About the reviewer: 6’2’’ 215lbs, ex-racer, looking for steep lines and big cliffs, and very hard on gear. I ski in Salomon plug boots with Intuition PowerWrap liners.

I am also historically pretty biased against Marker bindings.

I have been rather vocal in my opposition to the biometric toe design that is so prevalent in their line. I feel that this design releases the boot from the binding much too quickly and do not offer the skier a chance for recovery in a fall.

So, needless to say, I was somewhat skeptical about new products from the company, but was also very stoked about the prospect of an alpine touring binding that actually performed to a higher standard than their competition.





The Dukes, showing the climbing bar, the short overall length, and the large screw footprint.

The Dukes, showing the climbing bar and the small footprint of the heel.


At the first glance:
1. Respectable weight. The Duke binding weighs about as muchas the most popular alpine bindings so popular for freeriding (Salomon s916 and Look PX18). This is a very good thing. They are also barely heavier than a Fritschi or Naxo touring binding, coming in at less than 3/4 of a pound heavier than the competition – definitely not a dramatic weight increase, and not something particularly noticeable over relatively short tours.

2. The heel spring is stout, and the toe is well designed. I like the way the retention is designed in the binding – the horizontal toe spring grants a ton of clearance for a nice stride while touring, and the heel piece offers a large elastic value (ie. more range of motion before release). The binding looks solid, burly and clean.

3. The tolerances in the touring interface are tight.
Straight out of the box the tour/ski mechanism was fairly tight, but after just a few cycles, it smoothed out.

After 40 days of use, there is a little rattling around when the binding is not in use, but this all goes away and there is no measurable slop in the binding once a boot is clicked in.






4. The climbing bar may be a little short for some folks taste, but there are supposed to be alternate bars available. I personally got along with the stock bar just fine, but I am not that picky about the climbing bar – if I am climbing up I like it pretty high and if its flat, I don’t want a bar.
The heel bar is about in between the 2 alpine trekker bar heights, and slightly shorter than a Naxo’s or FR’s higher bar.

5. The binding has a big screw footprint (ie the screws are not very close to one another) and the binding affects a much smaller area of the ski creating a truer flex pattern that with the Naxo or Fritschi FR. The Duke binding only affects the ski flex equivalent to that of an alpine binding. The large screw footprint also greatly reduces the chance of ripping the binding out of the ski.

6. The AFD height adjustment is slick. It slides down and back on a small track. Such a setup makes a lot more sense than adjusting toe height upwards to accommodate AT boots as a Naxo or FR do. This serves to maintain your ramp angle in the binding when switching between alpine and AT boots. It is for sure a smart way to do it, and stiffens the toe considerably by fixing the toe piece and only moving the AFD.

7. The binding adjusts to fit different boot sole lengths like an alpine binding, in a solid, torsionally stiff track. It does not have the heel slop like a Fritschi does, which slides on a very small screw inside the toe/heel connecting bar, and is not nearly s vague as the indented track that the Naxo’s heelpiece adjusts on – similar to that of a demo-track binding. The Duke is much more solid in its heel track and offers a very reliable forward pressure setting.





The dukes handled this 1000 vert skin line very well. Lots of kick-turns to test them on.

Well, that’s cool, but how does it tour?

First off, one of my main concerns was that snow would pack into the rails in the binding and plate, making it a pain to switch modes and tour. I had no issues with this out of the box, but after about 30 days, snow did start packing in a bit and getting slightly difficult to clean out, so I just gave it a shot with silicon spray binding lubricant and its back up to snuff.

I was also concerned about having to click out of the binding to switch between touring and ski modes, but in practice, it’s really not a big deal. It takes maybe a minute to pop out, switch modes and click back in. Additionally, I don’t really encounter having to lock heels and ski around with skins on regularly. Yeah, it’s not quite as nice as a quick flick of the heels like on a Naxo or FR to switch modes and lock them down, but the gains in ski-ability are so pronounced that it totally makes up for it, in my honest opinion.

What about touring with the toe sliding back, and behind balance point? Well, I honestly thought that touring in the rearwards position was nice. Breaking trail in pow was a bit easier with a longer shovel, the short tails were nice while switch-backing up something steep. The skis still kick-n-glide as well as a Naxo or FR.

Initially, one of my climbing bars on one ski kept slipping down because the plastic indent that functions as the stop for the climbing bar rounded almost immediately. I understand this system is a little different on the retail bindings and the plastic housing for the bar is a bit stronger, so hopefully this issue is fully resolved on the retail binding. I also modified the binding and climbing bar to get a little more purchase. I filed the plastic indent lightly to make a little deeper groove for the bar to seat in, and then bent open the bar a little to make it a stiffer spring.





The Dukes took this 15ft to flat landing perfectly.

Well, great really. I would say basically the same as any good, high-end alpine binding. They felt very responsive and precise. I also skied the exact same ski (188 PM Gear Bro Model, stiffs) mounted with FR’s on back to back runs, and WOW what a difference. It’s amazing how night and day the two pairs of skis felt. The FR’s made the ski feel vague and noticeably less stable at speed. I could also really feel a significant amount of play in the FR’s while skiing that was not present at all in the Dukes. This test really reinforced to me how poor the FR’s ski, and how much better the Duke is, in terms of torsional stiffness, and how much more responsive they are in comparison.

The stack height of the duke is also lower than a freeride, and slightly lower than naxo. Really, the binding skis like a high-end alpine binding mounted to a light, solid riser plate.

I now have 40 days of use, all in the backcountry, skiing powder, pillows and dropping cliffs (lots and lots of 30-40 footers), I experienced no pre-releases in pow, crud, wet/mank or bumps, or any behavior that I would attribute to “typical” Marker behavior seen in the biometric toepiece design. I did double heel release once while airing a 30-footer to a flat landing.

I probably would have preferred to stay in the binding on this landing, but I really cannot complain that it did release.

This is the only release I have had thus far, and that makes me one happy camper. They kept me in like I’d want, set at the same DIN as I would normally ski an alpine binding at in the backcountry. It is clear that the Duke and Jester bindings were designed from the ground up to satisfy the rigors a freeride-oriented skier would encounter.





The Author, skinning in the sunrise


I have two minor gripes about how the bindings performed while skiing. First that the brakes on the dukes seem to catch on something inside the housing fairly regularly, and don’t pop down fully all of the time. Also, they bottom out on the heelpiece, like they are positioned a bit far back relative to the heelpiece. It can make stepping into the binding a little tricky with snow packed onto your boot. The brakes also do not catch one another very well when the skis are base to base, so I carry a ski strap around in my jacket if I will be shouldering for a distance.


So what’s the verdict?

These things rock! I am super stoked someone finally made a real performance oriented touring binding. I hope that the binding is marketed as a real hard charger AT binding, and less of a slack-country/everyday inbounds type binding. Sure, you can use it as such, but the Duke is really is a touring binding for someone looking to ski hard and fast and access the goods far away from a lift.

I think that only time will tell as far as how they hold up banging bumps all day inbounds, and I personally don’t really have the desire to test that. There is still a decent amount of plastic in them, so I would expect to see the same durability as most 12 and 14 DIN alpine bindings, and personally would not think that using them to train and compete in freeski comps would be the best idea, though I am sure plenty will get away with such things. I believe that for the fast and light folks, Dynafits are the go-to binding of choice, without question, and will be for some time. However, in my opinion, the Duke’s have replaced the Naxos and Fritschis atop the freeride/backcountry mantle. They tour just as well and ski oh-so-much better. They are clearly more solid and less fragile with very minimal weight gain (maybe .75lbs), and have enough spring to keep a larger person in the binding while charging (which cannot be said for the Fritschi) and did not continually blow up on me (like the Naxos kept on doing).