ATK FR14 conforms to the best standard out there — that which works. (click all images to enlarge).
Many of you have tracked the great DIN. The elusive beast lurks under the pristine white counters of testing labs the world over, and winters in a monolithic brick building in Munich, signed with a large placard bearing the letters “TUV.”
And, along with you consumer stalkers, many a binding company has hunted DIN. Such hunts — rarely of total success — have cost millions of euros, at least several jobs, and are rumored to have led to at least one mental breakdown. The DIN has power.
The 13992 beast nests here, but is born under the wings of DIN/ISO (TUV-SUD press photo)
When I often wrote of the DIN hunt, not a month went by that I didn’t hear from a ski binding company going for a trophy. Then later, when their stalk failed, I’d listen, exasperated, as they attempted to obfuscate the true nature of the animal. I even heard tell of rival hunters, those who abhorred the dominance of a new mutation, who had somehow influenced the hunting regulations in an attempt to extirpate the two-pronged Dinachron variant. True? Who knows. But I wouldn’t be surprised.
Even I, my dears, was once raked by the clawed paws of the monster. After the lacerations healed, I attempted to at least clarify the biology. Yet perhaps mistakenly implied that if a tech binding somehow conformed to even part of the DIN/ISO 13992 standard, it was somehow superior. I’m here to tell you that is NOT the case.
Some parts of DIN/ISO 13992 are useful to examine as a binding designer — and consumer. If for no other reason than awareness of issues such as icing, and elasticity. But the infinite variety of ski touring, from freeride to skimo, introduces so many conflicting safety issues and convenience features, the only way I can see a DIN/ISO tech-binding standard ever becoming industry-wide is if it’s broken out into numerous branches. Even then, could the white-coated engineers and keyboarding bureaucrats create such a thing? Prove me wrong, but I doubt it.
So, enter the binding companies (now the majority?) that ignore the DIN/ISO ski touring binding standard, and make bindings based on features and performance their customers want.
Case in point: ATK FR-14 Freeraider
With its built-in brake and freeride beef, the ATK FR-14 has been around since the 2019/2020 season (as well as building on its predecessor version 2.0, which was produced until the 2018/2019 season). It has survived consumer testing with high marks, and comes to the WildSnow shop for a long-awaited technical look.
Overall, this grabber glows with quality. Tool marks indicate the essential aluminum parts are mono-block machined, with a pleasant (if so Italian) sheen. A touch with my razor knife indicates the heel base and other plastic parts are plenty strong, no doubt carbon-reinforced. Before I get into the photos, here’s a bullet list of a few things that stood out for me:
— The upper part of the FR-14 heel unit, the part that rotates, has zero play, I mean a big fat ZERO. Other brands boast such quality as well, yet not all.
— The heel lift options are out of hand. Heel flat on ski; two medium lifts with the rotated pins forward; another two higher options with pins rotated rearward. Five total? Correct me if I’m wrong. On a personal note, with my fused ankle, I need fine-tuned lift on the uphill, this thing looks fantastic in that regard.
— Dynafit-type crampon compatible
— Flex compensation spring enhances the specified 4mm tech-gap
— And the weight. It is remarkably absent for this much beef (remember the brake is built-in):
— Total, one binding w/ screws, no stomp block, 366 g
— Total, one binding w/ screws, w/ stomp block, 392 g
— Heel, no stomp block w/ screws 240 g
— Toe w/ screws 126 g
— Stomp block assembly 26 g
In comparison, consider another brand’s proven touring binding, not a full-on freeride unit, yet competent, comes in with a no-brake weight of 296 grams, and tips the scale at 385 grams with brake!
Let’s blast a few photos; actually, more than a few.
The toe unit has ATK’s long time U.H.V. touring retention adjustment system. That’s TOURING, as in uphill. The U.H.V. allows you to set the pressure the toe pins exert on your boot toe sockets — while locked in touring mode, which translates to how hard you have to pull up on the locking lever to engage it. While I’ve rarely seen the need for such a system with other bindings, I suspect it’s important for ATK because their toe wings are so strong and precise. Thus, if a boot had fittings a little out of spec, without a way to adjust the touring-lock tension, the lock might be difficult to operate, or conversely, be hard to exit. The U.H.V. adds just grams of weight, if any. Clever.
And check this out regarding the toe unit. While open or closed, the area under the wings remains somewhat sealed, no more snow packing the space under the wings (though I suppose in rare cases you could get ice under there, which would then be difficult to remove).
I’ve added a new test to the Wildsnow probe-and-prod, metal hardness. While a set of hardness files is hardly the equivalent of a $21,000 Mitutoyo bench-top hardness tester, it’ll have to serve. The ATK toe and heel pins, testing between HRC 60 and 65, were just a bit harder than a good quality knife blade, and compared favorably to several other binding brands we have here in the shop. Bear in mind that pin surface hardness isn’t everything — it’s equally or perhaps more important they don’t break. Achieving surface hardness without brittleness isn’t child’s play — it’s where consumer testing tells the tale.
Let’s get into the brakes. So cool, so elegant. The photo above shows the brake retention system compressed with a clamp, so you can see the tiny internal hook that catches the brake when you stow it. A light press with a finger, and pop, the brake deploys for the downhill. Let’s be clear that mixing ski-brakes with tech bindings has been the elephant in the room for years now. I can’t tell you how many brands have attempted, and most often failed, to design a flawless brake that’s automatic or semi-automatic, that you can’t lock up in downhill mode, yet locks perfectly in touring mode. The DIN/ISO 13992 (if I’m not mistaken) does not allow a brake you can lock away in downhill mode. Is this one place where ATK said, “go fly a kite”? Quite possibly. In any case, as I’ve advocated for years: give us a manually operated brake and quit the fiddling around already.
I’m reluctant to get into the stomp block, or as ATK calls it, the AL09 Freeride Spacer, because the required raft of photos will probably melt our webserver. But here goes: I can’t believe how much design effort ATK put into this thing. I mean, I see how stomp blocks can help ultra-agro or ultra-huge skiers, but, really? Okay, I know, you freeride, you want a stomp block. Shut my mouth, and here come the photos.
The stomp block is an optional, precision molded piece that nests with the heel unit like something made for the James Webb space telescope.
Stomp block viewed from underneath binding.
The AL09 Spacer isn’t just any space case, it’s tune-able with the included shims. Pictured above, you remove the stomp blocks with a torx driver, then shim as desired, though take care not to shim so much as to created upward pressure while the boot is in neutral position. I’d recommend leaving a thick paper width of clearance, or perhaps a millimeter.
The shims, as depicted in the manual.
A shim, sharpie colored for clarity.
A shim installed, before re-installing the stomp block.
If you choose not to use the stomp blocks, install this spacer.
Binding mount pattern is appreciated, all screws at 45 mm left/right distance, thus helping those who make paper templates.
Set the 4 mm tech gap using the provided spacer gauge.
I backed out the torsional release spring barrel. The Freeraider uses a pair of torsional release springs, buried deep inside the spring cavity. Here you can NOT see the torsional release springs, what you see is two coils of the flex compensation spring, as well as the shiny length-adjustment screw.
Spring barrel cap reinstalled. Yes dears, this binding goes to 11 — and 14 if you insist.
Last thing. We think toe jaw closure strength is important. It prevents pre-release, and may allow you to tour without locking your binding toes. I tested the Freeraider 14 on my “jaw puller.” It pulled a respectable 162.8 newtons, placing it in the middle of the range. In my experience, that’s adequate. Spreadsheet below.
Bonus shot. Can you spot the typo? It has to do with the beast.
(Please note, this post is in no way intended to disparage TUV, as they are nothing more than a company that tests products according to various standards — and are said to do a pretty good job of it. What deserves a critical view is the DIN/ISO system of product standards creation and upkeep, specifically regarding ski touring binding standard 13992.)
WildSnow.com publisher emeritus and founder Lou (Louis Dawson) has a 50+ years career in climbing, backcountry skiing and ski mountaineering. He was the first person in history to ski down all 54 Colorado 14,000-foot peaks, has authored numerous books about about backcountry skiing, and has skied from the summit of Denali in Alaska, North America’s highest mountain.
36 comments
When you say that the clamping force is adequate, can you skin with it not locked?
You’ll want to lock for skinning though you’ll make it to a kick turn before needing the lockout
nice one Lou! Keep in mind that standards aren’t evil…but they require competitors to agree on things….that I believe is the root of the problem. It’s completely possible to write a tech binding standard that would be relevant to consumers, but there’s not much will there amongst manufacturers to do so. that would require collaboration:)
I would love to see the jaw opening force for the Trab toes.
Same!
Rod, from experience I’d say that an average to lighter-weight, non-agro uphiller could tour these without locking so long as the terrain was moderate. Too many variables to make a blanket statement. Skiing uphill without locking is especially dependent on terrain. I rarely lock any model binding when I’m resort uphilling on groom, but once I start switchbacking up the steeps, I always lock.
I think that in addition to being lighter-weight and non-agro, you would also need solid/smooth technique. I don’t meet any of those constraints, and I walked out of them very quickly indeed the first and only time I didn’t lock them out.
Thanks Cam, sure, standards aren’t evil, I’d never state that to be the case, but they’re certainly a mixed blessing! To be clear, I know we could not have our modern world without industry standards…
Tzed, if I start testing and charting bindings without similar tech mechanicals, my research becomes meaningless and misleading.
BTW, anyone onboard with the new TWW standard mentioned in the blog post?
I’m hoping the stomp block/spacer helps reduce some vibration while skiing less than favorable conditions.
Other than weight, would there be a reason not to use the stomp block?
Travis, I’ve been able to spend some time on the Moment’s Voyager XII binding, which is largely based on the ATK Freeraider platform. While I’m not the biggest / most aggressive skier, these bindings ski through variable conditions much better than the Dynafit Speed Radicals that I am used to. These binding provide a noticeable suspension / ride smoothing effect akin to the difference between riding a rigid ‘cross / gravel bike versus an aggressive hardtail with a suspension fork.
I have skied the very similar ATK Raider 12 current model and have also noticed the elasticity. However, for me the feeling of the heel piece moving is quite spooky when skiing aggressively on variable and harder snow conditions. Perhaps this comes from the fact that I have almost exclusively skied Dynafit Radicals with the toes “locked out” for years, due to distrust of tech binding release in consequential terrain. I purchased the ATKs this year with the knowledge that my older Radicals were becoming a liability, and that it would be safer to ski a binding as intended (toes in “ski mode”). However, I found the combination of the elasticity and quantity of what I would consider “pre-releases” (events where a ski came off that seemed very premature at DIN 10 (I am 155 lbs) to be very unsettling. Now I find myself laid up for the season with multiple fractures to my tibia plateau, a long break on my tibia shaft, and a torn meniscus after what I consider a pre-release (loss of ski while in-control and skiing fast but well below the day’s speed limit). I suppose the most important parts of my knee were preserved, but my leg certainly is not. I realize the ATK bindings are truly a work of art and the elasticity is praised almost universally (which is why i made the purchase), but has anyone else had this experience regarding the elasticity and prereleases?
I’ve had a bunch of prereleases with my Moment Voyager version of this binding…one of which on a firmer steep backcountry slope led to a ski slicing my knee (though bloody, it didn’t hurt too much and 14 stitches and a month later I was skiing again). Most recently I made a moderately high speed turn from softer snow onto a harder patch and I lost a ski and found my face in a pile of slush. Luckily a friend traced the ski’s path and we found it 150m down the hill.
Also me and a friend have had heel-only prereleases on soft snow days, where the toe stays on but the heel releases leading to surprise telemarking. Not so sure how I feel about these bindings.
An amazing beautiful binding. Only the UHV seems like a unnecessary complicated option. That’s why I like the simpler ATK Crest that is built with similar feature and a simpler front part.
Great article Lou, thanks!
The only way to improve ATK bindings is to change the crampon slota and make them like the plum ans salomon ones. The Plum Crampons instaling sistem is way better than the “slinding” dynafit sistem.
I am bit surprised that the screws are not further apart in front. Do you have measures of the front screws distance on the different bindings ?
Thanks for all the work
Joel
Interestingly, next year ATK will offer bindings with braces that deploy when the heel is turned). It’ll be interesting to see if it has the problems other manufacturers have had. Fortunately, it looks like ATK will still keep selling the current models too.
Lou, further to our discussion in post linked to above, the Kneebinding people have finally released a study that shows that their lateral-release DIN-compliant (it seems) binding reduces knee injuries by 75% and ACL injuries by 82.5%. The study’s available at their website…
I’ve long suspected that Dynafit-style bindings with a lateral heel release might offer a similar benefit, although I doubt such a study will ever be done…
My suspicion is one of the reasons I’ve stuck with Dynafits…
Hey Lou, what about the risk of being ejected vertically from the pins by the upward pressure exerted by the spacer on the boot sole, in the case of a strong counterflex of the ski? There are a few testimonies suggesting this on some french forums…
One has to wonder how those French forum-dwellers are adjusting the spacer.
The baseline (lengthwise distance) from where the spacer acts on the boot to where the pin meets the boot insert is about 60 mm. That’s a fairly short lever arm, so IMO if you set the spacer up so that it’s just out of contact with the boot when unloaded as you are supposed to, then it would take an extreme amount of reverse camber to generate a load capable of overcoming the extremely unfavorable leverage of the pins on the insert in the upward direction (the top surfaces of those inserts are un-ramped for a reason, you know).
More practically I was curious about that failure mode based on my own “eyeball engineering assessment”, sans forum posts. I tried to trigger it on my bench using a Lange XT Free Promodel with the relatively solid ISO soles (less compressible soles == higher forces for any given amount of reverse camber). I couldn’t make it let go at any amount of reverse camber that I was willing to risk for fear of bending my ski. I didn’t try adjusting the spacer so that there was interference/preload by default, and I totally buy that you could eject yourself that way if you pushed it far enough, but then that would be obvious “user error”. I could also buy that you might trigger it in a crash where you bury your tip under a log or something like that, but at that point the “pre-release” is the least of your worries.
I could also buy that you might get into trouble if the top surfaces of the heel inserts are worn such that they’re ramped a bit.
Self-correcting here: Should say “the upper surfaces on the inserts are LESS ramped”. Obviously they have some ramp angle to allow vertical release, but the forces required are quite significant as they should be,
I basically standardized on ATK a few years back (enough so that I bought the OEM jig, from Hagan) and own 4 sets: 2 older Raider 2.0 12s, both with the old “candy bar” freeride spacer, and Raider 12 and Freeraider 16s with the current AL09 spacer (the FR16s were chosen not because I needed the higher DIN, but because the front hole pattern of this year’s FR16 is compatible with the R12, while the FR14’s is not).
I’m big (over 200#) and moderately aggro though not like I used to be. Standardizing on a 350 g binding for beefier skis like SENDr 112s (which currently host the FR16s) was a leap of faith for me, but it has worked out well. Before going into the backcountry I gave all of my setups moderately hard in-resort shakedowns on firm snow (which should be beyond any loads I would put on them while touring), and they’ve held up with no noteworthy robustness or pre-release issues. They also ski well, with a more solid heel->ski connection than “pin-only” tech bindings I’ve used before, though the lack of toe elasticity is very perceptible on hard snow.
There is one respect in which I prefer the previous generation (Raider 2.0) to the current: The old full-width spacer seems more robust and is definitely more boot-lug-friendly, particularly for walking in flat mode where the pins aren’t there to limit the boot’s motion and the forces on the spacer. I honestly prefer the combination of the old toe brakes and spacer vs the new one, though both work for me.
Have used these for 3 seasons now. Love em. Very predictable heel release – or not – as I would want – through many biffed moderate jumps 10-15ft depending on the landing and heel settings. I have these on a pow ski (wildcat tour 116). I do have a friend that pre-released after dropping in on an unexpectedly frozen couloir on a 110 waisted ski, but ive never experienced it.
Given his experience, I went for a Marker Alpinist for my volcano ski setup. Its gives a notably smoother ride on hard pack so im glad for the choice there. But otherwise i prefer the FR14’s ease of use.
On the old version, i had an issue w the pins that act as the pivot for the toe wings backing out. ATK offered great customer care and sent me the new version quickly for a swap-out and i’ve had no issues since.
Excellent product overall. Definitely feel more confident on these than my old Radicals, and so much lighter than ST Rotations that ive used.
Hi Lou!
I was so excited to get on a pair of ATK R12s this season. All of the reviews rave about the heel lifts. With the nick-name, Fat Charger, I am far from delicate whilst skinning. I prefer to skin with the pins pointed back, so I have the flat option available and experience regular unexpected engagement and disengagement of the lifts. Have you had the same happen to you? Any suggestions on how I might add some friction to the pin on which the lifts pivot?
Thanks – ride on!
I’ve been googling this for months and finally found the answer on the TGR ATK thread:
I bought FR 14s this season. They ski great and work as well as pretty much any other pin bindings I’ve used (Dynafit and G3). One small issue I’ve encountered is the lifters tend to flip over from the flat position if I’m “vigourously” moving in the flat position. Happens when the ski flexes or I swing the ski moving over uneven terrain. Happened several times last weekend when doing a long-ish flat approach over refrozen. Anybody have a fix for this?
Yep! You’ve gotta push the top side of the high riser between the pins of the heel. It’s machined to fit perfectly, and it goes in and out easily with a pole. If you just let them flop, they’ll flop in the way and annoy you. But, if you just push that top riser down into there, the other will stick to it via magnets, and you should be good to go.
MAGIC! Hope this will help everyone here and find its way in to the search results.
Hi Lou, let’s chat a bit… I’m stuck in a city but did make it to 79 N
So, shop tech here. Here’s the problem with these bindings, and why I would never recommend someone buy one. Your local ski shop cannot test the release values on these. There’s literally no way to do it, because no shop tools are calibrated to match whatever the heck this “indicative” system uses. It has a range of “8-14”, but “8-14” what? It’s not a din. And we can’t test it as a din. This also only technically has a heel release. It won’t release laterally that I could see and I was working on one today. If you buy a G3 Ion, I can test and adjust that as a shop tech. It’s every bit as light and durable as this, but it’s also safe. We can test and adjust the left and right lateral releases just like an alpine binding, and we can test and adjust the heel release just like an alpine binding.
A din has a test range that it has to release at within those values. Any shop tech will tell you that as a binding ages, it starts to drift outside of its set values. So for example if a skier has as skier code of an M8 based on their height, weight, age, boot size and skiier ability, then their din is set at 8, and the inspection range for lateral (side to side) movement is 58-78 (it ‘s “good” if it releases side to side somewhere in that range) and an upwards heel release of 229-320. (again, it is “good” if it releases somewhere in that range.) Those ranges represent kilonewtons of force.
So, here’s what happens as a binding ages, or sometimes even when new. We’ll test a binding, and using our example above, lets say the lateral test on the binding on the left ski, is consistently releasing at “45” or something, even though it’s supposed to be releasing within 58-78. So that’s a fail. But wait, we can adjust it. To compensate for that wear and aging in the binding, we can tighten the din, or loosen it, to bring it back up match where it “should be” releasing at a din setting of 8. In the case of the above scenario we’d increase the din, and keep testing until it was releasing within that 58-78 range. We basically will do this up to + or – 1 whole din setting. You really shouldn’t adjust it more than that, because at that point the binding is just not functioning properly and indicative that it is damaged or simply at the end of its life.
So what’s the problem with this fancy ATK binding? Because we can’t test it, the user has no idea what each binding is releasing at, or even if they are releasing the same. For example if you set each binding at 10, one might be releasing far lighter than the other. Or conversely, one might not release at all, while the other works properly. Or they might both release, but be wildly out of range of what people would normally test as a din range. And as your bindings start to go bad, with wear and multiple seasons, your life and safety is increasingly dependent upon gear that you, (and no one else), can test. You have no idea if it’s going to fail, or when, or how. And no one else can tell either. You could be on an icy traverse, and your boot just comes out and you fall down a ravine and die. I literally failed a tech binding today because it was consistently too loose in a lateral test and releasing far below where it should have been on that one side. If the owner had skied on that in tricky terrain, it could have cost him his life.
And so here’s the thing. There ARE tech bindings that allow you to test them and adjust them properly. The G3 Ion is a GREAT example of a binding that will do that. Yeah it’s a hundred bucks more, but for that money you’re basically ensuring that it is actually reasonably safe, and as it ages, your shop techs can actually adjust it so that it stays within range, and if one binding starts to drift, they can bring it back in line for you. You’re getting a usable ski binding for that money. Instead of paying the better part of 600 dollars for an experimental coin toss. You might as well just spend a little bit more, and get something that’s actually safe.
I honestly don’t know why anyone would want to buy this thing when there are better alternatives. But hey, user beware. You do you.
Sara: Why is the release adjustment on the Ion testable if the ATK is not? Neither are DIN certified.
The main thing I don’t understand about AT bindings with or without DIN certification is this:
Do bindings across all manufacturers release with the same amount of lateral or vertical force if set at the same “DIN” value on the binding (let’s say 8) with the same boot? Will a maxed out Zed 9 release at the same force as an ATK Raider 14 set to 9?
There are so many types and styles of touring bindings I doubt it’s possible this is the case. I’ve heard shops can’t test AT binding release values because there is no way to tell what passes or fails.
We all have told the shop tech our height, weight, BSL, and skiing ability to get a DIN value in which to set the binding.
Without standardization how do we know when we crank up the value to 14 it’s really a true 14? Never mind U-spring bindings with no lateral tension adjustment like the Atomic/Salomon Tour.
Are we just left on our own to calibrate it ourselves? If we get a pre-release and fall we set it higher so it doesn’t pre-release? Or looser when the binding doesn’t release after a fall when you think it should have? Please help me understand this since it just seems like a free for all with our knees and bodies at risk.
Some shops have a special device that goes inside the boot and gets attached to a torque wrench to test the release values. In theory you could test your resort binding torque and then set your R14 to the same or more because obviously. A Scarpa 95flex is relative to the other boots in the line, I would generally assume non din bindings are the same. I bet that the R14 cranked to 14 will break your tib-fib but still release in the ensuing avalanche.
What are the advantages with spacers except for safer release when going for biiig jumps or really (!) hard downhill? Will I get general better control when skiing/cruising downhill? Stomping big cliffs I save for the resort days (or younger generations), backcountry I enjoy the powder and surroundings… 🙂
Hi,
I looked around your encyclopedic website but I didn’t find it, do you have a comparison of the distances (width wise) between front screws for the different bindings on the market.
I am considering mounting some tech binding on a 100mm ski. I have for years mounted regular tlt superlite on 94mm width skis, but this time I am afraid of going a bit overboard.
Tnaks for all the good work,
Joel
Joel, here is one:
https://skimo.co/tech-binding-hole-patterns?gclid=Cj0KCQiAlKmeBhCkARIsAHy7WVv3u3PzKeKGxOBrhaJfnUxKgtl8ob02WgLvtIsWReGkM2f5455JZEYaAuW4EALw_wcB
Thank you Slim. This is a useful link indeed. Though they have some errors I have some atk12 and their measures are really off.
Best,
Joel