2014/2015 ON3P Skis (Official Thread) - Discussion and Lust

2014/2015 ON3P Line-Up

Park/Freestyle

Prester & Filthy Rich
(Prester - Camber Underfoot, No Rocker)
(Filthy Rich - Camber Underfoot, Tip and Tail Rocker = 40.5cm)

Attachment 150919

Prester
171 - 118/86/108, 18.8m radius, 1.78 KG/ski
176 - 119/86/109, 19.4m radius, 1.82 KG/ski
181 - 120/86/110, 20.0m radius, 1.86 KG/ski

Filthy Rich
161 - 112/88/112, 16.5m radius, 1.54 KG/ski
171 - 114/88/114, 17.8m radius, 1.69 KG/ski
176 - 115/88/115, 18.4m radius, 1.73 KG/ski
181 - 116/88/116, 19.0m radius, 1.79 KG/ski
186 - 117/88/117, 19.7m radius, 1.85 KG/ski


All Mountain/Powder Jibby Flippy Thingy

Kartel 98 and 106
(Camber underfoot, Tip and Tail Rocker = 40.5cm)

Attachment 150920

Kartel 98
161 - 123/98/117, 17.9n radius, 1.70 KG/ski
171 - 125/98/118, 19.3m radius, 1.90 KG/ski
176 - 126/98/119, 19.9m radius, 2.00 KG/ski
181 - 127/98/120, 20.5m radius, 2.10 KG/ski
186 - 128/98/121, 21.1m radius, 2.14 KG/ski

Kartel 106
161 - 130/106/125, 18.7m radius, 1.80 KG/ski
171 - 132/106/126, 20.1m radius, 2.00 KG/ski
176 - 132/106/126, 20.9m radius, 2.10 KG/ski
181 - 133/106/127, 21.5m radius, 2.20 KG/ski
186 - 134/106/128, 22.2m radius, 2.30 KG/ski


Jeffrey 114 and 122
(Jeffrey 114 - Camber underfoot, Tip and Tail rocker = 40.5cm)
(Jeffrey 122 - ZERO Camber underfoot, Tip Rocker = 50cm, Tail Rocker = 45cm)

Attachment 150921

Jeffrey 114
171 - 138/114/131, 22.4m radius, 2.13 KG/ski
176 - 139/114/132, 23.2m radius, 2.22 KG/ski
181 - 140/114/132, 24.1m radius, 2.31 KG/ski
186 - 141/114/133, 24.9m radius, 2.38 KG/ski

Jeffrey 122
181 - 146/122/139, 25.2m radius, 2.35 KG/ski
186 - 147/122/139, 26.1m radius, 2.44 KG/ski
191 - 148/122/140, 27.0m radius, 2.54 KG/ski


Big Mountain/Powder - Directional & RES

Cease and Desist & Billy Goat
(CD - Zero Camber underfoot, Tip Rocker = 74.5cm, Tail Rocker = 34.5cm, Tour (Carbon) Layup)
(BG - Camber underfoot, Tip Rocker = 43cm, Tail Rocker = 28cm)

Attachment 150922

Cease and Desist
183 - 144/127/133, 36.2m radius, 2.25 KG/ski
193 - 146/127/135, 37.0m radius, 2.40 KG/ski

Billy Goat
166 - 135/112/121, 25.4m radius, 1.74 KG/ski
176 - 138/114/123, 27.0m radius, 2.10 KG/ski
186 - 142/116/126, 28.4m radius, 2.31 KG/ski
191 - 145/118/128, 29.2m radius, 2.40 KG/ski


All Mountain - Directional

Wrenegade 102 and 112
(Camber Underfoot, Tip Rocker = 34.5cm, Tail Rocker = 23cm)

Attachment 150923

Wrenegade 102
176 - 134/102/122, 21.4m radius, 2.05 KG/ski
186 - 134/102/122, 23.6m radius, 2.21 KG/ski

Wrenegade 112
176 - 142/112/130, 24.7m radius, 2.18 KG/ski
186 - 142/112/130, 27.3m radius, 2.35 KG/ski


All Mountain/Touring - Directional & RES, Tour (Carbon) Layup

Steeple 102 and 112
(Camber underfoot, Tip Rocker = 43cm, Tail Rocker = 26cm)

Attachment 150924

NOT FINAL STEEPLE WEIGHTS! PRODUCTION MODELS WILL BE LIGHTENED!

Steeple 102
174 - 127/102/111, 26.7m radius, 1.82 KG/ski
184 - 128/102/112, 27.7m radius, 1.93 KG/ski
189 - 129/102/113, 28.3m radius, 2.10 KG/ski

Steeple 112
174 - 137/112/121, 26.8m radius, 2.05 KG/ski
184 - 138/112/122, 28.4m radius, 2.25 KG/ski
189 - 139/112/123, 29.2m radius, 2.30 KG/ski


Full catalog can be seen at: http://issuu.com/on3pskis/docs/on3ps...log_2014_issuu


Go forth and discuss!

So... I heard a nasty rumor that the 186 Wrenegade 112 is noticeably softer than the current 191 Wren. Like, softer even than the current 186 Vicik.

Please disprove me so that Scott doesn't have to make me a custom pair.

Had a chance to ski every model, in multiple lengths at the SIA on-snow and also in some insanely deep, Colorado Blower Sauce...will post more info on each ski as I get more time on them.

Loveland PowDURRR Testing - 1/31/14

David Steele - ON3P Team Rider on Steeple 112 189cm
http://www.stevemokanphotography.com...erJan-9-XL.jpg

Sean Donnahue - ON3P (Friends and Family) on Jeffrey 114 181cm
http://www.stevemokanphotography.com...erJan-8-XL.jpg

PowTron - ON3P Old Guy on Jeffrey 122 191cm
http://www.stevemokanphotography.com...erJan-4-XL.jpg


SIA On-Snow
Attachment 150925

Attachment 150926

Attachment 150927

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

So... I heard a nasty rumor that the 186 Wrenegade 112 is noticeably softer than the current 191 Wren. Like, softer even than the current 186 Vicik.

Please disprove me so that Scott doesn't have to make me a custom pair.

---

It is softer than the 191 by a tad, yes...but not softer than the 186 Vicik in my opinion. I think it skis much easier than the 191 for sure, not going to lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

So... I heard a nasty rumor that the 186 Wrenegade 112 is noticeably softer than the current 191 Wren. Like, softer even than the current 186 Vicik.

Please disprove me so that Scott doesn't have to make me a custom pair.

---

Nope, they are definitely not softer than the Vicik. Don't fret.

They do, however, ski a whole lot easier IMO. The old Wren certainly ran shit, but I think most people that love that ski would admit took a bit of effort to tame (as any ski meant for that sort of skiing generally will). This new shape for the 102 and 112... just... ski.

Did you guys consider making the Wren 102 in a 181cm size? I'd pretty much pre-order that right now. I'm concerned that 186 may be a bit much for a ski of that width (plus, considering my BG's are 186) and the 176 is definitely too short for my tastes. The 110mm Jeffrey 181 is just such a perfect length.

Just out of curiosity: With the easier to ski Wren, which current ski in ON3P's lineup is the choice for "the Mountain stole my woman, killed my best friend, and left me for dead. It's going down" mega-charging situations? The new Wren 112? The 191 Billy Goat?

I'm not in the market for such a ski - my 186 Billy Goats charge harder than I do - but I'm curious.

Steeple is the skinny goat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

So... I heard a nasty rumor that the 186 Wrenegade 112 is noticeably softer than the current 191 Wren. Like, softer even than the current 186 Vicik.

Please disprove me so that Scott doesn't have to make me a custom pair.

---

Softer than the 191cm Wren, Stiffer than the 186cm Vicik. Based upon the 186cm Vicik flex profile, so it is a slightly rounder flex profile than what is on the 191cm Wren. I would have kept the 191cm Wren if people bought it. Sadly...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

Did you guys consider making the Wren 102 in a 181cm size? I'd pretty much pre-order that right now. I'm concerned that 186 may be a bit much for a ski of that width (plus, considering my BG's are 186) and the 176 is definitely too short for my tastes. The 110mm Jeffrey 181 is just such a perfect length.

---

Yes for both the Wren 102 and 112. I don't see it happening this season, but we will expand the size range soon for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusBrody

Just out of curiosity: With the easier to ski Wren, which current ski in ON3P's lineup is the choice for "the Mountain stole my woman, killed my best friend, and left me for dead. It's going down" mega-charging situations? The new Wren 112? The 191 Billy Goat?

I'm not in the market for such a ski - my 186 Billy Goats charge harder than I do - but I'm curious.

---

I find that is anything that isn't super hard, the BG has 90% of the stability of the Wren, and is far more fun when the snow is soft.

I sort of see the Wren as sort of a dying bred of ski as some of the newer, more playful designs get the stability thing right. I've never had a day on a 191cm BG where I felt I wished I was on a Wren.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowTron

Steeple 102 and 112
(Camber underfoot, Tip Rocker = 43cm, Tail Rocker = 26cm)

Attachment 150924

Steeple 102
174 - 127/102/111, 26.7m radius, 1.82 KG/ski
184 - 128/102/112, 27.7m radius, 1.93 KG/ski
189 - 129/102/113, 28.3m radius, 2.10 KG/ski

Steeple 112
174 - 137/112/121, 26.8m radius, 2.05 KG/ski
184 - 138/112/122, 28.4m radius, 2.25 KG/ski
189 - 139/112/123, 29.2m radius, 2.30 KG/ski

---

To just preempt it before everyone freaks out, as a few people were in another thread, these weights are far from final. We ran out of the material we use on Tour models (a different, lighter bamboo) and had to use our stock material on our show skis.

The information here is for our retail catalog and I don't lie to my retailers, so I was honest about the weights of the show skis we displayed at SIA. Our retailers are all aware that the production skis will be lighter and not worried, so you shouldn't be worried either about a ski that won't be available for another 6 months.

The weights, especially on the 112, will be noticeably lighter when they go to production.

Hopefully that clears it up, as some people seemed very stressed about it in some other threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottyb

Steeple is the skinny goat?

---

Sort of. Skinny Goat prototyping was the basis for the Steeple line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iggyskier

Softer than the 191cm Wren, Stiffer than the 186cm Vicik. Based upon the 186cm Vicik flex profile, so it is a slightly rounder flex profile than what is on the 191cm Wren. I would have kept the 191cm Wren if people bought it. Sadly...



Yes for both the Wren 102 and 112. I don't see it happening this season, but we will expand the size range soon for sure.



I find that is anything that isn't super hard, the BG has 90% of the stability of the Wren, and is far more fun when the snow is soft.

I sort of see the Wren as sort of a dying bred of ski as some of the newer, more playful designs get the stability thing right. I've never had a day on a 191cm BG where I felt I wished I was on a Wren.

---

Thanks Scott. Guess I will need to demo the 186 Wren before buying. Or maybe pick up the current 181 Wren. I absolutely love the shape, flex, and feel of the current 191, but the reality is that I'm just not heavy enough to ski it at 140lbs.

I agree that the BG is plenty stable. I don't want for stability from my 186 BGs. But, they don't have the same locked-in, precise feel on firm snow as a ski with a more traditional rearward mount, traditional sidecut, and flatter tail has. Long radius, comp-style skis are indeed a dying breed.

What are the changes from the old jeff to new 114?

How much more playful will a charger type find the 186/114 jeff than BG? Qualified by said skier coming from a 193 Cochise and a 186 renegade.... Both of which I find to be pretty intuitive and "fun" skis, albeit the longer Cochise is long when on tight NW trees. I know it's pretty subjective, but I am looking for something shorter that still kills variable conditions, and playful is a bonus for skiing in ze powdah with my kiddies.

You guys plan on a N.Idaho Demo day?
please say yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iggyskier

Yes for both the Wren 102 and 112. I don't see it happening this season, but we will expand the size range soon for sure.

---

Understandable you don't want to go with too many sizes right off the bat with all of the other line-up changes. I'll probably give the 186's a shot anyway... it's easy to get caught up in the nuances of specs and forget that 5cm's difference isn't really that much anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allTandA

What are the changes from the old jeff to new 114?

How much more playful will a charger type find the 186/114 jeff than BG? Qualified by said skier coming from a 193 Cochise and a 186 renegade.... Both of which I find to be pretty intuitive and "fun" skis, albeit the longer Cochise is long when on tight NW trees. I know it's pretty subjective, but I am looking for something shorter that still kills variable conditions, and playful is a bonus for skiing in ze powdah with my kiddies.

---

I can't speak to next year's Jeffrey, but I can tell you that the current version is significantly more playful than the Cochise while sacrificing very little crud busting ability, especially for a twin-tip. However, I had the 185 Cochise and not the 193.

So with no camber is the new Jeffrey nice and loose at slow/low speeds like you'd have in steep and deep manky trees? How does it compare to the Billy Goats under these conditions?

Have any gals skied on the 14/15 171 Jeffrey? What did they think?

Stoked on the new lineup. My neighbor bought some 176 Billy Goats a couple years ago and I have watched his skiing progress and it has been amazing. Dude is turning into a ripper and I am sure the skis play a role in that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

Thanks Scott. Guess I will need to demo the 186 Wren before buying. Or maybe pick up the current 181 Wren. I absolutely love the shape, flex, and feel of the current 191, but the reality is that I'm just not heavy enough to ski it at 140lbs.

I agree that the BG is plenty stable. I don't want for stability from my 186 BGs. But, they don't have the same locked-in, precise feel on firm snow as a ski with a more traditional rearward mount, traditional sidecut, and flatter tail has. Long radius, comp-style skis are indeed a dying breed.

---

Agreed that there is no replacement for a wren-like ski on hard snow. That said, I would still take the improvement in soft snow of the BG 100 times out of 100 vs the improvement on hard snow of the wren. Wren is definitely a quiver ski IMO, and I am more than fine ripping hard pack on BGs all day long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allTandA

What are the changes from the old jeff to new 114?

How much more playful will a charger type find the 186/114 jeff than BG? Qualified by said skier coming from a 193 Cochise and a 186 renegade.... Both of which I find to be pretty intuitive and "fun" skis, albeit the longer Cochise is long when on tight NW trees. I know it's pretty subjective, but I am looking for something shorter that still kills variable conditions, and playful is a bonus for skiing in ze powdah with my kiddies.

---

The biggest change, besides the width, is the move from an elliptical sidecut to a bi-radius sidecut. Similar radius, but the older jeffrey is going to carve harder the more you load the ski up, where the new one will be a bit more of an even turn radius, regardless of how you flex the ski. The aspect we like is the new sidecut is a bit more neutral in soft snow, so it is a bit less hooky than the older Jeffrey.

As for Jeffrey vs BG....it is quite a bit more playful, but it is still stiff enough to charge and go fast. Mount is very different, and how it turns is pretty different, so they are different skis for different skis. That said, as far as fun skis go, the Jeffrey is about as stable as you will get. If you are liking the 193cm Cochice and want a playful ski to match, I think the Jeffrey would be a good fit as it can actually hold its own at speed, unlike a lot of the more jibby options out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2FUNKY

You guys plan on a N.Idaho Demo day?
please say yes.

---

We might actually be at Schwitzer on 3/15 & 3/16. Saturday might not happen, but should be there sunday. Dates are getting finalized now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uglymoney

So with no camber is the new Jeffrey nice and loose at slow/low speeds like you'd have in steep and deep manky trees? How does it compare to the Billy Goats under these conditions?

---

For clarification, the Jeffrey 114 has camber. The Jeffrey 122 does not. The BG is going to be the easiest in manky snow, as there really is no sidecut that hooks. As with most of our skis, though, they tend to come alive more the faster you go, so there is nothing I will come out and say is great at low speeds - go faster - but the Jeffrey 114 is going to be the easiest of the bunch (BG, CD, Jeff 114, Jeff 122) to ski at slow speeds. The BG needs speed to have the sidecut engage, and the Jeffrey 122 has a larger radius and is pretty wide. The CD is the CD - it likes to go fast. So of that sort of mid-110 range skis, the one I would want if I was skiing slow speed in manky trees would be the Jeffrey 114. If you can pick up a bit of speed, the BG is going to surpass it in maneuverability though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iggyskier

For clarification, the Jeffrey 114 has camber. The Jeffrey 122 does not. The BG is going to be the easiest in manky snow, as there really is no sidecut that hooks. As with most of our skis, though, they tend to come alive more the faster you go, so there is nothing I will come out and say is great at low speeds - go faster - but the Jeffrey 114 is going to be the easiest of the bunch (BG, CD, Jeff 114, Jeff 122) to ski at slow speeds. The BG needs speed to have the sidecut engage, and the Jeffrey 122 has a larger radius and is pretty wide. The CD is the CD - it likes to go fast. So of that sort of mid-110 range skis, the one I would want if I was skiing slow speed in manky trees would be the Jeffrey 114. If you can pick up a bit of speed, the BG is going to surpass it in maneuverability though.

---

Thanks for clarifying. That should help. I'm on and still in love with the first year BG's and they aren't really even comparable to the new BG's so I'm kind of flying blind with no opportunity to demo. I'm sure the stuff that I am worried about was fixed long ago so I should probably just throw down and get some 186 BG's with the RES but the new Jeffreys sound amazing and I'm interested in those for my wife as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iggyskier

We might actually be at Schwitzer on 3/15 & 3/16. Saturday might not happen, but should be there sunday. Dates are getting finalized now.

---

Stoke!


78

Having skied the shit out the skinny goats for a couple seasons, I'm all in on the Steeple (probably both pair). When I'm in pow I occasionally wish the Skinny Goat was a little less skinny (even though the RES makes the tips almost un-sinkable), and for spring touring I wish it was a little more skinny. Boom: two Steeple models. I think you all hit the sweet spot of sizing.

Now how do I get a proto pair to bang around the Cascades this spring... :D

Here I am all ready to retire the first gen BG for the new ones and now you throw the Steeple into the mix... I hate you guys. But I love your skis. So con flict ed

Yeah, I freaked out about the Steeple weights. The 176 BG tour was 1.9kg. The Steeple 112 is shorter, thinner and 150g heavier. Count me in as bummed, especially since the 176 BG tour was sniped from underneath me in the demo sale. Curious to see the final weights, but not holding my breath.

No more love for Vicik and Tychoon?

Scott, care to compare the 186 Prester (this year's cuz next year it's discontinued) to the 186 Kartel 98?

Looking for a playful all-mountain twin that I can take through the park and goof around on low-snow days, but is still stiff enough to rip hardpack and charge in variable conditions. Just not a huge fan of tail rocker, which is what's motivating the question. Also considering mounting up a pair of 10.11 191 Wrens at -6 from center...

PS. The BG kills it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by telebobski

No more love for Vicik and Tychoon?

---

still lovin' my Viciks...looking forward to trying out both widths of Steeples

Totally different ski than the Viciks, but something about the Steeples speaks to me.

Scott, any thoughts about how the Steeples ski versus the Viciks?