New tele binding...

it'd be pointless to use the tech toe if you didn't get the full ROM and zero resistance while skinning that dynafiddlers have been enjoying for years.

I think it is a lot more important to have that range of movement with an A. T. boot, versus a telemark boot. If you can bend your foot at the metatarsal, then you don't need as much of a range. You do have to have some, but not as much (cross country ski bindings specifically put in bumpers to limit the range). From what I can tell, the bindings on my skinny skis allow about 45 degrees of movement.

I think it is a lot more important to have that range of movement with an A. T. boot, versus a telemark boot. If you can bend your foot at the metatarsal, then you don't need as much of a range. You do have to have some, but not as much (cross country ski bindings specifically put in bumpers to limit the range). From what I can tell, the bindings on my skinny skis allow about 45 degrees of movement.

Seems like a statement from some one that has never used a free pivot touring binding...   When I first tried Voile Switchbacks it was a real eye-opener.    Another major advance in AT boots in the last few years that tele boots haven't picked up is greatly increased ankle rotation during tour mode.  Comparing my latest AT setup with my Scarpa T2 + 3 Pin cable setup -- my stride length is almost double.

Scarpa has a much improved heel lock mechanism in their Mastrale -- which they haven't gotten around to incorporating into their NTN and 75MM telemark boots, also the Mastrale is a ~400 gr lighter than the current T1 and 100 gr lighter than current T2 -- I conclude that Scarpa isn't investing in telemark anymore.

I conclude that Scarpa isn't investing in telemark anymore.

I agree with that. No one is seriously investing in tele anymore. They have what they need to build better lighter boots but they don't.

In my opinion the OR industry is killing telemark… and on purpose!

Seems like a statement from some one that has never used a free pivot touring binding...   

I have, but with A. T. boots. It was OK, but I found the whole process frustrating. I come from a cross country ski background, and the lack of a bumper, and lack of metatarsal flex made the whole thing ridiculously slow and awkward. I'm sure with bellows it would have been better, but again, cross country bindings purposely limit the movement. It would be much simpler, and lighter, to simply do away with the bumper. But they don't because it isn't necessary, or ideal, to push your foot back that far.

I see he's using the Plum toe, which has a history of shear failures at the toe wing/toe pin interface.
Well, then it wouldn't be a TLT6.    Adding a bellows would completely change the boot, add weight and reduce stiffness.  The essential problem with lightweight tele is that stiff-soled AT boots can always be made lighter than boots with a flexible sole, and a binding for stiff-soled AT boots can always be made lighter than an active tele binding.

FWIW, I'm using TLT6Ms in TTS bindings on one of my fat fishscale rigs (Vector BC).  Working great, allows me to skin in full free tech-toe tour mode, ski downhill with near AT binding performance, and allows me to shuffle around on the fishscales with a bit heel lift in TTS downhill mode.  It's by far the best billygoating setup I've ever used.  I plan to do the same on my other fat fishscale rig (Charger BC).

An A. T. boot and binding will always be lighter than a Telemark boot and binding for the reasons you mention, but that doesn't mean that telemark can't be much better, and approach the weight of A. T. The main advantage of telemark is that you can bend the metatarsal while touring and while making a really cool turn . Transitions might be easier as well (although that varies quite a bit depending on the binding and which way you are transitioning). There will always be a weight penalty for those who choose telemark, but there is no practical reason (only a marketing reason) why the penalty is so big.

A big reason for that is racing, of course. Put someone on the pedestal holding your equipment and you can sell a bunch of gear. The same thing happens in cross country skiing. The lightest, skinniest skis (the ones they race in the Olympics) keep getting better, but more middle of the road gear (like NNN/SNS BC gear) progresses far more slowly.

I have, but with A. T. boots. It was OK, but I found the whole process frustrating. I come from a cross country ski background, and the lack of a bumper, and lack of metatarsal flex made the whole thing ridiculously slow and awkward. I'm sure with bellows it would have been better, but again, cross country bindings purposely limit the movement. It would be much simpler, and lighter, to simply do away with the bumper. But they don't because it isn't necessary, or ideal, to push your foot back that far.

That's where the improved ankle rotation in recent AT boots comes into play -- with old AT boots you were limited in how far forward you could advance the lead foot before the calf bumped into the upper.   With the ankle rotation (and lightness!) of the latest AT boots diagonal stride is possible.   The non-flexing forefoot takes some getting used to and with no bumper kick-turns also require some adjustments in technique.

Still with AT gear you lose the joy and challenge of making telemark turns on the descent.  It's sad that Scarpa stopped making the F1 (which worked well with the TTS binding) and hasn't incorporated the lightness and awesome ankle rotation of the F1 and Alien into it's NTN and 75MM boots