ON3P SKIS Discussion

[Sessiøn]

Not necessarily wider, just that the Wren 108 is stiffer with a longer radius than the 98. I don't know how your prototypes differ from the production, though. At 220#, I think the longer lengths are worth a thought. How tall are you?

They aren't different from production. Just run before main production run.

Source: They were mine.

[mattig]

Yeah, I got the calipers out. All measurements are dead on, and besides, PA would know either way.

my height 6'00"

re: reputation, I've actually heard the opposite--i.e. that they're the LEAST demanding 95-105mm all-mountain charger. I'd agree that they are not demanding or punishing at all. They just really want to GO.

PA, do your clamps on the K108's have some room? I'll make you some tailgate lunch (I'd even park in the main lot for you...) in exchange for some laps when your foot's feeling better.

[TahoeJ]

Let's not confuse reputations of the original wider Wren with the 98. They are very different skis. I understand for marketing / streamline purposes why they have the same name, but they really shouldn't IMO. Not that it matters.

[uglymoney]

For the record my stepson rips the shit out of the 102 Wrens from last year. He is kicking my ass in the NASTAR course on hard ice (we live in the Midwest so yeah we do NASTAR - shoot us) with my acl recovering crippled ass on my Brahma's. Those Wrens are butter on hard groomers. Should have bought a pair for myself.

[adrenalated]

My take on it is that the Wrens aren't necessarily a dying breed, but that very demanding skis are. Particularly since in challenging conditions and tight trees, easier-going skis can be skied faster because they're easier to shut down. IMHO, the current Wren is more for old people like adrenalated who can't figure out how to stand on a center-mounted ski than the skier who wants to rage all the time. That doesn't necessarily make the Wren more stable than the K108; just different skis for different style skiers.

FIFY

[MHSP1497]

For the record my stepson rips the shit out of the 102 Wrens from last year. He is kicking my ass in the NASTAR course on hard ice (we live in the Midwest so yeah we do NASTAR - shoot us) with my acl recovering crippled ass on my Brahma's. Those Wrens are butter on hard groomers. Should have bought a pair for myself.

Man! I remember growing up skiing Wilmot with grass and dirt showing like that! I'll never forget making turns over clear ice that you could see the grass beneath.

[uglymoney]

Man! I remember growing up skiing Wilmot with grass and dirt showing like that! I'll never forget making turns over clear ice that you could see the grass beneath.

Been crazy warm. Do you remember ice to grass traverse to ice to man made mini cliff to stomp on fresh man made? Midwest skiing at its finest.

[MHSP1497]

Yeah, I remember that as well as not seeing the dirt on the landing behind the jump..... Had a very memorable double-click event off a small jump between 2 trees. failed to see the dirt patch on the landing.

[Lindahl]

Meh, I think skis that aren't skied with a forward stance are inherently less stable. A forward stance puts you in a better position to absorb irregular terrain and stay in the drivers seat. Though, a more centered mount point doesn't necessarily mean it can't be skied with a forward stance. There's more to it than that - flex profile and position of the center of sidecut, chiefly.

[MHSP1497]

For the record my stepson rips the shit out of the 102 Wrens from last year. He is kicking my ass in the NASTAR course on hard ice (we live in the Midwest so yeah we do NASTAR - shoot us) with my acl recovering crippled ass on my Brahma's. Those Wrens are butter on hard groomers. Should have bought a pair for myself.

Question for you on the Wren's: are you running the sharpened edge further into the tip/tail than the factory? Curious to know if you did whether it changed the character of the ski.

[uglymoney]

Question for you on the Wren's: are you running the sharpened edge further into the tip/tail than the factory? Curious to know if you did whether it changed the character of the ski.

Can't help you there. We have them at 1/1 still with the usual tip and tail detuning.

[critical-motion]

^ This is exactly what I do with my 13/14 and the wife's 09/10 Viciks. She has a new pair of Wren 102s on the way and I plan to do the same tune if not already done by ON3P. I don't see a need to get complicated with tuning for Wrens/Viciks for your average western snowpack. Edge hold and hookiness are well-balanced when tuned like this. I suspect this is also the case with newer Wrens.

[MHSP1497]

Oh. Hell. Yes.

Just got this email:

ON3P Skis ORDER #5xxx

Your order is on the way Your order is on the way to you. Track your shipment to see the delivery status.

[eras94]

Long time lurker here looking for some input on Wren 108 size...

For some context... 6'1 205# currently skiing a 185 Cochise (w/ camber and carbon) and looking to replace it for next season since its beat to hell. My other ski for deeper days is a 190 Bibby Pro. I prefer a directional, stiffer ski as my daily driver, like to make bigger faster turns and ski pretty aggressively, but occasionally end up in trees or tight spots.. so I am thinking the Wren 108.

I actually skied the 184 Wren 108 in the stiff layup at one of the demo days at Crested Butte and liked it, but with a larger rocker profile than the Cochise (specifically in the tail - so the Wren released turns a little easier I noticed) I am worried I am going to want a little more ski length wise...

Basically, I'm wondering if anyone can offer some input on if they have been on the 184 vs 189 Wren 108 and how much (if any) maneuverability they lost in tight spots (trees, chutes, etc). And even better if someone has been on the 189 in the stiffer layup...

I know its like 5 cm, but just looking if anyone has had experience on it since I didn't get to demo it. And if that 5cm buys me a little more stability without losing too much ability to toss it around in the tight spots pretty easily it would put my mind at ease and make it an easy purchase...

[auvgeek]

There were rumors of ON3P doing a limited run of 186 Wrens in a "comp" sort of version with a stiffer flex and the old tail profile (i.e., less rocker). Might be worth checking in with them to see if that's still in the cards.

I've only skied CB for one weekend, but it seems like a place that favors a shorter ski so I can see why you're concerned about an extra 5 cm if that's your home mtn. Keep in mind the 185 Cochise measures like 182.5, unlike the ON3P skis which measure true to length.

[XavierD]

I liked the 189 Wren better than the 184. It is still easier to break free than a 185 Cochise, but does give you a noticeably longer engaged edge than the '84 Wren

[adrenalated]

Not sure if CB is the above poster's regular mountain, but at CB it's often less "how easy is the ski to break free" and more "my shit literally won't fit through here."

X2 on asking ON3P if they can build a comp Wren for you (stiffer flex, flatter tail). I know they've built a pair or two and you can expect to pay for it if they're willing to do it, but it sounds like it would be exactly what you want. Also I think they would be the standard 184 or 189 sizes, not 186.

[eras94]

I liked the 189 Wren better than the 184. It is still easier to break free than a 185 Cochise, but does give you a noticeably longer engaged edge than the '84 Wren

Xavier can you elaborate on this? Did you ski it in the trees or bumps at all and if so how was it? I found the 184 really maneuverable, how much was lost at 189?

Not sure if CB is the above poster's regular mountain, but at CB it's often less "how easy is the ski to break free" and more "my shit literally won't fit through here."

X2 on asking ON3P if they can build a comp Wren for you (stiffer flex, flatter tail). I know they've built a pair or two and you can expect to pay for it if they're willing to do it, but it sounds like it would be exactly what you want. Also I think they would be the standard 184 or 189 sizes, not 186.

CB is not my home mountain. Wish it was though...
Home mountain is A-Basin (normally skiing the Pali area), although I end up at Vail and Breck also from time to time. And then I get the occasional weekend at CB, Jackson, Snowbird/Alta... So how tight CB can get is probably an exception to the norm for me.

The 186 sounds really interesting and I like the idea of that size. I don't even know if I would want the flat tail... maybe the standard rocker profile with a stiff layup at 186? I wouldn't mind paying for it if its the right ski.. I was going to do a custom order anyways to get black topsheets (and maybe the stiff layup). But, I have no idea if ON3P adjusts lengths at all for the custom orders.

I am probably overthinking this a bit.. I was able to get on the 184 Wren with the stiff layup and get after it pretty hard in North Face Lift zone at CB.. even got into some mandatory air situations and it was fine. So I feel like the fact that I was comfortable on it right away says something about that length/layup.. but I still have some qualms about a 184 ski I guess. I am planning to try to get to the Loveland demo day in March to get on it again... maybe that will help me clear it up and it would be sweet if they had a 189 there.

[adrenalated]

The 186 sounds really interesting and I like the idea of that size. I don't even know if I would want the flat tail... maybe the standard rocker profile with a stiff layup at 186? I wouldn't mind paying for it if its the right ski.. I was going to do a custom order anyways to get black topsheets (and maybe the stiff layup). But, I have no idea if ON3P adjusts lengths at all for the custom orders.

I don't believe they adjust length.

The "flat tail" isn't flat, it's flatter than the current ski. It's the old profile from the Wren 112. It looks like this:





Compared to:


(stolen from another forum via Google search - pic is of a Wren 98 but I think the profile is the same?)

It's not wildly different but it is different. The old tail profile skis a bit more powerfully and will still break free, but it does take a bit more effort than the current tail. I personally like the old tail better but the new shape does make the ski a little easier to shut down speed.

[Sessiøn]

Xavier can you elaborate on this? Did you ski it in the trees or bumps at all and if so how was it? I found the 184 really maneuverable, how much was lost at 189?



CB is not my home mountain. Wish it was though...
Home mountain is A-Basin (normally skiing the Pali area), although I end up at Vail and Breck also from time to time. And then I get the occasional weekend at CB, Jackson, Snowbird/Alta... So how tight CB can get is probably an exception to the norm for me.

The 186 sounds really interesting and I like the idea of that size. I don't even know if I would want the flat tail... maybe the standard rocker profile with a stiff layup at 186? I wouldn't mind paying for it if its the right ski.. I was going to do a custom order anyways to get black topsheets (and maybe the stiff layup). But, I have no idea if ON3P adjusts lengths at all for the custom orders.

I am probably overthinking this a bit.. I was able to get on the 184 Wren with the stiff layup and get after it pretty hard in North Face Lift zone at CB.. even got into some mandatory air situations and it was fine. So I feel like the fact that I was comfortable on it right away says something about that length/layup.. but I still have some qualms about a 184 ski I guess. I am planning to try to get to the Loveland demo day in March to get on it again... maybe that will help me clear it up and it would be sweet if they had a 189 there.

So you liked the 184, but you are hung up on a number? Get the 184 with a stiff layup and write 186 on it.

[eras94]

It's not wildly different but it is different. The old tail profile skis a bit more powerfully and will still break free, but it does take a bit more effort than the current tail. I personally like the old tail better but the new shape does make the ski a little easier to shut down speed.

Nice! If they made that run in the 186 like auvgeek mentioned that would be an ideal ski for me I think...

Kinda complicates my decision if I have to still pick 184/189.. if the 189 is easier to shut down with the "new" tail that sounds appealing, while the 184 in a stiff layup with the "old" tail also could be interesting for sure...

Of course this depends on whether ON3P has any plans to bring back that tail shape.

[adrenalated]

So you liked the 184, but you are hung up on a number? Get the 184 with a stiff layup and write 186 on it.

Yeah, this. 2cm = 0.787in. I could feel the difference in tail shape between my 186cm Wren 112s and the 184cm Wren 108, but not the 2cm in length.

[eras94]

So you liked the 184, but you are hung up on a number? Get the 184 with a stiff layup and write 186 on it.

Not exactly.. but I get your point, its a pretty small difference. Its more that I found myself liking that 184 in the terrain at CB, but I know thats not the norm for where I ski.. so I have some doubts on if I am going to end up wishing I had more ski.

[eras94]

Yeah, this. 2cm = 0.787in. I could feel the difference in tail shape between my 186cm Wren 112s and the 184cm Wren 108, but not the 2cm in length.

That makes sense... so if they can bring that tail rocker back I'll probably end up going 184 w/ stiff layup and the "old tail"..
But, if they don't bring back the old tail, then I'm still kinda stuck on the 184 stiff layup/189 dilemma.

[auvgeek]

At your size and not-CB, the current 189 (maybe even in a stiff layup) seems like a no brainer. Honestly.

You've got 2" and 40# on me, and I find myself debating the 184 or 189. Fortunately, the K108 still comes in a 186.