Replying to I want bindings burlier than 912ti. do i need 916's?

i currently rock 912ti's with a din set about 9 because i like the low weight of the binding and where it typically releases at that setting for normal on-piste stiff and park, and i'm set on keeping 912's on my msp's and my elizabeths, but i'm going to be getting a pair of charger-ish skis here soon (ant's, 190 got's, 189 vct's, something in that vein), and i want a burlier binding for this setup, since these will be used primarily for silverton/utah/jackson type stuff (no park), and i typically break on average one pair of 912's every season (thanks though salomon for sending me a brand new pair almost every time i've warrantied).

i don't really plan on going much past 11 or 12 on the din setting, but i just can't decide if a 916 is too much. 914 would probably be ok but i can't remember if they're more similar to the 912 or 916 in construction, and if they have the same heelplate as the 912 then i'll just end up breaking that like i usually do on my 912's. i do plan on this setup lasting me quite a while and i know for that reason alone 916's would be a good choice, and the only reason i'm even asking is i found a decent deal on some 916's ($150) and just can't quite convince myself to pick them up. also considering fks 155's (if i can get some for cheap) but i've just always kind of preferred the salomons for no specific reason.

guide me please oh knowledgeable ones. i'll probably end up getting them i just need some reassurance.

and for reference i'm about 6'2" 175lbs and ski pretty hard but i'm not a balls to the wall psycho huckbeast or anything like that either.