Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    "the internet"
    Posts
    340

    WTR/ISO 9523 Binding (Tour F12?) + DynaFit Dual Mount on Inserts in DPS

    I travel by air for most of my mountain skiing and I'm a big fan of the one boot, one ski, two bindings quiver that can handle anything with a few part swaps. I've done it successfully in years past, but things change.

    My old ski is an S7, I set them up with Binding Freedom inserts to have holes for both Dynafit Radical FT 12 and FKS 140.
    Detailed in this post: Swiss-Cheese-S7

    The work great but changing both the boot soles and the bindings is a real PITA.

    For the 2014/2015 season I got a pair of new skis from DPS's Dreamtime Sale - The DPS Wailer 112RP2 190cm, Pure3
    Their primary binding is going to be the Dynafit Radical FT 12.

    I want to do the same again with the DPS but not with the FKS binding this time around.

    I want something I won't have to swap boot soles with, something with an adjustable toe height that the FKS doesn't have. I currently wear a Cochise Pro Light w/ swappable DIN and Tech soles, so it isn't an issue, but I want my setup to support ANY boot with BOTH bindings.

    I've printed out all the binding templates I can find and most non-FKS alpine bindings have hole conflicts with the Radical, even sliding them forwards and backwards.

    I found one possible solution.

    The binding is a Marker Tour F12 EPF in a size small, 1cm forward from the DynaFit boot center. (320mm BSL)

    Here is the Duke EPF template laid over the Dynafit template and adjusted for best hole spacing:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	A0F1ADD7-8D48-4DE4-917F-1D95A3DB772F_zpsaqqpmgao.jpg 
Views:	5576 
Size:	46.5 KB 
ID:	156945

    However, the Marker Tour F12 EPF (small) advertises a maximum BSL of 325, and conventional wisdom says that the large would be more appropriate for a BSL so close to the end.

    So there's the catch, and the big questions are:

    Has anyone used a small Tour/Baron/Duke with a BSL of 320? Did it explode?

    Would I be better off looking for a smaller stiffer touring oriented boot with a smaller BSL to open up more options?
    I have been as low as 305mm BSL in a Garmont Endorphin.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Golden, BC
    Posts
    1,355
    How much are you willing to spend? Sounds like a perfect application for CAST. There are CAST system plates for sally and marker bindings, both manufacturers now have a WTR binding in the stable that is advertised to be compatible with rockered vibram touring boots. Or you can DIY your downhill boot soles for a set screw for dyna fittings or send em out for installation (sounds ghetto, but you only rely on them going up) and then use any binding you want, including your FKS. Or you can remove some vibram off your tech soles to the right thickness then cover it in hard epoxy or JB weld or something so it will slide on a alpine binding, get a shop to test the release when you're ready.

    Would not suggest changing boots if your current ones work well for you. Boots are a pain in the ass, and as a vacationer I doubt you have much time for down time. I think the two only options when money is not an issue for a resort/bc setup are CAST and beast. Which one depends on which way your 70/30 split is.

    edit: on tours, I had the original gen ones with the shitty pivots. They are OK for going down, but there is nothing quite like a metal solly clamp for me. From what I gather, a good FKS is similar.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    "the internet"
    Posts
    340
    Thanks for the reply. Money is no object for the optimal setup, but down days and lost time are expensive for me since I don't get to choose the conditions when making travel plans.

    I'd like to avoid plates and things of that nature if possible. (Almost bought MFD last year...)
    Fast mogul skiing is about as aggressive as I get, no cliff jumping, parks or straight lining for me.
    DIN less than 10 is fine for me, I am 6' 180 pounds.

    I got to fondle the Beast binding last year and it's pretty cool but heavy and and I ass-u-me much overlap with the Radicals I've already got?

    I'll have to do more research on it, if it's as bomber as a normal alpine binding inbounds (moguls?) and doesn't have hole conflicts with the Radical then it'll be on the top of my list. (Having touring ability with the inbounds setup is not a requirement, but a bonus.)

    Changing boots is not out of the question as more one boot solutions come to market.
    For example, I am considering the Vulcan or something like it which is why I want a versatile alpine toe binding in addition to tech.

    If it can all be tech and be just as good and not require more holes in the skis, even better.

    So, possibly this then?: Beast for inbounds groomers, moguls, crap snow, and short lift assisted tours, Radical for day tours (4-5 hours climbing), Vulcan boot for both?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Posts
    1,773
    Sollyfit plates. Boom. Problem solved.
    "...if you're not doing a double flip cork something, skiing spines in Haines, or doing double flip cork somethings off spines in Haines, you're pretty much just gaping."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    [a] Van [down by the river]
    Posts
    1,235
    Large or small duke/baron?

    I have some ehps that I've put inserts in for small barons, and radical STs. Worked perfectly fine, I think I'm at the mount point with the barons and maybe... 1 cm back or not even with the radicals? That said, no idea what I did, and the skis are in Canada... I can get someone to take a picture and send them over though... BSL is 307 though (doesn't matter for the barons of course, but I guess I could bring the heel a little closer than you need to).

    Oh, and on a 26.5/27 shell, Scarpa Freedom SL. Fucking awesome boot.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    6,061
    Dynafit Verticals (or Plums) and Marker Tour/Dukes usually have NO hole interference and can be set up with the same boot center line. I've used this swap with Maestrale RS's with great results.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    "the internet"
    Posts
    340
    All great suggestions. I've done more research and will continue to look around.

    How about this:

    1. Dynafit Radical FT 12 on inserts directly on the ski.
    2. Salomon STH2 WTR 13 on SollyFit plates. Plates mount on inserts.

    Touring setup is light with no compromises. Radical's stiffener plate mounted against ski and does whatever if anything. Don't have to cut it off / look like shit / buy ST plates etc... Inbounds setup has some stack height and extra plate weight added, but who cares, it's an inbounds setup with no compromise.
    Can't tour on the inbounds setup, but that's not a requirement. So... are there plates available for the STH2 yet?

    My research thus far on the Beast Bindings:

    Ridiculously expensive, but may be coming down in price. ($700 on sale on backcountry.com) not such of a big issue _IF_ it does what they claim it can do.
    Beast appears to have a different, wider hole pattern than any other Dynafit. (Any templates?)
    Heavy for a Dynafit, but still lighter than frame setups. I'm weary of a long slog up hill on them, but may be okay with the Pure3 ski.
    Marketed to be just as good inbounds as a regular alpine binding with a rotating elastic toe -- a possible one binding to rule them all. (I doubt it.)
    Beast 14 coming out this year with the Radical 2.0 toe. - $750 ish

    If the Beast lives up to it's anywhere inbounds hype then it would be the way to go, but it's just too new compared to the tried and true STH.
    The STH also gives the option of using a really stiff alpine boot if I wanted to, where has the Beast only setup will need some kind of compromise AT boot.

    So now we're to Solly's on Plates on Ski + Dynafits on Ski vs Beast Only. First world problems.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by shafty85 View Post
    Sollyfit plates. Boom. Problem solved.
    My thoughts exactly. Skip the inserts, mount plates directly on the ski, and preserve your resale value. I'd also wager that that a dozen inserts per ski probably doesn't weigh considerably less than the Sollyfit plates.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    sfbay
    Posts
    2,109
    STH2 doesn't fit on sollyfit plates. Sadly, there are no good options for alpine bindings to fit rockered touring soles with repeatable release. Your F12 EPF idea is the best IMO

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    3,132
    Quote Originally Posted by jondrums View Post
    Sadly, there are no good options for alpine bindings to fit rockered touring soles with repeatable release.
    Depends on your definition of "good" but there's the Marker Lord SP and will soon be the Salomon/Atomic Warden. Both have sliding AFD's and ample adjustable toe height, the Lord tests consistently and I have no reason to think the Warden won't.

    But why bother with 3-way sole compatibility if you only own one pair of boots? Why bother to swap bindings or soles if you don't have to? I know a couple of people who charged hard on the Beast 16 all last year with no problems, the retail price drops to $850 this year, and there's a 14 DIN version coming this fall for $750. You'll have to put Dynafit's metal horseshoe attachment on the heel of your boots, but if you aren't using other skis it won't matter.

    Really stiff boots? Try on a Vulcan . . .

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    3,132
    PS You almost bought MFD plates last year and you're worried about the weight of the Beast? At 953 grams it's lighter than any alpine binding with a DIN of 13 or more - an MFD plate + FKS 18 on it is ~1970 grams depending on brake width . . .

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    "the internet"
    Posts
    340
    Yeah I almost did an FKS MFD + FKS + DynaFit triple insert mount to give me the option of having a tour-able burly inbounds binding that isn't a Duke. (I have old Dukes with sloppy pivot.) I may still do that with those old S7s for shits and giggles when MFD plates go for cheap. The rest of this post is me thinking out loud about my needs and wants, maybe something will come out of it, there are many variables and options to weigh with imperfect data about things that are too new.

    I have the Cochise Pro Light and I haven't tried on a Vulcan and need to see a fitter before any solid decisions on new boots are made. (Do I get a special limited edition red pair for mentioning TGR?) I believe they are similar weight and stiffness, with Cochise leaning more alpine and Vulcan leaning more tech by the reviews I see. The biggest advantage the Cochise has is that it can have alpine soles or tech soles and is therefore compatible with current and future bindings of all sorts. They are however 16mm longer BSL than Vulcans which is considerate and can make upgrading impossible for some scenarios.

    There are many disadvantages or trade offs for this versatility on the Cochise and they are starting to annoy me. It's tech toe it isn't a fully rockered sole, so isn't as joyful to boot pack in, crawl up rocks, drive with and so on. It's also got Technica's sort of fucked up BSL/shells which is 5mm longer than anyone else's boot and usually forces me to the 'large' option of any frame binding (and Radical) that has front/back connection. Switching bottoms is 7, no 8, screws with the one on the back tech fitting being a damn wood screw into plastic that will eventually loosen after many swaps... Rocks aren't friendly to those screws either and mine are rusting/oxidizing. Would it kill them to use stainless steel? Oh yeah, weight. Ok enough ripping on the Cochise for now, they work OK for my purposes.

    The Vulcan has that nice short rockered sole and nothing to swap, but will only fit in tech or variable toe height alpine bindings. So if I am going Vulcan, I'm ditching FKS for inbounds. I love FKS too, which makes it harder to decide and easier to hate anything that doesn't have the elasticity and release vectors as the FKS. Marketing Droids Reading This: Give me a table top heel pivot with STH like toe.

    I don't care about forward lean or binding delta or stack height or 1cm mount off center forward or back and not-really DIN certified as long as it fits. I'm not a shitty skier (gear whore yes) and can adjust to these dynamics being different all the time. No flat touring options or limited boot cuff movements while skinning piss me off a bit but I can adjust to minor annoyances like this if I can do what I want on the down and not worry about the binding exploding ... Or my ACL. I don't care how many inserts and holes I have to put in skis to get the flexibility I want. I'm not afraid doing it to $$$ DPS. I don't care about resale either, tools not jewels. I guarantee these will be rock skis in three years or less.

    I guess it all depends what side of the compromise I want to land on when touring and inbounds.

    Option 1: I could do what I did in the S7; FKS and Radical inserts direct on ski, keep the Cochise and swap 40+ screws and soles each new day and the only performance compromise is that during long tours I don't have a rockered sole on a slightly heavy boot. Wouldn't have to buy anything either. Proven and it works. Perhaps this in the CAST system to lessen the screw time. No chance for Vulcan boot due to FKS toe.

    Option 2: I could mount the Radical flat on the ski on inserts and pair that with an adjustable height toe alpine binding either by mounting a Tour EPF (small only) flat on inserts or something else like STH on BF plates on inserts. Tech soles only. Could have Cochise now, Vulcan later IF BSL differences don't f it all up. Many unknowns here. Might buy a tour small, wood block mount it and see if 320 Cochise fits, return if not. STH2 BF plates? Vulcans fit in Tour/STH/2?

    Option 3: Option 1 or 2 with Beast 16/14 instead of Radical.

    Option 4: Option 1, 2, 3 with off the reservation weird shit: FKS heel, not FKS toe...

    Option 5: I could get a Beast 16/14 binding, keep my Cochise on tech, plan for Vulcans later and never have to swap soles or bindings or touch a traditional alpine setup ever again. (Now, there is a 16mm BSL difference between my size in a Cochise and my size in a Vulcan... more new ski holes maybe...) In that scenario, if the Beast isn't as awesome as FKS or one of the new adjustable toe options then I'm compromising there and that sucks, in addition to having to carry the extra Beast weight on day long skinning -- another compromise compared to the Radical, but the Beast 14 is close enough in weight to the Radical it doesn't really matter. The advantage for this is that I now have one binding for everything, don't have to spend time in the mornings swapping soles and bindings etc...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Inside the Circle
    Posts
    1,779
    MFD has been out of business for more than a year. They're getting scarce if you're seriously considering that option for shits and giggles.

    I thought they were OK for an intro to touring but they were heavy (mine were mounted with all metal Deadbolts).
    Last edited by MyNameIsAugustWest; 07-27-2014 at 05:09 AM. Reason: clarification

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    new mexico
    Posts
    123
    maybe the new warden fits in here somewhere? i'm hoping to run them on my "inbounds" setup this year...

    solly warden with rockered vibram/walk-mode boots for hiking

    since your're going for the 1 ski quiver thing mount em on inserts or plates (dunno about current mount patterns/conflicts)...

    touring days: swap on dynafits, no boot fiddle, and off you go!!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    "the internet"
    Posts
    340
    Yup, I've been looking at the Warden as well, posted in that thread looking for a template.

    The scraps of unconfirmed information I have about the Warden it is that it has the same mount pattern as STH/STH2 for the rear but slightly different on the toe -- and that it may possibly not be fully rockered sole compatible.

    Other things to consider with the Beast is if that new rear horseshoe boot attachment interferes with other bindings. That would suck and increases the stakes, really committing the Beast to be your only binding and nothing else.
    (Again, not a bad thing as long as it lives up to the hype.)

    Also looking at the new Radical boot as a possible substitute for the Vulcan.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan Oder View Post
    The scraps of unconfirmed information I have about the Warden it is that it has the same mount pattern as STH/STH2 for the rear but slightly different on the toe -- and that it may possibly not be fully rockered sole compatible.
    Warden would be an excellent option for you. FWIW, the toe pattern is all new. The heel pattern is the same as the STH2 - which is different than the time-tested-and-well-loved Salomon STH heel pattern.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,495
    Last season I mounted a pair of W112RPs with Jondrums' Markerfit plates. The idea was to run my Vulcans inbounds and in the BC, switching between the RPs and my L120s. Toward the end of the season, the price of the Lords came down enough to make them reasonable and I bought a pair. I only got to ski them inbounds for two days, but they met my expectations. I was able to ski my Vulcans inbounds and out, and the bindings made a huge difference inbounds.

    My thought from reading your description is that a Lord or Warden would be a good combo with your verticals either mounted on inserts or plates.

    My only complaint, currently is that Jondrums made a mistake in drilling the Markerfits so that they won't accept Radicals. I've been trying to get ahold of him for literally more than 6 mos, but he has been ignoring my PMs, emails, etc... :-/

    Seth

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    seatown
    Posts
    3,235
    i ran 326mm in various marker touring bindings for a few years.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Chamonix
    Posts
    937
    I used 325mm boots with small Dukes for 2 years, don't worry about it.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    "the internet"
    Posts
    340
    Still doing more research on this...

    On the boot front, from many of the reviews I'm thinking the Vulcan might be too much boot for me, so perhaps the Mercury or the Scarpa Maestrale RS.

    If I abandon my attachment to the Radical FT, other tech options open up including brakeless options -- and honestly I really don't need brakes on my tech touring setup, a good B&D leash will do.

    I see that the Plum Yak has an interesting wide mount pattern which may provide more hole clearance for a second set of alpine bindings.
    The Speed Radical is also an option now, and both of these bindings can float the heel +- 12mm or so to help resolve hole conflicts.

    I am still open minded about going the Beast 16/14 only route but only if I can't get what I want with two dedicated bindings.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    "the internet"
    Posts
    340
    I was busy this weekend trying to get a sense of what my needs, wants and wishes are.

    I made some data about which bindings will work with each other using the template available on the forum and other places.

    Spreadsheet of my research with templates.

    Still lots of unknowns this early in the year specifically: Hole pattern for Warden and Radical 2.0, Beast 14, and actual specs of the new Radical Boot. So I'm going to hold off buying anything for now.

    The good news is that with a little bit of creativity there are a lot of workable options, at least on paper with paper templates.

    TL;DR:

    • Most combinations require the front alpine binding to slide 1cm forward from ski center to avoid hole conflicts. Tightest spacing is always in the toe. The difference can be split on the ski, with alpine being 5mm ahead and tech being 5mm behind.
    • Some combinations will work if the heel can be mounted at a forward or backward offset from the template by a few mm which can then be zeroed out by moving the heel adjustment range forward or backwards once mounted. Check binding adjustability ranges first!
    • The best combinations occur when both the tech and the alpine bindings do not have any 'fixed bridge' between the toe and the heel parts. (eg. Radical ST/Race / Beast & Marker Lord / Salomon STH2 ) ANY BSL will work too.
    • The worst combinations occur when both the tech and the alpine bindings both have a fixed bridge between the toe and heel parts. (eg. Radical FT & Marker Duke)
    • Compromises can sometimes be found if only one of the bindings has a fixed bridge. It depends on the adjustability of the non-bridged binding and BSL.
    • In some rare situations, forward rear Dynafit Radical holes at 32mm spacing can be shared with other alpine bindings.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    "the internet"
    Posts
    340
    Update:

    I tried on the Dynafit Vulcan, the Mercury and the Scarpa Mastraele RS in Mondo 27.

    They all fit me just fine, no hotspots, pressure points or heel pocket work needed. The Vulcan was a little overkill for me and not the flex I'm used to in a touring boot. Someday...

    I have a pretty standard foot but decided to keep the Mastraele because it fits my foot 'tighter' than the rest (with my custom footbeds) although that could just be the better liner.
    It should pack out / mold nicely. As a bonus it was several hundred dollars cheaper. More money for bindings!

    On the binding front I'm arriving closer to decision. It turns out that I own Version 1.0 of the Radical FT and it's a piece of shit with the wonky heel anti-rotation pin, the bad metal in the lifters and a busted brake.

    I'm not going to insult my new skis with that garbage.

    I think I'm going to get the Marker Lord S.P. for the Alpine since all reports seem to indicate it will fit the Maestraele RS well or with a little bit of grinding.

    For the tech setup: A Plum Guide Heel paired with the Radical FT toe with ST plate on a B&D lifter shim w/ B&D leashes. (Radical toe has a nice hole for leash attachment.)

    It's going to come with a price though, I'll have to sacrifice 12.5mm of range out of the mounted adjustability range of both heels.
    That will be done by moving moving the tech heel forward and the Lord heel backwards by something that adds up to about 25mm, so that their 32mm spaced front holes match.
    I am considering also the Plum demo mount which has a lot more range and may be able to stagger rear holes better etc...

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    1,750
    How did this all work out for you? I have Maestrale RS, and I am puzzling through the same set of questions.

    Options I've considered:

    - Sollyfit plates (have STH and Plums already)
    - Beast/Kingpin and STH
    - (all new) CAST w/STH2 (some concern that STH2 is not indemnified for 9523)

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    230
    Along the lines of this...

    Im running Scarpa Feedom SLs with the new FKS WTR 140 with no issues. Release is smooth and predictable, even though the Freedom SL isnt technically WTR. Worth looking into.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    northeast
    Posts
    273
    Bump. I'm hoping to dial-in my travel ski options, but am pretty terrible at assessing hole conflicts. I want to know the viability of mounting dynafit (either vert or radical toe, have both) with either a Warden MNC or Marker Lord to run Vulcans with a 304bsl. +1cm is fine, but prefer to not end up behind the midsole with either mount.

    I have a set of markerfits, but would rather avoid the stack height if possible ... also leaning towards the MNC > lord. Any help would be much appreciated.

    edit... maybe I should just use the markerfits, find some Lords, and simplify the whole thing. I also have sollyfits, but I don't think they take the mnc/sth2 pattern.
    Last edited by Johnny Utah; 01-17-2017 at 10:56 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •