The Official Salomon S/Lab SHIFT MNC Thread -AMA

[morphintoskittle]

So has anyone come out with an aftermarket high climbing bar? I searched this thread and found that a few people had been experimenting with making some. Hard to believe that Salomon or B&D hasn't come up with something to retail.

I am currently throwing around ideas on how to 3D print a reliable attachment that can be added onto the existing holes found in the current single riser that comes on the shift...definitely interested in this question and will report back with anything I come up with. I did see a link a few months ago of a stand alone riser that you would have to mount to the skis in a position separate from the binding but not sure how easily that would work out.

[kathleenturneroverdrive]

Haven’t listed them in GS yet, but I’ve got a pair with 110mm brakes for sale. Used just a few times. $375 shipped.

[PeachesNCream]

Jong question here. I scoured google and the last 10 pages of this thread but had no luck. Shifts don't share holes with any binding correct?

[XavierD]

Any idea on pivot hole conflict or ideally lack there of? Have pivot holes and considering shift for a pair

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I went +0.5cm to fit around pivots for 306mm.

[phatboy64]

I am getting ready to get my second pair of shifts mounted and I started poking around with the set I currently have.
Like I mentioned in a previous post I am pretty sure I sorted out my AFD issue. The only way I have been able to avoid the dropping down of the ADF or having too much of a gap is to adjust the AFD to the point that it touches the boot sole and then turn it 1/4. When set this way I can manualy slide the AFD back and forth.
So my question is...is it really that much of an issue if the AFD and boot sole are touching each other. I can't imagine it makes that much of a differance from a friction standpoint. I understand that if it was so tight and it was binding (no pun) that it would be problematic..

So i guess my real question is "how much is too much"

[crawley]

Jong question here. I scoured google and the last 10 pages of this thread but had no luck. Shifts don't share holes with any binding correct?

The STH2 toe rear holes and the Shift toe middle holes share the same pattern and put the boot in the same position on the ski. You will have to drill 3 new holes for the toes and 4 new holes for the heel- and the heel needs to be moved back typically to avoid conflict with the STH2 heel. I have several pairs mounted with QKs for STH2/Shift and it's really nice that the boot stays in the exact same spot. However, you do end up with 15 inserts on each ski...

[BlAikenstein]

Anyone having issue with the entire brake mech popping off? This is the second time now. It popped off today when I clipped the brakes.

[Spyderjon]

Jong question here. I scoured google and the last 10 pages of this thread but had no luck. Shifts don't share holes with any binding correct?

See my post #1741 on page 70 for a pic of an STH2/Shift mount. Pretty sure that the rear toe holes of a Warden 13 MNC can be shared as well but I've just got in from the pub and I might be talking bollocks.

[HAB]

See my post #1741 on page 70 for a pic of an STH2/Shift mount. Pretty sure that the rear toe holes of a Warden 13 MNC can be shared as well but I've just got in from the pub and I might be talking bollocks.

Warden and STH2 share the rear toe holes, so that checks out.

[aanev]

Anyone having issue with the entire brake mech popping off? This is the second time now. It popped off today when I clipped the brakes.

Yes. I have four brakes (90, 100, 110, 120) for two pairs of Shifts. Only the 120 brakes keep falling occasionally. Upon closer expection it seems that they both miss a tiny piece of plastic on one of the small teeth connecting them to the tower. They are like that from new.

[galibier_numero_un]

Yup, it's the front hole pair location (and possibly spacing) that differs between the STH2 and Warden.

The rear 2 holes are identical in spacing & location. The Powderguide template shows the shared rear holes.

... Thom

[BlAikenstein]

Yes. I have four brakes (90, 100, 110, 120) for two pairs of Shifts. Only the 120 brakes keep falling occasionally. Upon closer expection it seems that they both miss a tiny piece of plastic on one of the small teeth connecting them to the tower. They are like that from new.

Would you mind posting a pic of the tab that’s missing? I’ve been lucky enough to not lose the mech but I need to fix this before my luck runs out

[aanev]

I'm not sure if you can see as it is quite small.

[BlAikenstein]

I'm not sure if you can see as it is quite small.

Looks like I have those tabs o my mech.

It has some play on the rails that might be enough for them to slip out.

[Alkasquawlik]

I am getting ready to get my second pair of shifts mounted and I started poking around with the set I currently have.
Like I mentioned in a previous post I am pretty sure I sorted out my AFD issue. The only way I have been able to avoid the dropping down of the ADF or having too much of a gap is to adjust the AFD to the point that it touches the boot sole and then turn it 1/4. When set this way I can manualy slide the AFD back and forth.
So my question is...is it really that much of an issue if the AFD and boot sole are touching each other. I can't imagine it makes that much of a differance from a friction standpoint. I understand that if it was so tight and it was binding (no pun) that it would be problematic..

So i guess my real question is "how much is too much"

This is exactly what I do and I have no issues with AFD slip or with releasing out of the toe the few times I've needed to release out of the toe. This is what I've recommended in early posts in this thread. I can't quite understand why the directions for mounting don't follow this because the AFD is sliding and is supposed to slide even with the AFD in contact with the boot sole which allows for releasability in the toe, but my guess it's legal stuff that keep the directions stating there needs to be the traditional 'credit-card gap' between sole and AFD. But this is coming from my experience and fiddling, not from anything that's been said to me internally.

[reckless toboggan]

I am getting ready to get my second pair of shifts mounted and I started poking around with the set I currently have.
Like I mentioned in a previous post I am pretty sure I sorted out my AFD issue. The only way I have been able to avoid the dropping down of the ADF or having too much of a gap is to adjust the AFD to the point that it touches the boot sole and then turn it 1/4. When set this way I can manualy slide the AFD back and forth.
So my question is...is it really that much of an issue if the AFD and boot sole are touching each other. I can't imagine it makes that much of a differance from a friction standpoint. I understand that if it was so tight and it was binding (no pun) that it would be problematic..

So i guess my real question is "how much is too much"

This is exactly what I do and I have no issues with AFD slip or with releasing out of the toe the few times I've needed to release out of the toe. This is what I've recommended in early posts in this thread. I can't quite understand why the directions for mounting don't follow this because the AFD is sliding and is supposed to slide even with the AFD in contact with the boot sole which allows for releasability in the toe, but my guess it's legal stuff that keep the directions stating there needs to be the traditional 'credit-card gap' between sole and AFD. But this is coming from my experience and fiddling, not from anything that's been said to me internally.

FWIW, I've adjusted mine with the afd touching the boot, and left it there. I had to wiggle it, just a little bit, to get the afd to settle, then I raise it back up to touching the boot.

...

But just to clarify the above couple of posts with regard to afd height:

1. You raise the afd until it's touching the boot sole, then raise it 1/4 turn more.

Or

2. You raise the afd until it's touching the boot sole, then lower it 1/4 turn.

[JackSkier]

Yeah, I get that the Shift certainly will ski better, but, for me, knowing I am going to stay in my bindings is #1 on the list, ski performance comes after. The beasts are rock solid- I've never pre-released from mine in 2 years of use. It's also nice being able to ski around on non knee breaking din settings, and then being able to lock the toe as and when necessary.

Well, I may just be about to eat my words having sold (somewhat accidentally) my skis with beasts on them.

Would I be a fool to not spend an extra £70 and get shifts over another pair of beasts? Anyone skied both? Is the difference in downhill performance enough to override my concerns about no locking toe?

Most of my skiing is in the alps, and whilst I'm not on the midi north face, there is definite no fall zones

[cydwhit]

Yes. I have four brakes (90, 100, 110, 120) for two pairs of Shifts. Only the 120 brakes keep falling occasionally. Upon closer expection it seems that they both miss a tiny piece of plastic on one of the small teeth connecting them to the tower. They are like that from new.

Interesting. My 120 brakes have a tendency to pop off, and my friends with the 110 and the 100 brakes never have issues. I need to just find my way into a pair of 110's, I'm sure they'd fit any skis I'd want to put under them.

[anotherVTskibum]

Well, I may just be about to eat my words having sold (somewhat accidentally) my skis with beasts on them.

Would I be a fool to not spend an extra £70 and get shifts over another pair of beasts? Anyone skied both? Is the difference in downhill performance enough to override my concerns about no locking toe?

Most of my skiing is in the alps, and whilst I'm not on the midi north face, there is definite no fall zones

Yes.

If you were in the States, I'd have to say no, you'd be better off buying my Beast 14s so I can put Shifts on the full-powder boards and have my entire quiver alpine-boot compatible, but the lateral release at the heel is a huge trade-off given the lever of the foot acting on the tibia vs pivoting on the tibia in a toe-release binding. From a skiing-performance standpoint, if I were optimizing for non-release performance and not particularly concerned about releasing, I'd either crank up the Shifts or go with a lighter Dynafit binding and lock it out. The Beast exists in a no-man's land at this point, IMO.

Speaking of Shift performance, I had my first release of the season on my new pair yesterday. Given that both skis had mud on the tips after I plowed them into a water crossing, I'm going to go with "glad they released" even if I'm not so glad my body stopped about as suddenly on the facing side of the waterbar. Pretty sure the skis weren't going forward whether or not I stayed attached. I've got mine at the book DIN and haven't had any release/retention issues, although I did need to spend a moment or three cleaning heavy, compacted snow off boots and out of bindings yesterday,

[roQer]

Interesting. My 120 brakes have a tendency to pop off, and my friends with the 110 and the 100 brakes never have issues. I need to just find my way into a pair of 110's, I'm sure they'd fit any skis I'd want to put under them.

The 110 brakes on my Shifts are popping off when I‘m applying the ski boot method to put the heal into walk mode. This problem doesn’t occur when I manually elevate the brake prongs and then switch over the heal lever.
This issue seems to be not restricted exclusively to 120 brakes.
Otherwise I‘m very happy with my Shifts in the second season of use.

[JackSkier]

Yes.

If you were in the States, I'd have to say no, you'd be better off buying my Beast 14s so I can put Shifts on the full-powder boards and have my entire quiver alpine-boot compatible, but the lateral release at the heel is a huge trade-off given the lever of the foot acting on the tibia vs pivoting on the tibia in a toe-release binding. From a skiing-performance standpoint, if I were optimising for non-release performance and not particularly concerned about releasing, I'd either crank up the Shifts or go with a lighter Dynafit binding and lock it out. The Beast exists in a no-man's land at this point, IMO.

Speaking of Shift performance, I had my first release of the season on my new pair yesterday. Given that both skis had mud on the tips after I plowed them into a water crossing, I'm going to go with "glad they released" even if I'm not so glad my body stopped about as suddenly on the facing side of the waterbar. Pretty sure the skis weren't going forward whether or not I stayed attached. I've got mine at the book DIN and haven't had any release/retention issues, although I did need to spend a moment or three cleaning heavy, compacted snow off boots and out of bindings yesterday,

Interesting thoughts, thanks. Am I right in saying that its a trade off with less chance of ACL vs more chance of Tib/Fib fracture though?

I guess the obvious answer would be to get the Shifts and crank them when I know I am going somewhere serious. However, this worries me a little as not always possible when you stumble upon a situation where a fall is not a good idea.

I'm skiing in La Grave for all of April. Conditions can change a lot on a 2000m+ run there. You can easily find yourself in a unexpectedly exposed situation in hard snow where you want absolute retention, and then wanting absolute releasability skiing breakable crust at the end of the run. When you can lock/unlock the toe this is easy to resolve, much less so when you have to start taking skis off and fiddling with screwdrivers.

Maybe I'm thinking too much!

[hakubaguide]

Not sure if has come up in this thread already. However, I have one toe piece that keeps popping down when touring. My other toe I lock it all the way up and it’s a bit of force to get it there and it stays. Zero issues, the problematic toe piece when I lift it all the way up it pops back down either within seconds or in a few minutes to level. I didn’t notice the first few times and popped straight out of my binding on the skin track. Bit embarrassing with clients behind me. Any ideas on this? I have another pair of skis with shifts and they don’t have this issue.

[hakubaguide]

Has anyone else had this issue while touring? I'm unsure if there could be a issue with this particular binding or if it was just icing somwhere in the binding

I don't think there was any ice in the inserts, atleast I couldn't get any out myself (hard to be sure when touring alone, wasn't keen on taking my boots off). The problem persisted for a while after I took both boots and skis inside back home, but it seems to be more or less gone now.

I have the exact some issue with one binding... did you come up with a solution?

[anotherVTskibum]

Interesting thoughts, thanks. Am I right in saying that its a trade off with less chance of ACL vs more chance of Tib/Fib fracture though?

I guess the obvious answer would be to get the Shifts and crank them when I know I am going somewhere serious. However, this worries me a little as not always possible when you stumble upon a situation where a fall is not a good idea.

I'm skiing in La Grave for all of April. Conditions can change a lot on a 2000m+ run there. You can easily find yourself in a unexpectedly exposed situation in hard snow where you want absolute retention, and then wanting absolute releasability skiing breakable crust at the end of the run. When you can lock/unlock the toe this is easy to resolve, much less so when you have to start taking skis off and fiddling with screwdrivers.

Maybe I'm thinking too much!

Bindings don't protect your ACL except by coincidence. Back when ACL injuries started become a big subject, several manufacturers introduced upwards-toe-release as a risk-mitigation factor, but IIRC the studies eventually showed that there was no reliable link between the amount of force on the knee and the amount of force on the binding. But it is a trade-off between retention of a bouncing ski in a possibly-recoverable scenario vs. the potential for a tib/fib spiral fracture or boot-top fracture when the ski stops (think stump hidden by two feet of powder) and your body doesn't.

For that use case, I'd be seriously thinking about sticking with a normal tech binding and a relatively low retention setting. My touring skis (w/Speed Radical 2.0s) and my full-powder boards (with Beast 14) are both low enough that I can twist out trying to buckle my boots if I do it while sliding away from the lift (rather than at a stop), but I haven't had problems while actually skiing either. If spending significant time in no-fall zones, I'd probably want to ski them locked out, but I'd also be comfortable with the Shifts in the same conditions (er, well, I don't know that I would be comfortable, but it wouldn't be my bindings that I'd be worried about).

[Gapergoon]

After reading almost all of this thread I'm a bit nervous to mount mine. Any trustworthy shops in the Denver area? Or a mag that would take a couple 6 packs to do it?