and freeride-oriented models.
Two bindings carrying the same numerical release setting may therefore not behave identically under every real-world load.
That does not automatically make one unsafe. It means the number alone is not a complete description of the system.
Comparison of selected ski touring bindings
The following table is based on current publicly available manufacturer information. It is not an exhaustive certification database.
“Not publicly confirmed” means that we did not find a clear statement from the manufacturer identifying certification to ISO 13992 or ISO 9462 on the current product page or readily available technical material.
It does not necessarily mean that the binding has never been tested.
| Brand and model | Binding type | Publicly stated release range | Publicly stated standard or certification | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dynafit ST Rotation 10 | Pin touring binding with rotating toe | Approximately 4–10 | Dynafit explicitly states TÜV-certified safety | Clearly presented as independently certified |
| Dynafit ST Rotation Rental | Adjustable pin touring binding | Model-dependent | TÜV certification explicitly stated | Clearly presented as independently certified |
| Marker Kingpin 10 / 13 | Pin toe with alpine-style heel | 5–10 or 6–13 | Marker states that the Kingpin platform received DIN ISO 13992 certification through TÜV | Certification publicly stated for the Kingpin platform; exact model generation should still be checked |
| Salomon S/Lab Shift² 10 / 13 / 16 MN | Pin ascent, alpine-style downhill interface | Up to 10, 13 or 16 | Marketed as DIN and Multi Norm; compatible with touring, GripWalk and alpine boots depending on the model | Strong alpine-style downhill design; exact certification documentation should be confirmed for each generation |
| Atomic / Armada Shift platform | Same general hybrid concept as Salomon Shift | Model-dependent | Generally marketed as Multi Norm alpine/touring bindings | Check exact model-year declaration and boot compatibility |
| Fritschi Tecton 10 / 13 | Pin toe with alpine-style heel | 5–10 or 6–13 | Manufacturer uses DIN terminology and specifies boot compatibility, but a current ISO certificate is not prominently identified on the retail page | Advanced release system, but request the formal declaration if certification is important |
| Fritschi Vipec Evo | Pin binding with lateral toe release | Model-dependent | Manufacturer emphasises defined lateral toe release; current formal ISO certificate is not always visible in retail material | Do not infer certification solely from the release scale |
| Dynafit Radical | Conventional pin touring binding | Adjustable release value | No TÜV or ISO claim prominently stated on the current product overview | Certification not publicly confirmed on current product material |
| Dynafit Speed Radical | Lightweight pin binding | Adjustable or model-dependent | No current certification claim prominently stated | Not publicly confirmed |
| Dynafit Superlite 150 | Lightweight speed-touring binding | Model-dependent | No prominent ISO/TÜV claim | Not publicly confirmed |
| Dynafit Low Tech Race 105 | Race pin binding | Mostly fixed or limited-release configuration | No standardised DIN certification claim presented | Race binding; should not be interpreted like a conventional certified alpine binding |
| Marker Alpinist 8 / 10 / 12 | Lightweight pin binding | 3–8, 4–10 or 6–12 | DIN ranges are listed, but current product descriptions do not prominently state ISO 13992 certification | Release scale stated; certification not clearly confirmed |
| ATK Raider / Freeraider | Performance pin binding | Model-dependent | Manufacturer publishes release ranges and technical systems; formal ISO certification is not generally highlighted | Not publicly confirmed unless supported by model-specific documentation |
| ATK Crest / Haute Route | Lightweight touring pin binding | Model-dependent | Release values stated; ISO/TÜV certificate not prominently advertised | Not publicly confirmed |
| ATK Trofeo and other race models | Race pin binding, often using fixed U-springs | Fixed or semi-fixed values | No conventional adjustable DIN certification claim | Race-specific release values, not equivalent to a fully adjustable alpine DIN system |
| Plum Guide / Oazo / Race families | Lightweight pin bindings | Adjustable or fixed, depending on model | ISO/TÜV certification not generally prominent in public product descriptions | Not publicly confirmed by the release scale alone |
| Ski Trab Titan and race models | Lightweight pin systems | Model-dependent | No clear general ISO/TÜV statement across the range | Must be checked model by model |
| Selun A230G / Movement A230G by Selun | Lightweight pin binding with adjustable frontal and lateral release | 5–13 | Movement describes the range as “DIN 5–13”; Selun describes adjustable Z-values. A public ISO 13992 or TÜV certificate was not identified in the product information reviewed | Release range stated; certification not publicly confirmed |
Dynafit explicitly describes the ST Rotation 10 as offering TÜV-certified safety. Its general binding catalogue also singles out the ST Rotation as the model with TÜV certification, while presenting models such as Radical, Speed Radical and Superlite without the same claim.
Marker states that the Kingpin was the first PinTech binding to receive DIN ISO 13992 certification from TÜV. The current Kingpin product family continues to be marketed around high-level release functionality, although buyers should still check whether the declaration applies to their exact model and production year.
Movement describes the Selun A230G as having a “DIN 5–13” release value, while Selun’s own material refers to adjustable Z-values for frontal and torsional release. The Selun product page highlights its 230-gram weight and independently adjustable release characteristics but does not prominently identify an ISO 13992 or TÜV certificate.
Does “DIN 5–13” always mean the same thing?
This is where the language used by the ski industry becomes difficult.
The term DIN is frequently used as shorthand for a release-value scale, even when the full product is not clearly advertised as certified to a named DIN or ISO standard.
For consumers, the difference is substantial.
Consider the following two statements:
Adjustable release value: 5–13.
and:
Certified to ISO 13992, with a release setting range of 5–13.
The first statement describes an adjustment range.
The second describes an adjustment range and makes a claim about compliance with an established standard.
They should not be treated as identical.
“Not certified” does not automatically mean “unsafe”
The absence of a publicly stated ISO certificate does not prove that a binding is defective, badly engineered or unsafe.
Many highly regarded lightweight touring bindings do not prominently claim certification to ISO 13992. Manufacturers may conduct extensive internal testing, field testing, fatigue testing and quality-control procedures.
Ultralight race bindings also serve a different purpose from heavy freeride-touring bindings.
Their priorities may include:
- minimum weight;
- rapid transitions;
- simplicity;
- uphill efficiency;
- fixed release characteristics;
- use by experienced competitors.
A 100-gram race binding should not be evaluated as though it were intended to provide exactly the same mechanical behaviour as a 900-gram hybrid freeride binding.
The problem arises when marketing language makes these distinctions unclear.
Boot compatibility is equally important
Even a certified binding may not function as intended if it is paired with an incompatible, worn or damaged boot.
Relevant boot standards include:
- ISO 5355 for traditional alpine soles;
- ISO 9523 for touring soles;
- ISO 23223 for improved walking soles such as GripWalk.
Salomon’s Shift², for example, is marketed as Multi Norm and lists compatibility with several boot categories, including touring, adult GripWalk and adult alpine boots.
Fritschi also warns that certain components may only be used with alpine boots conforming to ISO 5355 or GripWalk boots conforming to ISO 23223, because other sole shapes can negatively affect entry and lateral release.
For pin bindings, the following details can affect retention and release:
- the condition of the metal toe and heel inserts;
- snow or ice inside the inserts;
- alignment between toe and heel units;
- boot-sole wear;
- incorrect heel gap;
- incorrect forward-pressure or compensation setting;
- contamination or icing under the toe mechanism;
- whether the toe is in ski mode or locked touring mode.
Certification cannot compensate for incorrect installation or incompatible equipment.
Why buyers should ask better questions
When choosing a touring binding, skiers commonly ask:
What is the DIN range?
A more useful set of questions would be:
- Is the binding certified to ISO 13992 or ISO 9462?
- Has conformity been verified by an independent organisation?
- Does the certificate apply to this exact model and production year?
- Is the stated range a certified release scale or a manufacturer-defined release value?
- Which boot standards are supported?
- Are lateral and vertical release independently adjustable?
- How much elastic travel does the binding provide before release?
- Does the heel use a fixed U-spring?
- What boot-to-binding gap is required?
- Must the binding be tested on a release machine after mounting?
These questions provide far more useful safety information than weight and release range alone.
What manufacturers and retailers should publish
To make comparisons easier, every touring binding product page should clearly state:
- the exact applicable standard;
- whether the binding is certified or only internally tested;
- the certifying organisation;
- the certificate’s model and year coverage;
- the release-value range;
- whether the stated values correspond to a standardised scale;
- lateral and vertical release adjustability;
- compatible boot standards;
- required heel gap and mounting tolerances;
- whether machine testing after installation is recommended or required;
- limitations associated with race or ultralight use.
A simple phrase such as “DIN 5–13” is not sufficient to answer all these questions.
The broader issue
Ski touring equipment has evolved rapidly.
Today, a binding weighing approximately 200 grams may include brakes, adjustable release, length compensation and multiple climbing positions. At the opposite end of the market, hybrid systems provide downhill retention and elasticity much closer to alpine bindings.
Both categories may be excellent tools when used for their intended purpose.
But they are not mechanically equivalent.
A light pin binding optimised for long ascents should not automatically be expected to provide the same elasticity, retention and release behaviour as a hybrid alpine-style binding. Likewise, a heavier certified binding may be inappropriate for a competitive ski mountaineer seeking the lightest possible setup.
The important point is transparency.
Skiers should be able to distinguish between:
- a numbered release setting;
- a manufacturer-defined release value;
- a binding tested to an ISO standard;
- an independently certified product;
- and a binding compatible with several boot-sole standards.
Conclusion
There is no single universal safety label covering every ski touring binding.
ISO 13992 is the principal standard for alpine touring bindings, while ISO 9462 applies to alpine bindings. Boot standards such as ISO 5355, ISO 9523 and ISO 23223 govern a different but closely related question: whether the boot and binding interface is dimensionally compatible.
Some touring bindings, such as the Dynafit ST Rotation and Marker Kingpin platform, are clearly marketed with TÜV or ISO certification claims. Many lighter pin bindings publish release-value ranges without prominently stating comparable certification.
That does not automatically make them unsafe.
It does mean that skiers, guides, retailers and journalists should avoid assuming that every “DIN” number carries the same technical meaning.
The most responsible approach is to examine each model separately, verify the exact standard claimed by the manufacturer and consider the entire system: binding, boot, mounting, adjustment, maintenance and intended use.
Methodology and limitations
This overview was prepared from publicly accessible manufacturer product pages and official ISO summaries available in July 2026.
Certification status can vary between:
- model generations;
- regional versions;
- production years;
- brake and rental configurations;
- boot compatibility categories.
The table should therefore be treated as a guide for further verification, not as a substitute for an official conformity certificate or a professional workshop inspection.
Manufacturers are invited to provide updated certificates or technical declarations where the public product information is incomplete.
Article was first published on promontana.si