Free Shipping on Orders Over $50*

Description

Not all freeskiers are big and hulking.

With just as much fatty-wielding power as the beefiest Marker bindings, the Griffon Ski Binding provides a secure hold and hard-charging performance with a lower DIN range for lighter-weight skiers. It's got re-sculpted Triple Pivot Elite toe and Inter-Pivot heel to match the Duke and Jester for freeskiing burliness, and it weighs less than both of those hard-hitters. An integral part of the Royal Family, the Griffon holds a high rank for designated alpine rippers.

  • DIN 4-13
  • Triple Pivot Elite toe
  • Inter-Pivot heel
  • AFD stainless steel gliding plate

Share your thoughts

What do you think of the

Marker Griffon Ski Binding

? Share a...

Write a review

No file chosen

Rather attach a photo from another website?

Rather attach a photo from your computer?

    Add a:
  • Share a photo
  • Share a video

Familiarity: (Optional)

Only jpg, jpeg, png, gif or bmp files please.

Submit

Here's what others have to say...

Unanswered Question

What would be the ideal size of these bindings for a pair of Armada AR7 skis? (Length 166)
I am assuming 90mm is a proper brake width but I just want to make sure with you guys!
P. S. : Should I go for the Marker Squire bindings if I want lighter bindings? I heard they are more for female skiers and break easily.

4 5

Go to all mountain binding.

  • Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer

This has become my go binding for all of my skis. The price point is right, they are lightweight, and with a DIN range up to 13, the Griffon has you covered in all but the most extreme situations. I am full time on Vail Mountain so I am in these everyday and have to say they do what they are designed to do and have a good look to them. I have Griffon's mounted on 3 sets of skis: K2 Rictor 90Xti, Annex 98, and Annex 118. They are light underfoot which makes the skis feel quick in tighter situations and helps with fatigue. Coming from a Duke there is a world of an increase in performance (especially in soft snow) as they allow the skis to flex and don't have the additional height of the Duke. I have yet to pre-release and run these on an 11 @ 6'1" 220lbs. I continue to be happy with the product and will buy more in the future.

I have a general question regarding brake width and waist size. I just bought skis that have a 70mm waist, can I get away with a binding that has 90mm brakes or should I look for something smaller? I've read you shouldn't go 15mm larger than your ski waist but I don't see many 70-80mm bindings for sale. I just don't want them dragging on a sharp turn. Any help would be appreciated.

Responded on

Rebecca S,
If possible I would recommend trying to find brakes that are no wider than 10mm over the waist of your skis. Too wide of brakes will cause the brakes to snag when you are really railing a turn. With skis getting wider and wider in the waist bindings have been getting wider brakes to accommodate this. However most binding companies will still make brakes to fit your skis, you may have to find them at a local ski shop or directly from the binding manufacturer.

Hi, I'm looking to buy some 4FRNT Gauchos (186cm). Is this binding well suited for this ski? If so, what size bindings do I need?

Responded on

Yeah, this binding would be great! You would want the 110mm brake to clear the waist of that ski.

These bindings came with a pair of skis that I purchased last year after demoing them for a day. While skiing on a shallow groomed trail the other day, I completely wiped out when one of my skis suddenly popped off. After inspecting the binding I noticed that the boot housing on the heel piece of the binding had totally shattered and the heel piece was stuck in a vertical position. (the techs I brought it too had never seen anything like this) I was luckily able to get the piece replaced for free and I haven't had an issue in the past six days of skiing with it. However after looking at the description of this binding I am a little concerned that something like this may happen again and if it does while I'm charging hard on a steep trail I am going to be in trouble. I consider myself a type 3 skier and at 6'1 and 225lbs I probably gave these binding more than they can handle do to my size. Do any of the gearheads on here recommend that I get rid of these binding and upgrade to a beefier set? I don't want to have my bindings shatter while I am doing 50+ mph.

Responded on

Whoa! I have never heard that either. Did you buy a used demo ski? If so, was it the demo version of the binding? Or was it a completely new setup that you bought after trying out the demo? Trying to get a clear idea of what that looked like... Was it the actual heel piece that shattered? Or the brake? I would not say it is uncommon for the heel piece to be stuck in the up position after it ejects - a lot of times you will have to stomp that down... Still concerning though.
Crazy! I definitely would not expect that to happen twice, especially if the heel piece was replaced. If it was just the brake, I wouldn't say that is a common problem either, but it is much less concerning.
If you want something beefier, you could go with the Jester! Or I would try out the Rossignol FKS or Look Pivot! Those bindings are bomber. Shoot me an email if you have any questions/comments!
LFeasler@backcountry.com

5 5

Good Binding. Good company

  • Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer

Had Marker bindings on my last few pairs of skis. I had the spring loaded toe pad crack on me once and move off its tracks and also crashed very hard and broke the heel piece off just below the pivot point. I had absolutely no problem getting a warranty replacement and have otherwise loved these bindings. The amount of weight saved by getting plastic bindings as opposed to metal ones is significant and if your not wiping out all the time then you will not have to worry about breaking these. Perhaps a serious park rider might want something a bit beefier. My warranty pair have been perfect! I would also recommend greasing the sliding toe pad every few months or at the start of each season. Maybe thats why i ended up cracking mine. Ive heard of the this piece freezing and not moving for people in some conditions but it has always worked great for me.

5 5

Solid Bindings

  • Familiarity: I've used it several times

Got these after a recommendation from a friend based on my skiing style. I have zero complaints and have loved them the second I started using them.

would this bindigs work with the sreditor 92 or the k2 missconduct? or would the missconduct work better with the marker free ten 100mm?

Responded on

Yes they will work perfectly. Model of the binding depends on where you need the DIN setting to be and how much retention you want.

All based on height, weight, and ability level.

Would these work well with the atomic theory 2015, 95mm waist skis ?

Responded on

Sure thing. I have these mounted on my Volkl Bridge, also 95 mm underfoot. Just go with the 110 mm brake.

Hey I'm thinking of purchasing the Mr. Pollards Opus's at 178 cm and I want the marker griffin binding but don't know what size to get. can I get some help?

Responded on

The 120mm brake would really be ideal for that ski! Marker just sells the Griffon in 90, 110 and 136mm stock brake sizes... However all Marker Royal Family brakes are interchangeable - Check out item number MRK000I for the 120mm brake!

Purchased head cyclic 115, what size bindings do I need? Which other binding would be good for these skis?

Responded on

Hey Farmboy,
You can bend the 110mm brake and make it work! Or you could go with something like the Rossignol FKS that comes in a 115mm brake! Those would be my top picks!
Here's a link to the FKS 120:
http://www.backcountry.com/rossignol-fks-120-ski-binding?ti=U2VhcmNoIFJlc3VsdHM6ZmtzOjE6Mjpma3M&skid=ROS000C-BLA-S115MM

The FKS 140 and 180 have higher DIN ranges and cost a bit more!
The Look Pivot is the EXACT same binding, different paint job!

Hit me up if you have any questions!
Lfeasler@backcountry.com

Just got the Icelantic Shamans and they are 110 underfoot. Would the 110 Griffon work or do I need the 136 Griffon?

Responded on

The Icelantic Shaman Ski's have a 110mm waist width. So pairing them with the Marker Griffon or Jesters in the 110mm size would be perfect.

Thinking of getting these bindings alongside my new 106mm Soul 7s. Should I go with the 110mm? or is there a more appropriate binding that I don't know of for my ski?

Responded on

These (110mm brake) would be great with that Soul 7!
There are plenty of other options out there, but the Griffons are my favorite alpine bindings.
My other top picks would be the Rossignol FKS or Look Pivot - there are a few different versions with different DIN ranges.
Here's the FKS 120 (DIN 4-12):
http://www.backcountry.com/rossignol-fks-120-ski-binding?ti=U2VhcmNoIFJlc3VsdHM6cm9zc2lnbm9sIGJpbmRpbmc6MTo5OnJvc3NpZ25vbCBiaW5kaW5n&skid=ROS000C-BLA-S115MM

Sidenote - you would want the 115mm brake for that.
The Look Pivot 12 is the exact same binding, just a different paint job.

Let me know if you have any further questions!
Lfeasler@backcountry.com

I just purchased the 2015 Blizzard Bonafide they have a 98mm underfoot should i go with the 90mm or 110mm?
Thanks in advance

Responded on

I'd go with the 110mm! The 90mm MIGHT work but that's kind of a long way to bend that brake.

I have brand new sick day 95s. I am looking at mounting the griffons. Would I be better of with the 90mm or 110mm?

Responded on

Jim,

I had a pair of Sick day 95's and the Griffon 90 worked perfectly.
SF

My skis are 98mm underfoot. Will these bindings fit ok? They are the Rossignol Sin 7

Just bought a pair of Armada Halo 2's! Size 170 is 93mm under foot. Would it be worth bending the griffon 90mm to fit or should I buy the 110mm? Will the 110mm leave too much room on either side of the ski? Thanks!

Responded on

90mm brake width all the way and it won't need to be bent to fit that width. Generally speaking you have around 5-8mm of wiggle room, anything over that may need a tweak.

Enjoy your setup

Will a 110 mm binding work if my ski width is 118"? It seems like a small enough difference that you could compensate by bending the brakes a little. Or would that not work ?

Responded on

Sean,

I have a Griffon 110mm on my JJ with a waist of 115 and it has about a mm left on each side and it hasn't been tweaked at all. I always tell people to call the shop that will be mounting the binding and get their opinion. Some shops will not bend the binding for liability reasons and will leave that up to you.

You can find Marker 120mm brakes for a price if you can't get the 110 to work but I honestly think you will be fine with a minor tweak.

My advice is to verify with the ski shop that will do the work unless you are mounting them yourself.




I am debating these or the Baron for my new Blizzard Sambas. Other than the AT aspect, how are these different? Do they ski different? Does one sit lower to the ski? I already have a tele setup for skinning, so this will will be a resort ski... But debating Griffon or Baron, if I got baron I would likely tour at some point with it, but don't want to sacrifice any downhill performance for that possibility, since I have another option. Any opinions are welcome.

Responded on

EMH,

Griffon has 22mm of lift, Baron 37mm because of the AT ability. Griffon will be lighter by quite a bit plus a substantial cost difference as well.

If you want the AT ability then that pretty much sums it up. But if you don't care about turning the Samba into an AT setup then I think you're crazy, pardon my French, to add the weight, the uneccesary height, additional moving parts, and the added expense of the Baron.

You said any opinions welcome so I hope my opinion helped:)


Responded on

Thanks much, Skifreak! That's what I was thinking, but I've been told over & over again that the performance is the same, and thus, I should get the Baron. But my concern is even if they ski similarly, there is no need for the weight & additional parts, if I'm not regularly using the AT aspect (and have a light tele setup for that). I feel like AT is so "hot" right now, folks are pushing it a bit much. Thanks!

Responded on

I always remember a buddy buying a baron thinking he was going to do AT and never did. He didn't like the added weight and wasting the money on something not being used. If you decide down the road to go AT its only money right, lol.

Responded on

I agree with SkiFreak go with the Griffon, its lighter and cheaper. When you want to go AT then get a tech binding set up and forgo the heavy weight frame binding options. AT is super hot right now but, I know a lot of people with touring gear that sits in a closet. So when you are ready to get out in the backcountry go full bore and get a lightweight tech binding coupled with a touring boot and a lighter ski.