Printable View
I am in Revelstoke, so it might be hard for me to test them out :(Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiLyft
If you guys ever come up to the great white north, I will gladly give you the locals tour of the resort and surrounding touring haha.
Maybe some unicorn in Canada is holding a pair but for some reason, I don’t think so haha.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I have some 102 Jeffs and they did fine in some wet and heavy 6-8" variable snow.Quote:
Originally Posted by ma_rx
I also have some 118s that are unsinkable battleships that eat variable for days, but aren't nearly as nimble and are a bit much in bumps for me.
The 110s probably split the difference?
If you're grabbing the Jeffs because you want a fun and playful ski I would get the 102s. You'll still float good on them at your weight and they're much easier to maneuver once they're in the air.
Has anyone here skied the Woodsman 96s? Looking for a low-tide ski to round out my quiver. If they aren't that great in low-tide conditions I might look to other brands... but I do really want to keep giving ON3P my money.
Depends on what you mean by low tide. I've skied them and if it's at all soft they're fantastic but when patches get truly hard then I find myself reaching for my Wren 102ti. The Wren's just holds great on anything but bulletproof but is still super easy in the bumps because of the rocker, honestly not demanding at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by MoeSnow
Great on anything reasonably edge-able but will feel pretty loose on firm snow. I ski mine on the east so I’ve had them out in conditions most would call firm. Our low tide can be pretty low. I’d ski them in anything <6”+ but have skis that will bite more on firm-ish groomers. Wren 96s do provide a bit more edge control as they seem more agreeable to more aggressive angulation. The Woods tails wash more freely which can be good or bad but not great on true form conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by MoeSnow
Had my 192 BG118s out again today for a full day at Snowbird. 10" overnight following 17" the day before. As I experienced last year, the 192 mounted on the line handles continental snow pack awesome. Pivots in tight spaces well. Handled the deep chop exactly like you want a BG to. It absolutely crushed everything and allowed me to go way faster than I should with how crappy the visibility was. Float is great and and never had any tip dive.
I still plan to move the mount +1 to see if it improves handling in heavier coastal snow, but the 192 BG118 is an awesome continental snow powder ski mounted on the line.
^^ lol, there are a lot of skis that will ski just fine in an intermountain or continental snow pack. The goat was designed to do what many other skis CANT. Crush maritime snow! #makegoatsgreatagain
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Yeep. If I was on the crest I would own the new 187 or SG’s if at a bigger/open resort. For our local snow pack I’m more than happy with my pow crushers.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiLyft
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Alright. Getting kinda serious about finding a pair of 102 Woods in 187 or so. Anybody holding?
Here's my two cents for whatever it's worth, having owned the Woodsman 96 as well as a few other ON3P skis. IMO the Woodsman 96 is a great daily driver for most conditions. and would pair well with a wider ski for deep powder days. However, if you're looking for a specific low tide ski for when you're really not going to find any soft snow there are much better choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by MoeSnow
My quiver consists of a powder ski, Woodsman 108 (daily driver), shorter Woodsman 102 for skiing with the kids, and a hard pack ski. Current hard pack ski is the Rustler 9, which just replaced my Experience 88. IMO ON3P doesn't make a ski that fits this exact role.
Outstanding. Since I've got you and you own 102s and 108s, here's what I'm dealing with and I'd love your advice on the Woods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey311
My quiver right now feels one ski short:
- Line 187 Supernatural 92 for early season, skiing with groomer people, and fast lap days with people who like that.
- ON3P 186 Jeffs for daily driver and anything up to 3-4" of fresh.
- Line 186 Mordecai 114s for powder
I feel like I'm missing a ski between the Jeffs (free and surfy, but I can crank edged turns on them at mach looney if I pay close attention) and the Supernaturals (want to be driven and on edge). I was hoping the Woods might be the tweener. Felt like the 102s would be something I could lay on edge and crank without having to have my balance point dead nuts right like the Jeffs, but would still be surfy enough for steep tight bumpy trees, popping lips, and generally free skiing stupid stuff with a big grin. So I could still use them and have fun on days when I'm with people that really just want to hot lap crap (borrr-ring.)
What do you think the differences are between the 102s and 108s? Might consider going longer on the 102s, but would probably stay with 187s.
Oh I'm fully aware. The 192 has taken a lot of grief on here (including from me) and I am just assuring the masses that it is still an awesome powder ski. I'm hoping to get it back in its native terrain soon and get the mount point dialed.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiLyft
Soooo... More investigation leads me to believe the M-Free are perhaps not what I'm looking for, i.e. destroy the crud and not destroy me in the bumps with a tail that won't slarve? Wren 108ti? What say the collective?Quote:
Originally Posted by scmartin69
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
Are you saying you want a tail that “won’t “ slarve?Quote:
Originally Posted by scmartin69
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Shit, been drinking (trying to not poke my eyes out at my wife's company Xmas party, WILL slarve...Quote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
I have a tendency to shit my turns.. they slarve just fine my dude.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Ok. I don’t shit my turns and they slarve beautifully when the thought hits yer brain yet will bite and finish a turn when you think it as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by scmartin69
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I’ve had WC 108(184) woods 110(187) and so far my sierra charger is the Jeff 110(186) in the stiff layup is spot on. I weigh in at 200-210+ dry and this ski has been the best playful charger for the all conditions except boilerplate.Quote:
Originally Posted by scmartin69
I like it so much I got rid my other touring skis and bought another custom Jeff 110 in the stiff tour layup.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I have a pair of 102 woods in the 187cm length, but in the touring layup. I haven't been on them much so take my words with just a few grains of salt...Quote:
Originally Posted by EWG
Overall, I think they're pretty intuitive skis. They seemed to really prefer one particular turning radius. They felt really locked into spring corn; didn't wash out on me and I could really lean into them and get some high edge angles I wouldn't be able to get on my 102 Jeffs. You can also take a more relaxed upright stance on them, but they aren't nearly as "chill" as the Jeffs.
I think you'd be happy on the 102s.
Thanks for the reply (Doremite and Orthoski too).Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey311
I rarely ski in conditions that are truly hardpack, but I would like to have a ski I can take with me and still have fun on when I do. I'll look into some other brands and the Rustler 9s.
Looks like you have a very similar quiver to mine. I also did a season on the K108 (aka Jeff108) and spent some time on the SN100. IMO the W102 is in between, but definitely a lot closer to the Jeff than the Supernatural. If you look at the specs the Woodsman 182 and Jeff 181 have the same effective edge. So neither has that feel of a long effective edge when railing groomers at mach speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by EWG
Has anyone been on the BG 110
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Good friend rides the Billy Goat 110 inbounds and the BGT 110 in the BC. He swears by them and says they make him a better skier (he’s 63 and a great skier already, but hey, confidence is confidence). He doesn’t see a need to have both the 110 and the 118 since the 110 floats great on its own. He only went 110 to match his touring skis so that he wouldn’t have to adjust his skiing much at all between them.Quote:
Originally Posted by the_flying_v
I've been on them for about a year now. Tour variant. Pretty different than the full fat version most (including myself) have come to know and love. More camber, ski more locked-in. Kind of hooky when driven. I know of at least a couple others here that had the same experience..Quote:
Originally Posted by the_flying_v
Comments like this make me think I should track down a backup tour 108...Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskydoc
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk