Dynafit FT vs. ST - Why the huge $$$ difference?

[Chainsaw_Willie]

What's with the huge price diffrence between the ST & FT? Is the extra 2 points DIN really worth that?

I ski at DIN 10 anyway, so for me would there really be any advantage to spending the extra on the FTs?

The STs are considerably lighter, too. Does that mean they're less durable?

[gregL]

The extra material connecting the toe and heel are probably there for psychological effect (ie. to convince people who need or think they need more than a 10 RV that the binding is trustworthy). The extra stuff does nothing for durability. Next year's Radical FT reportedly has some "ski stiffening" hardware incorporated into the connecting piece, but if you have no problem staying in with the bindings set at 10, just get the ST.

If you think you need more retention, I would be inclined to look at these:

http://www.fixation-plum.com/detail-...uit=30&lang=en

[Meadow Skipper]

...just get the ST.

QFT

.....

[Jonathan S.]

The STs are considerably lighter, too.

FT & ST have virtually the same weight. Any differential you're seeing is probably because it's the ST version sold without ski brakes.

[harpo-the-skier]

The FT has a burlier heel post (the post the heel piece rotates on) and the 110mm brake version has burlier toe springs too. Lou did a detailed review of the differneces a season or two ago.

[Jonathan S.]

The FT has a burlier heel post (the post the heel piece rotates on) [...]. Lou did a detailed review of the differneces a season or two ago.

See my comment at the end of that post of his: he actually messed up that part of the comparison, since he was comparing bindings from different seasons, and the ST got the same every-so-slightly more filled-in base of the heel post the same season that the FT12 received it.

[farmer]

the "power plate" or whatever it is called; that plastic piece that goes around the toepiece to widen the footprint, is actually wider on the ST than the FT, as noted in Lou's (I think, it might be on here) recent comments on the breakage of the FT by that french guy.

I'd go with the ST. In fact, I really don't know why I bought the FT, other than that I ski at 10 and didn't really want to have to max it out, and I couldn't get the ST /w brakes for the price that I got the FT w/ them on black friday. (mainly because of the brakes, actually)

[PhilM]

Not entirely related but does anyone know if they're going to bring out a high DIN dynafit style binding, or will I just have to keep suffering with Dukes?
Cheers

[bfree]

Not entirely related but does anyone know if they're going to bring out a high DIN dynafit style binding, or will I just have to keep suffering with Dukes?
Cheers

How "high" DIN are you talking? If you need it much over 12, you're probably missing the point of these bindings.

[Chainsaw_Willie]

Thanks for the input. Was planning to buy a pair of fat touring skis (Voile Chargers) to complement the 179 Bros I have now, but it seems I've broken one of the bros so will just recycle the comforts from them onto whatever I buy now (not going with the Chargers as my only touring ski).

[PhilM]

How "high" DIN are you talking? If you need it much over 12, you're probably missing the point of these bindings.

Not talking crazy high, but I run my DIN at 13; so if they did a 14-16ish DIN version and beefed it up a tad, I'd be interested.