Thread: Review: ON3P 191 Caylor

Review ON3P 191 Caylor

Dimensions: 148 / 120 /140
Turn Radius: 27.1 m
Effective Edge: 162 cm
Weight: 2425 g

Tip Rocker: 500mm in length with 91.9mm in rise.
Tail Rocker: 440mm in length with 74.8mm

Me: 5’9”, 160lbs, no spring chicken, but still able to get it out of first gear on occasion. Not a jibber and don’t go looking for air, but will do lines with mandatory air. Do a fair amount of backcountry and some heli-skiing (mostly AK). I generally ski lift served after storms up to a couple of days afterwards. Once things get firm everywhere inbounds, I’ll go side or backcountry. Like to ski bumps, but the knees don’t give me permission to do icy ones all day long anymore. Never land or ski switch (on purpose) in soft snow.

Other skis I’ve liked (at least for some things): XXL 194, Sally Rocker 192, Lhasa Pow 196, dps 120/200 pure, S7 188, Czar 182. For my reviews of these see: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...tra?highlight=


Bindings: Dukes mounted 2cm back of the recommended line.

Boots: BD factors.

Locations:Taos, Santa Fe, Silverton, New Mexico and San Juan backcountry.


Front View


Side view.


Tip Rocker


Tail Rocker, with cat for scale. (Well, he actually just wandered into the shot…).


I got these before the season started and have been skiing them since November. Usually I’ll wait until I’ve had at least an entire season on a pair of powder boards to do a review to insure that I’ve had them on a complete spectrum of conditions. This season has been a bit unusual for those of us based in the southern Rockies. A very good early season opened up lots of terrain very early both in-bounds and in the back country and provided quite a few powder days. The dry spell over the holidays insured that there was plenty of junk snow to test on while recent storms have given us a number of additional deep days. As such, I’ve been able to put these through their paces much more than I normally would have been able to by this time of year.

[/start blog] What was I looking for when I got these? If you look at the other skis I’ve liked you will notice a certain theme: Asymmetric rocker profile (much more rocker in front than in back), not much side cut, fairly stiff. (The exception to this theme are the S7’s which actually started as my girlfriend’s skis, but which I took over most of last season after shoulder surgery when I wanted to force myself to slow it down by using skis with a built in speed limit). I’ve generally liked skis with the above properties because I’ve found them to be good skiing junk/variable snow, particularly at speed. In the past, I’ve never been accused of being a ‘finesse’ skier and although I’m not that large, I’ve had enough core strength so that (coupled with really stiff race boots) I’ve been able to force my will upon some less than nimble planks, even in very tight quarters.

Skiing the S7’s last year, using the BD factors rather than the race boots that I was accustomed to, got me to thinking that it might be possible to find a ski that would be something of a compromise between the stability in junk snow of most of the skis on the list (call them the DH category) and the nimbleness of the S7 (call it a ‘slalom’ category ski) that would allow me higher speed limit in junk snow than the S7’s, but that I could drive with my touring boots and ski some in-bounds conditions (bumps, firm snow) without it being a pain in the butt. The upside to this would be that I could then travel to places where I do both touring and mechanized skiing (e.g. AK, Las Lenas) with my touring boots rather than my race boots.

So, I was looking for a ‘GS’ category ski and narrowed it down to: Billy Goats, Bibby Pro’s and Caylor’s. Of these, I liked the Caylor’s long and pronounced front rocker that I thought I’d like in crust and variable snow. The big tail rocker wasn’t something that I was too excited about, but it throws up nice plumes of snow and I might end up accidentally getting switch sometime and be able ski out of it.
[/end blog]

So how do they work?

Powder: Shockingly, they’re a pretty good powder ski. The maximum stability is achieved when they are skied with a fairly neutral weighting/body position. A bit different than most of the skis I’ve been on in the past and took some getting used but OK once you get it dialed. Not as stable at speed as something like the solly rocker, but way better than skis like the S7. Several quick turn options in powder: Butter/slarve them by throwing them sideways with a lot of body lean, pressure the tips to release and skid the tails or pivot them over the rockered tails, with weight back (what I sometimes call a ‘snowboard turn’). As such, they are very nimble in tight spots (trees, chutes) in powder, even if one gets out of position over the skis. The tips are sufficiently stiff so that they don’t rise completely to the surface in deeper snow (even with all the width and rocker) and can plow a bit if one takes an aggressive, forward stance.


Chop & chunder: Handling these conditions at speed is one of the strong suits of this ski. The front rocker and flex seems really well dialed for smoothing out chop and chunder giving one of the smoothest rides at speed I’ve experienced, ‘planing’ as well as skis with a long ‘early rise’ (e.g. lotus 120’s) which I’d always thought was the ideal shape for handling these conditions at speed. At very low speeds, such as billygoating down some chute with chopped up snow on the edges, the lack of much effective tail can be a problem, as the tips may hook on the junk on the sides and the tails can wash out unless one weights the tails precisely.

Variable wind, sun effected snow and crust: Pretty good at speed, but sensitive to body position. As long as one keeps the weighting/body position neutral or slightly back they’ll hold a line well. With a forward position, the tips can hook/tails wash when going from softer to denser snow or crust. At slower speeds in crust, the heavily rockered tails can get ‘locked in’ to the crust and to get a quick turn one may have to heavily pressure the tips or hop the tails out of the ‘railroad tracks’. (Always an exciting move in a must-turn situation…).

Moguls: Very good for a ski this size. Although the weight and width of the ski makes it slow edge to edge, the large rocker front and back allows them to be maneuvered well even in tight troughs, and the large front rocker smoothes impacts with the backs of moguls so one doesn’t get hammered to death even in a long icy mogul line.

Steep & icy: Due to the short effective edge, these can be turned very quickly on steep icy snow, but one must take care with the weighting of the edges when finishing a turn to avoid having the tails wash out.

Groomers: Work well enough, especially in slightly softer snow. Once again, best results achieved with neutral weighting.


In the following videos one can see them in action:

At Taos




At Silverton

Thanks for the detailed review. One of these days when Tahoe gets sufficient snow, I am going to get out on mine.

Great skis, and great review. I agree with pretty much everything that wcf3 wrote. I just had my pair of 11-12 191s out in Jackson last week after/during the recent 60" storm and had a great time.

I'm 6'1" and 170, and was shocked at how they seemingly disappeared under my feet in trees as well as in soft bumps in the Hobacks. They do require concentration on harder snow, but I that's what other skis are for. FWIW, mine are mounted at -2 back of mark on the sidewall, and I thought they were great there.

Somewhat more serious ski than the CRJs I'd been riding, but exactly was I was lookng for in a pow/crud ski.

Do you think this ski would be good for a bigger guy? I'm 6'3" 215lbs. I am seriously considering this for my resort pow ski, and for a Heli trip I have in March. I'm also considering the Moment Bibby Pro.

Originally Posted by jdtilton

Do you think this ski would be good for a bigger guy? I'm 6'3" 215lbs. I am seriously considering this for my resort pow ski, and for a Heli trip I have in March. I'm also considering the Moment Bibby Pro.

The ski is certainly burly enough that you aren't going to overpower it like you might an S7 or a JJ. The relative nimbleness of the caylor that is achieved through the long, large rocker at both ends has a cost. As I noted in the review it is sensitive to body position and weighting. Get your weight too far forward or back and some of the ski's stability at speed is lost. This will probably be more evident for someone your size.

Although I haven't skied the Bibby Pro, I looked at it pretty carefully before deciding to go with the Caylor. The dimensions of both skis are pretty similar in terms of width and from what I've heard and read, the flex and weight are also comparable. The main difference is the rocker profile. The Bibby has a bit more camber under foot and less exagerated rocker on the ends (less rise over a shorter length). As such, I would expect the Bibby in a comparable size to be less sensitive to body position, and provide more effective edge on hard snow. Further, I would expect the Bibby to be somewhat less nimble in tight trees and bumps than the caylor and not to have quite the cadillac ride in chop/chunder. Hard to say which would be the better tool for variable snow and crust, which depends so much on how the rocker and overall flex pattern interact and how exactly one skis in these conditions. For the way I ski, I expect the caylor to be a bit better, but I'd hate to try and predict that for someone else.

I think both skis are good choices for a bigger guy and I would be surprised if you weren't happy with which ever one of them you end up choosing.

Enjoy reading your reviews. Seems to be spot on. And you can see how the tips submerge once you load them

Originally Posted by jdtilton

Do you think this ski would be good for a bigger guy? I'm 6'3" 215lbs. I am seriously considering this for my resort pow ski, and for a Heli trip I have in March. I'm also considering the Moment Bibby Pro.

FWIW i'm 220. They Caylor is my go to pow ski. My next ski will be another Caylor.

Here is a review I did on these three years ago...I am only posting this to show that the ski, while tweaked slightly, is still considered the CAT'S ASS!!! Best all around ski I have owned for anything over a few inches of fresh.

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ht=ON3P+Caylor

Originally Posted by PowTron

Here is a review I did on these three years ago...I am only posting this to show that the ski, while tweaked slightly, is still considered the CAT'S ASS!!! Best all around ski I have owned for anything over a few inches of fresh.

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ht=ON3P+Caylor

Reading your review I noticed something you said there, roughly "they ski stiffer than hand flexing would indicate". This is something that I noticed too, and I went and messed around with this a little bit. Did a 'standard' hand flex (putting the tail of the ski on the floor, then pulling on the tip while holding the middle of the ski) and compared this to a pair of mantras I had around. Flexed like this, the caylors felt much softer than the mantras. Doing this I noticed that due to the tip and tail rocker, one has much more leverage on the tip of the caylor than on the mantra and that the tail also flexes on the caylor when flexed in this fashion, while the flat tail on the mantra doesn't.

I then put both skis across a bench with the binding across the middle of the bench. Held the middle of the ski down and pulled up on the tip with the other hand. Doing it like this, the caylor felt just as stiff as the mantra (a classic 'medium stiff' ski). Makes me think that in regards to hand flexing of heavily rockered skis, we may not 'have been doing it right'...

Originally Posted by jdtilton

Do you think this ski would be good for a bigger guy? I'm 6'3" 215lbs. I am seriously considering this for my resort pow ski, and for a Heli trip I have in March. I'm also considering the Moment Bibby Pro.

I'm 6'2, 190lbs butt naked and I'm guessing close to your weight with a pack on. I can't comment on the Bibby's, but the Caylor is my daily driver on all but the hardest and deepest days. Review here

Originally Posted by wcf3

Reading your review I noticed something you said there, roughly "they ski stiffer than hand flexing would indicate". This is something that I noticed too, and I went and messed around with this a little bit. Did a 'standard' hand flex (putting the tail of the ski on the floor, then pulling on the tip while holding the middle of the ski) and compared this to a pair of mantras I had around. Flexed like this, the caylors felt much softer than the mantras. Doing this I noticed that due to the tip and tail rocker, one has much more leverage on the tip of the caylor than on the mantra and that the tail also flexes on the caylor when flexed in this fashion, while the flat tail on the mantra doesn't.

I then put both skis across a bench with the binding across the middle of the bench. Held the middle of the ski down and pulled up on the tip with the other hand. Doing it like this, the caylor felt just as stiff as the mantra (a classic 'medium stiff' ski). Makes me think that in regards to hand flexing of heavily rockered skis, we may not 'have been doing it right'...

Perfect description and observation...super stoked you like the skis and glad you are finding the pow!

Originally Posted by Trapp

I'm 6'2, 190lbs butt naked and I'm guessing close to your weight with a pack on. I can't comment on the Bibby's, but the Caylor is my daily driver on all but the hardest and deepest days. Review here

Finally got around to reading Trapp's review (very interesting for anyone considering these as teli-skis). A couple of his points that I didn't mention in my review, but should be noted here as well since I found the same thing:

-Tips are so wide and square that the tip loops for many (particularly BD) skins are very difficut to attach properly without some modification.
-Kick turns are a pain with the longish heavily rockered tail.
-Construction quality is excellent and the bases seem able to be able to withstand unusually hard rock hits without sustaining a core shot. (My ski tuner is used to seeing me on a regular basis, but I haven't had to bring the caylors in yet this year).

The Caylors were the skis I used in the trip described in the TR:

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...g-Crew-Chugach

There I was able to test them even more thoroughly in the following conditions:

-Deep powder.
-Steep and firm/thin cover.
-Variable snow, including sun and wind crust.
-At speed through various sorts of sluff and avi debris, both soft and set-up.
-Landing smaller airs (5'-10', mostly bergschrunds).

Most of my conclusions from the earlier review were further confirmed by my experience in AK. Due to the more open nature of the terrain I was able to open it up more than on my home turf and got fairly comfortable on them at speed. Though more sensitive to body position than I'd like for a pure charger, I managed to avoid any mishaps, even though I was compelled on numerous occassions to carry considerable speed clearing various bergschrunds into pretty awful set up avi debris and/or variable sun and wind crusted snow. (The bergschrunds were exceptionally large this season).

All in all they turned out to be an excellent, versatile AK ski.

Originally Posted by wcf3

The Caylors were the skis I used in the trip described in the TR:

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...g-Crew-Chugach

There I was able to test them even more thoroughly in the following conditions:

-Deep powder.
-Steep and firm/thin cover.
-Variable snow, including sun and wind crust.
-At speed through various sorts of sluff and avi debris, both soft and set-up.
-Landing smaller airs (5'-10', mostly bergschrunds).

Most of my conclusions from the earlier review were further confirmed by my experience in AK. Due to the more open nature of the terrain I was able to open it up more than on my home turf and got fairly comfortable on them at speed. Though more sensitive to body position than I'd like for a pure charger, I managed to avoid any mishaps, even though I was compelled on numerous occassions to carry considerable speed clearing various bergschrunds into pretty awful set up avi debris and/or variable sun and wind crusted snow. (The bergschrunds were exceptionally large this season).

All in all they turned out to be an excellent, versatile AK ski.

Wow. Huge lines!

Originally Posted by Rowen

Wow. Huge lines!

NO kidding...WOW.

wcf3, I noticed you mounted these with dukes. Have you done any touring on them that you can speak to? Just picked up a pair and I am trying to decide if I should throw my dukes or jesters on them.

Originally Posted by josef

wcf3, I noticed you mounted these with dukes. Have you done any touring on them that you can speak to? Just picked up a pair and I am trying to decide if I should throw my dukes or jesters on them.

I have toured on them some. There are some negatives to these for touring:

-With Dukes it's a pretty heavy set up.
-The square tips on the skis can be a bit of a pain to get some skin tip loops to hang onto (e.g. BD ascensions).
-The large tail rocker can make kick turns a bit of a hassle.

As such, not an ideal touring combo, but when travelling, I like to have the capability of using any skis I have along for touring.

cool thanks. Jesters it is.

Mine are currently mounted for Jesters with inserts. Just in case I ever want to put touring bindings on them, yet not deal with the negatives when inbounds.