I hate my dukes, from the guy who enabled many of you to put dukes on more skis

[khyber.pass]

Please go do your research.

The Duke is not TUV certified for DIN ISO 5355 boots (touring).

OK, did my research, Shirk ;p

5355 is Alpine, not Touring certification, and it is an ISO standard, and nothing to do with DIN. And the Duke certainly is certified for Alpine -- both DIN and ISO. But let's get our facts straight, as you are confused, grasshopper.

1. There is no DIN touring certification. There is no DIN standard for touring bindings at all, whether Fritschis, Dynafits, Onyx, Dukes or rubber bands. This is why touring shops have no DIN certification process for adjusting your release settings, and why you have to do it yourself. So yah, of course the Duke isn't "certified" by DIN for touring. NO TOURING BINDINGS ARE CERTIFIED BY DIN. Alright, hammered that home.

1a. This doesn't mean that said touring binding companies don't send their bindings in for testing. They do. All meet and often exceed DIN. But none of them get certification. Why? Precisely because there is no standard for touring soles, unlike the standardized flat plate of DIN soles (regular alpine boots).

1b. Remember, DIN certification only goes up to 10 anyway. Anything over 10 is uncertified. So your 916s are only certified by DIN up to 10. Just to put things into perspective.

1c. The Duke passes DIN certification *for DIN alpine boots*, up to 10, like any other binding certified for alpine boots.

1d. DIN ≠ ISO certification. There is also ISO certification for Alpine and Touring bindings. This has nothing to do with DIN.

1e. What the manual says (English): "We recommend that you only use this ski binding with Alpine ski boots manufactured according to ISO 5355. Should you nevertheless wish to use this ski binding with touring boots manufactured according to ISO 9523, you will have to take into account higher release values with forward twisting combined loads as well as the greater safety risk."

And: "All new MARKER bindings meet or exceed the requirements of the existing standards (ISO, DIN, ONORM, BfU, ASTM) and are approved by the TUV-Product Service."

2. QED. Of course the Duke was designed for touring boots. Which is why it's marketed, packaged and sold as such. The (local) Marker rep sells them as such. Duh.

3. Have a look at the AFD ramp. You will see two general settings: Alpine & Tour. Think on that now. Meditate, grasshopper, on the complex relations between DIN, ISO, and a binding that is both Touring and Alpine.

If I'm getting this wrong, please tell me, as I'll have to go run around and tell all the touring techs in town we've been under the wrong impression about Dukes... and DIN cert processes

[ACH]

1a. This doesn't mean that said touring binding companies don't send their bindings in for testing. They do. All meet and often exceed DIN. But none of them get certification. Why? Precisely because there is no standard for touring soles, unlike the standardized flat plate of DIN soles (regular alpine boots).

Interesting.

This suggests that all touring soles are different from one manufacture to another and possibly even model to model.

It might be interesting to know and possibly worth a poll of those who have broke the AFD to find out if there is a specific pattern of failure based on the type/brand/model of boot used.

Hardly scientific though, I'm guessing too many variables would present themselves with regard to proper adjustment, pattern of use/abuse, etc...

Does anyone here remember that the sliding AFD on the Fritchie was prone to failure as well?

[detrusor]

Maybe this makes me a super JONG but why not mount dynafit toes and an alpine binding heel? When the time comes to go on down just lock the toe on the dynafit. MRR heels would seem to be the shit for this app since they would still allow for some elastic movement. Seems no one want to come out of the binding and you could turn them way the fuck up in the heel. This set up would weigh very little and also allow easy set up for a climbing bar. maybe a bit off topic......

[khyber.pass]

Maybe this makes me a super JONG but why not mount dynafit toes and an alpine binding heel? When the time comes to go on down just lock the toe on the dynafit. MRR heels would seem to be the shit for this app since they would still allow for some elastic movement. Seems no one want to come out of the binding and you could turn them way the fuck up in the heel. This set up would weigh very little and also allow easy set up for a climbing bar. maybe a bit off topic......

This is the future and it's called a [ame="http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149703"]Trab TR-1[/ame].

Mind you, if you did it your way, with the wack ramp angles, lack of tension adjust, and locked out toes, you might as well just nail your feet to the boards Jesus style and pray. After all, who needs release in the backcountry? Why even skin home if you have no ligaments or tendons left in the crunchy, broken mass of blood and bone that is now your knees?

[shirk]

OK, did my research, Shirk ;p

5355 is Alpine, not Touring certification, and it is an ISO standard, and nothing to do with DIN. And the Duke certainly is certified for Alpine -- both DIN and ISO. But let's get our facts straight, as you are confused, grasshopper.

I seem to have mis-quoted the wrong number. The Touring boot DIN ISO Norm is 9523. The Alpine boot DIN ISO norm is 5355.

I had them backwards.

1. There is no DIN touring certification. There is no DIN standard for touring bindings at all, whether Fritschis, Dynafits, Onyx, Dukes or rubber bands. This is why touring shops have no DIN certification process for adjusting your release settings, and why you have to do it yourself. So yah, of course the Duke isn't "certified" by DIN for touring. NO TOURING BINDINGS ARE CERTIFIED BY DIN. Alright, hammered that home.

1a. This doesn't mean that said touring binding companies don't send their bindings in for testing. They do. All meet and often exceed DIN. But none of them get certification. Why? Precisely because there is no standard for touring soles, unlike the standardized flat plate of DIN soles (regular alpine boots).

1b. Remember, DIN certification only goes up to 10 anyway. Anything over 10 is uncertified. So your 916s are only certified by DIN up to 10. Just to put things into perspective.

1c. The Duke passes DIN certification *for DIN alpine boots*, up to 10, like any other binding certified for alpine boots.

1d. DIN ≠ ISO certification. There is also ISO certification for Alpine and Touring bindings. This has nothing to do with DIN.

1e. What the manual says (English): "We recommend that you only use this ski binding with Alpine ski boots manufactured according to ISO 5355. Should you nevertheless wish to use this ski binding with touring boots manufactured according to ISO 9523, you will have to take into account higher release values with forward twisting combined loads as well as the greater safety risk."

And: "All new MARKER bindings meet or exceed the requirements of the existing standards (ISO, DIN, ONORM, BfU, ASTM) and are approved by the TUV-Product Service."

2. QED. Of course the Duke was designed for touring boots. Which is why it's marketed, packaged and sold as such. The (local) Marker rep sells them as such. Duh.

3. Have a look at the AFD ramp. You will see two general settings: Alpine & Tour. Think on that now. Meditate, grasshopper, on the complex relations between DIN, ISO, and a binding that is both Touring and Alpine.

If I'm getting this wrong, please tell me, as I'll have to go run around and tell all the touring techs in town we've been under the wrong impression about Dukes... and DIN cert processes

DIN ISO norm 13992 is for touring bindings. Don't confuse Indemnification with certification to DIN ISO norms. European based touring companies have not caved to North American requests for Indemnification as they don't do it in Europe.

As Hugh pointed out design and certification are two different things. Just pointing out the certification facts.

[ACH]

So I take it that no one here remembers that Marker made a touring version of the explodemat (early mrr) back in the early 70's?

[detrusor]

Not really jesus style, the MRR heel has built in tension adjust and rotational release much like the dynafit heel without the pre-release problems. I reckon that if you skied with the toe in ski mode it would be a lot like the trab. I just might give it a go, I have a couple of pairs of heels around.

[khyber.pass]

DIN ISO norm 13992 is for touring bindings. Don't confuse Indemnification with certification to DIN ISO norms. European based touring companies have not caved to North American requests for Indemnification as they don't do it in Europe.

As Hugh pointed out design and certification are two different things. Just pointing out the certification facts.

Precisely. I went into a lot more detail on this difference and the context in which certification is performed (vs indemnification -- should have been more clear).

From the above, Marker says the binding is recommended for ISO 5355 (alpine). For ISO 9523 (tour) they don't recommend or not recommend. They just say there's more at risk (see above).

They also say:

"All new MARKER bindings meet or exceed the requirements of the existing standards (ISO, DIN, ONORM, BfU, ASTM) and are approved by the TUV-Product Service."

.. without naming which standards (!!).

This would seem to imply the Dukes are certified ISO 9523, though not recommended by Marker, due to the reasons I pointed out above re:/ no standardized touring specs for soles etc. It might meet ISO 9523, but as there is no true industry standard for touring bindings, Marker can't legally "recommend." This is how I understand it.

But what you are saying, if I read you correctly, is that in Europe there is a standard for touring bindings and it is DIN ISO 13992, yes?


Perhaps you can explain to me the difference between 9523 and 13992, and how this relates to different standards between North America and Europe as you are implying .. as in .. where does the Duke stand in regards to these two different DIN ISO standards.

Meaning: is the AFD plate possibly breaking in some instances because it never met DIN ISO 13992?

[srsosbso]

I don't hate my Dukes, but I might start if I read any more about DIN ISO NORMS.

Anyway...

The dynafit toe/alpine heel combo option being suggested seems to me to ignore one of the main reasons people buy and ski Dukes, which is to avoid either paying for, or skiing in, AT boots. I have dynafits for the backcountry that I ski with BD factors but I ski Dukes at the resort and for side-country so I can ski in alpine boots. I think that sentiment is pretty widespread.

[shirk]

Precisely. I went into a lot more detail on this difference and the context in which certification is performed (vs indemnification -- should have been more clear).

From the above, Marker says the binding is recommended for ISO 5355 (alpine). For ISO 9523 (tour) they don't recommend or not recommend. They just say there's more at risk (see above).

They also say:

"All new MARKER bindings meet or exceed the requirements of the existing standards (ISO, DIN, ONORM, BfU, ASTM) and are approved by the TUV-Product Service."

.. without naming which standards (!!).

This would seem to imply the Dukes are certified ISO 9523, though not recommended by Marker, due to the reasons I pointed out above re:/ no standardized touring specs for soles etc. It might meet ISO 9523, but as there is no true industry standard for touring bindings, Marker can't legally "recommend." This is how I understand it.

But what you are saying, if I read you correctly, is that in Europe there is a standard for touring bindings and it is DIN ISO 13992, yes?


Perhaps you can explain to me the difference between 9523 and 13992, and how this relates to different standards between North America and Europe as you are implying .. as in .. where does the Duke stand in regards to these two different DIN ISO standards.

Meaning: is the AFD plate possibly breaking in some instances because it never met DIN ISO 13992?

Okay lets break all this down as I understand it. Some of this is cut n paste from Wiki to save me typing.

From the top we have DIN. Deutsches Institut für Normung the German national organization for standardization. They devised a standard for ski bindings release. Applied a numerical value to release tension that manufactures build bindings around.

ISO is the The International Organization for Standardization (Organisation internationale de normalisation), is an international-standard-setting body composed of representatives from various national standards organizations.

DIN is a member of ISO.

So we have the Germans devising standards that have been adopted by ISO as the international standard.

TUV (short for Technischer Überwachungs-Verein, Technical Inspection Association in English) are German organizations that work to validate the safety of products of all kinds to protect humans and the environment against hazards. As independent consultants, they examine plants, motor vehicles, energy installations, devices and products (e.g consumer goods) which require monitoring.

So TUV certification is used to ensure products meet DIN ISO norms.

We all on the same page?

The DIN ISO norms that apply to ski bindings and boots are as follows.

Touring Boots. DIN ISO 9523

Alpine Boots. DIN ISO 5355

Alpine Bindings. DIN ISO 9462

Touring Bindings. DIN ISO 13992

Manufactures can make and sell product that does or does not conform to the above standards. They can also choose to have or not have their products tested to comply to the above standards.

I don't yet know the intricate details in the differences between the binding standards. But I have an email out to try and get the standards.

[khyber.pass]

^^^ Yep we are completely on the same page. So basically I think we're both wondering if the Duke conforms to 13992.

That said, whatever 13992 is, we still have to take into consideration that no touring binding meets DIN release standards, as in DIN 1-10 release, due to lack of a standardized sole.

Which really leaves me wondering precisely what 13992 is / what it means.

And sorry SRSOSBO.

This info might be helpful though for some of us wondering why touring bindings don't just man up, set a standard sole, and get on with it. And if a future binding meets 13992 and this means something, this would aid greatly in making an informed purchase..

[SouthCentralShralper]

That said, whatever 13992 is, we still have to take into consideration that no touring binding meets DIN release standards, as in DIN 1-10 release, due to lack of a standardized sole.

What about Dynafits, which release with the sole completely suspended above the binding due to the tech fittings?

[FlimFlamvanHam]

Not really jesus style, the MRR heel has built in tension adjust and rotational release much like the dynafit heel without the pre-release problems. I reckon that if you skied with the toe in ski mode it would be a lot like the trab. I just might give it a go, I have a couple of pairs of heels around.

Forward pressure. The Dyna toe is not engineered to handle the forward pressure necessary to work with an alpine heel. You can try it, but I'm sure the only way it would work 'successfully' would be to lock the toe.

The Trab thing is great in theory, but doesn't everybody realize that if a tech toe and alpine heel were so doable Fritschi and G3 would have been waiting for the moment Dynafit's patent expired to introduce their offerings? But instead we have the Onyx and the new Freeride. I think it's really fucking difficult to do...good luck to Trab.

Back to the Duke...wish they had some delta.

[khyber.pass]

What about Dynafits, which release with the sole completely suspended above the binding due to the tech fittings?

The confusion continueth.

AFAIK no touring binding, Dynafit included, can be certified under DIN release standards of 1-10. Which doesn't mean they aren't tested. And all touring bindings I know of pass DIN release (and most by a very wide margin); however they can't be certified as they don't conform to DIN's standards .. as in, they don't use a flat sole.

The way DIN release standard works is by having everyone use a standardized flat sole on the boot, thus creating standardized release. As Dynafit / Onyx / Fritschi / Duke etc each have their own system, none of them conform to DIN standard (for touring boots -- note that Fritschi & Duke meet alpine DIN standard when using alpine boots).

The big question is what is DIN ISO 13992 for touring standard, and does it mean anything in relation to the Duke AFD.

[shirk]

The confusion continueth.

AFAIK no touring binding, Dynafit included, can be certified under DIN release standards of 1-10. Which doesn't mean they aren't tested. And all touring bindings I know of pass DIN release (and most by a very wide margin); however they can't be certified as they don't conform to DIN's standards .. as in, they don't use a flat sole.

The way DIN release standard works is by having everyone use a standardized flat sole on the boot, thus creating standardized release. As Dynafit / Onyx / Fritschi / Duke etc each have their own system, none of them conform to DIN standard (for touring boots -- note that Fritschi & Duke meet alpine DIN standard when using alpine boots).

The big question is what is DIN ISO 13992 for touring standard, and does it mean anything in relation to the Duke AFD.

13992 is the Touring standard that says how a binding should interact and release with the rockered rubber sole of a touring boot. Fritschi, Naxo, and Silveretta meet this standard. 9523 is the standard for touring boots, ie how much rocker, rubber compounds, heel and toe lug sizes. To meet 13992 your binding needs to play nice with 9523 boots.

There are boots that fall outside the 9523 standard. Ultra light "tech" insert race boots mostly. They either have a toe interface that does not conform or a bellows.

There is currently no standard for "tech" insert bindings.

[single]

^nerds.


I like my dukes, and havent had any issues with them while jumping things. But I am a small guy, so maybe thats why.

[klauss]

I also have not had issue with my dukes and I huck fat to flat regularly at 205 lbs. I think as someone noted, it may be more likely with heavy skinning use. I have already broken my skis, but dukes are still in tact...I have only had one chance for small tour...

If that is the case, it sucks b/c they are priced liked they should rock no matter what.

[GeezerSteve]

How do you define the term "heavy skinning use?" >100,000 verts per season? More?
Less?

Who is engaging in "heavy skinning" on Dukes? I have seen hundreds of Dukes at lift areas, but I have never seen Dukes on a tour, nor have I ever seen Dukes being used more than 2 miles from lift-served terrain.

I'm not saying that Dukes are a bad lift/slackcountry binding cuz all I know is what I read on here. I'm just sayin' that, if Dukes get "heavy skinning use" around here, at the most, it's by a handful of tourists whom I've never encountered.

[Tye 1on]

Great range of comments in this thread that cover the spectrum. With slight trepidation i'm taking the [slightly used] Dukes in this afternoon to go on the shiny new Lhasa Pow 191's. I plan on 95% resort, with a couple three short skins/season, and not much air time. Hoping they do the trick. If not, guess i'll swap over to the FT12's and/or plates...

[Conundrum]

You guys are nerds.

[El Chupacabra]

How do you define the term "heavy skinning use?" >100,000 verts per season? More?
Less?

Who is engaging in "heavy skinning" on Dukes? I have seen hundreds of Dukes at lift areas, but I have never seen Dukes on a tour, nor have I ever seen Dukes being used more than 2 miles from lift-served terrain.

I'm not saying that Dukes are a bad lift/slackcountry binding cuz all I know is what I read on here. I'm just sayin' that, if Dukes get "heavy skinning use" around here, at the most, it's by a handful of tourists whom I've never encountered.

I do shorter day tours on Dukes (2000' climbs), but I definitely prefer Dynafits for any sort of touring. As my ski quiver stands now, I have Dukes on some heavier/stiffer skis, so I'll take those when I expect the BC conditions to be other-than-powder.

Around Tahoe, it seems like the BC bindings of choice are roughly 35% tele, 35% Dynafit, 25% Fritschi/Naxo, and 5% other (i.e. Duke/ Baron/ Silvretta).

Personally, I've seen a whopping total of 3 other people on Dukes in the backcountry, but plenty of them in the lift lines at ski areas. I think the Duke skis great inbounds -- I find them identical to alpine bindings; no problem with ramp angle for me -- but I have no idea why anyone would want to buy this binding if they never intended to tour on it.

I've gone through several generations of Fritschi and Naxo bindings, and I much prefer the way the Duke skis over those two.

[khyber.pass]

FWIW we see plenty of Dukes in the backcountry around Whistler / Duffy, where big descents are possible. I've seen Trekkers at the top of Fissile plugged into 916s, which is a 27km return trip.

^^ Thx Shirk, so basically neither Dynafit nor Duke meet 13992. But this matters a lot more for the Duke w/ the AFD then the tech system.

Interesting.

[Driver]

1e. What the manual says (English): "We recommend that you only use this ski binding with Alpine ski boots manufactured according to ISO 5355. Should you nevertheless wish to use this ski binding with touring boots manufactured according to ISO 9523, you will have to take into account higher release values with forward twisting combined loads as well as the greater safety risk."

This is exactly my point - sure people use them with AT boots, but I believe they were designed to be used with DIN soles. And it seems more people I know who ski the dukes with AT boots run into issues with release, and breakage on the AFD.

I didn't think this was a new point, but I guess I was mistaken

[GeezerSteve]

. . . I have no idea why anyone would want to buy this binding if they never intended to tour on it.

So they can use AT boots?

Hell, I may get a pair of Ducks for lift use. I gotta use AT boots cuz I got freaky big calves that don't like alpine boots.

Yeah, we're a bunch of nerds.

[El Chupacabra]

So they can use AT boots?

Hell, I may get a pair of Ducks for lift use. I gotta use AT boots cuz I got freaky big calves that don't like alpine boots.

Yeah, we're a bunch of nerds.

I suppose it's possible that someone (you) might have feet/legs that could fit an AT boot but could never fit any alpine boot, but.... sure seems unlikely that you couldn't find some alpine boot out there that fit. There are just so many variations in shape, cuff height, last width/length, volume, flex, etc., and then there's the whole customization thing (shell punch or grind, bootboard modification, moldable liners, etc.)

If you just want a walk mode for your boots, that's different.

Personally, I like lower-cuff height boots. My alpine (Atomic) and AT (Garmont) boots are about the same height. But my alpine boots are quite a bit stiffer.