The Official Salomon S/Lab SHIFT MNC Thread -AMA

[jono]

No they were set up correctly from the get go with the original spec of .5mm AFD. Had them checked by 2 other techs and had the AFD adjusted slightly to no improvement.

Im talking about when I had then nachine tested, the techs didnt have the Montana set up correctly.

If someone is near Revy and wants to buy them for $300 done deal

Is that $300 before or after they get sent off to Sally? If after, PM me. I'm probably a little too far south to look them over before, unfortunately.

I can't see why you'd run the AFD that far away, that seems like a good way to chew boots. The paper feeler gauge is about .1-.2mm and Cody's approach seems reasonable, too. But it shouldn't matter much in release value, as was pointed out. Pre-release seems like mount, forward pressure, or some defect that the warranty would cover. If you do get serious about selling PM me, really.

[tomjensen]

.5mm is right out of the Salomon 2018/19 manual. They sent me a document with a new spec of .12mm. Changed it with no improvement because, like youre saying, its not really a factor. The original recommended .5mm could be the cause of some of the toe ledge damage people are experiencing though.

$300 convenience price. Cash in Revy

[train07]

My shifts also chewed through the toe of my left boot. Brand new Lupo. I'm a fan of Salomon but...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

pics?

[el hefe]

Since I cranked my AFD up I have had no issues. Hit the park once in a while and spin and no problems.

[2FUNKY]

Since I cranked my AFD up I have had no issues. Hit the park once in a while and spin and no problems.

Do you even nose butter, bro?

[meter-man]

I don't own Shifts....but very much want.

On the AFD issue, my friend (a novice skier / gear minder but face-melting bassist) didn't notice his AFDs had loosened/were never set up properly. As a result, they were loose, and the ski/walk thing ate away at his Lupos (both of em) - pictured below. As soon as I saw the chewed up boot, I guessed his AFDs were too low - sure enough they were.

I guess that Lupos might have softer plastic here based on the above comment.

Based on his experience, and some comments in this thread and elsewhere, my takeaway is that there are TONS of intermediate/barely advanced skiers who will be using these bindings. Since the bindings are fairly complex - at least as compared to traditional alpine bindings - it seems there is a lot of room for small things to go slightly wrong. And many Shift users might not catch those issues or know how to remedy them (usually with simple fixes). Might be worth a mini-tutorial on how to maintain your Transformers binding.

The other thing is that I've always found I had to run Sallys at least 2-3 DIN higher than Pivots, and that the Sallys are much more prone to releasing on compressions. I think that's just part of the beauty of the Pivot design. YMMV obviously...but seriously it goes to 11, so crank em!





Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[1000-oaks]

Yeah the manufacturers usually specify AFD clearance of .5mm or whatever, but if it's a sliding AFD I go to contact with alpine soles, and a tiny bit of compression if rubber AT soles. Figure the sliding mechanism can take it, and slop is bad.

[stuntmanbo]

I agree that the AFD is a PITA to setup. I bought the Shifts thinking I could easily switch between my alpine and touring boots but the switch is a bit annoying. I might just buy another pair of the same skis and mount some STH on them, no need to switch anymore then ! And good excuse to buy some more skis

[whyturn]

There's your problem. I'd be surprised if that kind of skiing was in their design brief.

Sage and Cody do crazier stuff than that. Ut they are spancered

[el hefe]

Do you even nose butter, bro?

yeah once in a while. getting old so I try and keep em straight down the hill these days.

https://vimeo.com/192567780

[galibier_numero_un]

Yeah the manufacturers usually specify AFD clearance of .5mm or whatever, but if it's a sliding AFD I go to contact with alpine soles, and a tiny bit of compression if rubber AT soles. Figure the sliding mechanism can take it, and slop is bad.

This has been my general approach, even with fixed AFDs.

I use a piece of paper for a shim (about .003"). Mount the boot with the paper shim between AFD and boot (starting with an adjustment that's on the tight side), loosen the adjustment until the paper releases while tugging.

The way I look at it, everything shrinks in the cold, so you end with even more clearance.

.5mm is about 7 times .003 and seems to me, to be more about ensuring hamfisted techs don't screw up, than either safety or control.

... Thom

Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk

[auvgeek]

if it's a sliding AFD I go to contact with alpine soles, and a tiny bit of compression if rubber AT soles. Figure the sliding mechanism can take it

I don't think that's a good assumption. Jeff Campbell's PhD thesis (mech eng at U. Washington) looked into release of rubbed sole AT boots in alpine/frame bindings, and my understanding of his work is that sliding AFD mechanisms can bind in twisting falls when the forebody of the ski is loaded (e.g., you run into a mogul) when used with a standard rubber AT sole. Meaning release is no longer governed by the spring/RV setting, but by the force required to "unbind" the sliding AFD mechanism, which is considerably higher. Increasing the friction between a rubber AT sole and the sliding mechanism seems like a bad idea to me.

I don't own the shift, but I would guess your approach works fine for WTR/Gripwalk/DIN soles. And maybe you all know something from personal experience that I don't know, I'm just providing a different perspective. If you want to use Cody's approach to setting the AFD height, please do.

[2FUNKY]

yeah once in a while. getting old so I try and keep em straight down the hill these days.

https://vimeo.com/192567780

Fun looking line! Not one nose butter, pfft. [emoji16]

[galibier_numero_un]

I don't think that's a good assumption. Jeff Campbell's PhD thesis (mech eng at U. Washington) looked into release of rubbed sole AT boots in alpine/frame bindings, and my understanding of his work is that sliding AFD mechanisms can bind in twisting falls when the forebody of the ski is loaded (e.g., you run into a mogul) when used with a standard rubber AT sole. Meaning release is no longer governed by the spring/RV setting, but by the force required to "unbind" the sliding AFD mechanism, which is considerably higher. Increasing the friction between a rubber AT sole and the sliding mechanism seems like a bad idea to me.

I don't own the shift, but I would guess your approach works fine for WTR/Gripwalk/DIN soles. And maybe you all know something from personal experience that I don't know, I'm just providing a different perspective. If you want to use Cody's approach to setting the AFD height, please do.

So if i understand his study correctly, then no amount of "excess" height clearance will help with lugged soles and AFDs, whether fixed or sliding?

... Thom

Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk

[auvgeek]

So if i understand his assumption correctly, then no amount of "excess" height clearance will help with lugged soles and AFDs, whether fixed or sliding?

Sorry, I don't understand your question. What assumption? And I don't see what this has to do with fixed AFD...?

Here's the thesis, in case anyone's interested: https://digital.lib.washington.edu/r...dle/1773/38177

[galibier_numero_un]

Sorry, I don't understand your question. What assumption? And I don't see what this has to do with fixed AFD...?

Here's the thesis, in case anyone's interested: https://digital.lib.washington.edu/r...dle/1773/38177

My question related to what I think he was saying - that when a sliding AFD binds, it becomes the equivalent of a fixed AFD. That's pretty obvious, but maybe he's trying to say more..

If this if this is the case, then no amount of "excess" toe height clearance will address the resulting "stiction" (stick/slip), since the key force is downward - loading up the AFD (IOW, .003" is as good as .020"/.5mm).

I just downloaded his thesis. 300 pages! I might not get around to this for a year or three ;-)

... Thom

[auvgeek]

My question related to what I think he was saying - that when a sliding AFD binds, it becomes the equivalent of a fixed AFD.

If this if this is the case, then no amount of "excess" toe height clearance will address the resulting "stiction" (stick/slip), since the key force is downward - loading up the AFD.

Oh, I see your question now. My understanding is the friction coef is different so a sliding AFD that's bound up isn't the same as a fixed AFD. But yeah, read it and PM/text me if you come to a different understanding.

Here's the relevant part, page 83:

In the previous study, AFDs were damaged in 43% of AT boot-alpine binding
combinations. Every binding model with a mechanical AFD was damaged; one static AFD, out
of five, was damaged (Figure 3.9). Bindings with mechanical AFDs ranked as the lowest
performing bindings with AT boots (Table 3.7).

Alpine bindings with AT boots were predicted to be 50% less sensitive to changes in
indicator settings than with alpine boots. A significant linear regression model found (F(1, 4) =
40.0, p = .003) that accounted for approximately 90% of the variation in release torque as a
function of indicator settings for AT boots in alpine bindings with static AFDs (R 2 = .909,
Adjusted R 2 = .886, Figure 3.10). Other boot-binding described above often caused AT boots in
alpine bindings with static AFDs to release at higher torque values than allowed by international
standards; however, changes in indicator settings resulted in the same proportional changes in
release torque between AT boots in alpine bindings with static AFDs as alpine boots in alpine
bindings.

In contrast to static AFDs, AT boots used in alpine bindings with mechanical AFDs alter
release characteristics so severely that a linear regression analysis shows that indicator settings
are not correlated with the release torque in anyway (F(1, 10) = 1.43, p = .26, R 2 = .125,
Adjusted R 2 = .037); release torques corresponding to the minimum, median, and maximum
indicator settings often fell within ±3% (Figure 3.10). The three lowest performing bindings
with AT boots incorporated mechanical AFDs (Table 3.7).

The worst load case for mechanical AFDs occurs in Front Preload Twist releases, when a
preload is applied to the fore-body of the ski significantly increasing the pressure between the
soft AT boot sole and AFD. As a lateral load is applied to the ski, softer AT boot soles stick to
mechanical AFD as the binding moves away. During this phase, the spring-loaded cam in the toe
piece, which normally controls release torque, is overcome. Here the boot settles into a local
minima 5-10° past the point when an Alpine boot would have released (Figure 3.10). Internal
friction retains the boot in the ski and the boot must overcome a second energy barrier to finally
release. This final energy barrier is simply a function of the internal friction of the system and is
no longer controlled by the spring-loaded cam intended to control the release torque.

edit: pages 70-85 detail a number of parameters, including AFD pressure. It seems AFD pressure makes less of an impact than other factors -- in contrast to my earlier post, afd pressure might not make any relevant difference if the pressure to bind a mechanical AFD from the amount of force on the tip of the ski (what Jeff confusingly calls "pre-load") is so large that it renders the AFD height essentially irrelevant. But that would be a question better asked of Jeff (who I don't know personally).

For any laypeople lurking: please remember

1) that a binding test to the DIN standards does not involve any forces/load on the ski itself during the test, so this issue would not manifest there. In a purely twisting lateral release, mechanical/sliding AFDs are fine.
2) A gripwalk or WTR sole will fare better than a rubber AT sole and may be completely safe in mechanical/sliding AFDs like the shift has.
3) I'm merely presenting the only data I have seen relevant to this issue. It's counter-intuitive and therefore interesting. If you think you're safe with a rubber AT sole boot in the Shift with the AFD cranked up, don't let me stop you. Please draw your own conclusions by reading the thesis yourself. I don't mean to be cranky but do not PM me "what binding is the safest????" We have exactly the same information available to make that determination, and I won't answer for liability reasons ... even if I was comfortable thinking for you (which I'm not).

[Norseman]

I've been pondering a nerdly foray with all this talk of Shift AFD finickiness and relative release safety of gliding vs fixed. I have a pair and don't love the worm/wedge design, and worry about failure during travel. I think it flexes, too.

Might try to design a 3D printed AFD block that replaces the factory one, set to only one height. Teflon tape partially inlaid into the top surface.

I'll put up some pics if this comes to fruition.

[train07]

my head hurts way too much....is "stiction" part of the thesis?

Fish Rider..I don't understand "chewed through the toe of my left boot"...got pics?

wait..unless meter man is posting those pics for you...is that "chewing through the toe of left boot"?


wait, wait, and fucking wait....what meter-man is saying is that Salomon needs to make these thing fucking idiot proof...there's no way around

[comish]

So don't try and get Shifts mounted at Footloose in Mammoth w/ Gen 1 Maestrale RS's. Literally the first pair of bindings I was maybe gonna let someone else mount in maybe a decade, combination of lack of time/jig/new binding etc. They refused saying the Maestrale's weren't din 9523 certified!?!?! BTW, these are basically brand new Maestrale RS's, albeit Gen 1's.

Am I smoking crack to be annoyed? The whole F'n point of these of these bindings is to work w/ touring boots!?!?! It wasn't even the toe insert that was the problem, which I get can be problematic, it was the fact that the boot wasn't stamped din 9523!?!?

I know, I shoulda mounted my own F'n binding anyway which is what I'm gonna do

Not the first time Footloose has been holier than though with me. They justified it by sayin they were a "great shop"!

[buttahflake]

Non-compatible or partially compatible boots are a shop techs nightmare. Don’t blame the shop, blame the stupid number of boot soles out there.
Take a lap

[reckless toboggan]

I blame Rob Story.

[margotron]

I havent read over the math yet at all meaning i dont have a clue about the conclusions we’ve drawn so far. But...

Someone steer me straight: i thought a sliding AFD was not designed around making release more or less predictable, but to rather, aid in _retention_ and prevent premature ejects? In this way its goal is to do something similar to elasticity in a binding

For any given DIN setting, you have a little more wiggle room before youre ejected. Its not black and white, hit DIN 13 youre out, etc


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[TahoeJ]

So don't try and get Shifts mounted at Footloose in Mammoth w/ Gen 1 Maestrale RS's. Literally the first pair of bindings I was maybe gonna let someone else mount in maybe a decade, combination of lack of time/jig/new binding etc. They refused saying the Maestrale's weren't din 9523 certified!?!?! BTW, these are basically brand new Maestrale RS's, albeit Gen 1's.

Am I smoking crack to be annoyed? The whole F'n point of these of these bindings is to work w/ touring boots!?!?! It wasn't even the toe insert that was the problem, which I get can be problematic, it was the fact that the boot wasn't stamped din 9523!?!?

I know, I shoulda mounted my own F'n binding anyway which is what I'm gonna do

Not the first time Footloose has been holier than though with me. They justified it by sayin they were a "great shop"!

Footloose *is* a great shop. Sounds like they're just covering their ass, which is smart.

[skifishbum]

imo
a great shop takes care of its customers needs
lets em sign a simple waiver and take their personal responsibility on gear options themselves
or at least thats how i roll/mount