ON3P SKIS Discussion

Oh I definitely agree with the above sentiments! I’m stoked the SG exists and it could represent a ski that 1% of skiers like.

I was just pointing out that it isn’t as unapproachable as I once thought... now the question is, can it dislodge the BG from daily driving duties.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkiLyft

I think if that tail shape went to the BG it would allow people to ski it more aggressively and get rid of the characteristics which make lazy skiing permissible.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

But isn’t that the actual point of a ski like the BG? You can ski it in low angle pow or full throttle on the steeps?

I actually think the tail on the final RES 191 was my favorite...looser my Lotus 138’s but can still charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by counterfeitfake

I have a maybe really really dumb question:

I've got asym BGs from a couple years ago. Which ski is left and which is right? If the topsheets say explicitly, it must be covered up by my binding. Does the flag go on the right?

---

Easiest way to tell is the bases. Then remember which way the graphic goes, or just put a sticker on there to remind you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by counterfeitfake

I have a maybe really really dumb question:

I've got asym BGs from a couple years ago. Which ski is left and which is right? If the topsheets say explicitly, it must be covered up by my binding. Does the flag go on the right?

---

the tail is the tell.

straight(er) edge to the inside, curved/tapered to the outside. makes sense, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by counterfeitfake

I have a maybe really really dumb question:

I've got asym BGs from a couple years ago. Which ski is left and which is right? If the topsheets say explicitly, it must be covered up by my binding. Does the flag go on the right?

---

ON3P on the tip is the right ski

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by counterfeitfake

I have a maybe really really dumb question:

I've got asym BGs from a couple years ago. Which ski is left and which is right? If the topsheets say explicitly, it must be covered up by my binding. Does the flag go on the right?

I ask because I've been having a hard time with these things in heavy snow and sticky hardpack. I figured it was intuitive, it should look like the rounder side goes on the outside, but I'm checking everything now. I gave them a fresh wax and hand tune myself before skiing deep and heavy pow at Crystal yesterday. Tried to generously detune the tips and tails. The next step might be a real stone grind and full tune. Before I decide I just don't like 'em... sacrilege, I know.

---

Typically the ON3P logo on the shovel of the ski will be on your right foot. I personally take a file to the rocker sections and then smooth it out with a gummy. The current hard pack situation has been a bit of a challenge regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

Easiest way to tell is the bases. Then remember which way the graphic goes, or just put a sticker on there to remind you.

---

Sticker on all of my right skis ... just because ... (also, 'coz I dial down my left lateral release by 1/2 RV).

Hi all, lurked this forum for a while now but only recently joined. I purchased a 2020 Woodsman 108 based on what I've been reading. I got the 187 cm length mainly because I got a good deal on it and seems like many go with a longer ski. Im about 5'11" 180 lbs and was wondering if this is the length I should've got? I'm currently on qst 99 181cm which don't feel long for me at all but given the way the skis are measured it's a much bigger difference in length than on paper.

I'm essentially looking for a playful daily driver for west coast that can handle some firm snow too and I plan to put shift bindings on for the few short tours I hope to do.

Thanks all!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fencejack

Hi all, lurked this forum for a while now but only recently joined. I purchased a 2020 Woodsman 108 based on what I've been reading. I got the 187 cm length mainly because I got a good deal on it and seems like many go with a longer ski. Im about 5'11" 180 lbs and was wondering if this is the length I should've got? I'm currently on qst 99 181cm which don't feel long for me at all but given the way the skis are measured it's a much bigger difference in length than on paper.

I'm essentially looking for a playful daily driver for west coast that can handle some firm snow too and I plan to put shift bindings on for the few short tours I hope to do.

Thanks all!

---

If you are accustomed to a 181cm QST99 then the 187cm Woodsman is going to feel a LOT longer. Most people your size and weight are likely going 187cm but it depends on how you ski, where you ski, and what you want the ski to do for you. If the QST99 doesn't feel too short, I suspect you'd be happier on the 182cm Woodsman but if you're looking for a step up in stability, keep the 187

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

If you are accustomed to a 181cm QST99 then the 187cm Woodsman is going to feel a LOT longer. Most people your size and weight are likely going 187cm but it depends on how you ski, where you ski, and what you want the ski to do for you. If the QST99 doesn't feel too short, I suspect you'd be happier on the 182cm Woodsman but if you're looking for a step up in stability, keep the 187

---

in other words: saddle up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fencejack

Hi all, lurked this forum for a while now but only recently joined. I purchased a 2020 Woodsman 108 based on what I've been reading. I got the 187 cm length mainly because I got a good deal on it and seems like many go with a longer ski. Im about 5'11" 180 lbs and was wondering if this is the length I should've got? I'm currently on qst 99 181cm which don't feel long for me at all but given the way the skis are measured it's a much bigger difference in length than on paper.

I'm essentially looking for a playful daily driver for west coast that can handle some firm snow too and I plan to put shift bindings on for the few short tours I hope to do.

Thanks all!

---

Pro tip: Ask before you buy. Now that you have ‘em ski ‘em and see what’s up. This isn’t a challenge, but if you are a strong skier you should be fine sizing up. The Woodsmans are no noodle tho’ so if you are comfortable with a ski that craves (but doesn’t demand) speed you should be ok. Start out with lots of space as the tighter the terrain, the longer they’ll feel. Open space at speed guessing you’ll be happy with the longer length.

182cm may have been the call but we are talking 5cms. If your terrain is spacious you should be fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhiberAwptik

BG Ti?

---

I emailed Scott a while back on that one when I was getting my 108 BG full bamboo layup going. No go.... for now?!???

Metal fan boi over here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fencejack

I'm currently on qst 99 181cm which don't feel long for me at all but given the way the skis are measured it's a much bigger difference in length than on paper.

I'm essentially looking for a playful daily driver for west coast that can handle some firm snow too and I plan to put shift bindings on for the few short tours I hope to do.

---

The usual TGR advice is to size up and to shred harder, which your 187s (approx 8cm longer than the 181s straight pull, though woods have more rocker and a lot more splay) def will enable.

182s will be bit more similar to your QSTs, though they too are more ski. The 182s will be easier to tour on as well.

Since you already have your 187s I would just give them a go, but as mentioned - be prepared for them to be a fair bit more skis than the QSTs. The more centered mount point and longer tails will probably require a slight learning curve - but you should be fine after a few runs. Just don't decide to go down the most challenging run on the first run ;)

You could also get in touch with ON3P and get their take on the sizing question - their advice is usually spot on.

Thanks all for the input. I replied to each your posts but it's not showing up for some reason.

Anyways, I won't get a chance to use them until end of month so it gives me some time to figure something out. Worst case I give them a try and see what's what.

How safe is the buy and sell on tgr? Could keep an eye on that and maybe post mine to see what interest I get.

Has anyone skied a Jeffrey 108 with stiffer core profile? Looking at building this ski out in 186cm. Thought maybe it would give the shovels just a bit more crud busting capability as well as being able to drive them a touch harder than on standard Jeff108. My only concern is still being able to bend them into a turn in tight terrain, mainly trees. I'm only 150#.

Pretzel posted this a while back:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_pretzel

I am of the opinion that increasing a skis stiffness through adding carbon isn’t the same as making the core thicker to stiffen it up.

The carbon stores way more energy so it becomes a lot more work to keep the ski flexed. This isn't a problem if you are heavy and probably a good thing, but for someone light the ski becomes unwieldy and hard to ski unlike a ski that is just stiff because of a thick core.

I’d say if you way less than 200lbs you’re probably good on the std flex.

Iggy please tell me if I am wrong. This is my experience with adding extra carbon to multiple skis.

---

I kinda agree.

I went down the extra carbon route for a pair of kartel116s to gain umph (same reason as you in other words). For me Woodsman116s was the right call - so made the switch when they were introduced. Though to be fair, for me it was probably more the case of making the ski something it is not - a ski that responds well to being driven through the shovels - than the carbon making it harder to ski.

A few mags love their stiffer Jeffries/Kartels to death though, so def a personal preference thing. For strong freestyle skiers - park rats turned backcountry jibbers - it could be a good call, though ON3Ps are pretty stout to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peglegger

Has anyone skied a Jeffrey 108 with stiffer core profile? Looking at building this ski out in 186cm. Thought maybe it would give the shovels just a bit more crud busting capability as well as being able to drive them a touch harder than on standard Jeff108. My only concern is still being able to bend them into a turn in tight terrain, mainly trees. I'm only 150#.

---

You're still going to be going up against a ski design which is not really meant to be really driven. Sounds like you are looking for a Woodsman. I have 70 lbs on you and ski the Jeffery 108 in a 181. I definitely ski it differently and in different circumstances than say a BG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fencejack

Thanks all for the input. I replied to each your posts but it's not showing up for some reason.

Anyways, I won't get a chance to use them until end of month so it gives me some time to figure something out. Worst case I give them a try and see what's what.

How safe is the buy and sell on tgr? Could keep an eye on that and maybe post mine to see what interest I get.

---

Let me know when you want to sell them and a price, maybe we can work something out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peglegger

Has anyone skied a Jeffrey 108 with stiffer core profile? Looking at building this ski out in 186cm. Thought maybe it would give the shovels just a bit more crud busting capability as well as being able to drive them a touch harder than on standard Jeff108. My only concern is still being able to bend them into a turn in tight terrain, mainly trees. I'm only 150#.

---

I had some Kartel 98’s laid up like you describe. In anything that wasn’t hard, they were planky. With my new Jeffrey 108’s for this year, I went the opposite direction and softened from stock because I found like the “round” flex profile from ON3P more than stock or stiff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-kapow

Pretzel posted this a while back:


I kinda agree.

I went down the extra carbon route for a pair of kartel116s to gain umph (same reason as you in other words). For me Woodsman116s was the right call - so made the switch when they were introduced. Though to be fair, for me it was probably more the case of making the ski something it is not - a ski that responds well to being driven through the shovels - than the carbon making it harder to ski.

A few mags love their stiffer Jeffries/Kartels to death though, so def a personal preference thing. For strong freestyle skiers - park rats turned backcountry jibbers - it could be a good call, though ON3Ps are pretty stout to begin with.

---

This would apply to customs in years past when composites were used to alter layup. We're doing all flex modifications in the core profile now to keep a more consistent feel when altering flex (agree too much carbon can be a bit planky in 2D snow).

good clarification / my bad Iggy - I totally forgot about your updated way of doing flex modifications.

Will you guys be building any more 182 woodsman108tours this season?

Thank you to whoever removed the temptation for the 189 BGT108 from my shopping cart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iggyskier

This would apply to customs in years past when composites were used to alter layup. We're doing all flex modifications in the core profile now to keep a more consistent feel when altering flex (agree too much carbon can be a bit planky in 2D snow).

---

So is this slide from the custom page no linger valid? Exciting news!
Attachment 356441

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandit Man

But isn’t that the actual point of a ski like the BG? You can ski it in low angle pow or full throttle on the steeps?

I actually think the tail on the final RES 191 was my favorite...looser my Lotus 138’s but can still charge.

---

Yup. I still think this is my favorite iteration. I kind of want a second pair. Still salty I missed the grizzly corn 191s that sold here a while back. Dibs if anyone reading this has those and wants to sell.

Unsolicited 0.02 - a ski that lets you ski lazy or aggressive, but still doesn’t have a speed limit is just a ski with respectable versatility.

I’m still a hack and I’ve never really gotten along as well with a ski that requires aggressive skiing to ride well. Lotus 120 spoon comes to mind. That thing just kind of beat me up. Tail punishes anyone not way into the front seat. I think I’d have fun on a supergoat, but I don’t think I personally would be inclined to replace a more versatile ski with a less versatile one.

I guess I just don’t quite understand what the supergoat does significantly better than the 189.

Maybe I’m just a 191 loyalist and hating on everything else :P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupreChicken

Yup. I still think this is my favorite iteration. I kind of want a second pair. Still salty I missed the grizzly corn 191s that sold here a while back. Dibs if anyone reading this has those and wants to sell.

Unsolicited 0.02 - a ski that lets you ski lazy or aggressive, but still doesn’t have a speed limit is just a ski with respectable versatility.

I’m still a hack and I’ve never really gotten along as well with a ski that requires aggressive skiing to ride well. Lotus 120 spoon comes to mind. That thing just kind of beat me up. Tail punishes anyone not way into the front seat. I think I’d have fun on a supergoat, but I don’t think I personally would be inclined to replace a more versatile ski with a less versatile one.

I guess I just don’t quite understand what the supergoat does significantly better than the 189.

Maybe I’m just a 191 loyalist and hating on everything else :P.

---

It’s all of these reasons why I’ve resolved to buy a pair of BG Tours. I want their predictability in the backcountry but it’ll probably have to wait until next year. The wife is beginning to take notice of the BC gear I’ve been slowly acquiring.