Printable View
What @margotron and @Norseman said.
No one is looking to undo all of the current inbounds/bamboo goodness but rather to supplement with a lighter "NON3P" sibling.
Will the market support that in an ON3P? Beats the hell out of me.
I was stunned at how burly the Steeples I demoed a few years ago were, and I could easily see them being an inbounds, daily driver. Others "need" Supergoats. I get that.
... Thom
Have you tried inflating the bamboo with helium?
I just want the Steeple to be competitive with Raven/Hoji, Katana, BC Ferox, and keep in mind all these other brands are going to thinner bases/edges and lighter woods to get weight down. Iggy has stated he won't compromise on bases/edge and I'm fine with that.
Steeple request list:
112 width, I would even be fine with 110 - let's decide on one Steeple width so ON3P doesn't need to go crazy with SKUs and molds
189 length
1900-2000g @189
I would consider less tail rocker as well if it works (a la Supergoat)
Mounting my own fuckin' skis. 2010 Wrens (thanks oftpiste!). Not seeing a bit size printed on them anywhere, I'm assuming 3.6x9.5 because no metal?
The last round of 108s weren't that far off of what everyone seems to be looking for. I don't know what the 189s were weighing in at, but my 184s came in at ~2168 grams. Mine are towards the heavy end of the production run for that year based on average weight posted on the website at the time. I am well aware of the cumulative impact of weight in a touring setup, but we're starting to split hairs here (which should surprise nobody). On the one hand people weren't super happy with Steeples because they didn't ski enough like their other ON3P skis, while on the other people are saying change everything about the ski except the shape to make it lighter. I'm not sure this approach would deliver the unicorn that we seek. A significant part of the ON3P magic is the core construction and composition. If we take that away we probably loose most of the amazing on snow feel that ON3Ps deliver and find ourselves on an OK ski that is 200 grams lighter. There are already lots of those skis out there, so I can see Iggy's reluctance to jump into this crowded corner of the market. How would such a ski differentiate itself from the crowd?Quote:
Originally Posted by robnow
Maybe I'll just lose 20 lbs and buy another pair of BG's with Shifts for myself as a reward. Nah, IGGY MAKE ME SOME 1500g BG's!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
Dual brand strategies fail more often than not by a fair margin.Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
They are also more costly.
ON3P is fully capable of launching a tour specific line (if they want) without comprimising thier current lift access reputation.
The market will ultimately decide if they have created something that skiers want.
I agree that the original Steeple 108 is pretty much what I'm looking for but you tell me what other ski out there:Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed
- 190 length
- one backcountry ski to handle most of the winter with a heavy bias toward soft conditions
- surfy with a hookless design (RES-like)
- relatively traditional mount point (more than let's say...-8?)
- relatively straight sidecut
- relatively flat, NOT full reverse camber
- pintail helps for that soft snow bias
- decent weight with a 400g MTN or similar
Admittedly I am intrigued by the flat cambered WNDR but that has a more progressive mount point of -6, I'm interested to hear more on it.
2168 - that's 736g/pair (1.6 Lbs.) more than an 1800g ski or 536g. per pair (1.2Lbs.) over a 1900g. ski. Maybe it would be a commercial flop, or perhaps this is too damned light for Iggy's design sensibilities (I get that), in which case, I should just keep my sites set on Moment, Down, etc. For the record, I lean toward not sacrificing burly bases and edges and realize there's a weight penalty, but 2168 is 140g. heavier than my Enduro/Carbon GPOs (182).Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed
... Thom
A large part of it is that we don't have to. There is no pressure on keeping the factory building year round without a touring offering. Hence, while we've been testing for awhile, there is no rush to release an update. Even with our volume increasing every year, our existing sales are matching that increase. A tour addition would take production capacity from other skis, not increase it. Now if it takes capacity from the "right" skis, it is a win for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed
And yeah we would never dual brand, because we wouldn't put out a ski we weren't fully behind. I have one distinct exception I would love to do sometime, but you know...time.
Now as far as dENO snowboards goes...who knows.
BUT THERE ARE 4 PEOPLE ON TGR THAT WILL DEFINITELY PROBABLY MIGHT BUY THEM PERHAPS if, you know, it falls around payday
I bet it's more like 7.
So. Can we get an ON3V brand for a women's line? I assume I'm getting that initialism rightQuote:
Originally Posted by ACH
Can someone price police me? I’m probably going to sell my 13/14 186 BGs, only used a small handful of days, mounted once for FKS14, almost-minty, pillow fight top sheets. With or without bindings. What should I expect?
Attachment 303109
I don't know what a fair price would be, but I might be willing to pay whatever that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bean
Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk
Correct to my understanding. Anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by HAB
Yeah or 3.6x9 or 3.5x9. Whichever one isn’t 4.1, it’s that one.
250-300 flat (the high end for someone who really loves the top sheet...$). Add 75-100 for bindings, but also subtract $25 more to ship them mounted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bean
Seems like no reason to take this on, other than as a "research project", or perhaps as a hedge against changes in the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by iggyskier
... Thom
Attachment 303142Quote:
Originally Posted by iggyskier
I don't think that is reading my statement how I intended, even though I gave a (vague but layered) reason in the response. Just that we're able to do this on our own timeline - a perk when the construction change involves something as vital as the core. I haven't held back my thoughts on some of the tour cores out there. I'm not interesting in putting out a ski where I share those same thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
Like I said initially before we were off to the races, we're not not working on it. If/when we're there, we'll say so.
Bindings seem about right. I feel like the skis might be worth a little more? Dunno though, I have an affinity for that generation Billy Goat but I know used skis are worthless anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by optics
Thank you for the response.Quote:
Originally Posted by iggyskier
I'll hang it up.
Is it winter yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doremite
ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by lucknau
How does a Woodsman 116 compare to a Rustler 11? The skis look very similar from a pure dimensions perspective.
There seem to be many threads where the Rustler is highly recommended and highly touted. Is this a factor of market exposure? Is it because the Rustler has been out longer?
1) I’m curious to hear if these skis are more similar than different
2) If the two skis are similar, is there’s a spot in the quiver for both a W116 / Rustler 11 and a BG / CD for west coast skiing? Or would this be better served with a Wren 98 / 108 + something in the 115+ category
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
My 17/18 190 Bibby tours (now Wildcat Tours) are coming in at stated weight of 1925 grams.Quote:
Originally Posted by iggyskier
Scott: If you dont want to make touring skis, dont do it. No need to fold to pressure of TGR. You make amazing heavy skis, and in my mind, thats what differentiates ON3P from the rest.
No need to try to fit a square peg in a round hole.
When i want to go touring, i bust out my Bibby tours or Wildcat 108 tours. When i want to smash inbounds pow, i strap on my 196 Pillowfights.