Page 400 of 441 FirstFirst ... 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 ... LastLast
Results 9,976 to 10,000 of 11017
  1. #9976
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Sessiøn View Post
    I still boggle at the suggestion that the BG is hard to ski on groomers, and I would need something else to comfortably get back to the lift.

    I have never been hunting stashes and felt I needed a different ski for the day of the same waist width.
    Where I mostly ski there is a big difference between skiing hard snow back to the lift and skiing hard snow hunting stashes. The BG is obviously not a problem with the former but just isn't a fun ski, for me, for the later. If I have to spend a bunch of time on a groomer I want to be able to have some fun on it.
    Last edited by Quandary; 01-20-2021 at 07:59 AM.

  2. #9977
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Tahoe>Missoula>Fort Collins
    Posts
    1,629
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    OK, I have a few days of touring on my BG116Ts now.

    They are exactly what I hoped for. Conditions in the Colorado BC this year have been, well, extremely variable. I've been skiing soft snow with them, but it's definitely not been perfect powder snow. Think thin crusts, denser wind affected/sun affected recycled pow, unsupportive facets, etc. Like the standard BG, they handle all of this beautifully and make it feel damn close to perfect pow. As you would expect sharing the same shape, they are loose when you want them to be, will arc huge turns when you want them to, and can be skied at any speed and any turn shape.

    I think Scott really nailed it with the layup and core construction. The core absolutely retains the energy and pop of the standard core; you can load up the skis in a turn and get tons of pop into the next. I do my best to not cross old tracks very often when I'm touring but the few times I did, they also have plenty enough dampness for a touring ski. I'm pretty sure they are not as damp as the standard layup in chop and crud but there's no replacement for mass in those conditions, and if you find yourself skiing that type of snow a lot while touring, you're doing it wrong.

    I know everyone is hot and bothered by the BG108T, but I still personally don't see the appeal in it. The BG116T is plenty light enough for me (note that I have a strong dislike of lightweight skis), and should handle variable BC conditions a bit better than the narrower ski as well as float better at slower speeds and on lower angle terrain (both important to me in Colorado). If I'm going to be skiing significant amounts of hard snow I want a more hard snow oriented shape.

    For reference, I'm 5'9" 145lbs and on the 184cm BG116T with G3 Zed 12s and Atomic Hawx Ultra XTD 130s. I also tour on 187cm Praxis Protests (still float a little better at low speeds/angles) and 184cm Praxis Freerides (for firmer/variable spring days until I can find a lighter/narrower ski that I actually enjoy skiing on).
    im with this. i dont understand the 108. or i do, but id grab a diff ski.

    pow = 116 BGT
    cut up pow = 116 BGT
    not pow = not BGT

    what am i missing


  3. #9978
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Tahoe>Missoula>Fort Collins
    Posts
    1,629
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    Mags: I want a 108 ski instead of 116 for touring where I'm going to ski soft snow all day
    Also mags: I want a 116mm ski for inbounds days when it hasn't snowed in a week and I'm hunting around the mountain for one or two turns in soft snow
    mindboggling. ski the ski for the snow, not your ego


  4. #9979
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Tahoe>Missoula>Fort Collins
    Posts
    1,629
    still looking for the arrant BGT 116 189 that somebody ordered and wasn't for them <3


  5. #9980
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,346
    Quote Originally Posted by margotron View Post
    im with this. i dont understand the 108. or i do, but id grab a diff ski.

    pow = 116 BGT
    cut up pow = 116 BGT
    not pow = not BGT

    what am i missing
    ^^^ this ^^^
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  6. #9981
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Portlandia
    Posts
    2,528
    Quote Originally Posted by margotron View Post
    im with this. i dont understand the 108. or i do, but id grab a diff ski.

    pow = 116 BGT
    cut up pow = 116 BGT
    not pow = not BGT

    what am i missing
    This is the way.
    Training for Alpental

  7. #9982
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    seatown
    Posts
    3,606

    ON3P SKIS Discussion

    i set a 2* edge bevel on my 187 woodsman 96 last week and enjoyed easily turning them in bumps, skier deposit and some slush this past weekend. not sure what factory was for my instance, i don’t have the eye for it. i have access to some 180 116 from last year i want to take out soon to comp.

    if you don’t like BGs on run outs you can getout

  8. #9983
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,346
    Quote Originally Posted by shroom View Post
    ... if you don’t like BGs on run outs you can getout
    I forget the exact quote, but @Iggy said something to the effect: groomers are a means to get to untracked snow.

    Words to live by.
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  9. #9984
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,143
    Yeah, so I do not understand the last page or so of posts, like at all. I do not mean to imply that I decide how the thread is to progress

    So something along these lines is the going consensus on BGs (if I can be a bit presumptious and quote myself two pages back)
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    just remember to stay somewhat centered and not drive through the shovels on BG too much, and you should be golden on anything but ice.

    Yeah, BGs ain't the most thrilling carver out there, but do big, two feet arcs from a more centered stance and they do groomers just fine. Not like fresh and variable that they just devour - again, if you ride them somewhat centered. If you are "like to drive the shit out of your shovels"-type skier then BGs are not for you. Mine are terrifyingly bad on ice (not as in hard groomers, but refrozen snow turned into ice), but they did just fine at mach schnell on groomers the other day on the way back to the lift.
    So, as many mags including Iggy have pointed out in this thread - BGs are ok on groomers and if you drive the shovels too hard the tails will wash out (I can dig up the Iggy post this is a nearly direct quote of) - in any snowpack imho. As PowTron also stated a page back, there is a slight learning curve for BGs (regardless of snowpack imho), and I might add, they are not for everybody or for all conditions. Nothing of this is controversial imho.

    I then wrote:
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    ... I had my woodsman116s out to dial in the new tune on groomers today, and they are unsurprisingly a lot more inspiring on groomers than BGs. ... C&Ds are a ton of fun in fresh and are surprisingly capable for the return trip to the lift. They are great pow skis.
    Again, none of these statements should be surprising and mirrors what has been stated many times previously in this thread, where some mags (including me) somewhat surprisingly have found their C&Ds to be slightly stronger on groomers than BGs. No, still not terribly inspiring, but with a very strong and predictable edge hold - as in better than one would expect a 124mm RES ski to have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sessiøn View Post
    I still boggle at the suggestion that the BG is hard to ski on groomers, and I would need something else to comfortably get back to the lift.
    So where does this sentiment come from? The ONE mag that was in the process of figuring out his newly acquired BGs? You are kicking in an open door here my friend - most mags do not find them hard to ski on groomers, just uninspiring.

    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    Mags: I want a 108 ski instead of 116 for touring where I'm going to ski soft snow all day
    Also mags: I want a 116mm ski for inbounds days when it hasn't snowed in a week and I'm hunting around the mountain for one or two turns in soft snow
    I honestly thought this was written in jest, but if not - misrepresenting what people say and not factoring in different priorities, terrains and snowpacks to make a quip seems a bit unnessecary.

    I rode groomers on my woodsman116s to check/finalize the tune and since my left knee is not 100%. Quandry was also pretty specific why he tried his.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quandary View Post
    I grew tired of waiting on snow. So given 6" in the last 48 hours here I decided to get the W116s out for the first time.
    Also, resorts and terrain vary. A lot. As you know, some resorts include a lot of groomer time on any given run, many has 100% off piste runs. That some mags still run BGs to have fun on the soft snow parts of their runs in the first scenario while sacrificing groomer performance instead of choosing a ski that is funner on the entire run surely isn't that mind-boggling is it? re this

    Quote Originally Posted by margotron View Post
    mindboggling. ski the ski for the snow, not your ego
    As for this,

    Quote Originally Posted by margotron View Post
    Im with this. i dont understand the 108. or i do, but id grab a diff ski.

    pow = 116 BGT
    cut up pow = 116 BGT
    not pow = not BGTwhat am i missing
    Quote Originally Posted by margotron View Post
    mindboggling. ski the ski for the snow, not your ego
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    ^^^ this ^^^
    Quote Originally Posted by Sessiøn View Post
    This is the way.
    is it so hard to imagine that other mags prioritize differently than you do, especially when touring? Does there have to be the ONE way that is true for all mags across all conditions, uses and skill levels? I am not saying that your opinions are wrong or hard to understand, but why some people might prefer a 108 to a 116 should be fairly intuitive no (lighter, quicker edge to edge, certain snow conditions)? Similarly, that some people prefer 116s should be perfectly understandable too (more snow, more float, little enough weight penalty to be negliable)? So what is the big deal here? And just to be clear, I am not trying to shut down the debate - but it seems like some of you are saying that there is a right and wrong choice here.

  10. #9985
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    2,153
    My experience on BG108 goes back a few years as a custom Steeple 108 w/ BG layup in 184. Basically same same to the new model. It’s probably my favorite ski or equal to my limited veneer BGs in 189. I don’t see myself without the other, ever.
    The 108 really shines at Alpental or other mountains with tight, point and shoot terrain. The best of all for me is the versatility of the 108 - no matter the conditions I won’t feel like I grabbed the wrong ones. How often are the conditions 2-5”? How often will that shallow snow blow around the mountain creating thin and loaded areas? How quick will that be trampled? ..BG108
    How about it hasn’t snowed at your hill in awhile, then 6”. The mountain crew will pack that snow as best as they can mostly leaving fresh pockets ...BG108. You can even edge around on that low tide period better w/o asym.
    My 108s will be the choice for Europe next time. And I’m probably buying the wife 108 goats next.
    So personally if you’re not a powder hound I think the 108 is a better ski for the masses in a 2 or less quiver. YMMV

  11. #9986
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    7,113
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated
    Mags: I want a 108 ski instead of 116 for touring where I'm going to ski soft snow all day
    Also mags: I want a 116mm ski for inbounds days when it hasn't snowed in a week and I'm hunting around the mountain for one or two turns in soft snow
    I honestly thought this was written in jest
    I thought that was obvious

  12. #9987
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Sessiøn View Post
    This is the way.
    Indeed.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1860.jpg 
Views:	98 
Size:	902.0 KB 
ID:	358831  
    Two more skip the last.

  13. #9988
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    59715
    Posts
    3,417
    So I pm'd this q to Iggy a few days ago but I guess he's gone radio silence. I picked up some Woods 116's last spring (serial #003) for in bounds use, but haven't got them out yet. With all the chatter about maybe possibly perhaps bad tune, should I just take them in for a new tune, or ski them and hope for the best?

  14. #9989
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Portlandia
    Posts
    2,528
    Quote Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain View Post
    So I pm'd this q to Iggy a few days ago but I guess he's gone radio silence. I picked up some Woods 116's last spring (serial #003) for in bounds use, but haven't got them out yet. With all the chatter about maybe possibly perhaps bad tune, should I just take them in for a new tune, or ski them and hope for the best?
    I would just ski them. No point in paying for a tune if it isn't needed.
    Training for Alpental

  15. #9990
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Emerald City
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain View Post
    So I pm'd this q to Iggy a few days ago but I guess he's gone radio silence. I picked up some Woods 116's last spring (serial #003) for in bounds use, but haven't got them out yet. With all the chatter about maybe possibly perhaps bad tune, should I just take them in for a new tune, or ski them and hope for the best?
    Before actually getting them tuned you could ask your local shop to look at em and see what they say?

    Also had an email in the ON3P queue last Friday I'm hoping to hear back on sooner than later...hope everything's going alright. Is Scott the only one who answers emails?

  16. #9991
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by eSock View Post
    Before actually getting them tuned you could ask your local shop to look at em and see what they say?

    Also had an email in the ON3P queue last Friday I'm hoping to hear back on sooner than later...hope everything's going alright. Is Scott the only one who answers emails?
    I have the woods108 and this is what I did. Had my local shop take a look at the base to make sure it was good since this is something I can't fix on my own. I'll bring a stone when I ski them and adjust the edge if needed. Curious to see what Iggy says though.

  17. #9992
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain View Post
    So I pm'd this q to Iggy a few days ago but I guess he's gone radio silence. I picked up some Woods 116's last spring (serial #003) for in bounds use, but haven't got them out yet. With all the chatter about maybe possibly perhaps bad tune, should I just take them in for a new tune, or ski them and hope for the best?
    I wrote them through the ON3P website, and my gmail kicked the response to my “promotions” folder so I didn’t see it right away.

  18. #9993
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain View Post
    So I pm'd this q to Iggy a few days ago but I guess he's gone radio silence. I picked up some Woods 116's last spring (serial #003) for in bounds use, but haven't got them out yet. With all the chatter about maybe possibly perhaps bad tune, should I just take them in for a new tune, or ski them and hope for the best?
    My Woods116's were with a perfect tune out of the box.

  19. #9994
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    9,645
    108 vs 116 BGT... I lined my 108 BGTs up with my Super Goats. The width difference was less than my pinky fingernail. I went 108 because it's a versatile size, not res (like being able to put edge damage on outside if I'm three days from a car, skins slightly easier, is slightly lighter, my binding brakes and crampons would fit, we get variable snow where I skin and blah blah blah. I also put Dynafits on them and someone commented that those bindings are not for them. Reasons for Dynafits-I have a jig so an easy mount, I've been using some form of Dynafit for 20 years and knock on wood have not broken a pair (I'm 220 lbs), have not released when I didn't want to, and have not torn a knee up yet. Plus I already owned a pair that worked so I didn't have to spend $400-600 on whatever is new and cool. Point being just because you like 116s doesn't mean there isn't a place for 108s in the line up.

    Remember when 108s were FAT pow skis?


    Some people might not see a point for BG108Ts but some people do. Not sure of production numbers or dates but the 108s are sold out. 116s were available longer and 184s still say shipping so I'm thinking I'm not alone.

    I've only got four days on low angle due to scary snow pack but I have no regrets not going 116.

  20. #9995
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    A little to the left
    Posts
    1,943
    Quote Originally Posted by eSock View Post
    Also had an email in the ON3P queue last Friday I'm hoping to hear back on sooner than later...hope everything's going alright. Is Scott the only one who answers emails?
    In my experience, response time varies from 'right away' to 'never'.

    Armchair CEO commentary: if you're going to move away from dealers and aim to sell most product direct, get someone on board to deal with emails from customers.

    It's too easy to make a long-time loyal customer feel like their biz doesn't matter to you when they can't get a response from anyone. And some will walk, even if the product is good.

  21. #9996
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    59715
    Posts
    3,417
    DM was through this forum. Communication aside, it should be pretty straightforward to identify through QC if, and which skis (serial #s) were out of spec. If the skis are out of spec, I'm not going to get too twisted up by it. The skis will have to have a grind at some point, I'll just have to do it earlier than expected.

  22. #9997
    Gman's Avatar
    Gman is offline Mack Master William Large
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Beserkley
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by optics View Post
    In my experience, response time varies from 'right away' to 'never'.

    Armchair CEO commentary: if you're going to move away from dealers and aim to sell most product direct, get someone on board to deal with emails from customers.

    It's too easy to make a long-time loyal customer feel like their biz doesn't matter to you when they can't get a response from anyone. And some will walk, even if the product is good.
    What does moving away from dealers have to do with answering emails? I don't dispute the part about not getting a response but I'll add that the phone number for ON3P is readily available and people can call if they aren't getting the response they want via email.

  23. #9998
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    6,188
    DM's probably won't get through, per Scott's old signature here. And sometimes life shit gets priority over needy dweebos on the internet... it's a pretty small business, after all.

    ~~

    BG108t... amusing that its existence seems to rile up a few. Buy what makes you happy, maaaaaaan.

    For me (giant BG fanboie) it had already proven to be excellent as a BC tool for the places I ski. But I recently confirmed another use case for this ski that I didn't fully understand until putting on some more miles.

    Couple different days had a similar timeline: started out on heavy mid-100s skis with metal pivots and Langes (Dynastar LPR and WD108), but switched to BG108t and laughed at the increase in fun factor. Conditions were chalky pack and groomers with coastal pow stuck on steeps in the near-BC. Holy shit the skis owned all of it and frankly blew me away with the stability and QUICKNESS. Easy to edge, good grip, low swing weight, and a damn joy on long traverses and sidesteps. And fkna awesome in tight BC trees of course. Now I see why flying-v and cascade luke cherish their BG108's... they are pretty damn good everywhere and don't give up much. The hookless RES shape is just the bomb.

    Travel Ski. Perfect application. I'd be happy to ski them anywhere. Especially somewhere like Europe, where a single light setup w/ skins in the backpack enables so much easy kickass skiing.
    life ain't guaranteed, love your people while you can

  24. #9999
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    A little to the left
    Posts
    1,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Gman View Post
    What does moving away from dealers have to do with answering emails?
    Pretty basic...

    It channels every potential buyer and their questions to you directly - vs having that communication distributed out across a dealer network. There is a reason companies have dealers and it's not just about 'reach', it's also about them running screen for HQ.

    If 'bandwidth' is the problem, this is probably the single biggest contributing factor.

  25. #10000
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    59715
    Posts
    3,417
    "Needy Dweebo"

    Awesome way to build up a client base by considering customers to be "needy dweebos".

    And FWIW, I'm not that needy.

Posting Permissions

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