Meidjo NTN 2.0 review/warning

This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web. We have fun here, come on in and be a part of it.
User avatar
dnt_upton

Rank: XCD Pinhead
XCD Pinhead
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 10:00 pm
Location: Drink Moxie

Re: Meidjo NTN 2.0 review/warning

Postby dnt_upton » Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:24 pm

Harris wrote:The Meidjo definitely is the best skiing NTN I've used as well, but he needs to burl up the pin part of the binding at least to the level of a Dynafit Radical, and then make the entire base plate a single aluminum piece instead of that separate formed stainless piece that anchors the bale. I think that would make the binding untouchable.

But what does that mean from the person who just rekindled his love for 75mm bindings (minus the lack of step-in function -- though you might consider Burnt Mtn 75mm Spike binding for that)?

Bishop recently revealed its new binding and one of its responses as to why it stayed with the heel attachment is that, in Bishop's view, the heel attachment brings a more progressive and natural feel to the motion. Although I've only demo'd some NTN bindings, I guess I agree with that. That is, except for those who ski tall, the stiffness of NTN makes it less smooth and the progression to resistance is very abrupt. So, is Meidjo smooth to the bottom of the turn or is it just smoother to a deeper point compared to other NTN options but still smooth to the bottom of the turn (of a moderate to low knee skier)?

drflax

Rank: XCD Enthusiast
XCD Enthusiast
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 11:58 am

Re: Meidjo NTN 2.0 review/warning

Postby drflax » Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:32 pm

I found the progression to resistance to be very smooth. I could not ski the other NTN bindings because the resistance was so stiff. It felt to me like they were nearly pulling my leg back as I got deeper into the flexion. I learned tele 40 years ago when we had to bend very deep due to the flexibility of the leather boots and the straight, narrow skis. With the new skis and the NTN technology, I don't have to go as deep. There is a limit to how deep I am able to go with the Meidjo binding, deeper than the others I demo'd. I have not tried the Bishop.

Nick BC

Rank: XCD Enthusiast
XCD Enthusiast
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 10:04 pm

Re: Meidjo NTN 2.0 review/warning

Postby Nick BC » Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:01 pm

I find the Meidjo has the best even flex through the turn, as well as bomber lateral stability. It requires no effort, whatsoever, to weight the rear ski in my opinion. I toured on my mine last Saturday and got a bit of snow build up under the boot, but it was easy to clear out with a poke with my pole. Again, the climbing bars worked fine with no collapsing problem, which some folks have had. Perhaps, my weight has something to do with it as I'm only 143 lbs. These were the 1.2 version. I'm looking forward to touring on my 2.0 version, which are mounted on wider skis (Salomon QST 99) on my trip to the Kootenays in a few days. Hopefully, the climbing bars will stay up on these too.

Harris

Rank: XCD Pinhead
XCD Pinhead
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: Meidjo NTN 2.0 review/warning

Postby Harris » Tue Jan 31, 2017 3:26 am

dnt_upton wrote:
Harris wrote:The Meidjo definitely is the best skiing NTN I've used as well, but he needs to burl up the pin part of the binding at least to the level of a Dynafit Radical, and then make the entire base plate a single aluminum piece instead of that separate formed stainless piece that anchors the bale. I think that would make the binding untouchable.

But what does that mean from the person who just rekindled his love for 75mm bindings (minus the lack of step-in function -- though you might consider Burnt Mtn 75mm Spike binding for that)?

Bishop recently revealed its new binding and one of its responses as to why it stayed with the heel attachment is that, in Bishop's view, the heel attachment brings a more progressive and natural feel to the motion. Although I've only demo'd some NTN bindings, I guess I agree with that. That is, except for those who ski tall, the stiffness of NTN makes it less smooth and the progression to resistance is very abrupt. So, is Meidjo smooth to the bottom of the turn or is it just smoother to a deeper point compared to other NTN options but still smooth to the bottom of the turn (of a moderate to low knee skier)?


Like the others state, the Meidjo does feel more like a 75mm progression than the other NTN bindings I've used, and the Outlaws to me seem halfway between the Rotts and the Meidjo, and the Meidjo sits down on the top sheet more, which I could definitely feel and liked, and it also allows a bit more flex forward than the other bindings (but it is still limited, drflax is spot on in his assessment, and overflexing without allowing the leg to get pulled back it is what I think opened the pin springs and caused the spring bale attach point to rip out), but had it not been for the afore mentioned absurdly quick mechanical failing using them aggressively in steep technical terrain (a bumped out double black chute) I would have stuck with it because it is so much better to ski than my Rotts were, but now going back to the duckbill and active cables I prefer the way it/they ski. Obviously it is a matter of taste, but the lateral stiffness of the NTN design might seem like a logical plus on paper, but the duckbill feels more natural in that it allows the knee to move outside the ski rather that strictly and directly above it. NTN no matter the version likes to be steered with a more delicate touch via toes; whereas duckbills with the BOF and knee, which seems much more forgiving. But obviously both can work well on the right feet. I'd say I skied NTN very well, but I ski duckbills more freely, confidently, with more variety of depth and biasing, and even IMO more stylishly. Definitely. As for the step in, as much as I have spent on bindings now I'm willing to deal with the heel latching. And I think a lot of the lack of lateral stiffness I'm liking, which is strictly felt only outward at the bellows with my setup, would be lost using the new Bishops because they don't use cables and dual independent springs. It looks to me that the new Bishops are designed to make a duckbill ski like an NTN. Just a hunch.

User avatar
dnt_upton

Rank: XCD Pinhead
XCD Pinhead
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 10:00 pm
Location: Drink Moxie

Re: Meidjo NTN 2.0 review/warning

Postby dnt_upton » Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:15 pm

All good feedback, thanks.

jmcnamara

Rank: XCD Enthusiast
XCD Enthusiast
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:38 pm

Re: Meidjo NTN 2.0 review/warning

Postby jmcnamara » Sun Feb 25, 2018 4:40 pm

Exactly the same thing happened to me last week. The mounting plate bent and the 2 screws ripped out of my new Voile Supercharger. Supposedly the 2.1 version fixes this problem. My upgrade kit is on the way.

User avatar
colinstone

Rank: XCD Enthusiast
XCD Enthusiast
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:19 am

Re: Meidjo NTN 2.0 review/warning

Postby colinstone » Sun Mar 04, 2018 12:56 pm

All very interesting. I moved Rottefella Freedom last November and found that on both old skis, the rear screws had all disappeared. Have no idea when they fell out!
Telemark. The only reason to go down on one knee.

drflax

Rank: XCD Enthusiast
XCD Enthusiast
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 11:58 am

Re: Meidjo NTN 2.0 review/warning

Postby drflax » Sun Mar 04, 2018 8:16 pm

I don't see mention in the various comments of the advantage to having releasable bindings. Having sustained a fibular fracture in a freak twist of a ski by a chunk of ice on an easy & slow traverse, I'll never go back to cable bindings. I know I can't count on any of these bindings releasing every time I might wish they would. But, I'll take the odds of a releasable vs cable.


Return to “Telemark Talk Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest