The latest Beast 16. Now TUV certified to DIN 13992 as of September 8, 2014..
(Update: October 2014. We heard from an insider friend in Germany. The TÜV certification shown below, dated Sept 8, 2014, covers all retail versions of Dynafit Beast binding, including the first released in 2013. There was some confusion about this as the date of the cert shown below is much later than the first release of the binding last season. Thus, a lot of people were wondering if it was retroactive or only covered the latest iteration of the binding. See comments for more info. Also please note, for the purpose of best indexing and searching, as well as keyboarding on a smartphone, we will be spelling TÜV both ways, TÜV and TUV.)
I’m in an internet cafe in the Andes, Chile. This Beast 16 info came in from Dynafit, appropriate to get it blogged right away since I know many of you are shopping for “quiver of one” freeride bindings. I’m told Beast 16 is now in retail distribution for this coming winter of 2014/15. More, it received TUV certification to DIN 13992 as of September 8, 2014, thus making Beast one of the only two TUV certified tech bindings “on the market” at the time of this writing. Or to be more precise, meaning Beast 16 is the _only_ DIN 13992 available in retail at this time, with a competitor due for limited retail starting early this winter. Fun to see acceleration of binding innovation and competition. To the benefit of all skiers out there!
Dynafit Beast 16 TUV for DIN 13992.
Historical note: In 1994 Raichle (then owner of Dynafit brand) did receive TUV certification of the Dynafit TLT binding model to DIN/ISO standard 7891, the ski touring binding standard of that time. Subsequently, standard DIN/ISO 13992 took the place of 7891 and until Beast no Dynafit binding was certified to DIN/ISO 13992. Thus, in terms of “TUV certification” Dynafit could be said to have been first. Nonetheless, in our coverage here we’re concerned with latest active standard, which is 13992. Beast was the second tech binding to receive 13992 certification (by just a few weeks difference from the first, both in 2014).
22 comments
Hi Lou,
here the evidence!
The Kingpin is really the first tech binding with ISO certification.
No marketing gossip
Yes Martin, but Beast is the first TUV ISO certificated tech binding on sale….more than 1 year before Kingpin.
If ISO DIN certification is the goal both brands have attained it. Dynafit beat Marker to the market, but the true test remains to be seen. The throw down will happen in the retail shops next fall. Honestly, who beat who to market or certification won’t play a role in the brawl.
Powbanger: Which is where Marker’s distribution prowess will matter in the U.S. Dyanfit, though growing, is typically a specialty shop thing. Marker, on the other hand, is almost everywhere. The ubiquity of Marker is what makes the Kingpin such a big deal, in my humble opinion. Yeah, I know there’s a ton of online shopping where distribution matters less, but I have to think that the combination of the alpine-looking heel, big distribution and brand name will make the Kingpin a winner with the general skiing public, bringing more people off the tech fence. Sure, nerds like all of us will quibble with ounces and release values, but the larger consumer audience won’t. Love to hear other opinions on this.
Can somebody help me understanding how the two bindings differ in elasticity. Me and my friend skied the beast all last season and we were very impressed. The main reason was the rotating toe piece that allowed for elasticity similar to(or in my opinion better than!) an alpine binding. We both dropped dozens 40-50 feet cliffs, with vertical and horizontal flips and the elasticity of the bindings makes landing feel just like with alpine bindings. It seems way more forgiving than traditional dynafits (which is the reason I never kept any of them in and opted for the much heavier and clunkier dukes). Sure you can stomp anything if you are a pro skier, but for those of us who just not that good, we need a binding that is somewhat forgiving when we don’t land perfectly. The Kingpin binding doesn’t seem to have any mechanism that would do the same . So I wonder, people who used to ski on Dukes/Lords, wont they miss this? Isn’t this the whole point of the beasts? It’s not the DIN 16, that is just the gravy on top.
So what is the party line from Dynafit regarding using the Beast heel insert on Dynafit bindings other than the Beast? Is it safe? Is it approved by Dynafit?
no matter which is better ski binding.
The tech binding future is much safer and very innovative.
because of this, is the winner in the battle brands:
you and I and everyone skitourer
To be the first DIN certified is just matter of prestige. For us it is good news the bindings are getting better and better.
Although I love the Dynafit bindings mostly because the are simple and they work. I have to admit Kingpin looks more “simple” binding than Beast. And this was a big surprise to me..
For me the ideal binding would be the 20 year old concept Fritz Barthel presented to us.
Honestly I don’t understand why it was, and still is in a drawer somewhere instead of production…
Andy – I guess my point of my post is that this race to get DIN ISO certified doesn’t really matter much other than that maybe we are all a little safer. Yes Marker does have more distro than Dynafit in the US, a large part of which would not buy the Kingpin due to their customer base. Let’s face it not everyone can or will buy $500+ bindings. This has always been the tech binding issue. Until they can bring the price down sales will remain with those who can afford it,
Dave, both Beast and Kingpin have additional vertical elasticity at the heel compared to normal tech binding heels.
While Beast toe does rotate, my take is that the actual lateral (side) elasticity is governed by how far the heel unit rotates before the boot comes out to the side at the heel, and that amount, while in my opinion adequate, is not much different from any other tech binding.
Likewise, while the Kingpin toe doesn’t rotate the boot toe fittings slide on the binding toe pins just like any other properly functioning tech binding (other than new Dynafits with rotating toes). This creates quite a bit of elasticity in the side release mode.
What’s confusing is that a tech binding actually does three different things in side/lateral elasticity/release:
1. Heel of boot moves to side as binding heel unit rotates.
2. Boot toe fittings slide on the binding toe pins, like a tiny ball&socket.
3. The binding toe “wings” open to the side.
In the case of a tech binding without rotating toe, Number 3 is where it’s critical to have strong springs so that the binding can store energy and not open up accidentally. This is why Kingpin has 6 springs.
Once the retail Kingpin is out we will get solid numbers on our workbench for elasticity/travel and compare to Beast.
Meanwhile, while I joke about the “DIN Wars,” the actual elephant in the room is the question of a rotating toe. Marker showed us prototypes of rotating toes for Kingpin project, and claimed they simply could not come up with a workable configuration. Dynafit appears to have figured out how to incorporate the rotating toe. This difference could be huge, or it could be a non issue. In my opinion it’s likely to be huge, especially if Marker ends up encountering the bugabear of crumby boot fittings that don’t allow the boot toe to come out of the binding correctly.
A season of consumer use and expert reviews will help with clarity in this situation.
Personally, I like the way Marker got away from using heel pins, but I also like the Beast idea of a rotating toe that eliminates questions about poorly made boot fittings, and provides a very smooth lateral release function.
Lou,
Have you heard anything else about other Dynafit bindings being DIN certified this year; i.e. Radical 2.0?
Mark, I did hear they were working on that. In my opinion it is unnecessary and distracts them from focus on what works best in real life in the backcountry. But it looks good as PR, that’s for sure. Lou
Thanks Lou! Still trying to figure out which is the better tech binding for me. I’m 195 lbs and a aggressive skier. I leaning more to the Radical but the G3 Ion is also a contender. Great website! Keep up the great work you do!
Hi Lou,
Do you know if the DIN certification on the Beast 16 is retrospective? In other words , if I have last years version is it still certified now or is it only this years model. Apologies if I have missed this in earlier comments- Thanks!
Greig, I’m about 99% sure it would be for both this year and last year versions of the binding, as they’re pretty much the same, and the certification process takes a while so they must have been doing it with the 2013-2014 version. Good example of how naming these technical products the same name even though they change somewhat in look or design creates confusion. I looked at the Dynafit product numbers, it appears Beast 2014-2015 version is:
105 mm brake, 48741/0902
120 mm brake, 48742/0902
135 mm brake, 48743/0902
Your binding, Beast 2013-2014:
105 mm brake, 48741/9185
120 mm brake, 48742/9185
135 mm brake, 48743/9185
What’s weird to me is I don’t see anything on the TUV certificate that specifies these numbers, just the name “Beast 16,” so one has to wonder exactly what was tested? I’ll ask around.
As I’ve ranted about before, I wouldn’t make too big a deal out of a TUV/DIN certification for your own personal reasons, it’s more important to retailers for indemnification. The most important thing for a user such as yourself is to bench test and release test any binding, especially tech bindings since they are dependent on the boot fittings, and the boot fittings have no DIN standard or certification (which actually makes the DIN cert for any tech bindings seem kind of odd and perhaps even ridiculous in one sense).
Greig and all, due to Greig’s question an insider friend of ours n Munich, Germany checked about TÜV certification of Dynafit Beast to DIN 13992 etc. We are now certain that all iterations of Beast binding, including first retail, are TÜV certified to the DIN ski touring binding standard. The cert is good till year 2019. As small changes are made, each year’s bindings are re-submitted to TUV for evaluation and apparently the cert continues unless TUV finds something they consider off.
I’m also about 99% sure the TÜV certification covers last year’s Beast 16 as well – the only mid-stream change was the lower climbing aid (new one had a little nubbin on the bottom to better push the brake down) and they sent out new parts and instructions to all the dealers to have them retrofitted.
Greg, it’s 100%, I got info directly from inside sources.
Great informative article Lou, I think your points about toe elasticity are spot on. I was wondering if you had any insight into what makes this new TUV touring binding standard different from an alpine binding TUV standard. Cheers
Hi Chris, it’s not a TUV standard, it’s a DIN/ISO standard, TUV just does the testing and certification.
To the best of my knowledge the ski touring standard does some testing for touring functionality, and is not as strict as the alpine standard in terms of safety release characteristics. It does address binding compensation for ski flex, which is why many of the binding makers are fiddling around with adding spring load to the heel unit so it can move forward and back to compensate for ski flex, without the release values changing. All the ski binding standards quite a bit to address durability and functionality in harsh conditions. For example, they freeze the binding with a coating of ice and then check function. They also do some on-snow testing. I think the key point here is that it’s entirely possible a non-certified binding could actually be better than a certified one. In other words, I’m not sure how useful the TUV is for actual real-world consumer decision making. Where this is all super important is to retailers who need to be “indemnified” by binding and insurance companies to prevent their getting sued out of business. In my opinion, you’ll eventually see retailers who will only carry TUV certified bindings.
In other words, the whole “DIN TUV” issue could be more of a B-to-B thing that’s being spun for marketing purposes.
https://www.wildsnow.com/6953/tech-dynafit-bindings-tuv/
Lou
Thanks for the insight, much appreciated
Anyone out there had any issues with the toe-pins in the Beast 16? I have one of the original sets that I got in early 2014 and one of the pins in the toe looks to have rotated ( a bit like the kingpin issue though doesn’t appear to have slid outwards). I am based in France this year and have contacted Dynafit (haven’t heard back yet though).
Thanks
Simon
Comments are closed.