or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Backcountry, Telemark, and Cross Country › Comments on Marker Duke 16 vs Marker F12 for new AT rig
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Comments on Marker Duke 16 vs Marker F12 for new AT rig

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 

 

G'day. Almost got my new AT rig spec'ed out - and my season has been over for barely 2 weeks!
 
I got 15 days in at Whistler/Blackcomb this year over 2 trips (I live in Toronto). Each time I took my quiver with me: Peak78s (177cm) for frontside and Jimi110s (171cm) if there was any chance I was getting off the groomers and into the alpine. I skied on the Peaks twice on my January trip, didn't even take them out of the bag first week of April. The new ski will be for hiking ridges and doing some (proper) ski touring.
 
I've all but settled on getting a pair of Tyfoons. I've narrowed down my binding choices to Marker Duke 16 or Fritschl Freeride Pro AT. Based on recommends from Foon himself and a good friend living in Vancouver who put the AT bug in my ear when we skied in January, the Dukes are the way to go. Benefits are I will be able to keep my alpine boots for now. Cons are they both said they are heavy. The Fritschls seem to be the only other  binding wide enough for the Tyfoon.
 
Me: 5' 11", 195lbs. Peak78s on DIN 10, Jimis110s on DIN 8 (might push them to DIN 9 next year).
 
I'm interested in hearing your comments on the Duke 16 vs Fritschl Freeride Pro AT. The 12 DIN should be sufficient. But I'll be doing run-outs on groomed cat tracks and blasting through avalanche debris on WB so maybe the beefier Duke 16 would be better? My friend runs his Dukes on 9 and he's a very strong skier with lots of BC experience - front, side and back.
 
I reckon I'll start hunting for a pair of last year's on sale soon, order the ski and ship the bindings to Foon to mount them. In the interim, I'll continue plotting for next year - and looking for avalanche safety courses and building a proper backcountry kit! I won't be sporting it around WB though ;-)
 
Thanks in advance, have a good one.
 

Edited by Canuk1w1 - 4/26/12 at 11:13am
post #2 of 21

I have both.  The FF are lighter and tour a little better, but the Dukes ski much better and have a much beefier feel. 

Get the smallest ones that will fit your boots.

 

http://www.bentgate.com/marker-duke-16-ski-binding.html?AdID=331--7616L1

post #3 of 21

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SHREDHEAD View Post

...The FF are lighter and tour a little better, but the Dukes ski much better and have a much beefier feel...

 

That's it in a nutshell.  

post #4 of 21
Thread Starter 

Thanks both of you for the feedback, exactly what I wanted to know.

 

I'm leaning towards the Dukes since I'll be doing primarily sidecountry stuff (hiking ridges) so I reckon the extra weight of the Markers would help turn a short, 2/3 day into a bit more of a workout if that. At nearly 200lbs I really don't think it'll make that much of a difference to my knees and I'd rather have the downhill performance of the Markers.

 

Thanks again!

post #5 of 21

Can I muck up the waters a bit and suggest the Salomon Guardian/  Atomic traker OR the Ty Adrenelin It seems to be a slightly better Duke: lower stand height, more metal.

 

http://www.salomonfreeski.com/us/minisites/guardian/

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEZFP1eVoVo&list=UUr-sLO5pG47yAR-tSo88u6A&index=3&feature=plcp

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Finndog - 4/30/12 at 10:43am
post #6 of 21
Thread Starter 

Thanks Finndog. If i can 't find one of last year's at discount (they're almost all sold out...) I'll take a serious look at one of these. 

 

I'm also intrigued by the new Head/Tyrolia offering:

 

http://www.epicski.com/products/2013-tyrolia-adrenaline-16-bindings/reviews

 

The Marker/Salomon offering has track record on its side (though last years seems to be a bad production run - several reports of failures?) but I ski on Head boots if that'd make a difference?

 

Cons on the Adrenaline are that it'd be like buying first production run of a car or beta software - they're still working the bugs out... But after watching the video, I'm leaning even more to the Head/Tyrolia Adrenaline. It can switch between modes without removing the ski, the 14-degree angle beats the Marker (7 degree max I think?) and it seems all-around easier to adjust.

 

I've muddied the waters some more! 

 

 


Edited by Canuk1w1 - 4/30/12 at 10:53am
post #7 of 21

My understanding the early development issues with the Guardian have been long ago resolved.  the Tyrolia binding is a little different and I do like the tintinal interface's. The toe seems a little different too. I can't find a good comparison but there's got to be one, maybe over on TGR.

post #8 of 21
Thread Starter 

I did a google search and TGR does have a discussion about both the Salomon/Atomic vs. the t4rh Tyrolia/Head. FWIW, Marker has redesigned the Duke for next year, making it wider.

 

I'll need to get my propeller-cap on and do a proper compare. the Salomon video is a bit long but has lots of good info. It may be a better design - TGR folks have some issues with the Tyrolia in that it came out of nowhere while Salomon has been working on theirs for several years and multiple prototypes. There's also a couple of complaints that the Tyrolia feels a bit lightweight by comparison but that could be due to their using more plastics/composites. It does weigh-in a bit lighter.

 

Both seem to have addressed the main design flaw in the Marker (breaking the toe piece) by allowing 90 degrees of travel and can be set from free float to locked-in heel without removing the ski.

 

I'm hoping Tyrolia will do some tests in the southern hemisphere ths summer so we have on snow reviews by this fall. Seems like it came straight from the lab to SIA. Also, nice to see they aren't trying to pass 'titanal' off as 'titanium' any more!

 

 

post #9 of 21

I posted up on the ty thread (boatbound) - can you link me to the head-2-head comparison? ty's been making bindings for a very long time so I have to think they have the edge to R&D in that it shouldn't take them 6 years as Sali is claiming....  more to come I am sure

post #10 of 21
Thread Starter 

G'day Finndog. I was summarizing the thread thinking you were heading for your boat - then I get to the end, re-read your post and I get it - Doh! I didn't find a head-2-head compare, I am doing my own. This'll become more detailed and let me knwo what other things I should consider please - especially when you get a reply to your 'boatbound' post.

 

 

 

No proper head-2-head but there's lots of discussion about the relative merits/drawbacks of each. Seems reasonably measured as well - at least as of yesterday.

 

1. Stand Height: Tyrolia (36mm), Sali (26mm)

2. Weight: Tyrolia (2.6kg), Sali (2.9kg)

3. Tyrolia use a (modified?) railflex, Sali uses a spring-loaded design

4. Tyrolia sliding AFD can accept AT boots (this may be tied in to 

5. Tyrolia lighter (due to use of "plastics"), Sali uses primarily metal

 

- post #25 puts some previous comments about the Adrenaline seeming "cheap" and "lightweight" in perspective but this is the one raising the issue about the amount of R&D Sali put in versus Tyrolia. Head say in their mktg video they use titanal, that could account for some of the weight difference.

 

Head have done a good job with their marketing video - Sali is talking up the 6 years it took them to design the thing with a 30 minute video. Head take just over three minutes:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSsQIFZm_y4&feature=colike

 

Still waiting for an on-snow review of the Tyrolias...

 

 

post #11 of 21

36 vs 26 does it for me!  I 'll take the extra 300 grams in the overall scheme of things. Since it's may,do you know the new Duke stand height?

post #12 of 21
Thread Starter 

Pretty sure stand height for the new Duke is 34mm.

 

I'm still leaning (slightly) to the Tyrolia. I'll have to research the effect of stand height on a powder ski. My "carvers" are raised but my Jimis are flat-mounted. 1cm does seem a fair bit - maybe a sacrifice of powder performance for frontside carving ability? Your thoughts?

post #13 of 21

Yeah, I got some thoughts! biggrin.gif  why would you want AT capability for a groomer ski?  you don't need them for that. Just looked up jesters and the stand height is 22mm, so the 26 is about the best you are going to get unless you go the route of tech's (which are superior of course)

 

 

post #14 of 21
Thread Starter 

Good rebut, I've gotta request a recess.

 

My guess (it's just that...) is they've skewed performance for someone that wants to do the occasional hike but will be mostly skiing in bounds - Harmony and Symphony, the Glacier etc. Lot's of cat tracks and usually a groomer to run out to the chair. But...

 

I just checked the stand height on my Mojo 15s and it's 17mm! So much for that theory!

 

Sounds like something I need to put to a a CSIA level 4 examiner that I know - actually I'll ask a few semi-pro skiers and see what they come back with over the next few days. I know a couple of guys that are sponsored by Head so will put the question to them too (I'll also send direct to Head and Tyrolia and see what they come back with.)

 

1. Why such a high stand height for the Adrenaline when Sali's offering sits at 26mm and their own Mojo 15 is sporting a 17mm stand height?

2. What advantages does one get with the higher stand height?

3. Is the torsional rigidity of the Adreniline rig higher than that of the competition by enough to offset this increased stand height?

 

If anyone can provide a direct email to one of their product or technical types that'd be great, else feel free to send and then report back with answers if you have a personal relationship you can leverage at either.

 

post #15 of 21

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuk1w1 View Post

Good rebut, I've gotta request a recess.

 

My guess (it's just that...) is they've skewed performance for someone that wants to do the occasional hike but will be mostly skiing in bounds - Harmony and Symphony, the Glacier etc. Lot's of cat tracks and usually a groomer to run out to the chair. But... this and similar bindings are for folks who ski promarily off piste (90% plus) and do tour. In fact there are many who use a duke or similar as their dedicated rig's. If you are just using this occasionally off piste I don't know if this is what you want.

 

I just checked the stand height on my Mojo 15s and it's 17mm! So much for that theory!

 

Sounds like something I need to put to a a CSIA level 4 examiner that I know - actually I'll ask a few semi-pro skiers and see what they come back with over the next few days. I know a couple of guys that are sponsored by Head so will put the question to them too (I'll also send direct to Head and Tyrolia and see what they come back with.)

 

1. Why such a high stand height for the Adrenaline when Sali's offering sits at 26mm and their own Mojo 15 is sporting a 17mm stand height?- because of the railing that's needed in order to link the toe and heel piece. No real way around that short of going to a Dyna tech binding.

2. What advantages does one get with the higher stand height?- in general, a higher stand height provides more leverage; easier to get on edge- this is why you see riser plates on SL and some race skis. The disadvantage is that it can make an off-piste ski more prone to deflection and less laterally stable givne the terrain you are skiing.

3. Is the torsional rigidity of the Adreniline rig higher than that of the competition by enough to offset this increased stand height?- again, not really one in the same,. yes, the higher the more prone to deflection however, the torsional rigidity is important to all bindings regardless of the stand height 

 

If anyone can provide a direct email to one of their product or technical types that'd be great, else feel free to send and then report back with answers if you have a personal relationship you can leverage at either.

 

 

 

post #16 of 21
Thread Starter 

Thanks Finndog. These will be primarily for off piste. For those days when the Alpine is closed, I'll be riding the Jimis. These Tyfoons are for bombing the bowls and hiking ridges to get fresh pow.

 

And thanks also for the clarification re: torsional rigidity, lateral stability was the term I should have used and that is a product of the width of the platform and the stand height.

 

My question to the "experts" now becomes:

 

All else being equal; 

1) could one feel a difference between a 26mm and a 36mm stand height?

2) will the extra 7mm width under foot of my new ski mitigate this?

 

My gut feel is that a linear increase in stand height would require an exponential increase in width to counter the added instability but I'll have to dig out my old physics textbooks and get back to speed on calculating angular momentum and vectors. Beer and pizza time!

post #17 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuk1w1 View Post

Thanks Finndog. These will be primarily for off piste. For those days when the Alpine is closed, I'll be riding the Jimis. These Tyfoons are for bombing the bowls and hiking ridges to get fresh pow.

 

 

I still don't get why you want a touring binding.  Hiking <> Touring.  If you're not putting skins on, then you don't need a touring binding, period.  If you want the option of someday putting skins on and going into the backcountry/sidecountry, then that's fine.  But if not, there's no reason not to get a regular alpine binding.

 

Edit.  Saw this in your first post "The new ski will be for hiking ridges and doing some (proper) ski touring."  So, maybe I'm off base.  If so, just ignore me.

post #18 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaobrien6 View Post

 

I still don't get why you want a touring binding.  Hiking <> Touring.  If you're not putting skins on, then you don't need a touring binding, period.  If you want the option of someday putting skins on and going into the backcountry/sidecountry, then that's fine.  But if not, there's no reason not to get a regular alpine binding.

 

Edit.  Saw this in your first post "The new ski will be for hiking ridges and doing some (proper) ski touring."  So, maybe I'm off base.  If so, just ignore me.

 

No problem. I really should have said they will be for exclusive off piste use! And yes, I will be putting skins on them. I wanted to hike to the far side of Symphony last month but gave up 10 mins in - snow was too deep to go in just my boots and it was tough going locked in so i just did a few more laps in the chopped up powder. With an AT rig, I would have had 15-20 minute hike up but then really nice fresh lines!

 

Maybe we should both be posting to the "What are you drinking now" thread wot? beercheer.gif

post #19 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuk1w1 View Post

Thanks Finndog. These will be primarily for off piste. For those days when the Alpine is closed, I'll be riding the Jimis. These Tyfoons are for bombing the bowls and hiking ridges to get fresh pow.

 

And thanks also for the clarification re: torsional rigidity, lateral stability was the term I should have used and that is a product of the width of the platform and the stand height.

 

My question to the "experts" now becomes:

 

All else being equal; 

1) could one feel a difference between a 26mm and a 36mm stand height?-  yes- that's quite a bit of height difference. 

2) will the extra 7mm width under foot of my new ski mitigate this?-  not really in off-piste - what are you looking for in the ski?  on groomers it could actually help with the wider ski's carvaeability (higher stance = more leverage)

 

My gut feel is that a linear increase in stand height would require an exponential increase in width to counter the added instability but I'll have to dig out my old physics textbooks and get back to speed on calculating angular momentum and vectors. Beer and pizza time!-  Yeah, I prefer to discuss skiing and not physics, its a buzz-kill for me

post #20 of 21

I ski the older Dukes and they ski just fine. The only problem I've had with the stand height is the brake arm length.   I ski big skis and in some terrain/snow conditions, the brakes won't stop a big heavy ski.

post #21 of 21

yep, but that goes for alpines as well. objects in motion.....  icon14.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by SHREDHEAD View Post

I ski the older Dukes and they ski just fine. The only problem I've had with the stand height is the brake arm length.   I ski big skis and in some terrain/snow conditions, the brakes won't stop a big heavy ski.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Backcountry, Telemark, and Cross Country › Comments on Marker Duke 16 vs Marker F12 for new AT rig