ON3P SKIS Discussion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muggydude

A 108mm underfoot BG Tour that weighed around 1800g would have my money

---

Even without the tour variant, just a slimmed-down version of the beloved goat model would probably have legs (even if on some level it 'makes no sense'....I know people are daily-ing goats when half those days would be better on a narrower version). Wildcat>WC108 seems like it set a good precedent for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucknau

I’m more or less same height & weight. The 191 is great. Skis shorter than it looks, on piste, and wider than it looks, in powder. I would recommend mounting on the line, to keep the swing weight dialed and the turns quick. I’m in the Cascades, in Oregon, so basically the same kind of snowpack.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CallMeAl

Your height would suggest the 191, but your current ski choice screams 186, and either length will handle your weight just fine. I'd say that it comes down to where you find your balance point on your skis.

The 186 Jeffrey 108 actually has more effective edge than a 184/186 BG, but since it's mounted further forward by ~3cm, they can ski short, particularly for those who have any inkling of a forward stance. For those of us who ski upright and/or grew up bombing around on park skis, they ski all of their length.

I've skied the 191 Jeffrey 108 a few times, but I personally found it to be too long for me. Specifically, I found the additional length in the tails especially cumbersome in tight, steep terrain. Would you gain some top end stability with a longer ski? Absolutely. Is it worth the sacrifice in agility? Not to me, but again, I've always found the 186 to be perfectly stable in *most* situations because of my upright/often sideways stance preference.

My inbounds quiver for the previous 10 season has been 186/184 BG (same/same), and 186 Jeffrey 108. This season it became 187 Woodsman 108/ 184 BG, because I wanted that little extra top end for variable run outs without sacrificing agility in the tight steeps. Even so, I still grab my Jeffries during low tide and soft spring conditions for their elevated fun factor (over Woodsman 108) in what I like to call "dick around terrain".

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conundrum

6' 220# here. The 191 K108 is my daily if it's not hard pack. The more neutral stance was a touch weird the first day on them then it just worked. At my weight, it does give up a little when the snow gets deep and it seems a touch forward on the line but I have BGs for those conditions.

Like Al says, the tail seems a little long when it's tight but it's definitely manageable.

What I've noticed is that my ski buddies tell me I'm carving the shit out of them harder than they've seen me do on other skis. It feels pretty cool.

---

I've got my 186 BG mounted @ +1.5cm (and love it) so I'm definitely in the more centered stance camp. I'd probably mount the kartel/jeffery on the line. The "long tails in tight stuff" is something to consider on the 191 for sure... Sounds like the 186 is ideal for me, whereas the 191 would be totally fine. So what it really comes down to is what I can get a good deal on.

Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shroom

travel / casual tour ski

184 wren 96 ti
187 woodsman 96

analysis paralysis

someone make my decisions for me

---

I have 179 Wren 98 tour's and they are great. I got my skis before the wren 96 ti's or woodsman 96's were options. I haven't skied the woodsman but the wren is exactly what I wanted in a touring ski.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

I have 179 Wren 98 tour's and they are great. I got my skis before the wren 96 ti's or woodsman 96's were options. I haven't skied the woodsman but the wren is exactly what I wanted in a touring ski.

---

Can’t go wrong w Wrens. Shroom should buy mine [emoji41]


https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...-Wren-98-184cm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackattack

At that width, I’d say woodsman ti

---

soldddd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by optics

Even without the tour variant, just a slimmed-down version of the beloved goat model would probably have legs (even if on some level it 'makes no sense'....I know people are daily-ing goats when half those days would be better on a narrower version). Wildcat>WC108 seems like it set a good precedent for that.

---

It’s a great ski. Brought it up before but landed a pair of steeple 108 184 [BG shaped] with BG layup and it was my most used ski last year. Have a newer veneer 189 BG to compliment - and even still. Some of that has to do with teaching my son (cause they stand up well to him crossing over them). Could ski with him and then when it was time for free laps it’d have a versatile ski to hit anything in the pnw.

If indeed 108 BG becomes a thing it will be popular. I’d be tempted to 189 this new one.

I'd purchase a Billygoat 108 with a lighter touring core in a heartbeat. I spend more time than I should hauling my standard layup BG's uphill all winter, so a lighter and slimmer offering would be just the ticket for me. In the meantime I have to say I'm enjoying the Wildcat tour 108's a lot, although I'd prefer slightly more.. heft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shroom

soldddd

---

i could not find woodsman 96 ti on the site so i settled for the 96 samples

yeeeeee

my mind is now clear

Attachment 328676

Possible new favorite spring PNW tour stick.

I skied a 108 and 116 woodsman this year for a few days. They were really great, especially the 108, but I never seemed to be able to get them to work for me on groomers as they felt really hooky and sketchy at times, even after checking for base flatness, giving them a new 1/1 tune, detuning more etc.

They did get better over time but they ended up still a bit hooky. Unfortunately I didn’t get to ski them enough to see if I it fully went away.

If i’m in moguls or off piste snow the skis rip and feel great aslong has I’m skiing them hard and putting them over on edge. I only felt this on groomers.

Did anyone else experience something similar? I’ve never had a problem on any of Scott’s skis from BG’s to kartels to wrens.

Edit: Scott definitely thinks this is a tune issue, especially since I have been on his skis for 10 years and skied probably 15+ pairs of On3p’s in that time. Scott is helping me resolve the tune issue, as usual for on3p customer service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_pretzel

I skied a 108 and 116 woodsman this year for a few days. They were really great, especially the 108, but I never seemed to be able to get them to work for me on groomers as they felt really hooky and sketchy at times, even after checking for base flatness, giving them a new 1/1 tune, detuning more etc.

They did get better over time but they ended up still a bit hooky. Unfortunately I didn’t get to ski them enough to see if I it fully went away.

If i’m in moguls or off piste snow the skis rip and feel great aslong has I’m skiing them hard and putting them over on edge. I only felt this on groomers.

Did anyone else experience something similar? I’ve never had a problem on any of Scott’s skis from BG’s to kartels to wrens.

---

It's funny you mention this. I previously hadn't ridden an ON3P ski that I didn't immediately click with, ranging form OG Jeffrey 110s to the Wren 88s. Each has advantages and disadvantages (the hook-free tail of the Jeffreys, the carving ability of the Wren, etc). The last day of the resort season, however, I trialed a pair of Woodsman 96s on a pretty good groomer day out East. In softer, man-made snow on the side of the trails they felt great but, on the actual corduroy, I have never been on a ski that felt so out of control at random times. There was a hookiness as the outside ski didn't want to turn inwards. Furthermore, Blister in their original Kartel review describes a pond-skipping feel on the ski that was downright scary when conditions got firm - I can't say I've ever felt that on the Kartel/Jeffrey but boy did I feel it on the Woodsman, especially with a double fall line on a runout. It was only one day and I look forward to trying them again next season as the edges dull. I have respect for the collective experience on this forum and realize not everything good needs to be love at first sight, especially given how many people on this forum love that ski, I have a lot of faith in Scott's designs, and they did feel good on the soft but thicker manmade snow, etc. But it was different enough from other ON3P experiences that it gave me some pause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_pretzel

I skied a 108 and 116 woodsman this year for a few days. They were really great, especially the 108, but I never seemed to be able to get them to work for me on groomers as they felt really hooky and sketchy at times, even after checking for base flatness, giving them a new 1/1 tune, detuning more etc.

They did get better over time but they ended up still a bit hooky. Unfortunately I didn’t get to ski them enough to see if I it fully went away.

If i’m in moguls or off piste snow the skis rip and feel great aslong has I’m skiing them hard and putting them over on edge. I only felt this on groomers.

Did anyone else experience something similar? I’ve never had a problem on any of Scott’s skis from BG’s to kartels to wrens.

---

I experienced the exact same thing with my 108s. Was really surprised since my k108s were great in all conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shroom

i could not find woodsman 96 ti on the site so i settled for the 96 samples

yeeeeee

my mind is now clear

---

Did you go with woodsmans or wren tis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_pretzel

I skied a 108 and 116 woodsman this year for a few days. They were really great, especially the 108, but I never seemed to be able to get them to work for me on groomers as they felt really hooky and sketchy at times, even after checking for base flatness, giving them a new 1/1 tune, detuning more etc.

They did get better over time but they ended up still a bit hooky. Unfortunately I didn’t get to ski them enough to see if I it fully went away.

If i’m in moguls or off piste snow the skis rip and feel great aslong has I’m skiing them hard and putting them over on edge. I only felt this on groomers.

Did anyone else experience something similar? I’ve never had a problem on any of Scott’s skis from BG’s to kartels to wrens.

---

I’m a hack with a more forward, rather than centered stance. I skied 187 WD116s in pow, bulletproof, slush, mank, and everything in between this year and never really found them to be hooky. In fact, I was surprised at how well they railed groomers for being 116 underfoot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GBB

I’m a hack with a more forward, rather than centered stance. I skied 187 WD116s in pow, bulletproof, slush, mank, and everything in between this year and never really found them to be hooky. In fact, I was surprised at how well they railed groomers for being 116 underfoot.

---

Exactly why I'm not quick to dismiss them. So many people on this forum (not to mention Blister) love the Woodsman and so much of my recent experience has been on Kartels, that my guess is that it had more to do with a fresh, factory tune and a need to get used to a non-Kartel tail. I'm also talking about hard, out East groomers - on the manky, manmade snow that's closer to the PNW, they felt money.

Just for another data point I’ve skied the WM108 in just about all conditions this past season, including hard pack groomers (although west coast, not east coast ice), and I haven’t had any issues with hookiness. I really couldn’t be happier with this ski. I’ve owned the Wren and Kartel in the past, and for me the WM hits a perfect sweet spot. I like it so much that I picked up the WM96 from the demo sale. I guess we’ll see how that does next season.

Edit:
I didn't see that last comment before I posted. Probably sounds like I'm beating a dead horse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joey311

Just for another data point I’ve skied the WM108 in just about all conditions this past season, including hard pack groomers (although west coast, not east coast ice), and I haven’t had any issues with hookiness. I really couldn’t be happier with this ski. I’ve owned the Wren and Kartel in the past, and for me the WM hits a perfect sweet spot. I like it so much that I picked up the WM96 from the demo sale. I guess we’ll see how that does next season.

Edit:
I didn't see that last comment before I posted. Probably sounds like I'm beating a dead horse.

---

See I totaly agree the Woodsman is a better ski than both the kartel and wren. I love it everywhere except when it feels hooky and I keep skiing it regardless og the hooky’ness. Just wish I could figure out why it does it. It’s really hooky like 6-8 inches infront of the toepiece.

Edit: Scott definitely thinks this is a tune issue, especially since I have been on his skis for 10 years and skied probably 15+ pairs of On3p’s in that time. Scott is helping me resolve the tune issue, as usual for on3p customer service.

My pair of wood116 is acting a bit strange. Strange as in off, not as in I need to figure them out. I have yet to determine if it is a tune issue or what is causing the strangeness.

I haven't skied my pair in a long being busy with other skis (and awaiting a remount), but was lucky enough to take them and a pair of recently aqcuired DPS Koala 119s out for some a-b'ing today. We were super lucky and had 10-15cm of fresh snow - snow that was frankly unbelievably good for being mid May (soft, not overly moist on top of hard, refrozen snow). We are also super fortunate that the lifts are running.

The main reason I bought the Koalas was to try em back to back with wood116s as a more burly R11 option. So far my take is that the Koalas are not some super burly ski that you need to be pro-skier to ski - that is, at least not my pair of 184s (yes, they are shorter than 182 wood116s) is not. The tails on the Koalas are loose and easy to break free, while the skis are still stable and can handle a lot - a lot - of speed. They are stiffer than wood116s overall and about the same weight. They are a lot of fun.

The wood116s on the other side were at time unpredictable and squirrely. They did strange things both at low speed and in deeper snow at higher speed. I dunno, I need to ski them more and check the tune.

So far I prefer the Koalas by a long shot, in spite of them being DPS, made in China and not nearly as good looking :) The initial finding is really quite unexpected and the reverse of what I expected going in.

While there area few differences, they still are kinda similar skis. The major difference is tail splay, but the where the Koalas both are stiffer in the tails and have more camber. The Koalas are perhaps a touch softer under the heel and a little bit toward the tails, but stiffer everywhere else. Both are mounted -.5cm (due to a previous mount on the Wood116s, and decided to just mount the Koalas at the same spot).

Attachment 328750Attachment 328751
dunno why/if the pics rotated.

My plan for tomorrow - if I go skiing - is to A/B the Koalas with BGs. :)

Ah, so you skied the Koalas. I really had to restrain myself from not buying those from you (I saw your ad). I'd really like to try those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GBB

Did you go with woodsmans or wren tis?

---

i went with the woodsman. gotta catch em all

The ski fairy recently dropped this off at my house,

ditto.....


Attachment 328808

Me 3. I like the pretty blue color.

Attachment 328829

Did ya'll ever think that maybe they're nothing more than perfectly average skis, or can you not even think over the furious fapping in this thread? Nothing like a circle jerk in an echo chamber to convince people something mediocre is actually great.

Chill pill. Try one bud

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app