EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Disadvantages to Marker Duke and Barrons?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Disadvantages to Marker Duke and Barrons? - Page 2

post #31 of 53
If im doing big hucks with the barons or dukes, will the free-heel come loose?
post #32 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallumBC View Post

If im doing big hucks with the barons or dukes, will the free-heel come loose?

Only if you are falling.
post #33 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoffda View Post

The Duke and the Baron both have 0mm of ramp angle when set up for a normal Alpine boot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by geoffda View Post

There is a very long thread on TGR about this very subject.  See: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120776&highlight=duke+delta and quite a few folks noted that they had problems adjusting to the 0mm delta.  Others didn't notice the difference.  YMMV.

Measuring the heel height of the Marker Baron. The caliper shows nearly 38mm.
Measuring the toe height of the Marker Baron. The caliper shows 35mm.

Atomic RT CS in Marker Baron.

*sigh*.

Delta.

And if anyone wants to comment on the imperfectly vertical caliper...  I say go measure your own Dukes/Barons and see if those measurements still stand.  (It's been measured and re-measured.  I'm just not inclined to take another picture and upload it again.)

Notes:

1) The bindings are mounted perfectly flat.  I mean perfectly flat.  As in the slight flaring of the binding hole that occurs when the screw is first installed and the threads are cut is chiseled flat with a sharpened chisel to ensure that the bindings really sit on the surface of the ski.  This is actually not the case with many of the shop-installations, as few even try.  Many don't even countersink in an attempt to counter the flaring.

2) The boot is an unused (no wear whatsoever) Atomic RT CS, size 24.5.  The AFD height was set using Marker's method to-the-letter, which is a specifically-marked strip off of the Duke/Baron instruction sheet that you fold in half to approximate 0.5mm.



TGR can be a source of good info, and it could be full of crap... like any other forum.  Just recently somebody swore that the Dynastar Big Trouble did not have any metal, and that a 3.6mm bit should be used.  I drill.  Lo and behold, metal.

*****

Addenum:  So I'm reading the TGR thread and trying to understand why so many people would be in this mass delusion, all chiming in about how the Duke had zero ramp angle.  This post explained it all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by critical-motion View Post
Just measured some unmounted dukes with calipers. I get 0mm ramp angle, measuring the distance from the mounting surface of the binding to the surface on which the boot sits. That would explain why I haven't been able to exert the same shin pressure on my boots as with PX12 binders, damn! Thanks for prompting me to measure.

So all this is to-do is about a mistake.  A failure to notice that the Duke/Baron's rear plate keeps the frame about 1.5mm off the surface of the ski, which makes sense as there is no reason to drag the frame over the ski surface, as it would make locking down the Duke/Baron impossible (not just hard) with even the lightest snow contamination.  The correct delta of 2-3mm for an alpine DIN sole would have been measured had the bindings been mounted.  The correct delta could have been measured with an unmounted binding, but that would require having the plate in the frame. He/they probably just measured bindings that were pulled from a box.  However, even then he/they should have gotten a delta of ~1mm.
Edited by DtEW - 1/3/10 at 10:26pm
post #34 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallumBC View Post

If im doing big hucks with the barons or dukes, will the free-heel come loose?

Mine did off of a pretty small one the other day. And no I didn't fall, but insta tele was interesting!
post #35 of 53
For those of you that have these, do you use them with AT or alpine boots? I'm hoping I can use mine with alpine boots to access stashes < 1hr skinning and the rest of the time as an inbounds/resort binding.
post #36 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by narc View Post

For those of you that have these, do you use them with AT or alpine boots? .....

Both, but I'll frequently put the ISO sole on my AT boots as the release is more consistent than with the Vibram sole (Garmont Adrenaline).
post #37 of 53
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallumBC View Post

If im doing big hucks with the barons or dukes, will the free-heel come loose?

Mine did off of a pretty small one the other day. And no I didn't fall, but insta tele was interesting!

 


thats what i'm worried about, to be honest im probably just going to go with the safe bet of some jesters...tah :)
post #38 of 53
 If by saying your heel "came loose" you mean it went into free heel mode then something is seriously wrong with your binding.  The plate cannot release when the boot is in the binding unless the binding is physically broken.
post #39 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDevil63 View Post

 If by saying your heel "came loose" you mean it went into free heel mode then something is seriously wrong with your binding.  The plate cannot release when the boot is in the binding unless the binding is physically broken.

There is definitely something seriously wrong with your bindings if you insta-teled.  I cant see any way on my barons that would cause an insta-tele short of physical damage to the mounting plates or the lever attachment plate/screw. 

I would think that you would notice damage like that before you stepped into the binding.  The whole binding would be sliding forward and backward freely on the mounting plates which I don't think you could miss.
post #40 of 53
My Dukes have been great this year. Held up to some decent repeated hucks(15'-20') to hard pack. I also have several days of park skiing on my Dukes with no problems.
post #41 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post

I see that some people here are not familiar with AT binding crampons for direct fall line climbing on hard snow, although I don't think Maker makes one for the Duke or Baron.

Skins are for wimps!

They do indeed make a crampon...

Also: "Ski crampons make no sense. If I don't want to ski down an icy slope, then why on earth would I want to climb UP it?"

This presupposes no change in conditions throughout the day. Lots of times, in spring particularly, the snow is rock hard in the morning, but soft two hours later after the climb is done. To be in position for the ideal descent, sometimes you have to climb on hard snow.

Taxman: you say you've used both soles? What does Marker say about using vibram soles, anyone know?
post #42 of 53
You might give the Fritschi Freerides consideration.
A lot of SAR teams use them because they're light, simple to use and reliable.
post #43 of 53
There's never been much love for the Naxo around here. Any sense of whether they've improved recently?
post #44 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by prickly View Post

There's never been much love for the Naxo around here. Any sense of whether they've improved recently?

I wouldn't look for improvements or increased Naxo love - they're history:
http://www.wildsnow.com/1757/naxo-binding-discontinued/
post #45 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powder4West View Post

You might give the Fritschi Freerides consideration.
A lot of SAR teams use them because they're light, simple to use and reliable.

If you go this route, make sure you get the newer (last three years) Freeride PLUS.  They ski much more solidly than the first generation Fritschi Freerides.
post #46 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post

If you go this route, make sure you get the newer (last three years) Freeride PLUS.  They ski much more solidly than the first generation Fritschi Freerides.

Wasn't there a-year-or-few of Fritschis practically coining the term "insta-tele"?
post #47 of 53
Interesting about the Naxo. It always looked like such a promising design. Strange they couldn't make a go of it and sort out quality issues. There's still something missing between the Fritschis and the Markers, I think.
post #48 of 53
The new Marker Tour may be the answer, it'll be released for the 2010-11 season. Half the weight of the Dukes.

http://www.marker-tour.com/
post #49 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by prickly View Post

Taxman: you say you've used both soles? What does Marker say about using vibram soles, anyone know?
 


Should be a question for the boot makers; Garmont et al.  I've used the Vibram sole on both Freeride and Duke bindings.  An AT binding should be designed to accomdodate both, hence the height adjustment on the toe piece.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage1 View Post

The new Marker Tour may be the answer, it'll be released for the 2010-11 season. Half the weight of the Dukes.

http://www.marker-tour.com/
 

A lighter Duke/Baron will still suffer from Frankenstride (as does the Freeride).  If weight is an issue, go Dynafit.
post #50 of 53

Evo is selling the taller Duke/Baron climbing bar for about $29, cheapest place I've found.

post #51 of 53

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000oaks View Post

Evo is selling the taller Duke/Baron climbing bar for about $29, cheapest place I've found.


How does that work?  Is it an extension, or a replacement?  Does the new bar have 2 settings?  Do you have a link to the page?

Thanks,

JF

post #52 of 53
post #53 of 53

A close friend skis the Dukes and has been doing so for 3 years now. Last year he skied 65 days and this year he already has 60 days in with an approximate ratio of 75% in bounds, 25% out of bounds. He still highly recommends the binding and has never mentioned excessive wear or failure.

 

Oh how nice it must be to be young and work at a resort

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 › Disadvantages to Marker Duke and Barrons?