There are a few things I would prefer to be done differently, but overall I like the look.

The old leather boot technology did not have enough true range of motion either and the ball of the foot would come off the ski in a deep tele turn. However there is enough range of motion in my FOOT to keep the ball on the ski even in the deepest stance.

Don’t mistake the boot for the foot. This will keep you from seeing what is possible.

Anyway, telemark technique grew out of the ski technology of the time. Today there is some perverse desire to take the telemark technique and develop new binding technology for said technique. This is a terrible premise for good development.

Today there is way to much debate on what “telemark” really is. The plastic boot revolution took an elegant analog technique and forced it into a robotic digital experience. The new boots allow a lot for force to be transmitted into the ski and caused a lot of broken binding until they were upgraded to deal with this new reality.

This then led us down the ridiculous path to the NTN.

Since I was always a “skier” first, the technique I used I was secondary to the ability to get into the backcountry, summit peaks and ski powder. I telemarked for 20 years simply because that was the gear available for light and fast ski mountaineering. I would still like to telemark sometimes but the penalty for using the gear simply outweighs the advantages.

When the rest of the players fail with this attempt may be someone will realize that a new boot is required before the “holy grail” can come to fruition.

You make some interesting points. The only one I’ll quibble with you on is the ability to actually, physically hold the ball of your foot on the ski (er, the binding). I’ve NEVER seen it done in reality. I know that when we are executing a powerful feeling tele turn it sure feels like we have contact, but as I said years ago, it’s just “a figment of your sensation.”

 
Time will tell if all your other predictions are accurate. They may be. I am not a strong proponent of the existing NTN system, but do hold out hope for the concept (not the current execution) since the idea of having tele boots that don’t require a duckbill is appealing from a mountaineering perspective. If you’re stickin’ to snow though, 75mm is good enough. Not that there isn’t room for improvement, but it reliably puts a grin on my face every time I go out.

 
No. Not in two years or twenty with this “technology”.

 
Why? Because telemark BOOT technology is now almost 20 years old and it is obsolete. So why keep a system developed for an obsolete platform alive when a new system that was actually better could be developed?

 
Anyway, without a new and much better boot (active and intelligent) a “good” telemark system is impossible. Without more range of motion at the “ball” of the foot, the binding will always be required to do more than just “bind” the boot to the ski.

 
(All a binding should have to do and then it can be simple, light and strong, like dynafit.)

 
Where it all falls apart is the need for the binding to also be active. This is necessary as today’s boots cannot provide the range of motion needed to do a “proper” telemark turn (not going into that debate right now). The ball of the foot has to come off the ski when the bellows pack in.

 
Breaking contact with the ball of the foot and the ski is bad enough (and you can debate this all you want but biomechanically I am fully capable of keeping complete forefoot contact with my ski even in the deepest stance) but this requirement creates more problems than it solves for the binding system.

 
To allow “telemark” motion requires either a lot of boot and binding slop in the system (as was the reality of the technology when the telemark technique was created) or a whole bunch of moving parts (pivots, axes, etc).

 
A binding that allows this motion will therefore allow a lot of momentum to develop within the system (it is the distal joint in a long closed chain loop). More parts are needed to attenuate the forces and keep the system from being torn apart. The binding becomes complex, heavy and not strong enough (as it seems to be the case here).

 
My prediction is we will see a few attempts that try to nail the forefoot to the deck using boots of today (dynafit toe with a rear hold down that allow dynafit style touring). There will be carnage when users want to (or have to) go into a low telemark stance. The boot will initially allow motion at the bellow but when they pack out there will be nothing to absorb this force. Tip dive in powder or ripped and busted binding will be the result.

 
This is the reality of this kind of system and why no one will ever get it right. It cannot be done.