Anyone been on the ON3P Skinny Goat Steeples (102)?

[XavierD]

Personally I like something shaped more like the Cochise and much less pintailed when firm snow is a good possibility. To me, the Steeple is too pintailed. The 112 is a better application of the design (pow touring ski), but is too heavy to be competitive in the dedicated touring category. A good one-ski quiver for someone that skis resort and tours with the same ski.

Have you skied the 102?

I think most of you over size your touring skis. For me the 102 would be a winter/soft snow touring ski, that is more than capable of handling firm snow because it is always a possibility. The rockered RES tip makes a 102 ski float and work in soft snow really well. Not being 112mm under foot allows it to work well touring on steep terrain and gives you good edge grip when you do have to ski through a steep and firm area over exposure. If I am going out in the spring summer or on routes that are likely firm I would op for something narrower. Getting a ski over 105ish as a dedicated touring ski is kinda stupid IMO, even if it is lighter than the 100-104mm ski.

FWIW, Dynafit thinks a similar shape in both the 99mm Denali and 89mm Cho Oyu; both are fantastic skis and well regarded.

[adrenalated]

The size and dimensions of an "ideal" mid-winter touring ski depend greatly on where and how you tend to tour in mid-winter.

For me, skiing or skinning steep and firm over exposure are absolutely a non-issue for winter touring.

I do however agree that an RES ski would not be my pick for a spring touring ski almost anywhere.

[shafty85]

Have you skied the 102?

I think most of you over size your touring skis. For me the 102 would be a winter/soft snow touring ski, that is more than capable of handling firm snow because it is always a possibility. The rockered RES tip makes a 102 ski float and work in soft snow really well. Not being 112mm under foot allows it to work well touring on steep terrain and gives you good edge grip when you do have to ski through a steep and firm area over exposure. If I am going out in the spring summer or on routes that are likely firm I would op for something narrower. Getting a ski over 105ish as a dedicated touring ski is kinda stupid IMO, even if it is lighter than the 100-104mm ski.

FWIW, Dynafit thinks a similar shape in both the 99mm Denali and 89mm Cho Oyu; both are fantastic skis and well regarded.

Sorry, so, are you saying that you think the 102 is/would be a good touring ski that is capable/good in firm/icy/steep conditions? I think the width is in the right range, at least in my books, and I like the longer radius. Weight is allright (not fantastic, but not too heavy, imo, either). Thanks for the input.

[Lindahl]

I think most of you over size your touring skis. For me the 102 would be a winter/soft snow toung ski, that is more than capable of handling firm snow because it is always a possibility. The rockered RES tip makes a 102 ski float and work in soft snow really well. Not being 112mm under foot allows it to work well touring on steep terrain and gives you good edge grip when you do have to ski through a steep and firm area over exposure. If I am going out in the spring summer or on routes that are likely firm I would op for something narrower. Getting a ski over 105ish as a dedicated touring ski is kinda stupid IMO, even if it is lighter than the 100-104mm ski. FWIW, Dynafit thinks a similar shape in both the 99mm Denali and 89mm Cho Oyu; both are fantastic skis and well regarded.

Yeah, I've skied the 102. For steep firm snow, I don't like the design. It skis like a pintail with a bias towards tail washout. It also has very little effective edge. It's a great powder shape, and heavily biased in that direction.

Yes, 115+ is probably not the right call unless you have a narrower touring ski, but 115+ is great for a dedicated powder touring ski when paired with something narrower. I personally prefer 3 skis for touring. 10X as an all-arounder for when you don't know what the conditions are going to be like, or will have a mix of conditions. 115+ for when you know it's going to be powder and likely bottomless. 80-90 with some decent sidecut for when you know it's going to be perfect skim corn and you want to rip some fast high-energy turns - this one being the least important. There currently isn't anything under 100 in a shape that I like for steep firm snow. Everything has too much sidecut for my tastes.

The 115+ dedicated powder touring ski also crosses over well into resort/sidecountry at resorts where you pretty much only ski untracked due to layout and lack of crowds. For alpine resorts that get tracked out and don't have copious amounts of sidecountry (or when you just feel like bashing crud), there's the 110 heavy metal charger. Add the groomer zoomer and bump ski for early season and you've got a well-rounded quiver.

Like I mentioned before, I think the Steeple 102 is kind of lost in what it wants to be - it's a heavily biased powder shape, but too narrow to be a dedicated powder touring ski for it's weight class. I think the 112 is great as a one-ski-quiver for someone who spends his time skiing powder at the resort during storm days, and then tours on the days after the storm. The 102 would work in this category, but I'd think someone looking for this type of ski would prefer something wider.

[XavierD]

I've had two dedicated 'soft snow / powder' touring skis. They were 104 and 111mm under foot. 111mm was too wide for touring across steep wind blown approaches. I can keep the 104mm on my feet where I would have had to take the 111mm wide skis off. If you have access to places where your ascent is limited to gradual ridge lines, sure go wide.

Often to get to the soft snow pockets I also find myself skiing steep, firm and exposed rollovers or chutes that are no fall zones. I like having a sub 105mm ski in these places.

I have no problem skiing a 99-105mm wide ski in powder.

For me the 184 102 will replace my 186 Viciks (104mm) as my dedicated touring ski. Also, going light is not always good if you want to ski somewhat aggressively on your BC skis. Even in powder. You can ski a 102 Steeple a lot harder than a BD carbon Covert or Dynafit Danali. I thought the steeple was more fun in deeper snow than the covert also, but my opinion on that waste of materials is well known.


I agree that 112mm is a great width for primarily resort skiing with some touring. Based on the feedback the dynafit beast has been getting, I think I will be mounting some 189 Steeple 112s or Billy Goats with beasts for this purpose. Ski the resort while the snow is good, but as soon as it gets tracked start working the resort accessed ridges and bowls.

[çayzi]

When you say resort skiing do you mean groomers as well?

[Lindahl]

I've had two dedicated 'soft snow / powder' touring skis. They were 104 and 111mm under foot. 111mm was too wide for touring across steep wind blown approaches. I can keep the 104mm on my feet where I would have had to take the 111mm wide skis off. If you have access to places where your ascent is limited to gradual ridge lines, sure go wide. I have no problem skiing a 99-105mm wide ski in powder.

Yeah, sounds like mostly a locational difference. Around here, most mid-winter powder tours you don't really deal with wind blown approaches - most of the skiing is at or below treeline. The 115+ ski gets used for that quite often. Sometimes when I'm above treeline and dealing with windblown approaches and entrances, I'll use my 10X touring ski - which yeah, I can ski in powder and have a great time, but the 115+ ski works better, so sometimes I go for those - kind of depends on the terrain. This is similar to your weight argument: Going narrow (and/or short) is not always good if you want to ski powder aggressively on your BC skis.

For me the 184 102 will replace my 186 Viciks (104mm) as my dedicated touring ski. Also, going light is not always good if you want to ski somewhat aggressively on your BC skis. Even in powder. You can ski a 102 Steeple a lot harder than a BD carbon Covert or Dynafit Danali. I thought the steeple was more fun in deeper snow than the covert also, but my opinion on that waste of materials is well known.

Yeah, but that has a lot more to do with design than anything else. The Covert is a piece of crap for someone that likes speed, I agree. The BD Carbon skis are kind of a joke - super soft - no wonder they weigh nothing. Never skied the Denali, but I'd be surprised if it was much better. There's quite a few skis that are wider and/or weigh less than the Steeple that actually DO ski well. The Down Countdown 102 is one of those skis - which surprisingly didn't have the pintail feel like the Steeple did (mellower rocker and less sidecut?). It'd be nice to have a little more length though. The Dynafit Huascaran also comes to mind (based on a hand flex), as do various permutations of PM Gear and Praxis skis. DPS as well, if we're talking purely powder skiing. I wouldn't be surprised if the Zero G 108 falls into this category, as well.

[XavierD]

The Denali is a great ski, works well in variable snow, nice surfy feel to it. Still inspires confidence in firm and 'west coast ice' conditions. Its just really light, so when you ski it fast, it gets beat around.

I'd like to ski the Down CD 102, just never seen them available for demo. My guess is this could be another good option in this category. The other one I am interested in is the Line Sickday tourist 102.

[ScrewYou]

Grave digging..

Who has spent a lot of time on these?

[gepmeow]

I’ve skied about 50 days on my wood veneer Steeple 102 pair, probably 75% in bounds and 25% touring. The RES works great in the 102 waist, super predictable and maneuverable at any speed, by far my favorite pair for skiing trees. I’d be curious if they might be even better in the stock (non-tour) layup for crud busting capabilities, but the wood veneer on the tour layup is an excellent and stable combination. These are magic kick ass skis.

I’ve also been skiing Billy Goats, Tychoon, Vicik, and some older Stockli Stormrider DP Pros. I generally reach for the Steeple for most conditions especially if the snow is soft, the Billy Goat when things are deep, and the Tychoon or Stockli for harder snow conditions. I sold the Viciks only because they weren’t seeing enough action and I prefer the Tychoon for busier resort days.

[ScrewYou]

For what your using it for, the stock layup would be amazing. I really want a custom steeple 108, with the standard layup, but need a lighter touring ski first and foremost..

I have heard mixed reviews about the steeple 102 on firmer conditions, and was hoping the 102 waist would solve that. It seems like the RES still won't bite even at that waist width.. That's my main concern with this ski, because I plan on using it for anything and everything, mid winter till mid June...

There are some much cheaper alternatives available, that will have much better edge hold on firm, but won't offer the same feeling in sun baked glop or any sort of chunky or soft snow.. Tradeoffs make this a difficult decision.

k2 sheditor 102s are half the price, and are still pretty good in 3D conditions. Great in firm.. They are just as burly as the steeples, but less durable. However the center mount makes me worry.

[rainy512day]

I have about 20 days on a Steeple 102. It works ok on firm snow but that's not it's strength. It replaced a Rossi Soul 7 as a soft snow resort ski. Even with a tour layup it feels beefier than the Soul 7, so I don't need anything more. Evo and Next Adventure have previous year's Steeples at good prices.

[ScrewYou]

Seems like they work well enough for ice here and there, plus I don't plan on touring if it's super icy.. However, if it's super chunky and 3D, they will work better than other stuff in that category.

I noticed a significant difference between BGs and steeple 112s on semi-firm groomers, the steeples could actually hook up (maybe cuz softer flex) more. I'm sure the 102 is even better. Not its forte, but it'll work and wont be too sketchy..

[galibier_numero_un]

I have about 20 days on a Steeple 102. It works ok on firm snow but that's not it's strength. It replaced a Rossi Soul 7 as a soft snow resort ski. Even with a tour layup it feels beefier than the Soul 7, so I don't need anything more. Evo and Next Adventure have previous year's Steeples at good prices.

Indeed, Steeples are beefier than lots of resort skis.

... Thom

[ScrewYou]

I just pulled the trigger on a pair of 189 102s, after debating between them, the 184 steeple 112, and 187 Hojis.. I had been comparing them all for the last month, and ended up going with the steeple 102 because they will be paired alongside a line sick day 125, and a thinner ski makes more sense.

I personally think the RES shape in a 102mm waist will be super fun. I can't wait to get on these.

[Norseman]

You'll dig em. I've put a few miles on my 189's, mostly volcano corn. Sometimes wish they were a tad stiffer, to ski a bit more like the BG, but overall they're a joy to tour on. I'd ask for a couple extra carbon fiber strips if I could have a do-over.

[ScrewYou]

I'm pretty stoked. I loved the 189 steeple 112, but only skied it 3 days, all inbounds at heavenly.. In deep, soft conditions, I thought it was more floaty and maneuverable than my 191 billy goats, but lacked the speed limit. Definitely had to back off a bit, even on groomers, but it felt more stable than shreditor 112s, so it could still be skied pretty hard, as long as I just kept lighter on my feet. I thought it hooked up much nicer than the BG on slightly firm snow too, but the billy goat isn't bad and is still faster on that stuff, just more flat based and loose.

I found the 192 sick day 125s on eBay for $179 (seller has bumped price up to $229 now), and have been extremely pleased with the flex, rocker profile, shape, and construction of the skis. In most cases, I prefer stiffer and straighter skis, but have wanted to try these for a while..They have a short/medium turn radius, and aren't stupid heavy, but it's just as stiff as my 191 BGs, if not stiffer. It feels stiffer because it has a flatter tail, but it's fairly similar in Burl Factor. The thickness of the maple under foot is staggering, I thought it would be flimsy and cheap, but it's the polar opposite when considering it's still lighter than a Billy Goat.. However it's still semi cap with a 5mm wanna-be sidewall. Also, the reviews say great things, like it's one of the best fat skis on groomers and in firm variable off piste. I've read it likes speed, but is rather easy to ski like all Line skis.. Hopefully this all proves to be true. I want to keep my BGs for resort duty this year.

For the spot that the steeple 102 will fill, I was looking for something thinner, close to 9lbs, 190ish length, but very maneuverable and predictable. The armada TST also fit the bill, and are fun skis, but on3ps were similar in price, much more durable, and are better for my size..