The Official Salomon S/Lab SHIFT MNC Thread -AMA

This seems like an amazing piece of engineering but i am not not sure I understand the purpose of that dual toe system. Example. If i am skinning up, I will use pin boots to go up. I won't be carrying my Lange RS130 boots in my backpack for the downhill. So the ability to switch to an alpine toe while still wearing touring boots may not be such a huge upgrade compared to a Tecton.
And ifi I ski mostly at the resort one day, i want my RS130 on my feet and that shift binding wont do me any good trying to go sidecountry as opposed to a frame binding. ?? But maybe they will start adding pins to RS or Rx boots without addind a walk mode.

The lack of steep heel lifter is stupid. When it's tits deep you need to raise up just to break trail. I hate steep skin tracks but totally use my highest lifter to make mellow tracks when breaking trail. Not to mention that anatomy and physiology differ from person to person. Also the thickness of boot soles contribute to how steep an angle the lifter makes. So, thin boot sole thickness equals less degree of climbing angle. Fix it. Dumb idea. Just cause a tall skinny super athlete says it's good for him it doesn't mean it's good for everybody

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using TGR Forums mobile app

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polenta

This seems like an amazing piece of engineering but i am not not sure I understand the purpose of that dual toe system. Example. If i am skinning up, I will use pin boots to go up. I won't be carrying my Lange RS130 boots in my backpack for the downhill. So the ability to switch to an alpine toe while still wearing touring boots may not be such a huge upgrade compared to a Tecton.
And ifi I ski mostly at the resort one day, i want my RS130 on my feet and that shift binding wont do me any good trying to go sidecountry as opposed to a frame binding. ?? But maybe they will start adding pins to RS or Rx boots without addind a walk mode.

---

Are you high?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thejongiest

I think it may be the 2018-2019 S/Lab MTNs with a new color way. They also had black QST 118s.

But I also thought they looked like the X-Alp until I saw the sole, much thicker.

---

Exactly right. Those are next years MTN Lab. This binding will require a toe welt to ski down.

Seems interesting. Transitions and weight are my biggest concerns.

But I do have some questions:

- What's the heel-toe delta, i.e., what's the height of the heel and the height of the toe in downhill mode?
- What's the climbing riser height? 10 degrees is based off of what bsl?
- What's the stack height? Someone asked earlier, but I didn't see an answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eskido

Stack height?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Bump. Don't believe this has been answered yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RiderX

I am curious as to why would you want to use ultralight tech bindings on fall you die steep skiing? I assume you are locking out the toe. Maybe it's just me, but ultralight tech bindings don't give me a lot of confidence when skiing a steep line, especially after having had them pre release a few times at inopportune moments.

---

True, I'd rather drop into the north face of the midi on STH2 over Speed radicals locked out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

... I can see this binding being the ultimate tool for any place that has extensive sidecountry skiing.

---

Wow! Talk about a beautiful piece of engineering. Totally disruptive product. Congratulations on the fruits of 7 year's hard work, guys.

... Thom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BP Pow

Bump. Don't believe this has been answered yet.

---

I think the only answer you'll get until these can be fondled without the corporate overlords watching is the answer you can derive from the photos. The answer I'm getting from the pictures for stack height is quite high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaliBrit

Why do this big media release for a product that isn’t available until fall ‘18? (They look fucking awesome though)

---

I think this has been implied/answered but the reason is because of the sales cycle of the ski industry. You see, right now there are tons and tons of regional trade shows between sales reps and ski shops around the country/world. All the 2018/2019 product is being shown at those regional trade shows. Soon there after, that same product will be shown at national trade shows like SIA and OR. So instead of letting some shop kid sneak some photos and leak them out themselves with or without all the correct information, we 'launch' the product ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skitolive

I think the only answer you'll get until these can be fondled without the corporate overlords watching is the answer you can derive from the photos. The answer I'm getting from the pictures for stack height is quite high.

---

We noted the stack height in our writeup / initial review on blister. Stack height is 21-25 mm, depending on your BSL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BP Pow

Bump. Don't believe this has been answered yet.

---

Stack Height: 25mm at the toe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alkasquawlik

I think this has been implied/answered but the reason is because of the sales cycle of the ski industry. You see, right now there are tons and tons of regional trade shows between sales reps and ski shops around the country/world. All the 2018/2019 product is being shown at those regional trade shows. Soon there after, that same product will be shown at national trade shows like SIA and OR. So instead of letting some shop kid sneak some photos and leak them out themselves with or without all the correct information, we 'launch' the product ourselves.

---

Makes sense. In my enginerd tech field your credibility takes a hit for pre-announcing stuff that isn't production/field-ready but I forgot the whole ski industry operates on these cycles called seasons :computer:

I will say, by far and away, the single biggest improvement in touring experience for me over the last 10yrs was the MTN Lab boot. Completely changed the skiability of my touring rigs - night and day from all previous touring boots. Point being that Salomon has more of my attention now when something new like this comes out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alkasquawlik

I think this has been implied/answered but the reason is because of the sales cycle of the ski industry. You see, right now there are tons and tons of regional trade shows between sales reps and ski shops around the country/world. All the 2018/2019 product is being shown at those regional trade shows. Soon there after, that same product will be shown at national trade shows like SIA and OR. So instead of letting some shop kid sneak some photos and leak them out themselves with or without all the correct information, we 'launch' the product ourselves.

---

Got it. Makes total sense. Any chance of some later season limited release in spring ‘18?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JFE24

We noted the stack height in our writeup / initial review on blister. Stack height is 21-25 mm, depending on your BSL.

---

How does stack height vary with bsl?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thejongiest

Cody is right that the elasticity of the Tecton is far less than the shift in the toe (I'm not sure about heel?). But I agree the Tecton can't quite be lumped with non-TUV-your-legs-will-get-fucked-in-a-bad-fall type tech binding. The weight difference of about 200g on each leg is certainly non-negligible which is why I think the Tecton (and for that matter Vipec) still have a place but their applicability certainly got much smaller.

Cody I know has a much better understanding of what exactly goes into TUV certification than me, but the Tecton is objectively safer than say the MTN binding. We're not all hucking and sending huge lines and we may appreciate the safety of elastic heel/toe but don't want to incur the weight penalty between the Tecton and the Shift. That's yet to be seen.

Stoked for this though! And I think the price point is fabulous. If it really performs as designed they could easily sell these for $1k and people would pay.

---

So I'm answering this as an answer for what lies at the heart of the tech vs. alpine, Tecton vs. Shift, Kingpin vs. Shift style of questions. So the basics lie in the fact that there are two primary ISO certifications for ski bindings.

1. ISO 9462- Alpine Ski Bindings
2. ISO 13992- Alpine Touring Ski Bindings

1. The first, is what has been adapted and evolved every five years to apply to normal alpine ski bindings. It is the most stringent certification on releasability, durability, weather and material standards.
2. The second, is what has been developed to test tech fitted pin bindings. It covers a ton of the same aspects of alpine standards except for some key tests like location of release, elastic travel and unwanted release.

This is a quote by Dr. Irving Scher, the chairman of the American Society for Testing and Materials’ International Snow Skiing Committee, that describes the touring ISO standard 13992 well. He said, "Certification is not a measure of how well a given binding will perform during skiing. Certification means that with a very particular AT boot sole (from an ISO standard), the binding will perform in a manner that is desired to reduce the likelihood of lower leg injury. The problem is that the boots on the market do not meet, in general, the current international standards, and the pin inserts used in these boots are significantly different between manufacturers. With this in mind, at this time, any given set of boots in any given tech/pin binding may provide boot retention and release performance that is different from what skiers have gotten used to with standard alpine bindings."

This is a quote from Wildsnow that is further enlightening on the tech vs. alpine certifications:
"One binding is tested for consistency of safety release as the ski flexes. 20% deviation is allowed for side release, 15% deviation for vertical. I’m told this is the test many tech bindings can’t pass."

Esse

So essentially, what is being stated is that despite the Tecton being TUV/ISO certified, despite it having elasticity, it does not certify as an alpine binding and therefore doesn't meet the release capabilities that are guaranteed under the TUV/ISO alpine standard 9462. And thats not just the tecton, that's every single tech insert bindings...save the SHIFT. So despite claims of elasticity and travel, these are not certified claims. The Tecton may in fact be safer than many other tech bindings, but the SHIFT is certified to be as safe as the alpine bindings we're all used to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shirk

What failure modes did you see in testing? Did the toe wings have issues?

---

Good one. We saw every type of failure honestly. We went through 20 different prototypes over the 7 years and most of them simply didn't work for durability, skiability or functionality reasons. The current SHIFT proto was established about 4 years ago and went through 3 years of testing and tweaking. The primary things we were improving in those three years was downhill performance and durability. The carbon fiber reinforced plastic ended up being the keystone to making the design work in all areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rob stokes

True, I'd rather drop into the north face of the midi on STH2 over Speed radicals locked out.

---

Yeah me too, mainly because elasticity makes skiing much more fun and locked out techs have almost no elasticity. But I wouldn't want to tour over to the Gervasuti Couloir on STH2's...so when essentially you want to absolutely guaran-fucking-tee not coming out, you lock out the toe and the heel...seriously...most of the core rad bro Cham guys are on locked out heels and toes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoooL

How does stack height vary with bsl?

---

I'm not sure other than the more you spread the binding out the ramp angle changes and therefore the stack height changes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alkasquawlik

So I'm answering this as an answer for what lies at the heart of the tech vs. alpine, Tecton vs. Shift, Kingpin vs. Shift style of questions. So the basics lie in the fact that there are two primary ISO certifications for ski bindings.

1. ISO 9462- Alpine Ski Bindings
2. ISO 13992- Alpine Touring Ski Bindings

1. The first, is what has been adapted and evolved every five years to apply to normal alpine ski bindings. It is the most stringent certification on releasability, durability, weather and material standards.
2. The second, is what has been developed to test tech fitted pin bindings. It covers a ton of the same aspects of alpine standards except for some key tests like location of release, elastic travel and unwanted release.

This is a quote by Dr. Irving Scher, the chairman of the American Society for Testing and Materials’ International Snow Skiing Committee, that describes the touring ISO standard 13992 well. He said, "Certification is not a measure of how well a given binding will perform during skiing. Certification means that with a very particular AT boot sole (from an ISO standard), the binding will perform in a manner that is desired to reduce the likelihood of lower leg injury. The problem is that the boots on the market do not meet, in general, the current international standards, and the pin inserts used in these boots are significantly different between manufacturers. With this in mind, at this time, any given set of boots in any given tech/pin binding may provide boot retention and release performance that is different from what skiers have gotten used to with standard alpine bindings."

This is a quote from Wildsnow that is further enlightening on the tech vs. alpine certifications:
"One binding is tested for consistency of safety release as the ski flexes. 20% deviation is allowed for side release, 15% deviation for vertical. I’m told this is the test many tech bindings can’t pass."

Esse

So essentially, what is being stated is that despite the Tecton being TUV/ISO certified, despite it having elasticity, it does not certify as an alpine binding and therefore doesn't meet the release capabilities that are guaranteed under the TUV/ISO alpine standard 9462. And thats not just the tecton, that's every single tech insert bindings...save the SHIFT. So despite claims of elasticity and travel, these are not certified claims. The Tecton may in fact be safer than many other tech bindings, but the SHIFT is certified to be as safe as the alpine bindings we're all used to.

---

I'm sure this is exactly the marketing material that will be used for selling the Shift in stores. And I think this is a great way to put it and absolutely true. Shift guarantees the alpine binding spec for releasing, something you could never do with tech unless the boot-binding interface was regulated in the same fashion as ISO 5355.

Nonetheless, as you know, the crew here on TGR is a little more attuned to the details. While the Tecton is an "ad-hoc" solution of sorts, I don't believe it is to be completely discounted. Sure, it isn't certified but again neither is the MTN binding and Salomon sells those. Weight wise it comes in somewhere in between Salomon's offerings - and it offers safety somewhere in between. Even if that safety has a larger variance in consistency. (Obviously I have no statistical evidence to back this up, so at the same time I'm talking out of my ass).

Either way, the Shift is awesome for gear innovation and its guarantees certainly make it very worthy.

@alkasqualik what is the releasability of the toe while in touring mode?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thejongiest

I'm sure this is exactly the marketing material that will be used for selling the Shift in stores. And I think this is a great way to put it and absolutely true. Shift guarantees the alpine binding spec for releasing, something you could never do with tech unless the boot-binding interface was regulated in the same fashion as ISO 5355.

Nonetheless, as you know, the crew here on TGR is a little more attuned to the details. While the Tecton is an "ad-hoc" solution of sorts, I don't believe it is to be completely discounted. Sure, it isn't certified but again neither is the MTN binding and Salomon sells those. Weight wise it comes in somewhere in between Salomon's offerings - and it offers safety somewhere in between. Even if that safety has a larger variance in consistency. (Obviously I have no statistical evidence to back this up, so at the same time I'm talking out of my ass).

Either way, the Shift is awesome for gear innovation and its guarantees certainly make it very worthy.

---

Totally. You guys are the tech geek crowd so truly know the differences between marketing jargon and what lies in reality. The Tecton's positives should definitely not be discounted. The fact that tech bindings are adding elasticity and designing with downhill performance and safety in mind is a step forward. My thing is that ultimately those positives aren't verifiable enough to conform to alpine standards. So for me, despite the positive advancement, I still wouldn't have the confidence on that type of "safer" binding than I would with an alpine cert'ed binding because of the 30+ years spent on alpine bindings. For me, this isn't a Tecton vs. Shift thing entirely either, it's far more of a Touring ISO versus Alpine ISO thing. The MTN is a Touring binding, one that I love, but I also shift the way I approach the mountains and ski down them because I know their releasability is far different than the standardized form of alpine bindings. That compromise, lightness for safety, is one I will live with in certain situations, but one we did not want to live with in a majority of backcountry situations...hence why we developed the SHIFT and required it to fit into alpine ISO standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

@alkasqualik what is the releasability of the toe while in touring mode?

---

Not quite sure but there are two clicks on the 'lock-out' for touring. Just past the first click the touring mode is releasable. A decent twist at that point will pop them out. The second click is full lock-out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alkasquawlik

Yeah me too, mainly because elasticity makes skiing much more fun and locked out techs have almost no elasticity. But I wouldn't want to tour over to the Gervasuti Couloir on STH2's...so when essentially you want to absolutely guaran-fucking-tee not coming out, you lock out the toe and the heel...seriously...most of the core rad bro Cham guys are on locked out heels and toes.

---

I guess I should have asked why you wouldn't choose the SHIFT's to ski a fall you die steep line over a light weight tech binding. Why not tour over to and ski the Gervasuti Couloir on the SHIFT's? Too much of a weight penalty for that type of tour? Were problems noted in the SHIFT's with pre release on steep descents? Or is it that you can lock out the tech binding so that you can guarantee it won't release? I am just wondering how much confidence I should have with these SHIFT's on something steep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alkasquawlik

Yeah me too, mainly because elasticity makes skiing much more fun and locked out techs have almost no elasticity. But I wouldn't want to tour over to the Gervasuti Couloir on STH2's...so when essentially you want to absolutely guaran-fucking-tee not coming out, you lock out the toe and the heel...seriously...most of the core rad bro Cham guys are on locked out heels and toes.

---

I'm curious to learn about on what bindings you can lock out the heels?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alkasquawlik

I'm not sure other than the more you spread the binding out the ramp angle changes and therefore the stack height changes...

---

I'm with you all the way regarding ramp angle variations because of bsl change, but I still cannot grasp how on earth stack height can change due to different bsl.