Thread: 2012/2013 ON3P SIA Photos and Discussion

This may be a dumb question but, how do the new wood style topsheets durability compare to that of your standard topsheets? Any issues so far?

Originally Posted by adrenalated

I have no idea on weights. I would say that your description of attributes seems about right. Unfortunately I was not able to ski the same ski in both the tour and normal constructions, but I did ski the 191 BillyGoat Tour and the 191 Wrenegade (both 12/13 models) back to back. There were obvious differences in the shape and stiffness of the two skis in how they performed, but I would definitely say that describing the Tour layup as slightly more poppy and less damp is accurate. It is subtle though and I would say that you probably wouldn't notice a ton of difference when comparing the exact same ski in the two different layups. In other words, those two skis that I tried were similar in a lot of ways, and the differences between the two definitely were much more related to the shape than to the layup. Hope that's more helpful than confusing.

Thanks, very helpful, put me down for a pair of either 186 or 191 (next decision...) BG Tours with wood grain topsheets.

As for durability ^ the topsheets will be printed just same as the trad design, shouldn't be a difference?
Tom

These are a real wood veneer, not a sublimated nylon with a wood veneer graphic. Getting it to look like it does isn't easy, but I really cannot say how we make that happen. Once the veneer is ready to be sealed, it takes a number of days to just finish the topsheets as they get a lot of clear coats which take awhile to cure.

This photo might give you guys a bit more topsheet detail.


In my opinion, the plastic is more durable. I actually think the veneer chips less along the sidewals, but I think the actual ski topsheet surface is a bit more scratch-resistant on the plastic. We are still exploring different clear coats to enhance the durability, but as of now, from a durability perspective, I would give the nod to the nylon tops. But we shall see. We need to get more days on the veneer tops before we have a complete picture of their durability vs nylon.

Hey S, we have been laying the clear nylon over top the veneer and it looks great. Im sure you know this.I dont know if you would have bonding issues because of the additional graphic or not. im sure you are trying everything.

Looks like a screen print and we do that also wit the nylon and no probs yet.

How much extra for that topsheet?

I hope the topsheet doesn't work out...it just makes me want ANOTHER pair of skis. DAMN


kidding - it really looks like one of the best sheets I have seen recently

Originally Posted by Tutuko

Thanks, very helpful, put me down for a pair of either 186 or 191 (next decision...) BG Tours with wood grain topsheets.

As for durability ^ the topsheets will be printed just same as the trad design, shouldn't be a difference?
Tom

Sorry about that Iggyskier has corrected me above, shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. Very impressed with the veneer, is weight/ feel negligible?

Originally Posted by Meathelmet

About the most beautiful thing ever seen.

Fucking gorgeous.

Ditto !

Only 11 veneers left at last check, presale for 12/13 is running now and a veneer is an optional add on, presale only at this point.

So far in our testing, the veneers don't change the weight of the ski. We've been testing many different types of veneers, and the combo we're going with should minimally effect other characteristics of the ski, like flex and feel.

Post your questions here, happy to field any and all about our veneer, presale, and 12/13 skis.

Hey Rowen, keen to hear more about the new Pillowfight, how does it ski, pro's & cons verses last years model ect.

What's the weight on the 176 Tychoon?

They're even more fun than last years. Getting a ski that big to heel over and turn can be some work as its 135 underfoot, and that's pretty much what the crazy base design accomplishes. Its the same on hardback as last years ski, wide but manageable, as we decided to keep the ski flat underfoot and just do the hull shape in the rockered sections. I want more days on them, with all the other stuff I had to test this spring I only got a few chances to ride them.

Originally Posted by Rowen

They're even more fun than last years. Getting a ski that big to heel over and turn can be some work as its 135 underfoot, and that's pretty much what the crazy base design accomplishes. Its the same on hardback as last years ski, wide but manageable, as we decided to keep the ski flat underfoot and just do the hull shape in the rockered sections. I want more days on them, with all the other stuff I had to test this spring I only got a few chances to ride them.

Just send some to me, and I will let you know how they ride...wait, that would mean it has to snow here at some point in the next 15 years.

Just wanted to mention that I've talked to Scott at length twice now regarding the 191 vs 186 BillyGoat decision I'm trying to make. He's been great to chat with. He really thought hard trying to help me fit the new skis into my existing quiver. Loving the customer service of these indie companies!

Anyone else want to chime in on the decision? I'm 5'11", 165# (23 yo), strong skier. Current (resort) quiver is 186 Renegades, super-stiff, pure-carbon 191 Fats, and 202 L138s. The 191 Fats are 8.2#/pair and stiff as shit (stiffer than any ski I've flex except the OG brown Zealot.) So I don't really have a tree ski...

I've been thinking about this for 2 weeks now. Keep flip flopping. I skied the '12/'13 191 BG, and it was great — loved the way I could pressure the tips without fear of tip dive. But I fear the sluggishness in tight trees. They were one of the few skis that actually felt heavy on my feet. The only thing I'm really worried about in getting the 186 is tip dive, which is one of my pet peeves for sure. Somehow, I never get tip dive on the Renegades, but I have gotten it once or twice on the 191 Fat (odd, considering there's alot more tip on that ski, but I suspect I got overzealous in driving the tips, which the ski definitely requires you to do.)

/blog

^^ I am basically the same size as you and ski the 2011/12 191's. I love skiing in steep tight trees and DO feel they may just be too much of a ski for me in tight places. I don't blame the skis, as plenty of people do just fine with them in tight spaces. I feel the slightly shorter/lighter weight 186 would be better for me in this type of terrain. I will say, I absolutely love the size of the 191 in all other terrain no question.

If I had enough money I would have a pair of 186's for days I know I will be in the trees all day (east vail) and the 191's on days when I am cruising more open terrain.

As far as tip dive goes for the 186 goes, maybe someone else can comment. I would assume the flotation is pretty damn similar considering the dimensions aren't that much different.

I am interested in hearing your review if you do pick up the 186. Good luck!

Thanks mang. I guess I just can't decide whether I want this to be my tree ski or my all-mountain weapon! Read that as: am I man enough to handle the 186 Ren in trees all the time?

If I were smart, I'd pick up the 190 Bibby or 186 EHP instead, but I'm just in love with that sexy wood veneer. Hey look, bc.com has EHPs on sale...

...if only I weren't saving for grad school...

Yes, I realize this is a first world problem, but I make no apologies for it.

Have you considered the Caylor?

I am curious as to what Scotts opinon has been? I cant really help you with your quiver because I havent skied any of those skis. I can say that I had a similar issue earlier this year in deciding which pair of moments I wanted to get. I ended up getting a slightly used set of 184 bibby pros and an end of year clear out set of 191 jag sharks. It probably cost me about the same as going with a brand new pair of either set. I use the bibbys for the trees and will use the jag sharks for everything else.

Originally Posted by MJbumper1121

^^ I am basically the same size as you and ski the 2011/12 191's. I love skiing in steep tight trees and DO feel they may just be too much of a ski for me in tight places. I don't blame the skis, as plenty of people do just fine with them in tight spaces. I feel the slightly shorter/lighter weight 186 would be better for me in this type of terrain. I will say, I absolutely love the size of the 191 in all other terrain no question.

If I had enough money I would have a pair of 186's for days I know I will be in the trees all day (east vail) and the 191's on days when I am cruising more open terrain.

As far as tip dive goes for the 186 goes, maybe someone else can comment. I would assume the flotation is pretty damn similar considering the dimensions aren't that much different.

I am interested in hearing your review if you do pick up the 186. Good luck!

I guess the tradeoff really boils down to what you see happening more. I personally didn't feel that the 191 was sluggish in the tree's when I skied it, I have followed Klauss through the tree's and he was ripping on the 191. the design lends itself to maneuverability not expressed in turn radius alone. Sooooo. I'm sure Powtron skied the 191 E. Vail. He may have more insight for you.

Originally Posted by josef

I am curious as to what Scotts opinon has been?

He's been absolutely awesome about dialoging with me about them, but ultimately thinks I'd be happy on either. Says he wish they split the difference and just made a 189. Would have saved both of us alot of trouble!

I didn't find the 11-12 191 BG to be unreasonable in trees. You need to muscle them a tiny bit if you're going really slow. Pick up a small amount of speed and they're really nimble for their size. A really nice combination of stable at speed and quick when needed.

I agree with Trapp, go Caylors.

Originally Posted by auvgeek

But I fear the sluggishness in tight trees. They were one of the few skis that actually felt heavy on my feet.
/blog

Have you considered the 191 tour? I was trying to decide between the standard and the tour, and what Rowen told me was that the tour will have the same flex as the standard, but will feel lighter on the the feet due to the carbon. on the downside it might be a bit more unstable in chop due to the lighter weight. It still weighs around 2250g so it's not light enough for me to worry much about that. Will mount with plates or inserts for fks and dynafits.

I'm a bit taller than you and 15# heavier, decent skier. For me 186 wasn't really an option, as I like longer skis. I've used 186 ehp and 191 C&D as my tree ski the last two seasons, and I definetively experience some tip-dive on the ehp in heavier / windblown / crust.

I also have a pair of R1 192 L138, and the 191 C&D are easier to ski in thight trees as far as I'm conserned. In addition Rowen says the BGs are more maneuvrable than my C&Ds, which pretty much leads me to be pretty stoked on the BGs this season

I love scotts stuff , im making a place for a pair somewhere...

Pmgear:
ive been on LP 186s for 2 seasons now, 191 hybrid 1season, and 196s for 2
186 LP are my everyday. trees good++++++
191 for new over 8" great , tight trees not nimble, but good, bowls and above treeline exc++
196s need wide open spaces

lookin for ON3p to fill gap
looked hard at their stuff at SIA this year.
scott is great people and I love pmG and ON4 equally as companies....

I don't blame the design of the ski at all, I blame myself not having enough time on them and skiing them like they are made to be skiied. I look to change that this upcoming season.

Originally Posted by PhiberAwptik

I guess the tradeoff really boils down to what you see happening more. I personally didn't feel that the 191 was sluggish in the tree's when I skied it, I have followed Klauss through the tree's and he was ripping on the 191. the design lends itself to maneuverability not expressed in turn radius alone. Sooooo. I'm sure Powtron skied the 191 E. Vail. He may have more insight for you.