Shift vs Tectons

I hope folks don't mind this new post and apologies in advance if this isn't the appropriate subforum to post this question. I've asked this question in the Tecton thread, but thought other folks might have the same question and find a dedicated thread useful.

Anyway, I've been trying to decide between the Shifts and the Tectons and just wanted to get opinions of folks here who are more initiated than I am. Based on my research, it seems like these two along with the Kingpins are likely the top of the hybrid touring/alpine bindings. However, it seems, at least to me anyways, that the Shifts lean more towards the alpine side of the spectrum while the Tectons lean more towards the touring side. However, for those in the know and those who've had a chance to try both, is this understanding true?

Some of my general questions are as follows:

1) Is the Tecton's touring capability that much better than the Shifts that it makes it the better overall one-quiver binding for those wanting a do-it-all setup even if its downhill capability might not be on the same level? OR
2) Is the Shift's touring capability on par or good enough where it's downhill performance overtakes the Tectons overall in being the top one-quiver binding?

For me personally, I'll likely spend most of my time in the resorts, but would like to do day trips (e.g., up Shasta) and eventually longer tours as well. Just concerned if the Shifts are really made for it, or if it's more just an alpine binding that can happen to go uphill as well. I'm not a hardcharger by any means.

Thanks in advance.

No one really knows yet. Ask the same question this time next year and you will get better info.

Having said that, the Shift is heavier and has one less lifter so won’t tour quite as well, but that’s not to say they aren’t designed to tour.

I personally would go for Shifts (I have some on order) for a mainly resort based set up, even though they are un tested by public.

Either binding will probably do you well


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Assuming the Shift doesn't have issues, it could certainly be a "quiver of one" for someone who doesn't mind it being heavy for a touring binding. Don't think many folks would give something as touring-biased as the Tecton that title, it's just not made for lots of inbounds use. Sure it's fine once in awhile, but it's just not made for that.

agree with both above. if you were saying 50/50 it might be harder to decide but it sounds like you're rather heavily resort biased.

Previously this would've put you on frame bindings which is exactly the market shift is about to bury.

I would put tecton in the "touring binding that skis well" as opposed to shift which might be "alpine binding that tours well".

They are positioned close together but just either side of an important differentiation in my opinion.

I have about 6 days on my shifts, a couple 2000 foot tours and one longer 3500 one. No issues that haven’t been mentioned so far, just the songle climbing bail.

I would probably recommend the shift in your case, better resort performance than the tecton. While being heavier, it does still tour well. It tours pretty much exactly the same as any tech binding with only one climbing bail.

As far as classifying the shift as a downhill binding that tours, I would probably still classify it more as a touring binding that skis downhill more reliably, it is still incredibly light for a dh binding, and I feel that the true pure hard snow performance may be lacking.

Interesting. I answered OP questions with Tecton because it had one season already without many issues & because it didn't sound like OP was going to gorilla the bindings so Tecton imo would be fine. Whereas Shift for all I've enjoyed skiing it - well it really is a first season binding. Very few people have skied Shift other than testers/reviewers like myself and pros after all.

I skied a lot of days last year on Tectons, having skied Vipecs extensively over the two previous seasons. Both ski and tour amazingly well imo. That being said, I will be surprised if the same is not the case for Shifts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madriverfreeride

a touring binding that skis downhill more reliably

---

I do not think "more reliably" is the phrase I would use as it suggests Tectons are less reliable going downhill, what seems like a pretty unsubstantiated claim - even if i do get what you try to convey. Shifts have more elasticity up front and a full on alpine toe, instead of full pin all the time. That should make for improved power transfer, and people seem to think that it gives a better release as compared to pins - or at the very least peace of mind for those that think that way. I do not know which is the case, but I am not concerned using pins in resorts and have never, ever experienced issues when bombing downhill on Tectons. I am a pretty diminutive fellow though :)

my take is that i use Tectons on skis that are primarily meant for touring that also will still see resort use. The reason i go for Tectons for this use is because of their lower weight and three walking modes. I will run Shifts on all my resort/slack country skis because of FOMO and peace of mind that i can go on small missions whenever, yet still use full on alpine boots if i want to. Release-related "concerns" does not factor into it for me, solely the aforementioned.

As mentioned elsewhere, I see no real reason to go with Kingpins any longer. Their lack of toe elasticity and weight point mid-way between Tectons and Shifts, leaves them a bit in no-mans-land I find. Other people might disagree, which is fine.

Apparently Shifts are flying of the shelf here in Scandiland - they have a lot of people very, very excited. Hopefully their long development process means that they are reliable too - at least I hope so since i am making the switch from Tectons on some skis.

I think we are at the point where we have a number of "good" options on the table. I am light (165lbs) and skied Radical FT 1.0's in bounds occasionally without many issues. So for me there are a number of options that would all be fine and I think I could ski the Tecton in bounds without issues. That being said the shift would likely be better.

If you are heavier, 200+ lbs, then I would start to lean toward the Shift and hope it doesn't get recalled. At that weight the lack of contact in the toe and overall leverage on the pins starts to worry me more for skiing fast on refrozen groomers and the like. If you are lighter, buy either and don't worry about it.

My more reliable comment was mostly pointed towards the elasticity and full alpine toe. Yes the tecton/ vipec toe is far superior to any other tech toe in terms of elasticity, but the shift still has superior more. If the main use is skiing spfter snow, then the skiing difference would be negligible.

But skiing hard snow, or big airs/ tricks where the elasticity will be put to the test, then I’d say the shift wins. So I guess it kinda depends what you ski when your inbounds, But I personally would choose the shift if 75 percent of my time was going to be lift served.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nickel

Previously this would've put you on frame bindings which is exactly the market shift is about to bury.
.

---

Yeah I have heard that ^^ assertion several times, except you can only ski down hill but not uphill on the SHIFT unless you got a boot with Tech fittings so I don't see SHIFT killing off the frame binding until tech fittings come on at least the toes of a lot more ski boots.

I see lots of new skiers who don't know why they want the AT boots they can't afford anyhow so they starting touring with the alpine boots they already own on heavy frame bindings wearing heavy clothes which is why they are alwasy sweating their bag off

So assuming OP already owns ski boots with tech fiitngs, it sounds like he should buy the shift

Hmmm. I think I want some superior more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mofro261

Hmmm. I think I want some superior more.

---

I was just thinking that also too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXX-er

I see lots of new skiers who don't know why they want the AT boots they can't afford anyhow so they starting touring with the alpine boots they already own on heavy frame bindings wearing heavy clothes which is why they are alwasy sweating their bag off

---

I see a lot of the opposite too, though -- skiers who walk into a shop knowing little but "might want to tour at some point" and walk out with a crossover boot with tech fitting compatibility (swappable soles, etc). People who will very likely never tour but want to the option in the future. Cuz you know, their friends do it ... or their friends might do it ... or they hike inbounds sometimes ... or they saw it in a movie and it seemed cool. If you can sell those people a $700 boot that they don't need, it's probably not hard to get them to buy into a $500 binding that allows them to use it inbound or out of bounds, especially since they often need a new binding for compatibility anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXX-er

Yeah I have heard that ^^ assertion several times, except you can only ski down hill but not uphill on the SHIFT unless you got a boot with Tech fittings so I don't see SHIFT killing off the frame binding until tech fittings come on at least the toes of a lot more ski boots.

I see lots of new skiers who don't know why they want the AT boots they can't afford anyhow so they starting touring with the alpine boots they already own on heavy frame bindings wearing heavy clothes which is why they are alwasy sweating their bag off

So assuming OP already owns ski boots with tech fiitngs, it sounds like he should buy the shift

---

I agree - I have some frame bindings on my pow skis- they are 95% hill skis. I would go with shifts but my dh boots are just better for the hill.

The tech nerd in me loves the shifts - but I don’t see a place for them in my quiver at this time. If I only had one pair of skis they would have shifts on them. But what circle of hell would require me to only have one pair of skis?

I think Nickel nailed it:

Quote:

---

I would put tecton in the "touring binding that skis well" as opposed to shift which might be "alpine binding that tours well".

They are positioned close together but just either side of an important differentiation in my opinion.

---

No doubt the Tecton does fine at a resort, but the Shift is going to be the better option for you I think. At some point, weight may become a limiting factor for your touring, and it might make sense to get a dedicated, light-weight touring binding. Until then, I think the Shift fits the bill for you.

Skewing towards resort skiing, the Shift for sure. But you can't really go wrong with either. Just don't get kingpins.

I own Tectons and they are great. I ski hard and fast both inbounds and out so far without issue (a decent number of days), but I don’t do tricks and my big air days might be behind me, but I do like to air and pop off things on the regular, and I still get giddy/dumb and have eaten shit hard while skiing them a number of times. When I have needed them to release they have, and other than that they have stayed put. I do weigh 225 lbs.

I took the leap of faith in year one with the Tectons, knowing that the toe was basically the same as a tried and true model, and it has worked out. If the Shift holds up and performs well, it will likely be my next binding, but so far I have managed to resist becoming a year one paying beta tester again. I am monitoring it closely, and hoping it holds up to real world use. If I wasn’t so pleased with my Tectons already I would have likely been sucked in already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madriverfreeride

the shift still has superior more. If the main use is skiing spfter snow, then the skiing difference would be negligible.

But skiing hard snow, or big airs/ tricks where the elasticity will be put to the test, then I’d say the shift wins.

---

yeah, don't get me wrong here - we do see eye to eye here, i just do not agree with calling it more reliable ;) Shifts might transfer less vibrations during bigger impacts from the skis on hardpack and do have more elasticity for big landings/impacts, but as out people have been pointing out - the user's weight probably decides if that is a noticable feature or not. For me it is for the most part not. Even if it is kinda besides the point, but considering how massive people go on kingpins and ions with zero elasticity up front, both Tectons and Shifts should do very well indeed :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LHutz Esq

But what circle of hell would require me to only have one pair of skis?

---

snicker - quote of the week/month, it made me laugh out loud. It should be a signature for sure :)

I hope the Shift is great, but I would never buy a complicated new touring binding in it's first year. Which model hasn't had problems?

Beast 16, Kingpin, Vipec all had significant issues. Tecton had a relatively minor issue with the toe piece, but that toe piece (coming from the Vipec) was already on its 4th redesign!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

Skewing towards resort skiing, the Shift for sure. But you can't really go wrong with either. Just don't get kingpins.

---

Can I ask why this sentiment? I know some guys that love their Kingpins. Seems like they fit between the other two being discussed here in terms of weight, uphill, and downhill performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonMexico

Can I ask why this sentiment? I know some guys that love their Kingpins. Seems like they fit between the other two being discussed here in terms of weight, uphill, and downhill performance.

---

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Marker+Kingpin+failure+recall

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonMexico

Seems like they fit between the other two being discussed here in terms of weight, uphill, and downhill performance.

---

Besides the failures linked above, what makes you think their downhill performance is better than the Tecton?

As mentioned above, Kingpins are in a bit of an odd spot.

Kingpins weigh more, but do not have the frontal elasticity and release of Tectons. They are not made of plastic like Tectons, but there seem to have been a lot of issues with certain batches of Kingpins over the last seasons.

Kingpins weigh less, but do not have the frontal elasticity of Shifts, nor are they able to handle alpine boots. Shifts are untried in the marketplace yet.

So, if you want a touring optimized tech binding with an alpine heel -> Tectons.

If you want a touring optimized tech binding with full alpine compatibility and an alpine heel, but at a 200gr weight penalty pr foot, "only" two walk modes and a lower price -> Shifts

Kingpins are in between, being the best of neither end of the spectrum imo. It is not a bad design, Tectons and Shifts are just a bit more refined imo, where the harder the surface the larger the difference will be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reckless toboggan

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Marker+Kingpin+failure+recall

---

This I was well aware of, but also know the issue has been remedied. And often times things come out much burlier after these types of recalls.

Wasn't aware of the improved elasticity of the toe piece on the Tectons. Will need to do some more research there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonMexico

This I was well aware of, but also know the issue has been remedied. And often times things come out much burlier after these types of recalls.

Wasn't aware of the improved elasticity of the toe piece on the Tectons. Will need to do some more research there...

---

This article compares Shift Tecton and Kingpin https://www.newschoolers.com/news/re...ouring-Binding