Marker ID - Demo Version and reverse compatibilty

[Breomonkey]

To further dive into modernization of the quiver for MNC compatibility, who's got a lead on availability of the Demo version of the Griffon ID binding? It's listed on their site, but I'm not seeing them anywhere!

Previously I confirmed via this forum that the new ID series uses the same mount pattern as the past. Can any techs that have hands on experience with the DemoID version confirm if the fit the old mount tracks? I assume they're using the same brakes as well since I'm not seeing new brake info out there.

Thanks all!

[gregL]

All of the Griffon demo bindings at this year's SIA and WWSRA demos had WTR-only toes (they would not let you use ISO 9523 soles in them). All the Griffon demos in our fleet were the same. Can you post a link for a Marker Sole.ID Griffon demo?

[galibier_numero_un]

Another point you'll find discussed over the past few weeks in the Lange XT-130 Freetour thread and elsewhere is reference to how the Marker heels of recent vintage have very little lip on them. The result is that they have a history of deforming the heels of Grilamid and other softer plastic boots.

My only experience with this was an OG pair of Marker Dukes which mangled the heels of my Garmont Megarides. So, in the past 6-7 years, they've apparently not seen it important enough to correct.

Personally, I'd look into Salomon, Tyrolia and Look - this, from someone who used to be a big fan of Marker.

... Thom

[Spyderjon]

The 17/18 Jester/Griffon/Squire Demo bindings do not have ID toes. Their toes will only accept alpine/grip walk soles and not AT/WTR soles.

They also have a different mounting pattern so need the new jig ref W009P1T.

And the old toes/heels won't fit on the new rails as the new Demo system has a lever release for the length adjustment as opposed to the old worm drive.

[Breomonkey]

Thanks Jon. That's what i was look for. I could have swore it said they had a sole.id demo version on the marker sight, but a google turned up little to nothing.

GregL. WTR is all I'm looking for. Further reading and I'm confused as can be. Do the new marker ID's actually work with WTR? Seems if they can accommodate alpine norm and touring norm, you'd fit WTR somewhere in between.

[gregL]

Sorry Breomonkey, I just looked at a pair of Griffon Demos and they actually say "GripWalk" on the binding, not WTR. GripWalk is a proprietary Marker sole configuration that's a bit lower than a WTR or ISO 9523 sole, so I guess you are out of luck.

[Breomonkey]

GregL - I stand corrected, the first google hit yields this http://www.skis.com/Marker-Griffon-1...efault,pd.html and in the questions the clarify exactly what you are stating.

We can confirm that the STANDARD (non-demo) ID series is WTR compatible. Interestingly, Marker does not clearly state that. This solves the issue on one pair of skis I've got mounted with Markers at the moment without further drilling.

I think I'm pretty clear between gripwalk and WTR. IMHO, Gripwalk is the superior solution as it eliminates messing with toe height and allows the benefit of a semi-rockered sole leaving the binding adjustment fiddling for just moving over to ISO9523(AT). I'd love to hear the argument of WTR's advantage to Gripwalk.

This evolution of standards is a bit painful, but could be greatly eased as binding mfg's convert to MNC style toe pieces which can accommodate across the range. I'm a bit baffled as to why Salomon didn't just take the STH2 all the way to MNC land. At the surface it seems that would have been simpler than the design of the Warden toepiece. The only plausible thought I can come up with is they had sunk the R&D cost into that toe on the Guardians and figured leveraging it would allow them product line differentiation.

I see the binding world moving to a Gripwalk/WTR standard for 80% of the market. Race & High performance setups will stick with Alpine/ISO5355, AT will capture the other end of the spectrum.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. For most people, who have 1 maybe 2 sets of ski's this won't be a massive challenge. Shops will reco the binding that matches their boots and they'll move along. For those looking for broader compatibility across a range of disciplines, it will be a royal headache.

[gregL]

I'm a bit baffled as to why Salomon didn't just take the STH2 all the way to MNC land.

They probably have their reasons, but it is mysterious given the history of 9xx series toes (which used to have moving AFD's). When I posted here about no Warden 16 option an Amer employee told me it was an engineering problem (they tried 16 springs in some athlete toes and they broke the housing).

I see the binding world moving to a Gripwalk/WTR standard for 80% of the market. Race & High performance setups will stick with Alpine/ISO5355, AT will capture the other end of the spectrum.

Yes, the binding manufacturers need to sit down and hammer this out - non-race bindings that max at DIN 12 or higher should work with the full range of sole types from a 19mm high ISO 5355 to a 30mm high (or so, the spec allows up to 33mm) ISO 9523.

[1000-oaks]

My only experience with this was an OG pair of Marker Dukes which mangled the heels of my Garmont Megarides. So, in the past 6-7 years, they've apparently not seen it important enough to correct.

I used to run Barons with Typhoon/Skookums and knew of this issue, so I filed down the contact area on the Baron heel lip a bit to increase the load-bearing surface area. It worked, didn't dig into the Pebax much at all. Just need to file both sides as evenly as you can, and at the right angle. (Clamp the boot in the binding, then draw a horizontal line on the sides of the heel piece so you know what angle to hold the file.)