PSA: Never buy a touring binding in the first year of production.

[plugboots]

Tectons are on their 8th? version, the Xenic thread is a long list of problems, Shift has issues, etc.
I know it’s been said before, but I think this needs to be re-emphasized. 1st season users are the beta testers, and this is BC skiing, not a great place to have failures. Let somebody else do it.

[gregL]

Unless it's the Salomon MTN/Atomic Backland Tour.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I haven’t had issues with first year Tectons other than a bit of icing. I’ve never had a touring binding that didn’t have some icing, tele or AT.

[toast2266]

I haven’t had issues with first year Tectons other than a bit of icing. I’ve never had a touring binding that didn’t have some icing, tele or AT.

There are plenty of first gen touring bindings that have been fine. That doesn't mean OP's policy isn't a good one.

[Falcon3]

I prefer a continuous march of incremental progress to a brand new idea most of the time. Take ATK, they make bomber bindings and use the same general tech in most of their kits, but keep incrementally improving things or mixing features to provide a better product. Beats swinging for the fences and assploding.

[CaliBrit]

Unless it's the Salomon MTN/Atomic Backland Tour.

Never heard a bad word.

[doebedoe]

Never heard a bad word.

I think everything "negative" about that binding is known from the start: u-spring design means no adjustability w/o swapping springs, and potentially inconsistent wear. Traditional tech toe and heel means no additional dampening from elasticity and no additional power from an alpine-style heel. No lateral toe release is a known safety concern, but its a compromise.

The thing that makes it such a great binding is that it skis well, has no surprises, and lasts. No surprises like shattering pieces, shitty brakes, finicky adjustment, or breaking lifters.

Not heard much bad about ATK in the past number of years either.

[nyskirat]

IMO, the simpler the design and the more robust the material the less likely it is to fail. Who would have thunk it?

Obviously you can have pins fall out but that's more a manufacturing flaw than a design flaw.

[gregL]

I think everything "negative" about that binding is known from the start: u-spring design means no adjustability w/o swapping springs, and potentially inconsistent wear. Traditional tech toe and heel means no additional dampening from elasticity and no additional power from an alpine-style heel. No lateral toe release is a known safety concern, but its a compromise.

The thing that makes it such a great binding is that it skis well, has no surprises, and lasts. No surprises like shattering pieces, shitty brakes, finicky adjustment, or breaking lifters.

Yeah, we all knew we were getting a minimalist tech binding when we bought it, but one with beefy lifters, a burly 30mm adjustment track, and no 4 tiny screws holding the top plate down. No warranty claims in 4 years at our end, and we're a pretty big retailer.