Marker F12 Slop vs Duke/Baron slop?

I'm planning on picking up some Marker F12s this week, but am still a bit worried about how much play/slop they have? From this link, http://www.wildsnow.com/379/backcoun...ng-flex-tests/, it looks like the F12s are actually the least sloppy of most touring bindings, even the Duke. Other places, however, I've read they tend to be sloppier than the Duke/Baron, can anyone attest to this? I'll be doing about 70% inbounds, so I do want more downhill than uphill performance. I'm only 145lbs though too, so I thought the F12 should be a better option than the Baron, I have no need of the extra beefiness, and weigh, at last I think. An advice greatly appreciated. thanks.

bump. nobody has skied both to compare? would love to have your input.

if you want downhill performance, get dynafit.

Not sure about dukes, but I have barons and F12s and don't notice a difference.

It looks like that link was from 2010. I skied with someobody last year in the Marker Tour F12s and the amount of slop in them (the toe piece) after a couple weeks of touring rendered them unusable. They apparently changed the design significantly for this season but I don't have any info as to performance this year.

If you are doing 70% in-bounds, I would go with the Barons. My wife has a few years of heavy use on hers with no issues.

70% inbounds = Barons or Dukes, whichever you can get for less $.

Every anecdotal report on the F12 seems to end with breakage, often after just a few days of skiing. I haven't skied it, just played with it in the store. It feels super flimsy.

Ok, thanks for all the comments. I guess maybe I would be better off to go with a Baron. I thought, because this years F12s have been considerably beefed up, they might be a good option, but as you say, 70% inbounds definately=Barons. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod9301

if you want downhill performance, get dynafit.

---

dynafit for downhill performance? They're good uphill, but not so much downhill, at least not as much as the dukes.

Skied both bindings on essentially the same ski earlier this year on man-made hardpack. I did notice a bit more lateral flex in the F12 than in the Baron. As others have said, 70% inbounds = Baron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karl May

dynafit for downhill performance? They're good uphill, but not so much downhill, at least not as much as the dukes.

---

As far as putting power to the ski, Dynafits have far less slop than other AT bindings and compare favorably with the best alpine bindings. Keep digging at wildsnow,
the problem with skiing them as resort bindings is durability and pre-release, not edge control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karl May

dynafit for downhill performance? They're good uphill, but not so much downhill, at least not as much as the dukes.

---

Dynafits ski great downhill, on par with Dukes -- in terms of boot-to-binding interface stiffness or flex. They're not going to be as durable as Dukes/ Barons for 70% inbounds daily pounding.

If you said 70% backcountry, 30% inbounds, and this is a powder ski (i.e. not a daily ski), then go with Dynafits.

70% inbounds = Dukes or Barons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbense

As far as putting power to the ski, Dynafits have far less slop than other AT bindings and compare favorably with the best alpine bindings. Keep digging at wildsnow,
the problem with skiing them as resort bindings is durability and pre-release, not edge control.

---

ok, yeah, i see what you mean. i was thinking more in terms of durability and release.
on a side note, i don't weigh much either, though, so is it worth having the extra beef and weight of the baron, even for inbounds?

Barons aren't extra weight/beef.
STH16's on a MFD Alltime plate are