The Meidjo 3.0 Features the finest in French engineering, including environmentally friendly Pebax material (which has been proven in Scarpa boots for years), paper packaging, and an optional Alpine Heel piece (not pictured).
Written by Nick Cherney
Innovation in telemark gear is being driven primarily on the binding side of the equation, with numerous small independent companies in the game: 22 Designs, Voile, Bishop, Moonlight, and increasingly, Meidjo. As I discussed in my article here, backcountry telemark will slowly die without new lighter gear that can compete with AT equipment on the uphill. But telemark skiers are all cheap and proficient with duct tape, which has stifled product development. They are also generally more attractive and interesting than alpine skiers, but that is a different article.
The French are Coming
The Meidjo 3.0 is probably the most radically different binding to be developed in the last decade in terms of the mechanics of its operation. Some of that is excellent, some of it can be problematic. The good news is that as much as the 2.0 was a leap forward from the 1.0, the new Meidjo 3.0 addresses many of the complaints about earlier models, and it feels like the binding is starting to settle into its own. Today the Meidjo 3.0 can be summed up in four major statements:
1. The lightest telemark touring binding on the market, comparable to an midweight AT binding, at 910 grams (2 lbs) for a large pair. This obviously does not include three-pin bindings, which are lighter, but are rightly classified as Nordic equipment.
2. In its stiffest settings it can be skied as hard as any other binding on the market, holding up surprisingly well in big mountain terrain and to large impacts, while featuring a fully adjustable lateral release that actually works.
3. It is the only telemark binding which allows you to lock your heel down and ski alpine (with the optional alpine heel attachment). I don’t know why anyone wants a tele binding that can alpine, but I suspect it’s a major selling point for many prospective buyers.
4. It is the most expensive and complex telemark binding on the market. At $580, it is $80 more than its closest competitor, the 22 Designs Lynx, and almost $200 more than the 22 Designs Axl.
Start with your boots
No this is not a boot review. But in my opinion the strongest argument for NTN over 75MM is the uphill performance of the tech toe which, combined with its class leading weight, gives the Meidjo 3.0 excellent touring potential.
Unfortunately, there are currently only four NTN boots with a tech toe insert, none of which are particularly light. Even with a fairly heavy touring ski, your boots will be close to HALF of your total gear weight. The Scarpa TX Pro weighs 40% more than the Scarpa F1 (AT boot) for the same price.
Beyond weight though, your perception of telemark binding performance is going to be very heavily influenced by your boot. If you go from a Scarpa T2 to Crispi EVO World Cup, the boot change is going to make a much bigger difference to how your gear feels than the shift from your Hammerheads to a Meidjo 3.0. Bear this in mind when gathering people’s opinions of one binding versus another.
Don’t ask your ski tech their opinion
Probably the most obvious criticism of the Meidjo 3.0 is the complexity and annoyance of mounting. Given that mounting is not a common event for most people, this isn’t really a big deal, but there is something to be said for simplicity.
No one likes drilling 13 holes in a ski, least of all your ski shop.
More importantly, a real criticism is the 13 holes you need to put into the ski (plus another two for the alpine heel). I don’t know of any ski failures as a result of all these holes, but it seems a bit overkill. Particularly three for the heel piece (seven if you add the alpine heel) and the two which serve only to hold down the “touring plate” which is just something for the “spring lever” to flex off, as well as holding the tiny little metal piece you need to engage for touring (see photo). The recent release of a new heel piece will enable you to eliminate the touring plate and spring lever if you trust the step-in and don’t mind not being able to go fully flat to ski while touring (see below for details).
It’s light, but how does it tour?
The real distinction of the Meidjo 3.0 is its tech toe/weight which is best in class. If you have never gone uphill in a tech toe, it is a revelation, and the Meidjo 3.0 does a great job. The leap is as significant as the first free pivot bindings in telemark which meant no more flexing the bellows of your boot to get uphill. Of course the full benefit of the tech toe will not be realized until we have a lighter telemark boot with real uphill flexion in the cuff.
The “touring Plate” necessitates two extra holes. Note also the metal latch which is engaged by a (generally ungloved) hand for touring mode
If one wants to complain, the issues are just in the efficiency of transitions. To move to touring mode you must lift the spring box (which engages the spring lever), then push it down again so you can flip the small metal latch which keeps the entire assembly down on the ski while touring. This all sounds more complicated than it is, and if you are someone who takes a relaxed approach to your uphilling, you wont probably notice any of it other than the fact that engaging the metal latch is quite fiddly, requiring you to remove any thick gloves. Again, the new heel piece will eliminate this issue in most conditions
Going from hike back to ski is a simpler process: You simply flip the lever and, in an improvement from prior models, the Meidjo 3.0 allows you to step in (the 2.0 and 2.1 can also be upgraded). This true “step-in” feature largely worked as advertised, though at times it is hard to engage and you will have to revert to manually lifting the spring box. Another complaint people raise is ice up under the spring box. While breaking trail in heavy wet snow this certainly was a factor, however I don’t think it performs significantly worse than other bindings in this regard. The anti-ice tape provided with the bindings (see photo) definitely helps.
The standard heel piece on the right, the new one on the left. The new design for the metal second heel is far more stable, but is lower than the red, whereas the original metal heel is higher than the red, but unstable.
The red plastic heel on the Meidjo 3.0 easily engages with a ski pole and feels solid, though the metal piece for higher lift is not stable and frequently collapses. The just-released upgrade to this system is a substantial improvement, retaining the same plastic piece, but replacing the metal second heel with one that pivots towards the back and is far more stable. The advantage of this lower metal lift (about 3/4 inch) is that it keeps your boot just above the spring box, meaning you don’t have to manually lock down for touring. Unless you are on a long flat stretch, it feels quite comfortable. In a well articulated boot, the red should be plenty high for all conditions. In a stiff boot, you may wish for a higher lift.
OK fine, but can it ski?
Yes. I prefer to ski a very stiff setup in the resort, usually a 22 Designs Vice with stiffy springs, slick pin in the most active setting, and a pair of T1’s with an intuition power wrap plus liner and a booster strap. The Meidjo 3.0 can ski like that. It also can be dialed way back to ski a soft boot, knee to ski, and is fully compatible with a lurk, or your favorite grateful dead tour shirt from the 70’s.
For those who are still skiing older generation bindings, what the Meidjo 3.0 (and other modern telemark bindings) provide is lateral stiffness. Or early edge engagement. Or whatever you want to call it. What it means is that the ski is far more responsive to attempts to put it on edge. This means the ski’s action on the snow behaves as it should, with quickly arcing engagement from one edge to the other. This feels different than skiing on Nordic gear (which is what older telemark bindings really are). It feels better. And it allows for much more control in high speed or steep conditions. Improvements in lateral rigidity are incredibly important, and the Meidjo 3.0 delivers.
NTN as a system promotes a more vertical stance, but with the right gear it also allows plenty of soul telemark, with a little edge control.
Spring tension and lateral release adjustments
The Meidjo 3.0 allows legitimate lateral release with full adjustability thanks to a spring which adjusts how tightly the rear claws grip the duck butt of the boot. With the amount of lateral rigidity in modern boots and bindings, the value of the release-ability has gone up significantly. The Meidjo 3.0 has four different spring tensions which they say equate to a DIN 3 to 12. Skied in the third setting (DIN 8-9) the binding released only when one would want it to, other than one release while executing stationary telemark jump turns in steep hard snow (race course conditions). Skied in the fourth position (DIN 10-12) I have never experienced a release.
The Meidjo comes with standard black springs, additional inner springs to add stiffness, plus optional stiffer “red line” springs to replace the standard springs. This allows at least five rational combinations. The red line springs plus the inner springs provide performance that feels similar to 22 designs Axl or Vice skied on the most active pin setting with their stiffy springs. Out of the box, I would say they are too soft for a 4 buckle boot, though others may disagree. With just the standard springs, they are probably as soft as a cable binding. So your limitation on “feel” of the binding is going to be the range of NTN boots currently available, not the binding.
Improvements since the 2.1
The Meidjo 3.0 is now at least the fourth version of the binding since the 1.0 was released six years ago. Each release has improved on the last and the 3.0 has a number of major improvements over the 2.1:
— The tech toe has been redesigned and improved. It is beefier and now uses two larger springs rather than four smaller. The new system seems more durable, is certainly more powerful, and is easier to engage.
— The plastic has been upgraded to Pebax, a significant environmental improvement, something all skiers should care about.
— The binding is overall lighter by 10 grams a pair. Pierre shows the Meidjo 3.0 at 455 grams and the Meidjo 2.1 at 460 grams per large binding . Add 37 grams for 26 screws per pair and you end up with a total weight of about 2 lbs for the set up. Which translates to less than 15% of your ski/boot /binding combo.
— Flat step in means you no longer need to lift the spring box by hand before stepping in.
— Just released: The new heel piece (see photo) is a definite improvement, allowing you to ignore the manual wire lock in most conditions, though it comes at the cost of the highest position.
The Medjo 3.0 with its 2 spring tech toe on the left, and the Meidjo 2.1 with its 4 spring tech toe on the right. The new design is a significant improvement.
So, is it worth it?
Well, yes. Not for everyone, but if you like what you hear after reading this review, I don’t think you will be disappointed. A lot of the concerns about durability are (I think) relatively misplaced. If you are counting on those shiny new perpetually “available next year” lightweight tele boots, this seems like the right binding to pair them with. If you want the ability to alternate from tele to alpine on one ski, this is definitely the right binding. If you are just intrigued by the engineering and want to check them out, go for it. If you will only ever do resort skiing, I am not sure you will be getting all the value, and you may as well save yourself some dough and put on a Vice. Overall, the Meidjo 3.0 is a well designed binding that provides a lot of features many telemarkers have been looking for, and I for one promise not to engage in too much shaming if you mount the Alpine Heel.
Isn’t this why we all telemark really? A good boy at the top of the world.
Nick Cherney is the local televangelist of Carbondale, Colorado, has been coaching youth telemark since the 2010 season, and founded the Telemark Team of the Aspen Valley Ski and Snowboard Club in 2014. He can often be spotted in the nearby hills, surrounded by hoards of children wearing bellowed ski boots. His life goals consist of living long enough to see Scarpa develop a lightweight telemark boot and skiing down Highlands Bowl backwards in leather boots and three-pin bindings, just to prove it can be done by someone other than Jake Sakson. Meidjo Bindings were provided by The M Equipment.
32 comments
Hi Nick,
I have the 2.1 and modified the springbox myself to have “flat stepin”. I would add that not having to lift the springbox also makes stepping in easier because you can access the low tech better. Before I would see some people struggle to get in because you had to tilt the boot a bit forward to not touch the springbox which was probably 5-10 cm above the ski.
The M Equipment showed on instagram a plate that you can mount below the springbox to prevent icing up, which has been an issue for me in wet deep snow. It seemed really promising, did you by any chance get to try this?
If this works well we might be close to the “holy grail”. Extremely great skiing performance, lightweight, low tech touring, safety release (worked well a handful of times)… and then we just need a modern boot too 😉
Totally concur with your comments that it is easier to engage the toe with the flat step in as you don’t have to angle the boot. I wrote something about 3x longer, but my manifesto was deemed too long. one point I would have made in that regard, is that the brakes on the medijo in addition to alleviating the need for leashes, also make step in much easier. there is a piece that comes up that is a guide for your toe, so you get the exact toe placement quickly every time. in terms of the plate your refer to, they are calling it the “powder casing”. I have it sitting in my garage, but have not personally tested it yet. I will do soon
It is great to see innovation in the tele binding. Looking forward to Scarpa releasing something with comparable weight and walkability to the F1 with bellows in the toe.
Amen! Love my TX pros and they are lighter than any other tele boot I’ve owned by far….but still, the F1and-their-ilk prove they could be even lighter.
I think it’s a big question if that ‘F1 with Bellows’ boot is in fact ever coming. I had a Scarpa rep explain to me once that for a new model it’s close to a half million bucks in injection molding and tooling PER SIZE. So let’s say they did it low-key to start, size run from 25 to 29, that’s 2.5 million dollars not counting R and D, raw materials, labor, shipping, marketing etc. They’d need to sell a lot of them just to break even. And convince dealers to stock them (very few are even stocking NTN boots anymore). Not an impossible lift, but a big one. Binding development is low hanging fruit by comparison. What probably needs to happen is something like Phantom Snowboards, where someone makes an aftermarket kit to modify existing NTN boots to walk better.
Love this Nick him from Maine but my folks live in Carbondale love to make some terns w/you sometime Anyway it’s not too hard to modify some F ones with bellows if you can get your hands on a pair with a duck but cnc machines buy a printer digital. Works pretty well pretty light set up.
Don’t forget the Bishop BMF-R! They’re even more expensive than the Meidjo.
Wow. That is saying something.
Would be nice to have narrower lasted NTN boots. There’s not much choice for different foot shapes in the market.
The Moonlight binding is significantly lighter on the up as you detach the springs. Weight stated by moonlight for is 250g + 300g springs. They also offer a version with an alpine heel piece so you can switch between tele and alpine for the down. Have no idea how it skis in tele mode.
I was not aware they claimed a weight that low. I must admit I am a bit dubious as it is essentially the same as the voile TTS system, which is 1130grams a pair. I also dont think the hardwire/cartridge system can come even close to the downhill performance you can get from Outlaws, Lynx, Meidjo, Vice, Axl, Bishop etc.
So, is there no old timey “duck bill” freeheel bindings (ie g3 targa) in retail production right now?
Apologies if I missed that in the article?
Plenty of 75mm bindings and boots still available, but there will not be any technological development with 75mm (boots or bindings). No way to make that system lighter, more releaseable, better edging, etc. The next Scarpa tele boots to come out (gosh we hope they are still coming) will be NTN with tech toe inserts. As someone who went from 75mm to a telemark tech system (TTS), believe me, you will not regret the upgrade.
Thanks for the response. I obviously don’t pay too much attention anymore. Are crispi duck bill or 75 mm or whatever boots available anymore?
Funny thing for me, the whole point of using freeheel bindings is the fact that they won’t release, very easily. Like twice ever in twenty ish years of just pounding the hell outta targas. They’re lightweight enough, who cares anyways? I enjoy the excercise.
Haha. Oh well. The other whole point of free heels is it’s punk rock. Thank god it’s not trendy anymore. Telemarking’s not dead it’s just passed out in a corner somewhere. Haha. Good luck
There are lots. I personally think the 22 designs Vice is the absolute benchmark for downhill performance that all NTN systems should aspire to match. If they can do it with lighter weight, better uphill performance, etc. that is the holy grail.
My home made TTS binding uses Vice springs. So it’s lighter. Has the same feel as Vice, but beats the hell out of Vice re edging. They are insane. But hard to make, and not particularly cheap when you add up all the parts.
Great review,
Just for some data points, my TX Pros weigh 2016 gms /boot. Versus my F-1 AT boots at 1403 gms each. Both a size 28.5. Big advantage of the F-1s , beside the weight difference, is the Range of Motion of the cuff in walk mode when skinning up. So it’s not just the weight difference. Guess which boots I tour on?
It is getting harder to get Scarpa NTN boots too. As my old TX Comps were softening up, last season, I searched for a new pair. Finally had to get a pair in my size from France ! I have been worried this boot might go out of production. Recently, I broke the instep buckle loop on my old TX Comps. No one, including SCARPA USA has a replacement wire loop.
So I am very happy to have this “spare” pair of TX Comps to ski with Outlaws on my Volkl Kendos. Eastern resort setup.
Correction: The front two holes of the optional alpine heel use the rear two holes of the heel post. Thus, with the optional heel there are an additional two holes, not four, for a grand total of 15. Still too many, but not as bad as 17 per binding. Ooof.
My thinly veiled disdain for the concept of an alpine heel prevented me from physically touching one. thank you for the correction. 🙂
fixed!
Somewhat tangential to the review, but any feedback from other tele heads as to whether the Scott Voodoo (which claims 46 degrees ROM) tours any appreciably better than the Scarpa TX Pro at 22 degrees?
Thanks for a comprehensive review Nick.
The weight issue is a killer for us older (ageing) telemarkers – even if 54 ain’t ancient by modern skiing standards.
A case in point: Last year I took a one ski-pair set from here in Aussie to Hakuba, Japan. While I primarily travelled for lift skiing, with a XC / BC background initially (mid 1980s), naturally I wanted to ski the Famed Japanese BC POW as part of a tour.
While enjoying a great day in the BC, with great snow conditions, the weight of my newish kit nearly killed me. Not only was I the oldest client by about 15 or 20 years, I was the only tele head. Most of the fit ‘youngsters’ were on Modern-looking AT gear, while two or three were on split boards.
A post trip analysis of my main kit revealed the following weights:
-186cm Nordica Enforcer 104s ~ 4.6kg pr. Inc. Quiver Killer Inserts);
– size 30 TX Pros with moulded footbeds (~4.4kg);
– 22D Outlaw Xs, large with brakes and lightweight retainers (~1.8kg ish); &
– G3 Alpinist Universal skis (~ 800g in bag, only when dry!)
My rusty maths tells me, I was carrying nearly 6kg per foot! No wonder I felt my age and a lack of fitness!
So, like many here, I wait with baited breath for a decent lightweight NTN boot – say in the 1.5 kg (per unit) region.
Covid killed plans to ski the Aussie winter 2020. However, I (sadly for NTN) did do something positive for my next Pow-BC ski tour. I bought a pair of light (3.3kg for 184cm) Voile UltraVectors (Hypers aren’t warranteed for tele), some Axls (no not light but are 75mm!), some Contour Hybrid skins (better gliding than G3?) and plan to try the set up with my trusty pair of Garmont Excursions (light at ~ 1.5kg ea. With beds)
Now the latter kit won’t necessarily guarantee me a great ski or climb but at closer to 9kg a pair or ~4.5 kg per side, I figure it’s worth a go! I certainly won’t die wondering (as we say). ?
And who knows, before I hang up my tele boards, Scarpa may finally rollout their F1 NTN equivalent? And then I’ll off to my local dealer for Meidjo Mk 6 or 7? Or even a Lynx 4? for my 6-hole QK system?
PS I do have skinny-ish XC skis with fishscales & 75mm Voile hardwire cable bindings to enjoy trail skiing but when it comes to turning, they just don’t rate, especially when compared to wide, shaped alpine skis and beefy boots and bindings!
Cheers, and thanks for a chance to contribute from a currently, warm and (very) snow-free Down Under! ????
How do we get some ski boot representatives to go on the record with respect to honest answers as to whether they have any plans to follow up with a new and improved NTN touring boot? or to at least more fully educate us on what it would take to make that happen?
there is an interview with scarpa head on the freeheel podcast from last fall where he says they have the upper boot designed, but are waiting to figure out the lower half- he says they realize the impact their products have on the tele community (with regards to binding compatability I guess)
Nick, thank you for this well written and detail review and for Wild Snow for presenting another innovative tele product, not only are telemarkers typically “generally more attractive and interesting than alpine skiers” this article proved they have a better sense of humor too.
Reading this article made me decide to get out on my tele gear which I hadn’t done since the 2019 season. I didn’t remember being quite so bad at it. I was on Voile chargers and G3 targas with Scarpa T4s. I mostly went to AT because I couldn’t get any stiffer boots to in my size. .
thanks Nick. I long for my knees of waaaay back (1982 to 2000s). For me, tele was so fun.
These reviewed tech-tele bindings seem a bit odd. However, I think these tele bindings (with the tech toe) would let my tips ride up on the deep snow when breaking trail.
Thanks for the tele article. I love reading wild snow and I love tele. Way to bring it together for me.
Regarding the weight of NTN boots and needing to retool… I wonder if Scarpa still has the bits and pieces needed to do a (re)run of the F3 in grilamid, which would probably be 1300g per boot!
Great review. Totally onboard that NTN (actually “TTN”) is the future of Telemark, just need lighter boots now. Also agree tele skiers are more attractive and interesting than those in bondage bindings.
Is there any evidence that a lighter tele boot with more ROM might eventually appear, or is this purely supposition? Until or unless it does AT’s market share will only increase further as those in search of touring efficiency increasingly desert telemark.
Hey, Nick. Frank McSwain here. We’ve made turns together.
I have the 3.0s and love them for downhilling, but I can’t figure out how to get them in free pivot mode for climbing. Can you please, please, please post a video and show me how?