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

[mfa81]

I haven't been on the Wren 102 but I'm looking for something a little wider than that. Preferably 106-108. I hear they're great skis though.

have you been on the supernatural 108? guess this would not be as directional as you want... maybe devastator but again a lot of rocker but low rocker at least. praxis freeride is another one you could take a shot at...

[the_flying_v]

I've been having trouble finding that 104 - 108mm ski that I'm happy with in terms of versatility. Cochise's rip but they suck in powder due to tip dive. I love my Wren 112's but there are still times I want something a bit narrower (and softer) that are just a bit less work to put on edge. It occurred to me ON3P should really introduce a Baby Billy Goat. I know the Steeples are the same shape but I'm talking a non-touring lay-up just like the BG. Maybe a bit less tip and tail rocker but similar flex characteristics. A true "car ski" that you could take anywhere and be good to go.

Am I alone here? Feel free to whip up a prototype and send them my way for testing. ;-)

Waiting on my Kartel 106s to be that ski.

[undertow2]

[QUOTE=auvgeek;4621139]Personally, I've never really understood the desire for a powder-specific shape in a mid-fat width. I'd rather a 189 RX that's 108 underfoot.

^^^^^ I could not agree with this more...

[ScrewYou]

The viciks are that ski for me. So versatile.

[XavierD]

I've been having trouble finding that 104 - 108mm ski that I'm happy with in terms of versatility. Cochise's rip but they suck in powder due to tip dive. I love my Wren 112's but there are still times I want something a bit narrower (and softer) that are just a bit less work to put on edge. It occurred to me ON3P should really introduce a Baby Billy Goat. I know the Steeples are the same shape but I'm talking a non-touring lay-up just like the BG. Maybe a bit less tip and tail rocker but similar flex characteristics. A true "car ski" that you could take anywhere and be good to go.

Am I alone here? Feel free to whip up a prototype and send them my way for testing. ;-)

Skis that have filled this box for me are: Legend Pro 105s, Viciks, and '16 Cochise

[uglymoney]

2016 Nordica Enforcer's look pretty damned nice as well.

[TahoeJ]

Enforcers are 100 underfoot - not really the same class of ski. Nice skis though - I've been on them.

But I do want directional and not center-mounted. There's really nothing like the Vicik in the line-up anymore. I'll have to try the new Cochise since I've only been on the OG version.

I'm tired of fixing core shots and deep scratches in non ON3P skis, though, and I'm just such a fan of the BG's flex profile that I'd like to have a narrower version even if some tweaks to the shape were made to make it a bit more firm snow friendly. I like the flex of the Jeffrey's too, but again, I want a more traditional directional mount and not a full twin.

[Lindahl]

FYI the new Blizzards use the same approx base material now. Not as thick of course, but they do use 4000 spec.

[Sessiøn]

Enforcers are 100 underfoot - not really the same class of ski. Nice skis though - I've been on them.

But I do want directional and not center-mounted. There's really nothing like the Vicik in the line-up anymore. I'll have to try the new Cochise since I've only been on the OG version.

I'm tired of fixing core shots and deep scratches in non ON3P skis, though, and I'm just such a fan of the BG's flex profile that I'd like to have a narrower version even if some tweaks to the shape were made to make it a bit more firm snow friendly. I like the flex of the Jeffrey's too, but again, I want a more traditional directional mount and not a full twin.

I think they have done many experiements with shrunken down pow shapes, and were not that happy with the outcome, and honestly that want becomes pretty niche. I Would look at the Wren 102. Have you tried the Line SN 108?

[zeroforhire]

Enforcers are 100 underfoot - not really the same class of ski. Nice skis though - I've been on them.

But I do want directional and not center-mounted. There's really nothing like the Vicik in the line-up anymore. I'll have to try the new Cochise since I've only been on the OG version.

I'm tired of fixing core shots and deep scratches in non ON3P skis, though, and I'm just such a fan of the BG's flex profile that I'd like to have a narrower version even if some tweaks to the shape were made to make it a bit more firm snow friendly. I like the flex of the Jeffrey's too, but again, I want a more traditional directional mount and not a full twin.

Have you tried the steeple 102?

[TahoeJ]

I think they have done many experiements with shrunken down pow shapes, and were not that happy with the outcome, and honestly that want becomes pretty niche. I Would look at the Wren 102. Have you tried the Line SN 108?

Interesting to hear. SN 108 is on my list of skis to try. Anyway... I am curious to see what ON3P adds to the line-up next season, if anything. There does seem to be a gap where the Vicik used to reside, with only the Wren 102 / 112 in the directional class. I should probably just take out my 112's more often. ;-)

[2FUNKY]

Movement Goliath

[ScrewYou]

I have some viciks i might sell, if you are interested. Im in tahoe too

[iggyskier]

Looking for insight on detuning 186 Billy Goats...just mounted up a new pair. Thx!

Should be detuned out of the factory. Normally all I do is bring a gummi first day or two and hit any spots that feel like they are a bit sharp. If you want more instructions on how we detune RES, just let me know. Fairly similar concepts to normal skis. Anything past taper should be totally knocked down. Then it is progressively detuned from taper to contact point.

I've been having trouble finding that 104 - 108mm ski that I'm happy with in terms of versatility. Cochise's rip but they suck in powder due to tip dive. I love my Wren 112's but there are still times I want something a bit narrower (and softer) that are just a bit less work to put on edge. It occurred to me ON3P should really introduce a Baby Billy Goat. I know the Steeples are the same shape but I'm talking a non-touring lay-up just like the BG. Maybe a bit less tip and tail rocker but similar flex characteristics. A true "car ski" that you could take anywhere and be good to go.

Am I alone here? Feel free to whip up a prototype and send them my way for testing. ;-)

We've made several skinny goats, mostly around 105 or 106 underfoot, plus the Steeple 102. While they are certainly fun skis, for most inbounds skiing, a Wrenegade-esc ski is just more popular. The Skinny Goat is a bit of a niche ski, so tough to include it in the line along with a Wren line. That said, if a ~106-108 width RES ski in a stock flex would be of interest to you this spring or next season, just let me know. I do agree it would be a pretty great travel ski. If enough people bug us about them, we could definitely build a run of them.

Interesting to hear. SN 108 is on my list of skis to try. Anyway... I am curious to see what ON3P adds to the line-up next season, if anything. There does seem to be a gap where the Vicik used to reside, with only the Wren 102 / 112 in the directional class. I should probably just take out my 112's more often. ;-)

Quite a few changes next year. Gap left by the Vicik departure is filled and ski line is getting more streamlined. We're cutting a few low volume sizes and moving a few models to a direct-only, pre-order only line, so that they stay around, but that we don't worry about them on a retail end (IE. Wren 112/113). A few tweaks are dedicated at fixing skis where I feel we over thought the design a bit. Oh and converted the entire team over to rockered park skis too, so I can finally kill the Prester .

[auvgeek]

Excited to see what guys have in store for next year! Glad to hear you don't think the current Wren 102 fills the gap left by the Vicik.

A few tweaks are dedicated at fixing skis where I feel we over thought the design a bit.

Interesting. Would love to hear more about which skis and why.

[iggyskier]

Glad to hear you don't think the current Wren 102 fills the gap left by the Vicik.

A few tweaks are dedicated at fixing skis where I feel we over thought the design a bit.

Interesting. Would love to hear more about which skis and why.

Well, that for one...

The goal is to better define the function & purpose of each ski. We have a few skis right now that sort of teeter on the line between, say, an everyday and powder ski. We're moving away from that. The ski should be optimally designed for its function and that function should be clear (and do note, IMO, actual function and perceived function are two separate things). Also, we have a few skis that compete with each other when they honestly shouldn't. I can't even tell you how many emails/phone calls we get that say...

"I am looking for a directional ski, but I want it 98 underfoot, not 102. Should I buy the Kartel 98 instead of the Wrenegade 102?" Or Vice Versa. The answer to that question is easy (go with the directional ski), but the decision to get to that answer is a struggle for a lot of people.

The difference between 98 & 102 is negligible in terms of performance, but is large in terms of how people view the skis. So, we're having to factor in design considerations and doing so while trying to remove these types of conflicts that are mental, not performance based, with the end goal of a ski line whose skis have a clearly defined function.

A perfect example of this is the Wren 102. Performance wise, that ski competes much more so with comparable skis in the 96-100 range than it does with the skis in the 106-110 range (due more to its its radius and flex than its width). Nonetheless, it is often lumped in with wider skis (as it is 100+) and counted out against skinnier skis (sub-100) that it is really meant to compete with. I think we over thought its design, assuming it could replace the Vicik while competing within the sub-100 space, but in reality, that wasn't the case. So, tweaking the Wren line so that each skis' actual function is more focused, which often coincides with the perceived function of the ski, is an underlying goal.

One other example would be the Kartel 98 & 106. The Kartel line was formed out of the Jeronimo, for which we had a lot of people saying "I ski >50% park, will this ski work?" or "I ski >50% all mountain, will that ski work?". The Kartel introduction was meant to better meet those different needs, with the 98 leaning towards the more park-based skiers and the 106 leaning towards the more all-mountain-based skiers.

We've finding, even so, people really agonize over the choice between 98 & 106, so there are a few changes coming that will make the skis better designed for their purpose and make their purpose more clear.

[auvgeek]

Awesome response. Thanks, Scott. Super excited to see the final products.

It sounds tough to combat actual vs perceived function and some of those questions would get old very quickly, especially where there IS a clear answer (technically) but people have trouble wrapping their minds around it. On that note, have you considered doing an FAQ for each product on the site to cut down on the amount of email/phone calls you're getting? For example, Schiit audio has a pretty useful (and hilarious) FAQ for each product in their line. Just an idea.

[Nevada29er]

Well, that for one...

The goal is to better define the function & purpose of each ski. We have a few skis right now that sort of teeter on the line between, say, an everyday and powder ski. We're moving away from that. The ski should be optimally designed for its function and that function should be clear (and do note, IMO, actual function and perceived function are two separate things). Also, we have a few skis that compete with each other when they honestly shouldn't. I can't even tell you how many emails/phone calls we get that say...

"I am looking for a directional ski, but I want it 98 underfoot, not 102. Should I buy the Kartel 98 instead of the Wrenegade 102?" Or Vice Versa. The answer to that question is easy (go with the directional ski), but the decision to get to that answer is a struggle for a lot of people.

The difference between 98 & 102 is negligible in terms of performance, but is large in terms of how people view the skis. So, we're having to factor in design considerations and doing so while trying to remove these types of conflicts that are mental, not performance based, with the end goal of a ski line whose skis have a clearly defined function.

A perfect example of this is the Wren 102. Performance wise, that ski competes much more so with comparable skis in the 96-100 range than it does with the skis in the 106-110 range (due more to its its radius and flex than its width). Nonetheless, it is often lumped in with wider skis (as it is 100+) and counted out against skinnier skis (sub-100) that it is really meant to compete with. I think we over thought its design, assuming it could replace the Vicik while competing within the sub-100 space, but in reality, that wasn't the case. So, tweaking the Wren line so that each skis' actual function is more focused, which often coincides with the perceived function of the ski, is an underlying goal.

One other example would be the Kartel 98 & 106. The Kartel line was formed out of the Jeronimo, for which we had a lot of people saying "I ski >50% park, will this ski work?" or "I ski >50% all mountain, will that ski work?". The Kartel introduction was meant to better meet those different needs, with the 98 leaning towards the more park-based skiers and the 106 leaning towards the more all-mountain-based skiers.

We've finding, even so, people really agonize over the choice between 98 & 106, so there are a few changes coming that will make the skis better designed for their purpose and make their purpose more clear.

I agree with where you're going on better definition on the skis you carry. I am looking for a replacement to my Legend Pro 105s, which are probably my favorite all time do everything ski.

Don't own any ON3P skis yet, but am a bit confused at where the different skis in the line are focused other than the Wren 112. BGs seems to be a soft snow ski that can handle some hardpack and aren't noodles. The rest of the line, I don't really have a good idea where they stand, for intended purpose.

Sounds like my LP 105 replacement falls into the gap you're looking to fill next year. Bummer, as I need something this year. BTY, I demoed the Line SN 108 last year and hated it. It felt like a lifeless plank to me, but it may have been a bad tune as well. The Belafonte comes the closest for me at this point in the directional charger (but not too demanding) ~105 ski.

[auvgeek]

The rest of the line, I don't really have a good idea where they stand, for intended purpose.

I actually think it's pretty obvious what the intended purpose for each of their skis is—but they don't currently offer anything to replace to the LP105.

My take on the line:
Their bread and butter (especially with the kids on ns) is the Kartel - Jeffrey line. Having skied some (not all) of that line, I think they are pretty much just different widths of the same ski: a playful all-mountain ski with a backbone. The Billy Goat is a soft-snow, directional, pintailed "playful charger" that isn't too scary on hard snow, and the C&D is basically a bigger, badder version with more rocker, stiffness, etc. The Steeple is a softer, touring-oriented version of the Billy Goat. The Wren is a directional charger, and the baby Wren is a daily driver for lazy dentists (made slightly wider in hopes that it would replace the Vicik).

The Belafonte comes the closest for me at this point in the directional charger (but not too demanding) ~105 ski.

Maybe try to Cochise as well? That gap is hard to find. Something with tip rocker, minimal tail rocker, 28+ m radius, and ~105 is just a tough ski to find. Add in a progressive mount (like -7 to -9) and it's about impossible.

[Lindahl]

I actually think it's pretty obvious what the intended purpose for each of their skis is—but they don't currently offer anything to replace to the LP105.

My take on the line:
Their bread and butter (especially with the kids on ns) is the Kartel - Jeffrey line. Having skied some (not all) of that line, I think they are pretty much just different widths of the same ski: a playful all-mountain ski with a backbone. The Billy Goat is a soft-snow, directional, pintailed "playful charger" that isn't too scary on hard snow, and the C&D is basically a bigger, badder version with more rocker, stiffness, etc. The Steeple is a softer, touring-oriented version of the Billy Goat. The Wren is a directional charger, and the baby Wren is a daily driver for lazy dentists (made slightly wider in hopes that it would replace the Vicik).

Maybe try to Cochise as well? That gap is hard to find. Something with tip rocker, minimal tail rocker, 28+ m radius, and ~105 is just a tough ski to find. Add in a progressive mount (like -7 to -9) and it's about impossible.

Totally agree on that last part. A solid 105-110 ski with large radius, and that mount point is hard to find. Add in the 'nearly flat' with enough tip rocker to float (one complaint about the Cochise) and you're in the money zone. Also, an ON3P 186/187 would be perfect. Most skis are too short or too long. Goddamn goldilocks. At least in my book. Shame no one makes it. I've been resorting to looking at old school skis and home rockering, but I can't find one with a newschool directional mount point (-9 in my book). Liberty Variant 113 is close, but too wide (and a tad short).

[mfa81]

^agree about the jeffrey / kartel line, seems like a 3 ski instead of 4 skis would work better, something like what they have with the jessie, a 98 / 110 / 120 sort of series!

[CaliBrit]

I've been having trouble finding that 104 - 108mm ski that I'm happy with in terms of versatility. Cochise's rip but they suck in powder due to tip dive. I love my Wren 112's but there are still times I want something a bit narrower (and softer) that are just a bit less work to put on edge. It occurred to me ON3P should really introduce a Baby Billy Goat. I know the Steeples are the same shape but I'm talking a non-touring lay-up just like the BG. Maybe a bit less tip and tail rocker but similar flex characteristics. A true "car ski" that you could take anywhere and be good to go.

Am I alone here? Feel free to whip up a prototype and send them my way for testing. ;-)

Scott P4. Someone should remake it.

[buildakicker]

Man! This is a long forum... I've been reading up on the Jeffrey 114 for a few days. They are sounding great... Even put the 186 in the cart on the website and then didn't pull the trigger. Anyone out there 6'4" & fit 200lbs that diggs "hitting steeps, billy goat lines, cliffs and kickers, but then jib the groomer / chop back to the lift fast switch or fwd" riding the 186 and liking it? I'm afraid of the over the bars feeling that I keep getting thinking about with this ski. I really loved the Spatula when it came out and still have some OG Praxis Pow Boards in 185 that are fun, but remember them feeling a little short on deep days on the hill. Do the Jeffrey's "ski" a little longer than a 186? Will the 191 still be jibby (nose press, tail, mini3s, butter?) Does the tip and tail get a little more sloppy as the length increases? My pow boards now are Praxis BPS 193, so looking for something to fill in between them an my big mtn chargers 191 LibTech Pow. PEACE!

[ScrewYou]

We've made several skinny goats, mostly around 105 or 106 underfoot, plus the Steeple 102. While they are certainly fun skis, for most inbounds skiing, a Wrenegade-esc ski is just more popular. The Skinny Goat is a bit of a niche ski, so tough to include it in the line along with a Wren line. That said, if a ~106-108 width RES ski in a stock flex would be of interest to you this spring or next season, just let me know. I do agree it would be a pretty great travel ski. If enough people bug us about them, we could definitely build a run of them.

This sounds awesome. A 184cm, 106mm wide Bg, or a 189cm, 108mm underfoot billy goat would be great.

Do the wren 112s not sell? I want one soo bad, thats like number one on my list for next year and now its going to special order city. However, I need to special order a 191 anyways.

When you had the vicik in the lineup, in 2014, was is a top 3 seller?

..And to the poster above me, i am 6'3, 200 lbs, fit and ski the 186 jeffrey 114. I absolutely love it. I am glad i went with the 186 for its intended purpose, but I could also see myself on the 191. I have never felt like I was going over the handle bars on a landing, or anywhere else. I ski a lot of bumps and trees and i like to ski shorter skis all mtn, 186 is perfect IMO. I have a 191 BG for powder, but if i didnt, i would have probably went with the 191 jeff over the 186. It all depends on what you want to use it for. I wouldnt compare it to a spatula or the likes though, it doesnt ski short in the way it turns "too easily" like a reverse/reverse, but it skis shorter than a fully cambered 186

[undertow2]

Totally agree on that last part. A solid 105-110 ski with large radius, and that mount point is hard to find. Add in the 'nearly flat' with enough tip rocker to float (one complaint about the Cochise) and you're in the money zone. Also, an ON3P 186/187 would be perfect. Most skis are too short or too long. Goddamn goldilocks. At least in my book. Shame no one makes it. I've been resorting to looking at old school skis and home rockering, but I can't find one with a newschool directional mount point (-9 in my book). Liberty Variant 113 is close, but too wide (and a tad short).

I own two pairs of Vicik (one custom) and love them both... Since they dont have a ski in the lineup currently for what you are after the Moment M1 I would think would be your holy grail...

And Scott, as the owner of 4 pairs of ON3Ps (still own the 1st gen 191 Wren) I will always be a fan and appreciate the comments you made above... I cannot imagine the frustration it must be to figure out the right lineup... And I mean this more from the consumer standpoint... It never ceases to amaze me how many times I read on this board where a poster states they love the ski, but it is +/- 2 cm wide/narrow or short/tall... I have beat the living shit out of my Viciks and have skied other boards that are 98 underfoot and I honestly have a hard time seeing that big of a difference... Yet you see people say I would love to buy the Wren, but it is 102 underfoot and am looking for a 98... If you make a 191 someone wants a 189, If you make a 189 others would buy if it is a 187... Except for very specific skis (ie - touring) I think way to many people split hairs to the N'th degree on skis...

Congrats on all of the success and am def looking forward to what is coming next year...