or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Coming for 2016: MARKER KINGPIN
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Coming for 2016: MARKER KINGPIN - Page 2

post #31 of 45

I have often taken my skins off after twisting the Dynafit heel to downhill mode and locking the heel in; it is easy with skins than have a tip loop (G3, Ascension, etc.); just bring the ski up, grab the rear attachment or trailing edge of the skin, and rip--I'm only 5'8" and I've done it with skis from 178 cm to 187 cm.  Does not work, for me, with Dynafit skins which require grasping the front rubber thing and pulling from the front.

 

If I know I will be skinning hard snow I will often use ski crampons and will always use a B&D leash that allow one to step out of the ski and still have it under control to remove crampons and skins on steep, firm snow slopes.

 

I'm waiting to see a comparison of the new Beast 14 with the Kingpin--I suspect I will be choosing one or another to replace the Look PX12 XXL on my Moment Bibby Pros so I can use those fully as a lift-served deep snow side country ski.

post #32 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Lindahl View Post
 

 

Really wish they had a 16-DIN version of this binding, or at least 14-DIN. I'd be bumping up against the end of the range, since I run my Dukes at 13. Would really be stoked on this binding, otherwise.

 

I wonder if this had anything to do with DIN certification, easier on a lower DIN range? Absolutely only speculation, but it's clear to me this would be trying to go after the beast with the heel piece they came up with, not sure why a squire/griffon version instead of a griffon/jester equivalent which seems clear to reach a much bigger market share

post #33 of 45

My 2cents:

 

I got to try my new Marker Duke's last July, skinned up/ skied down a bit for a couple of trial and errors.  The bindings seemed to work fine.  I intend to use them pretty much in the Backcountry next winter, maybe by the end of next season after I've spent a lot of time on the things, I'll give some input on 'em here @ Epic Ski.  If I remember- HA HA

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post
 

^^ I'm not sure what Marker Dukes have to do with their new tech binding?  Was that a typo?

JayT:

 

No it wasn't a typo, just me being confused.  I guess the new Kingpin bindings are in a somewhat different category than the Dukes's and are somewhat of a different animal. 

My Goof...

post #34 of 45

The Tech toe with 16 DI will be a recipe for the broken knee, you might as well lock the binding.  Unlike alpine toes, a tech toe has zero elasticity, which makes a huge difference in how/when the binding releases.  It's great to see Marker providing some real competition to Dynafit/Plum products.

 

In my (very uneducated) judgement its a backcountry binding that you can (occasionally) ski at a resort, whereas Duke and clones are a resort binding that you can occasionally ski in the backcountry.  There is still no product that can do both things equally well, and I doubt there will ever be something like it.  Of course the logic says that most people should be quite happy with Duke family, but of course having a tech binding looks way cooler in the lift line, so I bet we will see a lot of the Kingpins around.   

post #35 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

The Tech toe with 16 DI will be a recipe for the broken knee, you might as well lock the binding.   

The release value (DIN) isn't set in/by the toe piece, it's set in/by the heel - both forward and lateral, and the toe pins just hold on with the same constant tension regardless of what the heel is set at.

https://www.wildsnow.com/14363/marker-kingpin-binding-review/
post #36 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post
 

The Tech toe with 16 DI will be a recipe for the broken knee, you might as well lock the binding.  Unlike alpine toes, a tech toe has zero elasticity, which makes a huge difference in how/when the binding releases.  It's great to see Marker providing some real competition to Dynafit/Plum products.

 

In my (very uneducated) judgement its a backcountry binding that you can (occasionally) ski at a resort, whereas Duke and clones are a resort binding that you can occasionally ski in the backcountry.  There is still no product that can do both things equally well, and I doubt there will ever be something like it.  Of course the logic says that most people should be quite happy with Duke family, but of course having a tech binding looks way cooler in the lift line, so I bet we will see a lot of the Kingpins around.   

All the release is done from the the heel, the toes don't have any DIN settings, with the exception of the Vipec.

post #37 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lee View Post


The release value (DIN) isn't set in/by the toe piece, it's set in/by the heel - both forward and lateral, and the toe pins just hold on with the same constant tension regardless of what the heel is set at.

https://www.wildsnow.com/14363/marker-kingpin-binding-review/

My bad.  Still, without any elasticity, I don't know whether Din 16 would makes any difference from 13 or 14.  Again, a very uneducated guess at this point. 

post #38 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lee View Post

The release value (DIN) isn't set in/by the toe piece, it's set in/by the heel - both forward and lateral, and the toe pins just hold on with the same constant tension regardless of what the heel is set at.

https://www.wildsnow.com/14363/marker-kingpin-binding-review/

My bad.  Still, without any elasticity, I don't know whether Din 16 would makes any difference from 13 or 14.  Again, a very uneducated guess at this point. 

Well, elasticity is kind of the holy grail for tech bindings (sales) at this time. Dynafits are kind of notorous for not having much. Marker claims that the nature of their heel piece gives their system elasticity, and Black Diamond's Vipec has a toe piece that they claim gives elasticity. It seems to be a major sales point for the new crop of tech bindings.

I haven't skied either of those bindings, and I have a current policy against buying touring bindings for at least a year or two after their initial release, so I can't comment from experience. But I ski fairly conservatively in the bc and don't use tech bindings as a matter of course in bounds, so I haven't found elasticity to be a huge value to me. And in fact, I wonder about this whole "one setup quiver" notion, at least as it would apply to inbounds/touring setups. At the current state of development, there seems to be compromises to both missions.
post #39 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lee View Post


Well, elasticity is kind of the holy grail for tech bindings (sales) at this time. Dynafits are kind of notorous for not having much. Marker claims that the nature of their heel piece gives their system elasticity, and Black Diamond's Vipec has a toe piece that they claim gives elasticity. It seems to be a major sales point for the new crop of tech bindings.

I haven't skied either of those bindings, and I have a current policy against buying touring bindings for at least a year or two after their initial release, so I can't comment from experience. But I ski fairly conservatively in the bc and don't use tech bindings as a matter of course in bounds, so I haven't found elasticity to be a huge value to me. And in fact, I wonder about this whole "one setup quiver" notion, at least as it would apply to inbounds/touring setups. At the current state of development, there seems to be compromises to both missions.

It is all about side country and freeskiing in the bc.  Backcountry alpine touring will opt for the lightest weight.  I might very well buy the Kingpin or the Beast 14 to replace the Look PX12s on my Bibby Pros if I get the itch to take them far enough out of bounds that I need skins to get back.  I bought Dynafit Cho Oyus and mounted them with Speed Radicals (not even brakes) for my everyday bc--their combined weight with skins is less than the Bibbys naked.  I have Volkl Nanuqs and Dynafit Stokes mounted with Verticals/STs (brakes) for deep & really bad snow days--not sure which of these too will get the most or much use; Stokes will probably be a lift-served bc/sidecountry ski.  I have friends that freeski (hi-speed descents, hucks, jumps, forward flips, etc.) in the bc that use ordinary Dynafits and I suspect that at least some of these people will upgrade to either Kingpin or Beast--the weight gain will not be that great (given ski, skin, and FT weights they already use--skis heavier than I use).

post #40 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Carey View Post
 

It is all about side country and freeskiing in the bc.  

Hmm. For me, it's about having one ski that I can take on a trip and if things go as planned, slap some skins on, or if they don't, charge the lifts. Because with our climate going down the toilet, it's less and less certain what we'll find when we go on a trip, especially if it has to be arranged months in advance. Now this sounds like an ad for Dukes or such. Except that they have few of the virtues of a real tech design, but still feel a lot less precise and solid than an alpine on edge at speed. So a tech binding that can handle some piste well, not just survive it, would have great value to me. My knees vote for elasticity, too, even in the backcountry. Which is not perpetually fluffy and forgiving. 

post #41 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post
There is still no product that can do both things equally well, and I doubt there will ever be something like it.

 

I tend to agree with this.  I personally feel that the Guardian is close for my needs (and the Adrenaline from what I hear), but then again when it comes to the touring side of things part of the deal for me is wanting a hard workout so I don't mind the extra weight, kind of like a big climb on a full suspension mountain bike where you accept the added weight because of the improved ride down.

 

I did respect that Salomon pitched that binding as being all about the downhill and basically acknowledged that it wasn't as efficient for the ascent, whereas Marker claiming that the Kingpin is great for inbounds use kind of makes me roll my eyes.  (for the record I currently have three pairs of skis with Marker bindings so I'm not anti-Marker like some folks)

post #42 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

Hmm. For me, it's about having one ski that I can take on a trip and if things go as planned, slap some skins on, or if they don't, charge the lifts. Because with our climate going down the toilet, it's less and less certain what we'll find when we go on a trip, especially if it has to be arranged months in advance. Now this sounds like an ad for Dukes or such. Except that they have few of the virtues of a real tech design, but still feel a lot less precise and solid than an alpine on edge at speed. So a tech binding that can handle some piste well, not just survive it, would have great value to me. My knees vote for elasticity, too, even in the backcountry. Which is not perpetually fluffy and forgiving. 

I really think that you are describing something impossible and/or  impractical.  What's the value of a real light touring binding if you slap it on a heavy but stable ripping big mountain ski? Conversely, if you mount a light featherweight touring ski with a rock-solid Duke (or hypothetical next-gen Duke), will that make a lot of sense?  The Duke route certainly makes more sense for someone who spends 80+% lift-assisted.  If you are Chris Davenport, you need something like Kingpin, although its not clear that it has a huge advantage over Dynafits.  If you value elasticity (and you should) you have to go Duke (or clone) route.   And yes, backcountry is not always fluffy and forgiving, and that's where a heavy damp ski is worth its weight...  

 

Back to the Din 16 question- it is really unclear why people would ever need that.  In an alpine binding having a high tension spring has the benefit of giving less preload, does not apply for tech bindings.  You also need high DIN if you buck large cliffs.  I have a hard time imagining that in a real touring scenario, the risks are just too high if things go wrong (not that I've done it, but I'd imagine weight matters a lot less in a backcountry photo-shoot).  Sure, you need DIN 16 is you are 300lb, but I doubt you are into ski touring much at that point... 

post #43 of 45

Impossible, naw. Impractical, hard to say, maybe so. I never suggested a "heavy but stable" big mountain ski. And I was talking about a setup that could handle light, eg, day tours, sidecountry, groomers. I cast it as an issue of destination conditions, not habitual ratios of frontside to backside. As in, I'd like to spend five hours skinning near lift served, but the snow's crappy, so I decide to blast groomers. Or the reverse: I show up and it's just had a storm, the groomers get skied off fast, so I'm off to the OB for the afternoon. You see? Neither 6 day tours of Switzerland's huts, nor one run past the ropes, then back to the lifts and a beer. So I'd turn it around and say that most people who actually skin nowadays, rather than use a Duke cuz it's cool, only do so for part of a day, and are a more interested in the down than the up. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't love a tech setup that actually worked for serious downhill. The difference mechanically between a tech setup and AT is non-trivial; who wants to lift an entire binding every step if they could just lift their heel, and have a real pivot point where nature intended? 

 

All that in mind, IMO there are plenty of comparatively light chargers out there. The Stormrider 107 comes in at 3960 g in 183; the 100 is a mind-blowing 3640 g at 182, and no one ever accused Stocklis of being twitchy in bad snow. Praxis makes some very highly regarded big mountain models that are under 3900 g. The Fat-ypus D-Sender is stiff, likes to go fast, and weighs under 3,800 g at 184. And if you like the DPS feel, well, couple to choose from that are stiff. ON3P or Prior or PM Gear can build you a fat stiff ski that comes in under 3900 g. The list goes on. 

 

As far as DIN, not clear why preloads are less significant. The heels in a tech binding take the place of the toe. So a high DIN tech binding will be desirable because of the beefier heel springs, if the skier is a big guy (as in, over 200). Recall that F=Ma, so if a guy at 220 is going to charge heavy snow on the backside, he'll want both elasticity and the ability not to launch. Ever follow Thin Cover's travails over at TGR? He was about 220-230 at the time of his first accident, I believe, now about 240. And plenty of guys well over 200 there who do serious touring. 

post #44 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

Ever follow Thin Cover's travails over at TGR? He was about 220-230 at the time of his first accident, I believe, now about 240. And plenty of guys well over 200 there who do serious touring. 

 

Yeesh.  Let's not even go there with this discussion.  That whole thing was... :-(

post #45 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

Impossible, naw. Impractical, hard to say, maybe so. I never suggested a "heavy but stable" big mountain ski. And I was talking about a setup that could handle light, eg, day tours, sidecountry, groomers. I cast it as an issue of destination conditions, not habitual ratios of frontside to backside. As in, I'd like to spend five hours skinning near lift served, but the snow's crappy, so I decide to blast groomers. Or the reverse: I show up and it's just had a storm, the groomers get skied off fast, so I'm off to the OB for the afternoon. You see? Neither 6 day tours of Switzerland's huts, nor one run past the ropes, then back to the lifts and a beer. So I'd turn it around and say that most people who actually skin nowadays, rather than use a Duke cuz it's cool, only do so for part of a day, and are a more interested in the down than the up. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't love a tech setup that actually worked for serious downhill. The difference mechanically between a tech setup and AT is non-trivial; who wants to lift an entire binding every step if they could just lift their heel, and have a real pivot point where nature intended? 

 

All that in mind, IMO there are plenty of comparatively light chargers out there. The Stormrider 107 comes in at 3960 g in 183; the 100 is a mind-blowing 3640 g at 182, and no one ever accused Stocklis of being twitchy in bad snow. Praxis makes some very highly regarded big mountain models that are under 3900 g. The Fat-ypus D-Sender is stiff, likes to go fast, and weighs under 3,800 g at 184. And if you like the DPS feel, well, couple to choose from that are stiff. ON3P or Prior or PM Gear can build you a fat stiff ski that comes in under 3900 g. The list goes on. 

 

As far as DIN, not clear why preloads are less significant. The heels in a tech binding take the place of the toe. So a high DIN tech binding will be desirable because of the beefier heel springs, if the skier is a big guy (as in, over 200). Recall that F=Ma, so if a guy at 220 is going to charge heavy snow on the backside, he'll want both elasticity and the ability not to launch. Ever follow Thin Cover's travails over at TGR? He was about 220-230 at the time of his first accident, I believe, now about 240. And plenty of guys well over 200 there who do serious touring. 

:popcorn  I wait and see.  To me it really does not look like a realistic goal, we probably end up with a jack of all trades master on none ski/binding combo, but I am willing to give that a shot.   I'd be loath to put any kind of touring binding on an SR107, its just such a good ski that it deserves a solid connection to the boot, but if I had unlimited $$ for a side country setup  that ski would be on my short list. There is a Kastle/Adrenalin setup for sale in the GearSwap that is quite drool-worthy (at least in my eyes), but I don't get into side country nearly enough to justify even thinking about it.  I have a pair of Dukes mounted on ProRiders which are just about the heaviest ski possible, and that for now serves as my "BC" setup.  Pathetic.  

 

I just re-read the Wildsnow review.  Its interesting that Marker positions these bindings as the quiver of one.  This is what they did with the Duke rollout as well.  Obvioulsy that was not the whole story back them, and probably not the whole story this time.  But I am sure there is a group of people who these bindings may fit to a T, I just don't know how big that group is. 


Edited by alexzn - 9/7/14 at 10:13pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Coming for 2016: MARKER KINGPIN