ON3P SKIS Discussion

[Brasso]

Not me but I had started to refresh the page daily. Whoever bought them saved me too. Plus 102s are too narrow for what I need.

I don't know about you, but I find that what I click "Purchase" on has always been a very small subset of "what I need." Thus ending up with a closet full of skis.

[Marko888]

Gonna let my ‘22 stock layup 182cm BG110 go. They have about 10 days on them… drilled once for Attack13’s at 326bsl. Mint condition. PM if interested.

[big kook]

What's the take on moving the mount back on the 191 Jeff 102? Thought I've read its not a good idea on this ski. Anyone done it and have thoughts?

[kid-kapow]

What's the take on moving the mount back on the 191 Jeff 102? Thought I've read its not a good idea on this ski. Anyone done it and have thoughts?

I've not heard anything to indicate that the general recommendation - on the line, or within the range +/- 2cm - does not hold across all widths. If you want to go further back than -2, then you should consider the Woodsman.

[EWG]

I've not heard anything to indicate that the general recommendation - on the line, or within the range +/- 2cm - does not hold across all widths. If you want to go further back than -2, then you should consider the Woodsman.

I’ll second all of this. Which leads me to …

I don't know about you, but I find that what I click "Purchase" on has always been a very small subset of "what I need." Thus ending up with a closet full of skis.

…the very important determination that I made yesterday. I think I NEED something a little more drivable and directional that sits between my Jeff 108s and Supernatural 92s. Sounds like I NEED to be in the market for some Wren or Woods 102s, right?

Yeah I agree.

Currently accepting submissions on the best way to explain the critical nature of this purchase to my lovely wife…

[optics]

For the wife: "there's a pair of 192 wd102 in gearswap (mine) in perfect condition right now....it'll cost so much more next fall..."

[Brasso]

Another addition to the ON3P quiver - SuperGoats acquired! Thanks DerekPersson!

I'll have to see how these compare to my current beloved 2019 BGs and 2013 BGs (which I haven't been out on yet).

[EWG]

For the wife: "there's a pair of 192 wd102 in gearswap (mine) in perfect condition right now....it'll cost so much more next fall..."

Do I really want 192s in woods? I feel like that’s more a wren length for me…

But you make a strong point.

[optics]

Well...for the fella asking about mounting his 191's back, yeah, the 192 is the sweet spot length for the woods.

My experience on them is that the extra 6cm doesn't add much work, does add a lot of stability when you want it.

[adrenalated]

What's the take on moving the mount back on the 191 Jeff 102? Thought I've read its not a good idea on this ski. Anyone done it and have thoughts?

The first question you should be asking yourself is "why do I want to move the mount point?" If you don't know the answer, you should mount on the line. If you have a really good explanation for how you want the ski to feel by moving the mount point, then the first thing you should consider is whether a different model would be more appropriate.

I can conceivably think of legitimate reasons why a Jeff mounted -2 might be the ideal ski for someone but IMO most people that would want to mount a Jeff back or a Wren forward should probably be on a Woodsman.

[carlh]

102 woods vs wren comparison? I think I am the wren camp growing up back east on race skis and my quiver is all pretty traditional but curious the argument from woods over wrens?
Current quiver is supergoats and goliaths in bounds and countdown 114l and zg95 for bc. Looking at new low tide skis for next season.

[Doremite]

102 woods vs wren comparison? I think I am the wren camp growing up back east on race skis and my quiver is all pretty traditional but curious the argument from woods over wrens?
Current quiver is supergoats and goliaths in bounds and countdown 114l and zg95 for bc. Looking at new low tide skis for next season.

I’ve skied them both in the 108 and 96 varieties. May get schooled here but I honestly don’t see a huge difference. Wrens accelerate more expeditiously and in general crave speed a tad more but the Woodsman is no slouch in comparison. Woodsman shuts down speed a bit easier and are slightly more forgiving of off-balance form but not by much. If you are hellbent on going balls to wall all the time, Wren. Otherwise the Woodsman is just a tick easier ski of the same family. Woodsman is plenty demanding and fully gives back what you put into it. It is not an “easy” Wren. Both skis are designed for a dedicated driver. One just slightly easier to drive.

[Marko888]

102 woods vs wren comparison? I think I am the wren camp growing up back east on race skis and my quiver is all pretty traditional but curious the argument from woods over wrens?
Current quiver is supergoats and goliaths in bounds and countdown 114l and zg95 for bc. Looking at new low tide skis for next season.

I own a ‘21 Woodman 102 in a 182, and a ‘22 Wren 102ti in a 184. To me the Wren is quite a bit more ski. Wants to go faster, fair bit stiffer tail, and stiffer torsionally. Both are fairly quick. I find the Woodsman pretty easy to ski, but I have to up my game quite a bit for the Wren. I don’t love either of them in hard conditions…those are Brahma days for me.

190# 50-something high Intermediate to Advanced skier…not super aggressive.

[big kook]

Well...for the fella asking about mounting his 191's back, yeah, the 192 is the sweet spot length for the woods.

My experience on them is that the extra 6cm doesn't add much work, does add a lot of stability when you want it.

the fuck are you saying?

[big kook]

Woods is not a very playful ski. The 191 Jeff has a mount close to the Deathwish, PBJ, and Devastator, but feels more forward than any of those on snow.

[optics]

the fuck are you saying?

You first

[SchralphMacchio]

I find the Woodsman pretty easy to ski, but I have to up my game quite a bit for the Wren. I don’t love either of them in hard conditions…those are Brahma days for me.

I really do not like my gen1 Woods 108 on firm conditions - the combo of width, flex profile and balance just doesn’t really work for me when the snow has no give to it. But then with like 7mm of give as the snow is softening, totally different and the ski is super composed and goes where you want it to … I feel like 1 cm or more of softness is all it needs for the magic to come out of it.

Right now I’m combo’ing with a 98mm ski for firm conditions (such as cold mornings or nights, while the Woods come out midday) but planning on taking that down to an 88-90 ski like a Brahma or Kendo so that the quiver jump has a really nice spread to it. Add deep powder skis of your choice and it’s a dang nice 3-pair resort quiver (completely ignoring touring, travel, or specialty skis which are of course also mandatory to own)!

[EWG]

I’ve asked this before, but has anyone ridden Jeffs and Woods hard in the same size and width and can compare the two? I’d be adding wood 102s or 108s in addition to Jeff 108s, likely 186cm.

[Sessiøn]

I’ve asked this before, but has anyone ridden Jeffs and Woods hard in the same size and width and can compare the two? I’d be adding wood 102s or 108s in addition to Jeff 108s, likely 186cm.

After spending a whole season on J108's I added a Wood 102. Good ski, just not what I was looking for so now I have a J102 and some Rossi dad skis with metal for firm days. Which is why I started a conversation in this thread a few pages back on interest in ON3P's at lower waist widths with a little less tip splay.

[Norseman]

... interest in ON3P's at lower waist widths with a little less tip splay.

yeah that's something I've always wanted to see... narrower widths getting less splay, less taper, less rocker length

[2FUNKY]

yeah that's something I've always wanted to see... narrower widths getting less splay, less taper, less rocker length

X2!

[Going Coastal]

Loving how these look in person. I believe they are a twin to a pair posted earlier by peglegg. Many thanks if you are responsible for having this made!

[kid-kapow]

Loving how these look in person.

Damn, that is a nice setup! It will be interesting to get your take on them


This is looking rather promising. To be launched on Friday

[BeHuWe]

I’ve asked this before, but has anyone ridden Jeffs and Woods hard in the same size and width and can compare the two? I’d be adding wood 102s or 108s in addition to Jeff 108s, likely 186cm.

I think I replied to this earlier, but after a season on the Jeff/woodsman 110 in a 186/187 w/ alpine bindings and a Jeff 110 in 181 w/ outlaws and a woods 110 tour in 187 w/ outlaws. I can say that I can’t really decide on which I like better. Both are phenomenal skis and I have a hard time deciding on what to ski.

If you encounter softer snow frequently or ski very tight terrain the Jeff is a pretty easy choice. You can ski the woodsman in tighter terrain but I will argue it requires a higher speed to come to life. I did move the mount forward on the woods 2cm as well. I primarily ski kirkwood and Carson pass and I find myself wanting to take the woods more than the Jeff.

**I have about 40 days on the woods and 20 on the jeffs

I think the decision really depends on if you like skiing switch a lot or if you prefer lower speeds through tighter sections


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[EWG]

I think I replied to this earlier, but after a season on the Jeff/woodsman 110 in a 186/187 w/ alpine bindings and a Jeff 110 in 181 w/ outlaws and a woods 110 tour in 187 w/ outlaws. I can say that I can’t really decide on which I like better. Both are phenomenal skis and I have a hard time deciding on what to ski.

If you encounter softer snow frequently or ski very tight terrain the Jeff is a pretty easy choice. You can ski the woodsman in tighter terrain but I will argue it requires a higher speed to come to life. I did move the mount forward on the woods 2cm as well. I primarily ski kirkwood and Carson pass and I find myself wanting to take the woods more than the Jeff.

**I have about 40 days on the woods and 20 on the jeffs

I think the decision really depends on if you like skiing switch a lot or if you prefer lower speeds through tighter sections


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

This is super helpful. Much of my Colorado skiing is in quite tight terrain, and speeds are lower. Jeffs are stupid fun. But when I get them out to run a bit it would be cool to have something that I can drive into a turn a little more. My Utah and WY skiing seems to be at higher speeds and this would be fun for that, but I still want it responsive in tight stuff. Think a chute/rock garden/tree run that opens up to a run out or groomer. So I'm kinda thinking a Wren would be a bit much, but on a Woods maybe I could enjoy on the bottom half of a run with a groomer runout and still bounce around and have fun up higher.