Page 365 of 374 FirstFirst ... 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 ... LastLast
Results 9,101 to 9,125 of 9348
  1. #9101
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    841
    BG108 sounds really good for 90% of soft snow touring. Having the pivoty goodness of RES at that waist width should translate to a really versatile ski even in soft, non-pow snow.
    Common sense. So rare today in America it's almost like having a superpower.

  2. #9102
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Evergreen Co
    Posts
    435
    This debate over 116 vs 108 makes more sense understanding use and context. I said this a few pages ago but snow density and the terrain youíre touring on makes a huge difference.

    I personally have always liked wider skis. No issues with knees, Fitness is good, Touring in continental snow. I have Wren 114ís as a daily driver in the resort and have no issue getting them high on edge carving or driving them through tight moguls. I would always go 116 for a single touring ski quiver but thatís just me and my use case. Lot of reasons a 108 would be good for other people.

  3. #9103
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    8,927
    Wood stiff supers just showed up. Freaking rad. Will mount up in short order with some old new 916 steels I’ve been saving for a special occasion. And my quiver is complete for awhile...or I could be talked into some touring skis.

  4. #9104
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    5,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Conundrum View Post
    Wood stiff supers just showed up. Freaking rad. Will mount up in short order with some old new 916 steels I’ve been saving for a special occasion. And my quiver is complete for awhile...or I could be talked into some touring skis.
    post pics ya hoser, I been waiting to see them
    life ain't guaranteed, love your people while you can

  5. #9105
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    8,927
    The dark Caylors are headed back to Iggy sometime this winter.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	5AD038F8-140A-466F-8B02-2A29DC5110D0.jpeg 
Views:	171 
Size:	316.7 KB 
ID:	343417

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	F4F62CD5-7D71-437A-AE31-8058FAEC2F70.jpeg 
Views:	169 
Size:	280.1 KB 
ID:	343418

  6. #9106
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bonedale
    Posts
    5,237
    what are the other veneers?
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  7. #9107
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    8,927
    K108s. Quite possibly the most fun ski I’ve ever owned for when it’s somewhere between ice and deep crud or nectar.
    Last edited by Conundrum; 10-13-2020 at 11:43 PM.

  8. #9108
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bonedale
    Posts
    5,237
    nice. I own the predecessor Jeffrey 110 in veneer. Amazing ski.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  9. #9109
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    SW, CO for now
    Posts
    666
    Those Caylors are sexy. I'd love to see the collection of old ON3Ps that Iggy has managed to recollect over the years.

  10. #9110
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Portland by way of Bozeman
    Posts
    3,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Conundrum View Post
    The dark Caylors are headed back to Iggy sometime this winter.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	5AD038F8-140A-466F-8B02-2A29DC5110D0.jpeg 
Views:	171 
Size:	316.7 KB 
ID:	343417

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	F4F62CD5-7D71-437A-AE31-8058FAEC2F70.jpeg 
Views:	169 
Size:	280.1 KB 
ID:	343418
    Wood veneers AND metal Sollys?!

  11. #9111
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    5,741
    Mount point question:

    (tried searching and reading back a few pages)

    How did the mount point evolve for the Woodsman line? I remember a discussion here about the line moving back a tad in this year's model.

    I have last year's 192 with masking tape on them, prepped for mounting. Should I mount back a few mm to "update" to the new norm? Or did the sidecut geo change, too?
    life ain't guaranteed, love your people while you can

  12. #9112
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    Mount point question:

    (tried searching and reading back a few pages)

    How did the mount point evolve for the Woodsman line? I remember a discussion here about the line moving back a tad in this year's model.

    I have last year's 192 with masking tape on them, prepped for mounting. Should I mount back a few mm to "update" to the new norm? Or did the sidecut geo change, too?
    I have last year's 182 and mounted them 1cm back from the line. I felt like that was right (for me) but can't compare to any other mount point.

    The line did change for this year. I think Iggy said it moved 0.75cm back. I could be off a little.
    Not sure if sidecut geometry was adjusted at all.
    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!

  13. #9113
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Driving2VT
    Posts
    3,605
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    Mount point question:

    (tried searching and reading back a few pages)

    How did the mount point evolve for the Woodsman line? I remember a discussion here about the line moving back a tad in this year's model.

    I have last year's 192 with masking tape on them, prepped for mounting. Should I mount back a few mm to "update" to the new norm? Or did the sidecut geo change, too?
    Same question. Was thinking of going 1cm back but my telemark mounting projects always leave me over thinking things. I am back about 1cm on my 2018/2019 Protos and dig it. Slightly longer tail than production.
    Uno mas

  14. #9114
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    906
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    How did the mount point evolve for the Woodsman line? I remember a discussion here about the line moving back a tad in this year's model.
    Quote Originally Posted by iggyskier View Post

    WOODSMAN
    Woodsman gets new width - 102.
    96 gets tighter radius + new core profile/layup.
    108 gets minor sidecut tweak + new core profile/layup.
    116 gets minor sidecut tweak, flex made a bit softer + new core profile/layup.
    Moved the mount point back 0.75cm across the line.
    Flex on 177/182 made a bit softer in all widths.
    source: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...68#post5986168
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    I have last year's 192 with masking tape on them, prepped for mounting. Should I mount back a few mm to "update" to the new norm? Or did the sidecut geo change, too?
    Quote Originally Posted by iggyskier View Post
    (in answering the same question concerning a 182 ski)
    Not necessarily. With a mount change comes a change to sidecut, core profile, binding mat...so your Woodsman are designed to be skied at that recommended line. The vast majority of people skied them there this past season. We wanted to shorten the tail just slightly and felt - at their current stiffness - a bit more tip to drive would be better compared to a bit more playfulness/balance, hence the change. 0.75cm isn't a huge change here, so I wouldn't stress about it to much. If you like a more directional ski, move it back. If not, stick where it is.

    source: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...98#post5992198
    I would've gone back for slightly less tail

  15. #9115
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    5,741
    There it is. Thanks
    life ain't guaranteed, love your people while you can

  16. #9116
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Driving2VT
    Posts
    3,605
    X2 Thanks kapow
    Uno mas

  17. #9117
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    49
    Kid-Kapow's quote re the 182 mount question was originated by me regarding the mounting of W116s. I lean towards a more rearward mounted ski. Take the following as you choose. I had the skis mounted this summer by a fellow in Breck who has a tech shop but primarily makes his living as a patroller and has worked with RMU in the design of their skis. We had some long discussions about mount location for the Woodsmen. Based on the design, side cut etc, he very strongly recommended following Iggy's advice and mounting on the line. Which I did, hopefully it works out.

  18. #9118
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    906
    Glad I could help Doremite and Norse. Also, thanks for the extra input Quandary!

    For reference, my 108s are mounted on the line, while my 116s are mounted at -5mm. I did not spend a lot of time on either pair last season and both pairs need a tuneup, but I do plan on sking them a lot this coming season. Hell, I even sold two pairs of skis (DPS Koala119 in 184 and Moment Wildcat108 in 184) that I have clicked better with than the aforementioned Woods just to get more time on the Woods. Should be fun.

  19. #9119
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    Glad I could help Doremite and Norse. Also, thanks for the extra input Quandary!

    For reference, my 108s are mounted on the line, while my 116s are mounted at -5mm. I did not spend a lot of time on either pair last season and both pairs need a tuneup, but I do plan on sking them a lot this coming season. Hell, I even sold two pairs of skis (DPS Koala119 in 184 and Moment Wildcat108 in 184) that I have clicked better with than the aforementioned Woods just to get more time on the Woods. Should be fun.
    How would you compare the woodsman 108 to the wildcat 108? I currently have Kartel 108, but want to move to a bit more of a directional ski that still has some playfullness.

    Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk

  20. #9120
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    906
    The short version - wildcat108s are bit lighter and "less" ski, super nimble and very good across most conditions, while woodsman108s are more stable, better at punching through stuff and has more pop out of turns. I prefer ON3P's build quality, ride feel and graphics - though wildcat108s are a ton of fun. You can't really go wrong with either.

    The range is kartel - wildcat108 - woodsman - wrenegade on the playful to stable spectrum. Wildcats are bit close to Kartels, woods a bit closer to wrens. Both are excellent skis.

    Longer version - read these, Blister's reviews are spot on concerning these skis imho:
    https://blisterreview.com/gear-revie...p-woodsman-108
    https://blisterreview.com/gear-revie...nt-wildcat-108

  21. #9121
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The west - various spots
    Posts
    412
    Liking the sounds of the Woodsman 108. Almost went and ordered a pair but split between the 187 and 192. Iím sure either would be great. Have Praxis BC 180 for touring and would probably go longer if I had a do over although they are stellar skis. Old school 188 with no rocker for the resort which makes me sound pretty old-fashioned I guess

  22. #9122
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Portland by way of Bozeman
    Posts
    3,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Crank View Post
    Liking the sounds of the Woodsman 108. Almost went and ordered a pair but split between the 187 and 192. I’m sure either would be great. Have Praxis BC 180 for touring and would probably go longer if I had a do over although they are stellar skis. Old school 188 with no rocker for the resort which makes me sound pretty old-fashioned I guess
    ON3Ps almost always ski longer than you think. And as Iggy will attest (many times over), they measure the true length of the ski, after it's pressed. WHich is to say, a 187cm ON3P ski will measure to 187cm.

    I just picked up a pair of 187 Woodsman 108 knowing that they will ski longer and I want something a bit more playful than the Vicik, which is already in my quiver.

  23. #9123
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    72
    Still probably too early but anxious to hear feedback on new tour construction. They are coming in really light. Almost too light for my taste. Im considering a Woodsman 108 (182cm) for a one ski touring quiver. But I am almost tempted to go with 50/50 construction as I like just a tiny bit of beef in my tour ski. My question is, considering the most of a skis feel comes from its core construction, and it appears the core is the same on tour build and 50/50 (50/50 just has the thicker bases and edges) does anyone have any thoughts or ideas on how the a tour build might ski compared to a 50/50. It looks like the weight difference could be significant (maybe 100-200g/ski) but given that that weight is solely coming from thicker bases and edges, I wonder if there will be much noticeable difference in feel??? In other words, you'll gain the weight, but will it really transfer to that much better downhill performance if the cores are alike...

  24. #9124
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,431
    Do we have weights on

    108 Billy Goat Tour
    116 Billy Goat TOur

    in 189?
    single? always know what to say with Keys
    www.thekeysapp.com

  25. #9125
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    812
    Quote Originally Posted by margotron View Post
    Do we have weights on

    108 Billy Goat Tour
    116 Billy Goat TOur

    in 189?
    Site says 1830 and 1890g, respectively.

Posting Permissions

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