Meidjo 3 NTN Telemark Binding Review The M Equipment

[Johnny]

As you all know, we were totally in love with the Meidjo 2.1 here at Telemark Talk. I never knew I would be so in love the M's, and now they got even better!

We Meidjo fans followed ISPO Munich very closely last winter where the Meidjo 3 and its new features were first unveiled. But at last, the final products arrived in America a few weeks ago! And just like the 2.1, the M3 is a masterpiece of engineering.

I could pretty much simply repeat all I have already said in my previous Meidjo review. I am just as over enthusiastic about the M3 as I was when I first held the older Meidjo in my hands. You know, you can read magazines, reviews, and some self-proclaimed experts semi-important opinions on FB and the intercraps, but seeing this marvel of engineering in reality is believing. "I couldn’t have been more wrong about it until I finally had one in my hands" said Bob recently about his new boots. I felt the same when I first held the Meidjo. So instead of just raving about the M for pages and pages, I think it's wiser for me to just focus on what is new.

First, a brand new tech toes design (See the 2.1 vs 3 picture above...) Well, for the neophyte it might look very similar, but it was totally redesigned by master Mouyade: "We have studied, recalculated and tested new kinematics to bring more precision when you step-in and more power when holding. Thus, the jaws close quickly and firmly. "

The result is a new toe with two bigger springs instead of the 4 smaller ones found on the 2.1. According to the french engineer, it increases the holding force of the shoe by 40%. But for me the most important update is in the step-in function. As you can see in the video below, you can now lock the binding easier without having to lift the spring box. This is REALLY cool!



Last but not least, The M Equipment chose to go green. Well, as green as possible. The flextor on the new design is made of Pebax Rnew, a recyclable polyamide material derived from castor oil. It has the advantage of being more flexible, while also being lighter and more resistant to cold winter conditions. The spring box itself is also made of Pebax for better impact resistance. I used to make jokes about ski gear being now gluten-free and organic, but in the case of the Meidjo, it's really true! It is made from 100% organic renewable raw materials!

And just to make things even greener, the whole packaging is now made from recyclable, unbleached kraft paper, using water-based ink (Yes, notice the autograph!)

Plus, this beauty is made in France and supported by a 3-year warranty. Really, what more can I say? If you are a devoted NTN skier, the Meidjo 3 might be the only binding you will ever need. No matter if you prefer the solitude of the backcountry and its waist-deep powder or the glory of carving groomers on the frontside.

Of course, there is not enough snow here yet for a full test... More to come...
GO MEIDJO!

[Montana St Alum]

I have a pair of the 3.0's mounted on some M-Free 108's. I'll get a few runs in today or tomorrow, just to see how they feel and report back.

So far, I can say that the toe piece clicks in with more "authority" with the new spring design.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Well, just got back from skiing them.

Here's another picture of the 2.1 with tabs to help position the boot, which I'm used to and like.
This picture is looking toward the front to make it easier to see the tabs.

The 3.0 does not have the tabs. Once you're used to getting in and out, they're probably not essential on either boot.

This is looking toward the back.

Like the 2.1, it's beautifully manufactured, and looks great. Very solid and the tech fittings engage much more firmly. With the 2.1, they just kind of move into position. On the 3.0, they move fast, like a mouse trap.

Supposedly, the ramp on the back is designed better to step in without raising the rear up, but they look exactly the same. They may, however, be reinforced.



They have new springs, so even backed off (to about 1.5) they're more active than my 2.1's (at about 4), but that's just a function of having new springs. I'm sure that if I took the springs (I use all 4 - 2 per side) from my older 2.1's and used them in the 3.0's I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

So, better engagement stepping in. No need to raise the heel (I don't on the 2.1's either and don't have issues. But I step down gently.).
No tabs to help position the front of the boot.
Ski the same, function the same.

This is the ramp on the back of the binding that allows you to step down to engage the DB:

And this, on the 2.1:

I've gotten to the point that I don't bother to raise the rear up on the 2.1 to engage the DB, but I have them set fairly neutral. I don't have to stomp down to engage, just put pressure on the back. But with the 3.0, I'm guessing it's reinforced enough that you could stomp down without worrying about damaging anything.

[peterindc]

Excited to see this just as I'm considering wider tele boards (20-30 cm wider than my Asnes Ingstads that is) to tour-and-climb for tele turns. This would be mostly in the East and Midwest, at places like Whitegrass in West Virginia, the Adirondacks and Whites, and Mount Bohemia in Michigan.

In your opinion does the Meidjo 3 binding immediately trump (if I may use that word) the Voile Switchback X2s that I was otherwise considering for their free pivot?

And what about boots — what is the widest NTN boot (I have hobbit feet so was going with the Scott Excursion) and/or lightest boot (comparably light to the AT world's Fischer Travers CS or new Dalbello Quantum let's say) that would work with the Meidjo?

[Montana St Alum]

And what about boots — what is the widest NTN boot (I have hobbit feet so was going with the Scott Excursion) and/or lightest boot (comparably light to the AT world's Fischer Travers CS or new Dalbello Quantum let's say) that would work with the Meidjo?

Boots would have to be NTN compliant. Aren't Scott Excursions 75mm?
I think any NTN boot is going to be close to 1700 grams, if that's important.
Scarpas run 102mm lasts, I believe.

The Quantum and Travers are both AT boots, so there's a bit of comparing apples to oranges here.
They wouldn't work with Meidjos and I doubt you'd find an NTN boot anywhere near as light as a dedicated light AT boot.

I think the important question is what's more important, power, or weight?
It sounds like it might be weight.
Ingstads are only 62mm wide, so even if you went up to 90mm wide, you could drive those with a 75mm boot and Switchbacks pretty well, (I'd think, with something like a 3 buckle T2 Eco) but it would be tougher mated to Excursions. It's a 2 buckle 75mm which isn't going to have much power, if I'm looking at the right boot.

[peterindc]

Boots would have to be NTN compliant. Aren't Scott Excursions 75mm?
I think any NTN boot is going to be close to 1700 grams, if that's important.
Scarpas run 102mm lasts, I believe.

Indeed, this is all looking at an upgrade from my current plan, to drive a mid-wide tele ski in mixed BC conditions with significant distance to vertical. Until now I've been thinking of 75mm Scott Excursions paired with Voile Switchback X2s on a lighter ski like an Asnes Tindan or Voile Objective. Admittedly those would rely more on tele technique than power to get down the hill. Have not adequately researched other tele skis yet.

The Quantum and Travers are both AT boots, so there's a bit of comparing apples to oranges here.
They wouldn't work with Meidjos and I doubt you'd find an NTN boot anywhere near as light as a dedicated light AT boot.

Interesting — I was just reaching for that comparison because I wondered whether ultralight boots like those AT ones had reached the NTN market yet, and you answered my question. Curious why not though. Are there greater forces involved, since when turning the boot is attached only at one point vs. two? Or maybe carbon boots are out of step cost-wise with most tele gear and customers. Or the size and newness of the market hasn't justified the R&D yet.

I think the important question is what's more important, power, or weight?
It sounds like it might be weight.
Ingstads are only 62mm wide, so even if you went up to 90mm wide, you could drive those with a 75mm boot and Switchbacks pretty well, (I'd think, with something like a 3 buckle T2 Eco) but it would be tougher mated to Excursions. It's a 2 buckle 75mm which isn't going to have much power, if I'm looking at the right boot.

I just had a bad experience in February touring the Wasatch on rented AT gear with boots that felt awfully bulky, heavy and narrow, coming from XC gear. Ever since I've been exploring tele gear that could access the same territory but be a lot lighter and offer more comfortable boots for all-day use (especially once a boot tech blows out the sides, I suppose). Not sure NTN would give me that feel, then, or maybe just not yet.

And you're right, the Excursion (previously Garmont, now Scott) is a 2-buckle plastic touring boot like the T4. If I stick with 75MM, I'll look at the 3-buckle T2 Eco you mentioned. And if I do go NTN, I'll look at Scarpa's NTN boots. Thanks for your thoughts!

EDIT: Or maybe the Crispi Shiver NTN has the comfort I'm looking for? Looks like still 1,600 gms/boot tho. Anyone know the last size on this? https://www.telemark-pyrenees.com/crispi-shiver-ntn

[Montana St Alum]

Interesting — I was just reaching for that comparison because I wondered whether ultralight boots like those AT ones had reached the NTN market yet, and you answered my question. Curious why not though. Are there greater forces involved, since when turning the boot is attached only at one point vs. two? Or maybe carbon boots are out of step cost-wise with most tele gear and customers. Or the size and newness of the market hasn't justified the R&D yet.

I expect it's as you say, money.

I think it's been years since Scarpa has done anything on the Tx, Pro or Comp other than change colors. And tech fittings on the Comp, or rear tech fittings? Fuhgeddaboudit!

AT is a pretty big money maker, comparatively, I think. Also, as you point out, I expect the ability to reduce weight on flexing components is more difficult because it's harder to incorporate easy stiffening fixes. So maybe not greater forces, but different.

At some point, I think Crispi came out with a boot using carbon, but I don't think it ever made it into production.

[Nick BC]

Scarpa has been working on a new boot and the internet rumours are that something may appear at ISPO early 2021.

Fortunately, I bought a pair of the Scarpa TX's (three buckle) three years or so ago, when I heard they were being discontinued. My TXPros now sit forlorn, because I love the softer feel and freedom of the TX's. I find touring with the TX's quite acceptable, with the the bottom buckle cinched and everything else loose. However, it doesn't match the range of motion of the AT boots, nor the lack of weight.

Hopefully, Scarpa will step up to the plate and give us a better ROM. It probably won't be crazy light, like some of the current AT boots, because of the shell requirements of a telemark boot with the flexing, but 2.5kg per pair would "float my boat" for sure with a modern buckling system like the best AT boots have.

I'm 78 and don't have a lot of years left skiing. However, if Scarpa comes through with a better boot I will buy a pair just to support the industry and pay it forward.

[Johnny]

I have a pair of the 3.0's mounted on some M-Free 108's. I'll get a few runs in today or tomorrow, just to see how they feel and report back.

Thank you for that nice report and pictures! I can't wait to compare them on the snow too!

EDIT: Or maybe the Crispi Shiver NTN has the comfort I'm looking for? Looks like still 1,600 gms/boot tho. Anyone know the last size on this?

The Shivers are really nice boots. On all the Crispi NTN boots I bought in the last 10 years, the lasts on the 27s were way too narrow and the lasts on the 28s were way too wide for me. But if they fit your feet, the Shivers would make a DREAM combo with the Ms!

In your opinion does the Meidjo 3 binding immediately trump (if I may use that word) the Voile Switchback X2s that I was otherwise considering for their free pivot?

The Switchback really was a killer binding... Some 15 years ago. Why pay 330$ for a pair of Switchbacks when the Meidjo offers a lot more at almost half the weight? Just saying...

405g Voile 3-Pin Cable (No holy grail characteristics)
444g Rottefella NNN-BC
460g M Equipment Meidjo (ALL the holy grail characteristics)
500g Voile 3-Pin Cable Traverse
530g Rottefella Super Telemark with Cable
645g Voile 3-Pin Hardwire
726g Voile Switchback X2