Martin Thornquist wrote
... you need relatively skinny skis to fit well in prepared
tracks. This is at odds with going off-track in deep snow,
for that you want wider skis.

Good point. A key reason why most "telemark" setups don't solve the problem.

What I use for most of my gentle ungroomed tours is a light ski, just wide
enough to fit in most groomed tracks, with an SNS Profil track binding
mounted on it. I've got several pairs of skis set up like that, some
metal-edged some not, some with no-wax bases some waxable.

In very good snow conditions, I've skied 25+ degree slopes on SNS track
bindings (e.g. Cornice Bowl at Mammoth, various bump runs at Lake Louise and
Mammoth) -- I'm sure others have done steeper and more technically difficult
terrain or snow. Of course in difficult snow conditions even a 10 degree
slope is tough on that equipment. But I wouldn't care, since if the
off-piste snow was difficult and un-fun, I'd be skiing on the groomed track.

I used to do lots of skiing on light telemark gear, including a sizable
number of tours in the Alps within two hours of Lausanne. But now there's
no open "role" in my "arsenal" of skis for telemark bindings and boots.
What's happened in recent years is that my usable range of SNS track
bindings on track-compatible skis has expanded outward and upward, and my
comfortable range with Alpine Touring / randonnee boots and bindings has
extended downward.

The "middle range of telemark-optimal touring is too small to be worth it
for me -- I can't justify maintaining a third kind of incompatible gear for
such a small payoff. And I have several athletic skiing friends in different
countries with graduate technical education like the original poster, who've
made the same choice of limiting to two kinds of ski gear: track skis
(mostly for skating) and Alpine Touring skis for both moderate and steep
touring. Except for a few die-hards, bored lift-served downhill skiers, and
Norwegians, telemarking is over.

Ken