ON3P SKIS Discussion

[Bobcat Sig]

I came here to say the Woodsman 108 is back on my radar. Based on the brief beta on this thread, it seems like a good chunder, day after, daily-ish driver for the PNWet. And as heretical as it sounds, a good replacement for the Wren, of which I've owned two variations. When I lived in Montana, the Wren was a terrific ski for the big, wide opens spaces. Now that I'm back in the Cascades, the shorter, tighter pitches didn't jam well with me and the Wren. I also found that a more playful skiing style and shorter turns out here to be more fun in the PNWet.

The Woodsman 108 seems to answer all that, yes?

[puma]

I came here to say the Woodsman 108 is back on my radar. Based on the brief beta on this thread, it seems like a good chunder, day after, daily-ish driver for the PNWet. And as heretical as it sounds, a good replacement for the Wren, of which I've owned two variations. When I lived in Montana, the Wren was a terrific ski for the big, wide opens spaces. Now that I'm back in the Cascades, the shorter, tighter pitches didn't jam well with me and the Wren. I also found that a more playful skiing style and shorter turns out here to be more fun in the PNWet.

The Woodsman 108 seems to answer all that, yes?

I only have a few days in on my wrens (108), but loved them. My next purchase, on it's way soon, BG 116's. I guess you are telling me I am going to need something more playful...painful on the wallet!

[Muggydude]

Jeffrey has a huge sweet spot imo. I didn’t notice much difference between line and -2.5, but I preferred -2.5. Let me get into the shovels a bit more and float was better. I’m a more traditional style skier though


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[PNW-skier78]

I came here to say the Woodsman 108 is back on my radar. Based on the brief beta on this thread, it seems like a good chunder, day after, daily-ish driver for the PNWet. And as heretical as it sounds, a good replacement for the Wren, of which I've owned two variations. When I lived in Montana, the Wren was a terrific ski for the big, wide opens spaces. Now that I'm back in the Cascades, the shorter, tighter pitches didn't jam well with me and the Wren. I also found that a more playful skiing style and shorter turns out here to be more fun in the PNWet.

The Woodsman 108 seems to answer all that, yes?

I think so. I love my woodsman. I have a wren 114 and the woodsman 108. I think the woodsman is a better fit for skiing meadows and bachelor. It handles tight spots better and it is still plenty stable in the 187 length. Very good ski.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bobcat Sig]

I think so. I love my woodsman. I have a wren 114 and the woodsman 108. I think the woodsman is a better fit for skiing meadows and bachelor. It handles tight spots better and it is still plenty stable in the 187 length. Very good ski.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good to know. Despite decades of skiing, I found my Wren 108s in the 189 lengths a bit too much for skiing around here. I'm thinking that the Woodsman would be an excellent bit of overlap with the Deathwish.

[Muggydude]

Anyone else have a vote on 116 BG Tour vs 108 BG tour as a one ski quiver, all season quiver backcountry ski for Colorado? May move to Tahoe next season though


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[fleaches]

I just ordered 108 tour goats for Tahoe but this is going to be my first season out there so I can't really say if they are sufficient yet. I think if I were just going to be in Colorado and didn't already have a 116 ski I'd go wider though, for the low angle terrain reason others have mentioned.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TGR Forums mobile app

[kid-kapow]

I'm thinking that the Woodsman would be an excellent bit of overlap with the Deathwish.

Yeah, wood108s translates well from wren108s if you want something a bit more nimble that can both be driven and used with a centered stance. Wood108s' tails are still fairly supportive. I would assume them to be a fair bit more ski than the Deathwish

If you want something even more nimble, then Wildcat108s might be worth your consideration too. Initially I found wildcat108s to be a bit too light, and not providing as much pop out of turns as wood108s. The more I've skied wildcat108s though the more I have come to enjoy them. They are terrific skis, very intuitive, do soft snow better than they ought to, handle speed well yet are easy to ski.The build quality on both are good, though I def prefer ON3P's construction to Moment's.

Blister's take on both skis is pretty much spot on imho. Wood108s are noticably more ski than wildcat108s, while Wildcat108s are easier to throw around. Both are mighty fine skis.

Though to be fair, wren108s are fekking fantastic as well.

[Bobcat Sig]

Yeah, wood108s translates well from wren108s if you want something a bit more nimble that can both be driven and used with a centered stance. Wood108s' tails are still fairly supportive. I would assume them to be a fair bit more ski than the Deathwish

If you want something even more nimble, then Wildcat108s might be worth your consideration too. Initially I found wildcat108s to be a bit too light, and not providing as much pop out of turns as wood108s. The more I've skied wildcat108s though the more I have come to enjoy them. They are terrific skis, very intuitive, do soft snow better than they ought to, handle speed well yet are easy to ski.The build quality on both are good, though I def prefer ON3P's construction to Moment's.

Blister's take on both skis is pretty much spot on imho. Wood108s are noticably more ski than wildcat108s, while Wildcat108s are easier to throw around. Both are mighty fine skis.

Though to be fair, wren108s are fekking fantastic as well.

Yup yup.

I considered the Wildcat 108s as I had a pair of Bibbys for years and loved them. They went to a new home for BillyGoats and I'm never looking back.

If you've seen my quiver, overlap is my game. Something narrower than a Deathwish for day-after crud and general ski-tomfoolery is my game. The Woodsman seems like it'd be it given it's stiffer profile and not punish me like the Wren 108s did. The Deathwishes are for storm-day skiing and small accumulation days. I've also wanted to try them for years as I've been on a pair of Underworlds as my skinny AT skis.

With the WM108 and DW, I have a nice choice of middle-waisted skis to suit the terrain or mood I'm in. I mean, after all, the answer to how many skis is always "n+1" amirite?

[robnow]

Can’t say I’ve ever called a ski beautiful but HOLY SHIT the BGTours are stunning. I didn’t realize the green on the website but yeah, they have a vibrant emerald colourway, almost glittery in certain light angles. Well done and things are coming together nicely for a big backcountry season.

Thank you ON3P[emoji869]

[Adrgha]

Awesome colormatching with the bindings!

[kid-kapow]

looking good!

[YaBoyBlue]

Just got my first ON3P, and I’m fizzing to get them on snow! Woodsman 108 in full camouflage. I should have gotten these a year ago, and saved myself a chase around this middle spot in the resort quiver.

[margotron]

sigh. i lobby for a touring billy goat for years and then they sell out when im not paying attention. classic.

[margotron]

Anyone else have a vote on 116 BG Tour vs 108 BG tour as a one ski quiver, all season quiver backcountry ski for Colorado? May move to Tahoe next season though


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I typically find this extremely difficult to self-rationalize, but it is easier when giving advice:

108 aint wide enough. If you're touring during winter it should be for pow, or close to pow.

If you're touring during spring, it should be for corn, and on a skinny ski.

there isn't really a need for a 108 touring ski except inside our heads. it's often what we ski inbounds but inbounds doesnt exist out of bounds.

[robnow]

sigh. i lobby for a touring billy goat for years and then they sell out when im not paying attention. classic.

No need to sigh...there will be more!

[Reformed]

I typically find this extremely difficult to self-rationalize, but it is easier when giving advice:

108 aint wide enough. If you're touring during winter it should be for pow, or close to pow.

If you're touring during spring, it should be for corn, and on a skinny ski.

there isn't really a need for a 108 touring ski except inside our heads. it's often what we ski inbounds but inbounds doesnt exist out of bounds.

Been on Steeple 108s for the past few years and disagree on the mid-winter comments unless you’re touring in Japan all the time. 108 with a soft snow-centric shape floats just fine.
Agree in theory on the spring comments, but haven’t been completely convinced by skinny skis just yet. Spring often serves up challenging upside down crusted mank, which is sure as shit easier to ski on skis with some waist width and backbone. Spring also delivers sneaky pow, which sucks to have to ski on skinny skis. YMMV, but 108 underfoot and a progressive shape makes a lot of sense to me.

[Trapp]

^what he said

[gaijin]

I’m in JP. I don’t tour for pow. I have pow at the resort. I actually stay away from deep snow and avy hazards in the bc. I tour for lines. A 108 BG Tour is super appealing on paper for a one-ski touring rig in JP.

[Reformed]

Been on Steeple 108s for the past few years and disagree on the mid-winter comments unless you’re touring in Japan all the time. 108 with a soft snow-centric shape floats just fine.
Agree in theory on the spring comments, but haven’t been completely convinced by skinny skis just yet. Spring often serves up challenging upside down crusted mank, which is sure as shit easier to ski on skis with some waist width and backbone. Spring also delivers sneaky pow, which sucks to have to ski on skinny skis. YMMV, but 108 underfoot and a progressive shape makes a lot of sense to me.

Edit to add that I’m not trying to suggest that Steeples/Skinny Billies are the mythical unicorn that is the one ski quiver. I think they’re a great everyday option for winter touring and would only hesitate to drag them uphill on long, objective-focused spring days.There are better tools for this purpose for sure.
For everything else I don’t think people would be left wanting from their performance in pow and most people would probably be pleasantly surprised by their performance on firm.

[Muggydude]

Thanks for the input. I think I’ll stick with the 108s. Most of the people I tour worth have skis about that width and find them the right size. Plus the semi pintail/RES BG design lets them float a little better than their width would suggest, so I think it makes sense. Deep Pow days I’ll probably still end up in the resort too

If I end up touring enough and find I need a wider ski I can always get one. If I can justify 6 inbounds skis I can probably justify 2 touring sticks as well haha....


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[XavierD]

RES does wonders for pow performance

[kid-kapow]

Nice sticks YoBoyBlue!

.. If I can justify 6 inbounds skis I can probably justify 2 touring sticks as well haha....

snicker

I am very curious about the BG108s as well, even if I can't afford to get a pair. Can't wait to hear how people are getting on with their 50/50 and tour skis

[auvgeek]

there isn't really a need for a 108 touring ski except inside our heads.

Hard disagree. Both corn and pow ski quite nicely on a 108.

I can see wanting a wider pow ski, and I can see wanting a narrower spring ski. But a 108 is incredibly versatile.

Edit: rambling below:

We're discussing width here but the fact is weight and damping are primary considerations when discussing width for a touring ski. IMHO, the reason to go narrower for spring isn't because a narrow ski is inherent better for skiing corn -- it's because narrower skis are lighter (and/or heavier per unit area = damper). Balancing: weight vs width vs dampening vs shape vs length vs skiability is incredibly different for everyone.

Some people will use a BG 108 Tour and be stoked on it for 95% of touring. Other people would prefer a BG 116 Tour for pow touring because they want more float. Still others would prefer a Woodsman 108 because it offers enough float for 95% of conditions and is more versatile on hard snow. Personally, I think a Woodsman 108 Tour would be an absolutely killer touring ski. If I have the money, I'll likely get one and put Tectons on it as a OSQ travel ski.

It's incredibly personal, and it also comes down to your fitness relative to your objectives and your partners. I'd love to ski a 189 BG 116 Tour with Tectons and XT3 140s. And if I was fit enough, I would. But among my touring partners, I'm usually the slowest on the uphill so that doesn't make sense. My main touring setup this season will likely be a 180 Zero G 105, Speed superlights, and La Sportiva Skorpius. I'll make a compromise in my skiing compared to a heavier rig, but I'll have more fun knowing I can keep up better than if I was on a heavy setup. At the same time, I'm unwilling to go to a skimo race boot and a 172 Backland 85 UL for a normal touring day, even if it means I'm able to keep up easily. At that point, FOR ME, it just doesn't feel like skiing. But some people would rip that just fine and be stoked on it. So YMMV.

[margotron]

Hard disagree. Both corn and pow ski quite nicely on a 108.

I can see wanting a wider pow ski, and I can see wanting a narrower spring ski. But a 108 is incredibly versatile.

Edit: rambling below:

We're discussing width here but the fact is weight and damping are primary considerations when discussing width for a touring ski. IMHO, the reason to go narrower for spring isn't because a narrow ski is inherent better for skiing corn -- it's because narrower skis are lighter (and/or heavier per unit area = damper). Balancing: weight vs width vs dampening vs shape vs length vs skiability is incredibly different for everyone.

Some people will use a BG 108 Tour and be stoked on it for 95% of touring. Other people would prefer a BG 116 Tour for pow touring because they want more float. Still others would prefer a Woodsman 108 because it offers enough float for 95% of conditions and is more versatile on hard snow. Personally, I think a Woodsman 108 Tour would be an absolutely killer touring ski. If I have the money, I'll likely get one and put Tectons on it as a OSQ travel ski.

It's incredibly personal, and it also comes down to your fitness relative to your objectives and your partners. I'd love to ski a 189 BG 116 Tour with Tectons and XT3 140s. And if I was fit enough, I would. But among my touring partners, I'm usually the slowest on the uphill so that doesn't make sense. My main touring setup this season will likely be a 180 Zero G 105, Speed superlights, and La Sportiva Skorpius. I'll make a compromise in my skiing compared to a heavier rig, but I'll have more fun knowing I can keep up better than if I was on a heavy setup. At the same time, I'm unwilling to go to a skimo race boot and a 172 Backland 85 UL for a normal touring day, even if it means I'm able to keep up easily. At that point, FOR ME, it just doesn't feel like skiing. But some people would rip that just fine and be stoked on it. So YMMV.

Well put brother [emoji1690]

I made an assumption around this forum — and the person asking the question — that many of us have more than 1 setup.

If you are buying 1 ski to tour on for pow and corn, I still don’t think the BG108T is right. I’d steer you towards the woodsman or many other excellent touring skis.

So if you’re looking at the BG tour 108 and are thinking pow, I still think 116 is better.

And if you are lucky enough to have 2 setups, I’d pick the extremes and be best for the day (skinny or fat)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk