Page 343 of 351 FirstFirst ... 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 ... LastLast
Results 8,551 to 8,575 of 8752
  1. #8551
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,800
    Obligatory ON3P quiver shot for Mr. Pretzel.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20200327_120245.jpg 
Views:	117 
Size:	1.37 MB 
ID:	322515
    189 BG
    193 SG AF(backups)
    193 SG AF on line w/STH16steel
    191 C&D line w/ Shift
    191 Caylors line 4frnt Aattack 18
    191 Caylors(backup)
    187 Proto Woodsie w/ Aattack 13 demos atm. Hopefully remount w/ATK FR14 on line? Bought purposely because it was stiffer than production, has less sidecut and less taper. Let my brother ski them, his 1st ON3P experience. His first comment was " these are the easiest skiing skis I've ever been on"
    191 Wren. Not sure whether to fix gaped out rear P18 holes and reuse holes or fill and remount w something else

  2. #8552
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    775
    Sweetness!

  3. #8553
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    727
    Sick! I love those caylors and the SGs look killer with the STH steel!

  4. #8554
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Big Guy Country
    Posts
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by mtskibum16 View Post
    Iím 5í10Ē and 170. ON3P said theyíd usually put someone my size on the 182 but that the 187 would certainly be doable. Iím still torn.
    5'9", 165lbs and the 187 WD108 is my daily driver at Bridger (tight terrain with open runouts).

    I ski upright (I don't think I've ever initiated a single turn by driving the tips of my skis) and I still find the 187 WD108s plenty maneuverable.

    I also ski 184BG (pow) and 186 Jeffrey 108 (rock skis/dick around) if that gives you any reference.

  5. #8555
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    154
    I'm 5'11" 170lbs and ride the 184cm wren 96. In the woodsman I would go 182. I could rock the 187 in the 116 as a deep day ski but the 184 wren is plenty of ski and unless you're trying to rage 100% of the time, the 182 woods will also be plenty. Sure I could ski the 187 and make it work but I think I would rather be on the 182 most days. If you truly needed the 187 you'd probably know.

  6. #8556
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by CallMeAl View Post
    5'9", 165lbs and the 187 WD108 is my daily driver at Bridger (tight terrain with open runouts).

    I ski upright (I don't think I've ever initiated a single turn by driving the tips of my skis) and I still find the 187 WD108s plenty maneuverable.

    I also ski 184BG (pow) and 186 Jeffrey 108 (rock skis/dick around) if that gives you any reference.
    That is helpful. Grew up skiing Bridger and the 184 BG is my favorite ski ever. How would you compare the feel of the 186 Jeffery to the 187 Woodsman? With the Jeff I feel pretty confident I'd go 186 with a mount on the line. Seems odd to me that a 187 Woodsman has the same EE as a 186 Jeffery. Good to hear you are happy with the 187 at Bridger given the tight/steep stuff there.

    Quote Originally Posted by TeleBeaver View Post
    I'm 5'11" 170lbs and ride the 184cm wren 96. In the woodsman I would go 182. I could rock the 187 in the 116 as a deep day ski but the 184 wren is plenty of ski and unless you're trying to rage 100% of the time, the 182 woods will also be plenty. Sure I could ski the 187 and make it work but I think I would rather be on the 182 most days. If you truly needed the 187 you'd probably know.
    As soon as I swing one way someone else tugs me back the other way. ON3P via email did say "Wren 184 skis quite a bit longer than Wood 182." I know there's more to a ski than the EE, but since that's all we have to compare: 184 Wren (153), 182 Woodsman (144.5), 187 Woodsman (149), and for kicks 184 BG (140.5). I know there are times I'd wish I had both having a fast and playful style. Just starting to think that the playful might be the right way to lean.

  7. #8557
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    12
    thanks for all of the information and advice y'all-definitely going to look into the woodsman as another potential option!

  8. #8558
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,538
    Quote Originally Posted by jackstraw View Post
    Tight trees shorter is probably better...eastcoast style. Which is me and I went longer. So yeah, don't listen to me. I'm an idiot.
    Thanks?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #8559
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    2,506
    Quote Originally Posted by mtskibum16 View Post
    As soon as I swing one way someone else tugs me back the other way. ON3P via email did say "Wren 184 skis quite a bit longer than Wood 182." I know there's more to a ski than the EE, but since that's all we have to compare: 184 Wren (153), 182 Woodsman (144.5), 187 Woodsman (149), and for kicks 184 BG (140.5). I know there are times I'd wish I had both having a fast and playful style. Just starting to think that the playful might be the right way to lean.
    flip a coin

  10. #8560
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    355
    The type of snow someone is skiing on also matters as it pertains to EE - the softer the snow, the more EE you'll have.

    ON3P specifically designed its skis for the heavy PNW snow...so for those of us on the East coast ice it seems it seems like a less appropriate ski except for the fact that manmade snow always feels a little heavy and manky and they absolutely rock for that. I find that at our home resort there's usually at least one trail on which they made snow, and I'd rather have an "okay" ski on the ice to get there and then lap it on my ON3Ps. This holds true for anything manmade, slushy, or cruddy that happens within 30 minutes of a storm (powder doesn't last here).

    The compromise, however, is that intuitively the tip rocker of the ON3Ps doesn't engage quite as readily on firm groomers (East coast "firm" - West coast firm is a good day for us). Thus, on my wider model ON3Ps (OG Jeffrey 110s) I actually went a bit shorter (181 rather than 186) because if I'm using them it's because there's soft snow, the tips will engage, and I'll also head for the trees. On the narrower ones I found that myself at times wishing I had a bit longer ones ones so that they're less twitchy en route to any snow stashes and then they still maintain a great amount of maneuverability. I loved my Wren 88 in 179 but they can get a little twitchy on very firm stuff (again, I reiterate, for which they weren't designed). Ergo snagged a Woodsman 96 in 182 and, because "I need another pair of skis like I need another pair of skis", considering trying a Wren 96 in 184 for that reason.

    Realize this is rambling but, in summary, because of snow conditions on the East coast I'm counterintuitively finding myself going a little fatter and shorter (Jeffrey 110 181s) or thin and longer (Woodsman 96 182s or Wren 96 184s).

    Anyone else with this experience? Always curious to learn from others given that not much demo opportunities for the skis I like out here.
    Originally Posted by jm2e:
    To be a JONG is no curse in these unfortunate times. 'Tis better that than to be alone.

  11. #8561
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Big Guy Country
    Posts
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by mtskibum16 View Post
    How would you compare the feel of the 186 Jeffery to the 187 Woodsman?
    JF108 requires a balanced upright stance to ski fast through choppy runouts, whereas WD 108 is more lenient when it comes to remaining stable no matter where I'm pressuring the ski (tip, center, backseat). The WD108 requires more skier input than a JF108 or BG does to throw sideways, but it only took me a couple of days for that to become auto pilot (after skiing the JF108 for the past ~9 seasons).

  12. #8562
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Orthoski View Post
    Realize this is rambling but, in summary, because of snow conditions on the East coast I'm counterintuitively finding myself going a little fatter and shorter (Jeffrey 110 181s) or thin and longer (Woodsman 96 182s or Wren 96 184s).

    Anyone else with this experience? Always curious to learn from others given that not much demo opportunities for the skis I like out here.
    I’ve had the same experience with ON3P skis. I've found I prefer the wider powder ski at a shorter length, and vice versa. (for reference I am 5'6" 140lb).

    I ski the BG in the 174 length, and love it. I’ve also owned the 179, but prefer the 174. It has plenty of float for deep days, and is just easier and more fun. For the narrower ski in my quiver I’ve had the Wren 98 in a 174 and 179, and definitely prefer the 179. I think this is because as the snow gets harder, which is when you’re on a narrower ski, you need a longer effective edge. The fact is even the narrower ON3P skis are built like powder skis, with tons of rocker. By comparison my Rossi Experience 88 170 effective edge is from the tip to tail, and longer than any of them.

  13. #8563
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    cow hampshire
    Posts
    5,070
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnwriter View Post
    Thanks?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Sure! Anything else?

    Honestly, I've never skied anything shorter than a 186. Typically I've been on 190+ boards. I think people overthink ski length. And today with all the rocker the effective edge length is most important to me.

  14. #8564
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by jackstraw View Post
    Sure! Anything else?

    Honestly, I've never skied anything shorter than a 186. Typically I've been on 190+ boards. I think people overthink ski length. And today with all the rocker the effective edge length is most important to me.
    Iím 100% overthinking it. But when I hear guys like you who normally ski 190+ then went with 187 Woodsman I second guess going that big. Probably just need to flip a coin. Though 182 isnít available now anyways, but Iím also thinking itís a good time to remain liquid given the current economic climate.

  15. #8565
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,800
    My 187 Woodsman is damn near same length as my 191 Boneshakers.

  16. #8566
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,639
    Quote Originally Posted by tuco View Post
    My 187 Woodsman is damn near same length as my 191 Boneshakers.
    191 Boneshakers are definitely shorter than their stated length. My old orange and white 188 megawatts were a couple of cm longer than the Boneshakers you bought off of me.

  17. #8567
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Kopi_Red View Post
    191 Boneshakers are definitely shorter than their stated length. My old orange and white 188 megawatts were a couple of cm longer than the Boneshakers you bought off of me.
    Megawatts were?
    Yeah, thanks for those. You & NWSkier sent those fuckers ready to rock! Still haven't mounted them yet. Going to have to mount a fresh pair for next season. Either your old pair or some Carlos I picked up.
    That ski is still the GOAT!! Do everything crusher in a 125! Had a Head athlete @ the Bird tell me he thought it was the best ski Head had made too. He wished they would reissue as well.

  18. #8568
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    cow hampshire
    Posts
    5,070
    Quote Originally Posted by mtskibum16 View Post
    Iím 100% overthinking it. But when I hear guys like you who normally ski 190+ then went with 187 Woodsman I second guess going that big. Probably just need to flip a coin. Though 182 isnít available now anyways, but Iím also thinking itís a good time to remain liquid given the current economic climate.
    Not to make it more difficult, but the they have a 182 available in the 108 if that's what you're looking for.
    https://nextadventure.net/woodsman-1...dsman-108.html
    Link is whacked, but the boards are there.

  19. #8569
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    395
    Thanks for the link. Hmmm

  20. #8570
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    27
    Billy goats in their natural habitat
    Name:  ezgif-4-7e3bfc795f5c_3.gif
Views: 738
Size:  1,014.7 KB

  21. #8571
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    775
    Sweet! And yes - that gif sums BGs up fairly well

  22. #8572
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    395
    My newest addition to the quiver. 182 Woodsman 108. Custom top sheet but stock otherwise. Thanks kid-kapow for the heads up on these! Now if only I didnít have to wait so long to use them.

    Name:  IMG_8216.JPG
Views: 585
Size:  164.2 KB

  23. #8573
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    775
    Those look sweet!

  24. #8574
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    395
    Yeah I'm really happy with the top sheet. Doesn't really come through in pics but looks great in person. My first textured top sheet too. I think I'll be happy with the 182. Bought these from a ripping skier that's 5'11" (didn't mention his weight) and he was very happy with the size. The 182 was ON3Ps rec too for my 5'10" 170lb self. Pretty stoked!

  25. #8575
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    215
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1115.jpg 
Views:	160 
Size:	1.08 MB 
ID:	324857Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1013.JPG 
Views:	160 
Size:	1.28 MB 
ID:	324858

Posting Permissions

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