Thread: Review: 2012/2013 ON3P 191 Billygoat

Originally Posted by JFE24

First: thanks for the nice write up, Powtron.

And bern43: I haven't skied the 12/13 BG, but just wanted to throw in my .02 to say that I would say that the sketchiness on hardpack is largely gone with the 11/12 model. I.e., If you were thinking of picking up a pair of 11/12s, hardpack performance wouldn't stop me from pulling the trigger. But it's great to hear that ON3P may have managed again to tweak and improve things even further.

Trigger already pulled. Picked a pair up during the pre-sale last year. Now I just need to mount them. Looking at either a straight insert set up for fks or the new dynalook plate. Would be awesome if this ski could work as my one travel ski. Otherwise I'll be lugging two pairs around. Anybody do any touring on these yet?

Great review as always.

Busy week hopefully coming up storm-wise...will be doing a lot more testing on these, and also adding in some hucking and touring feedback (fingers crossed). Look for the updates by the end of next weekend, and hopefully will have some more photo an video-work to accompany them .

Love these skis!

Review coming soon, not today though...

Originally Posted by XavierD

Review coming soon, not today though...

+++ Vibes to the PNW community...hard time being stoked about skiing when things like this happen.

RIP Jim Jack and the others, too young too soon.

Here's a little edit I put together featuring the 11/12 BG. I like em so the 12/13 must be good. I don't have issues with the the current iteration's front end, but the slightly tweaked less pronounced rocker in the tail would be welcome. These 11/12s do feel pretty solid when I'm tail gunning though.

http://vimeo.com/37200749

Originally Posted by klauss

Here's a little edit I put together featuring the 11/12 BG. I like em so the 12/13 must be good. I don't have issues with the the current iteration's front end, but the slightly tweaked less pronounced rocker in the tail would be welcome. These 11/12s do feel pretty solid when I'm tail gunning though.

http://vimeo.com/37200749

Off topic, but someone hit that death spine in the middle of the creek on Sunday? Was wondering if you were the culprit.

Originally Posted by klauss

Here's a little edit I put together featuring the 11/12 BG. I like em so the 12/13 must be good. I don't have issues with the the current iteration's front end, but the slightly tweaked less pronounced rocker in the tail would be welcome. These 11/12s do feel pretty solid when I'm tail gunning though.

http://vimeo.com/37200749

Nice work! Trying so hard not to jinx it, but let's just say two words in regards to doing some more laps on the BG's for me...STEAMBOAT WEDNESDAY.

Originally Posted by PhiberAwptik

Off topic, but someone hit that death spine in the middle of the creek on Sunday? Was wondering if you were the culprit.

no, didn't see the tracks either. Maybe I wait till it's low tide and do some ex-stream skiing, a la McConkey, on that line as I could see myself falling in. ha

Another two days on the sticks:

Berthoud AM Patrol (2/20/12) = 2" to 3" of variable windblown on top of any type of snow you can imagine. The skis performed decent here in anything soft, but on bulletproof snow at roughly 12,500 feet in 40 mph winds, I just wasn't able to link them up. This could totally be operator error and also hurt by the inability to see anything more than 5 feet in front of me at times. Not fun for my one Backcountry run that morning, haha.

Steamboat (2/22/12) = 50"+ in 72 hours, Heavy and Creamy...skis killed everything until my legs could not take it any more by 3:00PM.

Such a strange day for CO snow, but still so much fun. The heavy, dense granual was a sensation I haven't felt in a very long time, but the taper and rocker profile of the new BG proved to be more than pleasing. I love this tip shape, and I am not burying it like I could some of the older, 186 models. Even the slight difference between the 2012 and 2013 models could be seen as we had both out there all day.

191 still pivots on top of pillows and let's you slide the front part of the ski around a lot easier (but still with pressure on them) with the RES than the older 186 models do...which is saying a lot.

Cool picture here of 3 years of Billygoats and the 2012 Cease and Desist, with the 2011 Graphic . Snow was stupid deep.





Was hard to take good pics as we were in tight trees for about 99% of the day, too bad so sad.

2/29/2012 Update:

Great day at Monarch, 13" in the last 24 Hours and for sure blown in more in many South and East facing aspects...Blower Pow all morning, then creamy pow in the afternoon.

Skis are automatic in any kind of powder, especially the windblown creamy pow. Feel like Superman on these things at high speeds on steep faces, they just rail when you want them to and shut it down and smear on demand when needed.

The 191 is the perfect length for me, anywhere on the mountain.

For all the Colorado folks that have been asking, here is your first chance to demo:

Loveland, Sunday and Monday!!! (4th and 5th)

http://www.skiloveland.com/events/

Hope to see you out there, and Rowen and Kip will be running things with a ton of skis in tow. Look for the ON3P banners and come try some of the stuff you have been lusting after...I will be around, so say hi.

191 porn

I got a bit of time on the 2012/2013 191 BG weekend before last (thanks XavierD!). I figured I'd give some impressions here relative to some other skis that I have skied recently. I have no affiliation with any of the companies involved, but keep in mind that I do not own the 191 BG, while I do own the others. However, I think the gear whore in me would be more than happy to sell whatever I own if I thought there was something better out there. Overall, I think the 191 BG is an excellent ski, and certainly has its place....just not in my quiver. Note that I didn't have a whole lot of time on the 191 BG - maybe 5 runs or so, and I was taking it pretty easy the particular day I skied them because I had sprained my wrist three days prior.

Me: 23 years old, 5'11", 165#, skiing 20 years, recovering from hip and knee surgery (super weak).
Boot: Full Tilt w/ #10 tongue
Bindings: All skis tested with FKS w/ DIN ~13.
Location: Stevens Pass, WA, 15" of new with bluebird skis

I directly compared the 191 BG (mounted on the line) to the 186 4FRNT Renegade (mounted 87 from tail) and the PM Gear 191 Lhasa Fat (super-stiff, all-carbon version, mounted +3ish mm by accident). I think the 191 BG is somewhere in between the other two skis in terms of easiness to ski and stability in chop. Let me start by saying the 191 Lhasa Fat is a great touring ski that also works well in the resort (they are mounted with inserts for Plum Guide and FKS, though I primarily tour on them). They are similar to the DPS Lotus 120 - though with slightly more sidecut and much stiffer (I'll save that comparison for a different thread). The Fats are super easy to ski, particularly on groomers, but tend to get bounced around in chop.

Untracked pow: Fortunately, we got to ski quite a few turns in untracked pow. All the skis are a delight in untracked, but I might give a slight nod to the 191 BG over the 19 Fat - in the heavy PNW snow, there is a slight tendency for the tips to dive on the Fats if I get too far forward on them. (To be fair, Pat does recommend mounting -5mm for a more pow-oriented performance.) Regarding the Rens vs BGs, XavierD noticed that he felt like he had more faceshots on the 186 Ren than the 191 BG, so I guess that ski is more in the snow than the 191 Fat. Honestly, I didn't notice a major difference in untracked between the Rens and the BGs - I was too busy smiling! But I suspect the pintail and extra length of the BG (particularly in the tip) comes into play in untracked, providing more float than the smaller, straighter Renegade. Once or twice in the 10 or so days I've spent on the Renegade, I have noticed the tips diving if I get too far forward. This is probably a combination of the full reverse and the smaller tip, and I attribute it more to pilot error (not being as balanced as I should have been) than any inherent flaw in the ski.

Tracked pow: I have never found myself going mach looney in tracked pow on the 191 Fat – they don’t have a speed limit, per say, but they don't inspire confidence in cut-up pow for the way I ski. Although, I recently watched helmet cam footage taken on the Fats, and the Fats do charge pretty hard...I don't think anyone would say I was skiing "slowly." The 191 BGs are slightly more work than the 191 Fats, but also much better going mach snell through chop. I think that both of these characteristics are probably just because of the added weight of the BG. The BG does have quite a bit more sidecut than the 191 Fat, but that didn't seem to affect the size turns I wanted to make - both skis made short and long radius turns just fine for me. I think the main difference is simply the drastically-different weight. I would probably choose the 191 BG over the 191 Fat if I was just skiing the resort. However, at just over 4# per ski, the 191 Fat is perfect for me as a winter touring ski.

The 186 Renegade, on the other hand, wants to go fast. I found myself going faster on the Renegade than the 191 BG, particularly through tracked-out powder, and MUCH faster than on the 191 Fat...though not as fast as the 202 DPS L138, which seems to make downright-frightening speeds seem completely sane. (Then again, the fact that I'm even comparing a 186 to a 202 should give you an indication of how hard the 186 Rens charge.) Again, I'm not sure the casual observer would notice a difference in the speed on the 191 BG and 186 Ren, but I do.

Hardpack: There is a distinct difference in how you drive each ski on hardpack. The Rens, with full reverse, require a balanced stance and don’t like to be driven from the tip, racer style. The 191 BG performs much more like a traditional ski, and I felt comfortable on hardpack pressuring the tips into fast and smooth turns. They did not feel as quick edge-to-edge as the 191 Fat, and I didn’t feel like I could carve tight GS turns like I could on the 191 Fats - the rebound on those skis is insane for a ski of that width. The obvious note here is that the more camber the ski has, the better it is at railing quick GS turns, and that was definitely apparent in the performance of each ski on the groom. Interestingly, despite similar weights (the BG is 0.6 lb heavier per pair, mfg stated weights), the 191 BG felt heavy on my feet, even sluggish at times, something I never feel with the Rens.

Trees: I did not get the BG into any super-tight trees, so I cannot comment on their performance there. However, I have found the Renegade, for as much as it loves speed, performs quite well in tight trees. I suspect this has to do with the full reverse camber much more than the sidecut (which is very small). I have not yet found a situation where the trees were too tight for the ski. As I continue to gain core and leg strength after surgery, I think the Renegade will gain even more agility in trees. Given the way the BG felt heavy on my feet, I could see them requiring more speed to initiate turns. Also, I think the 191 BG and 191 Fat turn tend to use the sidecut to turn, while the Renegade can pivot sideway in a way only full reverse camber skis can. (But that's really just speculation more than anything else.) My personal style lends itself to liking the Rens at full throttle in tight trees more than the 191 Fat because of how easily the Rens can be shut down. Also, there is quite a bit less tip in front of you on the Renegade than either the 191 Fat or the 191 BG, which makes it easier to jump turn or pivot quickly/billy goat at slower speeds.

Summary: I think physically strong and technically proficient skiers looking at a resort ski for trees and open faces should take a hard look at the 186 Renegade before going with the 191 BG. The Rens are probably more work than appeals to the average skier, but, for me, they do everything better (except groomers, where I think their performance is comparable once you adapt to the Rens carving). For those interested in long tours, I think the 191 Fat is the ticket. However, I think next year's 191 BillyGoat Tour will be extremely appealing to those looking for a 50/50 inbounds/touring setup that is moderately-light and will still charge. But even then, I would probably prefer some Dynafits on the Renegades.

^^^ Nice work!

Different strokes for different folks . I think the size of the pilot may have something to do with it from now hearing multiple people's opinions on the skis.

For me, I overpower the 186 BG and find it too squirrely, but I know lots of people that love them in that size.

auvgeek and powtron: thanks for the killer reviews. Auvgeek, I really appreciate your comparison to the lhasa 191 as I've been really considering that ski [and still am]. powtron: love the photo-shoot and generation shot of the BGs.

I can't recall what, if much/any was stated, and I'll dig around, but is there is ballpark weight on the BG tour?

Originally Posted by PowTron

I think the size of the pilot may have something to do with it from now hearing multiple people's opinions on the skis.

For me, I overpower the 186 BG and find it too squirrely, but I know lots of people that love them in that size.

Hmm...well, I'd like to try the 186, but keep in mind that I didn't think the 191 was unwieldy in the least. For a one-ski quiver in the PNW, I would point less strong/technical skiers to the 191 BG over the Ren, and non-tourers to the 191 BG over the 191 Fat. I find it interesting that the 186 Ren more demanding for me than the 191 BG .... that might change with time as I get more brute strength in my legs/core. Maybe I was able to pilot the 191 BG with more technique, while the Ren requires more strength...?

Originally Posted by Nic.A

I can't recall what, if much/any was stated, and I'll dig around, but is there is ballpark weight on the BG tour?

I'm sure the guys at ON3P can correct me, but I'm pretty sure I read in the ON3P SIA thread that they're hoping to shave 1 lb + on the tour version. So I'm guessing the final weight for the pair will be ~9.5 lbs. But again, that's PURE speculation.

I'm really not sure how the 191 Fat would be in the hybrid version. I'm sure it would be pretty sweet, but I'm really curious how much cud-busting ability you'd gain. Keep in mind I find the L120 too soft to really charge over crud, so my opinion might be a bit skewed.

Do you feel this way about the 2012/2013 186 BG's? Or are you referring to prior models?

Originally Posted by PowTron

For me, I overpower the 186 BG and find it too squirrely, but I know lots of people that love them in that size.

Originally Posted by MJbumper1121

Do you feel this way about the 2012/2013 186 BG's? Or are you referring to prior models?

The 12/13 186 BG's are a new animal, using the 191 design elements.

Yep, which is why I wondered if he felt differently about the 2012/13 vs previous versions he had been on.

Originally Posted by PhiberAwptik

The 12/13 186 BG's are a new animal, using the 191 design elements.

Originally Posted by MJbumper1121

Yep, which is why I wondered if he felt differently about the 2012/13 vs previous versions he had been on.

I imagine that Powtron, like myself, has no need for a 186 BG with a 191 available. I have access to pretty much the whole ON3P demo fleet, and will probably never feel the need to ski the 186 BG.

The 12/13 186cm and 191cm are extremely similar. We could probably just make one size in between and call it good.

The difference between the two just comes down to size and the difference between a 186cm vs 191cm ski (which is marginal). The both ski basically the same, just depends on which length fits your style more. Not like the 11/12 186cm vs 191cm, which had pretty different designs and characteristics.

I prefer a 191cm just because I like the extra length. But I could ski the 186cm and be totally happy.

Pick the size you feel is best suited to you.

Scott, any updates on the fabled BG Tour option?

Thanks!

Will you have a 186 bg in your demo fleet next season? I'd love to see the difference first hand against my 191's.

Originally Posted by iggyskier

The 12/13 186cm and 191cm are extremely similar. We could probably just make one size in between and call it good.

The difference between the two just comes down to size and the difference between a 186cm vs 191cm ski (which is marginal). The both ski basically the same, just depends on which length fits your style more. Not like the 11/12 186cm vs 191cm, which had pretty different designs and characteristics.

I prefer a 191cm just because I like the extra length. But I could ski the 186cm and be totally happy.

Pick the size you feel is best suited to you.

I was referring to older models of the 186...but yes, I have no need for anything shorter than the 191, they are so easy to ski. I also am a proud member of the 200lb+ club.

Strange, I haven't been on TGR in months and I logged in today. It must mean I have ON3PESPN or something .