Printable View
Has anyone noted a difference in "tail forgiveness" when using FKS/Pivot bindings over a binding with a longer heel mounting point (STH2 or Axials)? It's an interesting question across any skis - I guess I can theoretically imagine it being an issue the more rearward-mounted a ski is designed to be, but wonder if anyone has actually noted this in vivo.Quote:
Originally Posted by critical-motion
I've noticed skis to be more "supple", i.e. the flex seems more progressive, behind the boot w/ Pivots over say a STH or Jester. For me this seems to translate to more playful w/ Pivots. Not scientific by any means and it is probably psychosomatic... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthoski
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Yes, I've noticed this. Axial -> Pivot remount on the same ski revealed more even ski flex during loading. Not a huge difference but obvious. The short mount pattern is a plus for pivots imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthoski
Long wood in the haus.
Skis look great. They are stout! Thanks Iggy.
Attachment 322100Attachment 322101
Just grabbed a pair of these in 177 for the boy.......love my 192 116’s. Arguably my favorite model in the stable. Green looks really great. White pivots going on ours......Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Those are super sexy! Nice pick up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
Have any of you BG owners/lovers skied a Rossi black ops 118? I'm trying to decide b/w 184 goats and a 186 black ops for next yr and having trouble. I don't spin or trick, but like to pop off of things and enjoy a playful ski with backbone and some heft. My favorite skis at the moment are 184 devastators (old construction, not the new lighter ones) and 181 masterblasters, if that helps give an idea of what I like. These would be my soft/deep snow skis for trips out west (mostly CO/UT, but may hit PNW at some point).
If I went with the black ops I would mount ~5cm from center to get a little closer to a traditional mount point.
Build quality is obviously superior with the BGs, and I think they are likely to perform a bit better when the snow gets deeper due to RES, more rocker, mount point, and pin tail. I think both should float well though, as I am not a big guy. I do like the idea of the easy-to-pivot nature of the BG. Black ops looks like it would be better in chop due to weight and shape (less taper) and on groomers (I don't plan to ski a lot of groomers on these, but low tide days happen to me more than I would like on trips out west). Folks I generally trust on these issues love both skis--Blister is in love with the Black ops, you all are generally in love with the BG. I get the feeling that I won't be sad with either...
There are essentially no comparisons of these on the net that I can find, so hoping that someone here has skied both and can give me some insight. Unfortunately demoing isn't an option for me given my location away from the real mountains. Hunch right now is to go with BG because I want to support ON3P and that might put it over the top, but curious if you guys have any additional insight.
Thanks
BG, hands down. They do everything you called out well. Billygoat’s eat chop for breakfast...Quote:
Originally Posted by waxloaf
Yeah my comment out of all of that would be that I’d be surprised if the Black Ops out chopped the BG. Groomers, yeah probably.
I have not skied the Black Ops, but like you my hard snow ski is the 181 Masterblaster, a great fun ski! I have the 184 BGs for my soft snow ski. As long as the snow is soft it skis great everywhere. Also never had a ski that skis the moguls after a snow so well. Busts chop likes its not even there. However it is a goofy ski on hard snow, which is understandable given its design. Given that, I picked up a pair of 182 Woodsman 116s a couple of weeks ago (thanks Iggy for the sale) for those days (at Breck) where you have to ski both hard snow (ie groomers) then head to the soft snow when they get the top open. Others will disagree on their view of the BG as an all a rounder, but I would go Woodsman 116 or Wren 114 as a more "all around" soft snow ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by waxloaf
I don't know much about the back ops but the two pros you gave the black ops were chop and groomers. The BG is known for being the king of chop so the black ops (or any ski) would have a hard time out performing the BG in chop, but once again, I don't know much about the black ops. As for groomers, that's not why you buy a 115+ width ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by waxloaf
Another point is on3p is just a hell of a company. Someone last week had a pair of BGs fly off their ski rack and get ran over by a car. On3p offered to give them a tune and fix them up a little for him, you think rossignol would do that? Not to mention the ski wasn't that damaged anyways because of the build quality.
Also, you may not care but I would rather have my money to towards a smaller american made company than a mega company, especially in times like these.
With all this being said, you are posting on the on3p thread so you will get a biased answer and both are great skis.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Edit: if you think you need the Blackops, maybe you should consider the Kartel/Jeffrey
If not, get the BG
This. Sounds like I have a similar ski style: jibby, but not much for tricks. After having my mind set on the BG for months, I made a thread after questioning if the BG would be playful enough and my mind was changed to the Jeffery 116. Lots of good info on the thread, I'll see if I can find it. Either way, the debate should be Jeffery 116 vs BG ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by sf
Edit, here's the link. My post I think is #33
https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/top...ink_source=app
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
A closer comparison here would be a Black Ops 118 vs a Jeffrey 116. Though it's the loosest of the bunch, the BG is a directional ski, BO118/JF116 are true twins. Don't get me wrong, I've owned every iteration of the BG and it's probably my favorite ski of all time, it's just not in the same category as a BO 118/JF.Quote:
Originally Posted by waxloaf
However, Quandary nailed it. Your comment "I don't spin or trick, but like to pop off of things and enjoy a playful ski with backbone and some heft." is exactly why the Woodsman line exists. It's for those of us that are willing to trade some switch/jib performance and for more stability in a wider range of conditions.
This is what I was thinking. BO vs BG comparing vastly different designs. Go Jeffrey. I have Caylors, which are Jeff predecessors and I'd say they slay chop just fine. On3P's have a strange blend of damping, yet still have a ton of pop. I find myself constantly eye fuckin' the mountain for features to slash or pop off.Quote:
Originally Posted by sf
I'm a directional skier as well. I also own Woodsies(thank you brother):yourock:Quote:
Originally Posted by CallMeAl
I think I prefer my Caylors slightly over Woods(so far). Not enough days on the Woods, but those Caylors I think are the funnest ski I've ever been on.
Appreciate all the input guys, super helpful as always. If anyone has skied both and can do a direct comparison that would be awesome, otherwise I think the responses so far have given me plenty of good info to think on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Searched the thread and couldn't find much about the Wren 108 TI-I'm currently in the search for a new daily driver and I think they're calling my name. Wondering if anyone can speak to the difference between the 184 and 189 specifically in the Ti layup, as I don't have any firsthand experience with ON3P apart from a pair of Billy Goats around 10 years ago. I'm a pretty light guy at 5'11" and 140 lbs, and am leaning towards the 184, but I'm curious if anyone has experience with either length they can speak to. For reference, I currently ski on a 192 DPS Wailer RPC and am a huge fan, and have never felt it's too much ski.
If the 192cm wailer normally feels like enough ski, I would go 184cm.
The 189cm wren is WAY more ski than the 192cm wailer.
My experience - 192 wailer easy, quick, light touch. Not really a charger even in the RPC build.
189 Wren - Freight Train that you can still pivot with some effort.
That being said, I have not skied the 184cm Wren.
You also might like the woodsman more if you are coming from the Wailer and like it. 187cm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn
I'm about the same height and maybe 15lbs heavier and I ski the 179 Wren 108. I definitely wouldn't go 189. I got my 179's when I lived on the east coast and have since relocated to CA. Pm me if you have any questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn
Chiming in on this as well as a fellow smedium dude. 5’10” 150lbs, developing Covid beer gut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
Ski 186 Billy Goat and 179 Wren 96ti. Owned both 179 and 184 Wren 108. Searching for the in between and still am. Depends on where you ski really, Taos for me. Steep and tight.
In soft snow I absolutely loved the 184, a really let er rip ski. Once it got harder and bumpier the 184 was a bit cumbersome to get through a fair amount of terrain here.
Then I got the 179. Definitely handled the super tight terrain better and way more fun once things started to get bumpy. In soft snow, I was always looking for a bit more float.
182 Woodsman?Quote:
Originally Posted by the_flying_v
Probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtskibum16
I’m 5’10” and 170. ON3P said they’d usually put someone my size on the 182 but that the 187 would certainly be doable. I’m still torn.
I'm at 6' 170-175 and bought the 87. But I'm old school and prefer a longer board. I'd buy the 192 if I was still out west. And also when you think about it, we're talking 5cm. Approx 1 inch tip n tail adder. Not a lot.
Tight trees shorter is probably better...eastcoast style. Which is me and I went longer. So yeah, don't listen to me. I'm an idiot.