ON3P SKIS Discussion

[Drazzamatazz]

Agree BGs won’t be a great ec touring rig although tours aren’t that long or grueling so weight less of a factor than in some place bigger. All depends where you’ll be using them and how often.

Out of curiosity how big are you to go 179cm?

5' 7"+, 160ish pounds.

[Rob D!]

Anyone with much/any experience on the new Wren 96? Blister described it as a lighter poppier Enforcer 100 and I'm wondering how much rebound/energy it has out of a turn and how that compares to the 108, in that regard?
I really like damper skis (favorites I've demo'd so far Bonafide 187/180, Mantra ('15) 191 and Enforcer100 185), but I want a little better soft snow performance and I'd love a little pop out of carved turns when I'm on a groomer (skiing with the kids at moderate speed or just heading back to the lift and skiing fast). Trying to find a 1-ski quiver for this season - ski CA, MT, CO, UT mostly. 6' 200+lb. Worried the 96 might not be enough ski - but thinking the 108 likely does not have the same pop out of a carve. Also considering DW.

[FlimFlamvanHam]

The 108 is a slug for carving. If you think otherwise you don't know what carving is or have never used a ski that rips groomers. It's also a big(ger) radius ski

I would put the skis you mentioned in a different class as far as carving goes. That may be a bit extreme, but the Bonafide can carve. I've not tried the mantra (full low rocker) or the Enforcer (which seems a lot like a softer Bonafide).

ON3P makes the 189 for guys your size. And it measure like any other company's 191 or 192. Not like you'd have any trouble reselling the 96 if it did not work out for you.

Frankly I'd think the '96 and all the skis you mentioned would provide pretty similar soft snow performance where the 108 has a ton of tip splay, more width, and deep rocker, so a great 3d snow ski but it is not a carver.

[auvgeek]

the 108 has a ton of tip splay and deep rocker

Don't the W108 and W96 have the same exact rocker profile, like they have in the past?

[jackattack]

Don't the 108 and 96 have the same exact rocker profile, like they have in the past?

yes

Anyone with much/any experience on the new Wren 96? Blister described it as a lighter poppier Enforcer 100 and I'm wondering how much rebound/energy it has out of a turn and how that compares to the 108, in that regard?
I really like damper skis (favorites I've demo'd so far Bonafide 187/180, Mantra ('15) 191 and Enforcer100 185), but I want a little better soft snow performance and I'd love a little pop out of carved turns when I'm on a groomer (skiing with the kids at moderate speed or just heading back to the lift and skiing fast). Trying to find a 1-ski quiver for this season - ski CA, MT, CO, UT mostly. 6' 200+lb. Worried the 96 might not be enough ski - but thinking the 108 likely does not have the same pop out of a carve. Also considering DW.

If you want to pop out of carves, you're going to want a ski with minimal tail rocker IMO.

[auvgeek]

If you want to pop out of carves, you're going to want a ski with minimal tail rocker IMO.

And loads of camber.

As McConkey figured out all those years ago, skiing pow and carving groomers are polar opposites. Whoda thunk it?

Snarkyness aside, it's all about balance and what you prefer. I think the 96 is too laid back and has too much rocker for a ski <100 mm underfoot so I'd choose the 108 or 114 in a heartbeat. But if the OP really wants the dampness/deadness of the Blizzard and Mantra, it seems like he might prefer a Cochise over an ON3P which is way more poppy/lively.

[Norseman]

I think the 96 is too laid back and has too much rocker for a ski <100 mm underfoot so I'd choose the 108 or 114 in a heartbeat. .

So the Wrens all have the same rocker?

-- armchair ski designer warning --

Dang. That was my gripe with the Steeple (102). It had the same rocker profile as the BG, which I thought was too much for a ski that narrow.

I'd like to see the rocker length decrease (effective edge length increase) as the width narrows for families of skis like the Wren. I understand that it would require a bunch more work re. molds, but each width would be better dialed for its intended conditions.

Or am I off here?

[auvgeek]

Yeah, it's my gripe with the narrower Wrens, as well. AFAIK, the 88 (now deceased) and 108 and 114 (new) all have the same rocker, excluding tweaks over the years.

[californiagrown]

The time of frame bindings ( and Kingpins) has come and gone, and especially frame bindings should be relegated to the past tense over next few seasons.

With both Tectons and Shifts now being easily available - both vastly superior products for slack country use imo and with there being no comparison for touring - there is simply no reason other than limited resources to go with frame bindings imho. Like none, zero, zip. And if your resources are stretched, ride what you have a bit longer and save up some more funds - it is well worth it in the long run.

If you buy a set of new, expensive skis and mount frame bindings on them for the use we are debating, then i would urge you to reconsider. The only full on at bindings you should consider for touring are cast modified p18s.

yes, all these products - bindings + potentially new boots - are expensive, but for slack country and touring use they are so worth the extra cost that it is not even funny. They will make your skiing experience that much more enjoyable.

And yes, i agree - tectons are a fine option as well, especially for a powder ski or more dedicated touring skis. They ski and tour great. I ran my 179cm BGs with Tectons last year. Had i not replaced them with k116s and w114s (the joy of two quivers) i would probably have remounted them with Shifts for a full on alpine front for what is primarily resort use.

Not trying to argue for the sake of arguing here, honest. Why are the Shifts so much superior? It seems like for slack country stuff where youre skinning for less than 30 minutes you wouldnt gain THAT much on the up/out from the Shifts compared to a frame, and then on the downs, wouldnt a frame binding with a higher DIN also give you a more secure, precise hold? Also, i would be riding the Shifts at there max DIN which would unnerve me a little.

Seems like the Shift is for folks who like to do "real" tours but also want to ski that same setup in bounds, whereas a frame binding is for folks who want to ski inbounds and go on some short tours every so often. Is that the wrong way to look at it? Am i underestimating the Shifts?

[undertow2]

So the Wrens all have the same rocker?

-- armchair ski designer warning --

Dang. That was my gripe with the Steeple (102). It had the same rocker profile as the BG, which I thought was too much for a ski that narrow.

I'd like to see the rocker length decrease (effective edge length increase) as the width narrows for families of skis like the Wren. I understand that it would require a bunch more work re. molds, but each width would be better dialed for its intended conditions.

Or am I off here?

Not great, but you get the jist... Wren 98 on left and 108 on right... I absolutley love both and neither are a slouch in fresh... 108 is def stiffer and manages chop better...

Sent from my SM-G955U using TGR Forums mobile app

[undertow2]

Forgot to attach and shitty app wont let me add to previous post...

Sent from my SM-G955U using TGR Forums mobile app

[kid-kapow]

Reduced rockers and increased camber will probably increase their ability to pop out of turns, but then again, at least according to their web site ON3P did not set out to make killer carvers, but narrower am skis.

There is still a substantial difference in flex and sidecut within last year's wren range at least. So while both my 108s and 88s are equally easy to ski, they ski a bit differently and hand flex very, very differently. 88s are stiff as hell, yet they work surprisingly well in fresh (meaning, they do not suck which they should at 88mm, even if boot drag is very noticeable when laying the skis all the way over - duh i guess) and are pretty amusing when going fast. Graphics are beyond awesome. They knock the socks off the usual sub 100mm touring skis with softer shovels (to help the skis plane) in dense coastal snow and exhibit 0% of the very unnerving overly fast turns you can get when carving softer shovel skis fast in dense snow (the reason i sold my Extrem Opinion Carbon2 98s), but are also way heavier.

I think 96s are a fair bit softer.

Still, with rocker lines that deep sub 100 wrens are never going to replace your GS skis anytime soon, but they will still be pretty fun skis that rides variable and soft snow better than a lot of other skis in the similar width category regardless of speed - or, especially when hauling.

not to be too positive or anything.

[jackattack]

So the Wrens all have the same rocker?

-- armchair ski designer warning --

Dang. That was my gripe with the Steeple (102). It had the same rocker profile as the BG, which I thought was too much for a ski that narrow.

I'd like to see the rocker length decrease (effective edge length increase) as the width narrows for families of skis like the Wren. I understand that it would require a bunch more work re. molds, but each width would be better dialed for its intended conditions.

Or am I off here?

Yes, but I think they somewhat account for this with layup changes. The wren 88 was quite stiff iirc.

[kid-kapow]

Why are the Shifts so much superior?

- you save what 500gr? pr foot
- tech front = the hinge point is at a much more natural spot for walking
- you do not have to lift the entire binding for each step, so "functional weight" is lower as well as "system weight"
- more than adequate din settings (for my needs at least)
- no slop
- lower stack height

Combined, these make for a meaningful upgrade where i am coming from. The major con is that it is a first year product, which in the tech world is a big unknown.

The only two things frame bindings beat Shifts at is their price and that you do not need to use a tech compatible boot - non-tech touring boots can be had for a steal online.

i think of Shifts as slack country bindings. If you primarily are going touring, Tectons are a better choice at 200gr lighter pr foot imho. If you want a fully featured alpine binding, go with Cast modified p18s. If you rock frame bindings, sell them while they still retain some value and upgrade. Touring with techs is just that much better If making the upgrade is cost prohibitive, worry not, skiing will still be a blast and frame bindings gives you some added flexibility, so rip away

[TahoeJ]

^^ Agreed. Frame bindings are dead. I'm sure they will still produce them for a few more years, but in 5-7 years I bet they'll be a thing of the past and we'll remember them for how damn heavy they were. However, at the time, when Guardians came out, there were pretty awesome because they skied pretty much like STH's, albeit heavier. Things have just evolved pretty quickly since then.

[klauss]

Anyone with much/any experience on the new Wren 96? Blister described it as a lighter poppier Enforcer 100 and I'm wondering how much rebound/energy it has out of a turn and how that compares to the 108, in that regard?
I really like damper skis (favorites I've demo'd so far Bonafide 187/180, Mantra ('15) 191 and Enforcer100 185), but I want a little better soft snow performance and I'd love a little pop out of carved turns when I'm on a groomer (skiing with the kids at moderate speed or just heading back to the lift and skiing fast). Trying to find a 1-ski quiver for this season - ski CA, MT, CO, UT mostly. 6' 200+lb. Worried the 96 might not be enough ski - but thinking the 108 likely does not have the same pop out of a carve. Also considering DW.

I own a 187 bonafide and 189 wren 108 (bit stiffer than stock) among others in a deep and illustrious quiver. I use my wrens more often, but really like the bonafide which is a better stable carver with more pop out of turns with the tighter radius, but also more one dimensional. I love railing the wren on hard snow too and has much better soft snow performance. I think they both require a pilot willing to put energy into the ski to work and they carve well for the respective widths and radii. The enforcer 100 took much less energy, but was also less stable than the bonafide for me. At your size, you should be able to take full advantage of the wrens carving chops, including popping out of hard turns. Can't comment on the 96 wren.

[californiagrown]

- you save what 500gr? pr foot
- tech front = the hinge point is at a much more natural spot for walking
- you do not have to lift the entire binding for each step, so "functional weight" is lower as well as "system weight"
- more than adequate din settings (for my needs at least)
- no slop
- lower stack height

Combined, these make for a meaningful upgrade where i am coming from. The major con is that it is a first year product, which in the tech world is a big unknown.

The only two things frame bindings beat Shifts at is their price and that you do not need to use a tech compatible boot - non-tech touring boots can be had for a steal online.

i think of Shifts as slack country bindings. If you primarily are going touring, Tectons are a better choice at 200gr lighter pr foot imho. If you want a fully featured alpine binding, go with Cast modified p18s. If you rock frame bindings, sell them while they still retain some value and upgrade. Touring with techs is just that much better If making the upgrade is cost prohibitive, worry not, skiing will still be a blast and frame bindings gives you some added flexibility, so rip away

Thats fair. Ive never toured with tech stuff so i don't know what im missing. Frankly, everything i have is generally very heavy, but im a big dude so percentage wise its probably of average weight haha. Any chatter about a 16 DIN shift? The relatively low DIN sounds like the only drawback, and that would only be when using inbounds.

[TahoeJ]

The market share that requires a DIN higher than 13 is pretty small... so my guess is Salomon wants to see how well they sell this year and if it goes as planned, then they might consider a heavier 16 DIN version. I think Cody said that was a possibility somewhere in that very long Shift thread.

Once you tour on tech toes, you can never go back.

[kid-kapow]

from what i gather din is set at 13 due to a heavier spring not working with the design or some such. I seem to recall that it has been debated at length in the Shift thread. Based on how the pros are skiing their Shifts, din settings doesn't seem to be a major drawback for the hucking crowd.

just to be clear, ALL tech bindings tour substantially better than non-tech bindings - not just Shifts. Shifts just adds full alpine functionality at an impressive weight while also catering to your touring needs without necessitating carrying front bindings. That we can now choose between Tectons and Shifts is a solid testament to just how good equipment is nowadays. (Btw, i feel the same way about Kingpins as with frame bindings, Tectons or Shifts makes em kinda obsolete imo, just not to the same degree)

If you want a tech binding with the same safety features and elasticity forms as a regular alpine binding, Cast P18s, Shifts and Tectons are for now your only options (from heavy to light). Yes, all are expensive, and yes, tech boots are costly as well.

[adrenalated]

As usual TGR forgets that the vast majority of the ski buying public exists outside of TGR....

Frame bindings ain't going anywhere, for a very simple reason. The biggest market for frame bindings is people that currently have alpine gear, and want to try touring without dropping the coin on new boots in addition to all the other shit that they need to buy to go backcountry skiing. A Guardian saves them $100 on the binding and $700+ on a boot, that's not chump change.

For sure, people that actually go backcountry or sidecountry skiing regularly are going to be on tech bindings of some sort. But there will still be a market for frames for a budget conscious beginner.

[californiagrown]

Based on how the pros are skiing their Shifts, din settings doesn't seem to be a major drawback for the hucking crowd.

Well im probably taller and heavier than all of them, and i sure as shit do not ski as smoothly or as balanced haha.

[galibier_numero_un]

Not trying to argue for the sake of arguing here, honest. Why are the Shifts so much superior? It seems like for slack country stuff where youre skinning for less than 30 minutes you wouldnt gain THAT much on the up/out from the Shifts compared to a frame, and then on the downs, wouldnt a frame binding with a higher DIN also give you a more secure, precise hold?

I only have OG Dukes and a pair of Fritschi Freerides as a reference, but I hated both of their downhill skiing performance. I don't take well to stack height.

On the pair which I mounted the Dukes, I had previously mounted G3 Onyxs, and after one day, the Onyxs were back on these skis.

I'm not making a case for the Onyxs so much as a case against frame binders. I had similar experiences with a pair of Fritschi Freerides.

... Thom

[TahoeJ]

As usual TGR forgets that the vast majority of the ski buying public exists outside of TGR....

Frame bindings ain't going anywhere, for a very simple reason. The biggest market for frame bindings is people that currently have alpine gear, and want to try touring without dropping the coin on new boots in addition to all the other shit that they need to buy to go backcountry skiing. A Guardian saves them $100 on the binding and $700+ on a boot, that's not chump change.

For sure, people that actually go backcountry or sidecountry skiing regularly are going to be on tech bindings of some sort. But there will still be a market for frames for a budget conscious beginner.

I'm aware of all that, which is why I said 5-7 years. That's a fair amount of time. By then, I suspect most boots will come with DIN / tech hybrid toes, which are already getting to be extremely common. There's a point where if they don't sell enough of a product, companies won't bother producing more of them. I'm willing to bet Solly discontinues the Guardian relatively soon, while Marker will likely continue with Dukes for several years until it's no longer worth it for them.

[rainy512day]

So the Wrens all have the same rocker?

-- armchair ski designer warning --

Dang. That was my gripe with the Steeple (102). It had the same rocker profile as the BG, which I thought was too much for a ski that narrow.

I'd like to see the rocker length decrease (effective edge length increase) as the width narrows for families of skis like the Wren. I understand that it would require a bunch more work re. molds, but each width would be better dialed for its intended conditions.

Or am I off here?

I have no gripe at all with the Steeple 102. For me the rocker makes it a fun ski that punches way above it’s weight in powder.

[adrenalated]

I'm aware of all that, which is why I said 5-7 years. That's a fair amount of time. By then, I suspect most boots will come with DIN / tech hybrid toes, which are already getting to be extremely common. There's a point where if they don't sell enough of a product, companies won't bother producing more of them. I'm willing to bet Solly discontinues the Guardian relatively soon, while Marker will likely continue with Dukes for several years until it's no longer worth it for them.

I don't see boot companies spending the extra money to do tech inserts or interchangeable soles on most boots anytime soon. Rubber soles and walk modes, definitely. Maybe I'm wrong though.