ON3P SKIS Discussion

[margotron]

Now if you have THREE setups, I think we can swing back to the 108 :-)

Heck, I am looking at the 108. I have narrow touring and fat touring. The 116 would have to replace my fat. 108 I could justify as between storms, but I’m not sure I tour enough to justify that...or that things will be so criminally chopped up that the fatter ski wouldn’t be the right tool.

This is where I was going with it’s easier for me to give advice than figure out my own shit lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steveski]

BG108 sounds really good for 90% of soft snow touring. Having the pivoty goodness of RES at that waist width should translate to a really versatile ski even in soft, non-pow snow.

[Tailwind]

This debate over 116 vs 108 makes more sense understanding use and context. I said this a few pages ago but snow density and the terrain you’re touring on makes a huge difference.

I personally have always liked wider skis. No issues with knees, Fitness is good, Touring in continental snow. I have Wren 114’s as a daily driver in the resort and have no issue getting them high on edge carving or driving them through tight moguls. I would always go 116 for a single touring ski quiver but that’s just me and my use case. Lot of reasons a 108 would be good for other people.

[Conundrum]

Wood stiff supers just showed up. Freaking rad. Will mount up in short order with some old new 916 steels I’ve been saving for a special occasion. And my quiver is complete for awhile...or I could be talked into some touring skis.

[Norseman]

Wood stiff supers just showed up. Freaking rad. Will mount up in short order with some old new 916 steels I’ve been saving for a special occasion. And my quiver is complete for awhile...or I could be talked into some touring skis.

post pics ya hoser, I been waiting to see them

[Conundrum]

The dark Caylors are headed back to Iggy sometime this winter.

[auvgeek]

what are the other veneers?

[Conundrum]

K108s. Quite possibly the most fun ski I’ve ever owned for when it’s somewhere between ice and deep crud or nectar.

[auvgeek]

nice. I own the predecessor Jeffrey 110 in veneer. Amazing ski.

[ASmileyFace]

Those Caylors are sexy. I'd love to see the collection of old ON3Ps that Iggy has managed to recollect over the years.

[Bobcat Sig]

The dark Caylors are headed back to Iggy sometime this winter.

Wood veneers AND metal Sollys?!

[Norseman]

Mount point question:

(tried searching and reading back a few pages)

How did the mount point evolve for the Woodsman line? I remember a discussion here about the line moving back a tad in this year's model.

I have last year's 192 with masking tape on them, prepped for mounting. Should I mount back a few mm to "update" to the new norm? Or did the sidecut geo change, too?

[adrenalated]

Mount point question:

(tried searching and reading back a few pages)

How did the mount point evolve for the Woodsman line? I remember a discussion here about the line moving back a tad in this year's model.

I have last year's 192 with masking tape on them, prepped for mounting. Should I mount back a few mm to "update" to the new norm? Or did the sidecut geo change, too?

I have last year's 182 and mounted them 1cm back from the line. I felt like that was right (for me) but can't compare to any other mount point.

The line did change for this year. I think Iggy said it moved 0.75cm back. I could be off a little.
Not sure if sidecut geometry was adjusted at all.

[Doremite]

Mount point question:

(tried searching and reading back a few pages)

How did the mount point evolve for the Woodsman line? I remember a discussion here about the line moving back a tad in this year's model.

I have last year's 192 with masking tape on them, prepped for mounting. Should I mount back a few mm to "update" to the new norm? Or did the sidecut geo change, too?

Same question. Was thinking of going 1cm back but my telemark mounting projects always leave me over thinking things. I am back about 1cm on my 2018/2019 Protos and dig it. Slightly longer tail than production.

[kid-kapow]

How did the mount point evolve for the Woodsman line? I remember a discussion here about the line moving back a tad in this year's model.

WOODSMAN
Woodsman gets new width - 102.
96 gets tighter radius + new core profile/layup.
108 gets minor sidecut tweak + new core profile/layup.
116 gets minor sidecut tweak, flex made a bit softer + new core profile/layup.
Moved the mount point back 0.75cm across the line.
Flex on 177/182 made a bit softer in all widths.
source: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...68#post5986168

I have last year's 192 with masking tape on them, prepped for mounting. Should I mount back a few mm to "update" to the new norm? Or did the sidecut geo change, too?

(in answering the same question concerning a 182 ski)
Not necessarily. With a mount change comes a change to sidecut, core profile, binding mat...so your Woodsman are designed to be skied at that recommended line. The vast majority of people skied them there this past season. We wanted to shorten the tail just slightly and felt - at their current stiffness - a bit more tip to drive would be better compared to a bit more playfulness/balance, hence the change. 0.75cm isn't a huge change here, so I wouldn't stress about it to much. If you like a more directional ski, move it back. If not, stick where it is.

source: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...98#post5992198

I would've gone back for slightly less tail

[Norseman]

There it is. Thanks

[Doremite]

X2 Thanks kapow

[Quandary]

Kid-Kapow's quote re the 182 mount question was originated by me regarding the mounting of W116s. I lean towards a more rearward mounted ski. Take the following as you choose. I had the skis mounted this summer by a fellow in Breck who has a tech shop but primarily makes his living as a patroller and has worked with RMU in the design of their skis. We had some long discussions about mount location for the Woodsmen. Based on the design, side cut etc, he very strongly recommended following Iggy's advice and mounting on the line. Which I did, hopefully it works out.

[kid-kapow]

Glad I could help Doremite and Norse. Also, thanks for the extra input Quandary!

For reference, my 108s are mounted on the line, while my 116s are mounted at -5mm. I did not spend a lot of time on either pair last season and both pairs need a tuneup, but I do plan on sking them a lot this coming season. Hell, I even sold two pairs of skis (DPS Koala119 in 184 and Moment Wildcat108 in 184) that I have clicked better with than the aforementioned Woods just to get more time on the Woods. Should be fun.

[sk8rat6587]

Glad I could help Doremite and Norse. Also, thanks for the extra input Quandary!

For reference, my 108s are mounted on the line, while my 116s are mounted at -5mm. I did not spend a lot of time on either pair last season and both pairs need a tuneup, but I do plan on sking them a lot this coming season. Hell, I even sold two pairs of skis (DPS Koala119 in 184 and Moment Wildcat108 in 184) that I have clicked better with than the aforementioned Woods just to get more time on the Woods. Should be fun.

How would you compare the woodsman 108 to the wildcat 108? I currently have Kartel 108, but want to move to a bit more of a directional ski that still has some playfullness.

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk

[kid-kapow]

The short version - wildcat108s are bit lighter and "less" ski, super nimble and very good across most conditions, while woodsman108s are more stable, better at punching through stuff and has more pop out of turns. I prefer ON3P's build quality, ride feel and graphics - though wildcat108s are a ton of fun. You can't really go wrong with either.

The range is kartel - wildcat108 - woodsman - wrenegade on the playful to stable spectrum. Wildcats are bit close to Kartels, woods a bit closer to wrens. Both are excellent skis.

Longer version - read these, Blister's reviews are spot on concerning these skis imho:
https://blisterreview.com/gear-revie...p-woodsman-108
https://blisterreview.com/gear-revie...nt-wildcat-108

[Dr. Crank]

Liking the sounds of the Woodsman 108. Almost went and ordered a pair but split between the 187 and 192. I’m sure either would be great. Have Praxis BC 180 for touring and would probably go longer if I had a do over although they are stellar skis. Old school 188 with no rocker for the resort which makes me sound pretty old-fashioned I guess

[Bobcat Sig]

Liking the sounds of the Woodsman 108. Almost went and ordered a pair but split between the 187 and 192. I’m sure either would be great. Have Praxis BC 180 for touring and would probably go longer if I had a do over although they are stellar skis. Old school 188 with no rocker for the resort which makes me sound pretty old-fashioned I guess

ON3Ps almost always ski longer than you think. And as Iggy will attest (many times over), they measure the true length of the ski, after it's pressed. WHich is to say, a 187cm ON3P ski will measure to 187cm.

I just picked up a pair of 187 Woodsman 108 knowing that they will ski longer and I want something a bit more playful than the Vicik, which is already in my quiver.

[cocoapuff]

Still probably too early but anxious to hear feedback on new tour construction. They are coming in really light. Almost too light for my taste. Im considering a Woodsman 108 (182cm) for a one ski touring quiver. But I am almost tempted to go with 50/50 construction as I like just a tiny bit of beef in my tour ski. My question is, considering the most of a skis feel comes from its core construction, and it appears the core is the same on tour build and 50/50 (50/50 just has the thicker bases and edges) does anyone have any thoughts or ideas on how the a tour build might ski compared to a 50/50. It looks like the weight difference could be significant (maybe 100-200g/ski) but given that that weight is solely coming from thicker bases and edges, I wonder if there will be much noticeable difference in feel??? In other words, you'll gain the weight, but will it really transfer to that much better downhill performance if the cores are alike...

[margotron]

Do we have weights on

108 Billy Goat Tour
116 Billy Goat TOur

in 189?