MFD ALLTIME Alpine Touring Binding

Once the skis were mounted I emailed Jonathan and wrote: “I just had an orgasm.” This was one of the most beautiful setups I have ever owned, and I just hoped that it would ski as great as it looked.

MFD Alltime, MOMENT Bibby Pro

I played around with the workings of the MFD, and was still very impressed with how it all functioned. The climbing aid did, indeed, reach 14 degrees. There are also options for a 6 degree lift, and flat. All three positions adjusted flawlessly and firmly.

It will come as a surprise to no one that this setup is heavy, period. This isn’t a big concern of mine, but I definitely joked around about needing some help to load them into the car.

After a night of fondling and 12″ of fresh at Alta, it was time to go stone grind the new Bibby Pros on Gunsight and see what these MFDs were made of. Due to the low base and light snow, it was pretty obvious I would just be looking at the touring aspect of these bindings, and any real alpine ski performance evaluation would have to wait for a bigger base that permitted real charging.

MFD Tour:

After parking at Albion base and strapping on the setup, I was off. The click in and out of ski and tour mode was flawless, and very easy with the flick of a pole. I start up the cat track in flat mode. The location of the pivot point is interesting. It had been a month since I toured on my Dukes (and I have never skied on Dynafits), so it is difficult to compare, but the MFD touring action felt very natural. I will update this when I get on the GMF Dynafit system or can jump back on the Dukes for a day. (What I can say is that the pivot point is much higher than the Duke’s, and closer to the front of the ski….) I continue on in flat mode.

When touring in flat mode, the climbing aid / lock slides over the entire heel connection and contacts the ski.

MFD ALLTIME alpine touring binding
MFD ALLTIME in flat touring mode. Climbing aid sliding over post.

If you flex the ski torsionally, the plate can catch on the post when moving down or up. The plates are very accurately mounted, and don’t rub at all from side to side, so I don’t believe it is a mount issue. And it happens on both skis. (See the day three commentary below for a continued discussion.)

Once I switched to the 6 degree setting, problem solved. To avoid the flat position for a long, flat or slight downhill skin could be annoying, but for this trip, it was not, and the rest of the skin was very enjoyable.The 6 degree setting allows the climbing aid and lock to sit horizontally and rest on the top of the heel connecting post.

As expected, the 14 degree lifter is amazing. Going up steeps requires little effort compared to a duke with normal riser, at 11 degrees. (Note: The extended bail on a small Duke actually gives you a 15 degree riser.) As steep as my skins would hold, the bindings would continue to be comfortable. The switch from 6 degrees to 14 degrees on the MFD is extremely quick and solid.  I didn’t hesitate to switch even for a 50 yard stretch. It is much more user friendly than a Duke, period.

The kick turn with this plate is also very efficient, and surprised me. The location of the pivot forces the ski to rotate to the point that you can flip your downhill to uphill ski around super easily. Neither the Duke nor the Freeride react like this in kick turns. I’m no expert at skinning, but I have done my fair share of kick turns, and I was blown away at how this binding performed as opposed to a Duke or Freeride.

Joe Augusten, MFD ALLTIME, Alta Ski Area.
Joe Augusten, kick turn, ski pivot, Greeley Hill, Alta Ski Area.

The MFD is also incredibly stable when side hilling or for “technical skinning,” by which I mean, “early season rock climbing on skis.”

There was rarely a time on the Dukes or Freerides that I wasn’t concerned about snapping them in half while side hilling. The MFD is a different story. It is so well built, wide, and stiff, that there is no concern about the torsional strength in the toe connection. The added stiffness also allows you to be much more accurate and confident with ski placement in rocky situations. Even with the long mount length, the climbing aid would land directly in the center of the post even on steep side hills when the ski and binding was torqued to the max, proving the stiffness of the setup.

Overall, I am much more confident and happy skinning on the MFD system than on either the Freeride or Duke.

After 45 minutes of skinning, I was very satisfied with the performance of the plate. The only advantage I can see with a Fritschi or Duke is the weight.

Joe Augusten, MFD ALLTIME, Rossignol FKS 140, Alta Ski Area.
Pictured here: Joe, NOT writing a 5000 word review, Alta Ski Area.

I swap into ski mode and enjoy the face shots. The detail on the rear connecting plate leads to very little snow or ice build up, and as my buddies cleaned out their dukes, I easily swapped mine into ski mode and was ready to go. No issues at all.

If the MFD plate was used in flat mode, I could see some ice building under the main part of the binding. But the ice would have to stick to the ski, which I think is more unlikely than ice sticking to the rough plastic of a Duke, or other connecting plates. (Again, see the day three commentary.)

While day two of testing left me very impressed with the plate system, I did have one issue with the 14 degree position of the climbing aid not connecting directly onto the heel piece, inducing some movement and lateral spring engagement in the rear. This was incredibly minor, and only noticeable with a slight vibration on every step. I will investigate further on day three.

After two days of touring, I still had three questions to answer: (1) What is the deal with the flat position skinning? (2) Is there an issue with ice / snow build up? (3) Was the 14 degree minor vibration an isolated situation? (Plus, Jonathan is on my case to get a decent photo, to prove that I’m actually skiing the MFDs, and not just examining them under a microscope.)

Before I head out for the day, I email Jason Prigge again at MFD, and ask him about the flat touring position. He agrees with my analysis and says it can be an issue, but that the tight tolerance is critical for the added stiffness when in ski mode. (I can concur.) He suggests not using the flat position when sidehilling.

So I head out solo for a quick lap up Greeley to test out a few things and take a photo (solo). I start out of Albion with the MFDs in flat mode, and try and get the rear climbing aid to catch. Easily accomplished. I figure that this is less about sidehilling, then, and more about torquing the plate laterally around the toe connection. This offsets the plate, and the climbing aid / lock catches on the rear post. The more I walk, the more obvious it seems that this really isn’t an issue when you are aware of it, and I would much rather have a stiff connection for the descent.

In addition, after a half mile in the flat position, there is still no ice or snow build up, and the Alltime switches between skin and ski mode flawlessly. The Dukes have many small crevices and small pieces on the front and rear connecting plates that are always impacted with snow at the end of a skin. On three tours, I noticed no such issues with the MFD. The change from tour to ski mode was perfect.

I test the 14 degree setting out for the rest of the trip, and have no problems. I will chalk my previous issue up to an isolated situation, where maybe an ice chunk got stuck in the slider, or something along those lines.

I get to the top, click into ski mode, and ski High Rustler to the base with a big smile. I gave the Bibbys another nice stone grind on this run, too. (Man are they bomber! Very little damage.)

After three days of touring, I am left with little concern about the touring aspect of the MFD. There was no rubbing of the plates or screws; the climbing aid worked perfectly; there was no snow or ice build up; they were incredibly stable, and overall, they were just easy and efficient to tour with. I may have been slightly more tired than with a lighter Dynafit setup, and I couldn’t care less.

MFD Ski:

My initial impressions are positive after my first three soft snow, conservative ski runs, and I will update this shortly, probably with another 2000 words. (Editor’s Note: Sigh.)

The Update:

After a few days of touring and skiing pow on the MFD/FKS setup, I finally had an opportunity to get on some hardpack bumps and crud to really test these beasts out. I spent the day at Solitude, and although it was basically only one trail, with about five turns of anything over 20 degrees in pitch, I was able to get a pretty good feel on these from charging bumps, crud, and water bars.

I started off by taking a half dozen runs on my regular Bibby Pros, since I hadn’t skied them in 6 or 7 months and wanted to get a feel for them again. Once I was warmed up and back in love with them, I swapped to the MFD/FKS setup. My previous concerns of the long mount length and its effects on the flex of the ski were quickly thrown out the window. The overall flex of the ski is slightly stiffer than the standard FKS setup, but it is still a very natural and even flex. As stated before, the natural flex remains given that the pinned connections do not induce any localized stiffness in the ski itself at their connection points (unlike an alpine binding connection). There was a very even edge hold and a fluid transition and pop from one turn to the next.

I believe the ski feels slightly stiffer because the cantilever from the front of the binding to the tip—and the back of the binding to the tail—is shorter than the normal setup. More force is needed to deflect the ski, making the ski feel slightly stiffer, especially in the tip and tail.

In these conditions, I actually thought the ski felt better than the standard FKS setup, as a stiffer ski was more stable and allowed me to plow through the water bars with much more confidence. In other conditions, I could imagine this to be a slight detriment, but in the big picture, the change in stiffness is very slight, hardly a concern.

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that my setup is a size S/M MFD mounted to a ski that is relatively stiff, and 190cm in length. I would understand more concern about the mount length if you were to mount a M/L MFD—which is 30mm longer than the S/M—on a softer ski that was, say, 175cm in length. Just something to keep in mind when thinking about this issue and your particular setup.

All other aspects of the ski flex and binding stiffness were perfect. There is absolutely zero slop in this setup. The lateral stiffness, which translates into the torsional force transfer into the ski, is unmatched by the Fritschi or the Duke. It feels as if the binding is mounted straight to the ski.

The stack height, or lack thereof, is just awesome. 26mm (FKS) versus 35.5mm (Duke) and even greater on the Fritschi.

Basically, the MFD/FKS setup skis as if the plates aren’t even there. What more could you ask for?

Bottom Line:

Simple: If you bought a Duke 5 or 6 years ago because you were looking for an alpine binding to tour with, I would suggest that you throw it away and buy the MFD. The Alltime might have a few minor annoyances, but in the bigger picture, this is a slam dunk. It is a gorgeous system from one end to the other, and it performs wonderfully from the moment you get out of the car, to the moment you get back and crack open a beer.

After half a dozen days on the snow, I haven’t found one issue that would lead me to say that this isn’t the best touring system out there that utilizes an alpine setup for touring.


I’m sure that the weight and the price of the Alltime system will continue to be considered and discussed by many. But again, it’s pretty simple: the MFD Alltime is not cheap, and it weighs more than most systems. Is it worth it?

To me, absolutely.

To you?

70 comments on “MFD ALLTIME Alpine Touring Binding”

  1. that was a sick and very detailed review. glad to see wild snow and the community in general has some more good company for BC reviews. thanks!

  2. Just ordered my small/med Tyrolia/4FRNT/Head Alltimes for my Head Mojos a couple days ago and will be here shortly! I knew last spring these would be my new touring setup. Finally reviews are flying across the screen! It is great to finally read what folks are saying about them. My decision to go with the Alltimes is making me more and more confident that I went with the right choice! This was the review that put the cherry on top! Thank you so much for getting so detailed with it. We all have all of these concerns when looking at new gear, and your review nailed it! I will be getting mine mounted at a shop as I don’t have the tools, and you can bet I will be printing this out and making sure they read all of your technical mounting stuff! I love that you threw them on the Bibby’s as well. I have a pair of the green 2010-11 Liberty Double Helix’s (the green with the purple is going to look fabulous!) that I am mounting these on, and I will be getting a pair of Bibby’s as my fully rockered ski that I will be swapping my bindings to! Once again, thank you so much for all your useful information and experience! Can’t wait to read more!

    PS. Could it be possible to just make copies of the mounting template to like 11×17 inch paper for easier mounting?

    • Thanks, Nola. The photo copy idea is great. I’m going to do this right now so that I have it for my records before the plastic gets more damaged. I would just double check that the scale does not get screwed up, but a quality machine should do the trick.

  3. Joe-

    Do shops carry (does MFD provide) a jig for mounting this system? It seems a shop that sells multiple pairs of these on the reg would want some quicker easier mounting capability aside from just the DIY template method. Not very efficient when one is doing mounts all day.

    Great review. Long, but that is good cause it is thorough. Blister kills it early and often with some of the most complete and thoughtful reviews in the industry. Keep it up fellas.

    • Thanks,

      I don’t know of any jigs at the moment. I think as the popularity grows, this will be the next step. I would agree, it would make the project much quicker and more accurate.


  4. Hey Guys, I’ll keep this brief.

    How would you feel about this setup on the 2012 ObSETHed? I’m 240lbs, but it’s deceptive because i’m an athlete and over 6′ tall. Advanced to mild-expert skier, have done Silverton, Mica Heli, and most of the major Vail Valley, co as well. I’ll be hopping out to Alta sometime this year, if my wallet and inherent manliness allow.

    Long story short, i’m looking, because of my weight, at the FKS 180xxl and these plates to go on the 189 obsethed, for a mix of Cat skiing, silverton-like Sidecountry and the backsides of Stowe and Vail, respectively. This is a hair shorter of a ski than my weight usually asks for, but i like skiing short.

    Obviously this would not be my go-to east coast setup, but I have smaller ( and lighter) Black diamond ski’s for that. But for an east coast snow-day, and West/Heli setup, how would you feel about this combo?


    • Phil,

      I don’t see any reason that this setup wouldn’t work. I would be inclined to mount this setup as close to center as possible as opposed to a few centimeters back. Due to the soft tip and tail of this ski, the further back you mount, the more you would notice the change in stiffness of the tail with the cantilever effect as mentioned in the review.

      I don’t see any issues with the plate as a whole with a large skier, these beasts are bomber! But would love to hear your feedback once you get on them if that is the route you go.

      Good luck!


  5. I am thinking about doing an FKS/MFD that’s swappable with Dynafit using Binding Freedom inserts.

    For those days when ‘I know I’m touring’ vs ‘I might be touring’ …

    So to figure this out:

    1. Would it be possible to put an M5 insert screw through the MFD-to-SKI mounting holes?

    2. If you throw a Dynafit template under the MFD template, are there any issues with hole centers being too close, say less than 2cm? (Assume same BSL for the tech boot, or maybe slightly shorter.)

    3. How close are the mounting holes on the MFD rear post plate? More or less than 2cm centers?
    (I have concerns in general about the attachment points of the rear post being too close for fat skis.)

    • 1: yes, the M5 machine threads would work fine through the MFD’s into inserts. I would double check the length, but I’m assuming the same flat head screws that you would use with the Duke’s would work with the MFD’s. This is something I will do shortly and update you on the correct length.

      2: I’m working on getting the MFD template and overlaying the two. I would imagine there will be some close calls on the toe. The heel will be no issue.

      3: I am checking on this distance and will update shortly. The distance doesn’t seem too close to me, and the fact that they are so long, the pull force is much smaller than a typical binding. The detail on the rear also reduces the torque into the post, as the plate rests on the ski on each side of the post. It doesn’t fully rely on the screws.

  6. I just gotta say thanks a million for this review. I’ve been agonizing over the decision between dukes and MFDs w/FKS and this made me feel great about going with some MFDs. Always scary buying a brand new product but thanks for the extremely detailed, in-depth review.

  7. Thanks for the measurements Joe!
    I’m no engineer, but I was thinking about the side to side leverage applied to the block from a fat ski (say 115mm) rolling from edge to edge on hard pack. (Wide screw pattern = better?)

    • Your reasoning is definitely correct on the spread of the screws. However, the heel is not a direct connection with these screws. To resist the torque you mention, the compression is on the heel piece of the plate which is a few cm’s wider than the block that is screwed into the ski. The tension part will be the upper screws. So in reality, you’d have probably 6-7 cm’s between the compression and tension zones resisting the torque you speak of. I don’t see this being an issue, but will keep it in mind my next time out and let you know what I think.

  8. Thanks for the awesome review.
    Do you know by any chance if they’re available in europe too ? Would be nice to avoid the extra money for international shipping from backcountry …

  9. 5 points for the engineering analysis. You are right in your comment about the binding screws into the threaded plate. Once the Al is stressed past its yield point it will become stiffer, but the deformation permanent (making mounting and re-mounting using the same holes questionable methinks). Perhaps the next revision could have a PEM (type) nut pressed into the plate, allowing for swap-ability. Added weight would be minimal.

  10. So how do you like it so far? Any wear related issues, swearing at the weight for longer hikes etc…?

    Would it be possible to drill out that goofy wood screw tap and thread it for M5 instead?

    • I haven’t been out on these an immense amount given the low snow conditions, but still love the setup. The durability issue doesn’t seem to be a problem at all, but it is also pretty early on.

      Drilling and retapping for the m5 thread would not be possible in the existing holes. The only thing you could do would be to drill in a different location or drill out the tap and install some sort of tee nut from the bottom. Drilling in a different location would also be near impossible, as they have pretty tight clearances as it is to make all the boot soles work.

  11. I also had problems with the flat touring position – when the ski is flexed the rear will catch annoyingly, resulting in possible blisters on your heel if touring flat for awhile.

    Therefore, after a consideration of the heel block and how overbuilt it is, I removed 75 thousandths of an inch (0.075″) from the area described in this photo and it now operates perfectly in flat mode even if the ski is flexed.

  12. It mentioned in the review that you couldn’t remount the plates with different bindings; but can you still unscrew the plate from one ski and mount it on another without taking bindings off the plate?

  13. Hey Joe,
    Very, very nice review. As I was reading, I had the feeling that I was reading a technical paper. I was thinking that the reviewer must be an engineer of some sort. I clicked on the link to your bio, and then it hit me. “Hey, that’s the same Joe I’ve chatted with at Taos!” (just last Thursday in the Whistlestop, in fact) Keep up the awesome work.

  14. Hi Joe,

    I am new to backcountry & looking forward to maybe making around 5% of my total ski time in AT. Hopefully more if I get the bug. I just bought 186 Rossi S3 (am 175lbs & like bumps) set up with Rossi FKS 140L bingings and went all in based on your review to get the MFD. However, I made a big mistake in measuring my boots and got the M/L MFDs when I could have just done S/M. I skied yesterday in 10 inch pow conditions and the set up was great. I am paranoid that the MFDs will take away from the flex feel but your review indicated the ski might be even better to possibly stiffen an S3 that might be too soft to begin with. Question- I think I should try to get the store to give me a S/M and remount either the S3s or decide to remount this set up on my older Dynastar Legend 8800 and make that my permanent backcountry ski so I can let the S3 peform to its max in resorts. What path would you go? Great site and reviews- Todd

    • Todd, I personally like to always have a dedicated backcountry ski. But that is a personal preference and up to you whether you would rather rock the S3 or 8800 in the backcountry, and whether you’re willing to sacrifice some things in bounds on the S3. I do think that going to the S/M would make a slight difference on the ski, but I probably wouldn’t buy a new setup to do that. If the shop is willing to make the switch for free, I would strongly consider that. With the plates, you would only have to redrill the back holes which is nice, as the toe would stay in the same position and your boot would still be centered. If you were skiing a shorter ski, say mid-170’s, I would be more concerned, but with the longer ski, I think you’ll be happy with whatever route you go.

  15. Thank You for this review! I just bought some new Armadas, and am putting the MFD Alltimes on them. I’m just now doing the research, after I made an impulse purchase this morning…. :) Glad to see the reviews are awesome! I can’t wait to give ’em a try!

  16. hey joe, what is the weight of the complete setup, I mean th plates plus the fks binding, per ski? if you have those specs on hand i would love to know.

    • Heavy :)

      The MFD’s supposedly weigh 600 grams per plate (from MFD website) and the FKS 14’s weigh 1075 grams per binding (from REI website), 1675 grams per ski. I have not weighed mine to compare. Definitely not a light setup, anyway you look at it.

  17. Joe,

    I just got the MFD M/L-FKS 14 xxl setup for my 2012 gotamas (186). I was wondering what is the best mounting postion taking in to consideration the slight stiffing due to the long plate, (manufacturers)boot center, +1, +2? I’ll be using this setup for pow, side country and back country with the occasionaly front side run.

    • Eric,

      Sorry for the tardy response.

      Mounting position in my mind is an incredibly personal issue and feeling.

      I don’t think the added stiffness from the MFD would affect where I mounted a ski. However, If you feel the ski is already too over powering, or close, you may consider going a centimeter forward to give you a little more control of the ski. But again, this has to do with personal preference and skiing style. I can think of some situations where you may want to do the opposite depending on skiing style.

      I guess the question for you is, if you have a slightly stiffer ski, where do you want the mount position?

      Personally I would probably leave it alone and mount where you like to ski the ski.


  18. Got the small MFD mounted with FKS in Truckee – Was in a rush before returning to Europe and on return noticed that one on the screws On the tow piece is horribly cross threaded and also caused the plastic in the tow mount to lift – any suggestions before I try and fix the mess!

    • Any chance of sending some photos?

      I retapped one of mine, but it was only a turn or two in, and not too bad. You could always drill a clearance hole and tee nut it from the bottom with a m5 thread. I’d have a tough time making the call without seeing it though.

  19. Hey Joe i was thinking about this same set up on a pair of Armada JJ’s. I am 150lbs and would probably be looking at the 185’s. Any suggestions?
    Thanks a ton!

    • Although I haven’t skied the JJ, I think the MFD would work great on that ski, as it is not too short or soft. If you can fit on the small, go that route. Other than that, enjoy!!

      • One more question (until i think of a new one)…how much does it affect the flex of the ski? Say for butters and tricks that require a little more tip and tail flex? Also because i just thought of another question, how does it compare to the new Solomon/ATOMIC AT binding just coming out? Or have you not tested it yet. Rock on.

        • Page 3 has a pretty good photo with relation to the mount lengths. On a longer ski, the flex isn’t changed drastically. I also think the tip flex is changed less than the tail. If you look at the photo, the toe mount location is only moved forward slightly. The heel mount location is really where the difference is.

          In terms of the Salomon. Blister is testing this binding in Las Lenas as we speak (Actually they are probably on a bus halfway between somewhere and LL, but soon enough). Personally, I don’t have a lot of interest in the setup. I have yet to ski it, but fondled it a decent amount. To me, it looks like an improved Duke. The MFD and Green Mountain Freeride (search for this on TGR) systems are two great systems where you can use your standard alpine binding. To me, this is paramount to all other aspects of touring bindings . If you’re not wiling to make compromises on that front, I’d stick with those two. If you are looking for something in between, and an improvement on the Duke, the Salomon may be your ticket. There is a first look on the Salomon if you search for Gaurdian 16 on Blister. There is also a ton of discussion in Tech Talk on TGR about different touring setups. It’s all a personal choice with the type of skier, type of touring and amount of touring vs. in bounds skiing you do.

  20. Joe – I have STH 14 Drivers and Moment Night Trains and am trying to decide on a mount point. You mentioned in an earlier comment that mounting a bit more center on the Obsethed would be more optimal for MFD use due to the softer tip/tail of the ski. I do not ski switch too often but don’t want to limit myself either. Since you have had a lot of time on the Bibby Pro, and being that the Night Train/Bibby Pro are somewhat similar in longitudinal flex, would you suggest mounting the STH/MFD no further back than -1? My biggest fear is compromising the nice even flex of the Night Train and stiffening up the tail too much. Thanks! Keep up the good work.

  21. Would you ever consider the fks 180 on the all-time or would it be waayyy too heavy for any significant touring?

    Thanks for the great review,


    • Would I consider? Yes. Have I considered? Yes.

      One of the reasons i put the 14 on there is because i had never skied it. I had always been on the 18 and wanted to see if there was a difference with the toe release/retention. I haven’t tested them in that sketchy situation yet where you feel the elasticity of the toe. Will the toe react the same? Time will tell.

      14 vs 18: It’s all a matter of personal preference and the type of touring in my mind. To me, as said in the review, I’d rather get the workout on the way up and have what I want on my feet on the way down. You don’t rock RS 130’s and MFD’s to enjoy the tour. Will it be heavy? No doubt. But I think since the weight is concentrated on the center of your ski, if you’re not going inverted every other run, you probably won’t notice it that much on the alpine end. And after a few days, you’ll be in better shape than anyone else out there. If that is what you’re looking for, I wouldn’t hesitate.

  22. My one concern with this system is the locking mechanism. For example, if one lands switch in pow, wouldn’t there be a good chance that force of the snow might push the locking lever up and release to tour mode? Otherwise this all looks very good.

  23. so, what’s the word, are these things awesome? I am about to buy for all of the normal reasons.. lower rise off the ski, more trust in DH bindings. Any thing I should consider? I don’t really care about weight.


    • If you don’t care about weight and are looking for that alpine binding to tour in, there is nothing else on the market right now that compares to this in my mind. The only thing to watch out for is the mount length. I’d be wary of mounting this on a shorter softer ski.

  24. Joe,

    Great review. I read the comment above about the Armada JJ. I considering the MFD with Rossi FKS bindings. I’m hesitant though since I’m 5’6” and my JJs are 175. I’d definitely get the small MFD but would the long length still be a concern?


  25. Question for Joe (the engineer who reviewed the Alltime),

    I love the in depth review of the MFD Alltime AT plate. I know it was posted a while ago so Im sorry to dig up old material, but I have a question that I cannot find anywhere on the internet. Background: Im looking for a BC setup but don’t want to sacrifice anything on the decent, I have decided that I am willing to suffer on the way up if it means have a true feeling DH setup on the way down. To this end I have narrowed the search to the Alltime and BCA trekkers. I looked at the Guardian, but it looks like a beefed up Duke to me. I have two sets of skis and would like pivot 18s on both, so the Alltime with the switch plates is appealing. however, at almost 300 for the plate and then 90 for the switch, Im close to the cost of buying two sets of pivot 18s with trekkers (closeish).
    So my question is this with regard to the Alltime, I understand how the free floating block dissipates the shear stress on the screws and allows the ski to flex naturally (perhaps even more so then even the shortest mounting alpine binding), but I am concerned with where the force I apply to the the boot will in-turn be applied to the ski. With such a long cantilever, perhaps 2-3” off the back of the boot, I would be in theory be flexing the ski about the rear mounting block, not the heel of the boot like alpine bindings. This would in turn create a much stiffer feeling tail then a ski mounted with alpine bindings. the ski would be able to bow under the plate as a result of the floating block, but the force would be applied much further back then normal. those are my thoughts and have been driving me crazy so if you could let me know what you think I would greatly appreciate it. The scenario I am envisioning is rocking back onto the tails like in a buttering situation.
    Second, I have some shop equipment, so I was thinking of making a metal toe piece for the trekkers. I have never used them so I don’t know if this would solve the problem of them breaking or not.

    Again thanks for your time,

    • Johnathan,

      I apologize for the delayed response.

      I think the situation you describe is probably the worst case scenario for feeling the difference in stiffness with these plates on them. With a longer, stiffer ski and a small plate, I wouldn’t be too concerned about this issue. However, as mentioned before, with a smaller softer ski, it could be more noticeable. The fact that the binding isn’t nearly as rigid in it’s connection to the ski as a standard binding makes the issue of the long mount length less of an issue (although it is still an issue, agreed).


  26. I have hurt my knees before and therefore only ride a DIN on 8.5 (5″8″ 155lbs) and I don’t do anything crazy. Max 10 foot cliffs, mostly just go really fast, make big surfy turns and slashes with carving 360s and buttering off natural features. Expert skier, doing max 2 hour hikes, day tours only. I love the FKS 140 XXL. I know they’re good for my knees.

    Most likely will be riding the 192 Line Opus, I already have the 185 for my resort ski.

    My question: Should I just get Marker Barons since I don’t do any huge airs, or should I stick with the tried and true FKS 140 XXLs and get the MFD Alltimes?

    • One of the main reasons I wanted the MFD’s is so i could keep the elasticity of the FKS bindings. I think if you are concerned with your knees, and don’t mind the added weight and possible slight stiffness change, I would go MFD. Although, as Severius mentioned, the tech binding will hold you in no problem, it just doesn’t release (and not release elastically) like an FKS in my mind.

      In the end it is everyone’s personal preference and what positives and negatives are most important to them. To me, it is saving my knees and riding an FKS downhill at almost any cost.

  27. If you don’t need higher DIN than 8,5 and you’re doing max. 10 foot cliffs you could easily do well with tech bindings, be it Dynafit or Plum. But considering that you do only 2 hikes and day tours you’ll do well with with FKS+MFD also. I’d go MFD or tech but I really think you can’t go wrong with any of those…

  28. Just trying to make sure I’m 100% making the right decision and not going overkill, as the FKS+MFD is gonna be another $600 :)

  29. My current setup is the Moment Bibby Pro 190 with look pivot 18 and a lange boots sized at 345mm.
    I recently experienced my first proper BC session and I am hooked.
    I really can’t afford a dedicated BC set up so the MFD is looking very sexy tonight.
    My only concern is how much the flex of the ski is affected when skiing harder pack on piste?
    Do any red flags go up when you see the gigantic boot size?
    And finally as the look pivots are already mounted on the Bibbys am I taking a risk on removing and remounting with the MFD’S?
    Keep up the great work this site has been so helpful in finding my set up Thanks

  30. On the webpage for this product, somebody posted, “A couple of my buddies have to constantly tighten up the screws”. Is this a real problem?


  31. Just as I was sending final questions to MFD about the All Time Plate, I got an automated response stating that “due to lack of projected sales for the 2013/14 season we have been forced to make a hard decision and going forward we will not be selling or delivering any further MFD product.”

    God damn it, now I just have to get Guardians and hope that they don’t snap in half, like some people have been reporting. (Can’t get SI&I or Trekkers either)

    • Mikael,

      I hadn’t heard that about MFD, interesting. It’s too bad, as the more folks out there innovating in this area, the better. Hopefully they can come up with another product to market!

      You should really check out the CAST system that is being developed (units being produced right now) at the moment. As you know, the Guardian really isn’t that different than the Duke. The system works for some people, but if you were interested in the MFD, you would definitely be interested in CAST, as it tours better, and skis better. What else could you want?


  32. Hi there. AWESOME revieww, and love all the comments/replies–great stuff. It sounds like the MFD is no longer being produced (odd), but it’s still for sale in some places, so I’m taking a look at it as an option vs. Guardian/Tracker or Duke. I am looking to mount it (not sure yet on binding, but FKS sounds good) to some Rossi Soul 7 180cm….or maybe the 188cm actually–still need to get on them to demo and decide on length. I used to ski Mantra 177, but have heard the Soul 7 skis short. Anyway, I have Tecnica Cochise 110 (29.5), so BSL=340. Any thoughts/concerns on mounting the M/L MFD to the Rossi Soul 7 in either 180cm or 188cm? Finally, your review mentions the width on the MFD being 93.5mm. What is the width for each of the Guardian/Tracker and Duke? Right around 90mm, right? I know it’s splitting hairs, but the wider mount, and lower stack of the MFD should be a reason to mount it on a wider ski like the Rossi Soul 7, right? Appreciate all the feedback. I hope this isn’t all moot now that they are discontinuing the MFD. I’m not sure I’m ready to jump to CAST (which sounds expensive and not totally figured out yet, i.e. needing to mod. boots). Thanks, Ben

    • Hi Ben,

      I would definitely think twice about mounting a large MFD on a 180cm softer ski. Although it’ll still work, you are going to start to notice the effects of that setup on the flex of the ski as mentioned in the review. The 188 less so. The S/M, less so, but that obviously is not an option. I’m not sure of the exact width of the Dukes or Guardians. The MFD would work fine on a 108mm under foot ski in terms of width.

      Considering MFD is now out of business (and maybe not honoring warranty etc, I don’t know?) I would think hard about getting on them in lieu of the CAST system. The CAST system has a large upfront cost, but it is worth it. It is worlds above the MFD. I also wouldn’t say they haven’t figured it out yet. Many times people say to wait for the guinea pigs to test out the first run of equipment design. But they’ve had many skiers on 3 or 4 different designs up to now. It has been tested well. In addition, it is an incredibly simple system. A binding system such as the guardian or duke has many more issues to test versus this. Take a look at the CAST in person and you basically can say: yes, this will work, no issues. It is that simple.

      If you’re willing to deal with shipping the boots, the extra cost of inserts, etc, the CAST system really can’t be beat when comparing to high DIN touring setups. Nothing compares at the moment. The MFD is 2nd in line in my mind, and a great system. But CAST is amazing.


      • Joe, Thank you for the quick response. I appreciate the feedback on your concerns of the MFD on a softer ski like the Soul 7. I was sold on the system until that came up. So, sounds like I should pass on the MFD. Here’s the thing. I currently do not tour at all. I started looking at Dukes, Guardian/Trackers because they are not that much more expensive than a traditional alpine binding, seem to give up little/no performance, and allow a skier like myself to have the option to get into some light backcountry. While it sounds like the CAST system is THE answer…it’s likely well out of my price range considering I’ll likely be on resort at least 90% this season, if not more. One thought to cut back on that cost would be to get the tech soles for my Tecnica Cochise (to avoid sending/paying for the boot mod), but then I don’t think that sole would work with a traditional (i.e. FKS) alpine binding, right? In the end…maybe I should just go with FKS bindings, and then upgrade to the CAST system? Would it be an issue to re-drill, and install the CAST system a year or two from now? Or I could settle in on a Guardian/Marker (leaning that way vs. a Duke if I end up on an AT binding). Thanks again for the feedback…great stuff here. -Ben

        • The CAST system has the same mounting pattern as the binding you are using with it. So that is a non issue. You can simply remove your binding and install the plates once you get on the system. I don’t believe the Cochise touring soles work on the FKS. However, I believe people have modified these by grinding them down. I would be hesitant to do this, as you want to ensure you get a proper release. The FKS is designed to have a smooth hard plastic boot toe for proper release characteristics as the AFD is fixed.

  33. Hey Joe,

    Not sure if you’re still watching this thread, but I just got a pair of MFD plates and am hoping to mount rossignol freeride 150s on them. The bindings are essentially the pivot toe with the rossi race heel piece.

    I heard from some people that the race heel would fit the MFD, but then the tech at the shop I went to said it would not. I’m thinking of drilling my own holes in the plate for my heel piece, do you think this would work?

    Also, the same guy from the shop said the MFDs have a big problem with bending at the pivot point. Have you heard anything about this? Everything I read online (which is from 2012 or older) is positive regarding the strength.



    • David,

      I believe the rossi freeride heel is the same as the px look heels. These are definitely a different pattern than your standard FKS heel. I’m not sure if you could get enough meat where you would drill new holes. You’d have to line up the pattern and see and make the call whether you’re comfortable with that or not. How much do you weigh?

      Saying that the pivot has a “big problem” with bending is a large exaggeration. This has happened, yes. But only to a few individuals, and I would bet it was somewhat due to body weight and somewhat due to user error. The plates are pretty bomber. Although I didn’t spend much time on them, as I moved onto the CAST system pretty quickly after these coming out, I doubt you’d see an issue with them unless you’re 225+ lbs.

      • Joe,

        I weigh 150 pounds. You have settled my doubts on the MFD and I will be drilling the holes and mounting them tomorrow.

        I think I’m going to have a shop mount them, and I don’t want to confuse them with different screw threads. Do you know the thread on all the other holes? I want to tap the same thread in the holes that I drill. From the template of the px racing heel it looks like there will be plenty of clearance between holes.

        Thanks for the info,


  34. Random comment 8 years later: couldn’t agree more, or have said it better, about Looks. I’m 47, with 30+ years of 50-70 days, and I’ve had plenty of crashes where I thought “hmm, feeling a bit of a twinge in my knee CLICK”, and zero pre-releases. Hence my CAST SI&I setup, with unicorn (from before the recent reintroduction) Rossi 6-15 single-pivot metal toes and turntables. They’re on heavy slackcountry skis anyway!

Leave a Comment