ON3P SKIS Discussion

[Falcon3]

I demo'd a Woodsman 100 with ripper rocker. I have been asking Scott for something like this some time. Not taking credit as evolution of design is just natural.

This was also my first time on any generation of Woodsman, and the last directional ski I had was a Wren I bleieve.

The RR was very nice to me, The tip was much more engaged when tipped over on groomers, and flat hard snow. While maintaining the compliance in shit fuck conditions off piste. I think it's a real win for anything you intend to DD. It also let me downsize from the traitional 186 to a 181. I brought a 186 and 181 with me to the hill. The 186 never came off the top of my car.

On the Woodsman as a platform, at least in the 100 width. I got a lot of OG Vicik vibes. The tail is noticable in that it is there and supportive, especially coming from a Jeffrey. But it didn't feel like I couldn't dump the tails when I wanted, and didn't punish me when I got lazy. I really enjoyed myself on that ski, and brought back a lot of stoke.

FWIW. When I brought the demo's back to the factory, I left with a pair of Woodsman 100 ripper concepts.

Anybody been on the Woodsman 100 Tours? I'm looking for a harder-snow touring DD for longer days and non-powder conditions to my Moment DWT (112) and the DWT104 are a little heavier than I'd like, the Woodsman 100 Tour at ~1600g seems like it would be perfect for most non-deep snow conditions if it shares some of the W100 characteristics and doesn't lose too much in the tour layup.

[Yukonrider]

What are the differences between the Woodsman 110s and the 108s? And are there different year 108s?

There are a couple different pair of 108s for sale used here. Looking for a daily driver. Have asym BGs for pow, and some FL105s for chalk days.


Also how are people liking the BGT108? Salt Lake touring, so we do end up skiing lots of chopped up pow, and crust, but also plenty of deep days. My Helio 104s are good some days, but bad many days.

[jacob_dbu]

Attachment 505520

Found these for a great deal (sans bindings) on marketplace. Already had WD110 setup for alpine, excited to see how the tour layup feels to tele on. They feel a bit softer (?) but I could just be making things up.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I have a WD102 tour setup and a regular version. To me the tour version loses the magic that the inbounds version has. It's softer, which is not really the problem - but it also loses it's bouncy rebound characteristic. I'm not sure if that comes down to the core or the thinner base material, but either way it's not the same IMO.

I also find the thinner bases to be quite a bit more prone to damage...but I could be just unlucky.

[Marko888]

What are the differences between the Woodsman 110s and the 108s? And are there different year 108s?

There are a couple different pair of 108s for sale used here. Looking for a daily driver. Have asym BGs for pow, and some FL105s for chalk days.


Also how are people liking the BGT108? Salt Lake touring, so we do end up skiing lots of chopped up pow, and crust, but also plenty of deep days. My Helio 104s are good some days, but bad many days.

IIRC, there are OG 108’s, gen 2 108’s, then the 110’s, and now gen 4 is a 108 again.

the mount point started around -6 and keeps creeping back…now around -8. The radius has crept down with each version. I struggled on my 110’s and so did the friend who bought them…neither of us are sure why…

Spent two days on my new custom soft 108’s last weekend and am really liking them. Went for soft layup as I don’t ski super fast so can trade some stability for maneuverability.

[CallMeAl]

I skied those BG108Ts at the resort yesterday on mostly firm/SF conditions. Very happy with the purchase. I would've gotten worked in the icy bumps if I was on BG118s, but the narrower width made this ski super fun and easy once I got used to them.

Definitely better edge grip than the 116/118s, even with the tour layup, but still likes to be skied like a BG- IE on the balls of your feet. The cadence is smear the RES part of the ski to line it up, and then finish the turn with the sidecut under your foot just like its big brother.

Like any BG, they do not like too much tip pressure in the middle or end of a turn unless you're intentionally skiing sideways. Traditionally speaking, they are not good carving skis, but you can carve on them if you center your weight correctly.

That being said, they do provide plenty of grip on steep/icy entrances. Only mentioning this because I remember seeing somebody concerned about this a bunch of pages back/long time ago.

I let them run a few times and they stayed really quiet at speed on chunder. Exceeded expectations here, being a lighter tour layup mounted with pin bindings. That being said, I'll be ordering a pair with stock core for resort use once my WD108s are ready for retirement.

TLDR: BG108>BG118 on hard snow, still a BG.

[MoeSnow]

Older pair of used Jeffrey 122s in the used section at evo. Looks like a cool shape, reverse camber? Too sensible to buy for myself, someone else please pick them up.

https://www.evo.com/outlet/used/ski-...-demo-bindings

EDIT: looks like they sold, ty to whoever bought haha

[SchralphMacchio]

IIRC, there are OG 108’s, gen 2 108’s, then the 110’s, and now gen 4 is a 108 again.

the mount point started around -6 and keeps creeping back…now around -8. The radius has crept down with each version. I struggled on my 110’s and so did the friend who bought them…neither of us are sure why…

Spent two days on my new custom soft 108’s last weekend and am really liking them. Went for soft layup as I don’t ski super fast so can trade some stability for maneuverability.

I had OG WD 108s and now have two sets of 110s.

OG 108 (from like 2018-2020?) was like a -6.75 mount, with a stiff tail that did not forgive backseat mistakes. Very good ski but I didn’t totally jive with the stance and felt I had to be on my A Game all the time.

Gen 2 108 I think was just one season, I wanna say 2020-2021? IIRC it was a revised core that had a little less weight, mount point moved back -0.75 cm to -7.5, revised tail rocker profile, slightly stiffened tip and slightly softened tail to make the ski more driveable. I never skied it. I don’t think sidecut was changed.

I believe 110 had the same core, core profile and mount point as the Gen2 108, but the ski was widened to 110. FWIW as a directional skier I like the changes from OG to 110. I like it on the line. I currently have one mounted +0.75 and it’s super loose and fun but a touch upright for me.

Current 108 I believe they chopped 1 cm off the tail spacer but mount point intact; this had the net effect of moving the mount back from -7.5 to -8. I’m not sure if the core or core profile were changed from the 110. So with the chopped tail spacer the lengths changed from 177, 182, 187 to 176, 181, and 186. They brought in the waist to 108 but I think left the contact points the same which also tightened sidecut?

I seem to recall Iggy’s Blister interview him saying something like wanting the Jeff and Wood to have the same waist options so that people were buying based on mount point and not based on width.

[Eastside]

A few days on my new to me but pristine 110 Jeffs. They are really loose...and I DD'd a Meridian last year. Firm groomers are spooky AF. They feel good in crud, chopped up pow. Still low tide so I am too chicken to do dumb stuff. I need to get 'em retuned for them to be acceptable on
groomers.

[UpperDaze]

What are the differences between the Woodsman 110s and the 108s? And are there different year 108s?

There are a couple different pair of 108s for sale used here. Looking for a daily driver. Have asym BGs for pow, and some FL105s for chalk days.


Also how are people liking the BGT108? Salt Lake touring, so we do end up skiing lots of chopped up pow, and crust, but also plenty of deep days. My Helio 104s are good some days, but bad many days.

I’ve been rocking the BGT 108’s for a few seasons as my DD touring ski here in the Wasatch and I love them. No complaints whatsoever, they are pretty much the perfect mix of lightweight but also damp at ~1700 ish g per ski. Love the flex, profile and they def punch above their waist in the deep deep. I also have the BG 110 for resort and while I love it in pow, I’m less crazy about it on the groomed, feel like the tails can get hooky, idk maybe a tuning issue.

[K1mJ0ngTr1ll]

Just skied the 110 ripper at Alta with quite a bit of ice with no new snow in the last week and a half. The ripper rocker makes such a difference in these conditions. It doesn’t feel like it loses much playfulness and still seems close to as loose, but if I tip it on edge, I can really get it to hook up. Also feel a bit safer when sliding it down icy patches. Also should help those caught in between sizes.Really stoked on the ski!

[Dhiler17]

I pulled the trigger on a woodsman 92 during the Black Friday sale. First day on it was today at Sunday River on cold firm conditions. Overall I like the ski, but the stock tune really limited them in these conditions. The edges are true, but are not sharp whatsoever. They also have an aggressive detune all the way to the contact points (surprised they went as hard with the detune in this ski since it’s more firm snow oriented). Tails felt really washy and the tips didn’t engage well as a result. Today they were not at all confidence inspiring. My hope is a tune will help them lock in, but I’m not stoked that I feel it necessary to take them to a shop on day one.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[SchralphMacchio]

Interesting feedback, partly because I always detune tip and tail taper super aggressively (literally with a dremel) and then do a mild detune from the widest points to the contact points. I like skis loose even in firm snow and only locked in when I’m pretty tipped over.
Were your vagueness issues mostly on groomed, or also for firm off piste too?
How did the core feel for those conditions?

I bought an Enforcer 94 for shit snow conditions to pair with my Wood 110s every day out in low elevation PNW (high water content, variable refreeze). I really like the E94 but the factory mount point (-8.5?) is a little behind where I have the Woods (-7) and so the ski just wants to be skied a lot differently than the Woods do. The Enforcers want to be shin driven and plowed through things and the Woods at -7 are much quicker to just pivot and flick around and are very loose, the Woods also don’t like quite as much shin pressure at this mount point as they do on the line of -7.75.

I’m contemplating moving the E94 forward to -7.5 … but I would love to A/B test the Wood 92 against the E94!

[SchralphMacchio]

I had OG WD 108s and now have two sets of 110s.

OG 108 (from like 2018-2020?) was like a -6.75 mount, with a stiff tail that did not forgive backseat mistakes. Very good ski but I didn’t totally jive with the stance and felt I had to be on my A Game all the time.

Gen 2 108 I think was just one season, I wanna say 2020-2021? IIRC it was a revised core that had a little less weight, mount point moved back -0.75 cm to -7.5, revised tail rocker profile, slightly stiffened tip and slightly softened tail to make the ski more driveable. I never skied it. I don’t think sidecut was changed.

I believe 110 had the same core, core profile and mount point as the Gen2 108, but the ski was widened to 110. FWIW as a directional skier I like the changes from OG to 110. I like it on the line. I currently have one mounted +0.75 and it’s super loose and fun but a touch upright for me.

Current 108 I believe they chopped 1 cm off the tail spacer but mount point intact; this had the net effect of moving the mount back from -7.5 to -8. I’m not sure if the core or core profile were changed from the 110. So with the chopped tail spacer the lengths changed from 177, 182, 187 to 176, 181, and 186. They brought in the waist to 108 but I think left the contact points the same which also tightened sidecut?

I seem to recall Iggy’s Blister interview him saying something like wanting the Jeff and Wood to have the same waist options so that people were buying based on mount point and not based on width.

I looked at the website and an email I got from ON3P years ago, and have to make some clarifications to this:

- All current mount points can be found on the Custom Ski info page (https://shop.on3pskis.com/products/custom-skis)
- All Mount points are currently scaled by size, and I’m not sure when this started. So the 186 (former 187) is behind the 181 by 0.25 cm, which is behind the 176 by 0.25 cm
- So for a 186 Wood 108, mount points would be: current -8.5, Wood 110 and Gen 2 108 is -8 (but effectively the same as current since the tail was chopped but the mount didn’t move), OG Wood 108 -6.75 (mount was moved back -1.25 when the core profile was changed, to increase drivability and plowability)

[cocoapuff]

I have two pairs of Jeffreys that will likely be going up on GS soon if anyone here is interested first let me know. I love the current 118 so much I decided to go custom with it so I now have up for grabs:

-Current 186 Jeff118 last years topsheet. One mount.

-Also, a 2021 186 Jeff116 one mount.

[Dhiler17]

Interesting feedback, partly because I always detune tip and tail taper super aggressively (literally with a dremel) and then do a mild detune from the widest points to the contact points. I like skis loose even in firm snow and only locked in when I’m pretty tipped over.
Were your vagueness issues mostly on groomed, or also for firm off piste too?
How did the core feel for those conditions?

I bought an Enforcer 94 for shit snow conditions to pair with my Wood 110s every day out in low elevation PNW (high water content, variable refreeze). I really like the E94 but the factory mount point (-8.5?) is a little behind where I have the Woods (-7) and so the ski just wants to be skied a lot differently than the Woods do. The Enforcers want to be shin driven and plowed through things and the Woods at -7 are much quicker to just pivot and flick around and are very loose, the Woods also don’t like quite as much shin pressure at this mount point as they do on the line of -7.75.

I’m contemplating moving the E94 forward to -7.5 … but I would love to A/B test the Wood 92 against the E94!

Vagueness was mostly on groomed terrain, but still present off piste. I hand filed the side bevel to sharpen them a bit before heading out this morning. A sharper edge helped, but they still require high edge angles to grip and rip with the rocker profile (on and off piste). Tails washed on me in some chalky steeps today and I almost went for a ride. I picked these up for firmer days that are softer than bullet proof, but after day 2 I’m not jiving with them. Going to give it a few more days before I throw in the towel, but I’m starting to lean towards moving on and trying something else.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[SkiLyft]

Going to wade into some controversial territory in the ONep fanboy thread.

ON3P builds some wonderful soft snow biased skis. They “can” be skied from anywhere but neutral is their preferred place. Limitations of their skis really show when it gets icy or when the pilot starts asking for more precise and powerful input (especially on edge).

Big example of this was yesterday: my wife has been on a pair of Jessie’s for the last four years. I noticed last year that she wasn’t getting anything out of the exists of her turn. Brought the skis in for a full base grind and tune hoping it would help (it didn’t).

Yesterday I put her on some Blizzard Shivas. Holy fuck she was fully completing her turns and not shitting them like she was on her Jessie’s.

That precision let her carry wayyyy more speed into the chop as she could trust the edge hold and stability of the ski. Truly it was beautiful to witness!!

I’ve got a pair of old asym BG I will use for early season and pure NW glop.

But this family is now moving away from ON3P and going back to ski brands who understand the importance of on piste performance (dynastar, blizzard, HL).


Pics for stoke

[SchralphMacchio]

ON3P builds some wonderful soft snow biased skis. They “can” be skied from anywhere but neutral is their preferred place. Limitations of their skis really show when it gets icy or when the pilot starts asking for more precise and powerful input (especially on edge).

Big example of this was yesterday: my wife has been on a pair of Jessie’s for the last four years.

Aren’t Jessie’s just rebranded Jeffs? Aka -4 mount?

Sheeva is a -8 mount right? It seems like if your wife wants a -8 ski then the Woods is going to be more up her alley.

I have 180 cm Sheeva 11s. Below 180 cm Sheevas are softened Rustlers, at 180 and up they have the same construction as Rustlers - so mine are basically a Rustler 11 with a glittery top sheet (it was less than half the price of a Rustler). I think they are fun as hell in storm snow, and I really love that ski in mostly soft, easily edgeable and not too wet - but the core isn’t settled enough in low elevation PNW *variable* snow for me. That’s what drove me to a Woodsman - the ON3P cores are much more settled in PNW variable off piste, like solar aspects that just get funked up quickly. Mounted the line I can get a decent shin pressured carve out of a Woodsman, but it’s still not like a more piste oriented ski.

And yes, it’s not a ski brand for everyone. Precision skiing or carve exits don’t seem to be terms that people associate or seek in ON3Ps generally. “Loose” is probably the number one thing I see!

Vagueness was mostly on groomed terrain, but still present off piste … Going to give it a few more days before I throw in the towel, but I’m starting to lean towards moving on and trying something else.

What length, binding, and BSL in case you move on? [emoji12]
(BTW the Enforcer 89 or 94 might be something closer to what you are seeking!)

[SkiLyft]

I think you’re right MrsSL just outgrew her Jessie’s and wanted something with a bit more stability/backbone/energy.

That said I remember when I went from skiing Salomon Rocker[emoji638]s to the Blizzard Gunsmokes back in [emoji638][emoji646][emoji637][emoji640]

Big light bulb moment for me and what metal and mass in a ski could do!

[SchralphMacchio]

^ the answer then is obviously Wren 110 Pro TI’s for the lady [emoji12]

[SkiLyft]

Haaaaaa, eggzactly

For anyone wanting to jump on some Jessie’s just posted them in GS.

[bearcub69]

Going to wade into some controversial territory in the ONep fanboy thread.

ON3P builds some wonderful soft snow biased skis. They “can” be skied from anywhere but neutral is their preferred place. Limitations of their skis really show when it gets icy

I owned the very first year Kartel 106. One of, if not, the most versatile ski ive ever been on. I thought it did pretty damn good on hardpack snow and was predictable on ice. I sold the ski after a few years and it is now the only ski I regret selling. Im not sure if it was the change in sidecut or maybe the tune, but all the newer models ive been on are really only "soft snow" skis.

I found a pair of Jeronimos in good condition this off season and I'm hoping (and betting) they'll be more OG Kartel 98/106 than the current Jeffrey 100/102.
They'll be my second pair of jeronimos (snapped my first pair, they were a custom soft flex I believe.. bought them second hand as well).. Ive had the OG Kartel 106, Magnus 90s, and I currently own a set of the last year Caylors.. all of them, even the Caylor and custom soft JMos, handle hardpack better than the newer shapes imo and I know im not the only one who thinks so.

ON3P makes great skis no doubt, but every ski ive been on since ~2018 hasn't been as versatile when it comes to hardpack. That being said, the new ripper rocker intrigues me and Ive wondered if it would fix the hardpack "problem"

[Dhiler17]

What length, binding, and BSL in case you move on? [emoji12]
(BTW the Enforcer 89 or 94 might be something closer to what you are seeking!)

186, sth2, 323 BSL at rec

Enforcer or MSP 91 may be my next choice. I really like my commander 92’s for hauling ass on bullet proof days, but they’re a little much to muscle in tight terrain. Was hoping these would be better in tight spots (which they definitely are) while still having enough to hold their own on the ice coast. I’ve been curious about the new profiles since the ripper rocker addresses my biggest gripe with ON3P. So now I’ll either grow to love it, or my questions will have been answered and I can move on without wondering what if.




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[mn_teleswede]

Owner of one eighty nine Wren ninety eight’s-mounted tele with NTN freerides at recommended chiming in. For the last 6 years, I have been using these as my skinny ski in a 2 ski quiver, with the other being 119mm waisted Icelantic Keepers. (Who needs a mid fat[emoji23]). If you’re looking for precision or a tip that pulls you into a turn, I think you would be better off spending your $ elsewhere. This has been discussed in almost every skinny ON3P post. Maybe their new rocker profile will solve this lack of hard snow performance/precision? Would be sweet if so.

Like most ON3P’s, Where they really excel is on 3D snow- soft packed groomers/chalk/chop included. The bamboo construction and large tip rocker really smooth things out and encourage fast skiing. They ski like a much fatter ski in any sort of 3D snow. No ski is perfect imo- there are always tradeoffs. I have found its strengths and shortcomings and have learned to live within them. With this being said, I vacillate every year about swapping them out for a ski like the Serpo, etc. that would be better suited for our tilted skating rinks here in MN. This has been made more apparent with the addition of a 108mm midfat to the quiver. I cannot get myself to pull the trigger yet though. Something familiar and comforting about them, when I hop on them.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[johnmtl11]

186, sth2, 323 BSL at rec

Enforcer or MSP 91 may be my next choice. I really like my commander 92’s for hauling ass on bullet proof days, but they’re a little much to muscle in tight terrain. Was hoping these would be better in tight spots (which they definitely are) while still having enough to hold their own on the ice coast. I’ve been curious about the new profiles since the ripper rocker addresses my biggest gripe with ON3P. So now I’ll either grow to love it, or my questions will have been answered and I can move on without wondering what if.




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

You’re Woods 92 are the ripper rocker version? I’m still skiing an old Prester, it’s old as in full camber no rocker, 86mm underfoot. Can’t find a non-race ski that’s full camber anymore so I’ll probably own these forever. I’ve been skiing VT and NH, haven’t been to Sunday River in a while but basically similar conditions. Did you guys get a lot of rain and refreeze last week? Must’ve been above average icy conditions. Was thinking of trying ripper rocker, but I have an old Wren 102 so getting a 92 is a bit too much overlap for me. I also find when I start to ski like crap it’s usually a boot adjustment or fatigue that’s my problem before the ski.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[SchralphMacchio]

I thought all stock Woods 92s have Ripper Rocker?
And RR is only on special editions or custom on the larger skis?

Dhiler thanks for the reply, too long for me if you move on from the skis … I had to ask, as I said I want to A/B against my E94. Despite living 2 hours south of Portland it’s not easy to demo ON3P skis! I think I’m getting closer to remounting my E94s at +1 to get them slightly closer in skiing style to the Woods 110.