REVIEW:ON3P Great Scotts 191

Printable View

12-05-2008, 04:58 PM
DePierre

REVIEW:ON3P Great Scotts 191

Height: 5'9"
Weight: 135lbs
Skis: 191 Great Scotts
Dimensions: 145/125/130
Rocker: 2cm/25cm tip, 1.5cm/15cm tail
Flex: Medium-ish..
Mounting Point: -7 from center

First Impressions: Fuckin sick..Graphics are poppy, construction looks on point, light for their size, perfect flex. These things are going to slay.

Construction: Everything is perfect. So precise. Bamboo core, carbon, 2 layers of fiberglass, bamboo sidewalls. Taper in tips/tails corresponding to the rocker.The bases are holding up great- I cant count high enough to tell you how man rocks I hit in the past few days.

Pow: Too good. On a scale of 1-10 they are about an 11.5. They will never sink. Drive them as hard as you want. Its not going to happen. So smooth, so easy. Really slashy, super fun. They like big turns and going fast.

Chopped Pow: Really good. Slices right through the chopped pow. The rocker seems to come into play here. Really stable and plows through almost anything in their path. Pretty stable blasting through shit at high speeds. Bulldozers.

Groomers: No problems. Nothing special, obviously, but you can ski them on groomers just like any other ski. I really kind of like carving fat arcs down groomers with these things. No worries getting back to the lift.

Bumps: Surprisingly easy in the bumps. Not quick, but doable. They hopefully wont be seeing much time in the bumps, but with a little more effort its not a problem.

Ice: Hold on for your life.

Air: Feel really good in the air. Stable landings. Great pop off the lip. I feel like I can stomp anything on these planks.

Conclusion: My favorite ski ever. So much fun. Cant imagine anything better in the pow. Scott nailed the flex, dimensions, and rocker on this ski. Such a complete pow ski. After my first few days on them I am afraid that every other ski in my quiver is going to get neglected. I dont think I need to say much more about how much I love them...

If anyone has any questions, ask and I will post the answers up here.

And...Picture stoke...
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...greatscott.jpg
http://media.nscdn.com/uploads/cache...reatscott2.jpg
12-05-2008, 05:11 PM
iggyskier

Quote:

Originally Posted by DePierre

Pow: Too good. On a scale of 1-10 they are about an 11.5.
12-05-2008, 05:14 PM
pappag

Sweet review!

Skis even match your jacket!!

And congrats again to IggyPimp on the design and the dream.
12-05-2008, 05:21 PM
DePierre

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Pappagiorgio

Sweet review!

Skis even match your jacket!!

And congrats again to IggyPimp on the design and the dream.

Clearly the only reason I decided to get the skis. Its all about matching.
12-05-2008, 05:36 PM
wren

It's because of the two beautiful pairs of ON3Ps in my basement there is no fucking snow in the PNW. I want to get out and ride them sooo badly. Hearing things like this make me even more jealous. Good review!
12-05-2008, 05:46 PM
iggyskier

Quote:

Originally Posted by wren

It's because of the two beautiful pairs of ON3Ps in my basement there is no fucking snow in the PNW. I want to get out and ride them sooo badly. Hearing things like this make me even more jealous. Good review!

Dude tell me about it. It is getting ridiculous. I have 8 pairs that I am waiting to test out. Pretty soon I am just going to have to have a ON3P Palmer day where I spend the whole day pointing it straight down the glacier.....
12-05-2008, 06:38 PM
The Dad

Quote:

Originally Posted by DePierre

Height: 5'9"
Weight: 135lbs
Skis: 191 Great Scotts
Dimensions: 145/125/130

This is what I love about this place.

Seriously, though, they sound schweet. They'd be a perfect patrol ski for powder days.
12-05-2008, 07:42 PM
iggyskier

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpinedad

This is what I love about this place.

haha yeah. Brenden is a skinny bastard.

Mount and Flex can definitely determine a lot. This pair is probably only 230 on the igneous scale (so by no means soft, but not stiff either), with my/wren's pair right around 250, and marshal's probably around 270. I am hoping to do a soft and stiff flex, so I am guessing the pair tested here would be the soft flex, and mine would be the stiff.

I know Brenden's are mounted -7, mine are -8, I think Alex's are -8.5 (?), and Marshal's are around -8 I think.

Marshal's skis are pretty nutso, but I am sure he has no issue with em ;). The flex on mine/alex's pairs, though, I think will be stiff enough for most anybody.

Our skis definitely measure long, too, by some standards, but everything was coming out pretty close to exact length tip to tail. Seems a lot of companies measure length before the tip/tail shape is added.
12-06-2008, 10:57 AM
Professor Chaos

I knew I should have grabbed another pair when I had the chance.:nonono2::nonono2::nonono2:

Wren. When we get some snow and things actually start looking like ski season around here Id love to try yours out...... or your ARGs.

Edit - Good review DePierre
12-07-2008, 02:39 PM
DePierre

Quote:

Originally Posted by iggyskier

Our skis definitely measure long, too, by some standards, but everything was coming out pretty close to exact length tip to tail. Seems a lot of companies measure length before the tip/tail shape is added.

I think my 186s measure 189, 191 measure 195 im pretty sure.
12-07-2008, 08:14 PM
iggyskier

Quote:

Originally Posted by DePierre

I think my 186s measure 189, 191 measure 195 im pretty sure.

If you were to measure along the whole curve of the ski everything measures 3cm longer than the listed length, but tip to tail the skis are pretty much dead on.
12-07-2008, 08:47 PM
DePierre

Quote:

Originally Posted by iggyskier

If you were to measure along the whole curve of the ski everything measures 3cm longer than the listed length, but tip to tail the skis are pretty much dead on.

Yes..that is what I meant.