That’s my thinking as well. I also have Salomon touring boots, so I wonder if that helps me cause I’m sure they are designing the shift to fit those boots.
Printable View
That’s my thinking as well. I also have Salomon touring boots, so I wonder if that helps me cause I’m sure they are designing the shift to fit those boots.
I’m with you on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
hell, I trusted my Tecton 12 all season teaching classes and guiding with zero problems and had a bad double ejection on my last run of the season - if it had happened earlier it could have been the last run of my life - I honestly think there was crud in the interface from my last transition from snow to rock/dirt/mud to snow - probably my fault - I think I can still trust them
There’s an entire thread on Tectons and waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy less reported issues. And for the record I have Tectons on three setups and have never had a problem, with maybe 150 more touring days on them collectively than shifts. Not saying they’re perfect but sometimes the sheer volume of anecdotal observations has meaning.
Let me be clear I was super stoked on the shifts and think they have great potential, but by denying their flaws we are doing ourselves a disservice. This forum has a funny habit of positive reinforcement for the products we’ve already purchased.
right
as proven by the pieps threads
Don't know the figures but I bet that there's been a gazillion more Shifts sold than Tectons.
Yeah, and the real world don’t generally pop in here. I’m guessing most of the market just suck up any weaknesses to user error and that’s it.
Not to exude the fact that I’m an arrogant asshole, I’ll admit that, but to me this binding has always been a dream push. And I applaud it.
I won’t buy first gen launches like this revolution. And I’d refrain from calling it junk even if I was idiot enough to buy.
You can’t figure out the idiosyncrasies of a first gen product trying to revolutionize a whole sport? Of course it sucks. Stop defending it. Collect data and offer a fix.
Why didn’t you buy CAST? “It’s too heavy.”
Why didn’t you buy Tecton? “It’s too finicky.”
Why did you buy a Shift? “It was the best compromise.” Okay. Offer your insight and make it work.
Half of you need to quit your bitching and the other half need to quit defending. All of you need to create the next gen. None of your bro-bra-I’m-rad-as-shit testimonials have contributed anything to helping the OG designers solve your issues or defend your claims.
It’s amazing to me that people with 5+ pair of brakes and/or 150 hrs on other bindings can just shrug off other user’s claims without offering some form of critical engineering feedback.
“It works for me. You’re in error.” Really sums up why such highly-clouted skiers would even be on a discussion board. They’re not here to make shit. They’re here to brag.
Again. I admit to being an arrogant asshole. Some of you need to come out of the closet.
I agree with some of your post, but the onus isn't on the user base to redesign the Shift. Users provide anecdotal feedback on failure modes in the field, which the Salomon engineers can take into account when designing v2.0. It's totally valid for the suggestions from users to be along the lines of "make it so the brakes stay down in tour mode, the AFD doesn't drop and the binding doesn't sporadically prerelease."Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
^^ Exactly. We WANT them to work so we're not just shrugging off the problems. I'm not sure how sweeping them under the rug helps anything. Ever tried skinning a few thousand feet with the fucking brakes deployed? It sucks ass. Having a problem that many of us have reported being written off as "user error" is what's pissing me off. It's not user error.
And I also bet a significant percentage of those buying shifts have never actually toured on them, whereas that's very likely not the case with Tectons. Meahwhile there are a ton of us on this forum who have owned both and the number who have had issues with shifts vs. tectons is considerably different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyderjon
all I can say is I trust the opinions of galiber and spyderjon more than you
What I would like to see in shift 2.0 is:
1. Same hole pattern;
2. ATK style brake lock (the one with the red button on the side)
3. Bigger/better forward pressure spring (i do not mind the weight penalty). I played a little hand-flexing a ski with the boot in the binding and I was not impressed.
4. Better AFD!!! Or multiple presets for different standards.
If forward pressure spring solves heel pre-releases then that is requirement #1.Quote:
Originally Posted by aanev
For the AFD, I'm not sure why they went with a dynamic adjustment instead of static, swappable plates. There are 3 standards right? So why not just make 3 standard static plates plates and have the whole AFD pop off (like it can today)?
Even if they made these changes I'm not sure I'll ever go back. The heel pre-releases were pretty frequent and scary for me. I'm pretty confident it wasn't setup problems - I read everything I could get my hands on for these bindings and was very careful to re-check setup frequently, yet I was still coming out all the time. Cast is basically the same fiddle factor, and they walk uphill and ski downhill better, so I'm full cast moving forward.
Dynamic adjustment AFD can compensate for boot sole wear, but I still prefer static - lighter and more robust.
Opinion? I'm telling you it's happening and I've seen it firsthand on several different bindings. It's a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~mikey b
You yourself said you hadn't actually toured on them yet. Give it a try, hopefully you're one of the lucky ones. Although it doesn't always happen the first time. Why such resistance to acknowledge this flaw? I don't get it. Am I engaged in some sort of conspiracy theory? I bought two pairs and wanted them to work.
I would never use these for a long tour. For early ups climbing for like an hour yes. But touring? No. I have a proper set up for that.
^^ Sure, same, I mainly got them for side country laps or a ski trip setup. What's your point though?
my point is I do not tour with them
And my point is they suck at touring because the brakes deploy when skinning. Not always, but it definitely happens and as I've said repeatedly it's not user error. So what's the debate here? Many others in this thread have reported the same issue. Not sure why anyone has a problem with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~mikey b
I would have more of a problem if i released in a steep couloir.
Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk
I’ve probably only hiked with them 20-25 times and I never had problems. I’ve only skied them maybe 50 days and never had problems.
knowing how the shifts will react, and what parts to expect to fill with snow, etc, has meant that i haven't had much problems the last couple of days.
yesterday was a 6 lap day in heavy slightly wet snow.
i still have to bang them against each other, and the breaks into touring mode often takes two attempts, but i have been having a lot more success.
... or maybe my standards are lower now that i haven't used my kingpins for over a week.
it is unfortunate that i foresaw these issues as soon as i saw the promo video, before they even started mass production. i cannot imagine that they didnt consider the issues too.
hopefully next gen of shifts is better.
…..
Do shifts share holes with any pin bindings? From my research, looks like only share a couple holes with STHs but otherwise have a unique mounting pattern, that right?
Two of the heel holes share with a G3 Ion/Zed (or close enough — IIRC it moves the heel a mm or two), but they're mostly a unique pattern.Quote:
Originally Posted by brundo
They do play well with those G3s if you're trying to do inserts for both.
You can share 2 toe and 2 heel holes if you are okay mounting your Zeds +1.5cm from your shifts. If you have a super traditional ski this might actually help with kick turns, ymmv.Quote:
Originally Posted by HAB
Anyone know where a maggot can find the new din windows with the tabs????
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk