Page 22 of 40 FirstFirst ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... LastLast
Results 526 to 550 of 979
  1. #526
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,798
    Iggy, on that note- what's the flex differences between the kartel 98, 106, and the 13' (same as 14' I think) JMO? I'm just curious, because I simply never felt what Texas felt on his with my 13' 176cm JMOs, despite the fact that they are now probably a little short for me and I'm not exactly a small skier. After 2 seasons with the JMO as my daily driver I've found it to be a versatile all mountain ski and it seems like it does many things well, including groomers, park, trees, and mogul skiing typical of CO. Powder performance is just OK, of course I'm comparing it to the 115-138cm skis I own so I don't care and that's not what I bought it for. Mount wise I like mine anywhere from -3 to -5, and have skiied it closer to -1 and -2 without problems on more difficult terrain.

    Just want to point out that even if the ski isn't right for Texas some people (imyself included) don't find it to be soft or lackluster at all. Though perhaps the 106 is more like the original jmo flex and the 98 is softer? So for guys wanting a more stout ski the 106 is best

  2. #527
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    353
    Texas - Without seeing the kastles, I would guess while on paper the skis may be semi similar, in reality they're totally different skis. You had a 186, 21m radius, 98 underfoot park ski, loved it at it's intended purpose, and had stability issues when driving the ski hard at speed. Then you remounted it behind the line and it skied more or less as one may expect: less park ski like and more traditional (or as traditional-ish as a park ski gets). It's no surprise that at your height and weight and intended purpose you completely overpowered the ski. A 24m radius, 110 and stiffer underfoot ski is a completely different ride, as you found out. Which, btw, is pretty similar to the jeffery on paper...

    Fwiw, I've skied Jefferys and they are a totally different ski from the kartel in the areas you had issues with. And much more suited to what you are trying to get out of the ski.

  3. #528
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,308
    Just in case anyone is wondering, the Wrenegade 112 is a fucking awful park ski.

  4. #529
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    Just in case anyone is wondering, the Wrenegade 112 is a fucking awful park ski.
    Try hitting jumps on the Oars (just don't mute grab...) or skiing pipe on the 196cm Pillowfights. Done both, they keep you on your toes.
    Seriously, this canít turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  5. #530
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Posts
    1,357
    ^^^ Pic/Vids or it didn't happen.

  6. #531
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by unpossible View Post
    ^^^ Pic/Vids or it didn't happen.
    Best I have right in front of me.
    Seriously, this canít turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  7. #532
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Muggydude View Post
    Iggy, on that note- what's the flex differences between the kartel 98, 106, and the 13' (same as 14' I think) JMO?
    Difference between the 98 and Jmo is negligible. 98 is a touch softer in the tip, but the same everywhere else. 106 is just a bit stiffer than both.
    Seriously, this canít turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  8. #533
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by cooks View Post
    Texas - Without seeing the kastles, I would guess while on paper the skis may be semi similar, in reality they're totally different skis. You had a 186, 21m radius, 98 underfoot park ski, loved it at it's intended purpose, and had stability issues when driving the ski hard at speed. Then you remounted it behind the line and it skied more or less as one may expect: less park ski like and more traditional (or as traditional-ish as a park ski gets). It's no surprise that at your height and weight and intended purpose you completely overpowered the ski. A 24m radius, 110 and stiffer underfoot ski is a completely different ride, as you found out. Which, btw, is pretty similar to the jeffery on paper...

    Fwiw, I've skied Jefferys and they are a totally different ski from the kartel in the areas you had issues with. And much more suited to what you are trying to get out of the ski.
    The Kastles are actually softer than the Kartel... initially. Deeper into the flex they stiffen up. Initially softer, about equal halfway into the flex, stiffer towards the end. I'd put them in the same category... medium-soft. Different flex characteristics (the Kartel is more uniform), but similar stiffness.

    Overpowering any ski at moderate speeds on blue groomers should raise an eyebrow. I've only been one ski less stable that I can remember, a 2004ish Line Ninja (? grey and yellow with binding inserts) center mounted in a short length. I think some of you are thinking I'm trying to get this thing to charge harder than I am.

    The remount went as expected. I was just hoping for a different ratio of fun lost:stability gained.
    Last edited by TexasGortex; 02-11-2015 at 05:39 PM.

  9. #534
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Posts
    1,357
    Quote Originally Posted by iggyskier View Post
    Best I have right in front of me.
    Well played sir.

  10. #535
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    353
    You're a big dude trying to make a park ski go fast. Reverse scenario: I center mount my wrens in hopes of skiing park with all the cool kids, then wonder why the tail seems extra angry. Does that mean the ski needs to be redesigned? No, it means I should have bought a different ski.

  11. #536
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    Just in case anyone is wondering, the Wrenegade 112 is a fucking awful park ski.
    What beta do you have for that? I bet it can handle a rail or two and straight line/straight air the living fuck out of a big boy jump...
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  12. #537
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGortex View Post
    The Kastles are actually softer than the Kartel... initially. Deeper into the flex they stiffen up. Initially softer, about equal halfway into the flex, stiffer towards the end. I'd put them in the same category... medium-soft. Different flex characteristics (the Kartel is more uniform), but similar stiffness.

    Overpowering any ski at moderate speeds on blue groomers should raise an eyebrow. I've only been one ski less stable that I can remember, a 2004ish Line Ninja (? grey and yellow with binding inserts) center mounted in a short length. I think some of you are thinking I'm trying to get this thing to charge harder than I am.

    The remount went as expected. I was just hoping for a different ratio of fun lost:stability gained.
    We just have to agree to disagree (obviously, I'm pretty biased here). We have a lot of ON3P athletes, employees, and customers (Kartel 98 is our #1 selling ski) on the Kartel 98 as their park ski and this is the first time I've ever heard someone express that they think they would only be good in the park on low speed boxes and rails (that part was edited out, but figured I would still address it here). I'm not here to tell you that this wasn't your experience on the skis, just that it is readily apparent that the skis are very much the wrong skis for you and that your experience is in the minority. At your size, I can definitely see overskiing them all-mountain, but have never heard someone say they are also incapable of skiing in the park, hence my surprise here. That said, we genuinely appreciate the feedback and we take it all into account as we work on improving our ski line.

    From the sound of it, you like skis you can drive, where the Kartel is really more of a balanced, neutral ride. Just the difference in mounting location between the Kartel and Kastle you are on now is pretty substantial for how hard you will be able to drive the skis (-7cm from center would be a directional ski in our lineup). The Kartel 98 must be too jibby and neutral in their balance for what you are looking for (even at -1.5cm from recommended). For extra fun, you should try them between +2 or +3 where most of our team members mount theirs .

    Stability wise, Karl is lighter than you, but he skis about as hard as anyone I've seen in the park and he does pretty well for himself on stock 181cm Kartels on bigger features at speed.



    [/spam]

    Anyway, beating a dead horse at this point. Sorry to hear that you aren't stoked on the skis. We don't like to disappoint, but that is how it goes sometimes. Hopefully you can connect with Jay later in the year and are able to try the Jeffrey 114, Wren, or BG. I would be very interested to see if they are more your style. Thanks!
    Seriously, this canít turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  13. #538
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    378
    I edited it out because I'm trying to keep it productive, informative and (relatively) positive. It was too inflammatory of a tone. I've had tons of good skis that didn't mesh well with my preferences, but very few that I flat out can't make work. I was aiming for more a conversation than an argument.

    Buying skis you don't like is part of the game; We've all done it. Shit happens. It may have happened in a roundabout way, but I ended up with skis I really like. I'm stoked. That was the end goal in the first place.

    I look forward to getting on your other stuff.

  14. #539
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGortex View Post
    I edited it out because I'm trying to keep it productive, informative and (relatively) positive. It was too inflammatory of a tone. I've had tons of good skis that didn't mesh well with my preferences, but very few that I flat out can't make work. I was aiming for more a conversation than an argument.

    Buying skis you don't like is part of the game; We've all done it. Shit happens. It may have happened in a roundabout way, but I ended up with skis I really like. I'm stoked. That was the end goal in the first place.

    I look forward to getting on your other stuff.
    No worries. Honestly, most everything is pretty constructive. We wouldn't be here if everyone just told us the skis were good and don't change anything (coughwren106cough). I'll be more aware to get stability feedback from the people on the longer Kartel sizes going forward, so definitely a productive conversation. Let us know when when you get on the Jeffrey 114. Mount is still gonna be a good 3cm forward of what you are on now, but I think that would be the more suited for what you are looking for. Just for curiosity sake - how big are you?
    Seriously, this canít turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  15. #540
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    378
    6'4" 180lbs.

  16. #541
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,519
    Well, tex, I agree. I've bought skis I didn't like. I've come to dislike skis I used to like over the course of owning them.

    They don't happen to be grizzlycorns do they? If so, I'll take first dibs on them
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  17. #542
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    OR
    Posts
    1,410
    all i have to add is that i'm looking forwards to next year when I can add yet another pair of on3ps to the quiv

    here are the first gen 191 BG tappin the lip yesterday.



    The 191 BGs are my +5 inches within 2 days ski. but IMO they lack on the harder snow you face.

    Love what is coming out. I guess my unicorn would be a cross between a 191 BG and 191 Wren at 194 if I had to do 1 ski. I believe the BG is already tweaked for a bit better hardpack performance

    I will have to demo some of the new stuff....

  18. #543
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by SupreChicken View Post
    Well, tex, I agree. I've bought skis I didn't like. I've come to dislike skis I used to like over the course of owning them.

    They don't happen to be grizzlycorns do they? If so, I'll take first dibs on them
    They are Grizzlycorns. I was going to take pictures and post some for sale threads this weekend. Can't figure out pricing. Drilled twice (0,-1.5) for STH2 13 @ 335mm BSL. I need to measure but think that should fit roughly 307mm-363mm depending on how you arrange the binders? PM me if you want more info, otherwise there should be a for sale thread in the next couple days.

  19. #544
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Washington Grown
    Posts
    250
    Has anyone toured with the steeple 102? My BG's are no Bueno skiing and touring on the firm. Did anything change to make the steeple more capable in hard conditions? Is this more of a winter touring ski?

  20. #545
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    964

    2014/2015 ON3P Skis (Official Thread) - Discussion and Lust

    are you guys getting any feedback on demos from people looking at sizing up BG? from 176 to 179 and 186 to 189?

    on some rare ocasions I wished for a bit more tip in front of me on my 176 (late december 10"+ untracked pow days dropping off of cirque at bird), I know 99% of the people are either on the 186 or 191, so have you guys heard of people that wanna step up a size for next year? I'm assuming the 186-189 and 176-179 would be a close match, and I could relate to what people on the 186 are saying about the 189!

    on a particular day with 12" overnight and snow all day I was having some tip dive if I pushed hard on the tips, so I had to keep a more centerer stance on the not so steep runouts at the bottom, and I've been wondering about sizing up to 179 just to have a bit more tip!

    have to say though that I had never had issues on the rare 2 days 10"+ on smaller terrain, trees, bowls around idaho, also that particular day at bird the cirque runout was more like bottomless, I was sinking above my knees when I stopped!

  21. #546
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    109
    Tried out my new 186 Jefferies (actually the evo Collab-same thing) on a crappy "used to be skiable slush but is now icy chunks" night skiing night last week. Good in what was still slush, but that was about 10 turns. Switched to a better ski for the conditions for the rest of the night. I'm still pumped, though, for a decent snow day. Only problem is that I'm in Oregon, and we have so little snow on the ground and nothing predicted for at least 1-2 more weeks. Worst winter in decades. Also this is my first ski that is rockered like this with so much tail. Will I get used to them?

  22. #547
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by mikdes26 View Post
    Tried out my new 186 Jefferies (actually the evo Collab-same thing) on a crappy "used to be skiable slush but is now icy chunks" night skiing night last week. Good in what was still slush, but that was about 10 turns. Switched to a better ski for the conditions for the rest of the night. I'm still pumped, though, for a decent snow day. Only problem is that I'm in Oregon, and we have so little snow on the ground and nothing predicted for at least 1-2 more weeks. Worst winter in decades. Also this is my first ski that is rockered like this with so much tail. Will I get used to them?
    I've got the 13/14 Jeffrey, and I love them, but it's a ski that takes some getting used to. It does not like lazy skiing and really rewards good technique, especially on hardpack. Spend a couple of days on it and you'll get used to it.

  23. #548
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sonoma & Truckee
    Posts
    11,286
    The Jeffrey definitely requires a more centered stance, but it doesn't take too long to adjust to it.

    Wrote my review of the Wren 112 here: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...-Wrenegade-112

  24. #549
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    16
    I just wanted to thank Sam and the rest of the guys at ON3P. They had an impromptu demo at Big (not really so big) Boulder during a park competition. Honestly, thought I would never have a chance to ride these planks. Great guys, great skis!

    Had a blast on some wrens, Jeffreys, kartels, and bg. They all carved did surprising well ('cept for the bg, too much ski for me/these lackluster PA conditions) and ripped though crud and little patches of snow under the lift lines.

  25. #550
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by klikboom View Post
    Has anyone toured with the steeple 102? My BG's are no Bueno skiing and touring on the firm. Did anything change to make the steeple more capable in hard conditions? Is this more of a winter touring ski?
    I have 3 days on the 184 Steeple 102s. I'm not sure what changes were made, but I'm happy with them. They ski hard conditions much better than my 191 BGs. They don't exactly rail a carve on hardpack, but they do carve if you are careful. They can handle delicate turns on boilerplate, which my BGs do not enjoy.

    That said, they excel at soft snow conditions. I bought mine for winter powder and spring volcano corn/slush skiing. If you plan to intentionally seek out hard snow, I'd look for another ski.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •