The Official Salomon S/Lab SHIFT MNC Thread -AMA

[LeeLau]

Lou's numbers are based on estimates of where the tech heel and toe fittings would be. For comparison with alpine bindings, the Blister measurements are obviously better.

Blisters measurements were along the line of mine

[burrito]

I think you would have to bend them some to make it work. Just placing the 110 brake on them didn't seem like they would quite clear the lotus. I think someone else managed to fit a 100 on a 118 in this thread with some bending.

Sent from my Pixel using TGR Forums mobile app

Putting a pair of Shifts on Bent Chetler 120s. If they almost fit the Lotus 124 I would assume, then, I'm better off with the 110 brakes than the 120s?

[Griff And Or]

Putting a pair of Shifts on Bent Chetler 120s. If they almost fit the Lotus 124 I would assume, then, I'm better off with the 110 brakes than the 120s?

Note that I only briefly tried messing with the 110 brake on my lotus, and I have never even done a binding mount. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can chime in, but I think the brakes might catch on the edge of the ski during if you use a 110 and don't bend the brakes.

Sent from my Pixel using TGR Forums mobile app

[SkiLyft]

I think you would have to bend them some to make it work. Just placing the 110 brake on them didn't seem like they would quite clear the lotus. I think someone else managed to fit a 100 on a 118 in this thread with some bending.

Sent from my Pixel using TGR Forums mobile app

100mm brake on ON3P BG (116)

Minimal bending.





Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[burrito]

100mm brake on ON3P BG (116)

Minimal bending.

Hmm. If you're having to minimally bend the 110 to fit a 116 waist that makes it seem like the 120 is actually the proper brake for a 120+ waist ski.

[reckless toboggan]

Hmm. If you're having to minimally bend the 110 to fit a 116 waist that makes it seem like the 120 is actually the proper brake for a 120+ waist ski.

He slightly bent a *100* mm brake to fit 116 mm ski.

Reading comprehension. You have none.

[XXX-er]

I know its just crazy talk but I like to buy brakes 130 cms wide, that way the brakes will always be wide enough for the future, I just toe the ends in so they don't catch on anything

[Norseman]

Man I hate brakes that are too wide. Gotta have em tuck in as close as possible when the boot is in. I've crashed by catching too-wide brake arms on pants, and on the other inside brake.

[TahoeJ]

The real issue with brakes being too wide is for skinning, not skiing.

This nonsense with brake sizes (and many brands are guilty of this) is a real pain in the ass. Doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to just have a universal adjustable brake mechanism where the wings can cover a pretty wide range.

[kathleenturneroverdrive]

Says the lucky guy who’s apparently never had too wide brakes hook up on each other while skiing full speed


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[XXX-er]

you might snag on the ends of brake paddles if they are sticking out but you do not snag on the 90 degree bend and you won't snag if the ends are inboard

Bend them a little more at the 90 degree and/or right above the paddle

110 brake on a 108 notice the dynafit brake arms actualy tuck in better than on an unbent brake and point more straight down so stop better ( which isnt very good to be honest )



an even more extreme bend job is the 130 Salomon Guardian arms transplanted to a vertical heel piece on a lotus 120, the Salomon arms are only like 20 $ and they fit in a Dynafit heelpiece by drilling the holes a little bigger in the pivots and grinding the end of the rod slightly to fit in the stomp pad


my fridge magnet is bigger than your fridge magnet and obviously a woman does not live here

[burrito]

He slightly bent a *100* mm brake to fit 116 mm ski.

Reading comprehension. You have none.

Harsh...but fair. I shouldn't post before coffee.

[XXX-er]

that would be a Traversty

[TahoeJ]

Says the lucky guy who’s apparently never had too wide brakes hook up on each other while skiing full speed

Can't say I have - I don't ski with my feet close together like it's 1995.

i vote traversing

But this is a good point.

[gregL]

The real issue with brakes being too wide is for skinning, not skiing.

You may not have seen some of the places Norseman skis.

[burrito]

Backcountry lists the brakes as fitting +/- 5mm their nominal width.
https://www.backcountry.com/salomon-...ouring-binding

[Jtlange]

I put 110mm brakes over my 114mm waist Rustlers with no issue. Id say the ±5mm is about right.

[grskier]

Can't say I have - I don't ski with my feet close together like it's 1995.



But this is a good point.

I have and I don't ski with my skis together... but sometimes shit happens... and when shit happens I don't want my fucking brakes to break me.

[TahoeJ]

I have and I don't ski with my skis together... but sometimes shit happens... and when shit happens I don't want my fucking brakes to break me.

Yeah, I was just being a ball buster.

Got a pair of the Atomic branded shifts in the mail the other day. They seem pretty sturdy.

[lucknau]

Hey, so my bindings arrived last night and I checked dimensions against the ones given originally in that JPEG, which I used when building a preliminary template. They were all off by a bit, and the center line was off by 10mm. I updated the mounting template and the link in my original post in the binding mount thread, so if you downloaded it prior to 11/2/2018, go and re-download it and you'll be much happier with the results.

It's post #1251 in the paper templates thread

[burrito]

Hey, so my bindings arrived last night and I checked dimensions against the ones given originally in that JPEG, which I used when building a preliminary template. They were all off by a bit, and the center line was off by 10mm. I updated the mounting template and the link in my original post in the binding mount thread, so if you downloaded it prior to 11/2/2018, go and re-download it and you'll be much happier with the results.

It's post #1251 in the paper templates thread

Thanks a ton for the update. With your revised template, where does the heelpiece end up on the track? I've found that a lot of brands' jigs tend to put the heel 2/3 to 3/4 of the way toward the toe instead of centered on the track. It bugs the hell out of me on general principle, and with the Shift's longer than normal mounting pattern I don't want to make the bindings any longer than they need to be.

[lucknau]

Thanks a ton for the update. With your revised template, where does the heelpiece end up on the track? I've found that a lot of brands' jigs tend to put the heel 2/3 to 3/4 of the way toward the toe instead of centered on the track. It bugs the hell out of me on general principle, and with the Shift's longer than normal mounting pattern I don't want to make the bindings any longer than they need to be.

It's right on the center hashmark on the track. I took everything apart but I can put it together and take a picture for you later if you want.

[jdadour]

Hey, so my bindings arrived last night and I checked dimensions against the ones given originally in that JPEG, which I used when building a preliminary template. They were all off by a bit, and the center line was off by 10mm. I updated the mounting template and the link in my original post in the binding mount thread, so if you downloaded it prior to 11/2/2018, go and re-download it and you'll be much happier with the results.

It's post #1251 in the paper templates thread

Props to lucknau! Mounting next week. Thanks!

[burrito]

It's right on the center hashmark on the track. I took everything apart but I can put it together and take a picture for you later if you want.

I trust ya. Thanks again.

[lucknau]

I trust ya. Thanks again.

I was curious anyway.

Here's the whole scale:



I made the center hash the first major hash after the screw:



Makes it about 30mm of travel between the STOP mark and the last minor hash.