The Official Salomon S/Lab SHIFT MNC Thread -AMA

[grinch]

Can’t remember the last time I used my high rise. It’s all about the end game. Slow is fast. That 100ft that is faster because you used your high rise will probably waste more energy in the long run. I haven’t skied in the wasatch or Tahoe but the pics I see of the wasatch , I see zipper lines of switchbacks. You could probably break trail at a reasonable angle and take 2/3 of the switchbacks out and ski twice the vert. I have no problem skiing over my uptrack a couple times if it means I get more turns at the end of the day. Using your high riser is the definition of “no fall zone”. Things go backwards quick. I’d rather be more balanced and sidestep a couple times or make a relaxing alternative route. I wouldn’t take the high rise off though. The newb I sell them too will think they’re amazing.
Want these right meow. Thinking I have a couple pairs of sticks they could go on. Pins suck on the hill and frames suck everywhere

[Lindahl]

Skinning straight up a 28ish degree slope is faster than switchbacking in my experience. I can’t do that without high risers, at least not comfortably. I don’t care about the ‘long run’ if I can only get out for a few hours before work. Also, try skinning in thick trees or taking someone else’s bad track instead of breaking trail through 2’. If I can choose, its skiing all day and setting a mellow track. Unfortunately, sometimes the choice is made for you. Practical > Ideal

[mall walker]

sucks for everyone else going up a day later when the skinner gets firm though

[zion zig zag]

sucks for everyone else going up a day later when the skinner gets firm though

Isn't that the point in the central Wasatch?

[Cosmic Suncloud]

seems like those who do 2000' vert ups gravitate towards setting steeper tracks. those who do 4000-6000' ups go with a more a natural grade

[rod9301]

Can’t remember the last time I used my high rise. It’s all about the end game. Slow is fast. That 100ft that is faster because you used your high rise will probably waste more energy in the long run. I haven’t skied in the wasatch or Tahoe but the pics I see of the wasatch , I see zipper lines of switchbacks. You could probably break trail at a reasonable angle and take 2/3 of the switchbacks out and ski twice the vert. I have no problem skiing over my uptrack a couple times if it means I get more turns at the end of the day. Using your high riser is the definition of “no fall zone”. Things go backwards quick. I’d rather be more balanced and sidestep a couple times or make a relaxing alternative route. I wouldn’t take the high rise off though. The newb I sell them too will think they’re amazing.
Want these right meow. Thinking I have a couple pairs of sticks they could go on. Pins suck on the hill and frames suck everywhere

Sorry, I'm dense. Are you saying that you would rather skin more across the hill to get less switchbacks?

What's a zipper like of switchbacks?

But anyway, I agree that steep asking take a lot of energy.
Though boot packing even more fwiw

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using TGR Forums mobile app

[mall walker]

Isn't that the point in the central Wasatch?

lol fair point

[BP Pow]

...

...I get it, if there were technical reasons, but there comes a point where it’s better to be practical than ideal just for the sake of being ideal.

Yes. All excellent points.

Sent from my VS987 using TGR Forums mobile app

[grinch]

Sorry, I'm dense. Are you saying that you would rather skin more across the hill to get less switchbacks?

What's a zipper like of switchbacks?

But anyway, I agree that steep asking take a lot of energy.
Though boot packing even more fwiw

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using TGR Forums mobile app

Yes, not always the case but I’ve seen a number of pics where they go straight at a climbing route at a steep angle then when it gets even steeper they start doing a bunch of steep switchbacks. Probably with a mellower approach they could lop of a couple of the bottom switchbacks by just approaching initially at a wide sweeping angle. Gives the group weight a bit of seperation on the slope as well. Obviously sometimes you can’t do that because you want to stay in a safe zone but I’ve seen plenty of climbing routes half utilized. I think part of the problem when you’re on your high rise , besides using too much energy, is you’re already committed to steeper terrain. When it goes a bit steeper then you’re sidehilling on steeper terrain and that takes even more energy. I think , besides being more efficient, you have more leeway to control your route finding when you’re just on your initial riser. You’ll be able to go a little steeper without a switchback if needed or use the slope for big sweeping turns rather than switchbacks. It’s easier to manage the terrain above you from mellower angled terrain, especially with a group. Easier to think and much more enjoyable.

[Nevada29er]

The high riser is like a bailout gear on your mtn bike. Not something you want to use frequently, but good to have when you need it.

Lack of the high riser put more emphasis on your kick turns in steep or tight terrain. Many folks, myself included, are terribly proficient at them, but when conditions are sketchy, I will take the low riser everytime vs a potential slide for life on the stilts.

Speaking of sketchy conditions, will crampons be available?

[Alkasquawlik]

The high riser is like a bailout gear on your mtn bike. Not something you want to use frequently, but good to have when you need it.

Lack of the high riser put more emphasis on your kick turns in steep or tight terrain. Many folks, myself included, are terribly proficient at them, but when conditions are sketchy, I will take the low riser everytime vs a potential slide for life on the stilts.

Speaking of sketchy conditions, will crampons be available?

Yup. Ski Crampons will be available.

I like the high riser debate going on. We made a choice to abstain. Maybe it changes in the future, maybe a quick adaptation will be available or maybe we keep it at 10 degrees and everyone figures out that high risers ain't needed (yeah keep dreaming Cody).

[sb]

Yeah, adding an additional riser is gonna make this binder WAY more attractive. Its a no brainer.

The other thing is being able to switch modes with out exit. That is not possible i reckon.

[TahoeJ]

The other thing is being able to switch modes with out exit. That is not possible i reckon.

Meh, I always thought that was overrated anyway. The few times I've done it (more to see if I could than anything else) I forgot to switch my boots into ski mode since my normal transition sequence was out of whack! ;-) Considering that you're essentially stepping into a new toe, it's still a lot less effort than CAST.

[RockinB]

I don't think it's an overrated attribute of a binding. The less in and out you need to do the better off IMHO. Fast transitions are a big part of the game when traveling. Also, when touring in deep snow there is nothing worse than sinking up to your thighs when you step out of your skis to transition and it opens up the door for snow/ice to get in the toe socket (which would not be an issue with the downhill mode on this binding).

[summit]

Being able to flip to tour mode on the fly is hugely useful when crossing a section of flat or rolling terrain during a descent/exit.

[smooth operator]

I love how this has turned into a general skinning topic.

Salomon should give away a couple of SHIFT's to the mags in this topic as payback for the free brainstorming session and advertisement by keeping this thread on top. Or a lucrative group buy or discount sorta thing.

[TahoeJ]

I don't think it's an overrated attribute of a binding. The less in and out you need to do the better off IMHO. Fast transitions are a big part of the game when traveling. Also, when touring in deep snow there is nothing worse than sinking up to your thighs when you step out of your skis to transition and it opens up the door for snow/ice to get in the toe socket (which would not be an issue with the downhill mode on this binding).

I'm in the Sierra so with our snow it's pretty easy to stomp out a quick supportive platform, but I definitely could see it being more convenient in areas with dryer snow. Although I didn't have much of a problem with it in CO. Anyway - no AT binding is ever going to be perfect for everyone.

[Kopi_Red]

a lucrative group buy or discount sorta thing.

One can dream.

[adrenalated]

Yes, not always the case but I’ve seen a number of pics where they go straight at a climbing route at a steep angle then when it gets even steeper they start doing a bunch of steep switchbacks. Probably with a mellower approach they could lop of a couple of the bottom switchbacks by just approaching initially at a wide sweeping angle. Gives the group weight a bit of seperation on the slope as well. Obviously sometimes you can’t do that because you want to stay in a safe zone but I’ve seen plenty of climbing routes half utilized. I think part of the problem when you’re on your high rise , besides using too much energy, is you’re already committed to steeper terrain. When it goes a bit steeper then you’re sidehilling on steeper terrain and that takes even more energy. I think , besides being more efficient, you have more leeway to control your route finding when you’re just on your initial riser. You’ll be able to go a little steeper without a switchback if needed or use the slope for big sweeping turns rather than switchbacks. It’s easier to manage the terrain above you from mellower angled terrain, especially with a group. Easier to think and much more enjoyable.

This is funny to me. Clearly some of y'all tour in much different terrain than I do. Big, open terrain where you have choices like this is super rare for me. Much more common are steep, very dense trees with a thin CO snowpack where you just don't have these kinds of options. I can think of at least 3 of my go to spots where high risers are basically essential just due to the terrain, even though I'd rather not need them.

Regardless of the athletes feelings on high risers, it seems like something that would be relatively cheap and easy to offer on the binding and drastically increase its appeal, clearly there are a lot of people that want them. Make them removable for Cody and call it a day.

Meh, I always thought that was overrated anyway. The few times I've done it (more to see if I could than anything else) I forgot to switch my boots into ski mode since my normal transition sequence was out of whack! ;-) Considering that you're essentially stepping into a new toe, it's still a lot less effort than CAST.

I can't remember the last time I, or anyone I tour with, stepped out of their skis to remove skins.

That said I can see that it would be a massive engineering challenge on top of a massive engineering challenge to make on-the-fly mode switches possible with this toe design. I'd rather not have to step out, but that's an acceptable tradeoff.

[mall walker]

I can't remember the last time I, or anyone I tour with, stepped out of their skis to remove skins.

qft

[NW_SKIER]

One can dream.

You don't even tour

[adrenalated]

You don't even tour

But think of how cool he'll look in the lift line.

[Kopi_Red]

True. I'm just thinking of all the lift line cred gonna get by skiing in these sweet new bindings. :bringing:

Edit: adrenalated beat me to it.

[NW_SKIER]

But think of how cool he'll look in the lift line.

He'll probably ride the chair in tour mode so everyone can see that he actually does use the toe pins.

[PNWbrit]

I love how this has turned into a general skinning topic.

.

Especially since ~50% of these things will never get used to go uphill.