TTS for 2014 with better cable posts, optimized heel lever, and their own OMG 2-pin tech toe.

TTS = Telemark Touring  System

For those who prefer step-in entry, ski brakes and a more reliable safety release, NTN is for you, not TTS. When uphill efficiency is a priority though, it is hard to beat the earn-your-turns functionality of TTS.

Unlike the NTN bindings, you can adjust the cable pivot location for tele-resistance on par with HH #3—#5, but not as conveniently as the Axl or Enzo. Once you dial in what power you like the only shifting you will need to do is between tele and tour mode. The only way you can beat TTS for skinning is by going full rando to shave weight, but then you sacrifice the ability to tele.

Putting it all together is simple enough. The OMG toe keeps the Dynafit 4-hole spacing of the Vertical series, without the fifth hole under the toe lever, so you can use a Dynafit jig for drilling the toe holes. The heel blocks are easy to mount, even without a jig. Although they are not immune to snow building up underfoot, the newer single piece cable block does reduce snow packing underfoot by providing one less cavity for the snow to be trapped by. It will be a great day when a unitary mounting block holds the toe and sheds snow everywhere behind the pins. Until then, a shot of silicone can’t hurt, and I’d also suggest teflon tape over the heel post. Though it is plastic, sticky snow does manage to bond to it which can be the start of a climbing post of snow when you may not want one.

About those turns…

OMG’s toe pins open wide, with a high center, making entry more difficult than average for a 2-pin tech binding.

A key part of the OMG cable system is the heel lever, which has been optimized to latch in securely when placed on top of the heel step, not the heel groove other heel levers are optimized for. With a tech-ready NTN boot, you lose the groove to the Dynafit heel insert.

OMG’s 2-pin tech toe

When closed, the OMG toe does not yield a confident click. Note the shallow angle of the pin arms below the cantilever point.

Further exacerbating that basic lack of a resounding click of the jaws when closed, is getting started when the jaws are open. The center point that swings up for open, or down to close, is much higher than any Dynafit or other brand of 2-pin tech binding out there. This forces an angled style of latching in that puts the boot further away on the high side and harder to align correctly as you rotate your toe down. Of all the 2-pin tech toes I’ve used – Dynafit’s TLT, Vertical, Radical and Beast, G3′s Onyx and Ion, the La Sportiva/ATK, Plum, or Fritschi’s Vipec, — the OMG TTS toe requires the most fiddle to get in, and the most faith to trust. It’s not impossible, but noticeably more challenging. Early on I was getting in about 1-in-5 tries — after half-dozen short tours, that’s down now to one in three. By comparison, I’m typically first try two-out-of-three times with a Dynafit TLT after 30 days. On the otherhand, when you’re opening the binding up to get out, OMG’s high center literally kicks your boot free, unlike the Vipec which, by comparison, has “sticky” pins.

Once you’re in, you’re in solid, but in my testing I locked ‘em out anyway — call it a lack of faith. If you compare the position of the arms between the various 2-pin toes when closed, the OMG toe shows the smallest deflection below horizontal, which implies less holding force. Dynafit isn’t a lot more, but it is noticeably more. In fact, were it not for all the new tech toes on the market the ease of entry function wouldn’t merit such scrutiny except that one, G3′s Ion, has clearly set a new standard for stepping in to a 2-pin tech toe — comparisons are inevitable.

The toe lever creates a nice, simple, solid lock and one that, in spite of the relative difficulty getting in to the pins, does hold solid. On the flip side, the toe lock lever has such a solid feel when locked, it takes a bit of force with the tip of your ski pole, strategically placed, to unlock it and open it back up.

Conclusion

While the OMG 2-pin tech toe is a bit more fiddly than other tech bindings, once you figure the tune out, getting in is marginally different than most other tech bindings and familiarity will breed the confidence that inspires faith. In the meantime, Mark Lengel, the man behind TTS, has adjustments in the works to make getting in easier, and snap tight when the pins close without having to lock it down. Others have done it, so it can be done, although, based on results, there appears to be a fair amount of art mixed with science in building a good 2-pin tech toe.

From a functional perspective the TTS complete binding rips great turns and offers the most efficient system for touring of any telemark binding. If you’re willing to be a beta tester, I can confirm, the reward is worth a few risks.

OMG
Telemark Tech System v2014
Complete binding: $400
Weight/pr: 2.0 lbs. (905 g)
Toe Conversion Kit: $350
Heel Conversion Kit: $200

© 2014
 
Related Posts
Verdict on TTS
Dynafit goes Bisensual
Review of TTS v2.0
BCTalk Thread: TTS strengths, weaknesses, workarounds

Did you know? Early Dynafit toes had pins that could adjust.

A number of people have complained, myself included, on the need to adjust the pin gap on Fritschi’s Vipec. It is easy to think something is wrong with Vipec because it has to be adjusted. Keep in mind it operates on a different mechanism for release and it doesn’t tolerate the variance that, based on results, exists among tech inserts.

Considering the problems Garmont and Salomon went through with their tech inserts it’s not hard to believe there would be differences in their width. Vipec specs indicate the ability to adjust 1.2mm, implying that’s the range of possible insert widths, or pin-gap when the pins are closed. One-point-two millimeters isn’t that much, is it?

As it turns out, maybe it is. When dimensions are small, and tech toes are petite, tolerances need to be even tighter. Fritschi says the variation isn’t just between makers, it appears to happen even from within the same brand. Yeah, even the Dynafit brand.

Dimensional Details

There is plenty of evidence to prove inconsistent insert dimensions. Consider the plight of the rare but not unheard of guy or gal who does blow out of their Dynafits more often than they should. Most times this is due to dirt or ice in the inserts, but either way, it demonstrates how sensitive the system is to the pin gap.

Same data as Lou used, with slightly different annotation.

In the case of Dynafit and the litter of knock offs, the pressure increases for the first few millimeters of spread, until they are about 59 mm apart. Wider than that and the force declines as the jaws open up, but doesn’t cross the threshold to open until they are 61 mm apart. When the pins are seated, history proves there is adequate force to hold you in — at least for feet on the ground style skiing. What should be obvious is the wider the gap when the pins are seated, the less distance they must travel before the force holding them in declines.

Tipping point for Dynafit’s Vertical toe. Same dimensions for the Radical, but the Power Towers affect the results.

Ion’s tipping point – wider and with more force required.

Who Cares?

Being that the difference between staying in and pre-releasing is sometimes only a millimeter, perhaps the problem isn’t your binding, it’s the insert, even if the solution is to get a new binding. This whole predicament, premature release with 2-pin tech bindings, is why there are so many exciting new tech bindings being developed.

Going forward, angular rotation of the toe will be a common feature of Dynafit toe units.

G3 addressed this issue years ago with the Onyx. The main difference was the geometry of the pin arms/jaws. A higher fulcrum point develops higher forces to overcome in spreading the jaws. This design feature continues with Ion and the development of a fast, easy step in method.

Vipec allows lateral release at the toe by holding the pins tight while letting the boot rotate on a carriage. When it swings wide enough, the jaws open up. It allows a pretty wide displacement before letting go, 11 mm.

Solution?

The good news is this is a concern for a minority of AT skiers. If you’re in that minority and are actually experiencing premature release the solution is simple. If you love your boots, get a new binding, one that allows more elasticity. If you don’t like your boots anyway, replace both. Likewise if you’re new to the game, and not ready to believe, get a new binding. Otherwise, if you have an older generation tech toe you need to make sure the inserts are clean, or shut up, man up and lock ‘em out.

© 2014
 
Related Post
Dynafit VS Onyx Jaw Pressure on WildSnow
 

JFB testing the flex of NTN boots at Sugar Bowl, Jan. 2014

Depending on what size boot you have, and the binding you pair it with, you may not be able to replicate the sweet tele flex you can get with the same size duckbilled boot. It also turns out, this is more noticeable with Garmont/Scott and Crispi brand boots than with Scarpa.

Flex comes from the sole

I first noticed this problem when testing Garmont’s Prophet with the NTN Freeride binding, almost five years ago. It wasn’t until I skied Crispi’s Shiver that I was convinced it was more than a minor aberration. With either boot, no matter how hard I tried to compress the bellows I couldn’t get adequate pressure on the balls of my feet. Instead, all the pressure was applied through my toes because the sole couldn’t flex as much behind the bellows. Both were size 26.5, with a large NTN sole.

With 75mm boots the sole is a consistent thickness in front of the heel and if a cable binding is used, tension is applied between the heel and toe. In the case of NTN, the boot is clamped between the toe and 2nd heel, aka the duckbutt. The presence of the duckbutt increases the thickness of the sole behind the bellows, potentially creating a discontinuity in the flex of the sole.

In any sized NTN boot the 2nd heel attachment yields superior lateral stiffness and better edging. However, there are only two NTN sole sizes, small and standard, for 8-9 different sized boots, 23-26.0 for the small sole, 26.5-30.5 for the standard. This means that the relative position of the bellows to the duckbutt is not consistent, and the resulting flex of boots is inconsistent.

The further the duckbutt is from the bellows, the more noticeable this issue is. It is unlikely I would ever have known this except that my foot size straddles the line where the sole size changes, which is also dead center in the bell shaped curve of foot sizes. Thus, with Scarpa I fit a size 26 with a small NTN sole, with Crispi and Garmont (now Scott), a 26.5 with a large NTN sole.

Measuring up

Notice how consistent Scarpa’s dimensions are, regardless of NTN sole size. CTE

I spent an afternoon searching for NTN boots in Truckee and made the following measurements in the graph to the right. You can see that the distance from the middle of the bellows on the outside of the foot is universally the shortest distance between the bellows and 2nd heel. With Crispi and Garmont (now branded Scott, same molds though) this distance was always larger than for Scarpa. In fact, after actually measuring it is clear that Scarpa has designed their boots to have a consistent dimension between the bellows and 2nd heel, regardless of size.

Confirming the sensation

Notice how flat Scarpa’s TX is from the bellows forward when flexed in the Freedom binding. CTE

Next I enlisted the help of a relative stranger, JFB from the BCTalk forum. He’s a Tahoe regular, with the same size foot. We met at Sugar Bowl’s Judah parking lot and skied for about four hours with one foot wearing a Scarpa TX-Pro, size 26.0 with a small NTN sole, the other a Crispi Shiver size. 26.5 with a large.

To be sure, this is a subtle phenomenon, but noticeable nonetheless. JLB noticed the difference in stiffness immediately. It took a second run to notice the pressure was more on his toes, but he thought with practice he might adapt and fail to notice it. On the other hand, if he could flex the boots easier and drive pressure through the ball of the foot, as he could with the shorter NTN sole on the Scarpa boot, that would be preferred. As the day progressed, that opinion was only reinforced.

Contrast that with another friend, a former PSIA telemark examiner, using the Crisp Evo in a size 28.5 (BSL 328mm), who says the boots flexed great, with good pressure on his mets and the stiffest/best flexing tele boot he has skied in the last three years. However, if my theory was correct, his foot was large enough it shouldn’t matter.

Scope of the problem

Compared to Scarpa’s TX, the Crispi Shiver has a higher angle from the bellows forward resulting in tele pressure shifting forward of the metatarsals. CTE

It is also worth noting that the dead spot in the sole is more evident when using the TTS binding with the cable tension applied at the heel, than it is when using the NTN Freedom with cable tension at the second heel. I think part of that is due to the reverse ramp angle in the Freedom toe plate.

Whether or not this is a problem depends on whether you’re using a boot that might exhibit this phenomenon, and can you even tell. In other words, ignorance may be bliss but I lean on the side of empirical results that if a boot prevents you from flexing properly at the ball of the foot, telemark power and control will inevitably suffer. The sole is undeniably thicker and stiffer as the result of the 2nd heel. The further this is from the bellows, the more pronounced the sole stiffness. For big guys, wanting burly performance this is a great benefit. Except, generally, big guys have bigger feet and the problem doesn’t exist for size 27.5 and larger, only for 26.5 with the large NTN sole, and size 24.5 or smaller.

Resolving the issue

The solution seems obvious. Remove the dead spot behind the bellows. There are any number of solutions, but my guess is Crispi will wait until Scott changes their molds so the Voodoo NTN skis more like a Scarpa, and then they will too. For the sake of small feet one might dream of a third NTN sole size being created, but that will certainly not happen until interest in telemark skiing picks up, and with it a dramatic increase in equipment sales. If that matters to you, speak up and ask for it. I’m asking, but also wonder if the moon will be colonized before that happens.

© 2014
 

The Chouinard 3-pin Classic.

When it comes to picking a telemark binding there are many things to consider. Releasability, downhill power, touring freedom, and weight are the dominant characteristics to consider. There is no right or wrong answer with any. The best binding for you is not necessarily the best for someone else based on the boot used, style of skiing, and goals.

Releaseability

Non-release reaction.

7tm is TUV certified for release.

Downhill Power

Axl – 4 lbs. of pure power with a free-pivot.

The NTN Freeride has unequaled lateral control.

There is another, subtle factor at play with telemark bindings; how quickly the activity is engaged. Cable bindings that are routed underfoot tend to add tension faster than cable bindings that are routed along the side of the binding. In addition, the position of the pivot affects how quickly tension is engaged as the heel is lifted on the trailing foot. The further aft it is, the faster it engages.
 

Downhill Ratings

 
The ratings in the table above are based on the Hammerhead scale, a cable binding developed by Rainey Designs with underfoot cable routing and adjustable cable pivot points. The numbers correspond to the cable pivot positions, from 1 to 5 with 5 being the furthest aft from the toe of the boot, and the most active. The most popular position, or power activity, is probably a tie between HH#3 and HH#4.

If you are learning to telemark a binding with an adjustable pivot location is recommended. You will be more comfortable adapting to a free heel with a lot of tension to begin with. However, it is recommended that as you gain balance and confidence that you dial down the tension to help learn the nuances of the telemark turn. Experienced leathernecks will assure you the telemark turn can only be fully mastered through the trials of learning to adapt with a soft boot and a neutral binding. That may not be completely true, but the perseverance it requires always yields improvements to technique.

Touring Freedom

TTS still delivers tons of free-pivot ROM.

A solid 50° ROM is plenty for long strides and tight kick turns.

Since the new millenium, touring specific telemark bindings have a distinct tour mode. In most cases this is a switch that allows the toe plate to pivot freely, or with dramatically reduced resistance. How easy that switch is to engage is part of the touring value of a binding.

There are currently three touring configurations to chose from, in order of development:

• 75mm free-pivot cable bindings
  7tm Pwr Tour, Switchback, Switchback X2, Spike, O1, Ascent, Enzo, Axl
• NTN bindings w/low-resistance pivots
  Freeride, Freedom
• Telemark Tech System w/free-pivot via 2-pin tech toe

Weight

Weight is the easiest feature to check, and generally speaking, the least important to consider. For in-bounds skiing it is irrelevant. For earning turns, all other features being equal, lighter is better.

Icing

The tendency for a binding to ice up is largely due to snow conditions. Moist, sticky snow is more likely to glam onto your bindings and pack into ice which increases the weight you are carrying, and can frustrate the ability to easily switch from touring back to turning mode. However, some bindings are more prone to icing than others.

In some cases you only need to toggle the mode switch back and forth a few times to dislodge the ice. In some cases you need to step out of the binding and chip the ice off; a deft jab with a ski pole can do the trick, sometimes you need a screwdriver. In descending order of likelihood that ice will hamper mode switching: G3′s Ascent, Rottefella’s Freedom, R’s Freeride, BD’s O1, 22D’s Axl, Switchback X2, 7tm Power Tour, Switchback, and G3′s Enzo. Snow can pack underfoot with TTS, preventing your foot from resting flat. It doesn’t prevent adding or removing the heel, but you’ll want to clean out the buildup before heading down.

Touring Ratings

 
In the touring ratings above the final rating is predominantly determined by how frictionless the pivot is. Ideally all telemark bindings with a free-pivot for touring get a rating of 5, but then other factors can erode that efficiency such as the touring ROM, weight, how easy the climbing posts are to engage, and a binding’s propensity for icing up. A higher value for icing means it is more likely to ice up, hampering mode switching. The values are relative.

Final Selection

With two different systems you need to decide which way to go: Classic 75mm with a duckbill, or NTN with a duckbutt. There are more choices in the 75mm category, and they are all solid choices, but what is possible in terms of power and freedom have pretty much limited out. That’s a pretty high limit compared to back in the day, but a limit nonetheless.

Scarpa’s TX-Pro w/tech inserts

With NTN there are more choices for a releasable binding. Generally speaking these systems provide more lateral control, and plenty of power. The boots are also lighter, compared to their 75mm equivalents.

While there are lots of choices to be made, hopefully the tables above and guidelines presented here will clarify, not confuse you when you’re ready to buy.

Remember, not everyone can tele.

Related Posts:
Risk of knee injury with telemark equipment, by M. Tuggy MD
G3 Enzo discontinued
2012 Telemark Binding Selection Chart

© 2014
 

Meidjo updates -17jan15

“Ask and you shall receive,” goes the saying. We all know that isn’t always true, but it is often enough to keep the quip alive. In this case, it is true. For years tech savvy telemarkers have dreamed of a lightweight binding with Dynafit touring efficiency and a powerful NTN connection to the boot. With the delivery of Meidjo, the first design from French manufacturer the M-Equipment, the brainchild of Pierre Mouyade, that day has arrived.

Meidjo: < 1 lb./binding, free-pivot, NTN compatible, step-in, releasable, and powerful.
Requires 1) Faith in the 2-pin tech toe and 2) an early adopter license.

Meidjo, fresh from the factory.

The Low-Tech Toepiece

Meidjo’s low-tech toe has alignment bumpers and stands 2mm higher than other tech pins with true lock out for touring.

To account for different thickness soles of NTN boots the height of the toe pins are 2mm higher than classic Dynafit pins, so the lugged soles of thicker boots won’t contact the base of the toe plate and interfere with release.

When touring, the jaws can be locked shut, not by pulling up on the metal bar in front, but by pushing down on a plastic piece that moves a metal tab under the release bar preventing it from moving down and opening the pin jaws. The beauty of this system is two-fold. First, you switch between walk or tele modes using your ski pole, without having to bend over. Secondly, it doesn’t just increase the resistance to opening, it prevents the jaws opening. In my maiden tour I was traversing icy slopes that mandated repeated stomping. I released only once, because I had forgotten to lock the jaws shut. Once locked, they stayed shut, even with repeated, aggressive stomping to hold an edge.

Step-In

To step in, first cock the baseplate into position by lifting it until the red bar seats in the bumper.

Downhill Power

As yet I haven’t done a true side-by-side comparison but experience suggests the Meidjo is equivalent to HH#3 or 3½. Not the most active binding available, but no slouch either and probably the activity level that most telemarkers prefer. It is certainly active enough to hold a solid edge on hard pack, and not so active that it will cause excessive tip dive in soft snow. The actual cable pivot position is about 60mm behind the toe pins, which is approximately the same as the forward position of a TTS binding.

While the pivot location of the “cable” is fixed, you can increase spring tension simply by tightening the lugs holding the springs on the cable bar. When I say Meidjo has a tension of approximately HH#3, that is for a lightly tensioned spring, or a setting of 2 out of 5 per Meidjo’s scale. If you want even more tele-resistance, a second set of springs is available that can be added in parallel (inside) the stock springs to increase the baseline activity of telemark tension.

Safety Release

In theory Meidjo offers a safety release, a combination of an adjustable spring tension on the side wings that hold the second heel, and the spring tension of the pins. In my limited number of runs I did not experience any release, nor should I have. At this moment it certainly isn’t certified, but like most telemark binding release systems, probably works. I can confirm it did release laterally with a kick from the side aimed at the back of the boot. In due time reports from the field will confirm or deny the “safety” aspect of Meidjo’s release system. The release tension is adjustable with a 3mm allen wrench to increase or decrease spring tension on the wings holding the sides of the duckbutt.

Exiting the binding

As with nearly any other tech binding, press the front toe lever down to open the jaws. Lift the toe of your boot a bit, then twist it to unhook the duckbutt from the binding plate.

Features of the Meidjo telemark binding

Touring Efficiency

As you might expect, with a 2-pin tech toe this is a very efficient binding for skinning since you only lift your boot when striding. However, to lock the plate out of the way so it doesn’t flop around or inadvertently latch onto your boot you must hook a wire over the central red bar to hold the plate down. This is a small wire hoop that requires finger dexterity to move. Not a big deal, except it means you must exit the binding to latch the plate flat, but you needed to do that to put your skins on anyway, right? To unhook the plate when you’re ready to rip the hide and make some turns Meidjo provides some tape to attach to the wire hoop so you can pull it back and release it. Except the tape is weak and mine tore the very first time. A better mousetrap is in the works for this function, but in the meantime I suggest substituting a strip of fiberglass reinforced strapping tape (Scotch brand 893-JPK) that is stronger and will last longer.

At just under 1 pound per foot (430 g or 15.2 oz/foot, size Lg), you’ll love how little this binding adds to your total drag weight.

The heel post is one of the weak ingredients of this binding. It is a simple plastic post that flips up easily with your ski pole to provide an angle of 7° or, flip up a secondary wire for a higher climbing angle of 13°. These are pretty common heights, but unfortunately, the posts are prone to collapsing under pressure. A cure is in the works, but not available at the moment. In the short term, consider making peace with a low-angle, meanderthal skin track.

Mounting

To access the rear mounting holes the baseplate must be partially disassembled.
Hint: When reassembling, it is easier to thread the spring tensioning knobs on when the baseplate is flat.

Equally important is reviewing all the pieces of the binding because some assembly IS required and you need to understand where each part goes before you start drilling and screwing things together, hopefully in proper sequence and position, not screwing them up. The English directions are clearly a translation so you are advised to proceed with caution. If you’re not mechanically inclined, find someone who is to mount Meidjo for you.

Caveats

As this is a first look at a first generation binding many, if not all, the issues raised below will inevitably cease to be a concern in succeeding generations of this binding. For the moment, they are valid.

Although Meidjo does not yet offer ski brakes the holes to attach them to the binding already exist. They’re located between the cable pivot and the toepiece. These are scheduled to be available later this season.

Likewise for ski crampons. There is a set of brass inserts on top of the plate, just behind the cable pivot where a crampon clip will be attached. The clip will work with Dynafit compatible crampons.

For those on the Wet Coast, some icing is bound to occur. So far the only icing I noticed was snow packing in the cavity where the 2nd heel sits, which prevents switching from tour to tele mode without taking a moment to clear it out. It might mean you have to step out of the binding before you can step back in. Expect a round of heckling from your friends with Switchbacks.

The stainless steel toe pins of tech bindings are typically pressed into the arms or jaws of the toe piece. In the current version of Meidjo the pins fit tight, but are actually held with epoxy around their circumference plus a snap ring on the outside. Next years production run will be press fit like other tech bindings.

It is also worth noting the pins do not have ice cutting slots in them. Whether those will be added sooner or later remains to be seen. They aren’t on all tech bindings, but most.

Fixed

Until next the production run, keep your eye on the pins that hold the toe jaws, the base plate, and the mode switch.

Fixed

The durability of the baseplate is categorically suspect because of its plastic composition. It looks well made but only time will tell if it can go the distance.

Conclusion

If you’ve been holding out on upgrading your duckbilled telemark rig to the duckbutted NTN because it didn’t offer any clear advantages, the arrival of Meidjo is about to change that. Admittedly it needs a tweak or two but even at birth it offers excellent skiing performance, superb touring efficiency thanks to a 2-pin tech toe and seriously light weight, plus step-in convenience and even (albeit unproven, uncertified) safety release. Now, if you also want a lower price you’ll have to be content with what you have a while longer. Actually, when you consider that heavier tech bindings are about the same price, but they don’t tele for squat, the price is competitive. If you’re ready to embrace the future, and can afford the bruises that come on the bleeding edge of innovation, the future of tele is here today.

M-Equipment
Meidjo
MSRP: ~ $550* (€449)
Weight/binding (sz Lg): 15.2 oz. (430 g)

* – based on $ to € exchange rate on 05Jan15.

Related Posts
BCTalk discussion on Meidjo

© 2015
 

The serial number is located on the bottom of the toepiece, and on the box Meidjo comes in. If your binding is higher than AA0140, you have the fix already.

Pierre Mouyade, Meidjo’s designer contacted me to say, “Begin January I discover a problem on the low tech. The four pin inside the 4 spring of the low tech [toepiece] were [made of] Stainless steel. It was a mistake to choose that material. The pin are not stiff enough. Some rider deform these pins and some problems appear, mostly in touring mode.”

 
At least two people have noticed this. In the comments to the First Look review, Mathias said, “The BIG issue I have is uphill (the one thing I really thought would work!); at the slightest touch of hard snow or ice the toe-piece flexes and I lose the ski. This is even with the toe-piece locked (I’ve quadruple-checked this). It seems the construction flexes such that I’m able to escape the pins without the toe-piece releasing; it is locked also afterwards. Touring is paramount to this binding so I am very disappointed at the moment and can’t recommend it to anyone who plan on earning their turns…

Not to belabor the point, but BCTalk’s jfb noticed the same thing.
 
Pierre responds, “Since I discover that problem I immediately change the pins to hardened steel and there [is] no problem anymore.”

According to M-Equipment, there are 140 pair of bindings built with the stainless steel pins that are bending. If you think you have one of those, (S/N: AA0001-AA0140) contact the retailer or M-Equipment directly to confirm the need for an upgrade. The serial number is on the underside of the toe plate.

Revised mount will now have four screws holding the cable down.

One of the more noticable weaknesses of Meidjo was the touring hook. This sketch shows the new hook design.

Early Adopter License required

It was mentioned in the First Look article, and anyone who has been around the block a bit knows that first year products are the bleeding edge of development, so the chances you’ll draw blood using a first year product are high. Literally. This puts a premium on getting the design close enough to perfect that a manufacturer doesn’t bury itself with costly replacement issues. It is why, even if they don’t announce it as such, customers who buy a first year product must expect they are part of a beta test team and there will be quality issues that either will or won’t be dealt with to a satisfactory level. If they are, then goodwill is established and problems resolved become a badge of honor, not a blemished reputation. If they don’t, a company will have to work doubly hard to overcome a B grade reputation. Replacing 140 pair of bindings isn’t chump change. Thankfully it’s only 140 pair, not 1000.

Retrofit Program

© 2015
 

Meidjo wins Gold award for innovation from ISPO.

Upon receiving notice of the award, Pierre Mouyade posted the following notice on the M-Equipment website.
 

It is with some pride that THE M Equipment announces that MEIDJO, our free touring telemark binding has just been awarded GOLD Winner at ISPO Award. For the engineer that I am it is an invaluable consecration.
I would like to dedicate this award to my father who passed away two years ago now and it’s a little for him that I created this fine binding, at least that I have led this project to completion to offer you.

Then I want to thank my wife Evelyne and my children Thibault and Chloe who had to bear with their father in recent years who was 300% on the project. I also thank my close friends who have always believed in this project and who supported me.

Then, a big thank you to my industrial partners, especially Sylvain and Collet Amblard who helped me from the beginning of the project, without them I could not have brought this project to completion. I also thank the PACI who allowed me to build this business and give birth to MEIDJO.

Finally I thank this wonderful telemark family who greeted me at the Meidjo Telemark festival with open arms. It is having in mind that memorable moment and for La Meije (mystic mountain) that I particularly love, I called this binding MEIDJO. Thanks to Meidjo Telemark Association for agreeing that I give this name to the product that is yours today.

Thank you to Seb, Laurence, Aymeric, Franck, Raoul, Mika, Peter, Corentin, Lola, Aurora, Canard, Yves Boulélé Guido, Antoine and to all I omit in this moment full of emotion.

Pierre Mouyade, Meidjo’s designer, with a prototype binding.

While the majority of development in skiing products revolves around alpine skiing it is refreshing to see an award go to a telemark product. Equally important is the message conveyed by Pierre Mouyade that his company will not be content with mere innovation, their goal is to spur a revolution of interest in telemark skiing.

© 2015
 

Serial Heelers, S1, E3

However, my morbidity over the current state of California’s snowpack should not prevent me passing on this porntastic tidbit. Being that it’s coming from The M-Equipment, makers of the tantalizing Meidjo binding that blends 2-pin touring efficiency with NTN functionality you’d think it’s a promo piece for the binding. Okay, I admit it is, but not by zooming in and showing the binding and how it works, but by showing how it is meant to be appreciated.

Even knowing it’s a promo piece it’s tough to deny this is one of the best five minutes of ski footage I’ve seen all year. The skiers are clearly accomplished mountaineers, they rip smooth tele turns, and the location, Verbier in the Swiss Alps, and cinematography, are stunningly beautiful.

Oh, and if you’re a telemarker thinking about upgrading to NTN, this vid was designed to get you to stop thinking and start buying. And for those who thought you fixed the problem when you fixed the heel, this vid might help to cure that delusional bubble.

© 2015
 

Moonlight Mountain Gear’s Tele Rando binding let’s you free the heel, or fix it.

Key Features

What distinguishes Moonlight’s tele tech binding from the original TTS by OMG are:

1. A roofed spacer to minimize snow build up underfoot
2. Cables that are easily removed to reduce touring weight
3. Optional, longer spring cartridges to allow knee-to-ski motion
4. Two options to improve lateral stability at the heel:
   i) by locking it with a minimalist AT low-tech heel, or…
   ii) using a heel stabilizer to improve free heel lateral stiffness

Roofed Spacer

Common features of Moonlight telemark tech bindings:
tech toe + roofed spacer + cable connection post = 300g.

Low-Tech Toe Details

The current incarnation of the low-tech toe unit is a common knock off design made originally for skimo racing with a focus on lightweight. Thus, it takes a bit of careful alignment between the boot inserts and pins to latch in. Experienced Dynafiddlers won’t notice anything unusual; inexperienced newbies will have to figure out their own fiddle factor. In addition, it rarely gives a resounding snap as it closes. Thus users are strongly advised to swing the toe to make sure the pins are clamped tight. Bjarte Hollevik, Moonlight’s founder, acknowledges in humid conditions it can pack with snow, preventing the pins from fully seating. An improved toe unit is on the drawing board with clear paths to allow snow to escape and not be trapped under the toe arms (aka jaws).

Cable System

Pure Tele binding includes a heel stabilizer.

The actual cable is a Voile Hardwire cable unit, with the option to get an extra long spring cartridge for people with big feet that need more travel distance on the springs. This is one of the obvious improvements Moonlight will offer. However, the heel lever latching the cable around the heel is the standard Voile heel lever, made for latching on to a 75mm boot with a heel groove, not on the top of the heel step. For it to yield a reassuring snap when you latch it on, it needs to be tight enough that putting it on takes a little extra effort compared to an OMG heel lever.

The position of the cable tested depended on the exact pair of skis tested. The proposed pivot location of the cable is expected to be approximately 5.5 cm behind the toe pins. Adjust-ability will be limited to where the cable post bracket is mounted.

My only semi-serious complaint was that the heel posts did not allow for simply latching the heel lever behind the climbing post to keep the cable tucked out of the way when climbing, or slinging the skis over your shoulder. It was assumed I would want to take the cables off to save weight for climbing. For a long climb, maybe I would. As a telemarker though I’m used to much worse and I’d rather have the cables ready to snap on my heels at the top of a climb and de-skin with skis attached than have to take my skis off to add the cables, remove the skins, and then, click back in to the binding. How embarrassingly similar to the inconvenient, time consuming procedure AT skiers put up with.

Improved Lateral Control

Where Moonlight ups the ante in the telemark tech realm is with their two heel options. The most obvious, a feature often talked about, is the ability to use a lightweight tech heel, available with the Tele Rando binding. The heel unit is reminiscent of a Spartan tech race heel with a non-adjustable release value of approximately eight. This means the height of the climbing post when climbing is either flat or the equivalent of a low, 5° climbing post, something many free heelers will be underwhelmed by. However, if you want the ability to easily, and quickly, lock the heel, then this climbing limit may be acceptable. Keep in mind that with a flexible sole in a tele boot, you need less post height to maintain good skin grip. For a stiff soled AT boot, 5° isn’t much, but with a flexible tele boot, with good technique, it should be enough.

Moonlights patent pending heel stabilizer prevents lateral slop.

Conclusion

As mentioned earlier, this is based on a cobbling together of various existing parts for elements like the tech toes or heels, and the cables. The unique items that Moonlight brings to the table were tested in varying degrees of prototype development. The clear conclusion was that, even in prototype form the functionality was there. Any issues that were experienced were due to things like missing screws that weren’t properly tightened and came loose in the field, or were over tightened and couldn’t be easily adjusted. The validity of the performance comes from the fact that over a dozen of us were subjecting both the Tele Pure and Tele Rando bindings to a variety of conditions with different styles and expectations, but no serious complaints.

The only murmurs of disappointment I heard were about the dwindling availability of compatible telemark boot choices.

Moonlight Mountain Gear
Pure Tele
MSRP: $500
Weight/foot: 300 g (toe+heel+cable post) + 650g (cable)

Tele Rando
MSRP: $700
Weight/foot: 350g (toe+heel+cable post) + 650 g (cable)

© 2015
 

Mammoth Mountain.

A flurry of emails were sent and in short order a quick posse of tele testers was assembled, including B, E, and Mr. and Mrs. Toad, although she excused herself from the testing since her boots were too small to fit the Kingpins. At our disposal were two pair of recently updated Meidjos (S/N 302 and 303) and two pair of Outlaws. The small Meidjo’s were on on G3 Carbon Zenoxides (ver 2015), the large on a pair of 180cm K2 Shreditors (112mm). A pair of large Outlaw’s were on Moment Exit World (115mm), and a pair of smalls on 180cm Blizzard Kabookies (98mm).

Getting In

EYT test crews: B, J, K, and E.

The Meidjo did require more coordination to get in to the toe pins, but I noticed that neither man had much issue with it – one quick demonstration was all it took to get a sense of mastery. Meanwhile, I noticed Mrs. Toad was resetting her toes a third time while fiddling with her Dynafit Radicals.

Getting Down

As for downhill performance, both B and E gave the nod to Meidjo, but they both felt that was more a reflection on the ski than in differences with binding performance. As background, B has a pair of TTS bindings and Rottefella Freerides on Cham 107s. E has Freedom’s on both pair of skis he brought with him from Vegas.

B said the Outlaw felt more “hingy.” When pressed to explain what he meant he noticed that the Outlaw caused his Crispi boot to compress more on the back bellows than the front, and more so as his heel was raised higher. I think the fact that Outlaw forced the bellows to collapse more than Meidjo is a testament to it having a higher spring tension. However, the sensation of activity, or differences in the tension perceived is largely determined during the initiation of a tele turn. In the case of NTN bindings, pre-tension appears to have a greater influence, allowing full tension to be experienced immediately. Again, this depends to a large degree on the cable pivot location, the origin of the vector of tension we tele by.

In my experience the Outlaw is clearly more active, thanks to a higher spring rate, but the effective pivot location is 53mm behind the tech inserts, which is further forward than the Meidjo. Contrarily, the M has a softer spring rate, but a cable pivot 60mm back. The net effect is they both engage fast, so they impart balance and confidence in a zone known for the lack of it. This is one of the potential benefits of NTN that was not evident with the Freeride, but is with the Freedom. As for overall tension comparisons, B and E both agreed, Meidjo was very similar to Freedom in terms of downhill feel. Thus, Meidjo felt strong initially, Outlaw stronger inevitably, but the Meidjo was preferred for being slightly less active. There was also an undeniable contribution from the skis.

Without question the Shreditor slayed the Moment Exit World in terms of likeable performance. Overall the Exit World is 184cm long, but with an aggressively rockered tip and tail it acts like 164cm and what is worth liking about a short fat plug of a ski? Ideally the bindings would have been mounted on each person’s favorite ski. Instead, we used what reality offered. Thus, the Shreditor enhanced the Meidjo’s performance while the Moment tarnished the Outlaw’s. In other words, it wasn’t an apples to apples comparison.

Summary

Functionally it appears that, except for brakes and optional crampons the Meidjo and Outlaw are performing as promised. What remains unknown is the long term durability of the plastic portions of both bindings, and for that, we’ll all just have to wait another year and hope a few more guinea pigs are willing to break trail and find the fractures.

© 2015
 

NTN’s biggest advocate – Mitch Weber

Then there is the ability to get into the NTN binding without bending over. A nice convenience, but it still won’t prevent your friends with training heels from making fun of you because your mind is broken just like your binding.

Along with release came brakes. Perhaps the single most convincing factor about Rottefella’s NTN Freedom and Freeride bindings was the elimination of bending over to put on a leash, and the likelihood of getting clobbered upside the head by your own ski in a cartwheel crash. That and edging power previously unknown in the telemark world.

As we head into next winter, the field of NTN binding choices will have grown from the Freeride to a total of seven models that work with a compatible, NTN boot. With that, the reasons to switch go from being merely significant, to compelling, depending on what your priorities are.

Rottefella’s NTN Options

The NTN Freeride has unequaled lateral control.

Rottefella’s NTN Freedom. Excellent skiing, acceptable touring.

Burnt Mt. Designs NTN

Spike comes standard with single spring heel tubes, but you can double those up.

22 Designs NTN

22D’s Outlaw. Final colors may differ from those shown.

Tech-style NTN

For the touring minded, Dynafit has invaded the telemark world and this is the reason the NTN system will steadily lure converts, not only from duckbilled telemarkers, but also from those who switched to AT for efficiency, yet miss the tele turn.

OMG’s Telemark Tech System

TTS for 2014. Better cable posts and the first American 2-pin tech toe.

Moonlight Mountain Gear

Moonlight Mountain Gear’s prototype Tele Rando binding.

7tm et al

7tm with a Tech toe. Why not?

There are bound to be a few other knock-offs of the basic TTS design, mostly small production run cable systems sold at an underground level. Nor will I neglect to mention the handful of tinkerers who can and will spend excessive time building their own heel contraptions for various tech toes to create their own, unique garage-band binding.

The M-Equipment

Meidjo v. 2, from M-Equipment. 2-pin tech meets NTN.

NTN Boots

Scarpa’s TX-Pro w/tech inserts

There are now 10 models of NTN boots available for 2016 – Scarpa’s TX-Pro, men’s and womens, the TX-Comp; Crispi’s Evo, Evo World Cup and Shiver men’s and women’s, plus Scott’s NTN Voodoo and Minerva. Between them there is some variation in last shapes, but nothing particularly light weight, or with record setting cuff mobility. While AT boots may be lighter, and offer more cuff ROM, bellowed tele boots still walk more naturally, especially NTN boots sans duckbill.

TX-Pro for women.

Crispi Evo Rando
w/tech inserts.

While it is easy to harp on manufacturers to step up and provide more, their response is really driven by consumer demand. I’ve heard rumors Scarpa has improvements they are considering, but unless they’re confident they’ll sell enough to cover development costs plus profit, why bother?

Scott’s Voodoo NTN

Conclusion

If you’re just switching over to tele, let boots be your guide. If the only boots that work with your foot come with a duckbill then stick with 75mm; the available performance is proven and solid, with safety release being the only missing ingredient. However, if you can find an NTN boot that fits your foot, the full range of performance available in the 75mm realm now exists with NTN, plus safety release, easier entry, and better touring efficiency. When you look at the variety of choices available with NTN bindings, and the features they provide, unless you’re in a monogamous relationship with chairlifts, the reasons to switch to NTN are compelling indeed.

I’ll admit I was reluctant to buy Mitch Weber’s claim that “NTN is the future of telemark.” His enthusiasm is finally being vindicated with results.

© 2015
 

Related Posts
Telemark Binding Selection Guide
Review: Rottefella’s Freeride
Review: Rottefella’s Freedom
Review: Burnt Mt. Design’s telepup, Spike!
Review: Telemark Tech System, v2
First Look: Meidjo – Tech + NTN
Meidjo gets a makeover, v2 details.
First Look: Moonlight’s 2-pin Tele Binding
Status of 22D’s Outlaw Beta Program

CAD drawings of the “final” Tele Pure binding design.

Last week Moonlight Mountain Gear unveiled a revised website showing the first production versions of their tech style bindings with an optional heel stabilizer or a lighweight tech-style heel. As reported last season, the prototype bindings skied well but there were several unfinished details.

Based on images of the final product it appears that the essential elements of the Tele Pure and Tele Rando bindings have the same functionality as the prototypes. According to a MMG press release, every component of the binding has undergone “a total makeover.”

Tech Toe Changes

Lots of tweaks to the final toe. Higher, stronger, and resistant to icing.

What is not visible from the CAD drawing is the inclusion of a soft rib of plastic underneath the toe arms to prevent ice formation. You may also recognize that the height of the toe arms seems high compared to Dynafit, more like G3′s Ion, to help with removing snow build-up, and to increase ski angulation.

Not shown are alignment tabs similar to those found on G3′s Ion, Marker’s Kingpin, or The M-Equipment’s Meidjo to make clicking in at the toe easy.

Cable Assembly

Longer springs from Voile allow more tele ROM, and a smoother flex.

The roofed spacer between the cable pivot and the toe has been replaced with a plastic cover over the cable mounting post. It has a soft, slightly spongy feel that prevents snow from building up underfoot.

Heel Stablilizer

The two-pronged stabilizer from Norway.

The heel stabilizer enhances telemark performance by allowing the front foot to transfer power through three points: the toe pins, the cable block, and the two-pronged stabilizer to eliminate vibration between the heel and ski. The net effect is more edging power on the front ski when telemarking, thus more confident turns in difficult snow.

Availability

According to Bjarte the first production bindings will be ready to ship in early November 2015. If you’re ready to embrace the future of tele today, Moonlight Mountain Gear’s Tele Pure can give you Dynafit caliber touring efficiency, alpine caliber turning precision, with the freedom of a free heel.

To some extent these claims are speculative. The prototype binding delivered solid turning and touring performance, with obvious shortcomings due to the prototype nature of the bindings tested. The drawings of the final design appear to address the issues that cropped up. Except for testing the final production version in the field to confirm actual downhill control, weight, or the resistance to icing up, the new Tele Pure from Moonlight Mountain Gear looks like a binding worth having, especially if the price advertised is in U$D, not €uro. For those who want a releasable tech heel, you’ll have to be patient a bit longer.

Moonlight Mountain Gear
Tele Pure
MSRP: $312
Weight*/foot: 1 lb. 2 oz. (510 g)

* – estimated

© 2015
 

Not even a heel groove is left for Scarpa’s 2017 TX-Pro.

Two steps back

Prior to this year, 2016, no binding existed that could do all those things. Now that it is available, via the M-Equipment’s Meidjo and Moonlight’s Tele Rando binding, Scarpa has coincidentally eliminated the tech insert at the heel. For the 2016 season, the metal heel insert has been replaced with a removable plastic plug. This does allow the metal insert to be added by cannibalizing another pair of boots. Next year the sole will be solid, making an add-on difficult, but as the example of the CAST binding suggests, not impossible.

Scott was finally ready to add tech inserts to their NTN boots, the men’s Voodoo and women’s Minerva, but decided to follow Scarpa’s lead and only provide toe inserts. According to Scott’s US marketing manager for ski products, Topher Plimpton, the insert will be absent for liability reasons. This is truly a bummer for fans of Garmont’s Prophet since that boot offered a more alpine like cuff flex, something that would be beneficial with a locked the heel.

Safety requires Liability

Now you see ‘em, soon you won’t!

Now, if by chance the person who brought this liability trouble on us were a telemarker we might be able to shame some sense into him. But it was an alpine skier who was using Scarpa’s F1 Evo, the one with the Tronic mode switch, where the boot cuff would automatically be loose if the boot wasn’t locked into a Dynafit type binding at the heel. In a freak set of circumstances some guy managed to have his boots switch to walk mode while he was skiing downhill. He was hurt and threatened to sue Scarpa. According to an anonymous source, Scarpa’s lawyers made that one go away. After that close call, Scarpa eliminated the Tronic system, not for Europe where this happened, but for the US market where ambulance chasing lawyers salivate over such opportunities.

Setting the precedent

You can see an outline where the insert used to be.

Any reasonable pinhead who had the option to ski an NTN boot in a Dynafit type binding should know the flexible bellows can cause the boot length to contract, “slipping out” of the heel pins into tour mode. No respectable telemarker would sue a boot company because their teleboot disengaged from the heel of a Dynafiddle binding. If you don’t know enough to support the sole under the bellows to keep it from flexing that doesn’t mean you deserve social justice because you were too stupid to know better. Even with tech inserts, flexible soled tele boots are inherently incompatible with alpine bindings, even though they seem to work.

The old adage, “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should” becomes law, not merely advice, in our increasingly litigious society. Thus, unfortunate as it may be it is not surprising that Scarpa decided to stop including tech heel inserts. In a way, it’s amazing it took this long considering the potential for that trouble existed since the beginning. But it’s still sad that lawyers have now entered the free heel sphere and in typical fashion their first move is to restrict our freedom to chose such a tool.

Crispi to the rescue!

All is not lost, however. While Scarpa and Scott have chosen to eliminate heel inserts, Crispi plans to continue offering them on their Evo and Shiver models. I hope it helps them sell more boots, enough that Scarpa and Scott reconsider their latest decision to remove them.

Related Posts
Scarpa’s F1 Evo review
Scarpa Recalls F1 Evo
Garmont Prophet review
Scott Voodoo NTN to add inserts
Scarpa TX Review
Scarpa TX-Pro Review
Meidjo’s Low Tech Heel
Other Meidjo Articles
Moonlight Mountain Gear’s Tele Tech bindings
News of Scarpa dropping Heel Inserts

© 2016
 

DIY tele tech bindings are thriving.

Here is a brief overview of the bindings I tried over the last two years: Rottefella Freedom, The M Equipment’s Meidjo, Burnt Mt. Design’s Spike, two pair of DIY TTS bindings, one with a Dynafit toe, the other a G3 Ion toe. Here’s my synopsis.

Rottefella Freedom

Rottefella’s NTN Freedom

• Internet research told me these were the NTN bindings to buy.
• I found them to feel heavy — they are heavier than others, but the weight in front of the boot makes it more obvious. (Ed. Note: as does the small but noticeable touring resistance).
• They lack edge control; the low heel, high toe combo makes it physically difficult to angulate.
• Sluggish — a combination of the above two issues.
• I was able to sell 2 pairs though, so people still like them.

The M Equipment’s Meidjo

Meidjo. Skis great, tours better, but causes “boot jack.”

• Neutral stance with heel/toe-height just right.
• The holy grail of features really draws me to this binding.
• Precision and confidence — the combination of the tech toe and impressive lateral stiffness [deliver] excellent edge control [with a] smooth, progressive flex.
• The deal breaker for me is the snow pack underfoot which gives boot jack. I have tried wider skis (87 to 105 underfoot), foaming, taping the gaps…without eliminating the issue. Not too bad if the snow isn’t deeper than 15cm and dry.
• I have pre-released, but only when the duckbutt [clamp] became full of snow while skiing and it released upon landing off a jump. Never from the toes as with other tele tech [bindings].
• I will hang on to these for now, but they are no longer mounted.

Burnt Mountain’s Spike Tour NTN

Burnt Mt. Designs Spike

• These bite the toe of the boot and have excellent lateral stiffness. They hold an edge well and give confidence. Can be made very powerful!
• They are super adjustable in every way you can imagine.
• Initially my toe would slide back out of the spike’s ‘jaws’ but was sent a different baseplate that holds the toe in very firmly. Now, the boot CANNOT lift. Which some people may like. I can get used to it, but I prefer the boot (ahead of the bellows) to lift a little bit (less toe crunch).
• Despite being step in, they can be hard to get on in soft snow or on the side of a hill.

DIY Tele Tech w/Dynafit Toe

DIY tele tech binding. Dynafit Comfort tech toe, OMG cable assy., Voile heel lever, G3 heel post PLUS heel prongs.

• I have spent more days on this setup than anything else this season. I really like them.
• I run the Dynafit shim under the toe. No shim under the TTS block and use a 15mm heel. This gives the bellows a small gap that allows some flex in the boot.
• Travel with the Switchback [springs] is okay. I do hit the end of spring’s [travel], but by the time I do it’s about where I’d stop anyway. This makes me wonder about long term durability though.
• I just switched from TX Pro 27.0 to 27.5 and I am feeling the end of travel more with the bigger boot – it’s that close!
• I have skied these hard in all conditions including boiler plate ice for several days after a refreeze and they never pre-released.

The drawback of this setup is the toe: stepping into it is a pain and having to lock it all the time is an extra step. I am also noticing the TTS wires are bent and the channels in the TTS block are already quite worn (not sure how many days on these, but I got them this season and I’ve skied a lot of other skis too)

Bottom line: I really like and trust this setup now. Nice lateral stiffness to the heel. I just don’t know if the lack of travel will cause a failure long term. And the step in could be improved. I’m looking forward to more days on this one.

DIY Tele Tech w/G3 Ion Toe

The favored rig. DIY tele-tech binding with G3 Ion toe, OMG cable assy. with long springs, Hammerheel, 2-prong.

• Super nice to step into. Stepping into the Dynafit or Spike feels tedious by comparison.
• I added an aluminum prong behind the hammer heel made out of cut-and-filed channel aluminum. This fits into the low tech slots and holds the heel well and really improves edging performance on firm snow and paralleling.
• The longer springs require a wire that bends out further around the boot (short TTS). This takes away lateral rigidity and therefore requires the prong to offset it.
• I have never found the end of the abundant travel in these long springs.

Note that I am skiing the Voile lever on both my TTS setups. Even though the TTS lever ‘feels’ like it snaps in with more force, they don’t seem to hold the boot’s heel from moving laterally as well as the Voile lever.

Conclusions

Unfortunately, no two bindings feel the same. I’d like to be able to switch seamlessly between skis. I’d look at putting the long TTS springs on with the Dynafit, but I haven’t tested them enough to be sure – and I don’t like the old Dynafit toe for stepping in.

I do plan on getting a pair of Moonlights. My guess is they will be most like the ION setup, with a few differences (maybe improved lateral stability at the heel, hopefully a nice step in guide to improve on the Dynafit).

I’ll keep skiing all this stuff next year but suspect that I have some pretty solid kits in my ION TTS and the Dyanfit TTS with Spike as backup. Moonlight might take the place of the Dynafit kit with short springs.

Related Posts
Testing Time: Diary of DIY tele-tech bindings on BackcountryTalk

© 2016
 

Telemark Tech bindings are here to stay.

The original Telemark Tech System binding (early beta version, circa 2010).

The 2-pin connnection

When Mark Lengel first proposed the idea of the Telemark Tech System (TTS) skepticism was the typical response. That’s a near universal first impression of the confidence inspired by the lowly 2-pin tech toe, also known by its founding brand name, Dynafit, or other terms like low-tech, pin-tech, or merely as “tech” when spoken of over beers at the trailhead. Mr. Lengel knew better; those tiny pins can bite tight on the tip of a boot, which meant they might work for tele. As time always seems to prove with the puny 2-pin toe, it is unquestionably tough enough, especially I dare say, for tele.

NTN Boots required

In a nutshell the telemark tech system takes a generic telemark cable binding and replaces the 75mm toe plate with a tech-toe. Of course, this necessitates a boot with bellows and tech inserts at the toe. The choices at retail boil down a handfull of NTN boots: Crispi Evo, Shiver, or World Cup, Scarpa TX-Pro, or Scott’s Voodoo NTN. Scarpa’s early F1 and F3, the ones with the bellows, work too, but that’s only in the used market.

In theory you could get extreme in the do-it-yourself tangent and install inserts in a pair of tele boots, NTN or 75mm, but what value would a PhD in tele minutia get you? I mean, talk about the potential for trouble. Besides, Salomon already proved you can’t just “solder” those things on.

Dynafit touring efficiency

Dynafit caliber touring efficiency.
Lift your heel, not the binding.

Better Edging

Lest you think otherwise, the low-tech toe delivers superb edging thanks to the lateral stiffness of the pins. Again, you wouldn’t think those two pins could hold so tight, but results prove they do.

Adjustable Power

Though not a benefit of the 2-pin toe per se, depending on where you position the cable, a telemark tech binding can yield nearly any level of activity on the Hammerhead scale, potentially even higher.

Meidjo (pr: may-joe) combines a tech toe with NTN connection.

Just Believe

If you’re among those who can’t believe it until you see it, remember there are hundreds of thousands of Dynafit converts now, so just give it a try and you’ll see, it really does work.

A screen grab from a FB post hinting at what 22D has up their sleeve for a tele tech binding.

Fit as a Fiddle

It isn’t mainstream yet because it requires a willingness to fiddle with the binding (it is an unavoidable part of the Dynafiddle legacy), either mounting ‘em (Meidjo requires 13 holes), and usually just getting in to the binding. However, when you get the hang of it you can get in with just a flick of a fiddle. YMMV depending on snow conditions.

An up to date OMG TTS binding.

Keep It Simple

To keep it simple get the full TTS binding from Olympus Mountain Gear. Alternatively, if you already have a set of tech toes in your quiver, or prefer another brand, get the TTS cable kit and join the ranks of the TTS do-it-yourselfers. It is recommended as a first foray into the TTS world if you have the tools and mounting know-how.

Make it Simple

Here’s the other thing. The limit of this system is the springs which limit out. I’ll provide the details on that in a few more episodes. Because the system is so simple you may be tempted to build your own cable assembly. For those with the right tools and some design experience, especially with the advent of 3D printers, it is possible to come up with a pretty slick system that can provide equal or better performance than what is off the shelf.

In future articles on this subject, I will show you how to optimize the cable position, install inserts, plus some examples of home-brewed cable assemblies for OMG, Dynafit and G3 tech toes.

Special thanks to rjmh, jnichol, chamonix, kenji, dschane, and jasonq for sharing their results of tinkering with TTS.

© 2017
 
The original version of this article first appeared on TelemarkSkier.com. Minor edits have been made in this version, but the message remains the same. TTS rules and you can DIY.

OMG’s telemark tech toe.

Key Considerations

That said, the two things you want to consider when selecting a tech toe are:

1. the lateral holding power (see table below),
   derived largely from the springs used under the toe arms or jaws.
2. how easy the binding is to get in to.

The Ion 12 tech toe. Notice how much higher these pins are.

Ease of Entry

What IS perceptible is how easily you can step in to the toe. There are four things affecting this:

1. Pin spacing when open
2. The fulcrum point of the pin “arms”
3. Spring rate (stiffness)
4. Alignment guides

Pin spacing and alignment tabs help with positioning the boot for closing the pins on. Alignment tabs help position the boot fore and aft; when the front of the boot butts up against the tabs the boot is positioned longitudinally. The closer the pins are when open, the easier it is to adjust the angle of the boot so it is perpendicular to a line connecting the pins when you step down.

Dynafit’s Radical toe, v1.0, currently known as the Speed Radical toe.

Marker’s Kingpin (and unproven Alpinist) and Dynafit toes with the “power towers” (Radical 1.0, Rotation, etc.) are not far behind. The Salomon binding (manufactured by Plum) has a really strong spring with a slow closure rate, but their wide alignment bar helps keep the boot steady when stepping in. After that you have a plethora of classic Dynafiddle toes, ones that require you to learn how to put a pin in one insert and then skillfully rotate your boot down till it connects with the other side. It’s not an insurmountable skill to acquire, but you will occasionally still have moments of frustration when your step-in fiddle feels out of tune. Of these legacy style toes, the OMG toe requires the greatest “fiddling” proficiency.

There are bound to be many new developments in tech toes after the publication of this article. Use the criteria above when determining what toe to use for building your own DIY TTS binding, and ask around.

Relative Performance Comparison (circa 2017)

[Note: Fritschi’s Vipec toe is not included in the list above for at least two reasons. First, the pins can and will slide laterally without opening. They’re designed to do that to work with a heel that does not rotate, yielding lateral release at the toe like the majority of alpine bindings. Secondly, the release tension comes from a spring behind the pins inside the toe housing that extends back to where currently available cable systems would connect. Another contender for a PhD in telenurd absurdity.
Dynafit’s Radical 2.0 toe is not included because it allows for rotational movement of the heel. Cursory analysis suggests this will yield poor lateral control while telemarking.
The toes with “estimated” retention force were not measured by Lou Dawson, but are estimated by the author based on field tests. ]

“Safety” Release

Amer Sports tech toe, as either the Atomic Backland or Salomon MTN PIN.

The Plum Yak toe.

TTS Configuration

There are other considerations to the toe besides holding power and ease of entry. There is also ease of configuration or assembly. For that, you need to consider the height of the pins above the ski and the cable system you’re matching with the toe, the subject of the next post in this series on DIY telemark tech bindings.

Related Posts:
The State of 2-pin Telemark Bindings

© 2017
 

Before venturing any further in chronicling tele-tech bindings, it is important to understand the forces at play in a telemark turn. For the average telemarker, this article fits in the too much information category but for do-it-yourselfers, this should prove helpful in determining the critical sweet spot of the cable pivot position.

Activity

The key to control with the telemark turn is balance. Balancing between your two feet when dipping the knee is made easier with a spring tensioned cable attached to the boot. How much that helps, or doesn’t, is commonly referred to as binding ‘activity.’ Charlie Ziskin, a Colorado Front Range tele guru with decades of experience defines activity as “the ability of the binding to ‘actively’ help break the bellows of the boot, so you’re feeling pressure through the ball of the foot, not the tip of your toes.”

The effect of cable tension is a binding that actively helps to flex a plastic tele boot.

Cable bindings help break the bellows of the boot by providing a force to balance against. One of the results is increased tip pressure on skis; usually an advantage on hard snow and, without an adjustment to your tele stance, a potential liability in deep pow.

Regardless of whether more or less activity is desired, more active bindings have cable pivots that are further back than neutral bindings, with stiffer springs adding more force to the equation.

Vector Modeling

To understand what is going on, it helps to create a simple model of the components. When you sketch it out, the cable can be represented as a vector with a direction and force that resists the act of lifting the heel of your boot. The more you lift the boot and compress the spring, the more force is created, which augments flexing the rear boot in a tele turn. Looking at it this way, it is easy to see how the cable position and spring rate affect the perceived ‘activity’ of the binding.

Comparing cable positions and angles for Voile’s Switchback (red) and 22 Designs’ Axl (blue).

Consider 22 Designs Axl and Voile Switchback as examples. The reputation for these two bindings are at opposite ends of the activity spectrum, with the Switchback being a ‘neutral’ cable binding and Axl, the free-pivot descendant of the Hammerhead, the epitome of adjustability and the benchmark of comparison for tele power. In the case of DIY 2-pin tele bindings, the potential for even more adjustability and/or activity exists but there are practical limits.

If you take a snapshot of the cable position from the side, the angle of the cable defines the direction of a vector with a resistance to change determined by the stiffness of the spring; the stiffer the spring, the stronger, bigger, longer the vector.

Resistance to heel lift can be determined with a lil’ trigonometry by splitting the vector representing the spring force of the cable into vertical and horizontal components. Analyzed this way it is easy to see why the Switchback is more neutral than an Axl in position 3 (or 2 or 1). For an equal spring rate, the percentage of resistance felt with Axl #3 (HH #5) is higher than for a Switchback.

The steeper the angle, the larger the vertical component of force—resistance to heel lift—
otherwise known as activity. (Angles shown are simple examples, not measured values)

Angular rate of change

The tension starts out small but grows as the boot is lifted. The increase in force is because the spring is being compressed, but the rate at which it increases is due to the angle of the cable based on the pivot location and boot connection point. As the boot is rotating through a fairly large radius, defined by the length of the boot, the cable is rotating through a smaller circle which causes the rate of angular change to be much faster than the boot angle. Therefore, not only is the vertical component of the spring tension higher for any given boot angle, but it grows more rapidly the further behind pin line the cable pivot point is. This translates into faster engagement and higher activity.

Comparing the rate of angular increase.
For approximately 20° of heel lift, the Switchback cable changes 21°, Axl 25°.

Up/Down, Fore/Aft

In the world of DIY TTS systems it then becomes easy to conceptualize where to put the cable pivot, and how that location is affected by its horizontal and vertical position relative to the toe pins. The further back and below the pins, the stronger the vertical component will be. According to Pierre Mouyade, Meidjo’s inventor, “2mm of horizontal change is like 1mm of vertical.” That may not be a totally accurate formula, but it’s a good rule of thumb.

The reality is, for any given toe there is more latitude to adjust horizontal than vertical position. Tech toes that are higher, like G3′s Ion, inherently offer more vertical adjustment which mandates some sort of shimming at the cable block. Alternatively, if you want to increase vertical adjustability with a low tech toe (classic Dynafit), you will need to shim not only the cable block but the toe unit as well.

In other episodes of these 2-pin Tele Chronicles we recommend mounting positions for the cable, some examples, and other considerations.

Related Posts
DIY 2-pin Tele Chronicles: State of the Art
DIY 2-pin Tele Chronicles: Picking your toes

© 2017

Size matters. J Nicol checks to see if they measure up.

Cable Rod limits

Homebrewed cable rod connection for DIY TTS.

OMG. If you have a small foot, and want an aggressive pivot, plan to shorten or add threads to the short cable rods and make sure the yoke is the short version. If you want lots of spring travel too (with small feet), go with Kreuzspitze. This is pretty much the same system as Voile or OMG except the springs are universally longer so you can flex further before limiting out. The difference in travel distance is only millimeters, but that translates to extra degrees of forward rotation.

The OMG system has fewer miles on it so I took the time to map out what combinations of short and long cable rods work with Voile’s standard and long springs for each boot size. As the tables below show, for a 60 mm pivot you can fit small to large boots (mondo 22 – 28, BSL: 275-310) with a small cable rod. For size 28.5 and larger, you need the large cable.

In the tables below green cells mean the specific combination of cable rod and spring for each column will fit that size boot for the pivot location of each table; red is outside the cable size range, while orange is on the edge but might work.

Cable/boot compatibility for 49mm pivot, 20mm heel post:

49mm Pivot	Short Rod/Std Spg	Short Rod/Long Spg	Long Rod/Std Spg	Long Rod/Long Spg
Cable Length	220-245mm	240-265mm	245-290mm	265-310mm
298.8 mm	30-30.5	30-30.5	30-30.5	30-30.5
286.3 mm	29.5-30	29.5-30	29.5-30	29.5-30
278.6 mm	28.5-29	28.5-29	28.5-29	28.5-29
269.9 mm	27.5-28	27.5-28	27.5-28	27.5-28
261.3 mm	26.5-27	26.5-27	26.5-27	26.5-27
253.7 mm	25.5-26	25.5-26	25.5-26	25.5-26
245.7 mm	24.5-25	24.5-25	24.5-25	24.5-25
238.1 mm	23.5-24	23.5-24	23.5-24	23.5-24
230.5 mm	22.5-23	22.5-23	22.5-23	22.5-23

Cable/boot compatibility for 61mm pivot, 20mm heel post:

61mm Pivot	Short Rod/Std Spg	Short Rod/Long Spg	Long Rod/Std Spg	Long Rod/Long Spg
Cable Length	220-245mm	240-265mm	245-290mm	265-310mm
287.2 mm	30-30.5	30-30.5	30-30.5	30-30.5
274.7 mm	29.5-30	29.5-30	29.5-30	29.5-30
267.0 mm	28.5-29	28.5-29	28.5-29	28.5-29
258.4 mm	27.5-28	27.5-28	27.5-28	27.5-28
249.8 mm	26.5-27	26.5-27	26.5-27	26.5-27
242.2 mm	25.5-26	25.5-26	25.5-26	25.5-26
234.3 mm	24.5-25	24.5-25	24.5-25	24.5-25
226.8 mm	23.5-24	23.5-24	23.5-24	23.5-24
219.2 mm	22.5-23	22.5-23	22.5-23	22.5-23

Cable/boot compatibility for 73mm pivot, 20mm heel post:

73mm Pivot	Short Rod/Std Spg	Short Rod/Long Spg	Long Rod/Std Spg	Long Rod/Long Spg
Cable Length	220-245mm	240-265mm	245-290mm	265-310mm
275.7 mm	30-30.5	30-30.5	30-30.5	30-30.5
263.2 mm	29.5-30	29.5-30	29.5-30	29.5-30
255.6 mm	28.5-29	28.5-29	28.5-29	28.5-29
247.0 mm	27.5-28	27.5-28	27.5-28	27.5-28
238.6 mm	26.5-27	26.5-27	26.5-27	26.5-27
230.9 mm	25.5-26	25.5-26	25.5-26	25.5-26
223.0 mm	24.5-25	24.5-25	24.5-25	24.5-25
215.5mm	23.5-24	23.5-24	23.5-24	23.5-24
208 mm	22.5-23	22.5-23	22.5-23	22.5-23

Cable/boot compatibility for 85mm pivot, 20mm heel post:

85mm Pivot	Short Rod/Std Spg	Short Rod/Long Spg	Long Rod/Std Spg	Long Rod/Long Spg
Cable Length	220-245mm	240-265mm	245-290mm	265-310mm
264.2 mm	30-30.5	30-30.5	30-30.5	30-30.5
251.7 mm	29.5-30	29.5-30	29.5-30	29.5-30
244.1 mm	28.5-29	28.5-29	28.5-29	28.5-29
235.6 mm	27.5-28	27.5-28	27.5-28	27.5-28
227.1 mm	26.5-27	26.5-27	26.5-27	26.5-27
219.6 mm	25.5-26	25.5-26	25.5-26	25.5-26
211.7 mm	24.5-25	24.5-25	24.5-25	24.5-25
204.3 mm	23.5-24	23.5-24	23.5-24	23.5-24
196.8 mm	22.5-23	22.5-23	22.5-23	22.5-23

The tables above only determine whether the cable/spring combo will fit the boot for a “standard” height tech toe, meaning pins 27 mm above the ski deck with a heel post 20 mm high. Notice that small boots only work for pivot positions forward of 65mm with short cable rods. If you use a higher toe (G3′s Ion) and subsequent heel post, even fewer small boots will work unless you shim the cable post from below.

Even though the OMG short cable rods have 45mm of thread on the ends (1¾”), the spring cartridges will hit the bend in the rod at around 25mm (1″) of thread depth. That’s why the short rod cable assemblies only show 25mm of adjustment range in the tables above. Nonetheless, for average sized feet, the short rod with either spring should fit fine for most pivot locations.

Springs: Size matters

In practice the factor making a TTS binding fun to ski is how far you can lift your heel before the springs limit out. In general it is easy to show that you get more range of motion with a forward pivot and/or a spring with more travel distance, which is typically a third to a quarter of the total length.

It doesn’t take long to realize springs for a 2-pin tele system need a larger compression range, particularly for stiffer springs, than are available from Voile’s springs built for 75mm bindings. This is more true for guys with boots larger than 28.5 that want a stiff spring. You can figure this out yourself by solving for the intersection of two circles using quadratic equations, or sketching it out with an accurately scaled graph and a compass.

Determining the limit of heel lift by drawing the intersection of two circles; the radius of the heel throw about the toe pins, and the radius of the stretched cable where the spring is limiting out.

If you take the time to calculate it you will find that for stock 75mm springs, with a travel distance of approximately 35mm, you will feel the spring begin to limit out in the range of 30° to 39° depending primarily on the pivot location. Further forward yields a 39° limit, and an aggressive pivot further back only 30°. You can add a degree of mobility for smaller feet, or subtract with larger.

Increase the spring travel distance 10mm (~⅜”) and the range improves almost 10°, from 30°–39° for an inch of compression (1″=24.5mm), to 37°–50° for 1½” (~35mm). Again, a higher range of motion before limiting out the further forward the cable pivot is and the smaller the boot, or less as the pivot moves back and boots get longer.

Estimated boot range of motion with standard and long springs.

Spring TD	Std: 25mm (solid @ 35mm)		Long: 35 mm (solid @ 45mm)
Pivot	sz 24 (BSL:275)	Sz 30 (BSL:333)	sz 24 (BSL:275)	Sz 30 (BSL:333)
47 mm	39.4°	38°	49.7°	48.5°
85 mm	30.9°	30°	37.7°	37°

The angles computed above are not the limit to your leg range of motion. First, there’s another 10mm of spring compression available, which should allow another 10° of rotation. Plus you can add in the flexibility of the bellows and cuff to increase leg mobility another 35°–40°. Depending on how deep you go, that may be enough. I used compression values less than the max because the spring compression forces change exponentially as you approach max compression, and non-linear when they go solid. You might experience more range of motion than my numbers indicate, but only for brief moments, like in a crash or a deep knee tele bounce.

Response from those who have tried the longer springs is they provide enough range of motion, but they’re too soft. One person I know combined the soft feel with an aggressive pivot and they like the sensation. For reference they like Switchbacks.

Compression travel distance for Voile/OMG/Kruezspitze springs

Mfg		Soft	Medium	Stiff
OMG / Voile		45mm	39mm	35mm
Kreuzspitze		48mm	42mm	37mm
G3		35	33	30

Compression travel distance for 22D Axl springs

An early prototype of an Axl based 2-pin tele binding.

Mfg	Axl Long	Axl Stiffy	Axl Std
22D	65mm (2.57″)	64mm (2.53″)	50mm (1.99″)

To be more useful/acceptable to a larger number of tele skiers the entire cable system needs to be engineered from scratch, not using conveniently available cable systems developed for side-routed 75mm bindings (Voile, Targa, Cobra, etc.). One consequence of longer springs will be additional weight.

Heel Lever

Voile – GOOD	OMG – BETTER	Bishop – BEST

The final component you need to pay attention to in the cable assembly is the heel throw (or lever). Most are designed to work in the heel groove of a 75mm boot. This groove is absent on NTN boots, forcing the lever to be up on the heel step. The net result is many heel levers designed for 75mm boots don’t close with a resounding snap on the heel step. It might hold and it might not. At some point it’s bound to fall off unexpectedly. And it feels sloppy so the the springs engage unevenly.

The good news is the heel lever for OMG cables works beautifully. In fact, there’s only one heel throw I’ve tested that snaps on tighter; a Bishop heel lever. The Voile black heel lever works well, but it doesn’t snap as snug as the OMG. Same for a Cobra heel lever, if you can find one. G3 Targa levers do not work well, nor do the Voile heel levers prior to 2014 (grey). It doesn’t hurt to be creative; Nviglio found a BD crampon heel lever worked well. To work properly the heel lever needs to be over center when snapped onto the heel.

Shimming

Shimming may be required for the cable block, or the toe, or the heel, depending on how much ramp angle you like. Do you like your foot level when you’re standing on your heels, or do you prefer your heel raised above the toe and if so, by how much? The answer to that question will determine how much you may need to shim underneath the bellow of the boot so it doesn’t sag when standing flat. Whether you shim above or below the cable block depends on how active you want the binding to be.

Remember, one millimeter down is like two back. If you want to increase activity, shim above the cable block. To reduce activity, shim beneath. This is another way you can fine tune the power delivered in the cable in combination with selecting a stiffer or softer spring. You can shim the toe, the cable post, and heel post up or down to achieve the final desired effect. The higher the pins on the toe, the more shimming you can expect to create. For instance with a G3 Ion toe you will need to shim the cable post at least 10mm to prevent the boot bending when standing flat, probably more depending on your ramp angle.

Conclusion

As you’ve realized, embarking on a DIY telemark binding project is not trival. However, building your own 2-pin telemark binding IS possible, and if you plan it well, the results will be satisfying, especially for the turn earners among you. For this sort of system to gain larger acceptance it is clear that the cable assembly, from the adjustability of the pivot location to the range of motion and tension allowed by the springs needs a serious overhaul. But for those who don’t mind tinkering, the future is here today.

As an example, consider what one intrepid engineer put together.

Jason Quinata’s POLR binding.

Granted, this is the same engineer that gave us Flick-Lock^® adjustable ski poles, so this is not an example of amateur hour, but a pro using his passion to build a 2-pin tele trap. However, the tools exist for you to do likewise.

Related Posts
2-pin Tele Chronicles: State of the Art
2-pin Tele Chronicles: Picking your toes
2-pin Tele Chronicles: Use the Force Luke
2-pin Tele Chronicles: Cobbling the Cable
Calculate the intersection of two circles

© 2017

---

Odds are that if you’re a decent telemark skier, you will love Scarpa’s TX-Pro (2017). The reasons are simple, and with a little investigation and analysis, obvious. The TX-Pro simply nails the peak of the bell curve of what the majority of tele skiers want: a boot that is big enough to deliver plenty of power, but isn’t excessively stiff AND, best of all, has the ability to fit a wide range of foot sizes and shapes thanks to Scarpa’s trademark instep buckle.

Men’s and Women’s TX-Pro

Downhill Chops

It IS powerful enough to drive fat skis and hold an edge well, even when the snow is firm. To put some boundaries on that, say up to 105-110mm at the waist. YMMV. Yet the TX-Pro isn’t so stiff that it will overdrive the tips of your skis if you’re ripping pow or slashing crud. For the majority of skiers, it has a good balance between the flex of the bellows, which is on the soft side compared to Crispi, and cuff flex through the ankle. Those who are migrating from a T1 are likely to think the bellows is too soft, but you’re thinking in duckbill terms. The flex you feel is still a combination of the boot and binding, but the mechanics are different without the duckbill. The main difference is that the binding can have a stronger influence on the tele sensation, whereas with 75mm the flex of the bellows dominates.

Tour Mode

In tour mode the Pro has average cuff mobility. If you’re going up a decent incline on the skin track you’ll barely notice the limit on the back of your calf. On the flats, you’ll feel it. It may not be state of the art in the world of touring mobility, but stop whining about it already, it’s not that bad.

With 15° rear mobility TX-Pro doesn’t set any records, but it’s better than nada.

Fit

In terms of fit the last is rated at 102mm, which is plenty of width for most feet. Those with narrow feet might even argue it yields a sloppy fit, but that’s based on boots without an instep buckle. The genius of Scarpa’s design is the instep buckle that pulls your heel back into the pocket to give it a solid connection to sole of the boot at its foundation. Combined with a customizable Intuition liner the Scarpa last is legendary for allowing a wide range of feet to fit comfortably and with solid performance, from low to above average volume, in uphill and downhill modes. Those with high volume feet, not only wide but high at the instep as well, you still might get a good fit, but you’ll likely need the help of an savvy bootfitter telemark experience.

Bottom line

It’s a great boot for a full day at the resort in every condition imaginable. For the few who disagree, either you want something stiffer or you’re outside the curve and, for the time being, out of luck. For the rest, step in, buckle up, and prepare to smile.

Scarpa
TX-Pro
MSRP: $700
Weight/boot: (mondo 27.0) 3 lbs., 13 oz. (1750g) • (mondo 25.0) 3 lbs., 8 oz. (1585g)
Size Range: 24.5 – 30.0 (M), 22.5 – 27.0 (W)

Related Posts
Review: Scarpa TX-Pro (2013)

© 2017

Mammoth Mountain.

A flurry of emails were sent and in short order a quick posse of tele testers was assembled, including B, E, and Mr. and Mrs. Toad, although she excused herself from the testing since her boots were too small to fit the Kingpins. At our disposal were two pair of recently updated Meidjos (S/N 302 and 303) and two pair of Outlaws. The small Meidjo’s were on on G3 Carbon Zenoxides (ver 2015), the large on a pair of 180cm K2 Shreditors (112mm). A pair of large Outlaw’s were on Moment Exit World (115mm), and a pair of smalls on 180cm Blizzard Kabookies (98mm).

Getting In

EYT test crews: B, J, K, and E.

The Meidjo did require more coordination to get in to the toe pins, but I noticed that neither man had much issue with it – one quick demonstration was all it took to get a sense of mastery. Meanwhile, I noticed Mrs. Toad was resetting her toes a third time while fiddling with her Dynafit Radicals.

Getting Down

As for downhill performance, both B and E gave the nod to Meidjo, but they both felt that was more a reflection on the ski than in differences with binding performance. As background, B has a pair of TTS bindings and Rottefella Freerides on Cham 107s. E has Freedom’s on both pair of skis he brought with him from Vegas.

B said the Outlaw felt more “hingy.” When pressed to explain what he meant he noticed that the Outlaw caused his Crispi boot to compress more on the back bellows than the front, and more so as his heel was raised higher. I think the fact that Outlaw forced the bellows to collapse more than Meidjo is a testament to it having a higher spring tension. However, the sensation of activity, or differences in the tension perceived is largely determined during the initiation of a tele turn. In the case of NTN bindings, pre-tension appears to have a greater influence, allowing full tension to be experienced immediately. Again, this depends to a large degree on the cable pivot location, the origin of the vector of tension we tele by.

In my experience the Outlaw is clearly more active, thanks to a higher spring rate, but the effective pivot location is 53mm behind the tech inserts, which is further forward than the Meidjo. Contrarily, the M has a softer spring rate, but a cable pivot 60mm back. The net effect is they both engage fast, so they impart balance and confidence in a zone known for the lack of it. This is one of the potential benefits of NTN that was not evident with the Freeride, but is with the Freedom. As for overall tension comparisons, B and E both agreed, Meidjo was very similar to Freedom in terms of downhill feel. Thus, Meidjo felt strong initially, Outlaw stronger inevitably, but the Meidjo was preferred for being slightly less active. There was also an undeniable contribution from the skis.

Without question the Shreditor slayed the Moment Exit World in terms of likeable performance. Overall the Exit World is 184cm long, but with an aggressively rockered tip and tail it acts like 164cm and what is worth liking about a short fat plug of a ski? Ideally the bindings would have been mounted on each person’s favorite ski. Instead, we used what reality offered. Thus, the Shreditor enhanced the Meidjo’s performance while the Moment tarnished the Outlaw’s. In other words, it wasn’t an apples to apples comparison.

Summary

Functionally it appears that, except for brakes and optional crampons the Meidjo and Outlaw are performing as promised. What remains unknown is the long term durability of the plastic portions of both bindings, and for that, we’ll all just have to wait another year and hope a few more guinea pigs are willing to break trail and find the fractures.

© 2015