Dynafit Beast 14 Ski Binding — TUV Cert for DIN 13992

Dynafit Beast 14 for 2015-2016 is a freeride tech pintech binding that looks quite nice.

As we’ve covered before, getting certified for DIN/ISO 13992 for a frameless “tech” binding is not easy, and it does have meaning, though perhaps not as much importance as a company might attach to it in a PR push. Caveat is to remember that 13992 is quite limited as to showing how elastic a binding is, and it has some strange stuff when asked to address frameless bindings, like a test of snow wadded up under your boot sole simulated by a spacer, when most tech bindings have plenty of space for that.

Edited press release follows:

TÜV CERTIFICATION ALSO APPROVED FOR BEAST 14 BINDING

Following the successful certification of the Beast 16 binding last winter, ski touring specialist DYNAFIT has also achieved the sought-after “TÜV” quality seal based on DIN ISO 13992 standards for Beast 14. Once again, DYNAFIT underscores its expertise as the ski touring binding specialist. The all-round Beast 14 binding speaks to serious athletic ski mountaineers who above all else seek ideal performance on descents on any terrain. The Beast 14 combines the frameless system with high strength and a release value (DIN) of 14. At 795 grams, it fits in the segment of classic ascent bindings, but it still offers all of the features of a sturdy freeride binding. It combines the patented pivoting toe piece of the Radical 2 at the front, with the heel unit technology of its big brother, the Beast 16.

(Be it known that an earlier Dynafit binding version achieved TÜV certification way back in 1994: The TLT4 was certified based on the then-current standards for touring bindings, DIN 7891, which preceded the current DIN ISO 13992. It thus was the first pin-based ski touring binding with the TÜV seal, though not to current standard 13992.)

12 Responses to “Dynafit Beast 14 Ski Binding — TUV Cert for DIN 13992”

1. Lucas February 8th, 2015 3:56 pm

   Are the beast 14 and 16 now virtually the same besides the obvious difference in din?

2. Lou Dawson 2 February 8th, 2015 10:36 pm

   No. Beast 16 has the more complex and different looking toe unit. Consequently, 14 will be lighter. Lou

3. jordan February 9th, 2015 12:27 am

   I have been skiing the heck out of these things. I really like them. Dynafits for big people!

4. Mark L. February 9th, 2015 2:48 pm

   Can someone explain why the Beast 14 and 16 have completely different toe designs when their DIN/RV values are only two steps apart? There don’t appear to be any design issues with either approach so it’s a mystery to me why Dynafit is choosing to support two different toe platforms for two bindings that appear to be designed for very similar purposes.

5. Hank February 9th, 2015 3:13 pm

   Sure… Its a little thing called WEIGHT!!!

6. Mark L. February 9th, 2015 3:29 pm

   Ok. So i”ll ask the same question a different way. The heel units (you know, where you actually set the DIN) appear identical except with different springs. Why two different toe pieces? Why not just use the 14 toe piece on the 16 and save the weight?

7. Ton February 20th, 2015 6:37 pm

   Here’s a general Beast 14 question for you, Lou. Do you have any problem going from tour mode back to ski mode? My lower riser is very, very sticky to release and requires an absurd of force to finally get it. Does having the two small metal teeth on the heel piece up or down make a difference?
   Thanks, Tom

8. Jeremy C February 21st, 2015 2:01 am

   @Ton

   The teeth are not related to the low riser locking.

   I have 2 sets of Beast 16’s, which have effectively the same heel as the 14. All 4 low risers were impossible to open by hand from new, and almost impossible using ski pole tips. I had to use a large flat blade screwdriver.

   My solution was to gently file down the profile of the plastic in front of the bump on the base of the riser. If you look at the locked down riser, you can see that there is step which engages with the brakes heel plate. This has to force the heel back to disengage the riser. I used a very fine file a few passes at a time, making sure you keep the file flat, to ease the release. You need to round off the step section.

   It in definitely a case of measure twice, file once. I can now release the risers by hand. It is still a firm pull to release them, but it is now possible.

9. Jeremy C February 21st, 2015 5:26 am

   @Mark L.

   When Dynafit wanted to create a Freeride binding they gave the task to a young designer, with the only restriction being the compatibility with the existing heel and toe interfaces.

   The result was a no compromise design, two springs in the heel, the screw on heel plate, the rotating toe, with central piston with horizontally opening wings. This gave excellent elasticity and retention in situations that would normally cause a release on traditional Dynafit style bindings.

   One of the main criticisms of the Beast 16, was the weight. So Dynafit looked a ways of achieving a similar elastic effect at a lighter weight, and the obvious choice was a rotating toe for the Radical ST/FT. Once the Radical 2.0 had been developed, it would have taken Dynafit Marketing seconds to see the potential of combining the new Radical toe with the Beast heel, saving 100g plus per binding, so the Beast 14 was born.

   The Beast 16 toe is a no compromise engineering solution, whereas the Beast 14 toe is an evolution of an existing design.

10. Mark L. February 21st, 2015 12:46 pm

    Thanks Jeremy for the back story. Interesting strategy regarding the toe pieces.

11. rich March 19th, 2015 4:28 am

    Hi Lou and fellow powderhounds.
    So after skiing an amazing season on my new of DPS lotus 120’s and G3 Ions I am so impressed with the rig that I’m reevaluating my quiver of fatter skis for next season. So much so, that I’m considering to sell all my other wider skis and building up around the lotus 120’s. First stop up would be the 138’s with possible additional investment into the Spoons, should I win the lottery between today and November. Anyway, I’ve been talking to the guys at DPS and they suggested that mounting G3 IONS’s on the Lotus 138 and/or Spoon is probably not burly enough to drive them down the fall line and suggested I look at the beast 14 or other AT Frame’s.
    Keeping in mind im 48 and big drops and air are a hazy memory Id like to understand the implications of beast 14 in terms of this ‘heal piece thing’. My question is.. do I need to remove it each time from my spectre’s when I want to step into my ION’s or is it mount and forget? At my tender age memory seems to be inversely proportional to the amount of snow that’s falling…
    Thanks for your feedback and fabulous blog.
    Rich

12. Lou Dawson 2 March 19th, 2015 6:37 am

    Rich, provided the ION binding is properly adjusted and bench tested, in our experience it’ll work with the Beast “horseshoe” fitting on the ski boot. In fact, I’m a big fan of nearly anyone using tech bindings upgrading to the Dynafit boot heel horseshoe as there have been issues with the tech fittings coming off the heels of boots, depending on brand and age, but it’s a very real issue. The Horseshoe fitting is quite nice, IMHO. Indeed, I’m going to start using that term, thanks Mike Arnold.

    That said, I’m not sure why DPS would take that position. From a logical engineering POV, the boot/binding interface is only as stable as its narrowest point, which is the same with ALL classic tech bindings. That’s the big dirty secret of all this. The boot fitting interface with the binding, toe sockets and heel pins, is EXACTLY THE SAME WIDTH on all classic style tech bindings. ION, Beast, Radical, Superlight, Vipec, Plum, Superduper, Supertrad, Amazoidbestever, Ladeda. — That’s why I constantly advocate for the industry to develop a Tech 2.0 standard that’s wider at the heel and allows more vertical travel. (Kingpin did go wider, as does Trab, but while innovative they’re not new standards and don’t have the minimalist elegance of the simple pin heel system.)

    Thus, the only reason I can see them not recommending ION is perhaps they feel Beast has a wider screw hole pattern? ..Or, perhaps it’s just cultural and they figure as a rule of thumb that a 138 ski is going to be skied in a way that needs the extra vertical elasticity of the Beast (or Kingpin) heel unit?

    My advice would be if you’re not skiing aggressively just about any tech binding will work on just about any ski.Provided you’re a good skier and know what you’re doing. And the ION does have a nice combination of being a “classic” pintech binding along with a very strong toe wing pincher force and beefy build.

    But with so many binding choices now, it’s indeed smart to match the binding to the purpose.

    In any case, once you start mixing and matching things like Beast heel fittings with ION bindings, it might be time to start working closely with a retail shop and experienced technician.

    (Tech note regarding Horseshoe Dynafit heel fitting: It does make your boot slightly longer, so be sure binding will adjust to length and also know that the length of your boot does influence behavior of binding safety release. Again, bench testing and so forth are key.)

    Lou