Printable View
Sweet, I am thinking that will be next year's addition! I currently have CAST on my 118s and a lighter setup sounds pretty appealing to me. I'm a bit bummed J110s in a tour layup aren't a stock option. To be fair, the demand for Woodsman and Billy Goats in tour layups probably far outpaces the Jeffreys.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeHuWe
Curious where the three of you are mounted on the J118s?
Tried searching for my answer but to no avail...
Can anyone tell me what the recommended mount point is on the new Woodsman Tour 102 & 110? Thanks.
-7.5cm
I went rec and I bet you could get away with -1/1.5 and you could retain the ease of pivot and not have to stick with a neutral stance. Might actually be able to give the shovels some pressure with the mount pushed back.Quote:
Originally Posted by peglegg
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Thank you
Quote:
Originally Posted by peglegg
I mount all my ON3P's on the recommended line.Quote:
Originally Posted by peglegg
-0.5cm, due to a hole conflict when I got new boots. Gonna mount my 110s on the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by peglegg
I don't wanna mess with the recipe. You can get away with driving the skis from your heels when mounted on/near the line.
Well hot damn the Woods are radically different from the Jeffs. The first few turns I almost fell out of the backseat.
Skis are fun as shit. But they ski totally differently. Definitely reward being on top and driving instead of hanging out in the middle and surfing. And you can carve on them in a traditional style. They also seem much more stable I’m cut up heavy fresh and crud - they go where you tell the to go. Jeffs skis light even though the are heavy. Woods ski heavy but still nimble.
It’s going to take me a few more days to dial this in, but I had a big damn grin plastered on my face the majority of the day.
I have no idea where I’m going to end up on the Jeff-Woods continuum, but I know I’m going to have a good time figuring it out.
Finally got over my analysis paralysis and pulled the trigger on some Woods 110. Gave up on custom order as this is my first ON3P ski and maybe I will save that for next year. Ended up mounting them on the line. Attachment 446133
Anyone have use (excluding shotski) for a single 184 Wren 96? From the 2018-19 season. Drilled once for a pivot on the line at a 305mm BSL. I snapped the composite on its other half this season. Great ski, much loved, plenty of life left in it. I'd be happy to give it a second life for the price of shipping.
Replaced with a Woodsman 102
Attachment 446283
I’m looking for some current gen woodsman tour or billygoat tour to try. 110 waist and 182/187 is preference. If anyone happens to have some to move then shoot me a pm!
If you find yourself passing through the greater Seattle area with a BSL+/- 1cm of 323 you're welcome to take a day on mine
Appreciate the offer. I tend to stay in my Idaho bubble!Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskydoc
Bought a cheap pair of kartel 116s and skied them this weekend. I missed having a kartel/jeffery. So playful and fun. Such a good shape. I've mentioned it before but it has me tempted to replace the mfree with something more on the playful side (jeff110, woods110, maybe DW104 for something narrower) hmm hmm
Nice!Quote:
Originally Posted by EWG
Pretty sure you skied under us when we were on Sundown. Was wondering what you thought.
Interesting! I haven't skied them both inbounds, but I have skied the Jeffrey 110 a ton and the Woodsman 110Tour. I found they ski very similar, with virtually no adjustment of my skiing style required.Quote:
Originally Posted by EWG
Even if you love the Jeffrey, I think the Woodsman 110 tour makes a LOT of sense for .... touring. Especially mounted +1 to +1.5. It is a bit more versatile than the Jeffrey in the typical BC conditions. There is less concern (IMHO) of going over the bars when landing in pow, while the Jeffrey can be a little picky if you get your weight too far forward. Inbounds, this is usually less of a concern with the Jeffrey 110 as I would tend to be on a wider ski in true untracked pow.
Very possible. I ended up under the bottom of Sundown a couple times on Friday. Yellow pants blue jacket. You should have thrown a beer at me.Quote:
Originally Posted by XtrPickels
Ok, after three days on the Woods here are my thoughts.
Over the last few years I've adapted my skiing style to my 108 186 Jeffs. I've found that they are very carvable if you sit in a certain pocket, with your weight sitting evenly on both the ball of your foot and your heel. And actually, this is how I think they ski best in almost all terrain. They are super slarvable and pivot-able, and want to be surfed. On bumps they still want a forward, tip edge driven stance but don't penalize an occasional backseat turn very much, and the tails almost never catch in any terrain even if you backseat pivot on them. They love to rotate in the air or on the ground, and off jumps want to be landed on right under your boot.
The 108 187 Woods were an immediate change and wanted to be skied in a different way. After three days I finally think I decided that the Woods want to be skied with your weight on the ball of your foot most of the time, and really want your ankle to bend rather than the more upright stance of the Jeffs. My boots are 130s and on the Woods I used all of that resistance much of the time. While they are still pivoty (and ground based spins are really easy on them) they have much more pronounced tails. Their sweetspot for carving is, again, at the ball of the foot and I could drive them best if I put the carve weight right at the ball of the foot and the portion of the edge at the toepiece into the snow. Pickles had a damn nice edge tune on these things and I could get pretty nice grip on hardpack/rocky mountain ice if I was in the right place over the ski - much more carvable than the Jeffs. But boy they do not like you to be in the back seat. Unlike the Jeffs, there are no back seat pivot turns in bumps - the tails hang up hard. You need to be forward and driving. Granted, a 187/108 heavy ski is not a bump machine, but the Jeffs have all kinds of forgiveness here that the Woods don't. When I was energetic and skiing well they are quite good in big mogul fields, but get tired and lazy and I was behind quickly. However, at speed and on crappy snow they were a huge improvement on the Jeffs. On groomers the Jeffs have a speed limit, but it's pretty high and it's more like a suggestion. But as the snow gets chunkier and the slope gets less smooth the speed limit goes way down and becomes more of a law. Not the Woods. Ripped through plenty of semi groomers with pushpile bumps and these things just blasted through them. Again, have to be forward on the balls of your feet, but they rip pretty good. Oh - and they like to come back to earth after air on their tails - you get that nice shock absorbing effect of the tail bend-weight transfer to your feet on landings if you do it right.
Which did I like better? Not really sure. I have to figure out if I can move back and forth between them easily once I fully figure out the Woods. If I can I'll probably keep both. Jeffs are more playful, Woods are more intense. I'd choose Woods if I knew I would be hauling ass, skiing more open terrain, or feeling strong and ready to attack everything. I'd grab Jeffs if it was technical slow steeps, tight trees, bumps all day or playtime with pops and drops.
Fun figuring it out for sure. Love to hear if anyone else's experience was similar or different. Thanks again to Pickles for the hookup. It's unlikely I would have gotten on a pair of Woods so quickly if he didn't make it so easy.
^Never skied the Jeff’s but lots of time on the Woods (96 and 108) and this all resonates with me including how I’ve imagined they’d compare to Jeff’s. I still prefer the Wrens but they stray further away from the Jeff’s than the Woods do. I’ve thought of the Woods as 80 Wren 20 Jeff’s. Just a hunch / take from reading this thread. Great write up EWG and thanks for adding to the knowledge here.
I'm looking for some advice from the collective. I love the ON3P brand; small company, made in America, they give a discount to military/veterans, law enforcement, and first responders, and it seems like their quality is on point! The problem is I don't have a good way to demo any of their skis! I recently demo'd both the Nordica Unleashed 108-186, and Bent 100's at 180. I did not like the Bent's, part of the problem was they were too short, but they also felt too soft in the tails and not as stable at speed. I really liked the Unleashed 108's it was a fun ski that I could carve on the hardpack, but it felt soft/slarvy on softer snow. I did not have any fresh pow for either ski but the U108 cut right through the crud.
So my question is, Is either the Jeff 110 or the woodsman 110 comparable to the Unleashed 108. Should I just stick with the Unleashed 108 that I know I like or take a chance on either the Jeffery or the Woodsman. This will be for a true one ski quiver.
Thanks
Dynastar MFree 108….
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Thanks,
I almost demo'd the Mfree 108 instead of the Bents. I thought the Bents were the ski that I wanted, I'm glad I tried them first. If I don't end up buying something soon I will try the Mfree 108 next chance I get.
I'm with you completely on supporting small companies. It's a premium price at full retail, but I think the product is really exceptional from the established small companies like ON3P, Moment, and Praxis. I'm sure there are some others that make great stuff too, but those 3 are the ones I immediately think of when it comes to high quality small batch skis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ima gapper
I will leave the recommendations to people that have time on them, but the Jeff looks more comparable to the Unleashed just from a shape/profile standpoint. The WDs are more directional.
Something also to consider about your experience with the Bent 100s is weight. They are a magnitude lighter than the Unleashed/Jeff/WD, etc... , which will certainly impact performance in chop and crud, and stability at speed. If thats important, I wouldn't go too light personally.
Based on Blister's review alone, Unleashed108s sound like slightly less capable woods (in variable, both due to weight and wider shovels) that are better at carving on hard snow (longer effective edge and less taper) at the expense of looseness and abbility to smash through stuff in soft snow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ima gapper
My 2c: if you want to retain the ability to drive the skis through the shovels, go woods, or if you want something that is looser and more playful to be skied with a centered stance but that are still super fun in variable, go jeff.
The M-Free 182 is a good alternative too if you want something directional and really loose. They will probably not be as turny / prone to drag you into a turn as U108 and will more cut through than float to the top. Their shovels are softer than Woods110s, so they feel like slightly less ski, but are more capable than they feel.