Printable View
Other than the recent introduction of the 10 din version there have been no changes to the Shift since its launch. There's no issue with the brakes - any releasing of the brakes in tour mode is due to them either not being fully/properly locked up to start with or the mechanism not being first cleared of snow/ice etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by scmartin69
Copy, thx...Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyderjon
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Anybody else having trouble with an unreliable toe release? I popped out of the heel on one side pretty easy, but with toes at 8 I had 2 knee-wrecking tomahawk falls spaced weeks apart in different conditions where a lateral release should've but didn't happen. Worried it's somehow related to incompatibility between my technical ZeroG Scouts and the binding. What's the best way to accurately simulate it a lateral release on the bench?
You'll have to "build" a lower leg and foot, secure the ski with the boot in the binding and then use a torque wrench to simulate releases from different angles. Not impossible, but kinda putzy for a home tuner. Shops (at least the ones in which I've worked) have a setup designed for this purpose. Roll to a local shop (preferably not during high season) an hour before closing on a Wednesday with a 6er or a bottle of bourbon/tequila and ask to watch as they test the release. Get pointers on forward pressure and/or AFD height related to Shifts. Looking into do the same myself when my Shifts arrive tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskydoc
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Did you spiral-fracture your tub/fib?Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskydoc
No?
Then the binding seems to be functioning correctly. The charts are based on expected force to break your bones; bindings don't protect soft tissue, because the forces the binding receives from the boot in many risky-to-soft-tissue scenarios are mechanically very similar to what it gets on forces during a ski turn.
The other poster nailed it on getting a shop to release test them; someone with experience using a Vermont tester is helpful.
Sent from my SM-G892A using TGR Forums mobile app
I just mounted a set of Shifts (110 brakes) to Bent Chetler 120s to replace some Lib UFO 115s with G3 Ion 12s. I thought they'd both have a place in my quiver but it turns out that they are within 20g of each other and the new skis are actually the lighter ones. I'm looking forward to not skiing on pins in the ski area.
For those that are curious, the brakes needed to be bent out just a little bit. Without being bent the plastic tip hung up on the top sheet sometimes instead of fully deploying.
This is...patently false. By your logic, those riding at a din of 16 on "the charts" expect to have stronger tibias then those running din in the single digits? Just stupid. But thanks for the useless redundancy I guess?Quote:
Originally Posted by anotherVTskibum
Obviously he is correct. People who use 16 din do so because they always send 50 footers. The repeated impact stress has made their bones stronger. Simple science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskydoc
Maybe I'm misremembering, and I can't find any historical documentation now, but I thought I had read at one point that the actual torque values behind the DIN scale were based on lab testing of the torque required to snap a cadaver tibia (hence the value drop at 50 years old). Regardless, running higher values is generally a function of prioritizing retention over release, potentially at increased risk of a fracture, hence the greater rate of leg fractures amongst World Cup ski racers versus the general public as well as the race crash videos where the binding gets ripped out of the ski or the ski broken at either end of a plate before the binding releases. In the latter cases—where the equipment failed before the racer's legs—that's probably a function of greater muscle mass supporting the leg and/or the exact mechanism of the force being applied, not necessarily a stronger tibia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskydoc
Several binding companies have tried to build bindings that protect soft tissue as well (including Knee, which focuses on that), but none have really taken off, and inadequate retention is undoubtedly part of the reason why.
Just file down the plastic tips that protrude inboard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason4
I'll do that too. I've already bent the brakes just a little bit, it really didn't need much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Hubbs
Friend is a ski-tech in Jackson I hung out with him while he mounted my shifts - he did the release test while I was there and remarked to me that while the shifts have some release quirks, on the test bench they release the most consistent and repeatable to their labeled DIN setting of any binding they mount and he sees them a ton obviously, including normal alpine bindings.
Just some food for thought...
Now that's interesting...Quote:
Originally Posted by IanCH
Carpet fooling set at 6 in the toes I can get a manual release if I thwak it from the side just right. Maybe they were just freak occurances...
Torque tests in a shop are still probably one of the most accurate methods for testing a lateral or heel release. Shops spend quite a bit of money to have their torque arm standardized to ASTM standards. The arm will give a readout in Newton Metres (Nm). On an ISO chart you can usually see a value range for Nm related to the BSL, Weight, Height, age, and ISO setting. It gives acceptable values for an actual torque test. See attached image:
Attachment 345570
Binding release is not a given in all circumstances though. Things like a backward twisting fall or a forward twisting fall start putting a lot of that same Nm force into a lot of different directions. ASTM standards are standards that are reliable given what is ACTUALLY testable. It does not factor in things that cannot be controlled. This is also why bindings like the STH or Pivot don't have a different standard of release even with lateral heel elasticity and angular elasticity - because ASTM will only test for conditions that are able to be reproduced reliably.
Now start adding in additional factors that may change whether your foot comes out of that binding:
- Tumbling down a hill and the force of your boots into that binding is happening at a lot of angles instead of in line with the toepiece or heelpiece.
- Being in a boot that is too long.
- Being in a boot that is too loose.
- Elastic travel will allow force into a binding to occur with movement in the binding before actual release, giving an element of time before release.
- Downward force creates too much friction between the boot and binding.
I'm being somewhat exhaustive to instill the narrative that nobody is guaranteed safety just because bindings adhere to an ASTM standard. The bigger moral of this story IMO is to do your due diligence on a number of different levels:
- Check your AFDs and know that there is additional danger with a gummed up boot or binding AFD.
- Bindings are a mechanical device and will fail given enough time, or sometimes even directly out of the box (I failed a few markers that were brand new). Get your binders checked and keep those springs healthy.
- Additional safety features like Pivots, STHs, or even KNEE bindings are not givens. There are no standardized tests to say that they are safer than others (not to say that companies don't have their own methods of testing), only the logic behind them. I'll only ski Pivots or STHs for this reason.
- The wrong boot size and/or volume will fuck you. Choosing to ski in boots longer or more roomier than what you should be in will only allow more momentum to occur before your extremity makes contact to the boot and starts creating torque. Additionally, there are different measurements of allowable Nm for different BSLs for a reason; it changes the leverage arm (your boot) and thus the amount of force being put back into your body (longer boots are set to lower release values for this reason). Fuck around with this and win your own prize. I've seen a lot of Texans injured because "my toes touch the front of the boot! One size up."
- Sometimes you can't account for all variables and you'll still get a spiral fracture. You may have just rolled a bad set of dice.
I’m thinking of moving my 110mm brake shifts from some R11s (112mm waist) to Bentchetler (120mm).Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-kapow
Is a 110mm Shift brake best for a Bentchetler 120? ie 110+8=118.
Or I’m fine keeping 110mm shifts on the R11s (cause I really don’t want to sell them) and buying new 120mm shifts as well.
So BC 120s....110 or 120?
I’ve got 100’s on my billygoats (116 UF). A little bending but all is good!
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Thanks for sharing. I appreciate exhaustive.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthMarkus
I've got 120s on my BC 120s and I'm happy with the fitment. No issues skinning or with failure to deploy. I have to admit that I'd expect that the flagship binding and ski products would play nicely together.Quote:
Originally Posted by kc_7777
I shared my experiences with Shift 110s on BC 120s literally 9 posts above yours. Short story: they fit with either very minor bending or a little filing to the inside corner of the plastic on the brakes. It keeps everything close. They do not slide together very well for carrying the skis.Quote:
Originally Posted by kc_7777
Just spent way too long this morning looking so at the risk of pissing you all off I'm just going to ask....
Linky to latest paper template please ?
And where did everything fall out on the front nubbin spacing? - I recall right after I last mounted a pair there was a discussion of differences between the paper template and factory jig
TIA
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcpnz
I've got it downloaded, but cant seem to find it in the forum threads/google search. I'll shoot you a PM so I can send it over via internet mail.
I've got some 90 brakes and looking for 100 or 110, anyone interested in swapping? FWIW the "90" I have are fitting comfortably on a QST99.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcpnz
SHIFT Template:
https://goo.gl/cDzYZS
This matches the factory jig. I have mounted both ways and experienced no issues with either. 100% success rate with a sample size of one.
I have a pair of 100 brakes for a 108 underfoot. When deployed the brakes have plenty of clearance from the edges. Only problem I am having is when the brake initially releases it catches on topsheet. Sometimes it sits there but it usually does fully deploy eventually. I’m not too worried cause I’m kinda hoping this addresses the inadvertent brake release in walk mode problem people are having. I am kinda also thinking this might increase the risk of not deploying when I loose a ski if there is snow or ice build up on it. Wondering if it’s worth bending or just keeping as is? Would keeping as is cause additional wear on binding cause they aren’t really deploying as they are designed to?
Thanks for any input.
Just take a dremel or a file to the inside part of the brake that is catching on the top sheet. Then you will be good to go
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk