Page 396 of 402 FirstFirst ... 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 ... LastLast
Results 9,876 to 9,900 of 10049
  1. #9876
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southside of heaven
    Posts
    3,073
    Quote Originally Posted by shroom View Post
    comparison to bonafide required
    Ha! My "review" was pretty pathetic. The following is based off of 100+ days on the old 187 bonafides and only 5 on the 184 Wren 96 Tis:

    Powder: withholding judgment
    You're not buying these skis to ski pow. Bones skied pow fine once up to speed. Based on the W96s flex and shape I'd say they'd probably win here.

    Hardpack: Bonafides
    The Bonafides absolutely rail hardpack. I had a lot of fun hauling ass on those and never found their speed limit. They're confidence inspiring to the point of standing on top of a straightline, like One Man or Sisters Chute at Kirkwood, and pointing them with a huge smile on your face.

    Bumps / soft bumps: W96s
    These skis are actually fun in the bumps. The bonafides punished me for being a shitty bump skier. The W96s on the other hand make bumps halfway enjoyable. I'm able to get a decent pop out of the tail and don't have to work nearly as hard through a bump run.

    Crud / Cut up mank: jury's still out
    I can release the tail much easier on the Wren but I'm not sure if I'll be able to power through cutup mank as easily as I was on the bones.

    In short, it's hard to compare the two skis. They're both fun in their own right. I'd go W96 if you told me I could only have 1 ski. Give me the option to pair it with a BG, I'd take the bonafides.

  2. #9877
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    seatown
    Posts
    3,519
    niiiice thanks for that.

    i thought the wren108 was a great pow ski so hope your experience in soft stuff is positive there.

    your inputs jive with my thought process, i’ve been having a ton of fun skiing primarily a (short) brahma + caylor combo but still looking a bit in that daily slot. fortunate to get a few good caylor days already but may jump on the BG train soon

    Name:  Image1610518735.948402.jpg
Views: 578
Size:  178.9 KB

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Image1610518752.451920.jpg 
Views:	101 
Size:	262.0 KB 
ID:	357626

  3. #9878
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Portlandia
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by K1mJ0ngTr1ll View Post
    How do people feel about the ability to drive the tips of a Jeffery if they are mounted -2 from recommended?
    I feel like you are looking for a different ski.
    Training for Alpental

  4. #9879
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    111
    Wren98 has more than decent floatation. Sometimes, on a powder day, I find it even more fun that its wider siblings. A very capable, do-it-all ski and out of my quiver it sees most days per season.

    On groomers they hold edge nicely, but the tail is fairly easy to overpower while carving.
    Attached Images Attached Images        
    Last edited by aanev; 01-13-2021 at 09:21 AM.

  5. #9880
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by PhiberAwptik View Post
    I feel like you are looking for a different ski.
    Very well could be. Spoke with Scott about the woods vs jeffery and he said the Jeffery mounted back 2 would be a more forgiving option, which is what I am after. I was just curious if I could drive the tips when I needed/wanted to.

  6. #9881
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Portlandia
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by K1mJ0ngTr1ll View Post
    Very well could be. Spoke with Scott about the woods vs jeffery and he said the Jeffery mounted back 2 would be a more forgiving option, which is what I am after. I was just curious if I could drive the tips when I needed/wanted to.
    Can you drive the tips, yah. Can you drive the tips like a cambered directional ski? Maybe, but i feel like it skis better more centered. I guess my concern is that you're looking for a forgiving ski, but worried about the mount vs a traditional one, and driving the tips...Kinda why the woodsman came about.
    Training for Alpental

  7. #9882
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Rossland
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by PhiberAwptik View Post
    Can you drive the tips, yah. Can you drive the tips like a cambered directional ski? Maybe, but i feel like it skis better more centered. I guess my concern is that you're looking for a forgiving ski, but worried about the mount vs a traditional one, and driving the tips...Kinda why the woodsman came about.
    I agree, you can definitely drive the tips but the turn engages differently than a ski with less rocker or full camber. I find them pretty intuitive for my style. They have a speed limit on firm stuff but it's still pretty damn fast. Hasn't stopped me from beating all my friends to the bottom.

  8. #9883
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Portlandia
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by FullStop View Post
    I agree, you can definitely drive the tips but the turn engages differently than a ski with less rocker or full camber. I find them pretty intuitive for my style. They have a speed limit on firm stuff but it's still pretty damn fast. Hasn't stopped me from beating all my friends to the bottom.
    Yah, I DD a J108. And it still trucks at the recommended mount.
    Training for Alpental

  9. #9884
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Vinyl Valley
    Posts
    1,364
    Quote Originally Posted by optics View Post
    Digging around for beta on this but search function...you know...

    Who's on the 191 K/J108?

    I had the 186. Liked them for a lot of things but felt like they gave up too much on hardpack (washy tails etc) and don't want a separate dedicated hardpack ski.

    Never tried moving the mount back.

    Tried a first-gen woodsman 108 but didn't click. Never tried fixing the tune since I've never had any tunes issues with many on3p's over the years- but seems like others had their dislikes flipped by fixing the tune.

    Now considering either doing a new J108 in 186 (I think sidecut changed to help with 2d-snow issues since I had mine?) and mounting back a bit - or maybe doing the 191.

    For you guys on the 191, how much of a bump did you see in hardpack performance just via the extra EE? Are you all on the line?
    I've been skiing a veneer standard layup, 191 J108 on the line the past few days on an ice-bump in the midwest, so grain of salt and all that... Grips well on firm conditions but if I'm planning on all-day firm groomers, I'd choose something else, like my LP. Any hint of soft snow and these carve just fine. I'll definitely bring the 191 J108 out west with my 190 Bibby.

    That said, I'm getting a prototype, slightly stiffer 20/21 layup, 186 J108 mounted -2 behind the line and can tell you about the similarities and differences between the different lengths after I get some time on them.

    Quote Originally Posted by MHSP1497 View Post
    I’m on this year’s 191’s and they’re alright on hard pack. Mine have a softer layup tho, so that may affect their performance. Basically, just have to reduce the speed and they’re fine. In everything else they’re awesome.
    Quote Originally Posted by K1mJ0ngTr1ll View Post
    How do people feel about the ability to drive the tips of a Jeffery if they are mounted -2 from recommended?
    Not sure if "driving the tips" is what I'd call it, but I feel like I use the front half of my foot to make them go where I want. It has a smaller turn radius than I'm used to so maybe I'm feeling some of that.

  10. #9885
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Rossland
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by PhiberAwptik View Post
    Yah, I DD a J108. And it still trucks at the recommended mount.
    Same, been really liking the 116 lately though.

  11. #9886
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    A little to the left
    Posts
    1,895
    Quote Originally Posted by skuff View Post

    That said, I'm getting a prototype, slightly stiffer 20/21 layup, 186 J108 mounted -2 behind the line and can tell you about the similarities and differences between the different lengths after I get some time on them.
    Awesome. Thanks.

  12. #9887
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    2
    Hey all, been trying to follow this thread for a bit and think I'm sold on getting some BG's. Just moved to Colorado from EC and hoping new skis might bring some snow! Anyways, I'm 5'8/150 but an advanced, aggressive skier. I have two pairs of skis that are between 95-108 underfoot and are 180 and 182 in length. Looks like 179 BGs are sold out, so I'm deciding if the 184's will be too much ski or not. I believe they may ski big, but curious to hear others opinions if they will be a good fit or not.

    Also, if anyone is in Telluride or Silverton and wants to meet up sometime when it snows, let me know!

  13. #9888
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    On the mountain
    Posts
    578
    My new Billy Goat 108 Tour’s showed up yesterday (Thanks Iggy and Team!). These things are exactly what I wanted and hoped for... Just went w/ the bone-stock ones because I didn’t want to wait, pics coming when I mount them up with the Tectons that also arrived yesterday, just waiting on Jigarex plates.

    The specs (undrilled):

    184cm
    Right ski = 1762.4 grams
    Left ski = 1754.9 grams

    That’s 7.5 grams difference between the skis, or a quarter-bag of weed back in the day w/ a little extra to make up for stems. Now, if only the weather would stabilize out here in Oregon so that I can try them out!

  14. #9889
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,861
    Quote Originally Posted by regan2489 View Post
    Hey all, been trying to follow this thread for a bit and think I'm sold on getting some BG's. Just moved to Colorado from EC and hoping new skis might bring some snow! Anyways, I'm 5'8/150 but an advanced, aggressive skier. I have two pairs of skis that are between 95-108 underfoot and are 180 and 182 in length. Looks like 179 BGs are sold out, so I'm deciding if the 184's will be too much ski or not. I believe they may ski big, but curious to hear others opinions if they will be a good fit or not.

    Also, if anyone is in Telluride or Silverton and wants to meet up sometime when it snows, let me know!
    FWIW I'm 5'9" 145lbs and ski the 184 BG and feel it's absolutely the right length for me. I generally like skis in the 182-187 range depending on the ski.
    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. #9890
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by regan2489 View Post
    Hey all, been trying to follow this thread for a bit and think I'm sold on getting some BG's. Just moved to Colorado from EC and hoping new skis might bring some snow! Anyways, I'm 5'8/150 but an advanced, aggressive skier. I have two pairs of skis that are between 95-108 underfoot and are 180 and 182 in length. Looks like 179 BGs are sold out, so I'm deciding if the 184's will be too much ski or not. I believe they may ski big, but curious to hear others opinions if they will be a good fit or not.

    Also, if anyone is in Telluride or Silverton and wants to meet up sometime when it snows, let me know!
    IMO 179 would be borderline too short, 184 spot on. They are very light, pivoty and easy to ski.

  16. #9891
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    ColoRADo
    Posts
    5,793
    Quote Originally Posted by regan2489 View Post
    Hey all, been trying to follow this thread for a bit and think I'm sold on getting some BG's. Just moved to Colorado from EC and hoping new skis might bring some snow! Anyways, I'm 5'8/150 but an advanced, aggressive skier. I have two pairs of skis that are between 95-108 underfoot and are 180 and 182 in length. Looks like 179 BGs are sold out, so I'm deciding if the 184's will be too much ski or not. I believe they may ski big, but curious to hear others opinions if they will be a good fit or not.

    Also, if anyone is in Telluride or Silverton and wants to meet up sometime when it snows, let me know!
    This place is too soft now. GTFO JONG.

    Now, with that out of the way, go 184. That size fits a lot of people. At your height and the fact you are no longer on the East Coast where shorter skis are better, you will want to go with 184. Being on a 179 in the San Juans would be a disappointing experience IMO. I am slightly taller than you, and 45lbs heavier, and I still ski the 184 most places, but bring out my 189 when I travel down by you.
    You should have been here yesterday!

  17. #9892
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by regan2489 View Post
    Hey all, been trying to follow this thread for a bit and think I'm sold on getting some BG's. Just moved to Colorado from EC and hoping new skis might bring some snow! Anyways, I'm 5'8/150 but an advanced, aggressive skier. I have two pairs of skis that are between 95-108 underfoot and are 180 and 182 in length. Looks like 179 BGs are sold out, so I'm deciding if the 184's will be too much ski or not. I believe they may ski big, but curious to hear others opinions if they will be a good fit or not.
    I'd say 179cm for ya... But I'm 6'2" and prefer my 186 to my 189. The TGR manly men might tell you to size up though to enhance your testicular fortitude...

  18. #9893
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by regan2489 View Post
    Hey all, been trying to follow this thread for a bit and think I'm sold on getting some BG's. Just moved to Colorado from EC and hoping new skis might bring some snow! Anyways, I'm 5'8/150 but an advanced, aggressive skier. I have two pairs of skis that are between 95-108 underfoot and are 180 and 182 in length. Looks like 179 BGs are sold out, so I'm deciding if the 184's will be too much ski or not. I believe they may ski big, but curious to hear others opinions if they will be a good fit or not.

    Also, if anyone is in Telluride or Silverton and wants to meet up sometime when it snows, let me know!
    One more opinion for what it's worth. I'm a little smaller than you, 5'7" 140-145lb. I've owned the 174 and 179. I'd recommend the 179. Similar to other skis in the 180-182 length. Also a traditional mount point (around -9cm?). So it'll have plenty of float and stability. Comment above "They are very light"; not sure about that.

  19. #9894
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,861
    Yeah "very light" is not how I would describe the stock ON3P non-touring layup. Also, not very light IMO is a good thing for an inbounds ski.
    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!

  20. #9895
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by PowTron View Post
    This place is too soft now. GTFO JONG.
    Ok.

    Thanks for the info Phiber and Skuff. I appreciate it.

  21. #9896
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    3,458
    Quote Originally Posted by regan2489 View Post
    Hey all, been trying to follow this thread for a bit and think I'm sold on getting some BG's. Just moved to Colorado from EC and hoping new skis might bring some snow! Anyways, I'm 5'8/150 but an advanced, aggressive skier. I have two pairs of skis that are between 95-108 underfoot and are 180 and 182 in length. Looks like 179 BGs are sold out, so I'm deciding if the 184's will be too much ski or not. I believe they may ski big, but curious to hear others opinions if they will be a good fit or not.

    Also, if anyone is in Telluride or Silverton and wants to meet up sometime when it snows, let me know!
    Another vote for the 184. For sake of comparison, what are your other skis? Are you comfortable “driving a ski”? BG’s are great in soft snow for a skilled pilot.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  22. #9897
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    368
    Data point: I’m 5’6” 145lbs, getting old... for the last 2 seasons my Alpental storm skis have been 184 asym Billy Goats.

    I have never felt like “hey, these skis are too big”, but I do find that I have to be going pretty fast for the skis to get really fun. I think they are more slashy than pivoty. They want to pull across the fall line when they’re sideways. I have some old ARGs, so I think I’m familiar with what pivoty should feel like.

    They are stomp machines that let me get away with lots of dumb stuff in heavy snow. A couple weeks ago I started a day on the BGs and switched to 2012 179 Katanas at lunchtime. I promptly went over the bars on the first 10’ drop. I was expecting a lot more support from the front of the ski.

    Last year, on the Friday of the BBI, I started out on the Katanas and couldn’t keep up with the group. I was getting stuck slogging through the snow. For the second run, I switched to the BGs, which stayed on top of the snow and I had a much better time. In fact, it was the best day of the year for me.

    Unfortunately, I’m going to downsize my boots soon, and the Pivots won’t adjust to fit, so I’ll probably be putting the BGs up for sale. The heels have inserts, so I don’t think it’ll work to just move the heel mount forward.
    U.P.: up

  23. #9898
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    Yeah "very light" is not how I would describe the stock ON3P non-touring layup. Also, not very light IMO is a good thing for an inbounds ski.
    Sorry for some reason I had BG Tour on the brain I agree the stock BG is significantly beefier than the Tour layup...but still very loose, pivoty and easy to ski in anything soft, which I assume is what you're buying it for. I'm sure a 179 stock layup would work, but might feel a little undergunned on the biggest powder days.

    I've only skied the stock 15/16 BG (and newer BG Tour) so not sure if it's changed a lot since 15/16 with flex pattern, but personally I would prefer the rounder and softer touring layup, even for an inbounds ski.

  24. #9899
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,158
    I have mixed feelings about the BG (please don't kill me), but I need to get more days on them. Only have 2 so far. In deep soft snow they feel incredible, but when things get a bit harder - say some bumped out trees with some crud on top I find they require you to stay on your toes and be a very active pilot. You can't be lazy. They are very easy to pivot but I think that's their downside when the snow gets firmer/cruddier - if you get lazy they will literally spin out on you. This sent me face first into the ground a couple times.

  25. #9900
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by thejongiest View Post
    I have mixed feelings about the BG (please don't kill me), but I need to get more days on them. Only have 2 so far. In deep soft snow they feel incredible, but when things get a bit harder - say some bumped out trees with some crud on top I find they require you to stay on your toes and be a very active pilot. You can't be lazy. They are very easy to pivot but I think that's their downside when the snow gets firmer/cruddier - if you get lazy they will literally spin out on you. This sent me face first into the ground a couple times.
    I had a similar awakening on my Cease and Desists. Absolutely love the skis, but it took a day to figure out that on anything packed I had to be 100% on it to not get out of control. I am skiing the 189 which is a lot of ski for me at 170ish pounds. They just want to RUN. I'm a freeheeler and I have learned to conserve energy over the years by making parallel turns in the lame stuff and saving the tele turns for the steep and deep or technical areas (the fun stuff). The C&Ds do not like it when I try to stand up and just skid them around slightly backseat. I've got to be front of the boots in a tele stance to drive them where I want to go. "Active pilot" is a good way to put it. They are totally confidence inspiring at speed, but it can get you into trouble if you're not paying attention. I can't wait until the first big Utah storm cycle to hit (bueller?..) to really get them in their element, but in the two 12+ inch days I have had on them so far they are showing a lot of potential.

Posting Permissions

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