UTN: Universal Telemark Norm

[bobbytooslow]

Another galaxy-brain meta-telemark post, sorry...

There's a notion mentioned frequently on the great Freeheel Life Podcast that I strongly agree with: The variety of boot/binding standards hurts the sport's growth; we need to do away with 75mm/NTN/TTN/TTS and just have "Telemark."

What does that mean? How do we get there?

For a new person, the choices are overwhelming, and for a manufacturer, it's an uncertain scene to invest big $$$ into. Simplification would be really helpful. Every new telemark boot sold should work with every new telemark binding sold, and vice-versa. The retail death of 75mm gets things one step closer.

So, given where we are now, here's my vision for a Universal Telemark Norm "UTN". Many of these are already standard; just codifying it in one place.

Boots:
- Standard AT-spec tech fittings at the toe (at a standard distance from the tip of the toe lug)
- Toe lug compatible with NTN-spec toe cage (maybe a flat face in middle for toe bumper)
- Heel lug shelf compatible with heel throws (incl Bishop step-in)
- Tele-specific AT-style tech fittings at the heel (discussed here)
- Removeable/replaceable duckbutt (with a beveled lower edge)
- Sole flex optimized for use with tech toes/pivoting cage
- Cuff ROM commensurate with weight

Bindings:
- Can have tech pins or NTN-spec toe cage (ideally pivoting)
- Can attach at duckbutt or real heel
- Can have optional tele-specific AT-style heel


Boots made as described above will work with all new and legacy NTN bindings. They will work with TTN like Lynx & Meidjo, will work with TTS, and they will work with Bishop. In other words, buying a new UTN boot will require no further investment if you already have NTN/TTN/TTS/Bishop bindings. It is fully backwards compatible (post-75mm, anyway). Having all new boots be identical in all the above "attachment" aspects will then free up the manufacturers to have their telemark line's variety based on weight/stiffness/tourability. Kinda like in the good ol' simple days of T1/T2/T3, etc.


Thoughts?

[bobbytooslow]

A few more thoughts...

- I'm certainly not saying that UTN will "Save Telemark"; the fact that tele is a fun downhill technique will, like always, have to do the brunt of the work. But increasing universality (with the goal of eventual organic simplification) could help ameliorate a lot of the reasons people give for not adopting, such as: cost of quiver-wide conversion, poor tourability, and just general overwhelming confusion. UTN would help telemark get out of its own way, and let the turn do the talking.

- I personally think that TTS could be -- or, could *have been* -- a great binding standard for the sport, with a range of bindings from weight-weenie skimo, to Bishop burly with step in, to Trab TR-2 style toe release as DIYers here have made. But, NTN happened, and people have embraced it enough that putting that toothpaste back in the tube would be too difficult.

- The formal, public introduction of a new "Norm" could very well just add to the confusion. It could just become an inside industry thing, like conforming to an ANSI standard or whatever. Like, all boot manufacturers agree that conforming to these standards is best for the growth of the sport, but to the public it's just called "Telemark." 75mm will organically get called "old school telemark" or something similar.

[slidingmike]

There was an interesting discussion a year or so back where Pierre M suggested that the NTN made some major mistakes and a new norm could greatly improve things for skiers and make the engineering of bindings much simpler. I'm incredibly curious what would have to change, what we could get from it, and how that would screw things up for current binders. Perhaps whatever that is could be in this UTN.

[bobbytooslow]

Yup, Pierre's ideas for a formalized Telemark Tech Norm were discussed here. My UTN thing incorporates much or all of TTN (the codification of the distance from the toe lug tip to the tech fittings is important; I've added it above).

The problem with TTN was semantics, or presentation. It came across as another bifurcation, even if the intent was to sort of make things more universal. This passage from Dostie's article nails it:

When I asked Ben Rockis, owner of Pine Needle Mountaineering in Durango about the possibility of a new telemark norm his first response was an exasperated, “Another one?”

The goal of UTN is to end further fragmentation, to be more of an umbrella, to really make everything universal. Hopefully it would be the last telemark norm for a long time. There's a lot of room *within* it for bindings to evolve. Or to undergo Natural Selection, if you will.

[bobbytooslow]

In calling UTN an "umbrella" that will allow "Natural Selection" to occur, I mean this: It is set up in a way to allow any further platform-narrowing to happen organically. In other words, if the boots work with everything, customers will decide with their wallets which type of bindings work best.

For example: Maybe interest in the duckbutt (and all its attendant complications) will fade if people find that, say, a tech-toe Vice skis just as well. Maybe folks will find that tech toes handle the abuse of frequent resort use just fine, and separate "tour pivot" mechanisms will become unnecessary.

Though the framework is there for things to organically narrow, they don't necessarily have to. With a UTN-spec boot, you can be a Freeride guy one day and a TTS guy the next. They're all just "telemark" bindings that work with the "telemark" boots being sold.

[cesare]

A lot to unpack here but I tend to agree with all of it. One point anecdotally that I can report on is that--well, given that I am 65 years old and not the most aggressive skier and granted I ski in Hokkaido, which means >90% powder--tech toe bindings work perfectly fine for me at resorts. I've even released a couple of times including when I was glad I released. That one was with Lynx 2020.

I think keeping it out of the marketing conversation is a good thing. Just let the manufacturers agree to do whatever it is. NTN was supposed to have been a consortium in the beginning but BD pulled out and for whatever reason, Scarpa and Rotte took the lead. Maybe if they all got together and recognized that it would be good for all of them, they might realize the mistakes made more than 16 years ago now and decide not to repeat them. It could happen but that doesn't mean it will.

[iBjorn]

Is Rottefella that owns the patent for the second heel? When that patent expire, it might help. I almost have the impression that Rottefella have given up on the development of NTN.

Regarding bumper tech system, I don’t think Rottefella will be interested - since they have invested heavily in the Xplore system.

[bauerb]

out of curiosity, is nordic gear all universally compatible? I watch world cup nordic racing and see: Salomon, Fischer, Rossi as the big 3, followed by Madshus and some others. these big manufacturers make the skis, bindings and boots. BUT are they all universally compatible? can you hop off a Rossi setup and click into a Fischer setup? I have no idea. my point is that if Nordic can normalize gear, tele can too. if Nordic can't or won't....could be the same story for tele.

[bobbytooslow]

A lot to unpack here

Ha, yeah. The nitty gritty details could have come later. The original post should have just been "How do we get to a boot/binding system that's 'Just Telemark'?"

I too am always on tech toes (unless it's Leather-Lovers' Friday) and they are fantastic for the resort. I certainly understand the initial skepticism from folks. Are shops seeing high numbers of Meidjo/Lynx being returned with broken toe mech? I'm not real plugged in anymore, but I've yet to hear anything backed up with numbers, more just anecdotes and unfounded skepticism.

[bobbytooslow]

out of curiosity, is nordic gear all universally compatible? ... if Nordic can't or won't....could be the same story for tele.

Ha, I've lost track too. Could be some good lessons there, for sure. Perhaps Todd Eastman can bring us up to speed.

I suppose one difference is cost. Good nordic boots (not top top World Cup) are ~$400, and bindings are $75-100. Big difference from tele gear, where bindings alone are approaching $600. The sticker shock for those entering the sport -- or those looking to upgrade their quiver -- isn't as severe.

[bauerb]

interesting. the most expensive nordic race boots I could find with a quick search are about $700 full retail. they look like they have about the same amount of tech as a $2500 Scarpa or Dynafit skimo race boot....sure there are some diffs, but not $1800 worth of diffs. the issue is production volume. if you sell hundreds of pairs of skimo race boots per year, they will cost multiples of nordic boots sold in the 1,000's. cost of manufacturing really only goes down when volumes go up.

[mikesee]

Seems like this needs to be inserted sooner than later...

[bobbytooslow]

Hahaha that's brilliant! I *think* we're at a point right now where things really could be universalized. Wait too long and that might not be the case. And nothing I'm proposing would be backwards incompatible. But yeah, I get the sentiment.

[Pank Ache]

We’re just forgetting the bolt-on duckBILL for complete backwards compatibility!

I do like your summary though.

[Allan Fici]

interesting. the most expensive nordic race boots I could find with a quick search are about $700 full retail. they look like they have about the same amount of tech as a $2500 Scarpa or Dynafit skimo race boot....sure there are some diffs, but not $1800 worth of diffs. the issue is production volume. if you sell hundreds of pairs of skimo race boots per year, they will cost multiples of nordic boots sold in the 1,000's. cost of manufacturing really only goes down when volumes go up.

It’s all about the amortization of development costs on top of the actual labor, materials and contract costs as related to the top line sales of that product. Our tele stuff will never be cheap because we are freaks and weirdos in the overall ski market scenario. Why do you think we are such gear tinkering fools? It’s because we can’t get what we need from manufacturers that are trying to reconcile their development and manufacturing costs analysis to revenue and actually make a profit so they might stay in business. So here we are in this thread, that is thoughtful and well intentioned…Necessity is the mother of invention. It analysisis good to dream and aspire to better gear. I’m not holding my breath but…