The Case for NTN Grows

September 7, 2015, 5:13 pm

≫ Next: Preview: Moonlight’s Tele Pure binding

≪ Previous: Mammoth shoot out: Outlaw VS Meidjo

NTN’s biggest advocate – Mitch Weber

As recently as 2013, the reasons to drop the duckbill for a duckbutt were significant, but mostly based on a personal requirement for releaseability. Not all pinheads agree that safety release is paramount, but neither are many of them claiming they might never want release. Few of the non-release advocates have actually lost ligaments in that gamble, while those who have demand it.

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.

Besides the Freeride, there is the Freedom, both from Rottefella. Freeride got the ball rolling and still offers the sort of control aggressive skiers demand. Complaints of cracking frames have faded since the last round of revisions (2013), and patrollers swear by them for how easy they are to get in and out of. Even though they won’t set any records for touring efficiency, they’re good enough for short shots and infinitely superior to cable bindings like the Cobra.

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

What ails the Freeride in the touring department, noticeable resistance and only 30° range of motion for touring, is cured with the Freedom. While there is still slight resistance in the touring mode, unless you’re breaking trail in fluff, it is barely perceptible and it delivers a full 55°+ ROM. Plus it has two heights of climbing post, not only one. It isn’t as active as the Freeride, but has a smoother, faster engagement. Many prefer the Freedom for that alone.

Burnt Mt. Designs NTN

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

Then there is Spike, the oft overlooked, easily adaptable binding from Burnt Mountain Designs. Spike provides plenty of downhill power, works with any NTN boot, and has five pivot positions to adjust the tele-resistançe. It has a frictionless tour mode but switching modes takes a bit of fiddling.

22 Designs NTN

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

The one many are looking forward too, 22 Designs Outlaw, an Axl power train on an NTN chassis, will provide power on par with the Freeride but with faster engagement and frictionless touring efficiency for a full 45°+ ROM. One thing you are sure to love is how dang easy these bindings are to get in to. Easier than most alpine bindings, even low DIN alpine bindings. However, getting out of them requires learning a new way to fiddle with your pole, but you’ll master it eventually. It has brakes, but no claims of safety release, although a few beta testers did experience it once or twice.

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.

Olympus Mountain Gear’s TTS will have a revised toe and a heel system that can hardly be beat for simplicity and mountaineering functionality. This binding requires a bellowed boot with tech fittings, which means a NTN boot. The simple addition of snow shedding tape on top of the cable block does an admirable job of preventing snow building up under your toes. For those who like high tele-resistançe, TTS delivers that in spades. If you prefer less cable tension, you’ll need to experiment to fine tune the cable position, but there is some evidence that 45mm behind the pins will detune the pogo stick factor enough. As with most tech based bindings, the 2-pin touring efficiency and lack of weight make the TTS undeniably appealing.

Moonlight Mountain Gear

Moonlight Mountain Gear’s prototype Tele Rando binding.

TTS won’t be the only kid on the block sporting tech teeth at the toe. Moonlight Mountain Gear will offer what is clearly a TTS copy, but with some variation in the cable system and the option to improve parallel performance, either with a Dynafit-style race heel, or a simpler, heel stabilizer to add lateral control when the heel is flat. The cable system comes from Voile and is easy to remove for skinning, or put back on to tele. A roofed spacer between the cable block and the toe does a superb job preventing snow buildup underfoot. As of this writing (sept’15), the cable pivot position is not adjustable.

7tm et al

7tm with a Tech toe. Why not?

I’ve seen a prototype of a 7tm tech binding, but don’t know if it will be available this season. It has the same heel strap and spring system as the 7tm, paired with a tech toe.

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.

The binding that has many tele ducks quacking about switching from a boot with a bill to one with a butt is Meidjo (pr: may’-zho), from The M-Equipment. Meidjo combines a 2-pin tech toe with NTN technology. A spring-loaded plate hooks on the NTN second heel with a smooth, medium stiff flex that engages right off the deck. It isn’t over powering, but there is no lag time when engaging the power available. It’s also releasable, and will offer brakes in November 2015. There are even plans to offer a tech heel for those who want to switch-hit between a free or locked heel.

NTN Boots

Scarpa’s TX-Pro w/tech inserts

When you look at the choices available for bindings you’re struck by the variety available, a clear indication that there is plenty of interest in the new telemark norm. Unfortunately, things don’t look so optimistic on the boot side of the system.

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.

The lack of choice and availability in the realm of NTN boots will be the biggest obstacle to growing the ranks of telemark skiers sliding on NTN gear. This is particularly poignant if you are interested in the possibilities presented with tech-style telemark bindings, for then your choices are limited to three models of boot, five if you count the women’s models separately. That also implies that for women, there is but one choice. Not exactly, but you get my drift.

Crispi Evo Rando
w/tech inserts.

When you consider the boot side of the equation, especially when you factor in what models can be tried on at your local shop, the choices boil down to Scarpa’s TX-Pro or TX-Comp. If you want tech inserts in the boot, you can chose between the men’s TX-Pro, or the women’s. Crispi has boots with tech inserts, but they are not readily available, or recommended.

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

While it is easy to lament the lack of choice with NTN boots, the reality is the boot designs available are clearly adaptions of the most popular 75mm tele boots. Which means, though limited, they address what 90% of telemark skiers are looking for in a boot.

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, ironically, lacking market endorsement. 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.

↧

Preview: Moonlight’s Tele Pure binding

September 16, 2015, 1:01 pm

≫ Next: Scarpa & Scott drop heel inserts on NTN boots

≪ Previous: The Case for NTN Grows

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

The inclusion of Dynafit-style 2-pin tech toes in a telemark binding, first pioneered as the Telemark Tech System is bringing a wave of enthusiasm and incremental development to the world of telemark bindings. A brief summary of the salient points of each binding made to work with NTN boots was detailed last week in the post The Case for NTN Grows.

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.

The tech toe is a completely new Moonlight design with a stronger, slightly taller chassis, stronger springs, and the toe pins utilize a new hardening treatment. As the drawing indicates, they may also be adjustable (not this year though), similar to how the Vipec works, and for the same reason – inconsistent dimensions on toe inserts. There is also a hole for securing a leash.

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.

Behind the toe, the cable assembly is built by Voile, with longer spring cartridges to allow for deeper telemark turns, even for skiers with mondo size 30 boots. A subtle side benefit is a smoother tele flex. The cable pivot position is approximately 56mm behind the toe pins, which yields a cable tension reminiscent of HH#3+.

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.

As expected, the one new item Moonlight brings to the table is a rerun of an old idea first used with cross country skis in the 70s, a heel stabilizer. Two prongs stand upright from the ski and fit into the slots of a tech heel insert to dramatically reduce lateral heel movement when the heel is on the ski. The original concept used the same forked shape, but used a post that was bolted to the back of a ski boot to be held laterally by the tuning fork prongs. This is just a cleaner implementation of the same concept, using the tech heel insert.

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

↧

Scarpa & Scott drop heel inserts on NTN boots

March 28, 2016, 3:20 am

≫ Next: Overview of next gen tele bindings

≪ Previous: Preview: Moonlight’s Tele Pure binding

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

Good tele skiers know there’s a time and a place for parallel turns and if it doesn’t add much extra weight, why not add that ability? Unfortunately it looks like lawyers are about to put the big kabosh on the final pieces of the “pink pony,” the Holy Grail of telemark systems with a binding that telemarks well, tours well, is lightweight, has a safety release, and when you want or need it, can even let you lock your heel. The ability to do all those things requires a system of compatible boots and bindings.

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!

This liability thing has been around for a long time but telemark equipment was free from the scourge of liablity, afterall, what isn’t clear about the trouble with skiing a non-releaseable binding? Telemarkers willingly take on that risk because they know they aren’t freeing the heel to be safer, they’re freeing it to be free’er, especially of things that bring lawyers out of the woodwork spoiling all our unsafe fun.

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.

In typical legal fashion, the bribe to settle out of court doesn’t really make the problem go away, it sets a precedent that leaves Scarpa — or any other boot maker with a tech-compatible boot that has the potential to slip out of locked heel mode while skiing — potentially liable for further out-of-court settlements. That meant all those NTN tele boots with tech fittings already out in the world were lawsuit seeds waiting to sprout.

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.

↧

Overview of next gen tele bindings

April 12, 2016, 8:24 am

≫ Next: The State of 2-pin Telemark Bindings

≪ Previous: Scarpa & Scott drop heel inserts on NTN boots

DIY tele tech bindings are thriving.

I was really hoping to end this season with a set (or two if they skied similarly) of bindings that I could go into next season with and be confident I had a good setup. I’m pretty close, but I need more time on these setups to have more confidence. And I don’t have two similar setups, so I will have to make some changes.

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

A negative ramp angle on the toe helps with faster turn initiation and bellows flex.

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

This is a funny one. There is nothing wrong with these bindings, yet I still don’t feel like they are what I want to use everyday. They are my backups right now.

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.

Components: Dynafit Comfort tech toe, Voile Switchback springs, OMG Cable Rod & Block, Voile heel lever.

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.

Mounted with a standard Ion toe and shim, 12mm shim under the OMG-TTS cable block with long screws, and a Hammerheel with an aluminum stabilizing prong (a Moonlight idea). I haven’t spent much time on the final version of this setup yet, but the days I have spent have been testing hard and pushing outside of the normal limits. I am expecting this setup to be the winner.

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

↧

The State of 2-pin Telemark Bindings

February 8, 2018, 2:12 am

≫ Next: Picking a 2-pin tech toe for telemarking

≪ Previous: Overview of next gen tele bindings

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. The only thing you lift is your heel, not a binding.

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

There are two advantages inherent with the tech toe. Not only is it lighter weight overall, it is unquestionably the most efficient too. When you skin with 2-pins, you only lift your boot. With all other free pivot bindings you’re also lifting part of the binding — some more than others.

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.

Change the connection from the real heel to the NTN second heel and the results are, arguably, even better. Those who have adopted Meidjo, the first 2-pin NTN binding, consistently report the engagement is faster, thanks to the lateral stiffness of the tech pins, and smoother because the tele tension is connected mid-sole reducing pressure at the ski tips.

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.

In case you wondered who else believes in tech for tele consider three from across the Atlantic: the M-Equipment in France, mythical Moonlight from Norway, and Italy’s Kreuzspitze, not to mention 22 Design’s recently announced Lynx. Add to that an untold number of garage-band do-it-yourselfers. Since imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery there are a lot of people who admire TTS for its lightweight, simplicity, and control.

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.

The overriding appeal of the TTS system is simplicity and light weight. If you like earning your tele turns a TTS rig of some sort is in your future.

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.

↧

Picking a 2-pin tech toe for telemarking

February 15, 2018, 2:00 am

≫ Next: DIY 2-pin Tele: Use the Force (Luke)!

≪ Previous: The State of 2-pin Telemark Bindings

OMG’s telemark tech toe.

When selecting a tech-toe for a tele tech binding keep in mind that they were not designed for the stresses of telemarking, they were designed for use in a locked-heel alpine system. In an AT binding the pins only provide side-to-side clamping power, there is no forward pressure. With tele there is also forward pressure on the rear half of the pins from the tele cable tension. This forward pressure means the pins cannot open up without overcoming the friction it creates. The long term effects of this will probably mean the inserts will eventually wear through at their rear wall, hopefully not before you decide you need new boots.

Key Considerations

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

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

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

Lou Dawson did us all a huge favor when he independently measured the spring force in late 2015 on the following popular AT tech toes. I’ve stepped into most of these bindings and can say that the perceptible difference in clamping power between a G3 and Dynafit is hard to tell once you’re in and the pins are fully seated. It can be sensed by hand if you try to pry a boot off the pins by rotating the heel without any tension at the heel. Add forward pressure with a spring-loaded cable and everything changes. There are no independently conducted tests of the various tele permutations possible. In addition not all inserts are created equal either, which also affects the connection and/or releaseability.

Ease of Entry

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

Pin spacing when open
The fulcrum point of the pin “arms”
Spring rate (stiffness)
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.

The other thing that helps, given that the boot is properly aligned, is how quickly the pins close down on the inserts. The further apart they are, or the harder you need to push down to close the pins, the more likely you are to twist the boot as the pins close and miss one or both inserts. The faster the closure rate, the less time you have to wiggle the boot. That’s why G3’s Ion and Zed or Fritschi’s Vipec Evo are neck and neck as the easiest tech toes to get in to, but only the Ion/Zed is a realistic candidate as a telemark tech 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)

Manufacturer	Model	Relative Pin Force	Relative Ease of Entry
Yak	Plum	#1 (strongest)	4^th
Salomon	MTN PIN	#1 (est. tie)	3^rd
G3	Ion 12	#2	1^st (easiest)
Marker	Kingpin 13	#3	2^nd
The-M-Equip.	Meidjo	#4 (est.)	2^nd
Dynafit	Vertical	#5	4^th
Dynafit	Radical v1.0	#6	2^nd
OMG	TTS	#7 (est.)	5^th

[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.

Experienced telemarkers know that safety release does not guarantee satisfaction. Premature release is generally worse and the forces between boots and bindings while telemarking are pretty high when you’re in-control, significantly higher than alpine skiers when they’ve lost control. Thus strong springs are recommended, although experience has shown that almost any of these toes is sufficiently strong to hold when telemarking in control. It is when you’re on the fringes that things get less reliable. In that case, I suggest relying on luck, with a prayer of faith thrown in for good measure.

The Plum Yak toe.

When in doubt, lock ‘em out, meaning, you can increase retention force exponentially by blocking the arms from opening with the toe lever. This is standard procedure when skinning, but is often used on the downhill too, like when you absolutely don’t want to risk coming out — either because you know you might based on experience, or because you still don’t believe the pins can/will hold — usually the latter.

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.

Note: This article first appeared on Telemarkskier.com in July 2017. It is reprinted with permission. Some editorial changes have been added for clarity.

Related Posts:
The State of 2-pin Telemark Bindings

↧

DIY 2-pin Tele: Use the Force (Luke)!

March 24, 2018, 12:36 pm

≫ Next: 2-pin Tele Springs: Size Matters

≪ Previous: Picking a 2-pin tech toe for telemarking

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 forceâresistance to heel liftâotherwise known as activity. (Angles shown are simple examples, not measured values)

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
DIY 2-pin Tele Chronicles: Spring size matters

↧

2-pin Tele Springs: Size Matters

April 23, 2018, 11:30 am

≫ Next: Review: Scarpa’s TX-Pro (2017)

≪ Previous: DIY 2-pin Tele: Use the Force (Luke)!

Size matters. J Nicol checks to see if these springs measure up.

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

While the effect of cable pivot location tends to dominate the sensation of a tele tech binding, the next strongest binding component of the tele sensation comes from the springs used. To some extent you can trade one for the other; meaning a stiff spring and a forward pivot are somewhat equal to a soft spring with a pivot farther back. It’s not an exact replacement, but more importantly, the further back you put the pivot the longer spring you need so it doesn’t compress too far too fast. Therein lies the limit with a real heel 2-pin tele binding — springs that limit how deep you can tele. So let’s take a closer look at the cable rods, heel throws, and springs.

Cable Rod limits

Homebrewed cable rod connection for DIY TTS.

If you go with Voile springs and cable rods, or Kreuzspitze springs and rods, you will be able to fit any size boot but need a post to hook them on to, like Kreuzspitze or B&D. Voile’s sizing system of — long and short cable rods, plus long and short spring cartridges and long and short yokes for the heel lever, and heel levers — will fit pretty much any boot with a forward pivot (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 âstandardâ 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 (1Â¾”), 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 30Â° to 39Â° depending primarily on the pivot location. Further forward yields a 39Â° limit, and an aggressive pivot further back only 30Â°. You can add a degree of mobility for smaller feet, or subtract with larger.

Increase the spring travel distance 10mm (~â”) and the range improves almost 10Â°, from 30Â°â39Â° for an inch of compression (1″=24.5mm), to 37Â°â50Â° for 1Â½” (~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	39.4Â°	38Â°	49.7Â°	48.5Â°
85 mm	30.9Â°	30Â°	37.7Â°	37Â°

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 10Â° of rotation. Plus you can add in the flexibility of the bellows and cuff to increase leg mobility another 35Â°â40Â°. 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^Â® 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

↧

Review: Scarpa’s TX-Pro (2017)

November 20, 2018, 4:48 am

≪ Previous: 2-pin Tele Springs: Size Matters

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

If you don’t like the TX-Pro it is because you’re on the edges of the bell curve, not the middle. This could be with respect to whether you want a stiff or soft boot, or more practically, the shape of your foot. If you want extra stiff, TX-Pro simply isn’t; nor is it soft.

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 15Â° 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) â¢ (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)

↧