ON3P SKIS Discussion

[scmartin69]

So after several years of unsuccessfully trying to ski icy steeps and hard bumps with my wider ON3P's, I'm going to stop the self criminations and look for a lower rise low tide resort ski, and save my wider ON3P's for 3d snow days. Any favorites of these on this forum? Thinking J Ski Fast Forward, Armada Declivity 92, etc.

Same here, bought the Moment Commander 98, still decently playful, but decently damp and much better edge hold. Not a super heavy carver or crusher.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[scmartin69]

Feeler: thought I'd post this here before gear swap or craigslist
187 Woodsman 108, Grizzlycorn, with P14 for sale
Absolutely beautiful skis, just not my favorite so I'm still on the hunt for that perfect 108 ski. Bases/edges in great shape. I think I did 3 short days on them and it didn't look like previous owner skied them at all.
2nd mount for 326mm BSL on the line, 1st mount unknown (by previous owner)
$500 plus actual shipping via pirateship.com from 89511

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[kid-kapow]

Same here, bought the Moment Commander 98, still decently playful, but decently damp and much better edge hold. Not a super heavy carver or crusher.

Just for reference: wren ti's do not lack for grip, even if the shape is still kinda soft snow biased. I would imagine the same being case for woods ti. I regret selling my Wren96tis before getting a lot of time on them, after overthinking it and getting some mantra102s (that I found to be a bit too turny / to prone to go into a short radius turn when pressured hard, and a bit unbalanced) to get a bit less splay.

That being said, I prefer Dynastar M-Free (insert with) to the comparable with Woodsmans on harder snow. It has less to do with the construction / flex pattern / torsional rigidity and more to do with the camber profile. M-Frees have this natural imbalance due to the cambered zone behind the binding being much shorter than in the front, making it effortless to release the tails and carve on firmer snow, whereas Woodsman feel a bit more locked in due to the nearly symmetrical camber profile (this is only on hard snow though, woods are plenty loose in soft snow). Woodsman102s float significantly better than MF99s (actual 96 or 97mm) though, so which floats your boat comes down to what you want them to do. ON3P's graphics and finish makes me about one gazzilion times more excited to ride / stoked than the Dynastars though.

Woodsman116s are actually pretty good on hard snow when tuned well, but I still preferred MF118 to compliment my BGs to WD116s due to the MF118s being looser than WD116s in soft snow.

I would love to try the new Jeffs, especially the 110 and 118. A partial ti insert on that ski would be very, very interesting. Regret #2: I really regret selling my custom stiffer Kartel116s as I've come to realize that 100% of what I did not like about that ski was down to binding delta / not being mounted with Pivots. Alas.

[XtrPickels]

Woodsman116s are actually pretty good on hard snow when tuned well, but I still preferred MF118 to compliment my BGs to WD116s due to the MF118s being looser than WD116s in soft snow.

Can you expand on how the MF118 compliment the BGs?
I just picked up some MF118s and figured they'd overlap and that'd be making a choice of which to keep.

[kid-kapow]

Can you expand on how the MF118 compliment the BGs?
I just picked up some MF118s and figured they'd overlap and that'd be making a choice of which to keep.

Sure. Keep in mind that I am 175/70kg and that the descriptions are based on how I ski - a more upright stance where I prefer to make the ski do the work for me. The following is not THE TRUTH about these skis, just my take.

The BG (I currently ride 184 asyms, but have also ridden 179 asym, 182 current gen, latest gen 184/189 C&D) is perhaps the best ski I've been on for dense / moist snow. The shape and flex pattern makes them ski this kind of snow - be it dense/high moisture fresh or compacted/variable snow - so incredibly well. I find them to be tolerable/ok on groomers. I find that BGasyms can wash out a bit in dry snow if I try to stay in long slarves or if you over drive the tips - they want to keep it going down the fall line, but are super fun if you want to go fast. They make shit snow fun. I find that the current gen BG is a bit more balanced / happier to stay in long schmears in drier snow.

MF118 189s mounted +1.5 on the other hand is perhaps the best ski I've been on for dry / light fresh. They urge you to go fast and are loose as a goose. They are fun doing mach looney gs turns on piste. Their heft, wide shovels/tails and camber makes them a bit of a chore at my height/weight/strength level in denser snow though.

So dense snow -> BGs effortless. Dry snow -> MF118s effortless. A quiver with both = winning.

I would love an ON3P ski that was kinda in between - think BG shape (taper lines, pin tail shape, long sidecut, flex pattern) with slightly wider tails, standard sidecut throughout and a 7.5 or so mount point. Kinda like if a WD116 and a BG had a love child - in essence a looser WD116 or slightly less soft snow specific BG. That would be great for where I ski.

[eSock]

Remounting my 116 asym BGs with Pivots over Shifts and there's a hole conflict. I'm assuming -1 is better than +1 for BGs but any reason to consider forward of line? I know rec is ideal with RES and all that, but alas...

[justo8484]

Remounting my 116 asym BGs with Pivots over Shifts and there's a hole conflict. I'm assuming -1 is better than +1 for BGs but any reason to consider forward of line? I know rec is ideal with RES and all that, but alas...

Would quiver killer or binding freedom inserts swallow the old holes and allow you to not have to worry about the conflict anymore? That might allow you to keep the recommended mount point.

[eSock]

hmm, getting them mounted at a shop right now, so not really trying to do anything too tricky

[iggyskier]

Remounting my 116 asym BGs with Pivots over Shifts and there's a hole conflict. I'm assuming -1 is better than +1 for BGs but any reason to consider forward of line? I know rec is ideal with RES and all that, but alas...

-1cm. Given the shorter heel length on the Pivots, we generally lean that way on any hole conflict for a directional ski.

[kid-kapow]

Given the shorter heel length on the Pivots, we generally lean that way on any hole conflict for a directional ski.

How come?

I would assume the free flexing ski under / aft of the heel would make a forward move more acceptable on directional ski, not going further back. What am I missing here?

[beeeom]

hmm, getting them mounted at a shop right now, so not really trying to do anything too tricky

Go +1.5. you'll thank me later

[ASmileyFace]

-1cm. Given the shorter heel length on the Pivots, we generally lean that way on any hole conflict for a directional ski.

Interesting. I'd almost always trend forward on an RES ski, but as little as possible. I guess that isn't the house take? What's the reasoning for -1 with a pivot?

[Doremite]

This is going to turn into 2cm gate two-referencing the uproar when the BG dropped from 191 to 189 (gasp).

[CallMeAl]

How come?

I would assume the free flexing ski under / aft of the heel would make a forward move more acceptable on directional ski, not going further back. What am I missing here?

That footprint-wise, there is more room to move back than there is forward w/a Pivot

[kid-kapow]

That footprint-wise, there is more room to move back than there is forward w/a Pivot

That makes limited sense if you actually compare the mount patterns (shift vs pivots) and look at where the conflict is at - assuming similar bsls.

Also, my question had to do with the general recommendation to move rearwards on directional ski from on3p with pivots. Sure, I see the risk of moving forward would compromise hard snow ability - after all, the nearly symmetrical cambered section does not make for a lot of wiggle room going forward. Still, from a flex point view it makes more sense that Pivots in particular would be permissive of going forward - not necessitate a move rearwards. After all, a longer stiffer tail will be more managable with pivots than a long footpring binding that stiffens more of the rear up with going forward.

So again, what am I missing here? I would not recommend going back on current gen woodsmans - even if wd116s skied great at -1 (wd108 were better on the line imho than at -1).

[lrn2swim]

That makes limited sense if you actually compare the mount patterns (shift vs pivots) and look at where the conflict is at - assuming similar bsls.

Also, my question had to do with the general recommendation to move rearwards on directional ski from on3p with pivots. Sure, I see the risk of moving forward would compromise hard snow ability - after all, the nearly symmetrical cambered section does not make for a lot of wiggle room going forward. Still, from a flex point view it makes more sense that Pivots in particular would be permissive of going forward - not necessitate a move rearwards. After all, a longer stiffer tail will be more managable with pivots than a long footpring binding that stiffens more of the rear up with going forward.

So again, what am I missing here? I would not recommend going back on current gen woodsmans - even if wd116s skied great at -1 (wd108 were better on the line imho than at -1).

Yeah, I'm sure it's more likely you know more about this than the person who literally designed the ski and said that -1 is better [emoji57]

[kid-kapow]

Yeah, I'm sure it's more likely you know more about this than the person who literally designed the ski and said that -1 is better [emoji57]

Hm, interesting take.

In case you missed it - the key part I am curious about was the WITH PIVOTS specificity, not the recommendation to go back as such.

And I might not have designed them, but I have ridden iterations of all the current directional skis ON3P make excpting wren110pro and have spent a lot of time trying to figure out why they ski like they do compared to other similar skis. I am not out to be right or wrong, but to improve my understanding.

[sb]

I will give up my 191 BGs when you pry them from my frozen hands.

[optics]

So again, what am I missing here? .

You might be missing 20 years of designing the skis, building the skis, testing the skis, refining the skis, building again, testing again, refining again...?

You are obviously a great repository of information you've absorbed online, and I have no doubt you've spent a lot of time on these skis - but when the person who designed the skis answers a "what should I do" question, you should probably just trust that answer vs picking it apart on micro-technical points. Sometimes things are more magic than math.

[XavierD]

Billy Goats ski better at -1 then they do at +1

[Reformed]

Sometimes things are more magic than math.

Quoted for truth. A few mm in either direction of the line are going to have much less impact on a user’s enjoyment of a ski than snow conditions, level of stoke and mindset on a given day. I ski my BGs on the line or +1 depending on the boots I choose and have never had a single moment of thought or regret either way. I’m too busy enjoying the magic that is BGs in soft snow to give the math a second thought. I don’t imagine my experience would change too significantly if I was forced to go -1.

[kid-kapow]

You might be missing 20 years of designing the skis, building the skis, testing the skis, refining the skis, building again, testing again, refining again...?

You are obviously a great repository of information you've absorbed online, and I have no doubt you've spent a lot of time on these skis - but when the person who designed the skis answers a "what should I do" question, you should probably just trust that answer vs picking it apart on micro-technical points. Sometimes things are more magic than math.

Again, I am not asking about why he recommend going aft on BGs specifically, but why he recommends going back with Pivots in particular on all their directional offerings. Aka BGs, and more interesting Woodsmans and Wrens. Like, I know that I am a pedantic and wordy little shit, but jeebus be praised! So, forget about RES skis.

I thought that it would be pretty obvious why I'd asked, and it is not to second guess the great leader or second guess 20yrs of ski design. Nor is it to beat some trivial point to death.

Pivots makes the back part of a ski become more lively due to their shorter footprint. This is noticable. Current gen woodsman have softer tails than the first iteration. My experience from skiing both the current wd110s and wd102s and first gen wd9/108/116 does not make me want to move the mount closer to the transition point from the contact point and to where the flex in the back part of the ski softens up considerably with the current gen. For a very directional skier, sure that makes sense - for my more upright stance, I do not think that it does. I also understand why going back -1 could be a good idea for directional skiers when considering the cambered section and its balance, but that is not particular to a binding.

Taking stance out of it I could understand why moving back with say a STH with a larger foot print binding would make sense - that would make the tail shorter but slightly stiffer, but I do not understand why going aft with Pivots is the standard recommendation.

And there we are - when I do not understand or know something, I want to remedy that situation - so I ask questions. That is what I did here. None of the replies thus far has made me any the wiser.

In hindsight: I guess I should just send Scott an email - I promised him to give him feedback on the last four skis I bought from him last summer, but haven't gotten around to it.

[JuiceboxHero]

I picked up the 187 WD110 earlier this year and was thinking, since winter's almost here I should mount some bindings on them. Most other skis seem to have a recommended line but I don't see "the line" on the WD 110. There are several lines at regular increments on the right ski but just a short tick mark under the serial number on the left.

Where's the factory recommended mount point for the 187 WD110?

EDIT: Search results say that the 187 WD110 mount point is -7.5cm. Does this mean I just measure -7.5cm from the center of the ski?

[optics]

.

And there we are - when I do not understand or know something, I want to remedy that situation - so I ask questions. That is what I did here. None of the replies thus far has made me any the wiser.

And therein lies the rub; you may have reached peak internet echo chamber knowledge.

Meaning all additional answers “in here” will keep you none the wiser.

But it’s cool. You’re among friends.

[phatty]

I'm sure it's somewhere in here, but what are the differences between the '21 Jeff 116 and' 22 Jeff 118? Found a decent deal on 116s in good shape and thinking of pulling the trigger.

How will a fan of the 191 BG feel about the Jeff? One of my favorite skis ever was the '13 Bent Chetler but hated how it would fold. Love how the BGs pivot and plow through everything. The Jeffs would be in addition to my BGs.