The Official Salomon S/Lab SHIFT MNC Thread -AMA

[jacob_dbu]

Though these two are in a similar weight class, I wouldn't class them together functionally. The Kingpin functions as a burly/heavy-duty traditional tech binding (all release is at heel), while the Tecton is sort-of a lightweight variation of the Shift concept (elastic horizontal release at toe, alpine-style heel that slides back in tour mode, etc).

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.

[Alkasquawlik]

Thank you for finally answering my question about whether or not you would use the shift for a big tour.

I second Leavenworth skiers question about Sth2. Will you ever ski those anymore?

Yeah and massive for me would be 6k vert amd 5+ mile approach. The shift I'll use for most 0-5k vert days and smaller approaches.

Yeah I probably will but because I get free skis and bindings. My park skis will still have STH2's because there is no chance of trying on them.

[PNWbrit]

I think the price point is fabulous.

Stop it...

they could easily sell these for $1k and people would pay.

Don't fucking encourage them.

[#######]

I think it is. The developer was saying they sourced the material from a company that makes high end car parts and airplane components. He said they also helped specially make the composite that is in the binding.

Sounds like Fischer or maybe its aerospace subsidiary FACC? I spoke with the intermountain rep a while ago that said they make CF Parts for Audi and Porsche which is owned by VW and also owns Lambo.

[jckstein]

do they come in red?

[thatdkid]

How many monies? Existing mount pattern or a new one?

Cheers.

Completely new hole pattern!

[shirk]

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

[sierraskier]

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

Love the innovation but I kind of have to call bullshit on this as well. Freeze the market you are currently loosing money to competitors in is the real answer.

[adrenalated]

Love the innovation but I kind of have to call bullshit on this as well. Freeze the market you are currently loosing money to competitors in is the real answer.

Duh?

All of this info would have come out within the next month anyway once trade show season hits.

[summit]

The Shift offers the safety of an alpine TUV certified binding, the elasticity of an alpine binding and the downhill performance of an alpine binding but with tech fitting uphill capabilities

What is the heel elastic travel?

Is the toe releasable in tour mode at the indicated release setting?

[NW_SKIER]

Yeah and massive for me would be 6k vert amd 5+ mile approach. The shift I'll use for most 0-5k vert days and smaller approaches.

Yeah I probably will but because I get free skis and bindings. My park skis will still have STH2's because there is no chance of trying on them.

Sounds like a typical volcano day up here

[kid-kapow]

I see where you're coming from but I would disagree. What's the point of a midweight tech binding? It offers no more safety aspects than an ultralight tech, just a perception of safety. Tecton's/Kingpins are ultimately tech bindings and TUV classifies them as such. The Shift offers the safety of an alpine TUV certified binding, the elasticity of an alpine binding and the downhill performance of an alpine binding but with tech fitting uphill capabilities...all for about 235 grams more per foot. For me, the SHIFT will be my 70% binding with ultralight tech bindings being reserved for fall-you-die steep skiing or massive planned touring days.

Say what? A Tecton and a Shift have pretty much identical core functionality (if significantly different approaches to how this is met), but where the Tecton is easier to operate (aka you do not need to remove the ski every time you want to switch between modes) and is significantly lighter (200grs pr foot is a lot when you walk for a long time and want burlier boots and burlier skis), whereas the Shift has more elasticity (significantly more so up front at 29mm and 2mm in the rear) and a higher fiddle factor. Aka pick your poison. Other than that they operate more or less in the same way (alpine heel, front release, front elasticity), even if the Shift has an alpine style front for descents and the Tecton is all pins all the time. Please correct me if i am wrong here, but front elasticity is front elasticity no? - regardless of it is provided by pins or an alpine style front. If such is the case, then it is kind of besides the point how it is provided, but it matters how much is provided vs what criteria are important for the application at hand (weight, ease of use, and so on).

As mentioned previously by other users, the Kingpin is a completely different design than both the Tecton and the Shift so lumping them together makes limited sense - unless the category is "the competition".

So why does and will the Tecton continue to remain relevant? Well, for one for the safety conscious weight weenie who doesn't find 200gr more per foot worth it for an increase in elasticity, but still wants the superior safety of a toe style release. Or the user who thinks - whoa - there's a measly 1 din setting difference between the two and i am going to ride these things in pow anyway, so i will not be noticing the difference in elasticity and i prefer the lower weight. As such the Tecton also remains relevant for people who want a heavier ski/boot combination, but still wants to try to keep the system weight down - LHutz Esq dick notwithstanding.

Why the defense of the Tecton? For one i find it to be an awesome product. Secondly it is a product that is available as of now. Thirdly, while it is both ok and indeed encouraged to be stoked about one's own product - or a product one has contributed to - but misrepresenting the competition and its properties is kinda off in my book. Especially after terms such as unsafe have been used en masse when describing the competition (while i mostly agree with the term, there is also a difference between unsafe and less safe, as highlighted in my last post - and personally i would have opted for saying "the Shift has an increase in safety over the competition" as now you are basically admitting that the MTN/Backland binding is "unsafe" - which cannot be good from a litigation side of things).

If anything, i would think that if Atomic/Salomon are confident in their product they would welcome all contributions that raises the focus on safety, and in particular - the increased safety as provided by bindings such as the Shift and the Tecton with their toe release. Why? Because it will cause that segment of the market to increase and drive sales from standard Dynafit style tech bindings. Banging on the safety drum, and then reversing to safety is not important if all i can only save is 200grs, and those lighter weight bindings makes no sense, so in those cases i will run something superlight that is unsafe, kinda goes full circle and while perfectly ok kinda comes across as "our products are the only ones that makes sense". But then again i am dumb enough to having vipecs on my multi day walking sticks due to their superior safety for me being worth the weight over super light weight bindings - so what do i know right?

At the end of the day equipment choices are all about compromises. For me Tectons and Shifts are where the market is at for killer products for the hard charging crowd as of q3 2018 (unless Dynafit also launches something in the mean time, something they have been hinting at). There simply is no "best" product, but products that fit the individual preferences to a lesser or greater degree. As such, various takes on similar concepts only enhances us, the user's, ability to prioritize what we prefer and get the optimal product for our use. And, as the Shift is not available yet, the Tecton still and will continue to make a lot of sense. At least it does for me

man, i need to work on writing shorter replies. My apologies.

[sb]

http://blistergearreview.com/at-bind...shift-mnc-ep-3

[grinch]

^^ no you nailed it. When the ratio is 1 lb off your foot = 5 off your back(or there about) weight matters. I’d loved to have a pair of these SHIFTs but I wouldn’t want to beat the piss out of them at the hill every day so for me CAST still has a segment in my dream quiver. I can see a SHIFT on more than one set within the quiver though

[ASmileyFace]

Love the innovation but I kind of have to call bullshit on this as well. Freeze the market you are currently loosing money to competitors in is the real answer.

I mean it worked. I was going to buy a pair of Kingpins soon for my new pow sticks that I likely won't get till late Feb. I think I'm going to wait now and get these.

[doebedoe]

IANAMechancial Engineer.

But my understanding is some binding designers consider pins in the toe not to release with the same consistency as those without pins in the toe. I believe if you dig around WildSnow's review of the Vipec / Tecton you'll see comments from Howell on the matter -- whose been involved in many top-end binding designs.

For those who value safety to the utmost, and the sort of dampening qualities more elasticity provides, this is a unique product.

Personally I ski conservatively in the BC so old school tech is fine for a couple more seasons while these get dialed.

[kootenayskier]

You'd have to check what ISO cert the backland is but I'm pretty sure it will work. Any boot other than compact shell design boots...i.e. Salomon X-ALP and a lot of Dynafit's new boots are CS boots and therefore won't work. Every other tech norm and alpine norm boots will work.

So why are Salomon X-Alp boots shown being used in the promo pics and video?

[jacob_dbu]

Duh?

All of this info would have come out within the next month anyway once trade show season hits.

That and now they can openly put a lot more miles on the binding for the inevitable v2. Maybe even make some tweaks about small things? I don't know the development process, I'm sure the plastic bits molds are all done but I doubt production has ramped yet. So say they find a failure mode in the spring or a machined part they could modify it before production ramps.

[jacob_dbu]

So why are Salomon X-Alp boots shown being used in the promo pics and video?

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.

[summit]

Say what? A Tecton and a Shift have pretty much identical core functionality (if significantly different approaches to how this is met), but where the Tecton is easier to operate (aka you do not need to remove the ski every time you want to switch between modes) and is significantly lighter (200grs pr foot is a lot when you walk for a long time and want burlier boots and burlier skis), whereas the Shift has more elasticity (significantly more so up front at 29mm and 2mm in the rear) and a higher fiddle factor. Aka pick your poison. Other than that they operate more or less in the same way (alpine heel, front release, front elasticity), even if the Shift has an alpine style front for descents and the Tecton is all pins all the time. Please correct me if i am wrong here, but front elasticity is front elasticity no? - regardless of it is provided by pins or an alpine style front. If such is the case, then it is kind of besides the point how it is provided, but it matters how much is provided vs what criteria are important for the application at hand (weight, ease of use, and so on).

As mentioned previously by other users, the Kingpin is a completely different design than both the Tecton and the Shift so lumping them together makes limited sense - unless the category is "the competition".

So why does and will the Tecton continue to remain relevant? Well, for one for the safety conscious weight weenie who doesn't find 200gr more per foot worth it for an increase in elasticity, but still wants the superior safety of a toe style release. Or the user who thinks - whoa - there's a measly 1 din setting difference between the two and i am going to ride these things in pow anyway, so i will not be noticing the difference in elasticity and i prefer the lower weight. As such the Tecton also remains relevant for people who want a heavier ski/boot combination, but still wants to try to keep the system weight down - LHutz Esq dick notwithstanding.

I have similar thoughts on the matter.

Tecton VS Shift:
Lighter VS Heavier
On the fly mod switch VS Gotta remove ski
Easy to change elevator VS Underfoot elevator
More elevators VS Only low angle elevator
Some elasticity VS Alpine elasticity
Tech boots (requires heel adapter for Backland/TLT) VS Alpine/WTR/Tech boots (descent only, and won't work with Backland/TLT)

It's easy to see they are very different bindings that only kind of compete with each other.

Both are going to be safe and high performance, and the Tecton is going to be more touring oriented with easier convenience and accepting of UL boots while the Shift is going to be more inbounds oriented with higher elasticity and the ability to ski alpine boots (descent only).

[Lindahl]

But my understanding is some binding designers consider pins in the toe not to release with the same consistency as those without pins in the toe. I believe if you dig around WildSnow's review of the Vipec / Tecton you'll see comments from Howell on the matter -- whose been involved in many top-end binding designs.

I believe you’re referring to this article which describes increased chances of tibfib fractures in bindings that release laterally from the heel (all tech bindings EXCEPT Shift, Tecton, Vipec).

https://www.wildsnow.com/15123/tech-...acl-broken-leg

If so, it really isn’t about consistency of release due to pins at the toe, but rather how levering forces work when the point of laterally applied forces is near the toepiece on bindings that don’t release at the toe. This would equally apply to non-pin alpine bindings that don’t release from the toe (if they existed).

In early binding days before they were designed to release when skiing, tibfib fractures had high occurence rates. The releaseable toe was specifically designed to prevent this common injury. I can’t remember the figures but it was something impressive like a 95% reduction in rates.

[SupreChicken]

^^ no you nailed it. When the ratio is 1 lb off your foot = 5 off your back(or there about) weight matters. I’d loved to have a pair of these SHIFTs but I wouldn’t want to beat the piss out of them at the hill every day so for me CAST still has a segment in my dream quiver. I can see a SHIFT on more than one set within the quiver though

We agree on a lot, but in this case...I kind of DO want to beat the piss out of them daily - at least on my soft snow ride. I'll keep my OG STH on park skis.

If C says they can be his only freeride binding, then I'm interested in trying them out.

I think of skinning not just as a way to access the goods, but also as a safety valve if your sidecountry exploring goes too far. As much as I hate the way Dukes ski, I've never faulted anyone who goes out of bounds for owning a pair, because it might be the difference between you being stuck outdoors and not.

For me, the divide is easier to think of in terms of what ski I would put the bindings on. And I don't think it's ridiculous to own both SHIFTs and Tectons, but then I hang out around on TGR where 3 pairs of skis in the touring quiver is normal.

Standard or heavy cored skis, anything with metal (On3P standard, Praxis MA, Std Bibby, Bodacious etc) - SHIFT
- for me, this would replace frame bindings.

Lighter Cored Skis - Steeples/On3p tour, Bibby Tour, Praxis Enduro Core - Vipec/Tecton

Ultralight - mountaineering skis, < 100mm < 1700g/ski - mtn, radplum, SSL, atk/hagen etc.

[doebedoe]

I believe you’re referring to this article which describes increased chances of tibfib fractures in bindings that release laterally from the heel (all tech bindings EXCEPT Shift, Tecton, Vipec).

https://www.wildsnow.com/15123/tech-...acl-broken-leg

If so, it really isn’t about consistency of release due to pins at the toe, but rather how levering forces work when the point of laterally applied forces is near the toepiece on bindings that don’t release at the toe. This would equally apply to non-pin alpine bindings that don’t release from the toe (if they existed).

In early binding days before they were designed to release when skiing, tibfib fractures had high occurence rates. The releaseable toe was specifically design to prevent this common injury. I can’t remember the figures but it was something impressive like a 95% reduction in rates.

I thought there were some objections to the way the Vipec/Tecton release with the pins engaged. Not just that that we need lateral release at the toe to reduce the probability of tib/fib fractures. But rather lateral release with pins was still an issue.

But I could just be mis remembering. Since I bought a vape pen I'm high far too often.

[grinch]

We agree on a lot, but in this case...I kind of DO want to beat the piss out of them daily - at least on my soft snow ride. I'll keep my OG STH on park skis.

If C says they can be his only freeride binding, then I'm interested in trying them out.

I think of skinning not just as a way to access the goods, but also as a safety valve if your sidecountry exploring goes too far. As much as I hate the way Dukes ski, I've never faulted anyone who goes out of bounds for owning a pair, because it might be the difference between you being stuck outdoors and not.

For me, the divide is easier to think of in terms of what ski I would put the bindings on. And I don't think it's ridiculous to own both SHIFTs and Tectons, but then I hang out around on TGR where 3 pairs of skis in the touring quiver is normal.

Standard or heavy cored skis, anything with metal (On3P standard, Praxis MA, Std Bibby, Bodacious etc) - SHIFT
- for me, this would replace frame bindings.

Lighter Cored Skis - Steeples/On3p tour, Bibby Tour, Praxis Enduro Core - Vipec/Tecton

Ultralight - mountaineering skis, < 100mm < 1700g/ski - mtn, radplum, SSL, atk/hagen etc.

I think we’re on the same page. I’d like to beat the piss of them on the hill , if I had the money to have a back up or could buy a new set annually. I just don’t think they’ll last like a pivot alpine clamp. So because I’m a cheap dirtbag I have no problems skiing my cast set up daily on my harder snow inbounds day where I have an option to duck outside the rope. My cast set up I have , I have skied 100+ days on and only toured 20 days on. With a SHIFT in the mix I can see that taking a lot of those days away from the CAST set up. I could be to be totally off and they’ll last like a STH. I think the SHIFT is ground breaking and I’d just be careful with them until the novelty wears off, because they are so cool. Definitely want a pair. I can usually find soft snow here. They’d get beat regardless of the soft snow or me trying to not ruin them

[RiderX]

For me, the SHIFT will be my 70% binding with ultralight tech bindings being reserved for fall-you-die steep skiing or massive planned touring days.

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.