Page 314 of 343 FirstFirst ... 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 ... LastLast
Results 7,826 to 7,850 of 8561
  1. #7826
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    56
    Anyone rocking recent 193 billy goats? Seems like most of the convo is either about recent 189s or older 191s.

  2. #7827
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    731
    Supergoats? If yes, then keep in mind that they are 118 (144/118/127 - 2mm wider waist, 1mm wider in tip and tail vs stock BG quote PowTron) and have less tail rocker

    Lots of feedback on that ski here:
    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...3P-Limited-Run

  3. #7828
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    56
    Hmm, the custom builder doesn't mention anything about the dimensions beyond being 193 length, but it might still be the case it's a super goat. that looks like a great thread to read through, thanks!

  4. #7829
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    A little to the left
    Posts
    1,705
    So....continuing my very expensive pattern of catch-and-releasing new skis instead of just demoing them, I might be offering up a pair of 2020 C&D's.

    They're 189s, custom with the older BG 'oregon map' topsheet. 4 days (or half-days really, til things got really tracked out). 1 mount for sth2, 317, on the line.

    I have no beef with them but if there's less than 12" I am reaching for something else, and I don't think they will see enough use to justify them sitting around waiting for those days. I don't have enough schedule flex to storm chase these days...I'm in 'love the one you're with' mode for my ski days.

    They are incredible in untracked and trees, still great in tracked-out, and surprisingly fun on the groomers getting back to the lift. Super whippable and still stable. And MUCH lighter feeling than you might expect...they look like a lot more ski than how they feel on snow, if that makes sense.

    I'm still hemming and hawing so not posting them up in GS yet, but if anyone's dying for a pair, shoot me a PM.

  5. #7830
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    They will work nicely together. The BG can be skied all day on softer days.

    The C&D will also work, but it depends on how fast your mountain gets skied out, and if you're willing to change skis during the day. For me the C&D gets too cumbersome late in the day.

    MVP/BG could get 50/50 use, MVP/C&D maybe 80/20
    So if I did go with a MVP/BG 2 ski quiver, which one should I put shifts on? I was thinking the MVP because it is almost 400g lighter per ski but the BG is more soft snow oriented...but then again the MVP would probably perform better on icy or hairy terrain. I would probably put an alpine binder on the other one. Thoughts?

  6. #7831
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by brundo View Post
    So if I did go with a MVP/BG 2 ski quiver, which one should I put shifts on? I was thinking the MVP because it is almost 400g lighter per ski but the BG is more soft snow oriented...but then again the MVP would probably perform better on icy or hairy terrain. I would probably put an alpine binder on the other one. Thoughts?
    Never having skied MVP I'll say yes, shifts on them, since they are more allround.
    But it really depends on what conditions you tour in, and how long those tours are relative to your fitness.
    BGs are a soft snow ski, but they're also a pretty good funky 3d snow ski. Breakable crust etc.

    For the price of Shifts and a good alpine binding you could probably throw Cast on both.
    You'll need 1 pair of p18s, 1 pair of any pivot/fks heels (or use inserts for heels), 1 cast kit, and 1 cast second ski kit.

  7. #7832
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    2,447
    Quote Originally Posted by eSock View Post
    Hmm, the custom builder doesn't mention anything about the dimensions beyond being 193 length, but it might still be the case it's a super goat. that looks like a great thread to read through, thanks!
    From the SG thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by iggyskier View Post
    Can be custom ordered in the custom ski builder.

    Would need 18-24 preorders to really consider a dedicated run.

  8. #7833
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    Never having skied MVP I'll say yes, shifts on them, since they are more allround.
    But it really depends on what conditions you tour in, and how long those tours are relative to your fitness.
    BGs are a soft snow ski, but they're also a pretty good funky 3d snow ski. Breakable crust etc.

    For the price of Shifts and a good alpine binding you could probably throw Cast on both.
    You'll need 1 pair of p18s, 1 pair of any pivot/fks heels (or use inserts for heels), 1 cast kit, and 1 cast second ski kit.
    For touring, I ski it all. Everything from blower pow to post rain crap to spring slush to straight ice. Sounds like the MVP will probably handle this better (and they're lighter). I hope to get a dedicated spring/volcano touring setup but for now what I have is just fine.

    I seriously thought about CAST and I really wanted to support the boys out of driggs but I ended up going shift because I have iso 9523 soles (salomon mtn labs) and pivots technically aren't made for iso 9523 soles. I know plenty of people do it, but I'm hesitant to risk any extra risk to my knees, etc. But I recently saw a study that actually said sliding afds don't really do much good but I haven't had the chance to read it yet. Was thinking of making a post here to hear people's thoughts as well.

  9. #7834
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    336

    ON3P SKIS Discussion

    Ok so more Woods 116 thoughts.

    Got em home yesterday, detuned tips and tails, waxed em, no need for structure as the factory pattern was evident.

    We got about 4 inches of wind effected mank here in N. Tahoe.

    First few runs on groomers I was amazed at the change with the detune for the better. It opened up the range of turn shapes on both ends. The skis were very capable and versatile in turn shape. Met up with the posse and hikes ensued. I skied south facing mank, winter north facing chop, and legit south facing corn with some "hot pow" thrown in the mix. They handled it all. I was skiing faster esp on runouts with these things. Deflection was a non issue. Once on the groomed the high speed longer radius turns felt so solid. With a slight push the ski would load up and almost air me through the transition. I really enjoyed em all around but for a 116 waisted ski I was super impressed by the quickness, I'd totally daily these if I didn't have a shitload of other options in the garage.

    More liquidation to likely come in the quiver in the days to come. Got silly with the enthusiasm for the ski tech so I have instant redundancy again in my collection. Spurs anyone??

    I'm impressed. Honestly haven't felt the stoke with a ski since my first few runs years ago on my 193cm Cochise. Grinnin', they are super fun and solid. Great mix for tooling around skiing all aspects. Stoked to try my new BG's and Wren's. ON3P virus in full effect.
    Last edited by tahoepa; 01-23-2020 at 09:12 AM.

  10. #7835
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,557
    I remember those days a few years back, discovering ON3Ps. Iíll be interested to hear how you bond with BGs. My fave

  11. #7836
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    381
    Good stuff on the Woodsman. They sound super solid. I'm still going to try getting on both, but I'm strongly leaning Woodsman 108 over Wildcat 108 at this point. Just seems to match how I actually ski (directional playful) vs maybe how I want to ski (more jibby). I'm surprised there hasn't been more head to head comparisons yet this year.

  12. #7837
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    1,810
    Yeah Iím interested in the woodsman116. Particularly as they come in a 187 as Iíve always been sort of between ON3P lengths.

  13. #7838
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    651
    I’ll get on some woodsman 108s/116s next week hopefully and let y’all know how it goes.

  14. #7839
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    1,319
    PSA

    Thereís a good looking pair of 2015 vintage 179cm BGs with sth2 13 for sale on offer up here in Seattle for $350.

    Solid deal.

    Name:  1bd22f24e6a541fd9288071d0284f6d9.jpg
Views: 339
Size:  121.2 KB

  15. #7840
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    412
    Anyone care to compare BGs and Praxis rx's? I found a little info that said the rx is a little more carvy and the BG is a little surfier but that's about all the info I could find. Looking at their eerily similar shape I'm assuming they ski pretty similar?

  16. #7841
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    5,132
    Sorry bro but the shapes are not similar at all. Suggest reading more.

    BG is a fave... Rx is not.
    PE, Mechanical Engineering
    University of Bridger Bowl Alumnus
    Alpental Creeper

  17. #7842
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,557

    ON3P SKIS Discussion

    Short answer is RX is not in BGs league. I donít find that they ski similar though the waist is the same. Former RX owner with 3 BGs currently (in different sizes/ vintage). I think Norseman has a good take on the topic if he cares or reads this..

    Edit: HA Norse answered when I did.
    Also Iíd say the GPO and BG are more similar

  18. #7843
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by brundo View Post
    Anyone care to compare BGs and Praxis rx's? I found a little info that said the rx is a little more carvy and the BG is a little surfier but that's about all the info I could find. Looking at their eerily similar shape I'm assuming they ski pretty similar?
    Can give you BG vs Quixote (enduro core). BG floats a little more. BG charges heavy chop a little better. Quixote is a bit easier to pivot. Quixote edges/carves better. I take the Quixote out more when the day could be anything, BG out more when the day is going to be deep but chopped up. I rarely find myself wishing for the other ski when I'm out on either, but they do feel different.

    None of the differences are night or day, though the Quixote can be ridden in more varied stances imo, and the BG definitely gives fewer fucks about the quality of the snow.

  19. #7844
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    412
    BG shape on the 189: 143-116-126
    Rx shape on the 189: 141-116-128

    If you saying the shapes are different, I'm assuming one has more taper and probably different camber/rocker shape. Sounds like BG > Rx. But I'm wondering if that's cause I'm posting in the on3p thread ha

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

  20. #7845
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    323
    Those numbers really don't give you enough info. Taper points, rocker profile, weight, core material, mount point, and on and on are different.

  21. #7846
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    5,132
    Waist widths are the same, but...

    BG has reverse sidecut through the front half of the ski (!) and can be called a pintail due to ratios. Also has healthy tail rocker to match tip rocker. A refined, modern soft snow tool.

    Rx has traditional sidecut tip to tail, traditional camber. "Hinged" old school tip rocker, totally trad tail. On firm snow, you're standing super far forward on the edge and they are squirrelly as fuck. Antiquated big mtn powder shape.
    PE, Mechanical Engineering
    University of Bridger Bowl Alumnus
    Alpental Creeper

  22. #7847
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    2,447

    ON3P SKIS Discussion

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	page_14.jpg 
Views:	166 
Size:	125.5 KB 
ID:	312028

  23. #7848
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    Waist widths are the same, but...

    BG has reverse sidecut through the front half of the ski (!) and can be called a pintail due to ratios. Also has healthy tail rocker. Refined, modern soft snow tool.

    Rx has traditional sidecut tip to tail, traditional camber. "Hinged" old school tip rocker, totally trad tail. On firm snow, you're standing super far forward on the edge and they are squirrelly as fuck. Antiquated big mtn powder shape.
    So what's the deal with that dude replying "Rx" to every thread. Doesn't sound like a miracle ski to me

  24. #7849
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    323
    you're right. Soul 7 is the answer.

  25. #7850
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,179
    Quote Originally Posted by brundo View Post
    BG shape on the 189: 143-116-126
    Rx shape on the 189: 141-116-128

    If you saying the shapes are different, I'm assuming one has more taper and probably different camber/rocker shape.
    It's almost like Scott just made a long post/rant about how specs can be similar but totally different on snow for reasons specs like width and EE can't encapsulate.

    Quote Originally Posted by iggyskier View Post
    EE is also something a lot of people struggle with because you can have two skis with the same dims, same ee, same listed radius, and are wildly different. ie.:
    181cm - 135/105/125, 150cm of ee centered at -10, 25m radius (22/28m bi radius split), with a partial twin
    181cm - 135/105/125, 150cm of ee centered at -3, 25m radius (24.5/25.5m hybrid radius), with a full twin.

    On paper those both have same length, same dims, same EE, same radius, but are wildly different skis (even if the flexes were as close as you can get with that sort of binding platform distribution). This is why ski specs are, frankly, just really surface level in their ability to transfer data. The distribution of EE relative to the ski's length is more important in understanding the ski than the length itself.

    This is a similar quirk to why I find 5-dimensional ski specs absolutely ridiculous. Every ski is 5 dimensional, or 7, or 11, or 99. It doesn't tell you anything meaningful. How do I know what point 1 and point 2 mean, relative to where they fall on the skis? it's literally just a number between 0 and the end of the EE on one end of the skis.

    So, I get why it can be hard to understand ski specs (we're working on a system to help people understand, but just hasn't launched yet).

    [... The number one thing we tell people to focus on is balance now - where am I located on the skis - and what is the rocker & sidecut distribution relative to my weight & balance point. That is sort of the ball game here - as if that doesn't match, everything else is moot.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

Posting Permissions

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