ON3P SKIS Discussion

[SchralphMacchio]

I don’t.

Mostly I had always known that skis made for low density snow don’t usually fare well here, but then when I skied my Woods 110s in blower snow I also saw how they felt really lifeless and planky. I swapped to gen 1
Rustler 11s that suck in wet high density snow and they were really fun in blower.
The experience made pretty clear the design tradeoffs as far as optimizing the skis for one set of conditions vs the other. So an improvement for CO conditions is met with skepticism in terms of whether it can still be fun when slaying cake batter!

[SchralphMacchio]

Also, no thank you to 3-4 months of constant persistent slab problems and lack of late spring refreeze … [emoji48]

[ephemeralpool400@gmail.com]

hello read a lot of this thread can’t tell it this is a good place for thjs question or if this is just a place for yappage but im doin both


Looking at the 92 ripper jeff for east coast. Deciding 176 vs 181. I see everyone recommending sizing up in on3p but I wondered if anyone who’s been on the new ripper rocker thinks they ski a bit longer.

I put More info below if u want to help make me a specific rec but thats the jist of my question and u can ignore extra yappage

Im 28, 5 10” 165-170 lbs

Ski in maine(sugarloaf and Sunday river.)

Getting back into skiing last few years, got pair of 172 old dynastar distorters quickly realized they too short. Been using arv 96 177s and Want to upgrade to something that feels more stable plus the skis are wrecked. Didn’t occur to me 177 felt short but the arvs feel a little weak for going all over the mountain which im doing more of now than the park. They’re also center mounted which I’m sure isn’t ideal either.

Wonder if the backbone of the Jeffrey in 176 will be enough of an arv upgrade that I don’t also need extra length in the 181

I demo rossi black ops 182 which measure 179.5 and they felt way better on trails but cumbersome in moguls and trees, they also weighed considerably more than the arvs which basically felt like toys after skiing rossi supa black op for a day. I tried a 186 rustler 9 which def felt too big but I also didn’t like how it skiied and it was so different from arv hard to really compare. the shmeary slashy style more fun for me

On east coast I ski smaller resorts, im not ripping monster pow lines which I feel like all the dudes saying size up are doing. Most happy Skiing single diamonds hitting some side boostas and some park

181 seems like a big jump. I could see myself getting used to it but if the purpose of sizing up is to charge massive lines at cost of agility maybe not worth it for me. but maybe u guys can let me know thanks.

U guys seem to know a lot about these skis and I’m excited to try the new 92 seems perfect for what I enjoy cus i don’t really care about c a r v i n g

[K1mJ0ngTr1ll]

From your post I would say 177 as it measures closer to 178 and I’ll be more ski than your current Armada. That said I don’t think you’d have an issue on the 181 at your size either. It would just be a touch of an adjustment period.

[IceBumps]

To be fair Schralph, take my comments with a grain of salt. I live and ski in the mid-Atlantic which is the land of ice, slush, and mud. The BG was my first powder ski and when I did my research I wanted something that would be strong and stable. When you read all the reviews online there is a mix of opinions about how it handles in tighter situations. I liked what I was reading enough that when they came up on the sale last year, I bought them. Coming from Pennsylvania, I did have some concerns as I never skied anything wider than 104. My experience skiing in blower is limited and never experienced cake batter, which I hope to remedy. Spending a week in Colorado with three legitimate powder days was unbelievable and I’m glad I took the goats. What I was truly impressed with was their ability to just blast through the chewed and bumped up powder. I kept giggling to myself as they smashed through and over with such stability. When the bumps firmed up, I could slide them around without much effort which I was very pleased.

[SchralphMacchio]

IceBumps- that all makes sense and rad on you for enjoying them.

This thread is like most of us opining over the acidity of Yrgacheffe or Guji coffee beans from Ethiopia. It’s all good shit, especially when compared to McD’s.

Re: Cake batter - I’m not sure it’s anything that needs to go on a bucket list or anything! But it’s a fact of life at low elevation PNW resorts that big SW flow storms regularly bring high water content snow that is a foot to feet deep, and pretty much not fun for most people on most skis (especially not if you lose an ACL or two in the process) but skis like BGs make this snow quite enjoyable. It’s cake batter because the snow never falls back into a ski track and once it’s compressed by skis or boards it hardens in place from the sintering effect. I hear Praxis Protests are another super good cheat code for this kind of snow. And when I skied Tahoe snow I loved Praxis but for high water content snow ON3P cores are definitely extra special.

[PeachesNCream]

hello read a lot of this thread can’t tell it this is a good place for thjs question or if this is just a place for yappage but im doin both


Looking at the 92 ripper jeff for east coast. Deciding 176 vs 181. I see everyone recommending sizing up in on3p but I wondered if anyone who’s been on the new ripper rocker thinks they ski a bit longer.

I put More info below if u want to help make me a specific rec but thats the jist of my question and u can ignore extra yappage

Im 28, 5 10” 165-170 lbs

Ski in maine(sugarloaf and Sunday river.)

Getting back into skiing last few years, got pair of 172 old dynastar distorters quickly realized they too short. Been using arv 96 177s and Want to upgrade to something that feels more stable plus the skis are wrecked. Didn’t occur to me 177 felt short but the arvs feel a little weak for going all over the mountain which im doing more of now than the park. They’re also center mounted which I’m sure isn’t ideal either.

Wonder if the backbone of the Jeffrey in 176 will be enough of an arv upgrade that I don’t also need extra length in the 181

I demo rossi black ops 182 which measure 179.5 and they felt way better on trails but cumbersome in moguls and trees, they also weighed considerably more than the arvs which basically felt like toys after skiing rossi supa black op for a day. I tried a 186 rustler 9 which def felt too big but I also didn’t like how it skiied and it was so different from arv hard to really compare. the shmeary slashy style more fun for me

On east coast I ski smaller resorts, im not ripping monster pow lines which I feel like all the dudes saying size up are doing. Most happy Skiing single diamonds hitting some side boostas and some park

181 seems like a big jump. I could see myself getting used to it but if the purpose of sizing up is to charge massive lines at cost of agility maybe not worth it for me. but maybe u guys can let me know thanks.

U guys seem to know a lot about these skis and I’m excited to try the new 92 seems perfect for what I enjoy cus i don’t really care about c a r v i n g

Yeah, I’d go 176. As KJT mentioned, they measure more like a 177/178 and if you’re not going to center mount (please don’t), that’ll make the ski feel longer too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tschoppe9@gmail.com]

FWIW I think there is some merit in going longer even with the ripper. I'm 6' and was riding a 181 kartel 96 as a getting more into skiing ski in the east coast and it was a great ski for awhile but became unskiable at length as I became a stronger skier. This was pre ripper rocker of course but figured I'd toss in some personal experience.

[Dhiler17]

hello read a lot of this thread can’t tell it this is a good place for thjs question or if this is just a place for yappage but im doin both


Looking at the 92 ripper jeff for east coast. Deciding 176 vs 181. I see everyone recommending sizing up in on3p but I wondered if anyone who’s been on the new ripper rocker thinks they ski a bit longer.

I put More info below if u want to help make me a specific rec but thats the jist of my question and u can ignore extra yappage

Im 28, 5 10” 165-170 lbs

Ski in maine(sugarloaf and Sunday river.)

Getting back into skiing last few years, got pair of 172 old dynastar distorters quickly realized they too short. Been using arv 96 177s and Want to upgrade to something that feels more stable plus the skis are wrecked. Didn’t occur to me 177 felt short but the arvs feel a little weak for going all over the mountain which im doing more of now than the park. They’re also center mounted which I’m sure isn’t ideal either.

Wonder if the backbone of the Jeffrey in 176 will be enough of an arv upgrade that I don’t also need extra length in the 181

I demo rossi black ops 182 which measure 179.5 and they felt way better on trails but cumbersome in moguls and trees, they also weighed considerably more than the arvs which basically felt like toys after skiing rossi supa black op for a day. I tried a 186 rustler 9 which def felt too big but I also didn’t like how it skiied and it was so different from arv hard to really compare. the shmeary slashy style more fun for me

On east coast I ski smaller resorts, im not ripping monster pow lines which I feel like all the dudes saying size up are doing. Most happy Skiing single diamonds hitting some side boostas and some park

181 seems like a big jump. I could see myself getting used to it but if the purpose of sizing up is to charge massive lines at cost of agility maybe not worth it for me. but maybe u guys can let me know thanks.

U guys seem to know a lot about these skis and I’m excited to try the new 92 seems perfect for what I enjoy cus i don’t really care about c a r v i n g

Either length would be good, I’m on a one eighty seven woodsman ninety two and frequent the loaf. Great on anything less than ice, my go to ski for days when the snow is easily edgeable.

My pair needed a tune out of the wrapper. Tails were real washy and I couldn’t get the ski to bite for the life of me. On your first day out if you’re having a hard time getting the edge to engage I highly recommend you get them tuned. I reached out to the factory with my beta and they reimbursed me for the tune.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[oetk2]

Had BGs in cake batter this morning. Turns were resulting in basketball sized snowballs rolling down the hill behind you. Don't think I would have wanted to be in anything else.

[SchralphMacchio]

Just mounted these up today and I’m hoping both pairs are cake batter slayers!


I was torn between white and Forza but caved to peer pressure and went with the white.

[oetk2]

sweeeeeeet. white ftw

[Marko888]

For those of you who have skied Ripper rocker and also classic Signature rocker, what is your take on the pluses and minuses of the Ripper?
thanks

[Sessiøn]

<p>

For those of you who have skied Ripper rocker and also classic Signature rocker, what is your take on the pluses and minuses of the Ripper? thanks

</p>
<p>
&nbsp;</p>
<p>
Here is my shit take because honestly, I probably don&#39;t know my ass from a hole in the ground. But my ON3P order sheet is long and distinguished. And I was a long campaigner for a RR type option.&nbsp;</p>
<p>
I feel like as ON3P has evolved when it comes to ski flex that the OG rocker show&#39;s limitations or is at least more sensitive when it comes top the tune/detune of the ski. For some time now I have performed a file and gummi detune of the rocker sections. And this has kept me from having any issue (FWIW I have only had a single pair of skis with a real tune issue).</p>
<p>
The RR Woods 100&#39;s I have only recieved a light gummi at the factory, and I have not touched the edges since. It does exactly what I want it to. So I feel like it is the right evolution at least when it comes to the lower width ski&#39;s which may spend more of their time in less than fresh conditions. I was also able to comfortable size down, and retain the stability I want in a ski like that.&nbsp;</p>

[Marko888]

Cool. I appreciate your take Session.
Ive also bought several pairs, and have had a sharper tune hung on the Woodsmen, which Ive found to be a bit too loose as delivered, for my skill set. The fresh 1d base, 2d edge gets me sorted.

Ive got a call booked with Iggy to discuss... currently have Wren 102ti and Woods 102s in hand...and want to work out a pick between these that better nails my older dude requirements. I also have a current Woods 108 which has a bit of the precision Im after in the narrower ski, compared to my older Woods 102 (whose design Im now starting to understand). I love the dampness of the Wren ti but I may not be enough skier to get the best out of it.
Really curious to figure out if it should be a ripper or just the current signature 100 that will get me some more precision, while maintaining forgiveness, in this slot in the quiver.

[Going Coastal]

Either length would be good, I’m on a one eighty seven woodsman ninety two and frequent the loaf. Great on anything less than ice, my go to ski for days when the snow is easily edgeable.

How have they been in tight conditions? I'm finding Moment Commander 98s in 188 to be a bit slow when things really get bumped out, so rather than fixing my atrocious skiing I'm thinking of adding something narrower in the hope its a little quicker and more forgiving.

[MNazWIcoWA]

Has anyone been on the Jeff 108 in the RR layup? I would really like to A/B that to something like the SF110. I really, really like the new SF100, but would rather buy ON3P. I am really wondering if the RR layup gives the Jeff 108 similar edge grip and ability to rail groomers to the extent that the SF110 can for that width at least.

[Muggydude]

Has anyone been on the Jeff 108 in the RR layup? I would really like to A/B that to something like the SF110. I really, really like the new SF100, but would rather buy ON3P. I am really wondering if the RR layup gives the Jeff 108 similar edge grip and ability to rail groomers to the extent that the SF110 can for that width at least.

Just buy a woodsman 108 if you want more edge grip. EE of RR J108 and regular Woods 108 is identical.

[ephemeralpool400@gmail.com]

<p>
</p>
<p>
&nbsp;</p>
<p>
Here is my shit take because honestly, I probably don&#39;t know my ass from a hole in the ground. But my ON3P order sheet is long and distinguished. And I was a long campaigner for a RR type option.&nbsp;</p>
<p>
I feel like as ON3P has evolved when it comes to ski flex that the OG rocker show&#39;s limitations or is at least more sensitive when it comes top the tune/detune of the ski. For some time now I have performed a file and gummi detune of the rocker sections. And this has kept me from having any issue (FWIW I have only had a single pair of skis with a real tune issue).</p>
<p>
The RR Woods 100&#39;s I have only recieved a light gummi at the factory, and I have not touched the edges since. It does exactly what I want it to. So I feel like it is the right evolution at least when it comes to the lower width ski&#39;s which may spend more of their time in less than fresh conditions. I was also able to comfortable size down, and retain the stability I want in a ski like that.&nbsp;</p>

Useful take thank you. When you say downsize do you mean in length or width?

What did you get vs your other skis dims

[Dhiler17]

How have they been in tight conditions? I'm finding Moment Commander 98s in 188 to be a bit slow when things really get bumped out, so rather than fixing my atrocious skiing I'm thinking of adding something narrower in the hope its a little quicker and more forgiving.

They’re real quick in tight conditions. I ski a commander 92 when it’s all freeze with no thaw and the Woodsman is significantly more agile. However, they have to be skied more neutral. I am not able to lean into their tips as much as the commanders.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[MNazWIcoWA]

Just buy a woodsman 108 if you want more edge grip. EE of RR J108 and regular Woods 108 is identical.

I am specifically asking about the Jeff 108 because I want a twin tip (ish) skis with a more forward mount like the SF110. The Woods isn&#39;t that with a 8ish rearward mount and directional profile.

[himavan]

Im also on the fence and debating which Jeff 92 RR length to get. Ive been flip flopping on this week to week all season and my indecision is driving me nuts. I ski kartel 98s and Jeff 108s in 181. And BGs (&rsquo;18 asyms) in 184. I&rsquo;m 5-10 and 165 lbs. But moved to the east coast this season (VT - smuggs) after skiing Banff the past 15 years. 181s have never felt too small for me. BG 184s are borderline too much ski at times but so slarvey that they work great. 176 Jeffs seem pretty short, but not sure I need the 181 if the effective edge is longer and I&rsquo;m skiing tighter terrain and dialing back speed a bit as I age. On the other hand, I do need more grip, and I&rsquo;m not sure how much stability, etc. I lose in a shorter length. Prefer to stick with jeffs over woods to slash and mess around switch (a shorter length may be better for that as well). And I have a more dedicated carving ski. I wish I could demo both sizes.

On another note - I need some advice on my kartel 98s (2016 I think). These have slowly lost more and more grip over the years. They were my DD for years. Went to a 2-1 edge at some point. But now they feel like skates, washing out at both tip and tail, even after a shop tune. My J108s are far better on groomers at this point. The 98s do appear to have a little less camber than the 108s. Any solution to getting these to ski decent again. Maybe a 3-1 edge tune?

[oetk2]

The base might need a flatten if they've been skied a bunch. Throw a true bar on the bottom and see if they're base high before going to a 3 degree angle

[K1mJ0ngTr1ll]

Are we talking 1 base 2 side? The higher the base bevel the looser the ski will feel.

[SchralphMacchio]

Unrelated to any of the above, I wonder if the Wood 92 (ripper rocker implied) in Tour build will ever be a stock offering. I’ve long been eying the Praxis Yeti for a craft-made bombproof firm or shallow snow touring ski, but have always felt in between sizes on that and not wanting to go all the way down to 172. Wood Tour 92 in 176 cm seems about right for spring and spring-ish touring!