Page 288 of 291 FirstFirst ... 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 LastLast
Results 7,176 to 7,200 of 7275
  1. #7176
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    ColoRADo
    Posts
    5,696

    ON3P SKIS Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post

    Also - Powtron seemed to get along with his before he unfortunately wrecked his knee,.
    https://vimeo.com/315367025
    Ahhhhhh I fucking love the CD and that day will remain with me forever.

    3.5 months out of surgery and squats and deadlifts are coming back! Iíll be slashing that slutty pow by March if all goes well
    You should have been here yesterday!

  2. #7177
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    3,013
    The great thing about the C&Dís are that they are so accessible and quite versatile for a big powder ski. Soft snow biased - yes...deep day only...not quite.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  3. #7178
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    On the mountain
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by tuco View Post
    I dailyd a 125 uf ski. I think versatility is more a function of the shape than actual width. I guarantee a Woodsy 124 would be waayyy more versatile, overall, than the C&D. But not necessarily more fun in the right conditions. Which is exactly why I asked Scott if one might be in the works.

    I've since been enlightened on the existence of a pretty much carbon copy of my dream daily....
    Agreed, the shape makes them very approachable. On your daily news: Oh? Curious...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    The great thing about the C&Dís are that they are so accessible and quite versatile for a big powder ski. Soft snow biased - yes...deep day only...not quite.
    Yeah, I rode mine in some ďinappropriateĒ conditions and they were manageable. Just felt it in the knees more on firmer snow/sticking to groomers.

  4. #7179
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,633
    Quote Originally Posted by MHSP1497 View Post
    Agreed, the shape makes them very approachable. On your daily news: Oh? Curious...
    Moment Commander 124
    Almost identical to Boneshakers.
    Rip a groomer
    Slay pow
    Predictable in steeps n funked out snow
    Slarve shit
    Destroy corn n mank

  5. #7180
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    21
    Sizing question for the Jeffrey 96.

    I will likely be picking up a set of Jeffrey 96s as an east coast daily driver. I'm 6'2" and currently ski either a 176cm park ski or a 188cm Ranger 108. The Jeffrey would mostly be a replacement for my current park sticks. I'll still be taking the occasional park lap, but most of my time is going to be in the trees or ripping groomers.

    What do you think about the 181 Jeffrey vs the 186? I'm weighing tight-tree maneuverability / ease of spinning of the 181 vs the longer effective edge (east coast ice) of the 186.

  6. #7181
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by _Ryan_ View Post
    Sizing question for the Jeffrey 96.

    I will likely be picking up a set of Jeffrey 96s as an east coast daily driver. I'm 6'2" and currently ski either a 176cm park ski or a 188cm Ranger 108. The Jeffrey would mostly be a replacement for my current park sticks. I'll still be taking the occasional park lap, but most of my time is going to be in the trees or ripping groomers.

    What do you think about the 181 Jeffrey vs the 186? I'm weighing tight-tree maneuverability / ease of spinning of the 181 vs the longer effective edge (east coast ice) of the 186.
    I'm 5'8 and have k98s in 181, no way I would go any smaller. I'm not spinning onto rails or anything but they are fine for small spins and tight spots. 186 all the way imo

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

  7. #7182
    Gman's Avatar
    Gman is online now Mack Master William Large
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Beantown
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by _Ryan_ View Post
    Sizing question for the Jeffrey 96.

    I will likely be picking up a set of Jeffrey 96s as an east coast daily driver. I'm 6'2" and currently ski either a 176cm park ski or a 188cm Ranger 108. The Jeffrey would mostly be a replacement for my current park sticks. I'll still be taking the occasional park lap, but most of my time is going to be in the trees or ripping groomers.

    What do you think about the 181 Jeffrey vs the 186? I'm weighing tight-tree maneuverability / ease of spinning of the 181 vs the longer effective edge (east coast ice) of the 186.

    Iím 5í11 160lbs and ski the 181. I could ski the 186 if I needed to but being up in Vermont the extra length doesnít do much for me. If I was out west more where things tend to be more open Iíd be inclined to go longer.

  8. #7183
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Gman View Post
    Iím 5í11 160lbs and ski the 181. I could ski the 186 if I needed to but being up in Vermont the extra length doesnít do much for me. If I was out west more where things tend to be more open Iíd be inclined to go longer.
    How is the edge hold when conditions are really firm or even icy? I've nver had a ski with that much rocker before

  9. #7184
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by _Ryan_ View Post
    How is the edge hold when conditions are really firm or even icy?
    firm...meh
    icy....nope

    but my edges are about as sharp as spoons, ymmv

  10. #7185
    Gman's Avatar
    Gman is online now Mack Master William Large
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Beantown
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by _Ryan_ View Post
    How is the edge hold when conditions are really firm or even icy? I've nver had a ski with that much rocker before
    If you're worried about edge hold with the jeffrey, it won't matter if its a 181 or 186, you'll have the same issues on an icy day. I use the kartel on softer days or when there is a little bit of new snow whether its manmade or not. On the firmer days, I tend to stick to my wrens. I haven't skied the woodsman but it could be a decent best of both worlds ski.

    I have kartel 181's and the issue I have on icy days has more to do with how the tails release, don't grab as much as my wren's.

  11. #7186
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,866
    Would also agree Kartels can be a bit sketch on ice and hard pack. Anything soft (including groomers) is fine, but steep ice wasnít a strong point on my Kartel 116s. Jeronimos (similar to kartel 98) were better though.

    If you ski a lot of hardpack and donít have a narrower ski in the quiver, woodsman might be the way to go

  12. #7187
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    21
    Was expecting to hear that they're not great on ice, but you all are actually scaring me off a bit. Keep in mind I'm used to skiing on some beat up Armada park skis (full camber though).

    Is a Jeffrey 96 a realistic east coast quiver of one for all but the deepest days?

  13. #7188
    Gman's Avatar
    Gman is online now Mack Master William Large
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Beantown
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by _Ryan_ View Post
    Was expecting to hear that they're not great on ice, but you all are actually scaring me off a bit. Keep in mind I'm used to skiing on some beat up Armada park skis (full camber though).

    Is a Jeffrey 96 a realistic east coast quiver of one for all but the deepest days?
    Is there a reason you're looking at the jeffrey and not the woodsman or wren? If I was going to buy another east coast ski I'd be crushing the wren 96 Ti. The jeffreys like to be skied with more of a laid back approach while the wrens like to be driven and require more of a forward/neutral stance. The jeffrey will probably be stiffer than your beat armada park ski but it's not designed to be an ice ski. It can do it but other skis from ON3P would be a better tool.

  14. #7189
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,361
    Skis that are good on ice: race skis
    Skis that are not good on ice: beat up old Armada park skis

    The Jeffrey may not be an amazing ice ski, but when your frame of reference is beater park skis, they'll be fine. Yeah the running length is shorter, but they're also most likely way stiffer torsionally. They'll do fine.
    Last edited by adrenalated; 09-10-2019 at 01:34 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    All ye punterz! Leave thine stupid heavy skis in the past, or at least in the resort category, for the age of lightweight pussy sticks is upon us! Behold! Keep up with the randocommandos on their carbon blades of shortness! Break thine tibias into spiral splinters with pintech extravagance!

  15. #7190
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Gman View Post
    Is there a reason you're looking at the jeffrey and not the woodsman or wren? If I was going to buy another east coast ski I'd be crushing the wren 96 Ti. The jeffreys like to be skied with more of a laid back approach while the wrens like to be driven and require more of a forward/neutral stance. The jeffrey will probably be stiffer than your beat armada park ski but it's not designed to be an ice ski. It can do it but other skis from ON3P would be a better tool.
    I'll still be skiing park on this ski (but a lot less than I used to). I've thought a lot about the woodsman or the master blaster but I'm not ready to give up the versatility of a full twin.

    Still want to slide the occasional rail, land and ski switch pop off of rollers etc

  16. #7191
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Driving2VT
    Posts
    3,121

    ON3P SKIS Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Gman View Post
    Iím 5í11 160lbs and ski the 181. I could ski the 186 if I needed to but being up in Vermont the extra length doesnít do much for me. If I was out west more where things tend to be more open Iíd be inclined to go longer.
    Gman, you in VT now or just ski here? Thought you were MA based.
    Uno mas

  17. #7192
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by _Ryan_ View Post
    Was expecting to hear that they're not great on ice, but you all are actually scaring me off a bit. Keep in mind I'm used to skiing on some beat up Armada park skis (full camber though).

    Is a Jeffrey 96 a realistic east coast quiver of one for all but the deepest days?
    I ski ice on them more than I would like to. Once you get used to it, it's fine, you just might be sideways more than you would be on a cambered ski

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

  18. #7193
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by _Ryan_ View Post
    I'll still be skiing park on this ski (but a lot less than I used to). I've thought a lot about the woodsman or the master blaster but I'm not ready to give up the versatility of a full twin.

    Still want to slide the occasional rail, land and ski switch pop off of rollers etc
    I have a pair of masterblasters. Super funnnn

  19. #7194
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    610
    j96s should be pretty much perfect for what you want. If you want a slightly more directional and chargy version then go Woodsman96, though for playful stick with a fair bit of stoutness and a high speed limit j96s should be perfect. I would chat with ON3P and ask their recommendation for length, though the longer would probably be the more versatile. It is not like Jeffs are full rockered, just that the rocker lines are faily deep.

    I would imagine that most park skis are not created to slay pure ice, so Jeffs + ice = shait is a mismatch that is kinda perhaps overly communicated by now. ON3Ps feel amazing on everything from hard snow to soft snow through pow - so go for it I say. On pure ice carvers are what is called for, but how often does one use carvers to get freestyly in the park?

    Sure, something like Fischer Ranger FR 102s could be an alternative to Woods96s, but if you wanna give the quality craftmanship and stellar designs that is ON3P a go Jeff96s are a sure bet to awesomeness.

    Not to be too positive or anything.

  20. #7195
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    j96s should be pretty much perfect for what you want. If you want a slightly more directional and chargy version then go Woodsman96, though for playful stick with a fair bit of stoutness and a high speed limit j96s should be perfect. I would chat with ON3P and ask their recommendation for length, though the longer would probably be the more versatile. It is not like Jeffs are full rockered, just that the rocker lines are faily deep.

    I would imagine that most park skis are not created to slay pure ice, so Jeffs + ice = shait is a mismatch that is kinda perhaps overly communicated by now. ON3Ps feel amazing on everything from hard snow to soft snow through pow - so go for it I say. On pure ice carvers are what is called for, but how often does one use carvers to get freestyly in the park?

    Sure, something like Fischer Ranger FR 102s could be an alternative to Woods96s, but if you wanna give the quality craftmanship and stellar designs that is ON3P a go Jeff96s are a sure bet to awesomeness.

    Not to be too positive or anything.
    Thanks for the input. This is closer to the response I expected.

    Not expecting the J96 to be an ice crusher. Just wanted to know how it feels when conditions aren't ideal (which I'll be facing a lot of)

  21. #7196
    Gman's Avatar
    Gman is online now Mack Master William Large
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Beantown
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Doremite View Post
    Gman, you in VT now or just ski here? Thought you were MA based.
    Still in Boston but trying to spend as much time as possible in VT. Buddy of mine just bought a house in Pittsfield and we have friends in the Stowe/Morrisville area. I'd love to move up to VT full time but need to find the right opportunity first.

  22. #7197
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by _Ryan_ View Post
    Just wanted to know how it feels when conditions aren't ideal (which I'll be facing a lot of)
    Jeff96s aren't designed to slay blue ice, and will prob be no less stellar at it than most freestyle oriented skis of its ilk. Again, something like FR 102s (mounted well forward of the line) or Rustler 9/10s might be slightly more grippy when the ice gets blue, but at a tradeoff for playfulness and ON3P's bombproof construction. Hard snow does not equal ice though, and jeff96s should slay groomers no worse than your regular park/freestyle ski I would imagine. Less camber to cause grip, but more supportive mid section - so just put the skis over all the way on edge and carve like you mean it and they should be fine.

    In variable Jeff96s should punch above their weight due to their supportive mid ski. I have not ridden 96s, only 98s, and they at least were fairly supportive underneath the foot. I would only size down for park skiing. As has been mentioned jeff96s do have fairly deep rocker lines and a centered mount point, so by going short(er) you give up some top end speed for added butterability/freestyle gumption. By going with the longer of the two lenghts (unless you are very light) you end up with a ski that handles speed better and also probably handles variable better (since you have more of the supportive center of the ski to help punch through stuff). Jeffs are not as able as say wrens in making variable a disappear, but by staying centered and popping from bump to bump (instead of just motoring through) you still have plenty of speed potential in variable.

    I dunno - the "jeffsy sucks on ice" mantra is getting a bit excessive at times. I found both my kartel98s and 108s to be a ton of fun, especially in softer snow (pure bliss on sun baked spring corn) Jeffs are sure more versatile than for instance wrens for the days when you do not wanna go full throttle and vary your turn shapes.

    I've never skied on the east coast though.

    sorry for going on and on. Brevity is not one of my strenghts.

  23. #7198
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    2,989
    Quote Originally Posted by detrusor View Post
    Serious question.

    Do I need goats to go with my super goats?
    I think most of the guys that ended up with both ended up finding they preferred one over the other. So just something to keep in mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by jackattack View Post
    Based on my experience with the Steeple. When the BG goes on a diet it becomes a noodle. A shorter, touring oriented SG would not be a noodle.
    Quote Originally Posted by 2FUNKY View Post
    Gotcha. Softer would be no bueno. If they could keep it stiff it seemed like the right tool for the job you wanted it to perform.
    Quote Originally Posted by VON View Post
    I have to say I find that kind of hard to believe. My BG's flex pretty damn stiff. Great for inbounds chop, but if I were taking them into the backcountry I'd happily have them flex 20% softer.
    Steeple flex profile is super different from the stock BG. A Skinny Goat - which we've made a few times - would be a pretty different ski from a Steeple of any width, as the profile is a lot more progressive which gives you a lot more power. Steeple had a very round flex profile.

    Anyone wanting a Skinny Goat for inbounds would want to go with something with that stiffer, more aggressive platform.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    Was taking care of
    Some business in Tacoma today and snapped this pic...Attachment 292122
    Blast from the past.

    Quote Originally Posted by tuco View Post
    I think versatility is more a function of the shape than actual width.
    Bingo. That said, still not ready to design and build the like....7 pairs of Woodsman 124 we would sell.

    Quote Originally Posted by _Ryan_ View Post
    Sizing question for the Jeffrey 96.

    I will likely be picking up a set of Jeffrey 96s as an east coast daily driver. I'm 6'2" and currently ski either a 176cm park ski or a 188cm Ranger 108. The Jeffrey would mostly be a replacement for my current park sticks. I'll still be taking the occasional park lap, but most of my time is going to be in the trees or ripping groomers.

    What do you think about the 181 Jeffrey vs the 186? I'm weighing tight-tree maneuverability / ease of spinning of the 181 vs the longer effective edge (east coast ice) of the 186.
    I would personally lean 186cm unless you are crazy light.

    Quote Originally Posted by _Ryan_ View Post
    How is the edge hold when conditions are really firm or even icy? I've nver had a ski with that much rocker before
    Quote Originally Posted by _Ryan_ View Post
    Was expecting to hear that they're not great on ice, but you all are actually scaring me off a bit. Keep in mind I'm used to skiing on some beat up Armada park skis (full camber though).

    Is a Jeffrey 96 a realistic east coast quiver of one for all but the deepest days?
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    Skis that are good on ice: race skis
    Skis that are not good on ice: beat up old Armada park skis

    The Jeffrey may not be an amazing ice ski, but when your frame of reference is beater park skis, they'll be fine. Yeah the running length is shorter, but they're also most likely way stiffer torsionally. They'll do fine.
    Quote Originally Posted by _Ryan_ View Post
    Thanks for the input. This is closer to the response I expected.

    Not expecting the J96 to be an ice crusher. Just wanted to know how it feels when conditions aren't ideal (which I'll be facing a lot of)
    Per usually, Adrenalated puts things in perspective.

    If you are comparing the Jeffrey to a metal ski (Enforcer, MB, etc) designed for really good edge hold, it won't compete. If you are comparing it to rockered freestyle or park ski, it holds it own like everything else - all of which are going to have limitations regarding edge grip.

    We definitely have a more off piste centric style, but we send a ton of Jeffrey 96 and 108 both to the Midwest & East Coast without issue. Like any ski, you will know where it excels and where it doesn't and adjust accordingly. So if you want something that is fun and stable in trees/soft snow/moguls, fully park capable, while remaining functional too and from on hard snow, Jeffrey is a good option.

    Your park use would be the question, because that is where the Jeffrey would really outperform a lot of the hard snow centric skis (which, vice versa, will out perform the Jeffrey in a frontside capacity). Give us a call if you want to discuss more.
    Seriously, this canít turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  24. #7199
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    2,989
    Quote Originally Posted by VON View Post
    Does anyone else find it a little odd that the Billy Goat is so completely and conspicuously absent from Blister reviews?

    As a current BG owner (and it seems like there are a lot of us - or is that just a TGR thing?), I'd definitely be curious to hear more info about how other 115-ish skis compare.
    Lack of Blister review on the BG just as we haven't sent one their way in awhile. Hoping to get them on the 2021 though.

    Quote Originally Posted by jackattack View Post
    I just want a lighter, slightly shorter (more maneuverable) super goat for side country and touring. Is that a Billy Goat? I donít think so.
    We've talked about a mid-high 180 SG as well...if there was ever interest.
    Seriously, this canít turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  25. #7200
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    2,078
    Quote Originally Posted by iggyskier View Post


    We've talked about a mid-high 180 SG as well...if there was ever interest.
    Tempting.

Posting Permissions

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