Kingpins vs. Shifts

[jMakin]

Looking for some new touring bindings. Pros and cons of Kingpins or Shifts? I demoed the Shifts last year and thought they sucked for the uphill (not enough rise). Use is mostly for around the resort/sidecountry. Not planning any lengthy approaches, so weight is less of a concern

 

[tfsh]

I think the Shift is a more ambitious and "better" binding however I still use kingpins over them. See the issue is that SHIFTS have been plagued with a bunch of AFD issues and they are also being improperly mounted more times than not. Salomon has not fixed any of the issues. I bring this up because Kingpins too once had issues. The toe peice's pins would break of commonly, I myself experienced this, and im sure there were other first gen issues as well. Point being, Marker fixed this issue and recalled effected bindings. Salomon has yet to reach this point. my two cents

i should note I cannot weigh in on ski performance, kingpins feel much more like downhill bindings than tech bindings going downhill but I can only speculate as to what shifts feel like, my guess a more confidence inspiring feel.

**This post was edited on Jul 25th 2019 at 8:36:01pm

 

[50Kal]

Just curious op why not consider dynafit?

 

[thecazdog]

I've used Shifts for a year now. Yes they are finicky to setup - get your AFD or forward pressure wrong and you will have issues. Once I got that sorted, I've had no dramas. Great binding, especially for what the OP is after. Heel riser height is something I hear being complained about, but it was made that way for a reason...to remind people that less angle equals more efficiency.

I'd never go near the Kingpin. Tecton is superior in every way.

 

[Non_State_Actor]

I think the Shift is a more ambitious and "better" binding however I still use kingpins over them. See the issue is that SHIFTS have been plagued with a bunch of AFD issues and they are also being improperly mounted more times than not. Salomon has not fixed any of the issues. I bring this up because Kingpins too once had issues. The toe peice's pins would break of commonly, I myself experienced this, and im sure there were other first gen issues as well. Point being, Marker fixed this issue and recalled effected bindings. Salomon has yet to reach this point. my two cents

i should note I cannot weigh in on ski performance, kingpins feel much more like downhill bindings than tech bindings going downhill but I can only speculate as to what shifts feel like, my guess a more confidence inspiring feel.

**This post was edited on Jul 25th 2019 at 8:36:01pm

I don't have a lot of knowledge on the kingpin but I thought the pins were still shearing or backing out on the recalled and newer production models?

I have shifts and had to adjust the forward pressure and AFDs on both pairs after mounting, skied flawlessly though. I know they aren't perfect but I think they're pretty good.

 

[patagonialuke]

I think it depends on end use.

I prefer Kingpins when it comes to general touring — they're a bit lighter (though I don't care much about that), and I greatly prefer their risers and the fact that they have a high riser. Yes, mellow skintracks are more efficient, but for most of the zones I tour in, I'm not the one setting a skintrack, and I'm lazy enough that I'm usually not inclined to set a new track when there's already one there (even if it's fairly steep).

I prefer the Shifts for the down. Once I got them set up properly, I've never had pre-release issues and the binding feels exactly like an alpine binding, at least to me. The Kingpin feels very similar in soft, forgiving snow, but the Shift feels a bit less harsh on rough snow. And I like the idea that the Shift's toe piece is tested to and passed the same standards as an alpine binding, whereas the Kingpin's tech toe freaks me out a bit for everyday, inbounds riding. I also think the Shift is more durable, but I wouldn't make a definitive claim about it cause it hasn't been around long. And durability is one of the main reasons I'd opt for a Kingpin over a Tecton for inbounds use. I've broken a few Tectons (the heel piece seems particularly fragile), while I've never broken a Kingpin (though the old ones had the well-documented toe-pin issue that has apparently been resolved. Who knows.)

So, at least for me, here's how I tend to think about bindings. Others will definitely have different opinions.

100% inbounds: any alpine binding

Significantly more (~70%+) inbounds than touring: Shift

pretty even split between inbounds and touring, or a bit less inbounds than touring: Kingpin

less inbounds (~30%) and more touring: Tecton

100% touring: any tech binding since I'm usually skiing good snow or not skiing very hard.

**This post was edited on Jul 30th 2019 at 1:03:58pm

 

[sashko]

I would put it another way - Shift or Tecton. Tecton has lateral release in toe. And are lighter than both kingpins and shift.

I used shift last season for touring days, inbounds days and mixed days (side country). I had two prereleases (in first 10 days) but after forward pressure readjustment and 15 days on them - I have no complains. So for your application shift is a really good choice.

 

[-eREKTion-]

I would put it another way - Shift or Tecton. Tecton has lateral release in toe. And are lighter than both kingpins and shift.

I used shift last season for touring days, inbounds days and mixed days (side country). I had two prereleases (in first 10 days) but after forward pressure readjustment and 15 days on them - I have no complains. So for your application shift is a really good choice.

I'd go kingpin over tecton because they're sturdier and more user friendly, imo. Climbing risers are stupid simple on kingpins and they're easier to step into.