ON3P SKIS Discussion

[cocoapuff]

Would love some 2018 Wren 108s in 184 if anyone has em. Kapow I assume you've long moved those?

[kid-kapow]

yeah, sorry - my 184s are long gone unfortunately.

I would think that finding a pair through Gear Swap should be pretty feasible, though I would perhaps look for the 2019 version and its stiffer forebody over the 2018 version - even if the 18 eagle graphics are absolutely bonkers.

and yes, if anybody wants to partake in some Wren-stoke, then consider checking out Bangercertified aka ON3P team rider Josh' account on Instagram. He is on various Wrens and usually tears it up like it is going out of fashion.

[undertow2]

yeah, sorry - my 184s are long gone unfortunately.

I would think that finding a pair through Gear Swap should be pretty feasible, though I would perhaps look for the 2019 version and its stiffer forebody over the 2018 version - even if the 18 eagle graphics are absolutely bonkers.

and yes, if anybody wants to partake in some Wren-stoke, then consider checking out Bangercertified aka ON3P team rider Josh' account on Instagram. He is on various Wrens and usually tears it up like it is going out of fashion.

I would never part with my Wren 108 and 98 - they are def a pry from my dead cold hands ski…. And anyone of the Eagle Wren top sheets is a winner…. To date my 189 108s are the best one ski quiver that I have owned…


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[kid-kapow]

yeah, wrens are great skis no doubt. My favorites are probably wren114s, even if a wren108 is a safe bet and the right ski on pretty much any given day out skiing.

I prefer woodsmans to wrens, though I kinda suspect that the 2022 version of woods aren't miles different to wrens to be honest.

Also, of all the skis I've cycled through the last few years the two depicted wren96s - regular and titanals - are the only ones I truly regret not getting more time on / selling. I think I overthought myself out of two great pairs of skis there. Especially as the replacement in that quiver slot, Mantra102s, ended up not quite what I wanted to populate that quiver spot in the end despite being great skis too in their own way.

Oh well, I can't complain - wood96s will be in that slot for 2022 - that is, as long as I manage to refrain from ordering custom wood102tis... The struggle has been real over the last few days...

[Brasso]

I'm curious to hear more about your M102 vs Wren thoughts. I added them to my quiver last season and have loved them so far. Really impressive edge hold for their width.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[kid-kapow]

The narrowest woodsman I've been on is the 108, and I have found it to be very strong on groomers.

I have yet to see anybody saying differently wrt 96s or 102s. The one review I've seen on 102s is pretty in line with what I would've said regarding wood108tours "What I'm finding with my Woodsman 102 is that in soft snow it feels surfy if you want to, but very directional and powerful when you want, and grips well for its width on groomers.", where I found first year wood108s to require a bit more speed and commitment to come alive for my diminutive size compared to said wood108tours (duh I know)).

As such my working assumption is that I think wood96s will be the ski that I wanted my Rustler10s to be, whilst Wood102 should be even more capable and comfortable at doing huge arcs at high speeds on harder snow. Rustler10s are fun in soft snow, but too damned turny on hard snow for my taste.

I can't wait to get on said wood96s and it definately doesn't hurt that they are all nice and purple I will chime in with some feedback once I get on them for sure.

[Brasso]

Oh I should have specified. I meant Wren 96 and their Ti counterpart.

Good to know about WD edge hold though; I need to borrow a local friend's pair more this year for more testing.

I've been lusting after custom purple WD110s myself, but it would be a remarkably poor decision for my wallet, and logic has held strong this far.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[davjr96]

I put probably around 30 or 40 days on my woods96 last year as a low tide Tahoe ski. Lots of groomers. I love them for that use. They hold an edge really well. I am an ex-racer and can barely get my skis off the ground or backwards in the best circumstances, so not exactly the typical TGR charger or ON3P customer. But I love them. Mostly faster GS turns is my style but they will tighten up. Also super fun in a few inches of dust on crust and can pivot pretty well in tight spaces when that happens. I'm looking for something a bit wider for in between days and heavily considering the 102 or 110. I like the woods 96 as the perfect in between as a super stiff metal groomer ski and a true freestyle twin tip.

[N1CK.]

new Woodsman questions...

1st: search JONG, I know. Search sucks balls.
Now that that is out of the way, have we any more details on the changes to the core, and to the mount point, or more the results of each/both? I spent more time on my woods108s last year than anything and love them, but could be tempted to pass them along and snag a new pair.

[kid-kapow]

Oh I should have specified. I meant Wren 96 and their Ti counterpart.

ah, my bad. I will preface this with saying that I did not have a lot of time on either ski and its been one and a half seasons since I was on them, so take this with a grain of salt.

I remember the Wren96tis having grip for days and days, where I actively looked for shit snow when I was on just them to see what I could get away with. The regular 96s were no slouches as well, though it is hard to do a back to back comparison between the two. The wren96tis had Pivots while the regular ones had MTN pin bindings mounted and was a light pair as well (1860gr a ski approx vs 20xx something, can't remember), so a lot of the difference in feel would have been from the bindings and lack of / extra weight (both from the ski and from the bindings). I would opt for the titanal version for extra grip and an even higher top end, while the regular layup ones are probably a bit more lively.

Again, they were great, but I just got a bit fixated on lower splay hard snow skis and Völkl's new flex pattern as I wanted slightly easier tails for my one home resort (often crappy refrozen snow where the grooming is less than perfect), so stupidly made the switch to said M102s. Yeah, selling the wren96s x2 was not a good idea. At all. Oh well.

have we any more details on the changes to the core, and to the mount point, or more the results of each/both?

I have yet to see anything specific besides the description on the site and some brief mentions earlier in this thread (closer to Wren flex pattern - perhaps if you went through Iggy's latest posts?). Have you asked Iggy directly?

[Brasso]

Awesome, thank you for the thoughts davjr96 and kid-kapow! I live on ON3P and Moment hype in the off-season and you guys are keeping me alive.

[Vmango]

Sorry, very long time lurker. Bought a couple pairs of ON3Ps because of this thread.

To add to the discussion above I grabbed (custom) Woods 96 last year and love them. Incredibly versatile ski. In fact, for what I wanted they're perfect. I've skied them in Ontario, Quebec, and BC. I took them out to experiment for a couple days over 30-60cm of snowfall at Red last year and they punched well above their weight in the deep stuff. Pretty impressive that they can handle the East decently and be so great out West.


I also have Woods 116s from 2019 (the first year). They've also been great had them out cat skiing in BC, and two years out at Snowbird for big snowfalls. I find them a little hooky at slow speed but if I point the tips and pick up the speed it improves. I do wonder sometimes if it's part of that factory issues with the WDs from that year because my 96 are not hooky at all. But maybe it's the stiff tail? Going to look into retuning them this fall and I'll see what the deal is.

I know the guy above compared the woods 96 to Rustler 10s but I think they're almost like a slightly less front side oriented Rustler 9.

Cheers

[undertow2]

yeah, wrens are great skis no doubt. My favorites are probably wren114s, even if a wren108 is a safe bet and the right ski on pretty much any given day out skiing.

I prefer woodsmans to wrens, though I kinda suspect that the 2022 version of woods aren't miles different to wrens to be honest.

Also, of all the skis I've cycled through the last few years the two depicted wren96s - regular and titanals - are the only ones I truly regret not getting more time on / selling. I think I overthought myself out of two great pairs of skis there. Especially as the replacement in that quiver slot, Mantra102s, ended up not quite what I wanted to populate that quiver spot in the end despite being great skis too in their own way.

Oh well, I can't complain - wood96s will be in that slot for 2022 - that is, as long as I manage to refrain from ordering custom wood102tis... The struggle has been real over the last few days...

It took everything I had to not buy the Wren 102 ti when it was introduced…. As much as I love my 108 and 98 I would have bought the 102 ti if it was in the line up when I made the purchase…

I already picked up a custom 192 102 Woods and after talking to Iggy I am super stoked…. The bitch is how much he went on about the 110 Woods when I asked about the 110 Billy…. He said that the Woods 110 has a ton of float but still does really well on the groom…. Not his exact wording but he said the 110 Woods ran circles around the 110 Billy when it came to float…. The last thing I need is a ski in the 110 range but it is getting harder everyday to not hit the purchase button for the ones I have in my cart…


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[kid-kapow]

I know the guy above compared the woods 96 to Rustler 10s but I think they're almost like a slightly less front side oriented Rustler 9.

First, Thanks for the info - very informative post!

Secondly, yeah, the obvious comparison is wrt width - so R9 to W96 and R10 to W102. That was not the point I was trying to make though.

Most mags in the Blizzard thread get on fine with R9s and R11s, but not so much with R10s (hence SF's comment a few pages back of whether or not W102s will be the R10 everybody in the Blizzard thread is asking for but not finding in the current R10, the comment I tried to address without quoting (causing confusion) or having skied W96s or W102s yet).

So by saying that R9s and W96s are more alike wrt to width and how they ski, you are kinda making the same argument that I was making wrt the skiability I wanted R10s to exibit. These are happy to do longer turns on hard snow and not be so freaking turny on edge on hard snow, traits I think W96s should do better at (like R9s) than R10s. Which then leads me to the W96 being the ski I wanted my R10s to be (as in not being the same ski/width, but what traits I wanted R10s to exibit), especially as Woods should float even better in soft snow than the comparable Rustler by width.

Hopefully the second time trying to make the same point is a bit less confusing

sorry for turning this once again to a Kid comments every other post using too many words causing confusion, my bad

The last thing I need is a ski in the 110 range but it is getting harder everyday to not hit the purchase button for the ones I have in my cart…

snicker - I can totally understand - the struggle is real!

[Norseman]

.... Not his exact wording but he said the 110 Woods ran circles around the 110 Billy when it came to float….

this raised an eyebrow at first.

but in looking at the website, it makes some sense: in 187cm, the wd110 is wider than the bg110 by 3mm in the tip and 8mm in the tail, with 9cm longer effective edge. that's a fair bit more total surface area (maybe, depending on taper shape).

another thing i notice while digging around: the site shows the woods and bg as having the same exact rocker profile, and the same image is even used for both models.

these observations come back to the question of the month: what is the mount point of the new woodsman?

[Vmango]

First, Thanks for the info - very informative post!

Secondly, yeah, the obvious comparison is wrt width - so R9 to W96 and R10 to W102. That was not the point I was trying to make though.

Most mags in the Blizzard thread get on fine with R9s and R11s, but not so much with R10s (hence SF's comment a few pages back of whether or not W102s will be the R10 everybody in the Blizzard thread is asking for but not finding in the current R10, the comment I tried to address without quoting (causing confusion) or having skied W96s or W102s yet).

So by saying that R9s and W96s are more alike wrt to width and how they ski, you are kinda making the same argument that I was making wrt the skiability I wanted R10s to exibit. These are happy to do longer turns on hard snow and not be so freaking turny on edge on hard snow, traits I think W96s should do better at (like R9s) than R10s. Which then leads me to the W96 being the ski I wanted my R10s to be (as in not being the same ski/width, but what traits I wanted R10s to exibit), especially as Woods should float even better in soft snow than the comparable Rustler by width.

Hopefully the second time trying to make the same point is a bit less confusing

sorry for turning this once again to a Kid comments every other post using too many words causing confusion, my bad


snicker - I can totally understand - the struggle is real!

haha - I am making the same argument! I actually looked at it in the same way and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised that the WD96s work out just how you're hoping for re: the Blizzard lineup. I went into the WD96 with the exact same criteria and they did not let me down. They skied groomers at Tremblant very well and the rocked in BC even in 30cm of fresh snow. In fact they're so good they ruined my Kore 105s that were my usual West Coast daily drivers. I think the WD96 will take that spot for now and I'll turn my Kores into my touring ski.

I'll post some pics of them in action when I'm not such a JONG

I just hope I can get the hookiness out of my WD116s.

[sf]

-7.5 mount on the Woodsman 102. At least in 187

[N1CK.]

The last thing I need is a ski in the 110 range but it is getting harder everyday to not hit the purchase button for the ones I have in my cart…

I pulled the trigger on 187cm 110s ... got the black ones. Looks like it's time to list some skis and free up some cash & garage space!

[undertow2]

this raised an eyebrow at first.

but in looking at the website, it makes some sense: in 187cm, the wd110 is wider than the bg110 by 3mm in the tip and 8mm in the tail, with 9cm longer effective edge. that's a fair bit more total surface area (maybe, depending on taper shape).

another thing i notice while digging around: the site shows the woods and bg as having the same exact rocker profile, and the same image is even used for both models.

these observations come back to the question of the month: what is the mount point of the new woodsman?

Norse, like you I am a big fanboy of the Billy and I have gone through 3 iterations and now have the 193 SG... As I have said before I travel a great deal for my job so anytime I am traveling I stay for a day or two to ski... With that said I do not want to lug a bag of boards when traveling for business so I always am packing my Wren 108s... When I was talking to Iggy about this I was solely focused on the 110 Billy and he steered me towards the Woods 110 and was like you when he said the Woods 110 floated better than the Billy... I wish I could be more specific but he said the mount point was moved back from earlier versions and the core profile was changed and he is really happy with the outcome....

[bearcub69]

with 9cm longer effective edge

how would longer effective edge provide more float? If effective edge is related to taper I understand, but even then wouldn't a longer effective edge related to taper mean the taper is closer to the tip rather than boot center? wouldn't rocker profile also be a consideration? and if it has more effective edge, in theory less rocker?

[Norseman]

Hence the "depends on taper" comment... BG should have more float from the tips, and is mounted further back and has the pintail shape. My guess for why the Woodsman floats well is the extra tail.

Sorry bout the sloppy writing earlier.

[bearcub69]

Hence the "depends on taper" comment... BG should have more float from the tips. And is mounted further back and has the pintail shape.

Sorry bout the sloppy writing earlier.

Yeah I get "depends on taper".. but a longer effective edge could be due to taper closer to the tip of the ski, rather than closer to boot center.. I always thought taper closer to the boot center can provide more float along with a more "loose" feeling.. like reverse sidecut skis.

I could be wrong, thats just my understanding.

[Norseman]

... and just spoke to iggy.

Woodsman has the exact same rocker lines as the BillyGoat.

Mount points for WD are +2cm from the same length of BG.

192 BG is -9.75
187 BG is -9.5

192 WD is -7.75
187 WD is -7.5

[Norseman]

Yeah I get "depends on taper".. but a longer effective edge could be due to taper closer to the tip of the ski, rather than closer to boot center.. I always thought taper closer to the boot center can provide more float along with a more "loose" feeling.. like reverse sidecut skis.

I could be wrong, thats just my understanding.

Your understanding is the same as mine.

[kid-kapow]

... and just spoke to iggy.

Woodsman has the exact same rocker lines as the BillyGoat.

Mount points for WD are +2cm from the same length of BG.

192 BG is -9.75
187 BG is -9.5

192 WD is -7.75
187 WD is -7.5

Like I needed to be more excited about the new Woodsman and BG lines

Thanks for checking!