Page 1 of 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 1234
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Brohemia
    Posts
    2,025

    The Official Salomon S/Lab SHIFT MNC Thread -AMA

    Yeah, I know there is another thread on it...but that guy doesn't even know the name of this new binding. So since this binding was spurred by a conversation Chris Rubens and I had with a Salomon binding engineer 7 years ago, I figured I'd start the offishal thread and get the maggots some answers direct from the source. Also of note, yeah, I know I haven't posted for years...but still lurking about here and there.

    So anyways, the binding. Let's start. The name is: S/LAB SHIFT MNC. Well what does that mean? S/LAB means it's coming out of the Annecy Design Center and goes through a special process of development and testing with the athletes. SHIFT, well that's because it shifts from a tech binding on the up to a normal downhill binding for the down. MNC = Multi Norm Certified = it works with a ton of boots, actually the most boots of any binder in its class.

    Moving on. The idea was spurred by two main facts. Tech bindings are amazing for the way up. But are generally unsafe for the way down. Despite quite a lot of progress in tech bindings releasability and hold, ultimately they're still quite dangerous whether you're locking the toe and gambling with a spiral tib/fib fracture or gambling with unlocking the toe and having them release in inconsistent ways. So 7 years ago, we started talking about this problem. Now 20 prototypes and 7 years later, we got the binding we wanted. It's been a long process. We've seen some crazy ideas, found an idea that seemed to solve our problems and have now spent the past three years testing, tweaking and finalizing the model that we see today. Long and short though, it's a pin binding for the way up, an alpine binding for the way down...the best of both worlds.

    So that being said, here's some pretty pictures and I'll do my best to answer any questions below.

    Stats:
    1700 grams per pair with screws.
    47mm of Elastic Travel (compare w/ STH2 with 52mm of Elastic Travel)
    DIN: 6-13
    TUV Certified for Alpine Norms
    Climbing Lifts: 2° and 10°
    MNC Certified.


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	svM9thI.jpg 
Views:	1590 
Size:	1.29 MB 
ID:	218279

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2OiICYH.jpg 
Views:	2167 
Size:	1.17 MB 
ID:	218280

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	toXjBqR.jpg 
Views:	2034 
Size:	1.19 MB 
ID:	218281

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	m8pB2kD.jpg 
Views:	2281 
Size:	1.18 MB 
ID:	218282

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ybq9lhg.jpg 
Views:	1485 
Size:	1.13 MB 
ID:	218283

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	xvnYUsF.jpg 
Views:	1682 
Size:	1.30 MB 
ID:	218284

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Whistler, BC
    Posts
    1,258
    How many monies? Existing mount pattern or a new one?

    Cheers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Whelk View Post
    a more stupid motherfuck does not exist.
    Big Balls is worst asshat kind.
    kind that wear bukkake from above.
    with warm drown he gurgles final death, for one time not worried about his misplaced import known of african american social standing and prominent community members. for he is only drown, as is the way.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    The High 12 Hill
    Posts
    4,020
    Interesting concept. A little heavy for a true all day touring binder though. When in alpine mode, does the toe release like a typical binder such as the Sth2?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    10,797
    Thanks Cody

    Will spam this here as it had the microsite on it and will keep S happy

    Here it is

    Need-to-know

    DIN: 6-13

    NORM: MNC (Multi-Norm Compatible)

    SAFETY: TUV Certified

    WEIGHT: 1700g/pair 850g/single (ie heavier then Kingpin; lighter then Beast)

    ADJUSTMENT RANGE: 30mm

    BRAKES SIZE: 90/100/110/120mm

    CRAMPONS WAIST WIDTH: 100/120mm

    CLIMBING AIDS" 2° & 10°

    Name:  Salomon  S_LAB SHIFT MNC Binding.jpg
Views: 7144
Size:  168.6 KB

    Name:  Salomon  S_LAB SHIFT MNC Binding-1.jpg
Views: 7296
Size:  155.4 KB

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Salomon  S_LAB SHIFT MNC Binding-2.jpg 
Views:	849 
Size:	253.4 KB 
ID:	218289

    Microsite - http://shift-bindings.salomon.com/en
    Last edited by LeeLau; 12-07-2017 at 11:02 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Brohemia
    Posts
    2,025
    Current MSRP is $650. New mounting pattern.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    16,308
    It looks to me like its a pin binding on the walk up and for the down the pins get stowed forward and you got binding wings to grip the toe of the boot ?

    looks like some kind of alpine like rear binding piece, does it move out of the way for the up ?

    In downhill ski mode is there any forward pressure on the boot like with an alpine bind?

    keeping in mind we got AT boots that are tech only and AT boots that fit in most frame bindings ... what boots are gona work, Vulcan, TLT5 ?

    looks like this is gona go head 2 head with the tecton ?
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Der Town
    Posts
    5,830
    Are these meant to be a bomber soft snow touring binding or will they hold up to punishment in the resort? What's the biggest huck you've done on them? Do they feel totally solid like a sth16? Does the heel snap with a reassuring clunk?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Beer:30
    Posts
    5,856
    Congrats on the release, Cody.

    Couple questions (for anyone):

    1) how does the 10° heel riser compare to other heel risers on popular tech bindings? It seems low, but I can't actually find data to compare it to.

    2) what does this binding offer over the Tecton, given that there is a not insignificant weight penalty?

    I'm not sure if this has a place in my quiver due to the weight, but as an engineer I am definitely impressed with the concept and implementation. Well done.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    668
    Looking sweet. Obviously the main innovation is in the toe piece. Seems like a better solution than the Tecton, but also heavier. I think that trade-off will be a very interesting one, with no right answer.

    The CF is an interesting choice, must be expensive to manufacturer with the metal inserts needed for binding retention. I wonder how bomber they will be, mostly concerned with the toe piece here.

    Questions:
    1. Can we get a pic with the jaws open for boot insertion?
    2. What is the mount pattern going to be? It would be sweet if they matched Wardens.
    3. Also curious about exactly which boots will fit.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    12,658
    Congrats

    It should have a better name, like HUCKMASTER 3000 or SCHMITSTONE 69
    Possibly the CODYNATOR MK1

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Brohemia
    Posts
    2,025
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    It looks to me like its a pin binding on the walk up and for the down the pins get stowed forward and you got binding wings to grip the toe of the boot ?
    Exactly. Pins for the up, wings come in and stow them away for the down. Downhill hold is essentially the same as any alpine bindings.

    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    looks like some kind of alpine like rear binding piece, does it move out of the way for the up ?
    It is an alpine binding heel that is completely stationary. When you engage the pins, the connection moves your toe 20mm forward so you clear the heel.

    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    In downhill ski mode is there any forward pressure on the boot like with an alpine bind?
    Yup, pretty similar forward pressure settings as an STH2.

    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    keeping in mind we got AT boots that are tech only and AT boots that fit in most frame bindings ... what boots are gona work, Vulcan, TLT5 ?
    Every adult norm boot will work. So any alpine boot, hybrid WTR/Grip Walk or norm certified rockered sole touring boot will work. Currently, the only boots that wouldn't are compact shell design boots and non-norm certified boots.

    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    looks like this is gona go head 2 head with the tecton ?
    Nope. Tecton is not TUV certified for alpine norms. Same with the Kingpin. The SHIFT is certified to Alpine releasability and safety norms, something no other tech insert binding can claim.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Brohemia
    Posts
    2,025
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    Congrats on the release, Cody.

    Couple questions (for anyone):

    1) how does the 10° heel riser compare to other heel risers on popular tech bindings? It seems low, but I can't actually find data to compare it to.

    2) what does this binding offer over the Tecton, given that there is a not insignificant weight penalty?

    I'm not sure if this has a place in my quiver due to the weight, but as an engineer I am definitely impressed with the concept and implementation. Well done.
    1. The reason we went with 10° at the max height is mainly because of Greg Hill. Because once you follow a guy that can do 2 million vertical feet in a year and realize he does it on a 12° skin track, you realize that if you're on a 17° riser, you're touring too steep, are unnecessarily burning out your legs and ultimately making a shittier down for yourself. You'll never catch guys like Greg or Hoji on their high risers simply because if you need to use them, you're touring at too steep of an angle. So yeah, we tested higher but opted to get rid of the second riser because we felt like we didn't need it.

    2. Safety. Safety. Safety...oh and 47mm of elastic travel versus the Tecton's 13mm. There are a shit ton of misconceptions with TUV certifications and tech bindings, the SHIFT is essentially an alpine binding with the same certifications of safety as an alpine binding but then goes up like a tech binding. It's not even really in the same category.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Brohemia
    Posts
    2,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Leavenworth Skier View Post
    Are these meant to be a bomber soft snow touring binding or will they hold up to punishment in the resort? What's the biggest huck you've done on them? Do they feel totally solid like a sth16? Does the heel snap with a reassuring clunk?
    That was one of the main goals. It had to have the same performance as our STH's or Wardens in any condition. I'll let you decide ultimately but for us, that hurdle was achieved.

    I've sent some 20-30 footers at Squaw last season on them.

    Oh yeah and OH YEAH!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    The High 12 Hill
    Posts
    4,020
    Would you use it as an all day touring binder though? Or would you run the MTN instead? The shift looks like a great sidecountry/short tour option.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Spudlandia
    Posts
    5,232
    Any issues with the moving parts in the toe icing up?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Beer:30
    Posts
    5,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkasquawlik View Post
    1. The reason we went with 10° at the max height is mainly because of Greg Hill. Because once you follow a guy that can do 2 million vertical feet in a year and realize he does it on a 12° skin track, you realize that if you're on a 17° riser, you're touring too steep, are unnecessarily burning out your legs and ultimately making a shittier down for yourself. You'll never catch guys like Greg or Hoji on their high risers simply because if you need to use them, you're touring at too steep of an angle. So yeah, we tested higher but opted to get rid of the second riser because we felt like we didn't need it.
    I don't disagree at all that lower angle skintracks are far more efficient, but reality is that if you tour somewhere that your skintracks sometimes use tight steep trees then you will need a higher riser at some point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    All ye punterz! Leave thine stupid heavy skis in the past, or at least in the resort category, for the age of lightweight pussy sticks is upon us! Behold! Keep up with the randocommandos on their carbon blades of shortness! Break thine tibias into spiral splinters with pintech extravagance!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Alta
    Posts
    279
    1. The reason we went with 10° at the max height is mainly because of Greg Hill. Because once you follow a guy that can do 2 million vertical feet in a year and realize he does it on a 12° skin track, you realize that if you're on a 17° riser, you're touring too steep, are unnecessarily burning out your legs and ultimately making a shittier down for yourself. You'll never catch guys like Greg or Hoji on their high risers simply because if you need to use them, you're touring at too steep of an angle. So yeah, we tested higher but opted to get rid of the second riser because we felt like we didn't need it.
    So true. Wish people in the wasatch could learn that steep skin tracks are stupid but that's a different subject. Elasticity seems like the biggest win with this binder. Obviously weight isn't the greatest but if it truly skis like an alpine binding, it negates the weight issue for me. Will Greg hill be touring on this binder or was he just a consultant?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    16,772
    That is some genius engineering.

    Do you notice a feel difference with the wings vs metal/metal of a pin-in-hole tech binding on the way down?

    This looks like something that crushes the Kingpin and frame binding market vs competing with the Tecton which I think actually just crushed the market previously held by Radical/Vertical/Vipec.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,484
    Wow, nice work guys. Pretty solid looking solution.
    PE, Mechanical Engineering

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    3,747

    The Official Salomon S/Lab SHIFT MNC Thread -AMA

    Why only 13 DIN? Just curious. If you personally don’t need a higher release value, than I can assume I wont need it either.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    7,377
    Sounds like CAST without the weight and fiddle. Any changes from the last proto binding you were on and the production version?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue
    Posts
    4,903
    So do we get an all metal one soon that thunks like a 916?

    Looks like the pins are supported by metal arms but the wings for downhill are reinforced plastic? Cool idea

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Brohemia
    Posts
    2,025
    Quote Originally Posted by sgsbet86 View Post
    So true. Wish people in the wasatch could learn that steep skin tracks are stupid but that's a different subject. Elasticity seems like the biggest win with this binder. Obviously weight isn't the greatest but if it truly skis like an alpine binding, it negates the weight issue for me. Will Greg hill be touring on this binder or was he just a consultant?
    Well Greg has pretty much switched entirely to this binding. His avalanche incident and subsequent tib/fib fracture has made him quite weary of tech, for good reason, so he spent a lot of last season touring on the SHIFT. I can't say what his ratio will be in the future but he seemed to take to it more than I thought he would in all honesty

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Brohemia
    Posts
    2,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Betelgeuse View Post
    Why only 13 DIN? Just curious. If you personally don’t need a higher release value, than I can assume I wont need it either.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Yeah, we were pushing for up to a 16 but there were design limitations that made it impossible for the 16 spring to be put in according to the developers. At the same time, I've been skiing more and more on the Warden 13 because it has a sliding AFD plate and is compatible with the MTN Lab boot which is the boot I ski noo 100% of the time and my experience with a 13 DIN binding has been nothing but positive. I also had the lead engineer for this project dispel the myth that bindings work better in the mid-range of their DIN better than at the edges. So for the SHIFT, I've been at 13 and have gained nothing but confidence on them.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Brohemia
    Posts
    2,025
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    Sounds like CAST without the weight and fiddle. Any changes from the last proto binding you were on and the production version?
    No, definitely quite different than the CAST. To date, there were 20 different prototypes made for this project. The last three years were spent refining and tweaking the model you see today.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •