Check Out Our Shop
Page 602 of 602 FirstFirst ... 597 598 599 600 601 602
Results 15,026 to 15,040 of 15040
  1. #15026
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by beeeom View Post
    Just snagged the 186 mango goats in factory finds. Very stoked!
    Those were the ones I was looking at! Thanks for buying them and saving me.

  2. #15027
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,076
    Quote Originally Posted by MHSP1497 View Post
    Glad they’re getting the love!!! They are damned fun! My Jeffrey 118’s are just the replacement I was hoping for…
    Haven't even mounted those yet brother!
    All my plans for the season shit the bed when I broke my hand.

  3. #15028
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    98
    My wife and wallet are very glad the Mangoats are sold.

  4. #15029
    Join Date
    Apr 2024
    Posts
    52
    Site still showing the 186 Mango Goats for me. XavierD’s response to them actually got me thinking about 186s over 191s, as tree skis.

    I've been telling myself I need to fill out the 94-104mm part of my quiver before I buy any more wide skis, but wide skis are more fun!
    Last edited by forumskier; 05-10-2024 at 08:20 PM.

  5. #15030
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,439

    ON3P SKIS Discussion

    In my opinion, a single 88-94 waisted ski for truly awful snow and then you can go straight to 108 and bigger … at least out west!
    I’m planning that Enforcer 94, Woodsman 110, and BG118 will cover 100% of my resort needs next year.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  6. #15031
    Join Date
    Apr 2024
    Posts
    52
    My 100mm pair is full rocker with long radius and surprisingly not THAT much worse in Sierra cement than BGs lol. 85% as good by my seat of the pants quantifier.

    I have nothing thinner. I need some actual thin skis that aren’t so greasy in super firm.

  7. #15032
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    24
    Hey folks. I haven't seen this question before, but sincere apologies if this is retreading old ground:

    Regarding the Woodsman (looking at 100, but this question could easily apply to all waist widths): My quiver includes 176s, 177s, 180s and 182s, and I feel most at ease at 179-180. Given that the Woodsman come in 176 and 181, which way would you recommend I go? go longer or shorter?

    Me: I ski Praxis Quixote 182, Praxis BC 180, and Enforcer 110 177. I'd note that the Quixotes ski a bit long, so even though they are 182, they feel a bit longer. I'm looking to retire the 177 Enforcers and replace with (a) lighter/less-chargy, (b) more groomer-friendly, (c) versatile. A more boring alternative to the Woodsman would be Elan Ripstick 96 Blacks.

    Thanks all.

  8. #15033
    Join Date
    Oct 2022
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Gate11 View Post
    Hey folks. I haven't seen this question before, but sincere apologies if this is retreading old ground:

    Regarding the Woodsman (looking at 100, but this question could easily apply to all waist widths): My quiver includes 176s, 177s, 180s and 182s, and I feel most at ease at 179-180. Given that the Woodsman come in 177 and 181, which way would you recommend I go? go longer or shorter?

    Me: I ski Praxis Quixotes, Praxis BCs, and Enforcer 110s. I'm looking to retire the Enforcers and replace with (a) lighter/less-chargy, (b) more groomer-friendly, (c) versatile. A more boring alternative to the Woodsman would be Elan Ripstick 96 Blacks.

    Thanks all.
    181

  9. #15034
    Join Date
    Oct 2023
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    19
    $499 for wd100 181 protos in the factory finds now. Weird to see all white bases

  10. #15035
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Gate11 View Post
    Hey folks. I haven't seen this question before, but sincere apologies if this is retreading old ground:

    Regarding the Woodsman (looking at 100, but this question could easily apply to all waist widths): My quiver includes 176s, 177s, 180s and 182s, and I feel most at ease at 179-180. Given that the Woodsman come in 176 and 181, which way would you recommend I go? go longer or shorter?

    Me: I ski Praxis Quixote 182, Praxis BC 180, and Enforcer 110 177. I'd note that the Quixotes ski a bit long, so even though they are 182, they feel a bit longer. I'm looking to retire the 177 Enforcers and replace with (a) lighter/less-chargy, (b) more groomer-friendly, (c) versatile. A more boring alternative to the Woodsman would be Elan Ripstick 96 Blacks.

    Thanks all.
    So I own the 182 Woodsman 110 and used to own the 177 Woodsman 108 (first gen, not current). I also own 180 Praxis BC, 177 Gen 1 Enforcers, 179 current gen Enforcers, and used to have 182 GPOs, so we have the same taste in skis and sizes lol!

    I would also say go 181, as my understanding is that it’s mostly the same profile as the 182 but with the tail shortened by 1 cm.

    Oddly enough I found the original 177 Woodsman to be more chargey and punishing than the 182, because the 177 had a softer tip, stiffer tail, and more forward mount; the 182 had a much more relaxed tail that did not punish backseat mistakes and also had better suspension up front in how it ramped up in stiffness. The 182 Woodsman 110 was also much more smooth on really firm snow.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  11. #15036
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    So I own the 182 Woodsman 110 and used to own the 177 Woodsman 108 (first gen, not current). I also own 180 Praxis BC, 177 Gen 1 Enforcers, 179 current gen Enforcers, and used to have 182 GPOs, so we have the same taste in skis and sizes lol!

    I would also say go 181, as my understanding is that it’s mostly the same profile as the 182 but with the tail shortened by 1 cm.

    Oddly enough I found the original 177 Woodsman to be more chargey and punishing than the 182, because the 177 had a softer tip, stiffer tail, and more forward mount; the 182 had a much more relaxed tail that did not punish backseat mistakes and also had better suspension up front in how it ramped up in stiffness. The 182 Woodsman 110 was also much more smooth on really firm snow.
    Wow that is a very similar quiver history to me LOL. Good advice and Thank You.....As a replacement for heavy, charging 177s, I was gravitating towards the 176 Woodsman, but consensus is to size up a little. 5cms can't make too much change to my mojo...And the 181 Woodsman is still ~90g lighter than my Enforcer 177s.

  12. #15037
    Join Date
    Oct 2022
    Posts
    133
    181 might seem like a lot on paper, but the depth of the rocker lines makes ON3Ps ski shorter.

  13. #15038
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    213
    2013 186 BG vs 2024 186 BG.

    Less camber. Damn near identical tips. Less tail splay. They hand flex a bit stiffer, but the old dogs are so bagged out that it's not an apples to apples comparison. I'm optimistic that the 2024's will suitably replace the 2013's

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PXL_20240518_180049684.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	1.95 MB 
ID:	493880
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PXL_20240518_180039669.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	2.06 MB 
ID:	493881Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PXL_20240518_175918159.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	1.72 MB 
ID:	493882
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PXL_20240518_175746450.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	1.01 MB 
ID:	493883Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PXL_20240518_175731342.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	1.29 MB 
ID:	493884

  14. #15039
    Join Date
    Apr 2023
    Posts
    321

  15. #15040
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by beeeom View Post
    2013 186 BG vs 2024 186 BG.

    Less camber. Damn near identical tips. Less tail splay. They hand flex a bit stiffer, but the old dogs are so bagged out that it's not an apples to apples comparison. I'm optimistic that the 2024's will suitably replace the 2013's

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PXL_20240518_180049684.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	1.95 MB 
ID:	493880
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PXL_20240518_180039669.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	2.06 MB 
ID:	493881Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PXL_20240518_175918159.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	1.72 MB 
ID:	493882
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PXL_20240518_175746450.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	1.01 MB 
ID:	493883Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PXL_20240518_175731342.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	1.29 MB 
ID:	493884
    Thanks! I just wish the new 191 was that close to the original 191, but sounds like that isn't the case. Will be looking forward to more reviews next year.

Posting Permissions

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