ON3P SKIS Discussion

[Ottime]

I believe the m-series poster is three forths of a cm forward and not 3 or 4 cm. While that is forward, I don’t think that makes him a Kartel skier. Sounds like it just happens to be where it is mounted.

I would remount them if you are able. I’ve had two pair. On the line and .25cm behind. My first pair were mounted incorrectly at Kirkweed and they were 3cm forward and the ski did not work.

The Wren works fine in powder, but it is not a powder ski. I don’t think of it as a hard snow ski either. It works fine in both. It excels in variable packed snow. Softer the better. But that is just skiing, IMO. It smooths out the crud.

I don’t love mine in firm bumps or tight trees, but they do fine. Just need to stay on top of them.

If I was going to spend an entire day doing either of those things, I’d probably get on another ski. As this is the On3p thread, perhaps the BG or Kartel depending on snow.

If I found that I was mostly skiing open faces, but every run ended in tight trees I think I’d stick with the Wren, and maybe downsize from the 191 to a 184. But I soundly as I love my 191s. Just need to muscle them through the tight stuff occasionally.

[Bruce Springskiin]

M-series, it is only your second day on those skis. Give yourself a little more time getting to know the ski, and let the edges detune a bit. Years ago my wren 112 felt like a handful the first week, but by the end of the season I was skiing them everywhere. My current SG have made a similar progression. Nothing wrong with a ski bossing you around the first few days, as you learn to ski them I felt I gained more confidence to attack terrain harder than ever before.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[TahoeJ]

Not to split hairs here, but I am not sure that I would agree that w108s are hard snow skis, even if BGs are soft snow skis for sure. W108s are very, very capable in soft snow for their width, and w108s are not icy groomer killers.

This. I think some of the confusion is people talking about older versions of the Wren that were very different on soft snow.

[cocoapuff]

that seems quite far forward, at least to me, for a wren. the consensus here, and definitely with the crew at on3p is mount on the line. a cm or two fwd/aft is acceptable but after that you're trying to (as you say) make the ski something it isn't.

when i'm in open bowl/wide open terrain i always want a ski that i can lay out long wide turns with and prefer as much ski in front of me as possible and i'm guessing most folks here would agree. +3/4 cm forward on your wrens makes me think you'd prefer a Kartel (which i still ride occasionally in open/bowl terrain, just can't haul ass as much) - ymmv

BG - i ride mine anywhere from tight trees to wide open, just need some fresh snow for them to really comfortable

fyi - the difference bewtween Kartel and Wren mount point is +/- 5cm

When I said +3/4cm I meant +.75cm not +3-4cms. Lol. So yeah, your points are well taken and I would definitely agree that would be way too forward for a Wren.

[cocoapuff]

Appreciate the sound input from the rest of you. Agree, I need to spend an entire season on them and probably get stronger. Also, yes, a Kartel, or perhaps Woodsman is probably in store as a compliment to the W108 for those days in the trees.

[kid-kapow]

The Wren works fine in powder, but it is not a powder ski. I don’t think of it as a hard snow ski either. It works fine in both. It excels in variable packed snow. Softer the better. But that is just skiing, IMO. It smooths out the crud.

well put and I agree. Variable + wrens + mach looney = tons of fun.

Then again, the logical comparison with BGs or other powder specific skis is a w114. W114s are described as skis that like open terrain, speed and big arcs (or so I have been told, have yet to get on them ), but they also require a proficient skier to get the most of out them.

[WoodenRadio]

I drive a 4Runner that my wife is currently borrowing while her GTI is having manifold work done...haha.

Earning brownie points.

[detuned]

When I said +3/4cm I meant +.75cm not +3-4cms.

yep, i definitely misread that as 3 to 4 cm, not three fourths

[TAFKALVS]

193 c&d all mounted up and ready to send.

The rocker on these planks is seriously nutty. Kinda like a lotus138 from the binding toe forward. Same camber and tail rocker as the goat from the binding toe back.



193 c&d vs 191 goat.

I like it.

[PowTron]

193 c&d all mounted up and ready to send.

The rocker on these planks is seriously nutty. Kinda like a lotus138 from the binding toe forward. Same camber and tail rocker as the goat from the binding toe back.



193 c&d vs 191 goat.

I like it.

Best powder ski ever created. PERIOD.

Get ready for Snowgasm 2019.

[WoodenRadio]

193 c&d vs 191 goat.

I like it.

Wow, that rocker!

[TAFKALVS]

Wow, that rocker!

What’s funny is compared to most every other ski in my quiver, the goat has a ton of rocker.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[PowTron]

Earning brownie points.

Stockpiled like a boss for the next storm chase [emoji869]

[steveski]

Best powder ski ever created. PERIOD.

Get ready for Snowgasm 2019.

High praise. I wanna try them now. [emoji41]

[auvgeek]

193 c&d vs 191 goat.

vs 170 hummingbird Auras?

[2FUNKY]

Best powder ski ever created. PERIOD.

Get ready for Snowgasm 2019.

I keep hearing this and hope it’s not true as I LOVE my 192 ProTest. Doing a little A/B this weekend with LVS.
Compared to the 191, per the pic the C&D has significant deeper tail rocker and a touch more splay. Looks dope. Tip rocker is mad. That ski looks interesting.

[mtskibum16]

What year are those C&D from? Can’t remember but are there rocker shots of the current C&D next to a current BG?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[TAFKALVS]

That’s the 193 16/17 version, not the current 189 fat goat version that everyone is raving about.

I think 16/17 is going to slot in perfect as the ultimate deep day destroyer.

I’d say the tail rocker is about the same between the 191 goat and 193 c&d but the tip splay on the c&d is on a different level. About the same rocker height as the goat but no joke runs all the way to the tip of the boot.

I am excited


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[kid-kapow]

High praise. I wanna try them now. [emoji41]

What - a guy who co-designed a ski is ecstatic about it? Go figure hehe (sorry if I misunderstood anything or if misrepresent your role in that ski PowTron )

I too have been extremely curious about past iterations of the C&D. At 175cm and too few ultra deep days, I have decided against getting the old version of the ski thus far. For my conditions the newer version makes more sense. That being said, that rocker line seems very, very interesting and it would be super interesting to try a pair - especially for what they are going for in gear swap as of late

181s from 16/17 seem like unicorns, but I would def have bought a pair of those if I came across a pair.

[PowTron]

What - a guy who co-designed a ski is ecstatic about it? Go figure hehe (sorry if I misunderstood anything or if misrepresent your role in that ski PowTron )

I too have been extremely curious about past iterations of the C&D. At 175cm and too few ultra deep days, I have decided against getting the old version of the ski thus far. For my conditions the newer version makes more sense. That being said, that rocker line seems very, very interesting and it would be super interesting to try a pair - especially for what they are going for in gear swap as of late

181s from 16/17 seem like unicorns, but I would def have bought a pair of those if I came across a pair.

You are correct that I helped design that ski.

I will also say that yes, that version of the 193 is the best powder ski ever created. Or very closely tied with the asym 191, but they are different (so many versions, so little time to type).

The ultra rocker 193 is better in pow than the new 189 BG rocker version...HANDS DOWN. I’m talking monster storm pow. High speed, over the head pow. Dream pow.

The difference is that the new 189 is a lot better everywhere else (and still great in pow), just not as “Asian twins on your face while your wife cheers you on” like the 193 [emoji869]

I base my statement on not just my role in designing the ski, but on comparing it to the other two dozen powder skis I’ve owned and tested for the last 15 years [emoji6]

Lastly with approx 74cm of rocker in the tip of the older one it is much easier to ski than most 193cm skis. So the 183 version skied very, VERY short.

For clarification that black CD with the white dragon/snakes is the 2015 version, not the 16/17 version as was mentioned.

All of these are tour flex:
2015 = 193
2016,2017 = 191
2018 = 191 Asym
2019 = 189 Asym

[kid-kapow]

Thanks for the extra info - very insightful.

Perhaps I should've manned up and bought the C&Ds while I had the chance then, but then again I do love the idea of asym

[TAFKALVS]

You are correct that I helped design that ski.

I will also say that yes, that version of the 193 is the best powder ski ever created. Or very closely tied with the asym 191, but they are different (so many versions, so little time to type).

The ultra rocker 193 is better in pow than the new 189 BG rocker version...HANDS DOWN. I’m talking monster storm pow. High speed, over the head pow. Dream pow.

The difference is that the new 189 is a lot better everywhere else (and still great in pow), just not as “Asian twins on your face while your wife cheers you on” like the 193 [emoji869]

I base my statement on not just my role in designing the ski, but on comparing it to the other two dozen powder skis I’ve owned and tested for the last 15 years [emoji6]

Lastly with approx 74cm of rocker in the tip of the older one it is much easier to ski than most 193cm skis. So the 183 version skied very, VERY short.

For clarification that black CD with the white dragon/snakes is the 2015 version, not the 16/17 version as was mentioned. Slight changes year to year.

I think the pair I have are prototypes and were yours at some point?

[TeleBeaver]

I am of the opinion that it is a detriment to skiers to make them pick between waist widths that have the same performance for 95% of skiers (ie: 96 vs 98, 106 vs 108, etc.). Aka...why add a 106 vs 108 waist debate to a Kartel vs Wren debate. That debate is solved by mount/balance + radius, as 106 and 108 are basically the same ski.

This is interesting. Makes perfect sense, but I wonder if in your testing you guys have noticed a "threshold" delta in waist widths. Like how much fatter does a ski with the same shape need to be before a skier can notice an appreciable difference. Does this delta grow and shrink as waist widths do? Like is there more difference between a 100/105 than between a 115/120? Or vice versa. Does a 112 split the performance differences between a 116 and 108, or is it just worse in more ways?

Just curious how you guys come to the dimensions that you do, fascinating stuff to nerd out about while I should be working.

[PowTron]

Thanks for the extra info - very insightful.

Perhaps I should've manned up and bought the C&Ds while I had the chance then, but then again I do love the idea of asym

I just edited my post because I though I had the last info in there and didn’t. Broke down 2015 thru 2019.

Also I want to be clear that the 193 was the ultimate pow ski, but I’m very happy on the 189 and think it’s an overall better ski.

[PowTron]

I think the pair I have are prototypes and were yours at some point?

Oh snap. If that is them then yes those are even beefier guns than the stock 2015. Hang on and find some deep snow!

The rocker and flex on those are dreamtastic in the right conditions.