ON3P SKIS Discussion

[Velomayniac]

Isn't it weird how people that design skis for a living seem to do a way better job than people on the internet.

I'm just not as hard core as I thought I was

I'm obviously not core enough for 2x

I just want my regular BG experience back. Hope the 2024 191s are magical.

[Sessiøn]

I'm just not as hard core as I thought I was

I'm obviously not core enough for 2x

I just want my regular BG experience back. Hope the 2024 191s are magical.

Not gonna lie, I remember specific turns on that ski.

[XavierD]

This was how the 2021 192 was for me , as well. I skied it in UT last year and thought it was great. Came home to Alpental and they just didn't work. Got back on my 2014 191s and they felt like they were part of my body.

Man, I wanted the 192 to work for me. Best looking skis I've had. Just didn't work. I've heard moving the mount back can help but I don't want to put more holes in them. Really hoping this new 191s have fixed the issues, but I'll wait for more reviews to hit.

I mean, look at these!

Remount at -1cm for more classic BG feel in the PNW.

For everyone:
The last iteration of the 192 BG got tons of positive response from CO/UT skiers and really didn’t work in the PNW. Remounting back definitely helps out a ton with resorting the old feel for PNW riders. There are significantly more CO/UT skiers on BGs now than PNW, so it makes it hard to immediately change up something that got significant positive feedback from the largest user base. The BG buyer has basically flipped over the last 5-10 years from heavy cascades base, to now heavily biased to the Rockies.

191 has some changes to try and address some PNW complaints but not lose the gains in the Rocky Mountain feedback. I haven’t gotten to ski it yet.

[vermontana]

Looking at the Woodsman 100 tour to potentially replace my ZeroG95s as my low-tide/big day touring ski (mounted with ATK FR14s). Curious if anyone has any feedback for the smaller width Woods tour? or any advice for this quiver spot? the zerogs feel great going up, but they're very locked in turning and twitchy with any sort of variable snow, just want something a damper and overall more loose and fun, willing to sacrifice some uphill efficiency for that. Woods in 187 radius is 20.8 vs 24 for my 185 zerog.

Based in High CO Rockies, I have Moment DWT 112s as my "pow" touring ski although they ski very well in variable conditions. Too much overlap with the 100 woods?

[phatty]

Remount at -1cm for more classic BG feel in the PNW.

For everyone:
The last iteration of the 192 BG got tons of positive response from CO/UT skiers and really didn’t work in the PNW. Remounting back definitely helps out a ton with resorting the old feel for PNW riders. There are significantly more CO/UT skiers on BGs now than PNW, so it makes it hard to immediately change up something that got significant positive feedback from the largest user base. The BG buyer has basically flipped over the last 5-10 years from heavy cascades base, to now heavily biased to the Rockies.

191 has some changes to try and address some PNW complaints but not lose the gains in the Rocky Mountain feedback. I haven’t gotten to ski it yet.

Totally understand they need to do what's best for their business and there's way more Rocky Mountain/Wasatch skiers than PNW. I'm probably just going to sell them on KSL. They are great for out there, but just don't work as well as the old ones here. Plus I have 3 sets of older BGs I bought once these didn't really work the way I hoped. Shifting things around hoping to get them to work in snow they are no longer meant for isn't terribly appealing. Still interested in the new 191 to hear PNW feedback.

[auvgeek]

Looking at the Woodsman 100 tour to potentially replace my ZeroG95s as my low-tide/big day touring ski (mounted with ATK FR14s). Curious if anyone has any feedback for the smaller width Woods tour? or any advice for this quiver spot? the zerogs feel great going up, but they're very locked in turning and twitchy with any sort of variable snow, just want something a damper and overall more loose and fun, willing to sacrifice some uphill efficiency for that. Woods in 187 radius is 20.8 vs 24 for my 185 zerog.

Based in High CO Rockies, I have Moment DWT 112s as my "pow" touring ski although they ski very well in variable conditions. Too much overlap with the 100 woods?

well the woods 100 would be looser for sure. I think the rocker is pretty overkill for a 100 underfoot ski, and would go with the 108 width instead personally. I ski the 187 Woodsman 110 tour in the San Juans as a do-it-all touring ski.

But the ZG 95 is pretty dang stiff and light so there are SO options that would be looser and more fun.

For a big day ski, I would be hesitant to ski something 187 long. (Keep in mind the length difference between Blizzard 185 and ON3P 187 is 5-6 cm). It’s a lot of ski to drag around, and a lot to jump turn. For a low-tide ski, I’d be hesitant with that much rocker.

So yeah, I guess I’d say too much overlap with your DWT, and I’d recommend something with less tip rocker in that spot. YMMV.

[vermontana]

well the woods 100 would be looser for sure. I think the rocker is pretty overkill for a 100 underfoot ski, and would go with the 108 width instead personally. I ski the 187 Woodsman 110 tour in the San Juans as a do-it-all touring ski.

But the ZG 95 is pretty dang stiff and light so there are SO options that would be looser and more fun.

For a big day ski, I would be hesitant to ski something 187 long. (Keep in mind the length difference between Blizzard 185 and ON3P 187 is 5-6 cm). It’s a lot of ski to drag around, and a lot to jump turn. For a low-tide ski, I’d be hesitant with that much rocker.

So yeah, I guess I’d say too much overlap with your DWT, and I’d recommend something with less tip rocker in that spot. YMMV.

That's a good point with regards to length, the 181 Woods100 just seem like they'd ski so short with the rocker. Really wanting to get on a pair of ON3P for touring but yeah probably makes sense to look elsewhere for this quiver spot.

[Velomayniac]

There are significantly more CO/UT skiers on BGs now than PNW, so it makes it hard to immediately change up something that got significant positive feedback from the largest user base. The BG buyer has basically flipped over the last 5-10 years from heavy cascades base, to now heavily biased to the Rockies.

That's too bad for me, but this clarifies a lot. Changes for performance in fluffy snow will affect performance in thicc snow. I always thought RES worked much better in thicker stuff, but maybe that was just me and obviously On3p has different plans for it.

Is that why the Woodsman turn radii got shorter, the CO/UT crowd wanted it? I prefer long radius skis for Tahoe funk, and I thought the PNW crowd did as well.

Welp, looks like I'm out for a while. None of these shapes suit me anymore. Good luck to you all on them though.


Gonna start my prowl for older BGs. I want 2017 189s, I think those are my favorites.

[cocoapuff]

Anyone know if there are any differences in the 2013 Billy Goat and 2014? Both pictured below:

[Sessiøn]

Is that why the Woodsman turn radii got shorter, the CO/UT crowd wanted it? I prefer long radius skis for Tahoe funk, and I thought the PNW crowd did as well.

I would say it's not a region specific thing, but a company cannot grow and thrive based on the wants and needs of niche internet forums.

[EdwardsSki]

Looking at the Woodsman 100 tour to potentially replace my ZeroG95s as my low-tide/big day touring ski (mounted with ATK FR14s). Curious if anyone has any feedback for the smaller width Woods tour? or any advice for this quiver spot? the zerogs feel great going up, but they're very locked in turning and twitchy with any sort of variable snow, just want something a damper and overall more loose and fun, willing to sacrifice some uphill efficiency for that. Woods in 187 radius is 20.8 vs 24 for my 185 zerog.

Based in High CO Rockies, I have Moment DWT 112s as my "pow" touring ski although they ski very well in variable conditions. Too much overlap with the 100 woods?

I ski a 172 20/21 Woodsman 102 as my everyday touring setup around Bozeman. (It was technically a Mera 102 custom with a tour core when I bought them.) IMHO it's the perfect everyday setup here. I have them -1 from recommended because I needed to remount when I switched from F1 LT's to Quattro 4 XTs.

They are considerably shorter than what I ride at the resort (184 Wren 114), but I prefer the lower weight for the absurd approaches in SW Montana. I have even skiied them on 24" of new snow in Cooke--I wish I had a fatter ski, but it was manageable. They hold an edge just fine during low tide and steeps in the spring. I used to have 178 Voile Hyper V6s for my everyday tourer, and the woodsman is a lot more fun to ski because its damp, can make all turn shapes, and it can be driven pretty hard for a short, light ski.

[Irlts]

If I was looking for an all-around ski for skiing the Colorado backcountry, some winter tours, some peak skiing in the spring and I bought the ON3P Woodsman 102 Tour skis would I be happy?

[auvgeek]

I would say it's not a region specific thing, but a company cannot grow and thrive based on the wants and needs of niche internet forums.

True. But Moment seems to do pretty darn well selling >25m radius skis.

[MHSP1497]

If I was looking for an all-around ski for skiing the Colorado backcountry, some winter tours, some peak skiing in the spring and I bought the ON3P Woodsman 102 Tour skis would I be happy?

yes

[Bandit Man]

So, sounds like if you are a PNW skier, you are not the target demographic for ON3P skis?

“Skis built in the PNW…for skiers in the Rockies”

Noted. [emoji6]

[Velomayniac]

True. But Moment seems to do pretty darn well selling >25m radius skis.

I was going to say the same thing. But at this point I feel like I’m beating a dead horse. If their new path is helping them stay afloat (I don’t take anyones word anymore, look at all the bike companies about to go under), or it’s making Iggy $rich$, I completely understand.

[TeleBeaver]

I think it has way less to do with what skiers in one region want vs skiers in another region, and way more to do with the fact that ON3P updates their skis every two seasons, regardless of whether they need it or not. I love the idea of constantly innovating and improving product, but I think there are diminishing returns. I cannot fathom why they would want to change tooling so often, when models are successful and sell well as is. Maybe they don't quite sell well enough, but it seems like some well aimed marketing could bring numbers up vs making minute changes to a shape that new buyers probably won't be aware of, and will frustrate happy customers who want a fresh topsheet of their favorite ski. Moment models this really well. When did they change the shape of the deathwish last? When it came out?? Same for many of their other models. Voile runs the same molds for the better part of a decade and only change the topsheets every 5 years! I'm not saying that they should completely rest on their laurels, but maybe when they find a winning combo they could skip a product update cycle or two.

[Bandit Man]

Hey, I wish ON3P well. I dig many of their skis. If a Billy Goat isn’t a Billy Goat anymore, so be it. I’ll look elsewhere.

[beeeom]

Anyone know if there are any differences in the 2013 Billy Goat and 2014? Both pictured below:

Same ski. Ive got both in a 186. Best ski ever hands down.

[kid-kapow]

Sorry dude - your feelings are clear but your logic is not. What’s the catch 22?

That Iggy in this case could do no right - not respond, wrong, respond after the case being made public, also wrong. I mean, why would he interact with us on here if he'll get critizied whatever moves he makes?

I just meant it was a little late.

sure thing, yet better late than never eh

... I want to be as unbiased as possible, I used to get called out on here for being too positive about On3p like you might be experiencing now.

I was a long time fanboy of On3p back in the day, almost on your level...

When I give my opinion on here I try to be mindful of ON3P being a relatively small brand made and run by a fellow mag and this being a thread that is read by a fair few more people than actually participates in it. So I try to support Iggy and crew as best as I can while also trying to vocal in what I like and perhaps like less in the various skis I've been on from them. And since any perceived negative is amplified on here I try to be a bit nuanced - but more often than not just use to many words and confuse people more than I help. Oh well.

For everyone:
The last iteration of the 192 BG got tons of positive response from CO/UT skiers and really didn’t work in the PNW. Remounting back definitely helps out a ton with resorting the old feel for PNW riders. There are significantly more CO/UT skiers on BGs now than PNW, so it makes it hard to immediately change up something that got significant positive feedback from the largest user base. The BG buyer has basically flipped over the last 5-10 years from heavy cascades base, to now heavily biased to the Rockies.

191 has some changes to try and address some PNW complaints but not lose the gains in the Rocky Mountain feedback. I haven’t gotten to ski it yet.

Thanks - that is very interesting!

well the woods 100 would be looser for sure. I think the rocker is pretty overkill for a 100 underfoot ski, and would go with the 108 width instead personally. I ski the 187 Woodsman 110 tour in the San Juans as a do-it-all touring ski. YMMV.

keep in mind that the new woods has a quite different rocker shape - that is less dramatic splay. I would not hesitate to try either width as general touring ski, though I would probably do what you have done - opt for custom stiffer (at least in the old flex pattern).

To be clear - I agree in terms of the old 102 - their somewhat excessive splay and too round a flex pattern in the 50/50 pattern for my skiing style made them a bit unbalanced / ski short. The new 100 seems better on paper.

I think it has way less to do with what skiers in one region want vs skiers in another region, and way more to do with the fact that ON3P updates their skis every two seasons, regardless of whether they need it or not. I love the idea of constantly innovating and improving product, but I think there are diminishing returns. I cannot fathom why they would want to change tooling so often, when models are successful and sell well as is. Maybe they don't quite sell well enough, but it seems like some well aimed marketing could bring numbers up vs making minute changes to a shape that new buyers probably won't be aware of, and will frustrate happy customers who want a fresh topsheet of their favorite ski. Moment models this really well. When did they change the shape of the deathwish last? When it came out?? Same for many of their other models. Voile runs the same molds for the better part of a decade and only change the topsheets every 5 years! I'm not saying that they should completely rest on their laurels, but maybe when they find a winning combo they could skip a product update cycle or two.

I think the 2 year cycle makes a ton of sense for where they are currently at.

Take the woodsman -> OG, too strong tails for most traditional skiers and as such, not the volume ski it was meant to be, 2nd version more versatile flex pattern for the masses, but arguably too much splay for its shape given their rounder flex pattern -3rd version (current) made stiffer, lower splay, more directional while also discontinuing the wren. The changes make a ton of sense to be, especially across their entire range. I would love for partial titanal underfoot to also become a custom option, but other than that I am really positive for where the range is at.

ON3Ps have been unappologetically off piste focused so far, but Iggy seems to realize that their skis can be enjoyed by even more skiers if made slightly more lively on piste, while retaining the shape and constructions that make them so good off piste. I do not think it is happenstance that most skis in the 100-110 range have similar numbers - they just work.

And yeah, it is unfortunate that they do not have the resources to try the skis across a ton of different areas and skiers of different styles / ability levels such as the big brands can - and that we sometimes thus get skis that perhaps could've needed a bit more tweaks before becoming "dialed", aka just update the graphic and leave them alone - but surely some of them might be getting there. The current range seem to address a lot of the stuff people have pointed out over the past few seasons.

I would love to try all the new jeffs and woods, but alas - no new ON3Ps for me in the foreseeable future due to the exchange rate.

[tuco]

That's too bad for me, but this clarifies a lot. Changes for performance in fluffy snow will affect performance in thicc snow. I always thought RES worked much better in thicker stuff, but maybe that was just me and obviously On3p has different plans for it.

Is that why the Woodsman turn radii got shorter, the CO/UT crowd wanted it? I prefer long radius skis for Tahoe funk, and I thought the PNW crowd did as well.

Welp, looks like I'm out for a while. None of these shapes suit me anymore. Good luck to you all on them though.


Gonna start my prowl for older BGs. I want 2017 189s, I think those are my favorites.

This UT skier ended up targeting proto Woods w/ 'less sidecut, less taper', because I thought the 1st production model tr was lower than I liked/wanted

[TeleBeaver]

ON3Ps have been unappologetically off piste focused so far, but Iggy seems to realize that their skis can be enjoyed by even more skiers if made slightly more lively on piste, while retaining the shape and constructions that make them so good off piste. I do not think it is happenstance that most skis in the 100-110 range have similar numbers - they just work.

But this is what made them SO GOOD. It is like Cy wrote in his article about the Ghost Train; 10X underfoot do everything skis are boring. Give use the specialized, superlative skis that big companies don't make. Hookless RES skis in mank and deep snow are nirvana. Yeah they sucked a bit on groomers, but there were a few tweaks that got then to where I felt the sweet spot was for groomer/slave performance, and now they are moving the needle past that towards a 10X boring ski. The absolute ludicrous top speed wrenegade shapes were unstoppable, and now they barely make a wrenegade and sell the woodsman as a boring 10X shape. I'm being a little harsh, I'm sure the new Woods and Billy's are still better than offerings from other companies, and the magic from the construction cannot be duplicated. It just feels like instead of doubling down on "we started making the skis we wanted to ski that other companies didn't make" they are giving in to mass appeal, and I feel like that is a game that is harder to win. These are all difficulties with growing the company. I wish them the best and will keep my eyes out for a shape that I'm interested in, but I don't love the direction things are headed.

[MoeSnow]

Some of this feedback seems a bit hyperbolic to me.

It also seems unlikely to me that a 4-5cm difference in length would make a ski borderline unusable in one snowpack but amazing in another, all other variables kept the same. Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds a bit ridiculous.

But this is what made them SO GOOD. It is like Cy wrote in his article about the Ghost Train; 10X underfoot do everything skis are boring. Give use the specialized, superlative skis that big companies don't make. Hookless RES skis in mank and deep snow are nirvana. Yeah they sucked a bit on groomers, but there were a few tweaks that got then to where I felt the sweet spot was for groomer/slave performance, and now they are moving the needle past that towards a 10X boring ski.

ON3P still has this ski in its catalog. Current Billy Goat still has RES and a turning radii that starts at 27.8m in the smallest size. I would not describe the shape of the newer J118s or BG as something that looks hooky and dialed for groomer performance...

Sure, there isn't anything offered in the 10x category that has a large turning radius, RES, and whatnot. But I think this is a sane design decision. The 10x skis are marketed as daily drivers and most folks would expect that a ski that will see a fair amount of time on groomers (even if it's just time spent getting from powder stash to power stash) is at least somewhat engaging there.

[TeleBeaver]

Some of this feedback seems a bit hyperbolic to me.

You're right I am being dramatic tbh. Go skiing with your friends.

[phatty]

Some of this feedback seems a bit hyperbolic to me.

It also seems unlikely to me that a 4-5cm difference in length would make a ski borderline unusable in one snowpack but amazing in another, all other variables kept the same. Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds a bit ridiculous.



ON3P still has this ski in its catalog. Current Billy Goat still has RES and a turning radii that starts at 27.8m in the smallest size. I would not describe the shape of the newer J118s or BG as something that looks hooky and dialed for groomer performance...

Sure, there isn't anything offered in the 10x category that has a large turning radius, RES, and whatnot. But I think this is a sane design decision. The 10x skis are marketed as daily drivers and most folks would expect that a ski that will see a fair amount of time on groomers (even if it's just time spent getting from powder stash to power stash) is at least somewhat engaging there.

Have you skied both? I have the 192 and old 191s. The 192 absolutely skis groomers wayyyy better than the 191. They absolutely truck on groomed. My problem was they gave up PNW powder performance for that and it's a trade I didn’t want to make.