Marker Baron Unboxed — WildSnow Mounting Template Complete

53 Responses to “Marker Baron Unboxed — WildSnow Mounting Template Complete”

1. Pepe November 24th, 2009 10:54 am

   Baron max DIN setting is 12, not10.

2. Lou November 24th, 2009 10:58 am

   GAD Pepe you guys are fast! We noticed that mistake and I was editing it out just 5 minutes after posting! Just a typo, as I’m so used to writing “10″ due to the Dynafit FT…

3. Pat November 24th, 2009 11:09 am

   Do the Markers do this: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=dave22brown#p/u/0/kHd8T-fT9eU like the Naxos apparently do?

4. Lou November 24th, 2009 11:31 am

   Pat, this might answer your question:
   http://www.wildsnow.com/379/backcountry-skiing-binding-flex-tests-updated-august-2006/

5. Ryan November 24th, 2009 11:53 am

   Lou
   I’m picking up a pair of FT 12s and mounting them on 188 Megawatts. Now before you go into a coma, any beta on brake/leash options? I’ve seen some of the leash options and I’m still more interested in a true brake.

   Is it possible to replce the 110mm brake with a custom 125mm option? I can’t imagine it would be that hard to take the 110mm piece to a quality machine shop and say, “I want this to be 15mm wider.”

   Thoughts?

6. jason November 24th, 2009 12:02 pm

   i had been meaning to comment on this issue earlier, but…

   having the keen eye for detail that i do, i noticed what i consider to be a BIG flaw in the marker duke which precluded me from picking up a pair for a heavy slackcountry setup. i’m not sure how much use and further analysis the duke / baron has gotten here at wildsnow, but after moderate to heavy use, the flaw begins to surface:

   the lock (for ski or tour mode) apparatus works as a lever, and has 2 hinges that work in conjunction to flip the binding on and off the tracks that lock it down for ski mode. after skiing and switches from ski to tour, there is some play that i have seen develop in these hinges. the amount of play seems to be determined mostly by use, as it is non-existent on new units, but almost every pair i’ve looked at with some real use exhibits some amount.

   the end result is that while in ski mode, the binding can and will slide fore/aft on the tracks (as it is held in place by the lock lever’s hinges). i have seen this amount to over 1/4 inch (6mm), which yes, is small, but i think this is bogus. surely the fine german engineers over at marker can figure a slop-less way of securing the binding in ski mode. what i’m most surprised at is that with all the attention this binding recieved that this is not widespread information by now.

7. Sierra Journal November 24th, 2009 12:02 pm

   Downside number three is that you have to step out of the binding entirely to switch between modes, yes?

8. Lou November 24th, 2009 12:25 pm

   Jason, thanks for bringing that up. We’ll see how our test bindings do.

   Sierra, yes. Not sure that’s always a downside, but it is indeed a concern for some folks and should be mentioned.

   Thing is, Duke and Baron are truly slackcountry bindings, in that they’re not intended for massive touring use. Hence, things like the limited heel lift and need to exit for mode change are not big issues at Marker. I visited the engineers last winter in Germany, and that’s what they told me. As for the for/aft play issue, I don’t have a binding that’s showing that kind of wear, or I would have made a video and showed it to them. Is there a vid somewhere?

9. Lee Lau November 24th, 2009 12:39 pm

   ryan – I’m trying to find that out myself. In the meantime I know you can get machine shops to make custom brakes – there’s a small shop in whistler which does that.

10. Cory November 24th, 2009 12:51 pm

    I frequently hear of people opting for a marker, frischi, or naxo because they want something “beefier” for the area. Is beefier stronger or just heavier? Has anyone ridden dynafits extensively at the area? I guess I’m still looking for an area where dynafits aren’t the obvious choice.

11. Ryan November 24th, 2009 12:59 pm

    Cory
    I thought the same thing regarding “beefier” for area use. Here’s my deal: I’m 6′1″ and 265lbs. I’m a “Type II” skiier and fairly athletic. I’m putting FT 12’s on Megawatts that will be mostly for BC softsnow use, but, some of it will be inbounds on our token “powder days”.

    I’m sort of an experiment for a friend who reps Dynafit as I’ll likely be beating the shit out of these, both inbounds and out so I’ll be sure to report back how they do.

    I’ve got Fritschis on Kilowatts that have been the quiver of one thus far but my guess is I’ll be spending more time on the Fatties than I wouldn’ve thought a year or two ago.

12. Caleb November 24th, 2009 1:19 pm

    Jason,

    I’ve had my Duke’s for 2 seasons, I think halfway through the 1st I started to notice the fore/aft slop. It doesn’t seem to have gotten worse and I don’t notice it while skiing so I’ve mostly ignored it. I think there have been some threads on forums about ‘Duke slop’ though.

    c

13. ScottP November 24th, 2009 1:24 pm

    A lot of the “beefy” coments are based on intuitional misconception, I think. Just looking at the bindings side by side it’s hard to imagine that something much smaller and thinner could be as stiff or durable. The materials and engineering of the Dynafits vs. other AT bindings isn’t as obvious as the sheer size difference and the Dynafits come off looking weaker in comparison. Many people equate size with strength, not realizing that you can engineer strength without necessarily more bulk if you’re clever and use the right materials (metal vs. plastic, for example). I still have friends who refuse to believe Lou’s stiffness tests and claims of Dynafit durability vs. Markers just because they can’t believe something that much smaller could do the same job.

    They may also be talking about full alpine release, in which case the Marker/Naxo bindings are there and the Fritschis are significantly closer than the Dynafits. I personally ski a “quiver of one” with Naxos, but that was more because when I bought the bindings I was using my alpine boots. Since then I’ve purchased Dynafit-compatible boots and you can bet money that when my Naxos give up the ghost I’ll replace them with Dynafits or G3s.

14. Bas November 24th, 2009 1:26 pm

    Same thing here. Just mounted up a FT12 on a 105mm Coax, which is a fun and energetic freeride ski that I also run inbounds a lot. Consider myself a little bit of a guinea pig to see if this is a truely viable option.

15. Day November 24th, 2009 1:26 pm

    …wouldnt post this here, but since the topic came up…

    I skied exclusively on a Dynafit comfort for a 100+ day patrol season in the Cascades a couple years ago. I’m 5′9″, 160; and they kept up fine… and let me tour on my off days too! I hauled sleds with 400+lbs of gear, towed behind snowmobiles, skied with 30lbs on my back day-in day-out, high-speed GS turns on groomers… and never had an issue with the binding. The only drawback for me was having to think a little while entering/exiting the binding.

16. Jared November 24th, 2009 1:56 pm

    I have used the Marker Barons all of last year and there are many things I don’t like about them. It’s awkward to raise the heel lift and yes, it doesn’t go very high.

    Must take skis off to go from touring to skiing mode and vice-versa, which isn’t good for those who have mastered the art of de-skinning on the fly.

    But one thing not mentioned is the fact that the tracks that slide the back of the binding into skiing mode tends to ice up, especially on cold days. I’ve had to take a knife and dig out all the snow and ice before being able to switch modes. Very annoying.

    As far as downhill performance, there is no comparison. They ski just like an alpine binding and give confidence to do anything on the snow, whether it’s jumping cliffs or just cruising low-angle trees.

    I’m 50/50 on the Marker Barons.

17. OMR November 24th, 2009 2:54 pm

    I mounted Duke’s on my resort skis last year and in the process found the big-box stores don’t sell pozi-drive or mm drill bits. I had to go to a specialty store. (Or web order).

    The duke’s are great mogul bindings but don’t even think about hiking them, other than near-miss-side-country, way too heavy. My Fritches ski great, but only for wider-side-country, still a bit heavy. If you’re really going to hike (i.e. no lifts – ever) Dynafits can’t be beat. All three ski great, albeit with minor “feel” differences. I’ve never had a problme with any of them. Dynfits offer anti-gravity hiking with great sking performance.

18. Lou November 24th, 2009 3:10 pm

    When I say a binding is beefy, I mean that it lacks slop and has the design and materials to ostensibly hold up to multiple resort skiing days. Dynafit lacks slop, and holds up to quite a bit of abuse, but the heel pin to boot interface does show wear when used for hundreds of resort days, as will the thimble bushing inside the heel housing. I’d say the Duke and Baron are a bit more beefy than Dynafit in view of the above, but I’d also state that people do misconceive the amount of difference. Used for over 100 resort days, any binding will show wear or even get cracks and dings in various places — or fail in some way.

    Much of this depends on the TYPE of use and your EXPECTATIONS if you use a binding as a one-rig setup and really ramp up the amount of days and vertical. Some also depends on your size. So there is no exact answer, only WildSnow and the excellent comments we get from you guys!

19. James Minifie November 24th, 2009 4:36 pm

    Lou,
    This is a bit of a hijack (sorry) but it is Dynafit binding related. I have a pair of Dynafits that I bought last year and they worked great. So far this season however there is a very noticeable difficulty when I try to pull up the toe tabs in oder to lock into tour mode (ie tabs all the way up). Sometimes I can’t pull them up at all unless I take the ski off and start all over or sometimes stomping a bit works too. Its not an icing issue because I’ve tried them in the house three or four times after being suspicious of that. Any thoughts? Remedies? Thanks

    By the way, not sure if you guys are rolling through the Yukon on your Alaska trip or taking the ferry up the coast but if you need a place to plug that camper in for the night and have a hot shower in Whitehorse, YT, we should get in touch. As long as you guys aren’t allergic to dogs and little kids.

20. Nick November 24th, 2009 6:33 pm

    Just a word on the street sort of thing but i have been hearing mutterings about a longer heel life becoming available sometime in december for ~$40. Sounds like it will be 1 inch longer than the stock one.

    Like i said its not true but maybe someone with Marker connections can look into or something.

21. Fernando Pereira November 24th, 2009 8:33 pm

    I’ve skied Dynafits on the resort for the last couple of seasons, but I have a pair of Barons on order for my next front-slackcountry rig. Dynafits do most things extremely well, except for 1) releasing as reliably as alpine bindings, and 2) absorbing vibrations from fast skiing on hardpack. I need 1) and 2) to protect my aging, two-surgery knees. I’ve chosen Barons over Fritschis, which I skied exclusively for several years before the Dynafits because a) Fritschis don’t release as well as alpine bindings (one knee surgery to prove the point), and b) I dislike their slop, height, and dead spot underfoot.

22. Ptor November 25th, 2009 5:25 am

    Having now skied 3 hard seasons (80 plus touring days each season) on Dynafits (mounted on Zealots and megawatts) I have absolutely no doubts about their performance and reliability (steeps, hard snow, powder, the occasional mogul etc.) Having experimented with Dukes and Barons, I still prefer the Dynafits by a very large margin for skiing feel (alot to do with being closer to the ski, lightness) touring functionality and performance. I really don’t like the height of the Dukes/Barons above the ski, their weight and the melt freeze cluster around the closing mechanism, the lack of heel lift in touring mode (always relevant even for slackcountry!) and on/off necessity for changing modes. Also the toe placement in the toepiece seems precarious. I have even come out of Barons on steep traversing in freeheel mode from the heinous twist in the plastic connecting plate. As a materials engineer myself, I would hardly call them well engineered, actually an engineering failure.
    Because there is not yet a proper touring/freeriding binding, I still decide everytime whether I commit the day to slackcountry/backcountry with the Dynafits and minimize lift riding or commit to the lift for the day with proper racing bindings (and deal with a bootpack if I have to). To me, the other brands are not an option.
    Why do we as dedicated skiers in general keep rationalizing compromises given to us by manufacturers?? What we get is generally due to profit based corporate dogma. just like cars, it’s nor profitable to make one that will last many years without need for servicing or replacement. Inferior products and the illusion/allure of lower price for the consumer and high volume for the manufacturer are cheating us out of quality and performance. Every skier, even beginners and weekenders needs the best equipment, not the discount/low end shit that ends up in the dump or being constantly warranteed. It’s time to put pressure on the industry to get it right.

23. Lou November 25th, 2009 9:36 am

    Good points Ptor. I think the crux here is that bindings such as Duke or Baron are truly intended to be used mostly in alpine mode, with only occasional switches to touring, usually for short distances. Quite a few resort skiers pick such bindings so they can have a “one rig” setup they feel will do it all.

    Also, the buggabo of “style” enters in here as well. Many hard core resort skiers simply like knowing they have a touring binding on their feet, and even though they probably wouldn’t admit it, some simply like the way a binding such as Duke or Fritschi looks and the statement it makes to other skiers.

    A few years ago I observed this phenomenon at both Alta and Aspen by counting the number of skiers who were on touring bindings but had no backpack. Some no doubt had their touring gear stashed and were making a few area runs, but most were obviously just using a touring binding for resort skiing.

    Each to his own, and trying to make on rig work for everything is valid. But issues of style and so forth explain why bindings that might not tour great can still be very popular if they work well for alpine and have a certain look.

24. john November 25th, 2009 12:16 pm

    i have skied on dynafit for two and half years (01/07) about 90 days each resort
    and back country. At fist a little cautius at the resort but after no unwanted releases skied them like any other binding, I am sold.You do not need to take off ski to go to ski mode. Ihave not figured out how to put my skins on without removing ski so I dont really get why it is a problem taking ski off to change mode.
    With my heel locked down i pass many fritchi users while they are playing with their bindins on resort traverses

25. Ryan November 25th, 2009 12:48 pm

    Where the problem with removing skis to change modes comes in is in really light snow and you can’t do the whole balance on one ski thing. You end up wallowing around at every transition.

    Here’s my beta on removing skins without taking the skis off and this works for me but might not for you but try it and you might surprise yourself:

    I take off my pack first, then bend and adjust buckles, levers, straps and whatnot as needed for downhill mode. Then I lock the heel down and this is the key part. Now I can cross one leg in front of the other and across my body so I end up unclipping the skintail on my left ski with my right hand and vice-versa. It also helps me to keep the tip in contact with the snow as that helps me balance a bit. Once you get the tail free, it’s just a matter of having a crappy enough glue job to do an Indiana Jones whip maneuver with the tail, whipping it forward to get the tip loop free. Then you do your best to keep the skin out of the snow which when held high shouldn’t be a problem and fold it up. Then I stow them in the pack or in my jacket and put the pack back on. It helps to have the pack off when doing all these shenanigans. Good luck!

26. Tim M. November 25th, 2009 1:18 pm

    Interesting discussion. As a rather new Dynafit convert I am frickin’ stunned at how awesome they are. I am not sure I’d want to ski them everyday, but hearing Ptor’s comments seems to open up that as a possibility… Then it become a question of boots; I still prefer alpine boots for “downhill skiing.”

    I also have a number of Fritschi rigs that accept either boots and more recently added Barons to the identical ski that I’ve got Dynafits on… Thinking there is they’ll basically be a resort rig — don’t care to have any skis anymore with alpine binders — and I’ve already got the skins cut. Just another experiment in the… continuing grail quest.

27. john November 25th, 2009 1:33 pm

    Thanks Ryan I can take skins off that way, I don’t any more because it wears out the skins.
    I was asking how to put skins on while not taking off ski.
    Why is it so inportant to go from ski to tour.
    Both Dynafit and Marker get flak about this.
    I don’t get it.

28. Lou November 25th, 2009 5:29 pm

    Holy Grail is here, most boot makers have an alpine equivalent boot with Dynafit fittings. Enjoy. But also know that because the Dynafit binding is so solid, it’s possible you’ll need less boot than you think.

29. Fernando Pereira November 25th, 2009 8:37 pm

    To elaborate on my earlier comment: I’ve never had Dynafit bindings release when they shouldn’t have (well, once but that’s a long story and operator error was involved), what I’ve had happen in resort skiing are some worrying situations where I got more torque on a knee when they did not release where an alpine binding would have. For the backcountry, I prefer no release except in extreme circumstances, but on the resort, I don’t want to catch an edge on a groomer and spend the next year in rehab because the binding did not release. Barons are a compromise, and I may regret it (it’s not as if I’ve not sold a couple of Fritschi bindings at a loss before), but I’ll give them a go. The worst that could happen is that I’ll have to get another pair of Dynafits to replace them

30. Walt November 29th, 2009 12:35 pm

    Lou,
    I have been trying to ask you this binding related question. But for some reason, you haven’t. But could you try? … or if anyone else who knows, could they answer?
    I am one of those peopl who purchased the Vertical FT 10’s right before the Vertical Ft 12’s came out. The FT 10’s have been great bindings, but sometimes I need a little more spring retention because I am a big guy and an aggressive skier and like to ski at 10 or 11 DIN. Sometimes I am in places where I can’t aford to lose a ski but do not want to be in full lock mode. Since there seems to be no noticable diference between the two models, I was wondering if it is possible to use the stiffer springs from the FT 12’s in my FT 10’s? Is it possible to do the upgrade?

31. Lou November 29th, 2009 1:39 pm

    Hi Walt, I did respond to that a while ago but I’ve been spending so much time tweaking this comment system that I probably deleted my response by accident or something…

    At any rate, in theory you could convert a set of bindings, but you can’t get the parts, and there might be parts of the 12 that are a bit stronger due to subtle changes in design.

32. John December 1st, 2009 12:08 pm

    would there be any interest in full length clear adhesive vinyl mounting templates and longer climbing bails?

33. Gregg December 7th, 2009 8:22 am

    Lou,

    I don’t know if I’ve missed it somewhere but do you have the mounting template dimension for the SMALL size Baron/Duke? The key dimension for the LARGE size is called out at 218 mm. Does anyone have the “magic number” for the SMALL size? I just bought a set of Barons in small but don’t have a template.

34. Lou December 7th, 2009 9:11 am

    Gregg, sorry, we don’t have that dimension yet. I’ll try to get it soon.

35. Winslow December 13th, 2009 12:50 pm

    The “key” dimension for small baron/dukes is the same, 218 mm, as the large.
    Also the dimension from the rear holes on the front template to the single hole is more like 102 mm.

36. Lou December 13th, 2009 3:51 pm

    Thanks Winslow. I grabbed the “single” hole dimension off the Marker paper template, which probably got shortened slightly by being folded. If you’re sure it’s 102 I’ll change that on the Wildsnow template.

37. Winslow December 13th, 2009 9:36 pm

    lou, I just mounted some small dukes (last years) with the template, and 101mm was a little short. The rear hole in the binding was slotted a little so you have some room to move, but 102mm seamed better. Not shure if it is identical to this years though.

38. Lou December 13th, 2009 10:40 pm

    102 sounds good. Thanks for your attention to this, as it helps tons of folks. As I say on the template, always good to check how well actual screw holes align with template, before drilling.

39. Gregg December 15th, 2009 11:47 am

    Thanks Winslow. I’ll double check the measurements before I drill. I didn’t get a template with mine since they were display bindings. At least I got all the screws!

40. Gregg December 16th, 2009 9:27 am

    Lou,

    A lot of comments about the binding in general here but do you have any feedback from anyone who has used this template to mount the size large duke/baron? The reason I ask is that I found a different template on the net for the Duke/Baron and there appears to be a large discrepency on the key dimension. I have the small Barons in hand and I agree with the 218 mm key dimension shown on your template and confirmed by Winslow. When looking at the other template, the key dimension for the large size looks like something closer to 255 mm. Is it possible your box was mismarked and you actually recieved a size small? Could you confirm the BSL adjustment range for your binding? I don’t have a size large binding so I can’t double check. Not trying to cause trouble, just puzzled.

41. Lou December 16th, 2009 9:33 am

    Hi Gregg,
    Can you give me a key dimension on the actual binding, so I can check and make sure I have size Large mounted on my skis? If I can verify that, I can verify the key dimension for the screws. Don’t worry about the feedback, the idea is to get this all correct and I value the help.

42. Gregg December 16th, 2009 10:09 am

    Lou,

    On my size small Barons, the key dimension is 218 mm and agrees with your template. I don’t have a size large to check but thought I might check the local shop and see if they have a large I could measure, at least roughly, to see if it’s in the ballpark. I believe the large Duke/Baron will go all the way to 360 mm BSL, the small to 320 mm BSL. You may be able to check the amout of BSL adjusment to confirm the size of your Duke.

43. Lou December 16th, 2009 10:28 am

    I’ve got a couple pair of skis mounted with Barons and Dukes. I’m certain at least one pair is large. I’ll de-mount and measure at some point today after I get in a workout. I’m thinking perhaps that key dimension is the same for both size bindings.

44. Lou December 16th, 2009 10:55 am

    Just ran out to the shop, realized I can verify by not taking bindings off skis but rather just measure from front to rear screws. Both the Barons and Dukes we have are size large (I’m pretty sure, but not totally), and the dime’ is indeed __ 218 mm __ between rear set of front screws and front set of rear screws.

    I’m thinking both the size large and size small bindings use the same mounting screw hole pattern. If you can verify that would be great.

    I also verified the location of the “fifth hole” that’s located aft of the front 4 screws. My dimension on the template, of 101 mm, would work fine as the fifth hole in the binding is oblong shaped to compensate for a millimeter or so of mis-location, but a better dimension is probably 102, measured directly from the binding rather than the paper template. I’ll change the dimension on the template to 102 mm.

45. Lou December 16th, 2009 11:12 am

    Now I’m getting frustrated (grin), as I’m thinking the Duke and Baron bindings we have here might be size smalls?

46. Lou December 16th, 2009 11:23 am

    Solved! Marker confused the heck out of me by calling their regular size binding a “small” when it actually goes to a 325 mm long boot sole! So, our template should say size SMALL on it. Sorry about that! I’ll fix today. Thanks for calling this out!

47. Gregg December 16th, 2009 11:56 am

    Lou,

    I think your bindings are size small, also. That matches mine. The template I got off TGR while looking for a “small” template has marks for both sizes. Eyeballing that template put the key dimension for large size somewhere around 255 mm, as best I can tell. It makes sense that the two sizes will have different mounting locations because it puts the mounting screws under the heelpiece for a better, sturdier mount. The heel on the large can be as much as 40 mm behind the small location at theire maximum BSL. That would be asking an awful lot from the plastic piece screwed to the ski.

48. Gregg December 20th, 2009 10:14 am

    Lou,

    I haven’t been able to get my hands on a set of large Duke’s yet. Still trying to find some I can measure. I have a question that is off topic to this binding but I can’t find a place on your blog to put it. I have a set Alpine Trekkers for my son to try his first easy touring on. I have heard of some issues with using Trekkers with certain bindings, particularly Look/Dynastar/Rossi heelpieces. It has to do with an interference with the heel clip on the Trekker. Do you have any feedback on this?

49. Mike December 30th, 2009 3:15 pm

    One issue I found with the Dukes that is somewhat problematic, the AFD is very fragile. I accidentally broke one hitting it with my boot while cleaning snow, the part is replaceable from marker but it is a chore to get it on and off. Other than that love the performance of the binding weight issues aside.

50. Wayne S. February 3rd, 2010 10:01 am

    Lou,
    Second season on the Baron’s and despite the weight I’m still pretty impressed with them. However, I just got a look at Marker’s new tour bindings which will save about a pound, or so, compared to the Baron’s and got to thinking: in which part of one’s rig – boots, bindings, or skis – does the hypothetical pound make the most difference? Would one be better served efficiency-wise by keeping keeping the Baron’s and going for a lighter 3-buckle boot, for instance; or, a lighter ski. Or does it not matter – total weight is total weight.

    Keep up the good work!

51. Marc March 4th, 2010 12:12 pm

    Lou- I must be an idiot, but can’t find anywhere on this post that mentions how to line the template up to the boot center mark on the ski. Lots of talk about spacing between toe and heel pieces, but where do you line those up with the ski (fore/aft)?
    Thanks, Marc

52. Lou March 4th, 2010 12:56 pm

    Hmmmm, Marc, the foolproof way to do it is stick a boot in a binding (adjust binding correctly), set the binding on the ski, then mark one of the toe screw holes, you then use that mark to position the template for/aft on the ski. ‘best, Lou

53. Marc March 4th, 2010 2:33 pm

    Thanks for the quick reply. Lou! I ended up using Jon Drums’ template off of TGR – super simple, other than finding the center of the ski (lengthwise), no measuring! Check it out…

Got something to say?

Name (required)

Email Address (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Speak your mind

Anti-Spam Quiz: Which is warmer, winter or summer?

Due to comment spam we moderate most comments. Please do not submit your comment twice -- it will appear shortly after we approve it. Once you've had one comment published, your comments will be pre-approved and appear immediately if you're using the same computer and not blocking browser cookies. NOTE however that ALL comments with one or more links in the text will be held for moderation no matter what, again for spam prevention.