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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aevergreene

..And to the poster above me, i am 6'3, 200 lbs, fit and ski the 186 jeffrey 114. I absolutely love it. I am glad i went with the 186 for its intended purpose, but I could also see myself on the 191. I have never felt like I was going over the handle bars on a landing, or anywhere else. I ski a lot of bumps and trees and i like to ski shorter skis all mtn, 186 is perfect IMO. I have a 191 BG for powder, but if i didnt, i would have probably went with the 191 jeff over the 186. It all depends on what you want to use it for. I wouldnt compare it to a spatula or the likes though, it doesnt ski short in the way it turns "too easily" like a reverse/reverse, but it skis shorter than a fully cambered 186

---

Thanks for the info and size comparison. Do you feel you can over power the ski? These would mainly be for the day after a smooth pow day and I'm picking through the leftovers. Thinking I'll pull the trigger on the 186.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buildakicker

Thanks for the info and size comparison. Do you feel you can over power the ski? These would mainly be for the day after a smooth pow day and I'm picking through the leftovers. Thinking I'll pull the trigger on the 186.

---

Only at the apex of my ability can I overpower the skis. IE i have to try hard to overpower the skis. The only time they ever felt squirrely was on a low visability day on choppy, bumped up spots and i was just blasting through piles at 60mph. Its definitely no katana.

I honestly only bought the 186 because I hurt my back last year and was planning on taking it a bit easier this year. However ive recovered very well and am skiing better than ever, and I probably would of bought the 191 if i made the decision right now.. though that might not have been the best decision

I really like the 186 as a chargey jib ski, but its so easy to ski that i think the 191 would still work. I am pleasantly surprised that i dont overpower the 186 jeff too easily, and its my new favorite all mtn ski. I dont think i would be able to ski bumps as well with the 191.

What im trying to say is you could go either way. Where do you ski? If you want to ski bumps or jib a ton, than hands down go for the 186. If you want to charge harder and still jib a little bit, than go with the 191

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aevergreene

Only at the apex of my ability can I overpower the skis. IE i have to try hard to overpower the skis. The only time they ever felt squirrely was on a low visability day on choppy, bumped up spots and i was just blasting through piles at 60mph. Its definitely no katana.

I honestly only bought the 186 because I hurt my back last year and was planning on taking it a bit easier this year. However ive recovered very well and am skiing better than ever, and I probably would of bought the 191 if i made the decision right now.. though that might not have been the best decision

I really like the 186 as a chargey jib ski, but its so easy to ski that i think the 191 would still work. I am pleasantly surprised that i dont overpower the 186 jeff too easily, and its my new favorite all mtn ski. I dont think i would be able to ski bumps as well with the 191.

What im trying to say is you could go either way. Where do you ski? If you want to ski bumps or jib a ton, than hands down go for the 186. If you want to charge harder and still jib a little bit, than go with the 191

---

Glad your back healed up! That can be long recovery. I just moved to southern Oregon. Ashland is the little mtn here. The big skis I've enjoyed at squawpine in the past are too much for this little place. At the bottom in seconds... I think these Jeffrey's fit the bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iggyskier

We've made several skinny goats, mostly around 105 or 106 underfoot, plus the Steeple 102. While they are certainly fun skis, for most inbounds skiing, a Wrenegade-esc ski is just more popular. The Skinny Goat is a bit of a niche ski, so tough to include it in the line along with a Wren line. That said, if a ~106-108 width RES ski in a stock flex would be of interest to you this spring or next season, just let me know. I do agree it would be a pretty great travel ski. If enough people bug us about them, we could definitely build a run of them.

Quite a few changes next year. Gap left by the Vicik departure is filled and ski line is getting more streamlined.

---

Awesome. I'll probably hold off to see what you're introducing in that gap and if it's not quite what I'm looking for I'll likely beg you to press me that skinny RES ski. It would be ideal for both travel or left over days where there's still stashes around to find.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

I actually think it's pretty obvious what the intended purpose for each of their skis is—but they don't currently offer anything to replace to the LP105.

Maybe try to Cochise as well? That gap is hard to find. Something with tip rocker, minimal tail rocker, 28+ m radius, and ~105 is just a tough ski to find. Add in a progressive mount (like -7 to -9) and it's about impossible.

---

I did own a 193 OG Cochise, and really liked it, but it was a bit much for where I ski most of the time (Tahoe inbounds). The 185 might work for me, but I prefer some camber underfoot, so I think I would go Belafonte over Cochise.

Based on what I've read on this thread, I think a 106-108 Wren in a 186 with a 25 - 27m radius would fill the void perfect. That's my vote.

A 108 wren is kind of pointless - it's not going to achieve anything the 112 doesn't already. A slightly more playful directional ski with more rocker than the Wren (especially on the tails) would bring something different to the table.

That said, if a ~106-108 width RES ski in a stock flex would be of interest to you this spring or next season, just let me know. I do agree it would be a pretty great travel ski. If enough people bug us about them, we could definitely build a run of them.



Yup. I'm in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

A 108 wren is kind of pointless - it's not going to achieve anything the 112 doesn't already. A slightly more playful directional ski with more rocker than the Wren (especially on the tails) would bring something different to the table.

---

I don't see the point of a 112 waisted charger ski in the first place. That for me is more of a powder waist, so a softer more playful ski is going to be more applicable for most in-bounds situations. The exception would be heli-skiing powder or possibly backcountry where you can ski pow at mach speeds. I can't often do that in a resort. If this was the ski I wanted, I would just get a Liberty Variant 113 for dirt cheap off STP, done.

I see the point. Its for large people or ppl who ski hard but also like the pop and fun factor of on3ps bamboo cores. However if they dont sell, they dont sell. Skis like this are going the way of the katana, extinct. Its too bad. I love fat stiff big mtn skis.

I find myself wanting a 191 wrenegade more than ever. If only i wasnt broke.. My 186 viciks are not quite as stiff as id like. Great skis, but soft if youre over 190 lbs. Can still charge, but has a mortal speed limit. If On3p made a stiffer version of the vicik, just slightly softer than comp ski flex, like a belafonte with more taper, i would definitely buy.

I gotta start saving for next year. Count me in for a stiff charger (wren 112 or new vicik replacement), a cease n desist, and one of those 108mm sknny goats if you decide to make a run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupreChicken

Yup. I'm in.

---

I'm in too. Let's do this. 106-108 RES with stock flex sounds sweet. Scott, how many do we need to get this done? I'm heading up your way later this season so I will drop by the shop and harass you in person if need be. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

It sounds tough to combat actual vs perceived function and some of those questions would get old very quickly, especially where there IS a clear answer (technically) but people have trouble wrapping their minds around it. On that note, have you considered doing an FAQ for each product on the site to cut down on the amount of email/phone calls you're getting? For example, Schiit audio has a pretty useful (and hilarious) FAQ for each product in their line. Just an idea.

---

It's just part of the game, so not that it gets old, but we're just looking to get better at it. As for a FAQ/Buying type guide, definitely on the (large) list of to-dos. We sort of ran out of time this year, and we're just trying to keep up with sales, but some sort of FAQ/Product map will get rolled out next year. It will be easier to build, too, as stuff will be spelled out a bit easier within the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aevergreene

Do the wren 112s not sell? I want one soo bad, thats like number one on my list for next year and now its going to special order city. However, I need to special order a 191 anyways.

When you had the vicik in the lineup, in 2014, was is a top 3 seller?

---

Wren 112 is not a big seller. We basically keep it around for you guys, our Norwegian Distributor, and the 2-3 shops who actually order it, so next year, it will be available in a limited capacity and not part of the main ski line. It is a great ski for what it is for. It is just that the market for it is really, really small and dying more each year. We are going to build a handful of 191cm Wrens soon though.

As for the Vicik, it never made it in the top 5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Undertow

And Scott, as the owner of 4 pairs of ON3Ps (still own the 1st gen 191 Wren) I will always be a fan and appreciate the comments you made above... I cannot imagine the frustration it must be to figure out the right lineup... And I mean this more from the consumer standpoint... It never ceases to amaze me how many times I read on this board where a poster states they love the ski, but it is +/- 2 cm wide/narrow or short/tall... I have beat the living shit out of my Viciks and have skied other boards that are 98 underfoot and I honestly have a hard time seeing that big of a difference... Yet you see people say I would love to buy the Wren, but it is 102 underfoot and am looking for a 98... If you make a 191 someone wants a 189, If you make a 189 others would buy if it is a 187... Except for very specific skis (ie - touring) I think way to many people split hairs to the N'th degree on skis...

---

Building a line is one of my favorite things to do, but there is definitely frustration at times. That is internally too. Our interests change over time as well, but that is part of the fun. I do think sometimes people aren't completely realistic with minor changes between skis. Functionally, the difference between 98 vs 102 underfoot, or 189cm vs 191cm, is minor in performance, but it is very large in terms of perceived function (and with so many options these days, it is already difficult to compete in this business). Right or wrong, it is what it is, so it is one element that has to play into design decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

A 108 wren is kind of pointless - it's not going to achieve anything the 112 doesn't already. A slightly more playful directional ski with more rocker than the Wren (especially on the tails) would bring something different to the table.

---

Here's my take...Actual function? Similar skis. Perceived function? Different skis. A lot of people on here know that two skis, identical besides one being +4mm wider overall, will be very similar in how they ski. But as far as buying skis goes, many people aren't in the know and as such, the Wren 112 doesn't make it into a lot of conversations where people are looking for a 105-110 directional ski. It's too wide, and thus the mental gap is too far for many to view it as a viable option (even if everything else - flex, sidecut, weight, rocker - match).

Second consideration here is we are trying to stop certain models from competing with each other. Case in point, the BG and Wren 112. Very different skis, but one of our most asked ski comparison questions on the wider end. Different skis, but currently competing in the same space.

So, as performance between the two models would be very similar, what would the Wren 108 achieve over a Wren 112? Similar ski, on brand, same performance characteristics, but finally competes in the space most people are buying in? Easy answer - more sales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

I'm in too. Let's do this. 106-108 RES with stock flex sounds sweet. Scott, how many do we need to get this done? I'm heading up your way later this season so I will drop by the shop and harass you in person if need be. ;-)

---

12 pairs per length.

Can someone confirm the BGs come out of the factory with 1/1 on the side? Please orgive my lack of search skills/motivation

If we are playing invent-a-ski... What typically happens when you put a tour layup on a standard ski? What even is a tour layup exactly? Wondering about something like a Jeffrey in a tour layup for light and snappy shenanigans.

I have a pair of original Pillowfights. What kind of layup were those?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muggydude

Can someone confirm the BGs come out of the factory with 1/1 on the side? Please orgive my lack of search skills/motivation

---

Per the ON3P website FAQ's:

What are the edge bevel for ON3P skis?
All ON3P skis leave our factory with a 1-degree base & 1-degree side bevel.

Scott, you make awesome skis. My 110 Jeffrey's are on their third season and I still can't stop smiling when I take them out, amazing everyday CO ski.

The 105 waist BG sounds interesting, but I'm not sure it really makes sense. I always pictured the BG as a powder shape that could handle getting back to the lift better than other powder skis, so I'm a little confused as to why you would want to trim the width. Can someone with time on the BG explain a little more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jvskinn

Scott, you make awesome skis. My 110 Jeffrey's are on their third season and I still can't stop smiling when I take them out, amazing everyday CO ski.

The 105 waist BG sounds interesting, but I'm not sure it really makes sense. I always pictured the BG as a powder shape that could handle getting back to the lift better than other powder skis, so I'm a little confused as to why you would want to trim the width. Can someone with time on the BG explain a little more?

---

I skied my BGs last year out in Utah in really horrible conditions. It went from warm to freezing overnight and everything was rock solid. And they skied surprisingly well. I view them as more of an all around ski that's really good in powder. On groomers they actually ski more like a traditional non-powder ski if you drive them. But they still pivot well if you back off a bit. Hard to describe, but the RES works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasGortex

If we are playing invent-a-ski... What typically happens when you put a tour layup on a standard ski? What even is a tour layup exactly? Wondering about something like a Jeffrey in a tour layup for light and snappy shenanigans.

I have a pair of original Pillowfights. What kind of layup were those?

---

The jeffrey is already extremely playful, just size down for light and snappy shenanigans. A tour layup would get rid of the solid backbone that the jeff has, and thats what makes it so good. Buttt if youre actually touring, a jeff tour could be cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aevergreene

The jeffrey is already extremely playful, just size down for light and snappy shenanigans. A tour layup would get rid of the solid backbone that the jeff has, and thats what makes it so good. Buttt if youre actually touring, a jeff tour could be cool.

---

That's where my head was at. I just didn't know how bad the trade off would be, or what unexpected characteristics would pop up.

I asked about the Pillowfights layup because I like their flex and feel, and it's pretty uncharacteristic for ON3P. I seem to remember something about being thinner with carbon, but it's been a long time since I bought them. I was thinking maybe it was a modified or precursor to the current tour layup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iggyskier

So, as performance between the two models would be very similar, what would the Wren 108 achieve over a Wren 112? Similar ski, on brand, same performance characteristics, but finally competes in the space most people are buying in? Easy answer - more sales.

12 pairs per length.

---

Oh, I absolutely agree from a marketing perspective that a 108 wren makes a ton of sense. I was saying it didn't make any sense in *addition* to the 112 because that would be akin to producing two identical skis and just making things overly complicated. (12 pairs - I'll have to start a new thread and see who's interested)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jvskinn

The 105 waist BG sounds interesting, but I'm not sure it really makes sense. I always pictured the BG as a powder shape that could handle getting back to the lift better than other powder skis, so I'm a little confused as to why you would want to trim the width. Can someone with time on the BG explain a little more?

---

Basically the BG is the most fun ski ever, but on a non powder day, say the day after when you're chasing stashes, it can be a bit much to haul around all over the mountain. So a narrower version that still has that same mix of playfulness and charge-ability, but is less work to put on edge, would be ideal. And as mentioned above, it would be a great single ski in your bag for traveling too.

Okay, if anyone else is interested, here's the Baby Billy Goat thread: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...aby-Billy-Goat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aevergreene

I see the point. Its for large people or ppl who ski hard but also like the pop and fun factor of on3ps bamboo cores. However if they dont sell, they dont sell. Skis like this are going the way of the katana, extinct. Its too bad. I love fat stiff big mtn skis.

I find myself wanting a 191 wrenegade more than ever. If only i wasnt broke.. My 186 viciks are not quite as stiff as id like. Great skis, but soft if youre over 190 lbs. Can still charge, but has a mortal speed limit. If On3p made a stiffer version of the vicik, just slightly softer than comp ski flex, like a belafonte with more taper, i would definitely buy.

I gotta start saving for next year. Count me in for a stiff charger (wren 112 or new vicik replacement), a cease n desist, and one of those 108mm sknny goats if you decide to make a run.

---

Yep, same reason the RC112s and Katanas go the way of the dinosaur. Very specific ski for specific people, they will never be top seller. Incidentally, I had some RC112s in 198. Great ski IF you have lots of room to run. I just found I couldn't justify keeping them around for 1 - 2 days on a GOOD year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasGortex

Wondering about something like a Jeffrey in a tour layup for light and snappy shenanigans.

---

Wider, tour layup Jeffrey? Or you mean current width, tour layup Jeffrey? ;)

I am sad to hear that the Wren112 isn't selling. You fucking pussies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

I am sad to hear that the Wren112 isn't selling. You fucking pussies.

---

Heh. I think their reputation might scare people away more than it should. They're definitely chargers but they aren't all that hard to ski if you like to drive the tips. Don't love them in the trees or really tight spaces but in open bowls they're $$$$.

How much burlier is the wren 112 compared to the vicik?