ON3P SKIS Discussion

[mn_teleswede]

^^ early model Icelantic Keepers

Yup... fun ski in anything remotely soft

[PowTron]

Garnet

[jdadour]

Garnet

Was sold on getting wood veneer for my future pair of ON3P customs, now I'm having SERIOUS second thoughts. Those are absolutely gorgeous. You guys nailed it!

[sf]

How much would going with a softer fiberglass and/or carbon on a custom wren108 or bg in 189 make of a difference?

Anyone here tried tweaking the flex one way or the other? Except for the SG-buyers that is.

[skibass]

Always loved my BGs. Finally got some days on my wren 98s in Jackson. Amazing skis that do great in the hard stuff and in some fresh. Pretty much can tackle all conditions between the 98s and BGs. Keep it up on3p.

[RudyGarmisch]

How much would going with a softer fiberglass and/or carbon on a custom wren108 or bg in 189 make of a difference?

Anyone here tried tweaking the flex one way or the other? Except for the SG-buyers that is.

Both of those skis intimidated the f out of me when I first got on them years ago. Stiffness takes some getting used to coming from a jibby centerish background (maden AK’s) but now I don’t think I would want to go any less stiff on those particular models.

I guess what’s your real question/concern with stock?

[sf]

I guess what’s your real question/concern with stock?

Have had OG C&Ds, OG wrens, and currently have 102 wrens, 186BGs (beast16 - inbounds and sidecountry), and 191 BG tours (fks - inbounds on huge days with lighter snow).
The flex is not the problem in itself, it's more that I'm trying to tune lenght/flex to the terrain and conditions I ski in. Norwegian resort skiing tend to involve tighter terrain and heavy snow, but less chance of high speed cut-up/bowl skiing.

I'm planning to replace my two BGs at the end of the season, need 189s for float, but also don't want them any more demanding than current 186s. And I'm pretty sure that I've read that the current 184/189 is slightly stiffer than the 186/191? Ideally tuning the flex of the 189 would give me a result somewhere between the stock 186 and 191 tour.

Regarding the Wrens it's just out of curiosity. Might as well buy 184 stock, probably should, for the terrain I'm describing. But a 189 would be a sweet travel ski for Europe.

[galibier_numero_un]

Softer Wren 108 = Steeple 108?

... Thom

[sf]

Softer Wren 108 = Steeple 108?

... Thom

Regarding flex..... Yeah, probably. Not really interested in the shape though.

Sent fra min F5321 via Tapatalk

[galibier_numero_un]

Regarding flex..... Yeah, probably. Not really interested in the shape though.

Got it! I thought the geometry was identical.

... Thom

[sf]

Got it! I thought the geometry was identical.

... Thom

Doooh, just realized that your suggestion wasn't that bad. Steeple 116 is like the BG, but in the tour lay-up.

Question still applies though....is the new tour lay-up what I'm looking for? Or would a custom be different?

Sent fra min F5321 via Tapatalk

[galibier_numero_un]

Doooh, just realized that your suggestion wasn't that bad. Steeple 116 is like the BG, but in the tour lay-up.

Question still applies though....is the new tour lay-up what I'm looking for? Or would a custom be different?

Those with more experience can comment further, but one consideration apart from stiffness is of course weight and the relative crud busting ability.

I'm guessing the key question for you is whether you want to drop some stiffness while keeping as much weight as possible.

Of course this is a continuum, and ON3P's touring layups are more robust than some alpine layups.

... Thom

[sf]

Those with more experience can comment further, but one consideration apart from stiffness is of course weight and the relative crud busting ability.

I'm guessing the key question for you is whether you want to drop some stiffness while keeping as much weight as possible.

Of course this is a continuum, and ON3P's touring layups are more robust than some alpine layups.

... Thom

Weight won't be a problem. The 189 Steeple is 2,3 and my 186 BGs are 2,35 I think.

Just realized that the asymmetric tip taper might make the 189 handle a bit shorter........ Maybe keep it simple for once, and get stock 189s?

[Adrgha]

Wasn't there talk about a new fat ski being revealed before years' end? Any more news on that?

[robnow]

Got it! I thought the geometry was identical.

... Thom

Steeple 108 is the same shape as the Billy Goat, only 8 mm narrower and without the asymmetry.

[TahoeJ]

The Wren 108’s are noticeably more nimble than the old 112’s. I think it’s mostly the tail not being so beefy and with more taper. Stock flex is dialed being just a touch softer overall. Like I said a few pages back, they’re much more versatile. I think going softer on them would eliminate some of their appeal. YMMV depending on weight, so I’m saying this at 175 pounds for perspective.

[MiddleOfNight]

Wasn't there talk about a new fat ski being revealed before years' end? Any more news on that?

I also wonder about this

[Wawawa]

Steeple 108 is the same shape as the Billy Goat, only 8 mm narrower and without the asymmetry.

Can anyone tell me what the mount point is on current 184 BGs? I picked up 184 Steeple 108s and I'm trying to figure things out before I drill.

The dimple seems to be about -9 from the tip-to-tail center, but I'm contemplating going -10, since that's a mount point I've liked on seemingly similar skis. But I'm wondering if that -9 is already a more rearward mount than the BG. I'm guessing yes, but I'm curious how much.

[Reformed]

RES skis = mount on the line every time. I have the steeple 108 and wouldn't change a thing with the mount.

[Sessiøn]

Can anyone tell me what the mount point is on current 184 BGs? I picked up 184 Steeple 108s and I'm trying to figure things out before I drill.

The dimple seems to be about -9 from the tip-to-tail center, but I'm contemplating going -10, since that's a mount point I've liked on seemingly similar skis. But I'm wondering if that -9 is already a more rearward mount than the BG. I'm guessing yes, but I'm curious how much.

I'm not sure where people get the idea that the mount point on a new ski correlates with the mount point on a totally different ski altogether. The BG really isn't like any similar ski anyways. The mount is pretty damn specific.

[PowTron]

Can anyone tell me what the mount point is on current 184 BGs? I picked up 184 Steeple 108s and I'm trying to figure things out before I drill.

The dimple seems to be about -9 from the tip-to-tail center, but I'm contemplating going -10, since that's a mount point I've liked on seemingly similar skis. But I'm wondering if that -9 is already a more rearward mount than the BG. I'm guessing yes, but I'm curious how much.

Mount them on the line. Trust us. Please. Trust us.

[emoji106]

[Wawawa]

RES skis = mount on the line every time. I have the steeple 108 and wouldn't change a thing with the mount.

Cool, thanks. I saw this recommendation about RES skis earlier in the thread (maybe from you), but I imagine the BG isn't at -9, in which case there IS (maybe) a range of acceptable mount points on RES skis, since the Steeple is essentially a skinny goat. I was just kinda curious if that was the case.

[Wawawa]

I'm not sure where people get the idea that the mount point on a new ski correlates with the mount point on a totally different ski altogether. The BG really isn't like any similar ski anyways. The mount is pretty damn specific.

Yeah, fair enough. Good point. But one of the 'similar skis' I mention is a BG, on which I mounted a couple cm back, can't remember exactly, and the tails still kicked my ass. But that was a '10-'11 version, so quite different.

[Wawawa]

Mount them on the line. Trust us. Please. Trust us.

[emoji106]

Ha, thanks. Appreciated. The reason I ask is that I'm on tele (yeah, I know, my bad decisions) so if there's any provision to go back a little, that's usually worked well for me in the past. Other companies say, for example, that there's a 4cm range of mount points that's acceptable and it's personal preference where to go in that range. Wondering if that's the case here.

[3PinGrin]

Ha, thanks. Appreciated. The reason I ask is that I'm on tele (yeah, I know, my bad decisions) so if there's any provision to go back a little, that's usually worked well for me in the past. Other companies say, for example, that there's a 4cm range of mount points that's acceptable and it's personal preference where to go in that range. Wondering if that's the case here.

I have been on my 102 Steeples the last two days in powder, groomers, and chopped up leftovers on 22 Designs Outlaws. Boot center on the line is perfect. Don't overthink it, just listen to PowTron. The days of mounting tele back doesn't really apply the way it used to except for certain skis and if you aren't on modern boots/bindings. Just keep a centered stance and don't poodle.
http://www.backcountrytalk.earnyourt...for-tele-still

And might I add that I am very impressed with the float and ability in crud for such a narrow ski as the 102. I like them a lot and can't wait to get them out for a tour.