The Official Salomon S/Lab SHIFT MNC Thread -AMA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grinch

I’d like and will get a shift for some ski. All the little issues seems like there’s a work around. Still not sure about a few years use on the hill.
Not much “fiddle factor” with CAST unless you leave them in your truck overnight with snow on them from the previous day. Isn’t there a few steps for a shift changeover? I bet the new cast is similar time for changeovers maybe seconds difference. If you’re not carrying a pack(quick safe zone sidecountry lap) it’s a pain carrying the toes though (I used my small bike pack for water, skins and toes)
Tectons are great. Quick, ez, and decent weight. They’re not going to ski like an alpine binding on the hill regardless of the obvious advantage over other pin bindings(heel and toe). It’s a better pin toe but it’s not an alpine toe

---

Yeah, changeover time is probably pretty comparable. With both setups you're removing your skis, fiddling with something and locking back in. Pretty much a wash. You save about 130g with the Shift versus the Cast in walk mode, which also seems like a wash given you're already over 2x the weight of a decent set of tech bindings. In ski mode, though, the Cast system is 650g heavier. Granted weight isn't an issue on the downhill to a lot of people, but that's almost and extra 1.5lbs. It's not nothing. At MSRP the Shifts are $225 less expensive than the Cast system + Pivot 18s. Also the Casts aren't technically GripWalk certified, though I feel like I've seen people here say they test fine. Finally, there are definitely fewer potential points of failure on the Cast system, and it will almost undoubtedly be more durable than the Shifts over multiple seasons.

If you don't mind the weight penalties and already have a pair of Pivot 18s (or find some cheap), go with Cast. If it's a completely new setup, and you're not afraid of all the plastic, go with the Shifts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

It's not like Salomon discovered some new magical material that doesn't break that they've only put to use in the Shift....

---

well to be fair, this is literally the claim.

but, yeah... I generally agree with you on the binding. I would also buy a #redshift.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judo Chop!

well to be fair, this is literally the claim.

---

Yes and no. I think they're claiming this is the first time they've used carbon-reinforced nylon on a binding, but they definitely aren't claiming that they invented that material. As I recall from the Blister Podcast Episode with Cody Townsend it was chosen mainly because it doesn't ice up like standard nylon. It is stiffer than traditional nylon but, depending on how much and what type of carbon is being added, also potentially more brittle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burrito

Yeah, changeover time is probably pretty comparable. With both setups you're removing your skis, fiddling with something and locking back in. Pretty much a wash. You save about 130g with the Shift versus the Cast in walk mode, which also seems like a wash given you're already over 2x the weight of a decent set of tech bindings. In ski mode, though, the Cast system is 650g heavier. Granted weight isn't an issue on the downhill to a lot of people, but that's almost and extra 1.5lbs. It's not nothing. At MSRP the Shifts are $225 less expensive than the Cast system + Pivot 18s. Also the Casts aren't technically GripWalk certified, though I feel like I've seen people here say they test fine. Finally, there are definitely fewer potential points of failure on the Cast system, and it will almost undoubtedly be more durable than the Shifts over multiple seasons.

If you don't mind the weight penalties and already have a pair of Pivot 18s (or find some cheap), go with Cast. If it's a completely new setup, and you're not afraid of all the plastic, go with the Shifts.

---

Fair breakdown. I like both systems, just maybe a little different for intended usage. If anything , I’d welcome that weight on the down. Then factor in 3 stage heel rise(flat, 1 and 2) and brake retention that kind of has th shift hovering in between Tecton and CAST. It’s not like most of us dont have enough skis to suit all three . Maybe the 90-100 thrasher, all mountain, jib with cast, 100-108 with Tecton or shift(usage dependent) , 108-115 daily hill driver w cast , 113-128 shift deep day hill/touring
My vulcans in the 100-108’s and the 113-128 shift setup but two toe hole placements with inserts for my lupo’s, to keep boot centres close. Lupo’s for everything else

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un

I had a thought about the brake release thing. I haven't handled them, so I don't know how the locking mechanism works.

For those who have experienced this, have you bent the brakes to fit a wider/narrower ski?

... Thon

---

I’ve got 110 brakes on 112 skis. No bending required. Plenty of clearance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

Pay closer attention. We already covered this. I don't care what it weighs. Even the current shift is a mediocre binding if your intention is to primarily tour with it. It's not particularly light by touring binding standards, only one climbing bale, have to take the ski off to transition, etc.

But the shift has great potential for an 80% inbounds binding that has the ability to do short tours / sidecountry excursions. Basically, a Guardian without all the downsides of a frame binding.

---

Ha! Guardian weight and lack of flat mode is probably one of the main reasons I don't tour much.
This year's lack of snow might change that.

Mounting a new pair of shifts now and have one question and one perhaps helpful suggestion if you’re a little slow like me.

Question: I did a test mount with the paper template and it looks like the heel is pretty far forward on the adjustment range of the rear track. It’s at the first of the measuring lines.

Attachment 263853

In the future, I may possibly have a boot with a smaller BSL. Is it OK to adjust the binding all the way up to the “stop” line if needed, or should it stay within these tick marks?

Observation: I puzzled over this for a while so I thought I’d mention it in case anyone else was in the same boat.

My boots, Dalbello Sherpas, have a Boot center mark that was not lining up with the test mount center punch of the template.

Attachment 263854
Attachment 263855

I realized after way too much thinking, and some measuring, that the Actual boot center WAS aligned with the template. The center mark on the boots is the center between tech inserts and heel. I’ve only mounted these boots for tech bindings before so I’d never thought about it.

Edit: Wow, I really am thick headed these days. “A” is for alpine center, the line is for tech. Duh.

Anyway, excited for these new bindings. Hope they hold up!

@spyderjon

does 'Yes' mean
Yes to OK adjusting up to the stop (Option 1), or
Yes to staying within the tick marks (Option 2)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ripvanwinter

Question: I did a test mount with the paper template and it looks like the heel is pretty far forward on the adjustment range of the rear track. It’s at the first of the measuring lines.

Attachment 263853

!

---

I couldn't tell if you figured this out. Maybe you did, but in your photo, the back of the forward release adjustment is exactly dead center in the adjustment range. The screws obscure where there would be hash marks, but you have 15mm of forward adjustment from that point.

Edit: yes, you can adjust right up to the STOP line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ripvanwinter

I realized after way too much thinking, and some measuring, that the Actual boot center WAS aligned with the template. The center mark on the boots is the center between tech inserts and heel. I’ve only mounted these boots for tech bindings before so I’d never thought about it.

Edit: Wow, I really am thick headed these days. “A” is for alpine center, the line is for tech. Duh.

Anyway, excited for these new bindings. Hope they hold up!

---

Reading it the first time I couldnt understand what you are asking

but after a few more coffees'

are you saying the line on the boot sole above the "A " is one reference point

and the point of the " A " is a different reference point ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ripvanwinter

Edit: Wow, I really am thick headed these days. “A” is for alpine center, the line is for tech. Duh.

---

Guess again.

Clue: Children's boots have a C next to the mark.

Anyone else have problems that the ski brakes don’t hold together when carrying the skis?
I have the Shift mounted on my 102mm ski. Bought 110mm brakes. Are they too wide? Would bending help?

Yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by margotron

@spyderjon

does 'Yes' mean
Yes to OK adjusting up to the stop (Option 1), or
Yes to staying within the tick marks (Option 2)

---

Just gone to edit my post and its disappeared. Anyways, yes, it's ok adjusting up to the stop line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Guess again.

Clue: Children's boots have a C next to the mark.

---

Wait, so A stands for adult? Now I’m totally confused.

The point of the A measures as the center of the Boot sole from heel to toe. This aligns with the boot center alignment hole from the jig

The line measures as center between the toe inserts and heel. This mark is about 1cm back from the jig alignment mark.

Am I making shit up here to allow this to make sense, should I just move the jig 1cm forward when I do the mount?

I’m mounting on Line Pescados btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ripvanwinter

Wait, so A stands for adult

---

Have a guess....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Have a guess....

---

That WAS my guess.

Wrong?

Does it stand for “Amateur”

As in, “look at this amateur way overthinking 7mm in the placement of his bindings”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vB9U2hx6Qg

this is not Nam, this is bowling there are rules

Quote:

---

Type A - Adult (ISO 5355), Type C - Children (ISO 5355), Type T - Touring (ISO 9523) and furthermore GripWalk and Walk To Ride ski boots within ISO 9523.

---

https://www.tyrolia.com/en-IC/compatibility/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewpringle

https://www.tyrolia.com/en-IC/compatibility/

---

Is this correct? I can't imagine a boot have two different boot center marks. That would get really confusing.

Sent from my Pixel using TGR Forums mobile app

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdadour

Is this correct?

---

I was only looking at the most recent page of comments about A = adult, C = Child, etc... Went back and looked at the boots in question (2015 Sherpas) which are 9523.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewpringle

I was only looking at the most recent page of comments about A = adult, C = Child, etc... Went back and looked at the boots in question (2015 Sherpas) which are 9523.

---

Yes, I am puzzled by this too. The boot is actually a 2013 Sherpa and should be marked “T”

Regardless, wouldn’t it make sense for boot center to be in a different spot for tech or alpine bindings on the same boot?

The boot toe contacts the binding further forward in an alpine binding, yes?

I’m thinking I’m going to center the actual measured center of the boot sole on the ski.

no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ripvanwinter

Yes, I am puzzled by this too. The boot is actually a 2013 Sherpa and should be marked “T”

Regardless, wouldn’t it make sense for boot center to be in a different spot for tech or alpine bindings on the same boot?

The boot toe contacts the binding further forward in an alpine binding, yes?

I’m thinking I’m going to center the actual measured center of the boot sole on the ski.

---

To debunk this whole theory, here is a pair of my Lupo SP without tech inserts, that has the A, and it's in a different position.

The shift template must be off, because when I mounted mine, it seemed like I was back 5mm. Attachment 264032

Sent from my Pixel using TGR Forums mobile app

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ripvanwinter

Regardless, wouldn’t it make sense for boot center to be in a different spot for tech or alpine bindings on the same boot?

The boot toe contacts the binding further forward in an alpine, yes?.

---

Def not. The boot itself doesn’t move forward or backward for tech or alpine. Then attachment may be in a different place but boot center is boot center.