ON3P SKIS Discussion

I say go for it - I think wren108s are absolutely awesome. I have just about 0% hesitation to recommend them to directional skiers who want an easy to ski charger with better fresh snow capability than the width suggest. They are not zippy groomer killers or the funnest ski to do lazy laps on, but are a lot of fun at mach looney no matter the condition of the snow. I clicked instantly with my wren108s, not so with BGs. Titanal wrens do seem like a killer idea as well, if perhaps not for the use you lay out. :)

So far Wren114s are more of a really good idea for me rather than something I can say skis this or that way, whilst wren108s are freaking great and ensured a spot in the quiver based on experience. I am quite sure that I will enjoy wren114s too though, hence getting two pairs while I still can. For sure, the wren108s are more nimble than wren114s due to narrower width and slightly shorter sidecut. The flex is pretty comparable imo, but where the narrower ski is easier to bend imo.

It could be that Woodsman108 is an even better fit for what you are trying to achieve though, with it being sligthly more playful and probably catering to more varied turn shapes, though I have yet to try them myself. The new Woodsman-series really tick a lot of boxes imho - I will be very, very surprised if ON3P are able to keep them in stock this coming winter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdadour

Has there been any report of the weight of the Woodsman 108 in the 187 or 192?

---

I just got my Woodsman 108 protos in a 182 and they weigh ~2380 with the demo binding plate things (for Attack 13s). The protos are supposed to have a bit less taper so they might be a slight bit heavier than production, but I’d bet it’s close.

i will weigh in on the Wren 108 v 114 banter and confirm the above statement of you very likely won't need the 114 in the East. I was fine on the 108 in the west this year until Jackson got 24 overnight. Then I wanted more. I found the 108 did pretty well till >12".

I am picking up a 114 as I didn't like the BG in AK and we do get some rather large dumps in Mammoth that warrant a 114. It will be interesting to see how I like them compared to the BG.

I will sell 1 of them (114 or BG) and likely my 108's as I actually prefer my Qlab's for <6" of pow through packed powder. Think the 108 has too much tip rocker unless it gets quite deep and I wish it had metal for that slot in the quiver. The 108 does way better in pow that 108 underfoot should, but then why not go fat! I'm solving for a 3 ski quiver here. Monster 98 for groomed/firm, Qlab for soft/day after storms, and either the 114/BG/Atlas (my old standby) for pow. For the fatter, 114 slot I don't think it needs metal and the wren likely has the perfect rocker.

More than no overlap, less than full overlap.

It skis exactly like you would imagine a wider 108 would ski.
So if you’re skiing deeper snow and want more width that is exactly what the 114 will provide, but at the same time it is a bit more combursom on hard snow.

It’s a sweet ski.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_pretzel

More than no overlap, less than full overlap.

It skis exactly like you would imagine a wider 108 would ski.
So if you’re skiing deeper snow and want more width that is exactly what the 114 will provide, but at the same time it is a bit more combursom on hard snow.

It’s a sweet ski.

---

This validates my imagination.

Mammoth is the perfect place for the Wren series in general. 114 makes a lot of sense.

I bought the Billy Goats this year to fill the slot as my inbounds pow ski (1 foot+ new snow) and figured I'd give my two cents after getting so much good advice from fellow mags.

Quick bit about me: 30 year old weekend warrior, 6'4" 185lbs, strong skier, mainly Utah, bought the BG 189.
Only other 115+ skis I've ever owned are the old 196 Bodacious, but I also spent 5 days on the 190 Bibby this year in an effort to test the other side of the spectrum (relatively speaking) before buying a new pow ski. My everyday ski is the BMX 105HP, which is a pretty solid pow-performer in its own right.

First things first: I LOVE the bodacious. Absolutely trucks through variable snow, super damp, reliable ski. An absolute dream in untracked, steep snow. However, now that most of my inbounds skiing is in Alta/Snowbird in steep and narrow terrain and choppy snow, the Bodacious are a bit too much work in tight places and require me to be "always on" in a way that isn't realistic.

Before buying the BG's I spent 5 days on the 190 Bibby's. Having very little experience on heavily tapered or rockered skis, these were a pretty radical change for me. Gotta give credit where credit is due though, they turned on a dime, ultra maneuverable in tight places, great float, and you could still stand on them and charge hard through junk snow. I now understand why so many people love them.
The reasons I didn't ultimately buy a pair were:
1) the mount-point was too far forward for me. I didn't like having so little tip in front of me, and occasionally I would get hung up when skiing fast through choppy snow. I'm sure this could have been solved by skiing with a more neutral stance, but that simply isn't my style (or perhaps even capability?). When skiing fast through chopped up snow in steep terrain, I'm most comfortable when staying forward in a drive the tips kind of style, which also makes it much easier to release the tails when needed, in my experience.
2) Kinda related to #1, I found the skis were too floaty in the tails. As a result, the back half of the ski was not "in the snow" enough for me. I know that points 1 and 2 could literally be interpreted as "pros" rather than "cons" to skiers with different preferences, and even though they allowed the ski to be super manueverable, super easy to break the tails free, etc., it just didn't fully work for how I ski.

In comes the Billy Goat:
Essentially, the BG solved a few of my gripes with the Bibby and restored some of the things I loved about the Bodacious, and that's why I bought them.
1. Pintail. The tail sinks in the snow a bit more than the fat front half of the ski. Rather than being completely locked-in like the Bodacious, there's a good amount of taper in that tail too, so they remain pretty easy to break free in tight places.
2. Mount point. A bit further back, -9 from center I think. Bibby was -6 and Bodacious was -11 I think. As a result, I felt like I could drive the tips pretty much as hard I wanted without risking tip dive or hangups.
3. Volume: for a 116-wide ski with a narrow tail, there is a LOT of volume in front of your bindings. These things float very well.
4. RES tips. Don't really understand the technology here and I'm not going to try explaining it. All I can say is that there's a good amount of taper and they allow the ski to change direction very easily. Also, zero hookiness.

The only downside for me personally is that despite these significant benefits in deep snow, all that taper in the tips has required me to change my skiing style pretty significantly whenever I'm NOT deep snow. Keep in mind, I only intend to use the BG on days when it's snowed 1+ feet, so this isn't an issue for my particular use case, but for anyone thinking of using the BG more as a daily driver, I personally think there are plenty of 115+ wide skis that will have much broader versatility.

When put on edge, the heavily tapered tips of the BG do not respond the same way as a more traditional shape. I'll use a an analogy because it's the only way I know how to explain it: The tip of the Bodacious (about as traditional as they come) engages with the snow pretty immediately given its very limited (zero?) taper in the tips. But its long shallow rocker line and extremely limited sidecut (32m radius) allow it to engage without being at all hooky, ie: you have the contact and you know you can use it fully if you apply more pressure. The BG, on the other hand, is kind of deliberately "letting go" of the snow up front as part of its design, both in terms of rocker and sidecut, which pushes the turn engagement further back on the ski and lends itself more to a pivoty style. For your typical inbounds powder skiing and tighter places, I think the trade is absolutely worth making. However, in less-deep snow or on the rare occasions I find myself with room to really run, when you really want to be on edge driving the ski, I think a traditional shape remains king.

In other words, this BG is very well designed to be a quiver ski: a stiff chargey pow-ski, but I do not find it particularly inspiring outside of the pow-day environment. And again, that's completely ok. So to sum it all up: the BG is a heavy, damp, stable ski that floats very well, can truck through crud, and most importantly for me, it's a charger with good manueverability in tight places. All in all, it's one of the best inbounds pow (chop) day skis I've ever been on.

^^
I agree with a lot of this as another new cult member this year.

In terms of hard pack performance - this thread had a couple of comments, a few from Iggy, explaining that the BG is designed for a more neutral style on hard pack.

I personally found that if I kept that in mind they weren’t scary or anything and were great in bumps and trees with even a dusting of soft. Would definitely agree that plenty of wide skis are more rewarding carvers though.

Great review VON. :) I do mirror the sentiment that some skis can be too floaty in the rear, even that had nothing to do with why I did not click with my late BGs. :) I did me fall out of love with my Lib Tech POWs though, after seeing the light riding wren108s.

Just primarily came on to chime in on w88s. Holy hell, but they do have a pretty substatial flex pattern! That people are riding Supergoats that are as stiff is one of those does not compute moments for me for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-kapow

Just primarily came on to chime in on w88s. Holy hell, but they do have a pretty substatial flex pattern! That people are riding Supergoats that are as stiff is one of those does not compute moments for me for sure.

---

Ha yeah, actually, I got a chance to try a friend's 189's before buying, and even though the SG's 193cm length is a bit more suitable for a person my size, I was scared off by the 1.5x stiffness relative to the BG. The BG is already plenty stiff for a pow ski, and pretty friggin heavy, so I figured I wouldn't over-gun myself for once.

I have a general question about ski length related to skiier height. I'm very intrigued by the Woodsman, but as a 5'6' (168 cm) skiier noticed that the shortest length the 108 and 116 come in is 177cm which seems a bit long for my height. I know other factors play a role in how long a ski actually feels (design, skiier weight, skiing style, snow type) but the Woodsman's design doesn't seem to suggest it will ski exceptionally short. Not to mention ON3P measures post-press.

I noticed the BG's shortest length is 179cm but I'm guessing that's because Pow skis are typically longer for increased surface area, and this would be the recommended length for someone my size?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElementofSurprise

I have a general question about ski length related to skiier height. I'm very intrigued by the Woodsman, but as a 5'6' (168 cm) skiier noticed that the shortest length the 108 and 116 come in is 177cm which seems a bit long for my height. I know other factors play a role in how long a ski actually feels (design, skiier weight, skiing style, snow type) but the Woodsman's design doesn't seem to suggest it will ski exceptionally short. Not to mention ON3P measures post-press.

I noticed the BG's shortest length is 179cm but I'm guessing that's because Pow skis are typically longer for increased surface area, and this would be the recommended length for someone my size?

---

Your skis can only tell how heavy you are, how fast you like to go and how effective you are at bending the ski. Your skis don't know how tall you are. If you're strong, have good form and like to ski fast, then the 177 woodsman shouldn't be a problem for you. Try to find a demo if you can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElementofSurprise

I have a general question about ski length related to skiier height. I'm very intrigued by the Woodsman, but as a 5'6' (168 cm) skiier noticed that the shortest length the 108 and 116 come in is 177cm which seems a bit long for my height. I know other factors play a role in how long a ski actually feels (design, skiier weight, skiing style, snow type) but the Woodsman's design doesn't seem to suggest it will ski exceptionally short. Not to mention ON3P measures post-press.

---

I am 180cm tall and ski 186-196 all mountain skis pretty much exclusively. A fundamentally strong, confident skier should be fine skiing a ∆+10cm ski.

+3

I’m about 175cm and prefer my fully cambered skis in the 185cm range. Add some tip rocker and I like them to be a bit longer for all mountain. My pow ski is 196 and my old school Wren 191. I know you are a few cm shorter, but at 168cm I’d assume the 177cm woodsman would be just right.

Also love the Bodacious vs Billy Goat comparison above. I’m loving the first press (full metal) Bods. That write up makes it sound like I’d really like the BG for days in the trees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ottime

+3

I’m about 175cm and prefer my fully cambered skis in the 185cm range. Add some tip rocker and I like them to be a bit longer for all mountain. My pow ski is 196 and my old school Wren 191. I know you are a few cm shorter, but at 168cm I’d assume the 177cm woodsman would be just right.

Also love the Bodacious vs Billy Goat comparison above. I’m loving the first press (full metal) Bods. That write up makes it sound like I’d really like the BG for days in the trees.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackattack

I am 180cm tall and ski 186-196 all mountain skis pretty much exclusively. A fundamentally strong, confident skier should be fine skiing a ∆+10cm ski.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeleBeaver

Your skis can only tell how heavy you are, how fast you like to go and how effective you are at bending the ski. Your skis don't know how tall you are. If you're strong, have good form and like to ski fast, then the 177 woodsman shouldn't be a problem for you. Try to find a demo if you can.

---

Thanks for all the responses everyone, appreciate it. I'm not the strongest skiier in the world as I'd consider this my first true season, but maybe the Woodsman in that length would force me to correct bad habits. My K96s have been a blast so far, thinking Woodsman 108s would make a nice complimentary piece

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElementofSurprise

I have a general question about ski length related to skiier height. I'm very intrigued by the Woodsman, but as a 5'6' (168 cm) skiier noticed that the shortest length the 108 and 116 come in is 177cm which seems a bit long for my height. I know other factors play a role in how long a ski actually feels (design, skiier weight, skiing style, snow type) but the Woodsman's design doesn't seem to suggest it will ski exceptionally short. Not to mention ON3P measures post-press.

I noticed the BG's shortest length is 179cm but I'm guessing that's because Pow skis are typically longer for increased surface area, and this would be the recommended length for someone my size?

---

It isn't out of the question size wise. How much do you weight/where do you ski? We put a good number of skiers your height on 176cm Jeffreys with good success, which ski a bit shorter than the 177cm Woodsman. One other option, too, might be to consider going with a custom with a lighter fiberglass layup, which we find helps people go up in size in certain cases.

Sizing wise, we'd love to be able to offer some shorter sizes, but gotta be frank...they are a really hard sell for us and we don't need them to keep the factory at capacity. Maybe someday we can get to the point to sustain an expanded size range, but right now not in the cards.

For those who were asking about Woodsman protos, we posted what we are getting rid of on the website - along with a couple demo pairs and such.
https://shop.on3pskis.com/collections/on-sale

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeleBeaver

Your skis can only tell how heavy you are, how fast you like to go and how effective you are at bending the ski. Your skis don't know how tall you are. If you're strong, have good form and like to ski fast, then the 177 woodsman shouldn't be a problem for you. Try to find a demo if you can.

---

Your skis can definitely tell how long of a lever your body applies to the skis. That is to say, with all other things equal it's easier to go over the bars when you hit sticky snow if you're 6'4" than if you're 5'4". I subjectively agree that weight is probably the most significant factor, but height absolutely plays a role in how your body interacts with skis.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iggyskier

It isn't out of the question size wise. How much do you weight/where do you ski? We put a good number of skiers your height on 176cm Jeffreys with good success, which ski a bit shorter than the 177cm Woodsman. One other option, too, might be to consider going with a custom with a lighter fiberglass layup, which we find helps people go up in size in certain cases.

Sizing wise, we'd love to be able to offer some shorter sizes, but gotta be frank...they are a really hard sell for us and we don't need them to keep the factory at capacity. Maybe someday we can get to the point to sustain an expanded size range, but right now not in the cards.

---

Hey Iggy, my home base is AZ Snowbowl (snowfall history: https://www.onthesnow.com/arizona/ar...-snowfall.html) so not powder central (and also no way to demo). I do have friends in SLC and Reno so would likely take a trip out to each around once a year. I'm 150 lbs so not too underweight which may help my case. Thanks for the tip on the fiberglass layout.

Yeah I understand it from a business perspective, making a (playful) charger in a shorter length wouldn't sell well outside of the exceptions like my case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goran

Your skis can definitely tell how long of a lever your body applies to the skis. That is to say, with all other things equal it's easier to go over the bars when you hit sticky snow if you're 6'4" than if you're 5'4". I subjectively agree that weight is probably the most significant factor, but height absolutely plays a role in how your body interacts with skis.

---

Agreed, center of gravity will change how much torque you apply to the skis when on edge as well. But end all be all not a showstopper it seems

Next question: Iggy, what are the deets on these graphics??? I keep seeing them in the ON3P insta posts and I need to know more. They're fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-kapow

Holy crap.
Attachment 279416

Attachment 279417

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElementofSurprise

Hey Iggy, my home base is AZ Snowbowl (snowfall history: https://www.onthesnow.com/arizona/ar...-snowfall.html) so not powder central (and also no way to demo). I do have friends in SLC and Reno so would likely take a trip out to each around once a year. I'm 150 lbs so not too underweight which may help my case. Thanks for the tip on the fiberglass layout.

Yeah I understand it from a business perspective, making a (playful) charger in a shorter length wouldn't sell well outside of the exceptions like my case.



Agreed, center of gravity will change how much torque you apply to the skis when on edge as well. But end all be all not a showstopper it seems

Next question: Iggy, what are the deets on these graphics??? I keep seeing them in the ON3P insta posts and I need to know more. They're fire.

---

I think at 150 lbs you would be ok on the 177cm, but I also think the 19oz might be worth considering. Definitely a good West Coast travel option.

Re: Customs, spring sale/updated builder be live very shortly. I'm still running through all the conditional formatting right now.

Custom wise, we redid all the custom colors, got rid of a bunch of the darker ones (though can be had if you ask), and added some new colors. Also have a couple of new non-color options, along with a couple new bases.

The wolf/eagle graphics are going to be a premium option (aka limited volume, more $) in both the nylon and wood veneer (4 nylon, 2 wood veneer options to start there). We'll also be allowing people to mix & match any two custom colors they wish (again, a premium option, so at an increased price).

As a teaser for now until I get this live:
Attachment 282458

RED!

Just imagine how mindnumbingly fast a custom Wren96/108ti with a red top sheet will be. I do not know if I would have the balls to even try something like that.

nice new blue/turqoise/yellow option. Garnet was def a favorite, but if people can just ask for it - more options are all the sweeter.

Light green top sheet with [emoji304] [emoji882] base for the win. Never lose a ski in the pow again.

Love those solid color top sheets.

Those are sweet. Nice work iggy and crew

I’m going Woodsman 96 with either the wren 108ti topsheet with clear sidewalls and green base or wood veneer with clear sidewall and clear base


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

awesome selection iggy

dem birds of prey....whoa