Page 298 of 329 FirstFirst ... 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 ... LastLast
Results 7,426 to 7,450 of 8221
  1. #7426
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,440
    What @margotron and @Norseman said.

    No one is looking to undo all of the current inbounds/bamboo goodness but rather to supplement with a lighter "NON3P" sibling.

    Will the market support that in an ON3P? Beats the hell out of me.

    I was stunned at how burly the Steeples I demoed a few years ago were, and I could easily see them being an inbounds, daily driver. Others "need" Supergoats. I get that.

    ... Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  2. #7427
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    colorady
    Posts
    1,339
    Have you tried inflating the bamboo with helium?

  3. #7428
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,603
    I just want the Steeple to be competitive with Raven/Hoji, Katana, BC Ferox, and keep in mind all these other brands are going to thinner bases/edges and lighter woods to get weight down. Iggy has stated he won't compromise on bases/edge and I'm fine with that.

    Steeple request list:
    112 width, I would even be fine with 110 - let's decide on one Steeple width so ON3P doesn't need to go crazy with SKUs and molds
    189 length
    1900-2000g @189
    I would consider less tail rocker as well if it works (a la Supergoat)

  4. #7429
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    322
    Mounting my own fuckin' skis. 2010 Wrens (thanks oftpiste!). Not seeing a bit size printed on them anywhere, I'm assuming 3.6x9.5 because no metal?

  5. #7430
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by robnow View Post
    I just want the Steeple to be competitive with Raven/Hoji, Katana, BC Ferox
    Steeple request list:
    112 width, I would even be fine with 110 - let's decide on one Steeple width so ON3P doesn't need to go crazy with SKUs and molds
    189 length
    1900-2000g @189
    The last round of 108s weren't that far off of what everyone seems to be looking for. I don't know what the 189s were weighing in at, but my 184s came in at ~2168 grams. Mine are towards the heavy end of the production run for that year based on average weight posted on the website at the time. I am well aware of the cumulative impact of weight in a touring setup, but we're starting to split hairs here (which should surprise nobody). On the one hand people weren't super happy with Steeples because they didn't ski enough like their other ON3P skis, while on the other people are saying change everything about the ski except the shape to make it lighter. I'm not sure this approach would deliver the unicorn that we seek. A significant part of the ON3P magic is the core construction and composition. If we take that away we probably loose most of the amazing on snow feel that ON3Ps deliver and find ourselves on an OK ski that is 200 grams lighter. There are already lots of those skis out there, so I can see Iggy's reluctance to jump into this crowded corner of the market. How would such a ski differentiate itself from the crowd?

  6. #7431
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    colorady
    Posts
    1,339
    Maybe I'll just lose 20 lbs and buy another pair of BG's with Shifts for myself as a reward. Nah, IGGY MAKE ME SOME 1500g BG's!!!!

  7. #7432
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In a parallel universe
    Posts
    4,700
    Quote Originally Posted by californiagrown View Post
    I think ON3P should make these un-ON3P skis under a different LLC/Brand called NON3P, and name them the WeightWeenies. This way, the TGR crowd gets what they want, and ON3P doesnt risk blowing their reputation for stiff, heavy, damp PNW-centric skis.
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    (snip) supplement with a lighter "NON3P" sibling.
    Dual brand strategies fail more often than not by a fair margin.
    They are also more costly.

    ON3P is fully capable of launching a tour specific line (if they want) without comprimising thier current lift access reputation.
    The market will ultimately decide if they have created something that skiers want.

  8. #7433
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,603
    Quote Originally Posted by Reformed View Post
    How would such a ski differentiate itself from the crowd?
    I agree that the original Steeple 108 is pretty much what I'm looking for but you tell me what other ski out there:
    - 190 length
    - one backcountry ski to handle most of the winter with a heavy bias toward soft conditions
    - surfy with a hookless design (RES-like)
    - relatively traditional mount point (more than let's say...-8?)
    - relatively straight sidecut
    - relatively flat, NOT full reverse camber
    - pintail helps for that soft snow bias
    - decent weight with a 400g MTN or similar

    Admittedly I am intrigued by the flat cambered WNDR but that has a more progressive mount point of -6, I'm interested to hear more on it.

  9. #7434
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Reformed View Post
    The last round of 108s weren't that far off of what everyone seems to be looking for. I don't know what the 189s were weighing in at, but my 184s came in at ~2168 grams. Mine are towards the heavy end of the production run for that year based on average weight posted on the website at the time. I am well aware of the cumulative impact of weight in a touring setup, but we're starting to split hairs here (which should surprise nobody). On the one hand people weren't super happy with Steeples because they didn't ski enough like their other ON3P skis, while on the other people are saying change everything about the ski except the shape to make it lighter. I'm not sure this approach would deliver the unicorn that we seek. A significant part of the ON3P magic is the core construction and composition. If we take that away we probably loose most of the amazing on snow feel that ON3Ps deliver and find ourselves on an OK ski that is 200 grams lighter. There are already lots of those skis out there, so I can see Iggy's reluctance to jump into this crowded corner of the market. How would such a ski differentiate itself from the crowd?
    2168 - that's 736g/pair (1.6 Lbs.) more than an 1800g ski or 536g. per pair (1.2Lbs.) over a 1900g. ski. Maybe it would be a commercial flop, or perhaps this is too damned light for Iggy's design sensibilities (I get that), in which case, I should just keep my sites set on Moment, Down, etc. For the record, I lean toward not sacrificing burly bases and edges and realize there's a weight penalty, but 2168 is 140g. heavier than my Enduro/Carbon GPOs (182).

    ... Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  10. #7435
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    3,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Reformed View Post
    There are already lots of those skis out there, so I can see Iggy's reluctance to jump into this crowded corner of the market.
    A large part of it is that we don't have to. There is no pressure on keeping the factory building year round without a touring offering. Hence, while we've been testing for awhile, there is no rush to release an update. Even with our volume increasing every year, our existing sales are matching that increase. A tour addition would take production capacity from other skis, not increase it. Now if it takes capacity from the "right" skis, it is a win for us.

    And yeah we would never dual brand, because we wouldn't put out a ski we weren't fully behind. I have one distinct exception I would love to do sometime, but you know...time.

    Now as far as dENO snowboards goes...who knows.
    Seriously, this canít turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  11. #7436
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,574
    BUT THERE ARE 4 PEOPLE ON TGR THAT WILL DEFINITELY PROBABLY MIGHT BUY THEM PERHAPS if, you know, it falls around payday
    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!

  12. #7437
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    5,054
    I bet it's more like 7.
    PE, Mechanical Engineering
    University of Bridger Bowl Alumnus
    Alpental Creeper

  13. #7438
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue
    Posts
    5,296
    Quote Originally Posted by ACH View Post
    Dual brand strategies fail more often than not by a fair margin.
    They are also more costly.
    So. Can we get an ON3V brand for a women's line? I assume I'm getting that initialism right

  14. #7439
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,720
    Can someone price police me? I’m probably going to sell my 13/14 186 BGs, only used a small handful of days, mounted once for FKS14, almost-minty, pillow fight top sheets. With or without bindings. What should I expect?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D2C6206F-528E-460E-ACD6-97E5811CFA82.jpeg 
Views:	199 
Size:	285.0 KB 
ID:	303109
    "High risers are for people with fused ankles, jongs and dudes who are too fat to see their dick or touch their toes.
    Prove me wrong."
    -I've seen black diamonds!

    throughpolarizedeyes.com

  15. #7440
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by Bean View Post
    Can someone price police me? Iím probably going to sell my 13/14 186 BGs, only used a small handful of days, mounted once for FKS14, almost-minty, pillow fight top sheets. With or without bindings. What should I expect?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D2C6206F-528E-460E-ACD6-97E5811CFA82.jpeg 
Views:	199 
Size:	285.0 KB 
ID:	303109
    I don't know what a fair price would be, but I might be willing to pay whatever that is.

    Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk

  16. #7441
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Driving2VT
    Posts
    3,359
    Quote Originally Posted by HAB View Post
    Mounting my own fuckin' skis. 2010 Wrens (thanks oftpiste!). Not seeing a bit size printed on them anywhere, I'm assuming 3.6x9.5 because no metal?
    Correct to my understanding. Anyone?
    Uno mas

  17. #7442
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    720

    ON3P SKIS Discussion

    Yeah or 3.6x9 or 3.5x9. Whichever one isnít 4.1, itís that one.

  18. #7443
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    A little to the left
    Posts
    1,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Bean View Post
    Can someone price police me? Iím probably going to sell my 13/14 186 BGs, only used a small handful of days, mounted once for FKS14, almost-minty, pillow fight top sheets. With or without bindings. What should I expect?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D2C6206F-528E-460E-ACD6-97E5811CFA82.jpeg 
Views:	199 
Size:	285.0 KB 
ID:	303109
    250-300 flat (the high end for someone who really loves the top sheet...$). Add 75-100 for bindings, but also subtract $25 more to ship them mounted.

  19. #7444
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by iggyskier View Post
    A large part of it is that we don't have to. There is no pressure on keeping the factory building year round without a touring offering.
    Seems like no reason to take this on, other than as a "research project", or perhaps as a hedge against changes in the market.

    ... Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  20. #7445
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    3,028
    Quote Originally Posted by iggyskier View Post
    Are those skis coming in lower than the listed weights?

    Moment says 1925g for 190 WC Tour.

    Can't find weights for the 192 BC, only 184cm (for which the 1800g is given).
    Name:  bueller.jpg
Views: 447
Size:  139.2 KB

    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    Seems like no reason to take this on, other than as a "research project", or perhaps as a hedge against changes in the market.

    ... Thom
    I don't think that is reading my statement how I intended, even though I gave a (vague but layered) reason in the response. Just that we're able to do this on our own timeline - a perk when the construction change involves something as vital as the core. I haven't held back my thoughts on some of the tour cores out there. I'm not interesting in putting out a ski where I share those same thoughts.

    Like I said initially before we were off to the races, we're not not working on it. If/when we're there, we'll say so.
    Seriously, this canít turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  21. #7446
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,574
    Quote Originally Posted by optics View Post
    250-300 flat (the high end for someone who really loves the top sheet...$). Add 75-100 for bindings, but also subtract $25 more to ship them mounted.
    Bindings seem about right. I feel like the skis might be worth a little more? Dunno though, I have an affinity for that generation Billy Goat but I know used skis are worthless anymore.
    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!

  22. #7447
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    5,054
    Quote Originally Posted by iggyskier View Post
    Name:  bueller.jpg
Views: 447
Size:  139.2 KB



    I don't think that is reading my statement how I intended, even though I gave a (vague but layered) reason in the response. Just that we're able to do this on our own timeline - a perk when the construction change involves something as vital as the core. I haven't held back my thoughts on some of the tour cores out there. I'm not interesting in putting out a ski where I share those same thoughts.

    Like I said initially before we were off to the races, we're not not working on it. If/when we're there, we'll say so.
    Thank you for the response.

    I'll hang it up.

    Is it winter yet?
    PE, Mechanical Engineering
    University of Bridger Bowl Alumnus
    Alpental Creeper

  23. #7448
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    322
    Quote Originally Posted by Doremite View Post
    Correct to my understanding. Anyone?
    Quote Originally Posted by lucknau View Post
    Yeah or 3.6x9 or 3.5x9. Whichever one isn’t 4.1, it’s that one.
    Thanks

  24. #7449
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southside of heaven
    Posts
    3,012
    How does a Woodsman 116 compare to a Rustler 11? The skis look very similar from a pure dimensions perspective.

    There seem to be many threads where the Rustler is highly recommended and highly touted. Is this a factor of market exposure? Is it because the Rustler has been out longer?

    1) Iím curious to hear if these skis are more similar than different

    2) If the two skis are similar, is thereís a spot in the quiver for both a W116 / Rustler 11 and a BG / CD for west coast skiing? Or would this be better served with a Wren 98 / 108 + something in the 115+ category


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  25. #7450
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Los Angeles/Mammoth
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by iggyskier View Post
    Name:  bueller.jpg
Views: 447
Size:  139.2 KB



    I don't think that is reading my statement how I intended, even though I gave a (vague but layered) reason in the response. Just that we're able to do this on our own timeline - a perk when the construction change involves something as vital as the core. I haven't held back my thoughts on some of the tour cores out there. I'm not interesting in putting out a ski where I share those same thoughts.

    Like I said initially before we were off to the races, we're not not working on it. If/when we're there, we'll say so.
    My 17/18 190 Bibby tours (now Wildcat Tours) are coming in at stated weight of 1925 grams.

    Scott: If you dont want to make touring skis, dont do it. No need to fold to pressure of TGR. You make amazing heavy skis, and in my mind, thats what differentiates ON3P from the rest.

    No need to try to fit a square peg in a round hole.

    When i want to go touring, i bust out my Bibby tours or Wildcat 108 tours. When i want to smash inbounds pow, i strap on my 196 Pillowfights.

Posting Permissions

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