Meidjo 3 Vs. Outlaw X Edit: with some Bishop input

[Montana St Alum]

It's getting harder to source Meidjos in Utah now that FHL has stopped carrying them, so I got a pair of Outlaw X bindings (using both in a large size with Tx Pro boots in 26.5).

Also, I have developed vision problems and the M3 doesn't have the small metal tabs that help position the boot toe that the V2.1 has, so that's a negative for me.

Anyway, I use the M3 with a single heavy duty spring set so that the knob has a bit of thread showing and the OX is being used with the inner spring also removed and on setting "2". That results in a very similar activity feel between the two for about the first 2/3s of forward knee drop movement.

My sense is that edge control PRECISION is superior on the M3 due to the tech fittings. Overall, the edge control is about the same, but due to a very small amount of slop in the toe of the OX, precision is better on the Meidjo.

This is full knee drop on the M3 (2.1 in this case, but they're the same).

This is the Outlaw X.

This is the relative difference in tour mode. The Outlaw X is heavier and also much easier to transition back and forth into/out of tour mode (neither are factors for me, as I don't tour anymore).

The platform on which the boot sits is about 10mm higher on the Outlaw X.
I have these mounted on the Dynastar M Cross 88, which I'll review soon.

I think the M2.1/3 skis "better" for my priorities than the Outlaw X by a small margin. The reduced forward ROM on the OX is better in my case in low vis conditions as it helps to keep me from going over the handlebars!

The OX would allow for use of the Tx Comp, since it doesn't require tech fittings.
So far, the ski brake action and reliabilty are superior on the OX. There were times on the M3 where I'd take the skis off and the ski brke wouldn't extend. That doesn't seem to be an issue on the OX.

[Stephen]

This is interesting on a few different levels.
(I’m reading this post, and realize it’s sort of off-topic — sorry.)

1. In the pictures, it looks like there is more bend in the bellows / BoF with the OX — and with less angle of boot sole to ski. That makes me think that, in the case you show here, the OX is set up “more active.” OTOH, there is more of the tail of the ski lifted off the surface with the Meidjo, which would suggest it is set “more active.” But, maybe the Rustler has a softer flex than the M Cross 88?

2. Any idea how the Meidjo with one stiff spring compares to using the M3 with both inner and outer stock springs, at the setting you have? Would it be more, less or same activity?

3. I just broke down and ordered another M3 from InWild. Got tired of switching binding between skis. Also ordered the binding mounting jig. Wish it had been available when I drilled my other skis. Seemed worth it for the lack of aggravation and stress in future mounts.
Better price for M from Europe and no state tax, but, for the first time from Europe, I got hit with a small import duty of about 5% of total.

4. The pictures make me think of something I have wondered about for quite a while:
With the dropped knee, the tail of the ski is coming off the surface. Does that sort of thing happen with forward pressure on an Alpine setup? If not, it seems like this would be a good argument for the theory of mounting Telemark bindings so that Boot Center is behind the factory BC mounting mark on the ski?
However, technique might have something to do with this. In your pictures, your butt is not over your boot. I imagine this is on purpose, to show binding activity, and NOT how you would normally ski.
Sometimes I get to spread out fore and aft, either through bad technique, or if I start to feel out of control. I’ll revert to front foot skiing (sort of like a trip reflex to keep from pitching forward).
Anyway, if rear foot weight stays on the BoF, then I’m guessing the tail of the ski doesn’t lift off the snow.

[Montana St Alum]

This is interesting on a few different levels.
(I’m reading this post, and realize it’s sort of off-topic — sorry.)

1. In the pictures, it looks like there is more bend in the bellows / BoF with the OX — and with less angle of boot sole to ski. That makes me think that, in the case you show here, the OX is set up “more active.” OTOH, there is more of the tail of the ski lifted off the surface with the Meidjo, which would suggest it is set “more active.” But, maybe the Rustler has a softer flex than the M Cross 88?

2. Any idea how the Meidjo with one stiff spring compares to using the M3 with both inner and outer stock springs, at the setting you have? Would it be more, less or same activity?

3. I just broke down and ordered another M3 from InWild. Got tired of switching binding between skis. Also ordered the binding mounting jig. Wish it had been available when I drilled my other skis. Seemed worth it for the lack of aggravation and stress in future mounts.
Better price for M from Europe and no state tax, but, for the first time from Europe, I got hit with a small import duty of about 5% of total.

4. The pictures make me think of something I have wondered about for quite a while:
With the dropped knee, the tail of the ski is coming off the surface. Does that sort of thing happen with forward pressure on an Alpine setup? If not, it seems like this would be a good argument for the theory of mounting Telemark bindings so that Boot Center is behind the factory BC mounting mark on the ski?
However, technique might have something to do with this. In your pictures, your butt is not over your boot. I imagine this is on purpose, to show binding activity, and NOT how you would normally ski.
Sometimes I get to spread out fore and aft, either through bad technique, or if I start to feel out of control. I’ll revert to front foot skiing (sort of like a trip reflex to keep from pitching forward).
Anyway, if rear foot weight stays on the BoF, then I’m guessing the tail of the ski doesn’t lift off the snow.

All good points/questions - seems on topic to me:

1. Hard to say, as there is a difference in flex patterns between the skis and the OX hits a firm stop that transitions into boot lex differently than the Meidjo. The M3 is pretty consistent until it hits the "stop". The pictures were just to show relative knee position, not stance.

2. I think the Meidjo with one stiff spring has a very similar feel to the two stock springs at the same nut position. My experience has been that with the stiff spring you get MORE forward knee drop before you have compressed the single spring to its minimum compressed length, whereas the double stock spring setup seemed to have very slightly less fwd range of motion. Also, the stock springs tended to compress to the point where they became shorter at full extension requiring an increase in "activity" adjustment to get back to that baseline resistance. That adjustment then results in slightly less fwd ROM.

3. Yep. Inserts and plates are useful, but extra bindings are more useful!

4. I can put way more forward weight and leverage into the system on alpine gear, because of the much firmer connection to the ski combined with stiffer boots. The actual downward pressure on the shovels (and upward pull on the rear binding) can be much greater on alpine gear.

This is from over 25 years ago (dig the Kneisel White Stars and one piece suit)! The alpine skiing starts at time :30. I'm not sure it shows, but there's quite a bit of forward pressure against the cuffs.




It's easier to damage a tely binding or pull it out, but that's because of the narrow zone where it flexes forward in a very short distance, combined with more of an "impulse" of pressure just at the end of the flex.

I've used skis that had my boot center further back than over the recommended mounting point. In the case of heavier gear and resort skiing, mounting further back has consistently resulted in a dampened, deadened feel compared to boot center over recommended point. If the objective is to have a more stable ride (i.e. less sensitive to inputs), mounting back would help, I imagine. I prefer a more "reactive" feel.

My M Cross skis have a mounting point that is a bit further back, compared to some of my other skis and I'll review that ski, but I am considering moving the mount fwd 1cm on those using inserts.

Regarding the butt over the rear boot, I think my technique preferences are to not do that. I like a bit more weight forward onto the front ski so my butt position would tend to be more centered between the front and back foot, Vs. over the back foot. My general objective is to be as far forward as I can be until I fly over the tips, and then dial it back just enough to prevent that from happening. The downside is that it's a narrow band fore/aft so balance is more challenging, but the payoff is better carving and quicker turns.

[Stephen]

Now I’m sure I’m off topic!

1. My M Cross skis have a mounting point that is a bit further back, compared to some of my other skis and I'll review that ski, but I am considering moving the mount fwd 1cm on those using inserts.

2. Regarding the butt over the rear boot, I think my technique preferences are to not do that. I like a bit more weight forward onto the front ski so my butt position would tend to be more centered between the front and back foot, Vs. over the back foot. My general objective is to be as far forward as I can be until I fly over the tips, and then dial it back just enough to prevent that from happening. The downside is that it's a narrow band fore/aft so balance is more challenging, but the payoff is better carving and quicker turns.

1. There are a lot of Telemarkers that like a minus mount. I’ve wondered — if there is anything objectively true about differences in where pressure is applied to the ski (between Telemark and Alpine) — if a BC Telemark mount just makes the skis ski more “progressive.”

2. So, when you are carving turns, are you 50/50, or are you carving more on your front ski?
Any time I’m able to carve, I’ve been trying to do that on the back ski (I can carve Alpine stance turns with medium proficiency on my outside ski). All my skis are 94 or more, but I have a 76 frontside ski I’m gonna mount. I’m hoping I can control a carve better with a narrower ski.

[Montana St Alum]

Now I’m sure I’m off topic!

1. My M Cross skis have a mounting point that is a bit further back, compared to some of my other skis and I'll review that ski, but I am considering moving the mount fwd 1cm on those using inserts.

2. Regarding the butt over the rear boot, I think my technique preferences are to not do that. I like a bit more weight forward onto the front ski so my butt position would tend to be more centered between the front and back foot, Vs. over the back foot. My general objective is to be as far forward as I can be until I fly over the tips, and then dial it back just enough to prevent that from happening. The downside is that it's a narrow band fore/aft so balance is more challenging, but the payoff is better carving and quicker turns.

1. There are a lot of Telemarkers that like a minus mount. I’ve wondered — if there is anything objectively true about differences in where pressure is applied to the ski (between Telemark and Alpine) — if a BC Telemark mount just makes the skis ski more “progressive.”

2. So, when you are carving turns, are you 50/50, or are you carving more on your front ski?
Any time I’m able to carve, I’ve been trying to do that on the back ski (I can carve Alpine stance turns with medium proficiency on my outside ski). All my skis are 94 or more, but I have a 76 frontside ski I’m gonna mount. I’m hoping I can control a carve better with a narrower ski.

Shoot, I go off topic all the time!
Besides, it's probably just you and me on this thread anyway!

I can only remark on the gear I use. It may be that for XC type of BC skiing with pins and leather it would be better with an aft mount. I know that most resort telemark skiers, using heavier gear such as the Tx Pro and NTN moved to boot center over recommended mounting point at least 15 years ago. I don't know anyone who advocates an aft mount for that gear. People like Madsen at FHL and others have been somewhat vocal about the subject.

Edit: Alternatively, you could make the argument that manufacturers have embraced the Tely-community's position on aft mounts, as the mounting point on my 88's is a good 8cm aft of true center and my other skis are in the -2 to -6cm range. Now that I think about it, I kind of like this interpretation.

When I first learned to carve, it was predominantly on the back ski. As I practiced more and became more proficient, I moved to a 50/50 weight distribution. At the end of turns, I'll often stop and look back at my tracks. If they are not pencil thin and of equal depth into the snow, I feel compelled to correct that.

This distribution is what I'm working to get:

It does result in a tighter, more "authoritative" feeling turn, for sure.

This is the edge angle I'm looking to get. You can see that the line up from my edges to my CG to my head is pretty straight. I'm now working to get more of an angle at the CG to get more edge, as that would be a more efficient turn I think - but it's pretty fun to drag a hand.

This is my first video after vision loss, but I think it shows my fore/aft positioning on some easy bumps. I think at time :16 -:17 it shows my weight forward of that back ski.


I think a tight turning ski is critical to learning the carve. I have gone to wider (but tight turning) skis now because I'm "booting out" on narrow skis unless it's very hard pack.

[TA1]

I ski both. IMO they are very different. I predominantly use my M3 set up for BC with binding mounted on RBC of my Atomic Backland 100 172CM. Skis awesome in everything. As compared to Outlaw X , M3 is lighter, superior skinning, uphill, better power to edge , safety release. M3 has been very durable and dependable. Again, my opinions and experiences. I used the Outlaw X primarily for in bounds/ side country. When they aren’t breaking on me they are awesome downhill and powerful bindings with decent feel. I actually feel that Meidjo is smoother and allows ability for deeper flex. I Tele low .Both feel pretty good flex wise.

Unfortunately I have had durability issues with both original Outlaw and X . Toe cage cracks , flex plate cracks, slick pins breaking. I now predominantly ski Bishop BMF R in bounds. Not really NTN but wow, killer downhill , super edge power and 75MM / AXL like flex and super super durable. Can get low all day on the BMF and it is ultra smooth compared to M3 and Outlaw . Heavy on the uphill for sure but fine for quick side country laps . again my opinions and experiences only. Have enjoyed all 3 products, but I pretty much go M3 for BC and BMF for in bounds resort.

[Montana St Alum]

I ski both. IMO they are very different. I predominantly use my M3 set up for BC with binding mounted on RBC of my Atomic Backland 100 172CM. Skis awesome in everything. As compared to Outlaw X , M3 is lighter, superior skinning, uphill, better power to edge , safety release. M3 has been very durable and dependable. Again, my opinions and experiences. I used the Outlaw X primarily for in bounds/ side country. When they aren’t breaking on me they are awesome downhill and powerful bindings with decent feel. I actually feel that Meidjo is smoother and allows ability for deeper flex. I Tele low .Both feel pretty good flex wise.

Unfortunately I have had durability issues with both original Outlaw and X . Toe cage cracks , flex plate cracks, slick pins breaking. I now predominantly ski Bishop BMF R in bounds. Not really NTN but wow, killer downhill , super edge power and 75MM / AXL like flex and super super durable. Can get low all day on the BMF and it is ultra smooth compared to M3 and Outlaw . Heavy on the uphill for sure but fine for quick side country laps . again my opinions and experiences only. Have enjoyed all 3 products, but I pretty much go M3 for BC and BMF for in bounds resort.

Good info, thanks.
I went back and forth today inbounds and in the first half of flex, found the Outlaw X with the inner spring removed set at about "2" to be close to the M3 with a stiff spring plus inner spring set relatively low on activity. The second half isn't similar at all, of course. The Bishop sounds pretty nice.

[TA1]

I found somewhat similar flex feel distinctions between the M3 and Outlaw. Run M3 with standard springs and Outlaw “out of the box” spring configuration. Preload at 2-3 .To me both come off the deck in a similar way with the M3 slightly more progressive and smooth through the second phase if you will of flex with no sense of “hitting a wall’ all the way through. The outlaw flex seems to hit the limit quickly for me in the second phase of flex. So , I feel I can get much lower on the M3 with more control of the flex throughout the turn . The M3 also seems to be a bit more energetic /supportive /active through the lead change. For me the Outlaw feel is good , the M3 feels just a bit more natural. For me though the BMF bests both of them. It just feels so smooth and natural to me with consistent progression all the way through . I use the BMF with “out of the box “ spring configuration with preload set to 2. It drives my Fischer FR 102’s seamlessly. I have read that some feel the BMF is too active , however I have not found that to be the case and it is pretty much as adjustable as the others with pre load and available softy springs if needed. I ski VT terrain predominantly with couple of trips West each season. For me it feels great on all types of terrain whether finessing / weaving through tight trees, powder , hard pack , ice , carving groomers , steeps , low angle or charging lines.

[Ant01ne]

3. I just broke down and ordered another M3 from InWild. Got tired of switching binding between skis. Also ordered the binding mounting jig. Wish it had been available when I drilled my other skis. Seemed worth it for the lack of aggravation and stress in future mounts.
Better price for M from Europe and no state tax, but, for the first time from Europe, I got hit with a small import duty of about 5% of total.

Order process went well from France to your place?

Ive just made the move to Meidjo and also considering mounting bindings myself.

Any idea where to find Roxbo jigs in North America? Their ".de" website is not transactional and Inwild site say "out of stock".

[Stephen]

3. I just broke down and ordered another M3 from InWild. Got tired of switching binding between skis. Also ordered the binding mounting jig. Wish it had been available when I drilled my other skis. Seemed worth it for the lack of aggravation and stress in future mounts.
Better price for M from Europe and no state tax, but, for the first time from Europe, I got hit with a small import duty of about 5% of total.

Order process went well from France to your place?

Ive just made the move to Meidjo and also considering mounting bindings myself.

Any idea where to find Roxbo jigs in North America? Their ".de" website is not transactional and Inwild site say "out of stock".

Everything went fine on the order and shipping. Shipping took a bit longer than some other orders from Europe by a day or two.
I’m wondering if there is a dollar threshold under which there is no duty, but don’t know the answer to that.

I have mounted several myself. With so many holes for the front section (8 for front, 2 for the kickstand and 3 for the heel — 13 total for each binding) getting all the holes spot on can be challenging. On the ones I did without the roXbo, I feel the need to fiddle with the final screw tightening to make sure the boot heel will end up centered on the ski. The skis I mounted using the roXbo are just dead on, which is confidence inspiring.
I have had the most problem mounting without the jig when there is metal to drill through. The drill bit seems to catch and wander just a little bit, even though I center punch the bit start point.

No idea where else to by the roXbo with Meidjo guides. I think 22 Designs sells it with the guides for their bindings.