Marker Duke EPF vs Salomon Guardian

S

SwagtasticWalrus

Active member
They would be mounted on Surface Lab 001. 131 in the waist so they are pretty wide. Which of the two bindings are wider? Which are burlier? (DIN will be at 8-ish) I am 6'4 185. +k 10/10 for help!
 
Salomon says their binding is wider than the duke, but marker made the new duke 28% wider this year so not sure what they are basing it off of. Guardians are lower to the ski . Guardian you can get in and out of turing mode while you are still on your ski, but if you are taking skins off you most likely will be getting out of your skis anyways. Dukes def looks burlier though.
 
"The Tracker/Guardian is slightly heavier than Duke, but has wider mounting points, wider overall construction, 25mm lower stand height, metal rails & heel construction, adjustable toe height, 2 climbing heights, and metal ski/tour engagement system. As you flex the ski, the engagement system strengthens, it doesn't open- it only gets more secure. "

are you going to be doing fast laps, or long day tours?
 
I wouldn't say slackcountry. I use skins. I take the lift to 7/8 up the mountain, skin up the rest, ski down the backside, skin up, ski down the backside, and make as many backside laps as possible. But I also do resort pow days and sometimes go to Alta/Brighton/Solitude/Snowbird.
 
Personally, I would go with the Guardians over the dukes. I spent a week on them last season and they feel pretty much exactly like a regular alpine binding on the way down. I really liked the low stand height and the ability to change the ski to walk mode while clipped in.

You'll have to post a review of the Lab 1s once you've put some time on them. I considered getting a pair, but at 6' I felt like they might be too short as the 184 New Lifes I have feel borderline already. Am curious to see what you think being 6' 4". Regardless, should be nice and surfy.
 
Ive not rode either but i will share what i have seen of the bindings in the workshop after mounting. The salmon heel has way more lateral play in the holding mechanism than the duke which diverts power and precision away from your turns on the way down. Whether or not that was due to an off mount i dont know (it was one of the most gung-ho mounts ive ever seen, with the customer standing watching). The guardian has no way of having a free heel and being able to get your foot flat which could be a pain for long flat sections or traverses. In terms of toe pieces they seem pretty similar, but to me the heel piece on the duke seems burlier despite the anount of plastic same with the runners between. The guardians feel like they would be more inclined to have more torsional play with the thinner metal bars than the dukes plastic. Personally if i was thinking about touring bindings i would give salamon/atomic a season to work out the problems of a brand new binding, ( i understand they will have done extensive testing but its not the same as giving your product out to your market to put it through its paces for a whole season).
 
Like you said, you'll have to ski them. Every binding has heel play due to forward pressure/not having a boot in the system. Once you click into a Tracker/Guardian, it's like having an alpine race binding in terms of power transmission. Especially because of all the metal in the construction.

The toe height of the Tracker/Guardian is adjustable in a way that does not change the ramp angle of the boot, which is important in keeping the boot's natural geometry. With the Duke, your ramp angle increases or decreases depending on which type of boot sole you have.

I'm not sure what you mean by "no way of having a free heel and being able to get your foot flat"...
 
Yeah i thought it might be something like the forward pressure set up without boot, it just suprised me a little. What i meant was when you put the guardian in tour mode the stand which foldsup to give you the step angle is either up to the full height or all the way over and not flat and i would have thought being able to be in tour mode and to be able to put your foot down flat would be desirable. I understand the advantages of an adjustable toe height but surely climb 3 angles are better than 2, or have i missed/misunderstood something?
 
Ah ok, now I got you. Yep, there are only 2 climbing heights- low and high (I can't remember their angles off the top of my head. Sorry, I'm just the boot guy)

Given that the vast majority of people using the Tracker/Guardian aren't going to be on long flat tours, the 2 options were what our athletes and testers really liked. Even for the flat/flatter sections, the low option still works really well.
 
How much lower standing is the guardian? And which has a wider screw pattern? +k to all. and I'm kinda leaning towards the Dukes because they are proven and I can get them cheaper (about 100 bucks cheaper).
 
Not knowing the angles as the boot guy is understandable but without watching the half hour long video on them i cant seem to find them on the sites. tbh I've never liked how salomon advertise their products on their website. For me, when im looking to buy something i'm all about the technical specifications and independant reviews rather than testimony's from company sponsored athletes and marketing bumf. maybe thats just my scientific nature. I can see that the low really isnt that much of an angle and so it would still perform relatively well for short flat tours, i suppose it really just depends what you plan on doing with your touring bindings.

I understand about the heel locking system being easier to engage and disengage than the marker under boot system which you need to step out your boot for (which i believe is patented?) but i would be interested as to how well the tracker/guardian system holds up over time and which system has a better lifetime before it turns into an intermittent telemark binding.
 
Dukes have a wider hole pattern but the guardian is a wider platform. I personally picked up guardians this year. I just couldn't pass it up. Skiing them you have no idea you are in an at binding. I did have trouble getting into your mode with my pole though.
 
Stack height on the Duke EPF is 36mm, the Guardian stands 10mm lower at 26mm. The Guardian/Tracker's chasis measures a width of 80mm, I've heard rumors that the Duke EPF's chasis is infact 90mm, which is not 28% wider than the 76mm of previous years. With regards to the mounting pattern, the Guardian/Tracker features 4 screws in the toe and 6 in the heel, compared to the Duke EPF's 4 in the toe and 4 in the heel. The Guardian/Tracker's mounting pattern covers a marginally larger spread than the Duke EPF. The Guardian/Tracker is a heavier binding than the Duke EPF, the Guardian weighs in at 2,960g (6.52lbs) whist the Duke EPF weighs 2,760g (6.08lbs) and 2,790g (6.15lbs) in the small and large sizes respectively. I'm not sure if they are up yet but take a look on TGR and see if you can find the mounting templates for the Guardian and Duke EPF, so you can see some of the differences regarding mounting patterns for yourself.

Hope this helps, feel free to pm if you've got any questions on the above, Joey
 
Thanks guys I really appreciate it! So does screw pattern width transmit power or the platform width? And the descent is more important to me. I want maximum solidness and power transmission.
 
Then get the guardian. Like I said before you have no clue you are on a touring binding. But on thtq duke I felt awkward with the height. Granted I only made a few runs on each but that was my first impression.
 
in order for the Tracker/Guardian to go into tele-mode, the heel would have to rip out of the ski, which is the problem for any binding. The more the ski flexes underfoot, the stronger the engagement system becomes. It does not loosen when skiing, it only becomes more secure.
 
can you explain how this works? or is this a piece of tech which is patented or secret as the description of how the mechanism works is vague.also how does using touring boots work with the guardian in terms of releasing when it should as i notice it doesnt seem have a sliding afd plate, which i can only assume was a trade off for the lowered stack height of the binding? surely this limits the use of the binding to alpine and hybrid boots due to the release problems of touring boot soles not sliding on on non sliding afd plates. is it that this binding really just isnt to be marketed to somebody who tours enough to get proper touring boots?

i hope this is coming across as interest and not an attempt to attack the binding, every binding has pros and cons and im just trying to (help OP) get a grasp of that and i appreciate your replies.
 
Can only answer part of your question, but salomon quest boots come with touring soles and those are the only touring boots that salomon will sign off on. but scarpas that sort of shit do work i'm pretty sure its just salomon wont stand behind them which is fair enough i guess.
 
For the mechanism, imagine a metal rod that runs perpendicular across the width of the ski. This metal rod fits into upside down "J" hooks that are forward facing (open end towards the tip). So, as the ski flexes, the binding frame slides rearward further forcing the rod into the J hooks. Because the hooks are open to the front and the rod is pushed to the rear, it is not possible for the system to open when skiing. You can see the hooks in this picture:

PHOTO_15320025_75233_34759139_ap.jpg


Concerning the type of soles that are certified, only soles that are ISO 5355 Alpine DIN are certified for the Tracker/Guardian. This is the same for Market Duke/Baron/Tour. Soles that are in compliance with ISO 9523 Touring Norm are not certified (any rockered, rubber sole with tech inserts and no AFD). ISO 9532 soles are too grippy and they hinder the release of the boot from the binding. This is due to the certification safety agency TUV- they have strict guidelines about the norms and every boot/binding company has to adhere to them. If a binding/boot works for one norm, it cannot work for another. It's just the way it is, unfortunately.

With that said, the Tracker/Guardian can accommodate rockered touring soles because of the adjustable toe height, but it is not recommended to use them because those soles are not certified to work with these bindings.
 
On this note I will say that you can ski with the guardian/tracker with a/t boots and you will not pre-release. I skiied with a guy all day with his a/t boots and his trackers and he didnt come out. the problem is when it comes to releasing is that your toe will not slide, which Matt pointed out.

So since they are not din certified it is just like mounting a dynafit, you sign a piece of paper knowing that when you are locked in there you arent coming out.

Plus the binding isnt marketed towards the type of skier who uses a/t boots, its marketed towards the one ski quiver. so the quest boots work, cochise w/ din soles, and the lange xt. right now there are two different groups in the touring world. full out a/t and slack country.
 
For a couple reasons, the Tracker/Guardian 16 was the first to be released. The main reason is to allow our Binding Development Center to focus 100% on one project. If we released 2 different touring bindings in one year, that would mean our team would have less time dedicated to each binding. And I'm sure you all can understand and appreciate that we decided to focus all of our attention and testing on making this one binding.
 
What ramp angle does the guardian have?

Out local shop just had their first warranty on some guardians. Snow build up under the toe and the binding leveraged on it when stepping down, then breaking the toe piece somewhere. Potentially he didn't have enough climbing height on? I know with my dukes I've had that once or twice. You just need to clean it out or put on the lowest riser height
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top