Fatypus D'Riddum VS ON#P Jeffrey 114: Charging Touring Ski

**skibum93** · 10-01-2015, 12:29 AM

Edit: Was too excited drafting the post's title in all caps. Sorry O-N-3-P

Hi all!
I can convince my bank account, I'm upgrading my touring setup of 2012 186 Fat-ypus I-Rock w/ Dukes.
Loved the I-Rocks riding Alpental and Crystal, but spending this season in CB & surrounding backcountry, they're a little fat. Also I don't like how the Duke brings you off the ski. Makes leveraging the ski far more difficult, especially for a girthy one.

I'm 5'8'' 150lbs
did a junior comp a few years ago, and love ripping fast. I'm not much of a trick skier, but I do love attempting 180 hucks (wannabe Charlie Ager style) and riding away switch in pow. Poppy and fun, but I definitely want to be able to land on and feel very comfortable at speed.
For my directional ski, I really like my 2014 ON3P Wrenegades. I would just prefer this ski to be more poppy and turnier (I-Rocks can pivot on a dime).
Since I'll be touring on the ski, I'd also prefer it to be light. Current setup rocks the decent, but builds my quads on the ascent.

For downgrading the I-Rocks, I was considering the 2015 188 Fat-ypus D-Riddum (2014-2016 are the same model) and 2015 181 or 186 ON3P Jeffrey 114.
I've had great experiences with both brands, so has anyone ridden one or both of these skis?

Also has anyone tried the Cast Binding System?

**skibum93** · 10-08-2015, 07:11 PM

Bump.

Any ideas or related skis?

**Bruce Springskiin** · 10-08-2015, 07:53 PM

I have the 114 Jeffery with adrenaline bindings, but do not have any experience for comparison. The only thing I disliked about the ski is the tail feels a little short when I am in the back seat yelling at the kids and rolling up the windows. Otherwise they, turn easy in trees, run through chop, and hold an edge wonderfully. I have a lighter designated touring setup. And these tour well, but not the lightest option. So these only get toured on training laps up the king, or if I need to get myself out of a pickle. I am a boy scout so I always carry skins I the BC or slack country.

I am on the fence about selling these as I do not land backwards enough, to justify, and want to run the Wrenegade instead. But the are still oh so much fun

**ScrewYou** · 10-08-2015, 07:55 PM

Blistergear has a pretty good review of the jeffrey if you havent read it yet. You might want to find some 4frnt Devastators, cant beat the full rocker pivot ability, but it wont be as poppy and playful as the jeffrey.

I have the 186 jeffrey 114, but havent skied it yet. I came off 186 blizzard gunsmokes, which I used for a season or so, and was on 190 bibby pros the season and a half before that. Initially I feel the same way as blister in that the 186cm Jeffrey 114 is closer to the size of the 190 Bibby than the 186 gunsmoke. I disagree with their flex comparison though, my jeffreys are stiffer and more balanced flex wise, than the gunsmoke. Much more like the bibby pros flex, but the jeffrey feels snappier when hand flexing. Looks more intuitive with the sidecut profile, but burlier through and through. I am a heavier guy, and the 186 gunsmoke was great all mountain, but definitely lacked a slight bit in the powder department at 200ish lbs. I went with the jeffrey as the in between, something thats floatier and more stable than the gunsmoke, but more versatile and playful than the bibby pro. I probably should have been on the 193 gunsmoke for powder, but the all mountain jib performance of the 186 was better.

Cant help with the fatypus, but I like the construction of their skis for sure. Still though, you cant beat On3ps durability, the jeffrey 114 will last a long time.

**skibum93** · 10-09-2015, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by galenparke

I have the 114 Jeffery with adrenaline bindings, but do not have any experience for comparison. The only thing I disliked about the ski is the tail feels a little short when I am in the back seat yelling at the kids and rolling up the windows. Otherwise they, turn easy in trees, run through chop, and hold an edge wonderfully. I have a lighter designated touring setup. And these tour well, but not the lightest option. So these only get toured on training laps up the king, or if I need to get myself out of a pickle. I am a boy scout so I always carry skins I the BC or slack country.

I am on the fence about selling these as I do not land backwards enough, to justify, and want to run the Wrenegade instead. But the are still oh so much fun

From my experience 14 Wrens aren't the world's fastest turners (still maneuverable), but have a very stable tail without a speed limit. Kicks ass on steep terrain.
Probably would be a great ski for ya to demo since you aren't interested in switch.

**skibum93** · 10-09-2015, 09:45 AM

Aavergrene thanks!

So how stable was landing drops for you on the jeffrey?
Did you have similar issues with a small tail?

**adrenalated** · 10-09-2015, 09:50 AM

Sounds to me like you want a Steeple 112, not a Jeffery.

**auvgeek** · 10-09-2015, 09:58 AM

My choice would be 189 RX in a carbon or UL layup with Beast 16s or CAST, depending on your boot situation. Praxis 189 and ON3P 186 are probably very close in length.

Also consider the Praxis MVP carbon or Down Throwdown 110.

**Bruce Springskiin** · 10-09-2015, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by skibum93

So how stable was landing drops for you on the jeffrey?
Did you have similar issues with a small tail?

The Jeffery was 7.5 out of ten stable. 10 being old school wren 191 or RC112, 5 being 180 Obsethed from the tip rocker era or Rossi S5. It handled landings perfectly as long as I was reasonably centered on landing. As mentioned when in the backseat the shortness of the tail would be apparent for me at 200# & 73". In those moments I wished I had gone 191. So just don't land back seat, duh right.

On the Steeple, I have the 184 with IONs as my touring set up. It is great for touring and and skis wonderfully. But there is a speed limit; as it has a short turning radius, is light, and soft in comparison to their regular layup skis. I can really feel the ski bend in the turns. Again the longer ski might be more favorable, or add a little more stiffness. I would be curious to see how a Wren with a tech binding would feel.

**adrenalated** · 10-09-2015, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by auvgeek

My choice would be 189 RX in a carbon or UL layup with Beast 16s or CAST, depending on your boot situation. Praxis 189 and ON3P 186 are probably very close in length.

A good suggestion. And yes, a 189 RX measures 187cm and a 186 Wren measures 186cm. Very close.
My review of the 186 Wren here: http://www.adrenalated.com/Gear-Revi...ON3P-Wrenegade has some comparisons to the 189 RX. My pair of RX's are an older version without tail rocker though, and a heavier/damper layup than Praxis currently uses. I would expect the current RX to pivot a touch easier, and be a little more lively, but less damp, especially in the carbon or UL layups.

Also comparisons in there to the Billy Goat, which shares the same basic shape with the Steeple 112. Might also be useful.

Originally Posted by galenparke

The Jeffery was 7.5 out of ten stable. 10 being old school wren 191 or RC112, 5 being 180 Obsethed from the tip rocker era or Rossi S5.

I would call the Jeffrey a 7, the 186 Wrenegade a 9-9.5, RX (standard layup) 8.5-9, Billy Goat 8.5, and Steeple 7.5-8 (in similar lengths). FWIW.

The Jeffery 114 requires a much more centered stance than the Wrenegade.

**eskido** · 10-09-2015, 01:24 PM

^*^^ that's great info right there^^*^ FWIW that turn radius on the riddum's is TINY, it'll be quick and poppy for sure but I'd bet $$$ it'll squirrel out at speed for sure on anything but the deep. (and I'm no hater, have a couple pair of Alotta's that I f n love!)

**ScrewYou** · 10-09-2015, 01:53 PM

Comparing the 189 steeple 112 and the 186 jeffrey as I type this, the jeffrey is slightly stiffer throughout and heavier feeling, even though listed weights are equal.

I think I have stiff jeffreys tho, the evo collab version. They are stiffer than my tychoons or viciks. I had the regular production version (black topsheet) jeff 114, and sold it for the evo collab version. Surprisingly the evo collab feels a bit stiffer. Its a small difference, but notieable. I have been hand fiddleing all my on3ps enough to earn a restraining order.

The steeples are not a burly inbounds ski, atleast not for someone my size, 6'3" 200 plus. But it could totally work inbounds if youre lighter than me. Its stiffer and more balanced than 189 shreditor 112s, of which i still had a good time on.. Just terrible in refrozen coral reef situaions. It seems like an amazing soft snow/touring ski though. Light, the right ammount of flex for optimal float, but not too soft and seem way more nimble than the 191 Billy Goats.

The jeffrey 114 just barely breaks into the inbounds charger barrier, but does so nonetheless. Even at my size on the 186cm, i see no problem blasting around variable conditions with them.. It seems like a real mans version of the 189 shreditor 112. Similar shape and mount pattern, but way stiffer. They wont be as good as a wrenegade 112 obviously, but still they are very solid underfoot. It measures 187cm too, which is perfect for a jibby semi-charger at my size.

**skibum93** · 10-12-2015, 06:18 PM

Has anyone else skied both the billy goats and the jeffrey 114?

The billy goats appear more directional, but better in soft snow, and equal in variable conditions.

**auvgeek** · 10-12-2015, 07:06 PM

I own the 186 Jeffrey 110 and 191 Billy Goat. Both are extra-stiff/woodgrain. The Jeffrey has also extra carbon in the tip and tail only so the flex is a bit more consistent. In any kind of 3D snow, the BG rules. There just isn't another ski out there that kills tracked powder like the Billy Goat while retaining the ability to be reasonably playful in the trees. And the Billy Goat makes landing in pow SO effortless.

The Jeffrey is a good ski, but I only prefer it for landing switch or skiing hard snow. It would definitely make a better one-ski quiver. The Jeffrey carves much better than the BG on groomers. Additionally, I'm really not a fan of pintailed skis in steep firmer snow (my only major complaint with the Billy Goat), and I would take the Jeffrey in firm snow every time. But pretty much every time I've skied the Jeffrey in new snow, I've wished I was on the BG. Sometimes it's really fun to throw a floaty 180 and land switch in pow, but as soon as I'm facing forwards again, I wish I was skiing the BG.

But it comes down to this: do you like to drive your tips or not? The Jeffrey requires a fairly neutral stance, and I found it a little hard to find the sweet spot. I occasionally get that feeling of stuffing a tip while leaning on them hard in soft chop or tracked powder, which is something I hate. Unfortunately, I've only skied them with tight boots (<5 mm shell fit) that have more forward lean than I'd like (which causes my toes to lever into the front of the boot), and I had issues keeping centered without killing my toenails. I'd need to ski them with different boots to make a definitive statement.

I picked up a med/stiff Praxis 184 Piste Jib that may replace the Jeffrey. Little skinnier and lighter than the Jeffrey, so I'm hopeful it'll be more hard-snow specific while still being playful and stable enough to charge in variable conditions.

**shroom** · 10-12-2015, 08:14 PM

that flex comparo on the jeff vs steeple surprises the shit outta me. I didn't think the jeffery would flex
much different than the caylors I own, and I thought/think the caylor was significantly more stable than the steeple (though I vaguely remember reading it was stiffened up a bit at some point?). I was on them on a demo day in spring '14.

just stirring the pot. note that I am often told I am 'full of shit' as I try to enlighten my customers whilst pumping gas at the local 76, often followed up with the phrase 'get a real job, rontele!' whatever that means; vanity slaves.

**skibum93** · 11-16-2015, 09:04 PM

Can anyone else compare the bibby to the jeffrey?

**ScrewYou** · 11-16-2015, 09:26 PM

The jeffrey is more playful and intuitive than the bibby. Its more centered, and it basically feels like a k2 shreditor 112 with a backbone. Its pretty darn quick edge to edge for its width too. Great ski, could be a new favorite for me, but ive only put WROD laps on it. Bamboo is great, ON3P is great.

The bibby is burlier, slightly more stable, but also more "dead" feeling. Really cant stress that enough. On3p skis have much more "pop" than moment skis IMO. The bibby is a great ski for charging serious big mtn terrain, while throwing in some jibs here and there. Its more of powder/big mtn ski, whereas the jeffrey is a powder/all mtn ski. The jeffrey handles in bounds conditions better hands down, but the bibby is better in untracked pow

I think the selling point of the bibby is its predictability. Its probably the most predictable ski ive ever tried. I just dont jib 40 footers in AK, so ive found the jeffrey significantly more capable, and still stable enough for my needs. I use the BG as my untracked ski now, since its more powder specific than the bibby

One day on jeffrey, 30 days on the bibby