Printable View
Huh, glide hasn’t been an issue for me at all on mine... Timberline is known as Timber-flats too, so there’s plenty of space to find out. I haven’t found them any harder/worse to skate on flats than the Cease&Desist, nor have I found the glide to be bad. You’d mentioned you were gonna do some tuning to yours, maybe that’ll help?Quote:
Originally Posted by tuco
Interesting.
yeah, that is strange. One would not think that a flatter ski with longer rocker zones would translate to worse glide, or that poor glide going back to the lift on a wide ski would factor into it at all, but then again - I do not use BGs in a resort due to traction issues, so it makes sense I guess.
What exactly causes a traction issue in a resort. There is snow on the ground eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-kapow
Slow on here so I got something. More of a mount question than ON3P specific, but I think the ski does make a difference.
Picked up some once mounted 182 Woodsman 108 earlier this year. I was right in between 182 and 187, but pulled the trigger on 182 when a deal popped up. I was planning to use the original mount as they said it was on the line for 305 BSL. Well I got a spinner on the remount and then figured out the mount is short by a bit and back a few mm. I can fix the spinner and *JUST* get the Pivot heel adjusted to correct forward pressure but I'm just past the 3rd mark on the binding arm.
So next option is remount. Because of the original mount being a bit funky size/location wise, I would need to go back 13-15mm from the factory line to get at least 10mm center to center between new and old holes. Back more than I'd really like, but then when I look at it will that really make much difference on this ski?
Using the existing toe location puts the heel on the template at only 7mm center to center to existing heel locations. So I could epoxy/wood dowel the existing heel holes and do that. Or there's a possibility that I could mount the heel -10mm form the existing and still get the FWD pressure I need. But then I'm just on the opposite end of the problem I have with the current mount. (edge of recommended binding adjustment)
Thoughts from the collective?
Since these are used I am assuming these are last year's Woodsman, correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by mtskibum16
FWIW, I mounted my pair of last year's Woodsman 1cm back from the factory mark and think they are great there. This year's ski has a more aft mount point and if I were buying this season's ski, I would mount them on the line.
Yes last year's model. I have seen the new ones are -7.5cm although iggy mentioned a sidecut change too.Quote:
Originally Posted by adrenalated
The current mount has me at about -3mm. Which is why if I remount I'll need to go -13mm rather than the -10mm I was hoping. All based on the assumption 10mm center to center is the closest I should put holes together.
But it's nice to know you liked them at -1cm. Did you try them on the line first? What made you go back?
I did not try them on the line. I know from experience on a lot of different skis that I prefer a more rearward mount in general (I'm much more of a Wren skier than a Jeffrey skier) so I knew I'd want them mounted back a bit from stock.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtskibum16
Gotcha. I was definitely a "I'd like something between the Wren and Jeff" type of guy. Woodsman seems to be a bit more Wren than Jeff but with a mount maybe a tad on the progressive side still. So -1 (or the -.75 ON3P decided to go with) seems to make sense. I just don't want to end up back far enough I may as well have bought the Wren,Quote:
Originally Posted by adrenalated
my thoughts exactly lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by homeeey
mount a gooder demo binding. imperfect solution but less risk. and/or, hold that as a fallback option.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtskibum16
Already have Pivots for these skis. Not interested in something different. I mean worst case I just mount -1.5cm from the line and ski them. No real risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by ntblanks
Eagerly awaiting your review! Winter doesn't seem to want to come around here this year, so I haven't been able to test mine yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
Ok so the second half of November was pretty great around here and there was nothing to ski but plain ol powder. Densities varied from like 8% to maybe 13% which helped give a little depth to the picture, but this take on the ski is admittedly tainted by good conditions. I'm confident that it'll handle the inevitable BC shitfuck with aplomb, as does its big brother.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
I'm 6'2" 185lbs, 33yo and skiing for 31. Pretty fast mostly due to finesse, def not powerhouse huckster but can bend a ski. My 12/13 bearclaw BG has been the main squeeze for hundreds of ski days but I'll flirt with a Dynastar once in awhile.
In the lighter snow, these are about the narrowest ski which I'd consider to have adequate float for "good" pow performance... which exactly nails the mark for my intended use as a PNW winter touring ski while still enjoying the weight savings and skinning ease of a mid 100's waist. Of course the RES and rocker lines improve float over something more traditionally shaped, so they're still fun as shit in the light snow but I would use the wider model if I lived in the Rockies and had to tolerate touring flat meadows with 3% smoke all winter. :fm:
In denser snow as is more typical here, these slay.
Stock flex seems well-matched to the geometry and I can feel the roundness of the pattern but would have to try pretty hard to over-drive them. A couple times I felt "the push" from the tips but that's ok because faceshots. Someone larger or stronger may prefer to stiffen or just go to the wide goats if they're aggressive, but a gentle clyde would be fine on stock 108s, IMO.
108 width is really enjoyable on ridgelines and sidehills, not torquey on knees. It's also sweet on trail exits, very maneuverable and easy to shut down.
The only chunder I've been in with these was down low at the end of a tour, almost back to the car and into the snowshoe realm... these air off the kids' kickers into mank and truck through tracked and stomped sidetrail like the fuckin boss Billy Goats they are. Great mate for medium-light boots and clamps while still bringing the shred.
Impressed and stoked so far. Not much of a review but it's early still, ya antsy kooks.
Next I want a fat Cease and Desist Tour to compliment. :skijump::zap:
Thank you for that. Can't wait to get out on mine. Looks like I'll have to make some sacrifices to Ullr..
Cease & Desist has a tour core by default (at least it did...). My 18/19 are tour core and have that “round” flex you describe. I have fallen in love with that round flex so much I had my new Jeffrey 108’s built with the “softer” option which gave them that same round flex profile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
The new "Tour" skis are different than the "tour core" used on the C&D, Steeples, etc. in the past. That core was just a milled thinner version of the standard core. The new Tour skis are a new core construction entirely combined with thinner bases and edges than standard. So, I think what Norseman is asking for is a C&D built with that new Tour construction.Quote:
Originally Posted by MHSP1497
Waiting for mine to arrive. Fingers crossed I'll have them before holidays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
What bindings did you go with? I'm having a hard time deciding. Prefer something flat-ish (have shimmed my previous tech toes. No big deal but would like to avoid if possible)
ATK: expensive
Marker Alpinist: not sure about that U pin design(?) Low riser.
G3 Zed: maybe?
Yeah I think a C&D with the new tour build would be a rad deep pow touring ski. Compete with UL Protest, new UL Kusalas, BMT122, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by adrenalated
I mounted FR14 but a light U-spring model would be great, too. I have another ski with those and wanted to try new tech all around with this setup.Quote:
Originally Posted by paal
Thanks for the rundown Norse, so stoked to get my hands on the BG108t.
Was hoping these would be mine, but so far no update... patience is hard.
Attachment 351170
Know the feeling. I keep refreshing Instagram-stories in hopes I will spot my pair in the background. Went with some old-school graphics, so if they get insta'd I know they are mine :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jackattack
That duck camo is awesome btw. I remember wanting the Jeffrey real bad when they did the Jiberish colab. The all-orange bases were so sick!
Attachment 351178
Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
I assume the "U-binding" is lighter and definitely cheaper than the FR14. Now that you and your wallet have tried both, would you go FR14 again on the BG? Are you confident you'd feel a difference between the two if they were on the same ski?
My only experience with tech bindings are with older dynafits, so... I'm curious :)
EDIT: ...and what U-spring binding are you referring to?
New skis arrived yesterday. Bet you didn't know Iggy and crew made snowblades :smile:
Attachment 351182
Great to read your initial thoughts, but like you said it’d be tough to find a ski that would ski the conditions you’ve been encountering poorly! Haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
No joke, just went into custom builder to see if the new tour cores were even available on the C&D. Alas, it isn’t!
Stoked for more thoughts as the season progresses.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
What exactly is different about sidecut on 2021 woodsman 108?
I bought the 2020 woodsman 108 thinking it would be the slightly stiffer slightly more directional Jeffrey that I always wanted - but it’s not nearly as intuitive of a ski as the Jeffrey and I blame it on the mount point.
On the 187 it sounds like the new recommended mount point is -1cm, is that correct? What else changed?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
-0.75 is what I saw. And he mentioned a slight change in side cut. Probably to adjust the “center” -0.75cm.Quote:
Originally Posted by skijosh
What do you mean by not as intuitive and you blame the mount point?
Won't have to wait much longer. 189 BG-variant customs will ship next week.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackattack
I wouldn't stress between -1cm and -1.3cm. If that extra 3mm gave you confidence in terms of hole distribution, I wouldn't hesitate to push back to 1.3.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtskibum16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiLyft
Still testing this.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiLyft
Should be. 184 mold just went back in and any open customs are pressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by paal
It moved back 7.5mm.Quote:
Originally Posted by skijosh
Sidecut & core profile aligned for new mount.
Sidecut a bit tighter and touch more balanced, but the change is pretty minor.
New core layup with new composites, so lighter.
Woodsman is more Wren than Jeffrey. A stiff Jeffrey 108 mounted -2cm sounds likely to be more in line with what you are looking for, from my brief read here,