ON3P SKIS Discussion

[auvgeek]

Going to post a pair of last year's 182 Woodsman 108 Tours in gear swap. If anyone is interested I'll skip that process. Skis are in Bend/HR/PDX

Dang! Wish they were the 187. I'd be all over that.

[auvgeek]

But the more I look at the tail the less sense it makes. There's ~15cm more taper over the M102, and both skis have the same total splay back there. With a -5.5 line. Is it some sort of a pseudo-pintail?

I don't think so. The Woodsman should have a fairly traditional tail.

[detrusor]

Snowbird today was a supergoat day


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[kid-kapow]

great end to the year: Blister's yearly lineup runthrough with the man, the myth, the legend - IggySkier himself!

and it totally explained my BG flex musings - I always assumed the 182 to be a 184 cut down to size as the dimensions lined up, but alas - it is a 179 that has grown. I'll prob be fine, but I def prefer 184s to 179s flex pattern / skiabbility wise (aka the softer flexing 179s could just be loaded to give these crazy pops, where 184s will just power through in the same instances without loading/popping as hard - it made me ski the 179s a bit cautiously at times, not wanting to produce a pop to launch me into the stratosphere ). Perhaps I should have gotten a pair of 187s or a custom stiffer 182 - time will tell. I'm sure my current pairs will ski well too

[SupreChicken]

2014 BG is still the shizzle


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Yup. Confirmed

[Bandit Man]

Snowbird today was a supergoat day


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Love it!!


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[auvgeek]

Yup. Confirmed

Still my all-time favorite pow ski.

[eSock]

Spent Thursday on my BG116s and Friday on my BG108Ts and it really blew me away how well the BG spirit translates to the skinnier tour version. Was my first time taking the tours inbounds and getting more than 1 run on them and it really helped things click, feeling way more confident going into future tours now. The first run felt a little weird (like most of my tours thus far) but by the third run I felt like I was back on my normal goats and was getting after it.

Happy to hear Scott back on the podcast! I look forward to when manufacturing issues get ironed out and not having enough skis to demo/review isn't a problem anymore.

In regards to ON3Ps being unisex skis - if that's the case, where is the offering for anything under 170cm length that isn't a women specific ski? I would love to get my female friends on a billy goat/woodsman, but they all ride in the 150-160s range.

[Brasso]

Fully with you there eSock. I know loads of female skiers I'd love to get on a pair of ON3Ps so they can see for themselves, but sizing is always the issue.

FWIW I haven't listened to the podcast episode with Scott yet, but perhaps it's already answered in there.

Yesterday was Day 1 on my WD110 in 187cm and they were stellar. I didn't push it hard, but my preliminary notes are that they ski exactly how I'd expect them to. They have a more freestyle than the wrens (Wren 108 in 189cm), so the tail doesn't kick your ass, but it still blows up chop and actually pivots really nicely in moguls. It releases from a turn easier than the wren. Basically everything that you've read about the woodsman vs wren is true. [emoji1690]

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[kid-kapow]

In regards to ON3Ps being unisex skis - if that's the case, where is the offering for anything under 170cm length that isn't a women specific ski?

It is probably in the works, aka on what is probably a pretty substantial to do list.

The Mera102 and Jessies are just Woods102 and Jeffs in shorter lengths as I am sure you are aware, so it kinda seems logical that as the gender-specific brands go away that the main lines are offered in two/a few or somewhat size specific graphics. Iggy has also stated multiple times that shorter length BG sales were few and far between, so it seems pretty reasonable that producing them is on the back burner with them struggling to keep their most popular SKUs in stock. But I totally understand that Iggy want to have a few pairs of the shorter lengths in stock before updating the site.

Gender specific skis never made much sense to me other than for graphics - so it sounds like a shrewd move and in tune with the current consolidation on what skis are offered as stock and what will have to be offered through customs. I also like that a given ski is offered in the same waist widths in all lengths, instead of changing like some brands do.

[Bandit Man]

Happy to hear Scott back on the podcast! I look forward to when manufacturing issues get ironed out and not having enough skis to demo/review isn't a problem anymore.

That’s what you took from the podcast? Scott shared that demos don’t make sense anymore. Ski hills won’t allow it and it doesn’t make sense to go to the trouble of making skis you won’t make any money on when you are selling more skis than ever. I heard him more or less say that he doesn’t see the value of demos. He needs more material and capacity (humans and space) to meet demand.

In regards to ON3Ps being unisex skis - if that's the case, where is the offering for anything under 170cm length that isn't a women specific ski? I would love to get my female friends on a billy goat/woodsman, but they all ride in the 150-160s range.

The shortest BG ever made was a 174. My kid owned one of those rare pairs. What Scott shared was that they are using their sales data to maximize their manufacturing output. Most skis are going to be between 102 and 118 in the waist and in lengths that are in demand. He did say that custom orders make up more of the demand than ever before but he also suggested that those options will remain limited and in a “pre-packaged, you pick from the options we give you” kind of way. I agree more shorter length options would be nice, but it seems like they would rather put capacity into lengths and models that are sure to sell.

[eSock]

It is probably in the works, aka on what is probably a pretty substantial to do list.

The Mera102 and Jessies are just Woods102 and Jeffs in shorter lengths as I am sure you are aware, so it kinda seems logical that as the gender-specific brands go away that the main lines are offered in two/a few or somewhat size specific graphics. Iggy has also stated multiple times that shorter length BG sales were few and far between, so it seems pretty reasonable that producing them is on the back burner with them struggling to keep their most popular SKUs in stock. But I totally understand that Iggy want to have a few pairs of the shorter lengths in stock before updating the site.

Gender specific skis never made much sense to me other than for graphics - so it sounds like a shrewd move and in tune with the current consolidation on what skis are offered as stock and what will have to be offered through customs. I also like that a given ski is offered in the same waist widths in all lengths, instead of changing like some brands do.

Yeah, I'm aware of the relation and lucked out and found some 161 Jessie 108s in the secondhand market that I got for my gf (she loves em), but as things stand now, I couldn't get anything of that sort for her from ON3P and was about to pull the trigger on some Bellas instead. I am curious what prevents the shorter lengths from being offered as custom options, since 162 Jessie 108s existed so recently, why wouldn't that be offered custom (even if it was as a 161 jeffrey 108)

That’s what you took from the podcast? Scott shared that demos don’t make sense anymore. Ski hills won’t allow it and it doesn’t make sense to go to the trouble of making skis you won’t make any money on when you are selling more skis than ever. I heard him more or less say that he doesn’t see the value of demos. He needs more material and capacity (humans and space) to meet demand.

They don't make sense when you're struggling to keep up with current demand. Like Jonathan mentioned, when skis get reviewed/demoed, that generally creates more demand. So yeah, since they can't meet demand right now, makes sense they don't want to do reviews/demos which would put even more strain on them, but I look forward to a future where they do have the capacity to do so.

The shortest BG ever made was a 174. My kid owned one of those rare pairs. What Scott shared was that they are using their sales data to maximize their manufacturing output. Most skis are going to be between 102 and 118 in the waist and in lengths that are in demand. He did say that custom orders make up more of the demand than ever before but he also suggested that those options will remain limited and in a “pre-packaged, you pick from the options we give you” kind of way. I agree more shorter length options would be nice, but it seems like they would rather put capacity into lengths and models that are sure to sell.

Yeah, mostly just curious why shorter lengths of their most popular skis aren't offered in customs.

[cocoapuff]

Yesterday was Day 1 on my WD110 in 187cm and they were stellar. I didn't push it hard, but my preliminary notes are that they ski exactly how I'd expect them to. They have a more freestyle than the wrens (Wren 108 in 189cm), so the tail doesn't kick your ass, but it still blows up chop and actually pivots really nicely in moguls. It releases from a turn easier than the wren. Basically everything that you've read about the woodsman vs wren is true. [emoji1690]

I'll second this. Of course only one day on them as well but my impressions were similar. At 5'9" 150lb the 187 did work me a bit in bumps and trees but in open terrain or consistent snow they were stellar. Ripped groomers too. And to be fair still quite manageable in trees. For a larger rider/stronger skier than I, I wouldn't foresee much trouble in trees and bumps. Felt Wren-like but more forgiving in tails much like described in podcast. Also felt more intuitive than the OG 108 from two winters ago. The more reward mount, progressive tail, and driveable shovel was a strong move IMO. Well done Scott.

[auvgeek]

I was a bit disappointed to learn from the podcast that the Woodsman took a substantial part of the Wren market share, and as a result ON3P tweaked the Woodsman to be closer to the Wren. That probably makes sense for their customer base and I can't fault Scott for making decisions to keep his business afloat. But I've skied a Jeffrey 110 inbounds since 2015 -- I'd love a touring ski that's similar but a touch more directional without the huge twin. Sounds like that was last year's Woodsman 108 more than this year's WD110...

I am curious what prevents the shorter lengths from being offered as custom options, since 162 Jessie 108s existed so recently, why wouldn't that be offered custom (even if it was as a 161 jeffrey 108)

Yeah, mostly just curious why shorter lengths of their most popular skis aren't offered in customs.

Just a guess, but it sounds from the podcast that Scott's goal is to get custom production closer to stock production. Swapping out molds is likely part of the production slow down, and I'm guessing very few people are ordering the small sizes.

[cocoapuff]

I was a bit disappointed to learn from the podcast that the Woodsman took a substantial part of the Wren market share, and as a result ON3P tweaked the Woodsman to be closer to the Wren. That probably makes sense for their customer base and I can't fault Scott for making decisions to keep his business afloat. But I've skied a Jeffrey 110 inbounds since 2015 -- I'd love a touring ski that's similar but a touch more directional without the huge twin. Sounds like that was last year's Woodsman 108 more than this year's WD110...

Auvgeek. I think we've talked about this before. I would love to see a flatter tailed Jeff as well. Perhaps -6 mount. The Woods is definitely an easier going Wren rather than a more all-mountain Jeff.

[Bandit Man]

There was definitely a lot of interesting information in that podcast. Here were my take-aways:

- clarification on the Magnus story
- supply chain impacts have been huge!
- demand is healthy for ON3P skis especially in the 102-110 waist widths
- custom demand has increased and is becoming a larger percentage of the business. AKA - skis are like Barbies. We like it when we can dress them up the way we like.
- bamboo is getting harder to source as core material and that could be a challenge that forces new construction choices in the future if it continues as an unmitigated risk to production.
- Demos don’t make sense. ON3P doesn’t need them (right now) to sell units.
- Blister might bet some demos to test…someday…maybe
- Wrens are likely going to custom only next year.
- Woodsman is more Wren and less Jeffrey.
- BG118 is now more of a powder ski and a better ski than a WD116 (and why it was dropped)
- Asym had mixed responses and added too much production cost to remain on the BG line.
- C&D will likely get a re-design and update when current stock is depleted by will also be a custom option. AKA - don’t sell enough of them to maintain a yearly production run.
- Charlie Murphy’s are made from leftovers and what not.
- Everyone loves 50/50 layup. Or, your thick base comes at a substantial weight penalty.

I’m sure there are lots more. Really recommend the podcast. It was insightful.

[kid-kapow]

I am curious what prevents the shorter lengths from being offered as custom options, since 162 Jessie 108s existed so recently, why wouldn't that be offered custom (even if it was as a 161 jeffrey 108)

Did you ask if they would build you a pair in your desired length? They are usually more than accomodating, often of more than the builder gives as standard options.

Also, a 161 Jeffrey 108 = a 161 Jessie 108 - only difference being branding and topsheet

Also, keep in mind that Iggy is talking about changes that are coming pending stock availability wrt size specific offerings, their internal processes being realigned post-Jeff close call and the production of 2.5 months worth of customs - not changes that have been made already.

I’m sure there are lots more. Really recommend the podcast. It was insightful.

For sure - always a highlight!

you left out the teasers of stuff that is coming - 3x mango lines including the production version of the St. Lucas (mango 110), as well as more limited runs. 2022 ought to be a fine time to be an ON3P fan boii.

I'd love a touring ski that's similar but a touch more directional without the huge twin. Sounds like that was last year's Woodsman 108 more than this year's WD110...

I am not so sure. While WD108tours were great - loose and forgiving - the new WD110 is pretty easy going too, especially out back. The rocker lines out front is pretty similar too, and it is not like the new WD110 shovels are monsters - the og108 is still more ski.

So it at a + 1 to 2cm mount or some such could be pretty close to what you are describing. The WD110s slightly stiffer forebody and slightly mellower tail compared to WD108s together with the tour layup's rounder flex sounds a pretty good contender for what you are describing imho.

[Norseman]

The shortest BG ever made was a 174.

False. My wife rides 166cm BG from 2014.

[Bandit Man]

False. My wife rides 166cm BG from 2014.

I had no idea. That’s kinda cool she got to ski one. I only recall the 174’s, but those were like 2016’s or something like that.

[HAB]

I had no idea. That’s kinda cool she got to ski one. I only recall the 174’s, but those were like 2016’s or something like that.

There were 166s for a few years, and then a 164 in... I think 15/16.

[Norseman]

There were 166s for a few years, and then a 164 in... I think 15/16.

Yep.

[kid-kapow]

from this thread, it is almost like NW_Skier likes the new BGs - hopefully you are ok with this re-post

I'm on the new 187cm BG 118 this year. Alpental skier primarily. I used to ride the 186cm Automatic and although that ski was more fun and playful in soft pow, the BG kills it in chop.

They rage. Are they heavy? Yeah. But you get used to it, and there's something to be said for having a ski that crushes everything you point it at. Also, that added stability from the weight/damping properties gives you more stamina as a direct result of having to input less into the ski to maintain your line choice.

They are also fun on groomers. Just stand on them and roll your ankles over. Big GS arcs all the way back to the lift corral. Watch out for small children, deer, jerrys, ect....you won't feel them.

Some here have commented the new BG isn't as good as the older 2014ish BG. As I have both, I'm calling shenanigans. If you ski the front of your boot and get the fuck off your tails, the new tail design and improved shovel flex pattern kill it. Scott and the boys at ON3P nailed this ski. No question.

For reference I am 5'10 160 pounds.
Maybe closer to 170 with my gear and beer.

I don't get the other posts on the BG - it seems fairly uncontroversial that a ski that is longer, stiffer and has more camber might be a tad more cumbersom at lower speeds and that some mags might prefer the asyms (shorter, less camber,more tail splay), but what do I know.

I will hopefully get on my pair tomorrow - fingers crossed

[UCMERIP]

This year I’ve got 11 days on the 184 BG 108t. I rode my 18/19 184 BG(116) 4 days this year and probably close to 100days over the last two seasons.
For reference; I’m a big kid, 6’ 215lbs and tougher than pine knot! I currently ski central Idaho down through Utard.

The 116’s are hands down my favorite ski. They float, ride over the few things they don’t plow through and are extremely turny/loose. They do just fine on a groomer. While I don’t grab them for groomer days, I wouldn’t feel to disadvantaged as long as it’s not ice.

The 108s we’re ordered with a stock layup. I didn’t want to lose the BG’s burly, stompy character. I’m not concerned with the weight as it was intended to be a slack country, get back up to the chair tool.

The 108s have not disappointed for their intended use. I feel like these rise up and and float at least as well as the asym goats. They definitely stomp the chop and crud. For the first 10 days I wasn’t keen on their performance on groomers. They definitely required 110% focus on the steep and firm. Way more unpredictable than the 116s but not what I’d call hooky. It felt like a tune issue so I had a local tech toss a tune at them. Cleaned up the edges and a bit more detune of the tips and tails. New ski entirely. I’ll definitely be able get back to the chair! I do notice the longer turning radius on the 108s more so than the 116s. I think it has to do with how much more hard snow the res sees at the 108 width.

[jackattack]

This year I’ve got 11 days on the 184 BG 108t.

The 108s we’re ordered with a stock layup. I didn’t want to lose the BG’s burly, stompy character. I’m not concerned with the weight as it was intended to be a slack country, get back up to the chair tool.

Picking nits: Stock layup isn’t a “108t”

No doubt they rip.

[UCMERIP]

Picking nits: Stock layup isn’t a “108t”

No doubt they rip.

agree on both points