2014/2015 ON3P Skis (Official Thread) - Discussion and Lust

[nomadpat]

Those are beyond sexy and from the shape I a guessing Jeffrey's and second guess would be Kartels... Enjoy... I am still rocking my 191 Wrens, 191 Billygoat and 186 Grizzly Corn Viciks...

Indeed, 114 Jeffreys. Going with a 181 Jeffrey/191 Caylor quiver next season. Your Grizzlycorn Viciks are a rare breed

[Bobcat Sig]

Let's talk overlap, shall we? (This didn't warrant a new thread)

So ... do I finally give in and an procure a set of 191 Billygoats?

First, some background: I love ON3P skis, both for their construction and the good people that hand build them. In the quiver now, I have a pair of 12/13 191 Wrens, 13/14 Vicik Tours (AT) and 11/12 Viciks (Alpine). More similar to the BIllygoats, I have a pair of 11/12 190 Bibbys, 186 Renegades (likely sold) and 196 Renegades. I love the Bibbys as they were my first big pow boards, they are incredibly versatile, they are really fun and posses some chargeability. I do find them to push through the the snow at times - not hooky, just that they get slowed up a bit in chop or heavy chunder. They will also rail the groomers.

I've poured over the last two ON3P epic mega threads and I know that there are some Billygoat zealots and Bibbys acolytes. I also know that the 'Goats are more directional and posses a bit more charging capability. I also know that the Bibby is more centerish (which I usually do not like) and is a full twin. Are the 'Goats as fun as the Bibby? Do I move the Bibbys on to a new home and finally go with Billygoats?

[adrenalated]

IMO the two reasons to ski a Bibby over a BG are:
1) you want better hard snow performance/don't have a firmer conditions ski and need your pow ski to do everything. Bibby has a more traditional sidecut and feels more locked in on firm snow. The BG is totally fine on hard snow, just not great at it.
2) you like a more centered mount point/more newschool feel

As to point 1), you have Viciks and Wrens so I think you have the firmer days covered. and 2) you already say you generally don't like centered mounts. So yes, you should get BGs. They are more versatile in 3D snow, charge harder, float better, and give up zero maneuverability.

191 BG stoke from last year:

[cooks]

I agree with adrenalated. I owned 190 bibbys and currently own 191 billy goats. I sold my bibbys at the end of last season. There were a few reasons, one of which being the billy goat suited me more than the bibby. The billy goat I think charges better through any sort of 3D snow, however, the traditional sidecut of the bibby gives it the upper hand on pure hardpack. It's a bit harder to shut down speed quickly or really lean over and slam an edge in at high speed on hard snow with the BG.

As far as if the BG is fun enough, I'd say yes, but in a different way than the bibby. A 191 BG is a more substantial ski than the 190 bibby. The BG is a very fun ski for how stable the shape is, but with the reduced camber and more rearward mount point, it doesn't have the same poppy, playful attitude that the bibby has. It's certainly no wren, but it more of a playful charger than a chargy jib stick, which is how I'd describe the bibby.

[Bobcat Sig]

IMO the two reasons to ski a Bibby over a BG are:
1) you want better hard snow performance/don't have a firmer conditions ski and need your pow ski to do everything. Bibby has a more traditional sidecut and feels more locked in on firm snow. The BG is totally fine on hard snow, just not great at it.
2) you like a more centered mount point/more newschool feel

As to point 1), you have Viciks and Wrens so I think you have the firmer days covered. and 2) you already say you generally don't like centered mounts. So yes, you should get BGs. They are more versatile in 3D snow, charge harder, float better, and give up zero maneuverability.

191 BG stoke from last year:

I can dig it. I ended up mounting my Bibbys at the rear-most line. Now that I really think about it, I'm wondering if I can't find Bibby replacement for the Bibbys. You mention maneuverability with BGs; the same or better than the Bibbys?

Oh, and how was the back-slap on that landing?

[adrenalated]

I would say in 3D snow the BG is just as maneuverable. On firmer snow, I might have to give the Bibby the edge. Don't 100% take my word for that though, I've never owned Bibbys, just skied them a few times.

No backslap on that one! Snow was perfectly cushy and perfect for stomping. Although I have backslapped that rock many times... god the landing is flat.

[cooks]

The bibby does take the cake for hardpack maneuverability, actually by quite a bit. This has more to do with the forward mount point than the shape though IMO. The 191 BG is a long ski, especially from boot center forward, compared to a 190 bibby. With that in mind, now that I think about it, a 190 bibby feels more similar to a 186 BG than the 191 in almost every regard. In the 186 BG to 190 bibby comparison, the bibby is still a little more maneuverable but it's definitely closer. I have only skied the 186 in a tour layup so I can't really say for certain exactly how the two would compare in the standard layup.

In 3D snow, they're pretty similar, with the BG having a slight edge in the 186 length. The 191 is very close, but it is a bigger, heavier ski with more length in the tip, so you do have to muscle it around a little more at slow speeds in closet-like spaces.

I will attest that A. that landing is a parking lot and B. adrenalated stomped the shit out of that air... and I pussied out of even attempting it that time.

[TahoeJ]

Agree with what others are saying. I find the BG's (in 186) to be extremely maneuverable, especially for changing your turn size at the last second if needed. Yeah, not so great on hard-pack but who cares? Another thing I'll add is they inspire a lot of confidence when it comes to stomping your landings - there's a healthy amount of tail rocker but it's stiff enough to keep you forward and stable.

[PowTron]

191 BG stoke from last year:

CAW CAW CAW

I skied the older Bibby many times in the 190 length...I would actually compare it more to the Caylor we used to make. That was a better comparison as to feel under foot, mount positions, and playfulness. The Caylor was slightly wider, but more of a direct comparison to the Bibby Pro of a couple years back.

With the new Bibby and the BG, they are now closer and I will echo my thoughts on what everyone is saying. I really enjoy the Bibby and think that it handles very well on harder snow, but the BG slides and floats better in my opinion in anything over 5" of fluff and destroys chunder and post-pow goodness.

They are both skis that will handle the type of skiing many folks on TGR like to say they do, .

[Bruce Springskiin]

So really how much difference is there in construction between the Steeple and Wrenegade? The difference in weights seems minimal and can be accounted for in slight difference in the length and tip/tail widths.

[auvgeek]

^^I think the Steeple weights are still pre-production w/o the tour layup. Might want to call the shop and see what the actual weights on the Steeple and Wren are.

Side note: Has the BG changed since 12.13? Any plans to keep it or change it in the next year or so? Asking in part cuz I'm hoping to have the cash scraped together for a second pair of extra-stiff/woodgrain topsheet ones.

[CaliBrit]

Weights on Steeple are incorrect. Will come down.

[Bruce Springskiin]

That makes sense, despite my questioning, I suspected this were the case. How tempting would have a been to have a touring Wren, oh that is the steeple

[shroom]

i like the Caylor/Bibby comparison. imo the caylor is just a better bibby, though the bibby holds its own just fine. I think both are quite a bit better on hardpack than the BG, but the BG is far and away the most maneuverable in 3d snow.

[CaliBrit]

Side note: Has the BG changed since 12.13? Any plans to keep it or change it in the next year or so? Asking in part cuz I'm hoping to have the cash scraped together for a second pair of extra-stiff/woodgrain topsheet ones.

I believe the consider it...what's the word........dialed?

No real changes, will be the same likely next year.

[PowTron]

I believe the consider it...what's the word........dialed?

No real changes, will be the same likely next year.

Well, not entirely true. You will all just have to wait a bit to see what may or may not be changing

[Bobcat Sig]

^^I think the Steeple weights are still pre-production w/o the tour layup. Might want to call the shop and see what the actual weights on the Steeple and Wren are.

Curious to hear what the correct weights will be for the Steeple 112. That's' top of my list for a Teton hut trip this winter. When might we get correct weights?

[PowTron]

Curious to hear what the correct weights will be for the Steeple 112. That's' top of my list for a Teton hut trip this winter. When might we get correct weights?

The ski will not disappoint, for sure.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Any chance of demos coming through Montana? Pretty please?

[Bobcat Sig]

The ski will not disappoint, for sure.

Thank you, sir. Primary interest is the 184 length. I'm really looking for something with ON3P levels of burliness, a fun shape and 8 or less pounds.

[Bobcat Sig]

Any chance of demos coming through Montana? Pretty please?

They do seem to come through every year. They've always hit Big Sky and occasionally Bridger. I can't say about west of the divide. Watch this page and twitter, me thinks.

[adrenalated]

Well, not entirely true. You will all just have to wait a bit to see what may or may not be changing

Is this one of those "ideas" you mentioned to me?

[The SMP]

An unfortunate hole conflict will force me 1cm forward or back from the line on my BGs from 12/13. I'm leaning towards back. Anyone have experience? 176 tour layup, tour setup.

[Lindahl]

Back. Easier kick turns and better float on a short ski.

[PowTron]

Is this one of those "ideas" you mentioned to me?

Nope, that is different.