ON3P SKIS Discussion

[kid-kapow]

i guess you could consider these and sell the bindings on gear swap for a tiny bit off if you wanted to mount touring friendly bindings/shifts, though the discount is perhaps not enough to warrant the extra hassle, potential mounting issues and marginal savings. Yes, i know, horrible photos.

https://www.powder7.com/ON3P-Jessie-...-2019/for-sale

i got a bit curious if j108s could be still found on sale from last year reading the last few posts, so used google I have never used said shop so i cannot vouch for em

[chaka]

i guess you could consider these and sell the bindings on gear swap for a tiny bit off if you wanted to mount touring friendly bindings/shifts, though the discount is perhaps not enough to warrant the extra hassle, potential mounting issues and marginal savings. Yes, i know, horrible photos.

https://www.powder7.com/ON3P-Jessie-...-2019/for-sale

i got a bit curious if j108s could be still found on sale from last year reading the last few posts, so used google I have never used said shop so i cannot vouch for em

thanks for having my back kid. I saw that pair this morning. the potential mount issues/hole clearances scare me.

[kid-kapow]

hehe - sorry to out your find then

[jackattack]

Thanks JackAttack! interesting insight on the tails I wonder if that's a common issue moving from flat to rockered tails. What size did your wife end of getting, out of curiosity? Also thanks for the w98 rec I'll check them out. I'm trying to stay mid 100's width just to give her as much versatility as possible for where we usually ski but we'll see.

The tail thing is just my theory, may be something else altogether. She’s on the 166. 5’6” about 115.

[kid-kapow]

man - if buying second hand ON3Ps is your thing then Gear Swap has been on fire lately.

Somebody really need to pick up those new wren88 179s before i buy a second pair. The w88 is a typical easy-to-ski wren yet super fun charger that is surprisingly decent in ankle/shin deep soft snow (sans the boot drag of course) in spite of being pretty narrow and pretty stiff, and kills groomers and shallow soft snow all season long. And of course, now sadly being discontinued they are few and far between, especially new, unmounted. They may or may not work in moguls - I dunno haven't used them in moguls, but considering the layup is (or close to) full aever they might be a bit stiff to truly shine in those conditions - hence the softer flex of the late 98s. (not meant as a dig at Betel, but an honest description of the lay up and the pretty substantial flex of w88s for a ligther rider such as my self)

so yeah, i kinda like em

[optics]

PM me if you want to haggle on those...

[auvgeek]

The J108 is pretty playful and has a progressive mount so lots of tail and more balance-y compared to a more traditionally mounted ski like the one your girl currently skis. It also has tons of taper, making it more soft-snow specific compared to the K108. My main concern there would be the amount oftail and amount of tail rocker, as well as a correspondingly short tip. She *might* end up overdriving the ski on hardpack and then also getting hung up on the tails in 3D snow. .

Personally, I think 171 is awfully short for someone 5’10” — a 171 J108 is going to be very balancey at higher speeds cuz she’s so tall. Tall = higher center of gravity so most tall, thin people tend to prefer longer, softer, lighter skis, IME. That is, longer than someone who’s shorter at the same weight but softer and lighter than someone at the same height but weighs more. Holding skiing ability equal, obviously girls have a lower COG than guys so they don’t need as long skis compared to someone the same height, and they have less muscle so they tend not to prefer as heavy or stiff skis as someone the same weight. But personal preference is key here, too.

So anyway, I think 176 is more reasonable personally. My wife is just under 5’4” and liked the 176 K108 when she demoed them last year. Frankly, I think she’d be happy on either the 171 or 176 (171 wasn’t available for her to try), but for your girl at 5’10”, I think the 176 is a no brainer. If your girl prefers a traditional mount point, you might even consider a 179 Wren 108 in a tour layup or if that seems too long/burly, maybe consider the 175 Black Crows Corvus Freebird. My wife tours on those and loves them. The Atris Birdie also seems like it might be good for your wife, except she might be kinda between sizes.

[chaka]

The J108 is pretty playful and has a progressive mount so lots of tail and more balance-y compared to a more traditionally mounted ski like the one your girl currently skis. It also has tons of taper, making it more soft-snow specific compared to the K108. My main concern there would be the amount oftail and amount of tail rocker, as well as a correspondingly short tip. She *might* end up overdriving the ski on hardpack and then also getting hung up on the tails in 3D snow. .

Personally, I think 171 is awfully short for someone 5’10” — a 171 J108 is going to be very balancey at higher speeds cuz she’s so tall. Tall = higher center of gravity so most tall, thin people tend to prefer longer, softer, lighter skis, IME. That is, longer than someone who’s shorter at the same weight but softer and lighter than someone at the same height but weighs more. Holding skiing ability equal, obviously girls have a lower COG than guys so they don’t need as long skis compared to someone the same height, and they have less muscle so they tend not to prefer as heavy or stiff skis as someone the same weight. But personal preference is key here, too.

So anyway, I think 176 is more reasonable personally. My wife is just under 5’4” and liked the 176 K108 when she demoed them last year. Frankly, I think she’d be happy on either the 171 or 176 (171 wasn’t available for her to try), but for your girl at 5’10”, I think the 176 is a no brainer. If your girl prefers a traditional mount point, you might even consider a 179 Wren 108 in a tour layup or if that seems too long/burly, maybe consider the 175 Black Crows Corvus Freebird. My wife tours on those and loves them. The Atris Birdie also seems like it might be good for your wife, except she might be kinda between sizes.

auvgeek. you are dropping wisdom on me thanks. The lighter/longer/less stiff for someone her size makes an awful lot of sense now that I think about it! Atris Birdie already on the list. Tell me a bit more about the corvus freebird. I didnt even consider it as in my brain "Corvus" = "Stiff as f**k" based on what I've read in past reviews. Never considered the freebird. Is your wife a total ripper?

[SkiLyft]

What up collective, getting around to mounting my BG's (thanks again N1ck for the quick shipping).

I usually like a more progressive mount point and go +1 or +2 on most my skis. Has anyone mounted a BG a little more forward? What is the consensus?

Thanks amigos.

[jackattack]

Consensus is on the muthafkn line.

But you can do what you want. I hear that the Canadian pros drill them at +2 then never ski them.

[2FUNKY]

^ lol!
On the fuggin line dood. Or as close as possible. You can still be all progressive and shit.

[Banh Mi]

On the line


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[MHSP1497]

Of all their skis, I seem to recall Iggy suggesting that the BG (and ostensibly the C&D too) are the models that you should NOT mess with the mount point. The RES can have unpredictable responses when the mount point is moved ahead/behind factory mark. But, in the end, they’re your skis... do what you want.

[N1CK.]

On the line.
My 184 s that you took out for a day were mounted on the line and you seemed to love them there.

( the seller of those 189s said he mounted forward too. )

[kid-kapow]

I hear that the Canadian pros drill them at +2 then never ski them.

lol

From reading this thread - if there is one thing that gets repeated again and again and again, is mount RES-skis on tze line, every time, always, without exception. Everybody held their breaths when a pair got mounted 5mm +/- the line due to mounting issues last winter, but luckily the world did not implode and the user said it worked as a charm. +2 makes no sense imo - if you want a more centered stance ski then get another ski, do not try to make the BG something it is not (a center mounted freestyle ski ).

MHSP - hm, wouldn't a lighter and softer k108 181 or w108 179 make more sense than essentially sizing down to 176cm j108s? There is a pretty huge difference in effective edge when comparing w179 in 179 and j108 in 176 - in part due to the pretty different rocker profiles, so if you missus slays the mountain with w179 (even if a softer lay up) then surely a 179 or 181 would be doable in a lighter/softer version? I guess you could also consider getting her the BG174s that are on ebay - even if they are a bit costly, (to be honest, i am surprised that nobody has bought them long ago). If 176 are the prefered route then 1cm shorter ee on 174 BGs shouldn't make a huge difference nor will the 100gr extra, but the added width will make them float better and they will also be more similar in use compared to w88s than j108s. If nothing else, the graphics are one of the best BG-vintages as well. If you have already bought said j108s, then nm, disregard

[jdadour]

On the line


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I had to go +0.5cm on the C&D's to get the mount to work. Seems like such a small difference that it shouldn't matter at all.

But otherwise Yes, go on the line. I've also heard if you have to move it, definitely don't go behind the line, then the RES gets real weird

Sent from my Pixel using TGR Forums mobile app

[MHSP1497]

MHSP - hm, wouldn't a lighter and softer k108 181 or w108 179 make more sense than essentially sizing down to 176cm j108s? There is a pretty huge difference in effective edge when comparing w179 in 179 and j108 in 176 - in part due to the pretty different rocker profiles, so if you missus slays the mountain with w179 (even if a softer lay up) then surely a 179 or 181 would be doable in a lighter/softer version? I guess you could also consider getting her the BG174s that are on ebay - even if they are a bit costly, to be honest, i am surprised that nobody has bought them long ago. If 176 are the prefered route then 1cm shorter ee on 174 BGs shouldn't make a huge difference nor will the 100gr extra, but the added width will make them float better and they will also be more similar in use compared to w88s than j108s. If nothing else, the graphics are one of the best BG-vintages as well. If you have already bought said j108s, then nm, disregard

Dude, you’re not wrong here. I talked about this w/ the guys at the factory too... In my situation, the wife has never really skied powder or soft snow. She’s been a groomer-killer most of her life. She see me take off into the trees or into deep snow and come back with a huge smile, so she now wants in on the fun. Given her relative lack of experience in soft/deep snow or powder in general, we felt her learning curve would be reduced with slightly shorter skis. For now.

These are likely her 1st skis in this size range, I expect she’ll want something different in a season or 2...

I have been going back/forth on whether Tour layup BG’s in 179 or Tour layup W108’s in 179 to give her something as long as her W88’s. But, as the guys pointed out, effective edge is less important in soft snow than it is on a groomer and the difference likely to be negligible. If she were to take these out on a day where she should be on the W88’s, then I suspect the difference would be far more noticeable on groomers.

i have not bought these skis for her just yet, so there is still time to waffle back and forth.

[uglymoney]

man - if buying second hand ON3Ps is your thing then Gear Swap has been on fire lately.

Somebody really need to pick up those new wren88 179s before i buy a second pair. The w88 is a typical easy-to-ski wren yet super fun charger that is surprisingly decent in ankle/shin deep soft snow (sans the boot drag of course) in spite of being pretty narrow and pretty stiff, and kills groomers and shallow soft snow all season long. And of course, now sadly being discontinued they are few and far between, especially new, unmounted. They may or may not work in moguls - I dunno haven't used them in moguls, but considering the layup is (or close to) full aever they might be a bit stiff to truly shine in those conditions - hence the softer flex of the late 98s. (not meant as a dig at Betel, but an honest description of the lay up and the pretty substantial flex of w88s for a ligther rider such as my self)

so yeah, i kinda like em

Yep. The Wren 88 is like a Brahma but way more fun and I love my Brahmas.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[kid-kapow]

Auvgeek describes the rocker/ee thingy compared when comparing soft snow and groomer differences pretty damned well above, even if we do not 100% agree with how kartels and wrens differ wrt the stiffer kartel-discussion. W108s and k108s are not close wrt to punching through difficult snow (the #1 thing i love wrt to wrens) yet kartels caters better to more varied turn shapes (at least for my weight). Difference in ee and sidecut plays a role in the latter where i think the difference in rear rocker would increase those differences in softer snow (when dense). I might be wrong though - Iggy or somebody who actually get ski designing could probably give way better explanations than i could - my time on both designs and ski designing in general are all too limited.

i dunno - from your description of her skiing abilities i would imagine a ski that is driven like wrens or BGs suits her better than basically learning how to ski centered on kartels or jessies when also mastering soft snow slaying. For a good skier that knows how to drive a ski, getting on wider skis and going off into softer snow shouldn't be a huge learning curve provided the person has the option to ride open terrain that is sufficiently (and not too) steep where speed can be used to gradually learn how to carve softer snow. One can then use steeper terrain to learn to slarve/pivot to control speed, and bob's you uncle. Obviously - skiing trees and whatnot is kinda different and more of an aquired art/tast imo - especially if super dense - but i would perhaps try to build on her strengths (her technique and ability to drive skis) and start riding terrain that plays to those strengths and skis that are like those she already owns, only wider. Improved confidence on her part will probably then take care of the rest from there on on. From that perspective 174 BGs makes more sense to me than 176 j108s - but - and this is a huge but - i would def listen more closely to the guys over at ON3P, their advice is usually pretty spot on.

yeah - obviously, i have never had to teach anybody how to ski powder, so i might be talking out of my ass here.

[auvgeek]

auvgeek. you are dropping wisdom on me thanks. The lighter/longer/less stiff for someone her size makes an awful lot of sense now that I think about it! Atris Birdie already on the list. Tell me a bit more about the corvus freebird. I didnt even consider it as in my brain "Corvus" = "Stiff as f**k" based on what I've read in past reviews. Never considered the freebird. Is your wife a total ripper?

Happy to help.

Corvus freebird isn't super stiff. Not soft either, but certainly not planks. I'd guess your wife's current skis are stiffer, to be frank. Pretty substantial tip rocker with a slight tail kick and some camber underfoot. Maybe the 178 Atris Birdie would be better -- I frankly don't know much about them. But the 169 seems way too short and if your wife's scared of a 178, the 175 Corvus FB might be worth a look. Remember, Black Crows measure 2-3 cm short while ON3P measures true to length. (So a 178 Atris would be about the same length as a 176 Jessie.)

My wife skis pretty well, but she's recovering from a very serious ankle injury and basically re-learned how to ski last season, like started by taking two runs on the bunny slope. She spend most of the season on the Blizzard Dakota inbounds (didn't love the lack of camber), with a few days on the 176 BG. Mainly toured on the 164 0G 95 until we picked up the Corvus Freebird (mounted with Dynafit Speed Turns) as a pow-touring setup. She doesn't find the Corvus FB all that demanding -- certainly less than her 176 BGs. She can drive the Corvus FB with the non-carbon Atomic Backland, which is pretty light and soft, if that gives you any sense. She often chooses them over her 164 0G 95, even for corn snow if weight isn't a primary consideration. Hope this provides some additional context.

we do not 100% agree with how kartels and wrens differ wrt the stiffer kartel-discussion. W108s and k108s are not close wrt to punching through difficult snow (the #1 thing i love wrt to wrens) yet kartels caters better to more varied turn shapes (at least for my weight).

To backtrack a little: 1) most of my observations are extrapolations from short demo days on the stock K108/W108 and based on how they felt compared to my Jeffrey 110, which has a 25 m radius and ON3P made stiffer everywhere and double stiff in the tips/tails for me. 2) I def agree that W108 requires less fore-aft balance in difficult snow conditions. 3) I have a strong bias for progressive (forward) mount points. I'd bet we agree maybe more than it seems.

i dunno - from your description of her skiing abilities i would imagine a ski that is driven like wrens or BGs suits her better than basically learning how to ski centered on kartels or jessies when also mastering soft snow slaying. For a good skier that knows how to drive a ski, getting on wider skis and going off into softer snow shouldn't be a huge learning curve provided the person has the option to ride open terrain that is sufficiently (and not too) steep where speed can be used to gradually learn how to carve softer snow.

Agree with this. Not sure if 174 BG has enough versatility, but sticking with a traditional mount and not a ton of tail rocker (and reduced effective edge) seems like a smart call here, in addition to my comments re length/stiffness/weight above.

[SkiLyft]

Consensus is on the muthafkn line.

But you can do what you want. I hear that the Canadian pros drill them at +2 then never ski them.

Dope, ill mount them 2cm back and ski the f*ck out of them.

^ lol!
On the fuggin line dood. Or as close as possible. You can still be all progressive and shit.

Damn right :: progressive in my skiing, mounting, and with my politics.

On the line

OKAY OKAY OKAY... (i get it). haha

[kid-kapow]

I'd bet we agree maybe more than it seems.

i think we are pretty much in agreement for the most part - discussing the last few percentages often yields more interesting insight than just agreeing on the remaining 95% And yes, i also think a softer wren108 is a much more versatile ski than a BG - but then i loooove wrens

I guess it is a bit frustrating for Scott at times when people want to change something away from specific design goals, or make to seperate designs meet in the middle, but oh well. With Magnus' gaining girth kartels might be made even more chargy - time will tell, thought they are pretty sorted as is to be honest. A stiffer k108 and the oft mentioned auvgeek pro model suggestion (sorry if that ski suggestion was coined by someone else - can't recall right now) sounds like skis that want to accomplish similar performance characteristics - chargy, predictable and a bit more centered It could be called the Supertel and be champagne room option - one can hope eh, and in the mean time there is still the excellent option of custom skis.

[MHSP1497]

kid-Kapow and auvgeek-

Both of you are providing very sound advice here. I appreciate it, and it’s part of why I’ve yet to pull the trigger for her. Part of the reason for me leaning towards the J108 is the progressive mount, if she can get used to it, it opens up more options in the future for her; as opposed to sticking w/ more standard mounts, but that may ultimately prove to be something she dislikes. Her style is more short/tight radius turns (think slalom gates) than long radius GS or Downhill style turns (which is more my style), which again was why I thought a shorter ski in deeper snow might “feel” better to swing around.

My plan, for now anyway, is to have her demo some from the factory once snow flies (since we live here, we can do that). It probably makes more sense to do that in this case than to wildly guess what she “might” like in snow she usually never skis.

I don’t know... Guess I’m hoping for another home-run like I pulled off w/ her W88’s. It’s way easier when I’m looking for/talking about skis for me than skis for her.

[N1CK.]

@ iggyskier or anyone in the know ...

Is the freeride rocker the same on the wren 88 as on the 98 or 108?
I'm wondering if it's somehow proportional to the waist width, and reduced on the 88.

[kid-kapow]

i think all 2018 wrens have identical rocker camber rocker profile aka the freeride profile. It sure seemed that way when i compared a few weeks back. I would imagine adding more camber to a w88 would make em a bit better to tour with and hard snow specific at the same time. I dunno - ON3P label it as a narrow freeride ski and not a carver, so i guess you get what they advertise


I would measure the camber, but am nowhere close to my wrens. If anybody can access Blisters w88/98/108 flash review from last year than i guess we will know.


The best photos of 88s and 98s i could find online: http://exoticskis.com/Forum/default.aspx?g=posts&m=713


It is a bit unconvetional for this narrow skis to have so little camber yes, but with the difference in flex and sidecut the different wrens probably still ski differently - if with a general wren-"feel". With their pretty substantial flex of w88s are still plenty energetic and very predictable as well. That being said, more camber could perhaps provide more suspension - even if the skis are plenty stiff (a lot stiffer than last years w108s) and damp as is. I dunno - having never tried w88s with more camber it is hard to say I like em alot as is