New Marker Duke PT; Backcountry.com; New Apparel & Skis (Ep.72)

by


TOPICS & TIMES:

Today, Marker unveiled their brand-new Duke PT binding, so Luke Koppa, Sam Shaheen, and I discuss the new binding and where it fits with respect to the Shift MNC and CAST Freetour binding.

We also discuss some big new changes at GORE; the new GORE-TEX Pro vs. The North Face Futurelight; the appalling behavior of backcountry.com; several new skis from Moment, Blizzard, and Prior; and I get things started by talking about my New Favorite Thing.

Marker Duke PT Specs (see below for images)

Marker Duke PT 16

  • DIN range: 6-16
  • ISO-certified release for toe and heel
  • Stated Weight per binding (uphill mode w/ alpine toe removed): 1000 grams
  • Stated Weight per binding (downhill mode): 1280 grams
  • Sole ID adjustable toe provides MNC compatibility (Alpine, Touring, & Grip Walk boot soles)
  • Climbing modes: “neutral” + 10° climbing riser
  • Stated Stack Height: 27 mm

Marker Duke PT 12

  • DIN range: 4-12
  • ISO-certified release for toe and heel
  • Stated Weight per binding (uphill mode w/ alpine toe removed): 850 grams
  • Stated Weight per binding (downhill mode): 1090 grams
  • Sole ID adjustable toe provides MNC compatibility (Alpine, Touring, & Grip Walk boot soles)
  • Climbing modes: “neutral” + 10° climbing riser
  • Stated Stack Height: 27 mm

The Marker Duke PT 16 and Duke PT 12 let you tour uphill in a “pin” / “tech” toe piece. To do so, you flip the alpine toe piece up and off the concealed toe pins. You can either leave the alpine toe attached, or remove it completely for the uphill to reportedly save 250 grams on the ski.

For downhill mode, you place the alpine toe back onto the touring toe, and it reportedly locks into place simply by stepping into the binding. In downhill mode, the Marker Duke PT offers ISO-certified release characteristics.

Marker Duke PT 16 in uphill mode (top) and downhill mode (bottom).
Marker Duke PT 16 toe piece in downhill mode.
Marker Duke PT 16 toe piece in uphill mode with alpine toe piece attached.
New Marker Duke PT 16 in touring mode with alpine toe piece removed.

10 comments on “New Marker Duke PT; Backcountry.com; New Apparel & Skis (Ep.72)”

  2. Hi, great episode. Looking forward to hearing more about the Marker and the various skis mentioned. Read the article on backcountry. Used to buy from them when I lived in the US and liked them a lot. Won’t be buying from them again that’s for sure. What a nonsense. I get the need to protect their brand but as pointed out in the interview it’s like trademarking road. Sounds like the PE firm driving those decisions :o(

  4. wow… all this great gear news overshadowed by the backcountry story. thanks, luke f, for the link. no more PBR for me…
    i did send backcountry.com a very sternly worded letter that will either get round filed, or, turned into a dartboard(bonus points for hitting the spelling errors…).

  5. Pointless in my opinion. If ya want higher DIN then run a cast system since uphill is same weight and who cares about how much it weighs going down hill. Plus cast gives ya Higher DIN and better bindings for down hill.

    If ya want to save weight go shift. Since it’s same weight as the 12 and ya get a 13 DIN.

    Very similar to the cast removable toe but as a cast and shift user the only downsides to cast are tech toe is a little below average quality and having to carry the toe piece. One thing I love about shift is not having to put the toes in my bag to go uphill.
    This marker looks to have better pin system then the cast and shift but that’s the only thing that this binding offers advantage over.

    I agree with the guy who says this feels rushed to market to compete and it competes but doesn’t offer much advance in the market segment.

  6. The backcountry.com story documents some pretty bad behavior. Bad enough that I too sent an email telling them that I could no longer make purchases from backcountry.com. I also sent a email to Patagonia and North Face questioning their commitment to honest business practices if they continue to sell through backcountry.com. Patagonia actually answered me say they would look at it. Interesting to see if this gains momentum.

    • While I think it definitely makes sense to find ways to pressure against backcountry.com, it is also important to keep in mind retail buying schedules. I don’t know *exactly* how backcountry.com is run, but assuming they function similarly to the vast majority of retail outlets, they would’ve placed orders for products from Patagonia, TNF, etc. a little less than a year ago for those brands’ fall 19/20 gear. I’m guessing that these lawsuits were not public info back then (I didn’t know about any of it until the article was published), and at this point, backcountry.com would own most of, if not all of the products it bought from any of the brands it sells. In other words, it’s extremely likely that a brand such as Patagonia no longer “owns” their products that are currently in backcountry.com’s inventory, and therefore they can’t “pull” the products from backcountry.com since backcountry already bought them. But I am very curious to see if this lawsuit fiasco impacts whether some brands will agree to continue to sell their products to backcountry in the future.

      I’m fully against what backcountry is doing, I just wanted to offer some context since I’ve been seeing some people on social media verbally attacking some of the brands that backcountry.com sells and demanding that they “pull” current products from backcountry, without realizing that those brands wouldn’t even be able to remove their current products from backcountry’s site if they wanted to, since the products are already bought and paid for.

Leave a Comment