The 22 Designs Lynx in its component pieces, and dry assembled on the ski. The tech toe design, and climbing heel bails are a familiar riff; the innovation in the Lynx is in the combination of composite leaf spring plates, and coil springs. The plates provide the primary resistance, while the main function of the coil springs is to lock in the claw at the 2nd heel. Spacers for the coil springs allow for adjustment of claw tension.
Acquiring a taste for ski touring after nearly two decades on mountain bikes has decidedly influenced my perception of skiing. On one hand, I’m amazed by the terrain that I can access on skis in the winter. The freedom of exploration – not bound by a trail, able to choose any line your skill set can handle, floating over the brush, downed timber, and rocks that render these lines impractical any other time of the year is the alluring magic I look forward to when the snow starts to fly.
Juxtaposed against this freedom is the enormous fiddle factor required to switch between uphill and downhill modes. Even the most adroit of ski-mo transitions, honed by intentional practice, and enabled by a well-trained physique is an absolute gong show compared to the ease of simply pressing a dropper post trigger, or reaching for a lock out switch.
What if transitions could be reduced to something approximating the seamless efficiency of mountain biking? How much otherwise skiable terrain do we bypass for the fact that we cannot justify the time spent in transition? This is the thought that rolls around in my head on flat approaches to steeper terrain, as I cast a longing eye towards small, but inviting runs.
Recent hybrids of the tech binding with the free-heel concept point towards an alternative future for telemark. This season I put together a kit designed to maximize efficiency and unlock otherwise overlooked terrain: Voile Ultra Vector BC skis with 22 Designs Lynx bindings and Scarpa TX Pro boots. Here’s an overview of each piece.
Voile Ultra Vector BC Ski
Climbing pattern skis are the oddball child of cross country efficiency, and powder-fever touring. Researching this often-overlooked segment of skis reveals a fascinating array of contradictory feedback. Some users claim to ascend 20% slopes no problem. Detractors say they are barely good for 5%. Reading between the lines, it seems that snow conditions may have the biggest influence on the effectiveness of fish scale patterns. Sifting through varying reports, the Voile BC series consistently gets the highest praise for having the most effective climbing pattern, and the SuperCharger profile is well established as a Goldilocks ski with just the right balance of flotation, and edge carving.
Not the fish scales that you think. The Voile scale pattern works opposite of how I had expected when looking at online pictures. The “V” shape between the scallops generates climbing traction by forcing the snow to compact into a point.
The Fischer climbing pattern is almost the opposite of the Voile pattern. The fan shape of the Fischer pattern relies on the snow packing into a broad arch rather than the narrow, concentrated point of the Voile pattern. Hopefully the narrower pattern of the Voiles will translate into a significant improvement in climbing performance.
My current ski quiver ranges from wide, to wider; the Voile Ultra Vector BC in 177 cm, which specs out at 130 tip, 96 waist, 114 tail, with a radius of 19.5 meters will be the smallest ski I’ve ventured off piste with. In addition to gaining climbing and traversing efficiency by having a smaller, lighter ski, I am looking forward having a set of sticks that will make spring tours on firmer snow more appealing than the 120+ skis I rely on for prime powder conditions in the depth of winter.
Shop for the Voile Hyper Vector BC
22 Designs Lynx Binding
The 22 Designs Lynx is one of the most promising options of the tele tech contenders. A 2 pin toe design provides free-pivot touring, while a combination of composite plates over coil springs provides the necessary tele resistance. The composite plates act as leaf springs, providing the primary resistance, and have been beefed up for 2020 (0.115” v 0.1”). A plate and Slic Pin arrangement combined with 3 different pivot point locations provide adjustment for how stiff, or “active” the leaf spring engagement is.
A U-shaped groove in the bottom of the toe piece holds the cable & coil spring arrangement of the claw captive once mounted to the ski.
The coil springs below the composite plates are primarily to provide the necessary tension to lock the claw / 2nd heel into place, and provide a supplemental amount of tele resistances. Spacers for the coil springs are included to dial in the tension of the claw. Other reviewers have noted having to add spacers almost immediately to compensate for the springs taking a set with use. The 2020 springs are supposed to be stronger; I’ll hold off on adding spacers unless absolutely necessary in interest of optimizing traverses while in ski mode.
Accessing the touring mode is achieved by changing the position of the claw / 2nd heel just behind the ball of the foot. While it is possible to switch from tour to ski mode with boots on the skis, going from ski mode back to tour requires stepping out of the binding to flip the claw back down.
Stated weight is 1000 grams / 2.2 lbs, which has it nearly pound lighter than the Voile Switchback, and the Salomon Shift binding, but nearly 3 times as heavy as Dyna Fit Speed Radical at 365 grams.
Scarpa TX Pro
Like any good telemarker, I started my foray into the world of knee-dropping turns on used gear, cycling through second hand boots acquired for less than the cost of a day pass on the lifts. As I cast my eye towards the tele tech revolution, it became clear that a wholesale upgrade would be necessary to take advantage of the new dawning.
Scarpa TX Pros are the benchmark boots of the tele tech world, known for having a “just right” flex, and the advancements of a tech toe fittings paired with an NTN sole. Boasting 4 buckles, and a weight of 1750 grams, they are much more akin to burly freeride boots than svelte ski mo offerings. For as much as “freedom of movement” is associated as being the hallmark of the tele experience, the range of motion in walk mode is astonishingly limited at 22 degrees. Even the Maestrale XT, the cliff-huckingest boot of Scarpa’s touring lineup has vastly more range of motion at 56 degrees.
New(ish) tech v. old school cool. The Scarpa TX Pro is obviously a much beefier boot than my well-worn, 2nd hand Crispi CxP. The instep buckles of the Scarps are one of their trademark features, said to provide a more secure tele flex.
While bindings such as the Lynx are proof that innovation is happening in telemark technology, it’s a bit disappointing to have boot choices limited to reluctant retrofits to boot designs that hearken from the dawning ages of the Internet.
Pierre Mouyade, creator of the Meidjo binding (other primary competitor / option to the 22D Lynx in the tele tech world), has been lobbying for an industry standard spacing for the distance between the tech fittings, and the back of the NTN sole. While this would seem to apply only the telemark world, the armchair engineer in me wonders if establishing this standard could lead to innovation that would benefit alpine touring as well. By opening up more real estate to work with at the toe of the boot, perhaps both tele, and alpine skiers could benefit from finally having the elusive retention, and release factors that have so long avoided the tech toe platform?
Carpet testing compared to my well-worn Crispis shows the Scarpas to be much stiffer (and squeakier) boots, with significantly less range of motion. Will the TX Pros break in, and gain some additional flexibility? Will they charge so awesome on the downs that I won’t care? Having experienced the magnificent range of motion that modern ski-mo inspired touring boots provide, it’s hard to imagine being completely satisfied with the range of motion that is currently considered acceptable for tele boots.
Winter has finally come to Colorado, and my favorite low-angle, low-altitude haunts are filling in. The West Elk trails, is a small set of cross country ski loops in the Flat Tops just south of Silt, CO. The xc trails serve as a way to link up short runs down into the drainages once the brush and timber is covered. If the climbing pattern bases of the Hyper Vector skis are effective enough to scale the low-angle terrain without having to resort to skins, and the Scarpa boots have enough “walkablity” to be reasonably efficient on the traverses, it will make lapping the short runs that much more enjoyable without having to worry about the hassle of swapping skins.
Stay tuned for full reports on each piece of gear later this season.
29 comments
Ive got that exact same setup. Works great. I can get in a ton of laps in the backcountry and so much quicker on the flats and rolling terrain then using skins. I rarely have to use my skins only on super steep stuff or bad snow conditions.
The TX Pros however suck for touring and are simply overkill. Very little ROM, and heavy. I had to get some used 3 buckle Scarpa TX boots which work great for touring.
For the Lynx, I do not have to take off my skis to switch between tour and ski mode. I got the technique down by using the handle on the ski pole. Super easy to go between modes. Curious how well the Claw will perform for you and if it will stay in tour mode when breaking trail?
Highly recommend this setup for anyone looking to make turns and not worry about skins all the time. Only downside is having to wait on your buddies to get their skins on, and then waiting on them when going across flats. Your patience will grow thin after waiting on your buddies. Or just get in more turns and beat them to the hill.
I really wish Scarpa would bring back the TX. Or better yet, a new TX with updated modern design based on boots like the TLT5. I know they are “working on it” but they’ve been saying that for a decade.
A couple clarifications from a dorky telemarker:
– The Lynx weigh 1000g per pair — not per foot as the comparative bindings have been described — putting them squarely in the range of bindings like the Shift or some heavier full-time tech toe bindings.
– The TX Pro is definitely a mismatch for the Lynx, or rather, you’re unable to take advantage of the Lynx’s best characteristics because of the TX Pro’s heavy weight and lack of ROM. Sadly, no better boot is currently sold. Nothing in the 2021-2022 Scarpa workbook either.
– If the goal is to enjoy short ups and downs with minimal fiddling (aka fat-ski meadow-skipping), a Telemark Tech System binding would work better. The Lynx requires you to fully step out then back in to transition from downhill mode to walk mode — a pain in deep/soft snow — whereas a TTS lets you do it with the flick of a trusty heel lever.
Bobby, thanks for the clarification on the weight. The popularity of the Shift binding, and other “beefy” tech bindings points towards a middle ground of binding weight that those of us who are not dressing in Lycra, or hucking off cliffs are willing to accept for overall function. A similar middle ground predominates in mountainbikes as well; the market is no longer polarized into spindly 23 lb xc race bikes, or 40 lb freeride monsters. Sub-30lb bikes are now accepted as being in an acceptable range for something that pedals efficienctly, and is enjoyable on the descents.
Agreed that the TX Pro is overkill – I’d like to see a tele boot that mimics something like the LaSportiva Skoripus, or the Scarpa F1. Trying to compete with alpine setups for freeride supremacy is a dead end for tele. Quick transitions, and more efficient traverses is where the tele concept has the most advantages.
Do you think the TTS system is significantly more advantageous than the Voile switchback? Both offer switching from ski mode to walk mode without stepping out of the binding, with the Voile being compatible with more 75mm boots that offer the flex & stride serious meadow skippers are looking for.
Scarpa does supposedly have a lighter-weight, touring minded tele boot in the hopper, but Covid-related supply chain issues have delayed its release. It is indeed not in next year’s workbook. But, with something like that, yes I think a TTS setup would be significantly better than a Switchback. No contest on the uphill, certainly. If you can’t wait for the Scarpa unicorn, you can do what lots of other tele skiers do for their TTS: find an old pair of Scarpa F3’s or F1’s that have the bellows.
What Bobby points out is an error in the article – you’ve compared the weight of a pair of Lynx bindings to a single Dynafit Speed Radical binding. So you’ve compared a pair of apples to a single apple. The accurate comparison would be pair of Lynx at 1000g, pair of Speed Radicals at 698g. Or single bindings at 500g and 349g, respectively. The Lynx is not 3x heavier than the Speed Radical, rather it is only ~1.4x heavier. Difference is about 150g per binding.
First, The picture of the lynx above shows the claw right side up and the toe upside down. The claw should point in the same way as the toe piece when assembled…
Second, As many of the commenters mentioned, the Txpro is a flawed boot. It’s too soft in the scaffo to be a powerful resort boot, and too stiff in the cuff to be a good touring boot. Perhaps some marketing genius coined the term “sweet flexing”. It sounds good as a sales gimmick, but the boot is a mixture of qualities which don’t add up to a better boot for either resort or backcountry use. Instead it’s the boot that the marketing guy gets to call, “sweet flexing!!!!”.
I’ve skied the lynx. It works well. It toured well too. Some people have had some issues with them, and 22Designs has worked to iron out any issues people have had which is encouraging.
I don’t ski pattern base skis with heavy boots and bindings, so I can’t speak on that combo in the article except to say that Txpros seem pretty burly for rolling hills and low angle meadow skipping. If you could take a longer lower angle uphill track to a steeper slope to get some powerful turns in on your heavy boots, you would have to drag those heavy inefficient boots a long way uphill, just to keep from applying and ripping skins… Seems like the wrong boot for pattern base skis. Of course the discontinued scarpa tx would be a better fit…. but the marketing guy didn’t dub those boots as being “sweet flexing”.
Should I assume that most people dismiss the Rottefella Freedom on the basis of its’ 1500g (per pair) weight? I use the freedom on a Voile Vector BC with either Crispi Shiver or Evo boots and am very happy with the combination. Obviously, my boot choice indicates that I am not watching grams on this setup but I love the way the Crispi boots ski and transitions on the Freedom are so simple that I almost never turn down an opportunity to skip through even the shortest of downhills. I will note that for me pattern base skis really only make sense when touring with similarly equipped partners. It’s no fun waiting for your buddy to fiddle with skins and it’s even less fun trying to get those fishscales to grip on the skintrack set by your buddy who learned to set skintracks in the Wasatch.
I have a similar setup with Rossignol BC125 skis, original TTS bindings, and Tx-Pro boots. I love the skis and bindings but the boots have terrible range of motion in tour mode. I wish I could fins a really cheap pair of Maestrale shells to cannibalize for the cuffs and lean lock mechanisms. Still, I have a blast on all kinds of terrain and use this setup for everything except resort skiing.
As the article points out, the tele boot innovation has been the weak link. TX Pros are much heavier than the F1, have much less range of motion, and thanks to old material technology, much less stiff torsionally and otherwise. I hope the new Scarpa tele boot finally comes to market after all these years.
In total agreement here. Need a light weight NTN boot to partner up with the Meidjo 3.0 and it should include a tech heel too, just because… That combo will allow tele to supplant any further need for pure AT setups in my quiver. And if we can get the costs down on both boots and bindings, I’ll jettison 3 pins on my skinniest skis too.
Thanks for the article! I don’t currently have a traction pattern set-up, but this makes a compelling argument and provides nice insight. And it’s always nice to see tele getting some love.
On the boots, I’ll echo the sentiment that the Tx Pros (or the other Crispi/Scott offerings) don’t quite cut it as a modern uphillers boot, but I’m confident that we’ll get something on par with the rest of the touring world in the near future. Recalling a “Freeheel Life” podcast (#29, 6/15/20) with Kim Miller (Scarpa NA), I know it is very much in the works, and I personally feel we’ll all benefit from a patient production schedule while they take time to work out kinks and develop a TTS standard. In the meantime, I’m happy as a clam with my T2s.
It’s always knee deep when you tele.
Wow, nice 3 buckle crispis. I’ll buy those off you if they’re size 11’s. Remember free heeling is lame, ask Lou. So you ought to sell me those crispis. They’re getting hard to find. Plus you don’t want to look outdated at the overcrowded trailhead this weekend.
Zach, unfortunately the Crispis are a size 10. I guess I’ll just keep suffering with my sweet flexing mid-school tele boots, and hopefully the one other car parked at trailhead won’t notice.
As a splitboarder, I don’t have a dog in the fight but am genuinely curious about this – how likely is it that the tele market is still large enough to warrant innovations in backcountry-oriented boot design at this point? Granted, I have noticed a very very small uptick in the number of tele-skiers at my local hill (Bridger Bowl). I saw 4 of them on Monday after quite a few years of not seeing any, but none at all at other local resorts or in the BC.
I dinked around with Fisher S-bounds and Garmont Excursions some years ago. If those boots wouldn’t have been so painful on my feet I would probably still have that setup but went to a leather boot which I’m not a good enough skier to make reliable turns with.
I see these skis a lot on the other side of the flat tops and around the park range, flatboat, etc. Often I think people get it wrong by adding too much binding & boot. Of course, my intentions for a fish scale ski is to avoid transitioning for fast laps or rolling terrain, and to keep weight down.
Until the new tele boots come out I think 3pin binding with a 2 buckle plastic boot is the way to go for this type of skiing, Comes down to the range of motion for me. You spend so much time walking with a ski intended for this type of use that the limited ROM from the current scarpa ntn tech fitted boots gets old fast.
Another consideration is a light weight low tech binding/ ~1000gr at boot… but zero transition with a 3pin setup.
I’ve spent a lot of time on a objective bc w/ a 3pin binding and a T3 boot in rolling terrain and also skiing steep and deep slopes. For a little more float I’ve thought about adding a pair of ultra vectors or v6’s to the quiver with a 3pin/cable binding i.e. the cable traverse. I’ve found that a t4/excursion class boot provides enough power to drive these light voiles in wild snow. IMO its the way to go for a ski like this, basically filling the gap between a XCD ski ( guide/annum/sbounds etc). and the burlier ski/binding/boot combos that you see at the resort.
Stoked to see all the comments in support of advancing low-angle / rolling terrain backcountry options! Hopefully this will underscore to manufacturers that there is a demand for this sort of product. It seems like the most promising avenue for tele development rather than trying to compete with alpine gear for steep / variable conditions.
I’ve also been able to get in some early season tours on an older setup of Fischer S-bound / BCX pattern skis with G3 Riva bindings, and Alpina Alaska boots. While the Fischer climbing pattern seems to be a bit more limited in its capabilities compared to an initial tour with the Voile BC pattern, I have found the freedom movement provided by the leather boots quite delightful. Maybe Voile Hardwires / BC pattern / Alpina boots is the sweet spot I am looking for?
Additional corrections : the Ultra Vector is based on the SuperCharger / HyperCharger / “Early Rise Camber” platform, whereas the V6 / V8 series feature the “Hybrid Rocker.”
Tom Bull’s recent review of the HyperCharger as a “Surf and Float” ski bodes well for the Ultra Vector BC in its intended mission for hunting out overlooked low-angle powder.
Interesting setup. I came to a similar conclusion about the utility of Voile fish-scale skis after following a couple up Mt. Marcy in the Adirondaks last spring. Very appealing to not need to worry about skins, for a long ascent with a rolling approach / exit they’re perfect.
Is Lou throwing up in his mouth now that Wild Snow is writing about tele gear? Thank you!! Lynx is an awesome binding, so much more innovative than new paint or cross branding on another fixed heel tech binding
I skied a Sierra traverse a couple years ago, a “red line” if you will… Sought the advice of a long time Sierra skier and explorer… Ended up skiing 5 of the days on the traverse with him. He used T4s, Voile Switchbacks, and some beat up Karhus with scales. The rest of us.. in our 20s, couldn’t hold a candle to this guy almost twice our age, despite our modern light AT gear. Even Pomoca Climb Pro S-Glides are still skins, and skins ruin your glide a LOT more than scales. He would effortlessly glide along, and flick one switch on the toe of his Switchbacks to transition. He was always ahead and always waiting around for us!
Anyways… I saw the light during those days, for that kind of setup for the right terrain… Scale skis are obvious. AT Boots defeat the purpose of the sweet transitions, but tele boots also aren’t quite the best… I do have a pair of 3 buckle TX Terminators with heel and toe inserts… I think those with a TTS system and a voile BC would be as close as I could get to the ideal…
It seems like the best hope for innovation in lightweight touring tele boots is to identify a market or activity where tele can beat AT gear, like your traverse example. Would be interesting to see a light tele setup in the Sellaronda Skimarathon or other skimo races (I called out the Sellaronda because it has a number of long, graduate ascents and descents — see Anton Krupicka’s writeup here: https://www.sportiva.com/blog/anton-krupicka-sellaronda-pt-one/).
The other angle is to accept that tele skiing doesn’t have to be better than alpine/AT at anything, you just need enough people to want to do it, like splitboarding.
Hey EZ, I’ve said it before, I telemarked quite a bit in my day, in the exact type of terrain you guys are talking about. Rolling fun hills, nordic wax and herringbone up, zip back down, kick and glide along the flats to the next one. Super fun, and avalanche safe. Often at night under a full moon. Nice to see a revival of this style. Pure fun, no agenda, no avalanches. Lou
Great discussion on a (still) important type of sking, all my errant thoughts seem to have been shared….
Just felt i needed to repeat for those thinking of getting a similar set up for powder: BUY VOILE BC
The very effective scales and modern shape seem to provide an improved experience over the rossi positrack, fischer offtrack, madshus when i have gone out spinning laps with partners…to the point that they dont enjoy the same terrain choice or scale skin track…
A little raven also told me voile will put fishscales on their wider skis for $$$$?????
Im on older tele boot, voile three pin on traverse risers and charger bc 115mm underfoot….
do people ever use kick-wax or klisters on skimo setups, to deal with rolling terrain? Seems like a good , albeit messy, compromise.
The opposite configuration “monster nordic” (tech toes only, or perhaps also skimo race heels, on metal edged wax classic skis with plastic boots is quite practical for cross country travel in mountainous terrain. Putting kick wax on a ski that isn’t designed w a kick zone leaves much to be desired. On the other hand trying to link turns on nordic skis (even with plastic boots) can also be tricky.
I’ve been liking Dynafit PDG boots paired with skimo race bindings on Fisher Outtabounds wax skis. I don’t actually lock the heel much and probably wouldn’t use it for gnarly terrain, but warm dry torsionally rigid boots skin and ski downhill well and they classic ski better than you’d think.
So many ways to skin a cat!
Kick wax on a skimo race-style AT setup works great, especially on long rolling approaches. Fast, even compared to mohair race skins. And you can actually ski steep on the setup too. Few dedicated nordic skiers would argue that scales climb or glide better than the right kick wax! Also, no need for a double-camber nordic ski with a wax pocket, kick wax on normal alpine skis still works fine, and will glide great too as long as you don’t use too soft of a wax for the day’s conditions and do a good job of corking the wax into the ski base. When it come to klister, though, I stay away. Too messy and not compatible with skins.
Speaking of weight, I quit tele touring a few years back after 22 years. The tele equipment was twice as heavy and i was twice as old as when I started, a combination that no longer worked for uphill. A pair of ion12s, carbon skis, and lightish AT boots and I can move as quick as I was 20 years ago. Strange but tele is now my lift serviced mode, with TX comps and outlaws, because telemark did achieve high performance but the cost in weight was too much to carry around.
LPB, I’ve used kick wax for many years on AT skis, for flat approach marches. Not having a double camber is ideal because if the wax is applied judiciously, it wears off before applying skins. When I did this a lot, I carried a scraper and a small bottle of wax remover. Works for tele or AT, doesn’t really matter. Lou