# Dynastar/Naxo Legend Early Tram Bindings



## thetrailboss (Jan 14, 2011)

Anyone use them or have experience with them?  

http://www.levelninesports.com/Dynastarnaxo-Legend-Early-Tram-At-Bindings


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 15, 2011)

To the best of my knowledge, they are the same bindings as the standard Naxo but were paired up with Legend skis. I am surprised to see them being sold separately. Perhaps they are being dumped due to lack of demand? Given Naxo's dubious reliability record, without knowing which vintage they are, I would say buyer beware. They might be fine and lots of people have worn Naxos for years without problems.... so might be worth the risk for the price.


----------



## amf (Jan 15, 2011)

I'm a satisfied Naxo user... piste-on and piste-off, but like RC said there have been some reliability issues on the early models.  I get good inbounds performance (of course, I'm not running moguls or hucking cliffs), and for my money they have the best, most natural touring mode around.  I went from Fritschis to Naxo for the vastly superior touring.

Thanks for the link.. I might get a pair just to keep on hand.

amf


----------



## Cannonball (Jan 16, 2011)

amf said:


> I'm a satisfied Naxo user... piste-on and piste-off, but like RC said there have been some reliability issues on the early models.  I get good inbounds performance (of course, I'm not running moguls or hucking cliffs), and for my money they have the best, most natural touring mode around.  I went from Fritschis to Naxo for the vastly superior touring.
> 
> Thanks for the link.. I might get a pair just to keep on hand.
> 
> amf



Similar.  I have Naxos (Nx01 & Nx02) mounted on two pairs of skis and like them a lot.  I ski them on and off piste and don't hesitate to pound them in the bumps. I've put a few miles on each pair and started with both used with lots of miles on them.  No complaints from the former owners or from me.

One thing though:  That price seems pretty high.  For example, here's NX11's for $200 http://secondascent.com/snowsports/bindings/naxo-nx11-legend-by-dynastar-large.html.  And here's Nx01's for $70 http://galacticsnowsports.com/new-naxo-nx01-telemark-bindings-grey-yellow.html


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 18, 2011)

They are the 2009 model.


----------



## skidmarks (Jan 18, 2011)

*Naxo*

I'm not a big fan of the Naxo Bindings. They seem to create a hinging point under ski at the ball of the foot.
In other words if you flex your knee forward the tail of the ski picks up off the snow by several inches. 

If anyone wants a pair of the rossignol version PM me!!


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 19, 2011)

So is the 2009 version the dubious "early version" that is having lots of problems?


----------



## Cannonball (Jan 19, 2011)

Ummm wait a sec.  Everything I said WAS true until this happened today....







I didn't even notice that it had happened until carry my skis back into the house.  I suppose it may have even happened prior to today, although I probably would have noticed because it's it's pretty major.  Keep in mind that I bought these used with a lot of miles on them and have put a bunch of miles on them myself.

I'm thinking I will dismount these and carry the good one as a spare when touring with my other NAXO BC setup.  I'll remount these skis with alpine bindings for on-piste days .  Anyone have some to sell?  Or recommendations?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 19, 2011)

what is the primary difference between these bindings and say a Marker Duke?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 19, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> what is the primary difference between these bindings and say a Marker Duke?


 
That's what I want to know.  From what I have seen, this and one other place mention anything bad...and that was for the older models (from the early 2000's).  I would be looking at the 2009 model.


----------



## amf (Jan 19, 2011)

Difference between Naxo (or Frischi) & Duke?  Depends what you want to do. 

The Duke is heavier, and requires stepping out of the ski to switch from ski to tour mode.  If you do a lot of touring, this can be a nuisance.  If you are just doing the occasional uphill lap but mostly inbound, the Duke probably gives better downhill performance.  As I noted earlier, the Naxo has the most natural-feeling tour mode of any AT binding I have used (that being Fritschi, Naxo, & Duke).  I think this is a BIG plus for tours of any length.


----------



## Cannonball (Jan 19, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Ummm wait a sec.  Everything I said WAS true until this happened today....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, now that I look at it closer (and you can see it in the photo) it's actually cracked on both sides.


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 19, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> So is the 2009 version the dubious "early version" that is having lots of problems?


I think the problem years were their first two years which go back earlier than 2009. Basically, I would consider any Naxo dubious though they had some pretty bad years to start.



deadheadskier said:


> what is the primary difference between these bindings and say a Marker Duke?


The Naxo has two pivot points. You'll notice in the picture above there is a pivot below the toe piece under the boot and also a hair in front of the toe piece where the binding attaches to the ski. This gives the binding what folks refer to as a more natural stride and was the big selling point for Naxo. My opinion? Whatev. Otherwise, very similar to a Fritschi. The latest Fritschis have really stepped up. I'd pay more for the Fritschi rather than buy a binding with a dubious history that came in went in... what, a half dozen years or less?

Marker Dukes are basically an alpine binding that can also tour. I think it only has two heel lift positions and they are not as easy to manipulate as bindings from companies exclusively focused on touring. They have the beef. But they also have the weight. Good binding if you are looking for a one ski/binding solution and you don't plan to tour much and plan to use the same boot (i.e. not have an alpine and AT boot).

Another option to consider is eBay. There are a LOT of touring bindings showing up in the used marketplace that are sold with skis and sometimes with precut skins. Sometimes you can get a full kit for $400 or so used. Something to considering.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 19, 2011)

OK, let me throw in some other information here.  That same shop has a killer deal on the Monster 103 Ski (Team).  As some of you know I am a big fan of the Head Monsters and own an older Monster iM 75 SRF ski (the rock skis) and the Monster 76.  

The 103 would be used primarily for west coast skiing in ungroomed terrain and for sidecountry adventures.  It would be the springboard into some BC stuff.  It may see some White Mountain BC action.  

The 103 is a heavier ski and is considered to be a stiff GS ski for doing all kinds of terrain.  The ski itself weighs about 5 lbs per ski.  

One of the binding options (free mounting) is the Dynastar Naxo Legends.  Other than that they do have numerous other conventional alpine bindings including the Rail Flex.  

I do have a pair of Backcountry Trekkers from BCA for getting into BC stuff with the other skis.  

My thoughts are that this is a great way to get a fatter ski with an AT set-up for not much money, but I am concerned about getting a binding that (a) is durable, and (b) will perform well on lift served ungroomed terrain.  

Does that change any opinions?


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 19, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> My thoughts are that this is a great way to get a fatter ski with an AT set-up for not much money, but I am concerned about getting a binding that (a) is durable, and (b) will perform well on lift served ungroomed terrain.


Get the Duke or the new Marker Tour. Sounds like you want this mostly for lift serviced with skinning as an occasional option. Seems like there is a reason why this binding is being sold so cheap, no?

That Monster 103 ski certainly doesn't sound like an ideal touring ski. Rather heavy and unless you only plan on straight lining steep and deep pow, too wide for east coast BC, IMO. Needless weight and less maneuverability. 37.3m turn radius!!! 

That Monster 103 Team looks like a big mountain straight lining ski. I think it would be unwieldy in the east. Not a ski I would ever consider for turn earning. My three cents...


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 19, 2011)

37.3 turn radius?  

is that a typo?

I can see turning a 27.3, but 37.3 sounds insane.  What's the radius on a downhill race ski?


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 19, 2011)

This is what I saw online for the 08-09 vintage (TB's prospect could be a different year/dimensions for all I know):

183cm = 125 - 103 - 117 37.3M 
192cm = 125 - 103 - 117 41.5M

For some perspective, my Legend 8000s in 178 are 120-79-103! 125 tip for a fat ski is really skinny!!!


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 19, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> This is what I saw online for the 08-09 vintage (TB's prospect could be a different year/dimensions for all I know):
> 
> 183cm = 125 - 103 - 117 37.3M
> 192cm = 125 - 103 - 117 41.5M
> ...



do you mean 25mm?  not sure I understand the 125 tip comment when you already list your dimensions.

My east coast 'touring/pow' ski are my High Society Free Rides 179cm  124-92-114,  21.7m radius. They're not super heavy with Dukes, but not light.  I can swing em' around, but have found them real challenging at times in tight eastern trees.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 19, 2011)

The 173 is 123-101-116. It has very little shape as you can see. 10.20 lbs for the pair. Turning radius is high, but I don't think it is 37 radius for that vintage. 

It is a pretty serious ski. Again, main use would be west coast.



> The Head Monster 103 Team is basically a full-on GS race ski that happens to be about twice as wide as a typical race ski. This makes it extremely stable at high speed on any snow, including ice. Although its a little too wide to say that it is a great carving ski, it does an acceptable job when groomed runs have to be skied. The wide platform gives this ski plenty of float for powder skiing, but its more of a big mountain charger style, skiing fast and jumping over rocks and cliffs.


 
Won't be jumping off of cliffs or anything, but would be using it for powder and chowder on inbounds and sidecountry options.


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 19, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> do you mean 25mm?  not sure I understand the 125 tip comment when you already list your dimensions.


I was just saying that my "mid-fat" (which is really now considered a skinny ski!) is only 5mm less in the tip despite being more than 20mm narrower in the waist. Just for perspective regarding how straight those 103's are.


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 19, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> The 173 is 123-101-116. It has very little shape as you can see. 10.20 lbs for the pair. Turning radius is high, but I don't think it is 37 radius for that vintage.


31.3m according to PhysicsMans Sidecat Radius Calculator. Not an exact measurement but good approximation. That's still pretty damn straight in the sidecut department.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 19, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> I was just saying that my "mid-fat" (which is really now considered a skinny ski!) is only 5mm less in the tip despite being more than 20mm narrower in the waist. Just for perspective regarding how straight those 103's are.



ahhh, gotcha

what's the turn radius on the Legend?  19?


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jan 19, 2011)

I have tried the heavy stiff ski route before for a back country setup.  I had a pair of Rossi B-squads mounted with Marker Dukes.  They were the stiffest skis I have ever skied.  Much stiffer than my race ski.

I used them because I got them cheap.  They were alot of work to ski in soft snow, and to cut through the trees.  I am not exactly sure on the radius, but the next size up is a 34m radius.  Did I mention how heavy they were?  You felt it on the way up.

I now ski a pair of Scott P4's with the Marker Dukes.  They are still a beefy ski, much more than my other friends like, but i am used to stiff skis.  They turn way easier in the trees and soft stuff.  Plus they weigh alot less.  A whole lot more enjoyable ski for the back-country than my Rossi's were.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jan 19, 2011)

I have tried the heavy stiff ski route before for a back country setup.  I had a pair of Rossi B-squads mounted with Marker Dukes.  They were the stiffest skis I have ever skied.  Much stiffer than my race ski.

I used them because I got them cheap.  They were alot of work to ski in soft snow, and to cut through the trees.  I am not exactly sure on the radius, but the next size up is a 34m radius.  Did I mention how heavy they were?  You felt it on the way up.

I now ski a pair of Scott P4's with the Marker Dukes.  They are still a beefy ski, much more than my other friends like, but i am used to stiff skis.  They turn way easier in the trees and soft stuff.  Plus they weigh alot less.  A whole lot more enjoyable ski for the back-country than my Rossi's were.


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 19, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> what's the turn radius on the Legend?  19?


Yea.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 21, 2011)

Thanks for the input guys.  Based on the photos that Cannonball put up as well as considerations regarding weight, side cut, etc., I am scrapping this idea.  However, I have another brainwave....


----------



## awf170 (Jan 23, 2011)

Even though you already made up your mind I just wanted to state that I think Naxos are huge pieces of shit and I don't understand how anyone could like them who tours at least a decent amount.


----------

