To those thinking about not buying billy goats, don't let this be you.
Attachment 176452
Printable View
To those thinking about not buying billy goats, don't let this be you.
Attachment 176452
Plenty quick? I want something with stability yet quick enough to negotiate the trees. Something quicker turning for the trees in powder and more "traditional" than my 186 Jeffreys. Am I asking too much from a bomb-proof ski? 184 perhaps? I don't need the hardpack performance, necessarily, as I have the Jeffs and some Bonafides.Quote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
It's hard to do a perfect A --> B --> C comparison, especially with such limited exposure, and hopefully others can chime in for you because I hate to get on a soapbox with absolutes. Take my comments about tuning to heart as well, along with the fact that I ain't no Lindahl.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikdes26
If you're thinking heli-trip, I'm guessing the skiing would be fairly wide open, and from this perspective, I'd opt for the Goat as weight wouldn't be a concern, and just a bit more float would be appreciated (based on comments above, and not my direct experience).
With those disclaimers, I'd say that with any of the ON3P's, you need to be just a bit more "on top" of them to initiate than the Automatics. My MAP/Carbon GPO's fall somewhere in between the two. If you're not familiar with the GPO layups, the MAP/Carbon is their intermediate layup, with full glass being the most damp and UL carbon being lightest.
My comment that all of the ON3P's had me looking a bit further down the hill (as off the wall as it might appear to be) may be the most telling attribute of all of the skis I demoed. When I realized this to be the case, it was a bit of a revelation. You hear comments about speed limit and such, but for me, it's about how a ski affects your attitude, and these skis gave me a bit more of it - just a bit.
If you were to score them (god, how I hate this sort of quantification), I'd rank them as follows:
Turn initiation (1=least input required, 10=most):
Automatic 109 (182cm): 6
MAP/Carbon GPO (182cm): 7
Steeple 112 (184cm): 8
Billy Goat (184cm): 9
Wrenegade 112 (186cm): 9.5
Again, tuning could change these perceptions, and in powder, I don't think you'd care.
Perceived speed limit would roughly be the inverse of this, except that the GPO would rank closer to the Steeple. I'd love to have had a comparison of the ON3Ps in manky, chop but today wasn't the day. My sense was one of a very stable tip however. Another thing I was surprised about was that in spite of their weight, the Goats and Steeples did not feel heavier than the GPOs. I might feel this on the skin track, but it was not the case in downhill mode.
I'd liken the Atomic 109's to a light version of my MAP/Carbon GPO's (both in 182cm) in that they have a similar character as far as initiation and how you stand on them (Atomics mounted on the line and GPO's at -1cm).
Last week (in anticipation of this demo), I took my Automatics and GPO's out - to re-visit my quiver and see if there was "room" for Billy Goats. Rather than re-state that all here, you can read about it in this thread (post# 582): http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...uide?p=4660767.
A few days before that post, I was bellyaching about my GPOs in upside down snow. In retrospect, I realized that much of it had to do with the fact that I was getting over a flu shot and a cold.
Cheers,
Thom
Amazing feedback, Thom. The heli trips I do are usually mid-January in BC, so we spend a fair amount of time in the trees. A couple weeks ago was a mixture of alpine and trees, but trees were always part of the equation. The Automatic 109 was good in the alpine AND the trees, and I appreciated their versatility. I also appreciated that they were one of the ski options included in my cost for the trip (provided by CMH). I liked them enough to not try the Automatic 117 or K2 Pon2oon.
Lots to contemplate. Thanks again for your feedback!
Overall, I agree with GNU, but the in the conditions you want these for the BGs are not a "9" on a scale describing how much effort they take to turn IMO. They are perhaps the smoothest, most intuitive, ski I've skied in pow and soft cut-up/ soft bumps. If they are a 9, I guess my 09/10? 191 Wrens are a 27 or something like that :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by mikdes26
Everything skis pow reasonably well, but I feel that the BGs are far better than my now-sold GPOs in tighter terrain/heavier snow. The GPOs were a lot better than the BGs in harder bumps, hardpack overall etc. But I haven't detuned the BGs yet, so I guess that's the reason for their sometimes funky behavior.
I can't compare the BGs to Steeples, but I've skied the older BG tour a lot, and I think they have pretty much the same flex as the Steeples? Anyhow, I feel that the added stiffness of the standard BG lay-up makes them easier to ski in rough snow and at higher speeds overall, but a bit plankier than the tours on hard snow.
Anyhow, if I were to pick up a ski for heli the BG might be it. On the other hand.......if you already have 109s and Jeffreys that work well, maybe you should consider adding a C&D or a Protest instead.
Agreed ... the arbitrary initiation effort scale was indeed arbitrary. I should have emphasized that it was for those conditions - dust/wind-blown over crust. I'd expect the Goats to be really easy to turn in powder.
Also to mikedes26, I don't know the sort of trees you're referring to. If you haven't skied Summit County, Colorado trees, they can be very tight. In comparison, when I see all of the stoke videos posted here of skiing in trees, I look at them as open glades, bordering on wide open spaces (in general), in comparison with the tight trees we find here.
Cheers,
Thom
If the Wren 112's are 9.5... the Billy Goats are more like an 8, at most. And keep in mind I've got 25 days so far this year and 20-or-so of them are on those exact two skis, so it's pretty fresh in my mind.
As for the RES - that doesn't really come into play until you're in true 3D snow - you need at least 5-6 inches on the ground. You haven't truly experienced that side-cut if you've only skied them in less snow than that, especially considering the pintail design dropping you down from the tips.
Well...this is a side view, but pretty representative of some of the spacing in the tighter, but yet still skiable trees. I like to look about 5-10 turns down the run and am not afraid the thread needles, as long as I can check speed...Attachment 176466
I look at this as wide open, in comparison with the Colorado trees I referenced.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikdes26
Cheers,
Thom
Not bagging on mikdes, but I think most mags would agree that those are not "tighter" trees. Just a different point of departure. If he wants something as easy as the Automatic, then he may not enjoy an ON3P ski...which is fine!Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
The 186 Jeffrey (110) is quicker than the BG on firmer snow, but the BG is quicker AND more stable in 3D snow, where the RES and pintail make it about the most versatile ski I've ever used. The progressive mount of the Jeffrey lets you really whip/muscle them around, which is much harder to do on the BG. That comes at a price, which is (to me) fore-aft stability, particularly in soft chop/tracked pow. This is where the BG shines. The way RES lets you rip over deep, heavier, tracked snow is awesome, and those are the conditions I find myself skiing the most (inbounds). The Jeffrey is a great playful ski with a backbone for 3-7 days after a storm, but I certainly wouldn't take mine heli-skiing.
This is really helpful information. I hoped to prompt comments, because 4 or 5 runs doesn't tell the whole story (doh!), and of course, I would have loved to find some 3D snow to play in.
I tend to agree about the comments regarding tight trees - that an Automatic type ski might be most suitable for the OP, although follow-up comments that the Goat is quicker in pow are encouraging, and give me pause.
I commented about my experiences with RES in the way I did (on hard snow), based on several comments in this thread about needing to learn how to engage the tip on groomers. I walked away with the impression that this might be a compromise/downside of RES. It's not. The skis are very intuitive, and easy to engage on groomers/hardpack - not weird in the least. Of course, it's nice to hear that RES works its magic in 3D snow - something I'd expect, but good to hear.
Cheers,
Thom
I found a shot on my phone of some tight trees here in Colorado (A-basin).
It's hard to get an idea from this photo, but in the tight spots, there's a tree where (say) every other mogul would be. When it opens up, its like a narrow East Coast (Vermont) trail.
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...9d0d701bd1.jpg
Cheers,
Thom
These are pretty open, although I did say tighter in my original comment. We ski plenty of trees tighter than this. This is simply the only photo I had at my disposal that was close, as opposed to these wide open trees...Attachment 176492Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
Enough photos about tree spacing.
None of the trees posted in this thread are tight.
Anyways.
5'10" 210lbs and middle of the pack skier who uses angulation to turn skis. I kinda ski fast and have fairly solid technique but not the fastest or bestest skier.
191 Billy Goat is a nice ski. I had no problems getting it to do what I wanted. It is sluggish on groomers compared to other skis. Probably the RES. I still could make it scarve turns on groomers easy enough. (Notice I said scarve not carve. It would take really soft and smooth groomers to leave trenches with the BG.) Skiing it in steep bumps and cut-up goo at BBI16 seemed to be no problem. Felt plenty stable. I liked it better than the blizzard gunsmoke and atomic automatic. Didn't wish for any changes such as a narrower width or shorter length.
Don't over think this. If you like the idea of ON3P as a company or brand or whatever, and want a pow ski that can handle a variety of conditions, buy billygoats. If you are wondering what size you should get and worried about turning, buy the 184/186 length. Those who want/need a 191 already know that they do.
This
And thisQuote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
Now......can we have the 15/16-thread soon?Quote:
Originally Posted by Leavenworth Skier
Psssh...never!Quote:
Originally Posted by sf
Here you go...continue forth and crush it.
2016/2017 ON3P Thread
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...73#post4665473
Any input on the production Steeple 108s? Are they simply a tour-able version of the BGs or an otherwise interesting love child of the BG and something else? I'm looking to update the touring spot in my collection and these are looking good. If they perform similar to BGs in pow and everywhere else I can't see why they wouldn't make a pretty ideal quiver of one touring ski (no extreme mountaineering or skiing down steep ice disguised as snow). This being the case, why aren't we hearing more about them?